Anglican bishop lays mitre, crozier at our lady?s feet as he leaves for ordinariate [ewtn]

[Bluegoat]

It was interesting but I have no desire to convert to Orthodoxy, no desire really at all. Blessing icons and the heavy impact they have on the believer in Orthodoxy troubles me. I also think by the author’s own admission they are a troubled unit in North America as all the different ethnic Orthodox communities don’t have the will to come together. I think they lack the unity and cohesion that Catholics have. And as far as accessibility, the Catholic Church seems more “universal” and available. Add to it the fact that it seems utterly foreign and I totally disagree with them on the Atonement, etc. I don’t have any plans. I’d probably go Lutheran before I’d go Orthodox

But I do like incense and I did find the article interesting from a passive observer point of view

I wasn’t trying to convert you - much of her writing isn’t directed specifically at the Orthodox.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I know you weren’t, don’t worry. I’m just not the Orthodoxphile you are. That’s perfectly fine. I’m just not that interested in the East. I don’t find them as fascinating. When I read about blessing icons and praying in front of them and all that I get turned off quickly. I realize I’m more evangelical than I thought While I’m not opposed to sacred art, walking around blessing images and needing them for prayer, IMO, is an immature level of spirituality. I don’t need pictures to focus on Christ. I might sound like an iconoclast for saying that but I think too much attachment and passion for images is dangerous.

I wasn’t trying to convert you - much of her writing isn’t directed specifically at the Orthodox.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I read her autobiographical journey to Orthodoxy and, though compelling, I found some of her rationale and characterizations unfair. I might spell those out later.

I wasn’t trying to convert you - much of her writing isn’t directed specifically at the Orthodox.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Scott,

It was interesting but I have no desire to convert to Orthodoxy, no desire really at all.

I can appreciate that.

If you don’t agree with it, don’t even try. I am sure the Holy Spirit will lead you where you need to be, and at least I hope that you will find peace in your heart.

Some of the things I tell you are just my way of (hopefully) clearing up misconceptions.

You will notice that I have been going to Catholic sources as much as possible, and I even referred you to a list of eastern Catholic parishes, just for a look-see. Of course in an EC parish, you can feel perfectly comfortable as an Augustinian (many do), but you’ll have to put up with the icons.

Blessing icons and the heavy impact they have on the believer in Orthodoxy troubles me.

Personally, I have never been a big iconodule, and normally pray without them. Many times I pray standing in front of a white wall, praying sometimes even without words … straight from the heart.

It’s ok - it’s a way.

But actually we have to understand the full concept. We are all icons of Christ - all of us. When the priest or deacon processes around the interior of the temple he censes the icons and us. The icons on display are representative of the saints whom we believe are really present with us in the one cosmic divine liturgy. They are really here with us, worshiping with us, joyfully praying with us. By censing the icons we are censing them - then the deacon turns around again and censes us again, and we bow and cross ourselves.

I also think by the author’s own admission they are a troubled unit in North America as all the different ethnic Orthodox communities don’t have the will to come together. I think they lack the unity and cohesion that Catholics have.

I agree that our divisions in America are troubling (I would call it disarray, not divisions, because we are all believing the same things and our real differences are minor. We know the ecclesiology is not canonical and that is what we are working on).

But we are in fact troubled by them, and we recognize the problem. We are trying to correct it, and we have been making great progress (in church time - very slow for us impatient types in real time ).

I have wonder about your statement of cohesion among RC, particularly after reading CAF for 6 years.

And as far as accessibility, the Catholic Church seems more “universal” and available.

I won’t argue with you there. In north America the RC is more accessable.

In Russia and eastern Europe the OC is more accessable

In China both are mostly inaccessable.

Add to it the fact that it seems utterly foreign and I totally disagree with them on the Atonement, etc. I don’t have any plans. I’d probably go Lutheran before I’d go Orthodox

You should be true to yourself first.

When I left the Catholic church I was already over 50 and discerning a call to the diaconate. Coming from a one-time traditionalist background I don’t believe in cafeteria Catholicism (or cafeteria anything) and I am not a relativist. But deep in my heart I came to know that I did not believe some of what the church was teaching. I tried to make myself believe it, for years. Ultimately I couldn’t confess it because I was not sorry that I didn’t believe it and I knew I wasn’t going to change my mind.

I knew I could never accept ordination in that state, and I stopped receiving communion, because I did not believe everything that the church was teaching. Receiving communion in that state of mind made me feel like a hypocrite.

I could not be Orthodox in my heart and mind and yet pretend to be in communion with Rome. So I left.

It was a very sad and wrenching decision, I hated it.

But now I worship with people and in a church that I can say deep in my heart I believe is true. I still miss my old parish and my old priest (whom I still consider a friend), the man who “turned the lights on” for me initially, but I only go back to say hello now and then, and I never present myself for communion.

But I do like incense and I did find the article interesting from a passive observer point of view

There is more to church than incense.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I am not anti-icon. I actually have one in each of my children’s bedrooms. Veronica has a Byzantine icon of St. Veronica in her room. Luke has an icon of St. Luke by his bed, and my youngest, Caleb, has an icon of St. John (his middle name) by his bed. I have four other icons in the home. I love the art of the East far more than the West. I do prefer a crucifix in the church, however, and I like statues. But I’m not really into the whole blessing and praying in front of them, etc. My understanding, and I may be very wrong, is that Orthodox don’t use statues and icons instead because of the prohibition against graven images in the OT. That’s what I’ve heard. I tend to be of the Catholic mindset that icons, statues, and sacred art should be more didactic and for the purpose of majestically representing the divine and salvation history. But “censing” and somehow having icons tied to the archetype and having something holy about them in some mystical reality, I guess I just don’t understand that. I don’t disrespect the Orthodox or think them idolators but I just don’t see the deep love for the image. Ironically, my daughter’s name is Veronica “true icon”

What I don’t like is the way people like that Orthodox writer, Fredericka Mathews-Greene, seem to always paint Orthodoxy as a passionate love affair with God where the Catholics are in a cold, dry, empty legal relationship like Law and Order . Catholics have a passionate and loving view toward God, not just empty legalism. The nature of Christ’s sacrifice is pure love itself. If there is a legal duty with a price to be paid, the love of Christ who stands in our place as the sacrificial victim is pure, concentrated love personified. It’s timeless love. I think there’s a false dichotomy and it’s polemical IMO. She says at one point also "Catholic theology seemed in general too overdone, compelled to parse every sentience and split every infinitude. I call it “driving nails with your forehead.” From a Catholic point of view, the Holy Spirit doesn’t work in a vacuum but rather continues to elucidate, eluminate, and reveal more of the details and fullness of truth. I read at one point how she chided the Catholic Church for waiting a thousand years later to start giving the pope the details of his office. Such logic could also poke fun at the Church for waiting hundreds of years to define the Trinity or for waiting hundreds of years to define the hypostatic union, or hundreds of years to define many things about God. God doesn’t reveal things overnight sometimes. Sometimes it takes a heresy to define things, sometimes history (barbarians overtaking the West) to define things. So I don’t find that argument of hers compelling really.

When I spoke about cohesion among Catholics, I think with general theology and morality, Catholics have a strong moral, central, obvious compass and the catechism of the Church plainly spells out Catholic stances on the key issues. Are there liberal and conservative Catholics? Absolutely. Are there Catholics who don’t follow the catechism? Yep. Are there Catholics who are clueless? oh yeah. But I’m just as sure there are Orthodox Christians cohabitating, committing adultery, and being homosexual or liberal as well…sadly. It exists everwhere. But obviously Catholicism is highly cohesive and organized I think. There is always descention and disagreement from folks.

And yes, you are obviously right that there’s more to Church than incense. I never thought that! But I’m just being honest, Michael. I miss that dang incense!

You’re right about following convictions. I think that Atonement and Justification are two of the biggies for me. And I happen to be very Western in them both. And I also think leadership is key. The Othodox tend to argue that there were five patriarchates, Rome fell apart into heterodoxy and loss of brotherhood with the others and the other four kept on the straight and narrow. I’m not sure I can follow that. It is entirely possible for one brother to be the Rock and be right while the other brothers stick together but are wrong. Just ask Joseph when he was dumped into the cistern!

Hi Scott,
I can appreciate that.

But now I worship with people and in a church that I can say deep in my heart I believe is true. I still miss my old parish and my old priest (whom I still consider a friend), the man who “turned the lights on” for me initially, but I only go back to say hello now and then, and I never present myself for communion.
There is more to church than incense.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Let me point out that in the Eastern Catholic section, the following has often been suggested as an aid to understanding liturgies in the Byzantine tradition, whether Catholic or Orthodox …

12 things …

Thanks I found that very informative. I found the description of worship itself to be very beautiful. I can only imagine what it would look like in person. I would like to see an Orthodoxy liturgy only because I am curious and have an open mind. I do like some things about Orthodoxy, but it still feels very foreign to me. For one, when studying the Filoque controversy on my own, I concluded the West had erred, and defended that from a sola scriptura point of view.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Hi Scott,
I can appreciate that.

If you don’t agree with it, don’t even try. I am sure the Holy Spirit will lead you where you need to be, and at least I hope that you will find peace in your heart.

Some of the things I tell you are just my way of (hopefully) clearing up misconceptions.

You will notice that I have been going to Catholic sources as much as possible, and I even referred you to a list of eastern Catholic parishes, just for a look-see. Of course in an EC parish, you can feel perfectly comfortable as an Augustinian (many do), but you’ll have to put up with the icons.
Personally, I have never been a big iconodule, and normally pray without them. Many times I pray standing in front of a white wall, praying sometimes even without words … straight from the heart.

It’s ok - it’s a way.

But actually we have to understand the full concept. We are all icons of Christ - all of us. When the priest or deacon processes around the interior of the temple he censes the icons and us. The icons on display are representative of the saints whom we believe are really present with us in the one cosmic divine liturgy. They are really here with us, worshiping with us, joyfully praying with us. By censing the icons we are censing them - then the deacon turns around again and censes us again, and we bow and cross ourselves.
I agree that our divisions in America are troubling (I would call it disarray, not divisions, because we are all believing the same things and our real differences are minor. We know the ecclesiology is not canonical and that is what we are working on).

But we are in fact troubled by them, and we recognize the problem. We are trying to correct it, and we have been making great progress (in church time - very slow for us impatient types in real time ).

I have wonder about your statement of cohesion among RC, particularly after reading CAF for 6 years.
I won’t argue with you there. In north America the RC is more accessable.

In Russia and eastern Europe the OC is more accessable

In China both are mostly inaccessable.
You should be true to yourself first.

When I left the Catholic church I was already over 50 and discerning a call to the diaconate. Coming from a one-time traditionalist background I don’t believe in cafeteria Catholicism (or cafeteria anything) and I am not a relativist. But deep in my heart I came to know that I did not believe some of what the church was teaching. I tried to make myself believe it, for years. Ultimately I couldn’t confess it because I was not sorry that I didn’t believe it and I knew I wasn’t going to change my mind.

I knew I could never accept ordination in that state, and I stopped receiving communion, because I did not believe everything that the church was teaching. Receiving communion in that state of mind made me feel like a hypocrite.

I could not be Orthodox in my heart and mind and yet pretend to be in communion with Rome. So I left.

It was a very sad and wrenching decision, I hated it.

But now I worship with people and in a church that I can say deep in my heart I believe is true. I still miss my old parish and my old priest (whom I still consider a friend), the man who “turned the lights on” for me initially, but I only go back to say hello now and then, and I never present myself for communion.
There is more to church than incense.

I appreciate your post Michael. I have some comments to make if you don’t mind. When I converted to Catholicism, I had a variety of personal reasons for doing such, but in the grand scheme of things, one of the reasons I chose it is because of its accessibility here in America. Parishes are everywhere, even here in the South where evangelical Protestantism is the big thing. Orthodoxy is unfamiliar to me in alot of ways, but the little I know, I like. In particular, as I mentioned before, I concluded in my own studies, that the Orthodox probably were more correct in the Flioque controversy. I only accepted Rome’s teaching on it because I believed that I had to defer to the Church on such matters, and since the Church could not errr, then the Holy Spirit must have guided the church via tradition to add it to the Creed.

As far as Catholicism being more unified than Orthodoxy, I have to wonder how? Both have a defined set of faith and morals followed by the whole church, correct? Catholicism is more centralized, since the Pope has universal jurisdiction in Catholicism, but both believe that the church teaches, it teaches without error. Orthodoxy may be ethnically dividied, but Catholicism is divided into 200 plus rites.

I also find it ironic that the dogmas that I wrestle with from Rome all were defined post schism-transubstantiation, the assumption of Mary, etc…or rejected by Orthodoxy as dogma-such as indulgences.

I am probably too Evangelical at this point to be open to embracing Orthodoxy as a whole. I like the 39 articles too much. I am to Sola Scriptura (althought I accept that tradition has an important role in the church, as does reason and experience). I am too western/Protestant in my views of justification and sanctification.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello my brother,

… I may be very wrong, is that Orthodox don’t use statues and icons instead because of the prohibition against graven images in the OT. That’s what I’ve heard.

I think you understand that icons are not a substitute for statues.

Three dimensional protrayals do not work well for the purpose. Icons are ‘windows’ through the misty veil of time and space, as such they are not decorative (although some people think of them as attractive and it is an art form) any more than a picture of one’s dead parents is decorative. They serve a higher purpose, yes, in a sense they are communicative. One author wrote something like they invoke something of an epiphany in their use. I am sorry I don’t know how to describe it better.

Orthodox Christians have absolutely no religious objection to ‘graven’ images, otherwise they would not be using them in public, in parks and memorials. In fact in Orthodox societies everywhere bas-relief and fully ‘in the round’ 3 dimensional art is very common.

Representational art, especially 3 dimensional art, just does not work well for the purpose. Now anyone who has misgiving about the Old Testament Biblical injunction against graven images would theoreticaly be more comfortable in an Orthodox temple and apologists could cite it as just one more good reason to do things the orthodox way, but graven images are not forbidden or sinful, they are more than anything else not traditional for us.

When we go to venerate the cross at the end of liturgy our priest or bishop is holding a crucifix, with a sculpture of Jesus affixed (or bas-relief engraved), and we kiss Jesus and we kiss the hand of our priest.

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/March/43/Image/DSC_0113.jpg

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/March/35/Image/DSC_0067.jpg

Eastern Catholics have had to deal with the western fondness for statues, and have seen them installed in their churches by priests eager to make their churches more ‘Catholic’ and I think that issue inspires more passion among the EC than it does among the OC, since the EC are actively trying to restore their temples and traditions.

What I don’t like is the way people like that Orthodox writer, Fredericka Mathews-Greene, seem to always paint Orthodoxy as a passionate love affair with God

I don’t read her, but I like that. Thanks for pointing that out.

…where the Catholics are in a cold, dry, empty legal relationship like Law and Order .

I don’t know, but it sounds like she left something out.

God doesn’t reveal things overnight sometimes.

The age of revelation is closed.

It is entirely possible for one brother to be the Rock and be right while the other brothers stick together but are wrong. Just ask Joseph when he was dumped into the cistern!

A good analogy, to be sure, if it were true. But the Orthodox never ganged up on poor little RC and threw him down the cistern

It should be obvious that the Orthodox did not make any changes at the time of the schism. No conspriacy to ‘dump’ the Pope. No new theology, no new canons, no ‘memos’ to leak about some need to ‘throw off the yoke’ of the Pope (or any such ridiculous thing), such as might be found in northern Europe 500 years later. The Orthodox stayed right where they were, continued to teach and worship in exactly the same way they had before, ran their affairs in the same way and essentially didn’t notice anything different after the ‘Cardinal Humbert Affair’. The Orthodox were always easy to find and talk to, before during and after the unfortunate schism.

There was no crises, there were no recusants and no angst. I am not even sure the Orthodox realized a schism had started, yet Humberto was back in Europe bragging about how he ‘wounded’ the Greeks.

The Orthodox just kept on truckin’ as before. It was the RC that had write new canons to explain the role of the Pope over the centuries. I don’t know myself but I think most Orthodox were unaware of how far things had gone until the crusades, when the RC evicted numerous Orthodox bishops at swordpoint.

But the RC situation reminds me much more of those people who have lost all of their friends, one at a time over many months or years, and really believe that something is wrong with everyone else and fail to look in the mirror.

 

[Bluegoat]

Eastern Catholics have had to deal with the western fondness for statues, and have seen them installed in their churches by priests eager to make their churches more ‘Catholic’ and I think that issue inspires more passion among the EC than it does among the OC, since the EC are actively trying to restore their temples and traditions.

I was thinking about this in relation to the idea of the CC seeming more “universal” than the EO. I am not sure that is true unless by universal we mean trying to impose Western religious forms. This seems to have much improved in recent years, but I’m still not sure that Eastern Catholics in general feel that way, or the St Thomas Christians in India. And to a New Catholic in Japan wouldn’t Catholicism seem very exotic no matter what flavour it was??

It’s interesting to think about how much these questions are due to globalization. There was a time when we probably wouldn’t even know what a Christian was worshiping like half way around the world, so it would simply have minimal impact on us, whether there was a natural organic missionary kind of approach to local culture, or an awful colonial stamp out the evil natives kind of approach. Now we know and we all have to really think about just what a universal church should look like.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Response to Hesychios’s post…

I think Roman Catholics are more honest about their role in the schism than the Orthodox are willing to admit to their own part in it. The Orthodox come off the wounded victim and your post relates that pretty heavily. Humbert excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople after the pope had passed and really hadn’t the authority to do so. And in doing so, he didn’t excommunicate the entire Eastern Church as the Orthodox seem to want to portray it. Catholics are like the spouse in the divorce who own up to playing a part. Orthodox are the “I’ll go to counselling but you’re the one who needs the changin’ and this divorce is all your fault” thinkers. With that mentality, re-marriage can’t happen.

Michael Cerularius was just as hostile to Latin as Leo IX was with Greek. They both suppressed it and heightened bad feelings. After the schism, which wasn’t really a schism seeing as how only the Patriarch of Constantinople and the legates of Rome were excommunicated, not all the East or all the West, we see both sides behaving badly. The Crusades and the sack of Constantinople was sickening. But need we also point out the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 AD? Orthodox are not always the victims and innocent bystanders.

For a long time Constantinople had tried to become the preeminent patriarchate to no avail as the long tradition of the Bishop of Rome being the Chair of Peter, the Rock, holding the keys and having a superior jurisdiction and foundation was obviously at the top of the heap. I have read too many examples of Rome having sweeping powers to override decisions, to discipline other dioceses outside of Rome itself, and there is just too much of a wealth of evidence that the Early Fathers thought of the Bishop of Rome in a Catholic light.

You see the stagnation of Orthodoxy as a strength, that it has not changed anything or adapted anything or moved one domino. That doesn’t impress me actually. I appreciate the Catholic Church’s willingness to explain, delineate, and help guide the faithful to a fuller understanding of things like Mary, the papacy, soteriology, justification, and so many other issues.

I think when you talk about Orthodox being sad victims at swordpoint you need to be more intellectually honest, Michael, and talk about the Orthodox dark moments like the Massacre of the Latins. Not their finest hour, right?

I think you tend to try and minimize the devastation and horrendous apocolypse-like atmosphere of the barbarian onslaught and conquering of the West. Rome was in ashes, many churches were isolated, mass rape and death and chaos ensued, and it’s well documented that communication with the East was horrendously difficult and cut-off. Many Western bishops and clergy had to take over civil responsibilities as the civil government was slaughtered or left in total vacuum. The Latin Western Church was highly-influenced by the Franks while the East was left to thrive and blossom. A language barrier between East and West grew and grew during this time and the bilingual prowess of some of the great men of old was a dying thing. Each side got polemical and more isolated into its own tradition and new rites, etc. The Western Catholic Church was really a disaster until Charlemagne came along. It was his military cunning and acumen that allowed Rome to rise again.

I think it’s pompous how the Orthodox think theoria is so enlightened by God and scholasticism and use of pagan concepts is somehow so inferior. Theoria and scholasticism are both ways of seeing Christian truth. Neither sprang from the Jewish roots of Christianity so it’s absurd, IMO, to argue theoria as being so much deeper and more meaningful.

With kissing icons and pretending that they’re windows into some reality, I just don’t buy into that way of seeing things. Using imagery to a high enough degree like that is borderline idolatry for me. And it seems ironic and petty to blast Catholic brethren for using statues while another group is kissing and censing flat icon portraits with this deep intimacy and “images not made with hands” and all that stuff. Talk about development of doctrine and prayer “Windows into the veil of time and space” and “communicative” in my opinion is too “out there” and is in no way in line with the early church. I think this high degree of fixation on images is not healthy. But that’s just my opinion.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

continued…

When you say ***But the RC situation reminds me much more of those people who have lost all of their friends, one at a time over many months or years, and really believe that something is wrong with everyone else and fail to look in the mirror *** I find that characterization troubling. It’s off base.

I could just as easily say the Orthodox remind me of a stagnant group of old men who have isolated themselves from their elder brother and went their own ways and over time felt themselves so set in their ways superior that they’d refuse to talk to their elder brother whom their father blessed with a special charism they themselves lacked, being the Rock and the holder of the Keys. And with time, like Joseph’s brothers, came to resent how their father favored the eldest brother. Their eldest brother went on to Christianize all of Europe in the glory of Christ and spread His word to the New World—North, Central, South America, the Philippines, etc. The brother’s world stage alone outshone the other brothers. And when immorality, sin, evil, and unethical behaviors have taken over the world, that one eldest brother continues to have more credibility, recognition, respect, than the others. Most folks in the world can’t even name the other brothers!

In the modern age Pope John Paul II fought hard to bring down the iron curtain that Orthodoxy was unable to bring down. One man along with Reagan, Thatcher, and all the other anti-communists in the West was able to bring that Iron Curtain down.

History is complicated, as GKC points out all the time. To try and paint the big bad wolf on the popes of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox as always being innocent, sweet, guiltless victims of the big bad wolf just isn’t intellectually honest or beneficial IMO.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

continued…and final

Revelation is not dead. That’s the stagnant Eastern mentality talking in you, Michael. God is always revealing Himself to us. When exactly did revelation from God stop? Certainly not at Nicaea right? Certainly not at Chalcedon or Ephesus right? God doesn’t guide His bishops and patriarchs anymore in a world of sin and uncertainty? What about modern moral dilemnas like stem cell research, euthanasia, birth control, bioethics, and so many other quandries? I find Catholicism refreshing in that regard that God is alive and well and continues to reveal to us. What’s the big deal in revealing the Immaculate Conception and laying the debate to rest so long after the apostolic age? What’s wrong with helping the Church to understand HOW the Eucharist is made present to us? What’s wrong with sending us great men like Augustine and Aquinas to help define and truly tie down with precision the Truth? Your statement sends shivers and it points to the typical stagnant containment policy that so turns me off from Orthodoxy and I think that renders it much less relevent on the world stage as being a moral guide.

I married my wife in 1999. Since that time, still married happily, I continue to find out new things about my wife’s past and her state of mind and opinions about life. I find out new talents she has all the time, her desires, her fears, and her hopes. She tells me more about herself and revelation is ongoing. If I can be married 11 years to my spouse and still be learning about her, it is outrageous to think we can know all there is about God and His Truth and Will for us in 2,000. I appreciate the Catholic approach. It’s common sense and realistic and unwilling to brag about stagnation.

Hello my brother,
I think you understand that icons are not a substitute for statues.

Three dimensional protrayals do not work well for the purpose. Icons are ‘windows’ through the misty veil of time and space, as such they are not decorative (although some people think of them as attractive and it is an art form) any more than a picture of one’s dead parents is decorative. They serve a higher purpose, yes, in a sense they are communicative. One author wrote something like they invoke something of an epiphany in their use. I am sorry I don’t know how to describe it better.

Orthodox Christians have absolutely no religious objection to ‘graven’ images, otherwise they would not be using them in public, in parks and memorials. In fact in Orthodox societies everywhere bas-relief and fully ‘in the round’ 3 dimensional art is very common.

Representational art, especially 3 dimensional art, just does not work well for the purpose. Now anyone who has misgiving about the Old Testament Biblical injunction against graven images would theoreticaly be more comfortable in an Orthodox temple and apologists could cite it as just one more good reason to do things the orthodox way, but graven images are not forbidden or sinful, they are more than anything else not traditional for us.

When we go to venerate the cross at the end of liturgy our priest or bishop is holding a crucifix, with a sculpture of Jesus affixed (or bas-relief engraved), and we kiss Jesus and we kiss the hand of our priest.

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/March/43/Image/DSC_0113.jpg

http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2004/March/35/Image/DSC_0067.jpg

Eastern Catholics have had to deal with the western fondness for statues, and have seen them installed in their churches by priests eager to make their churches more ‘Catholic’ and I think that issue inspires more passion among the EC than it does among the OC, since the EC are actively trying to restore their temples and traditions.

I don’t read her, but I like that. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don’t know, but it sounds like she left something out.

The age of revelation is closed.

A good analogy, to be sure, if it were true. But the Orthodox never ganged up on poor little RC and threw him down the cistern

It should be obvious that the Orthodox did not make any changes at the time of the schism. No conspriacy to ‘dump’ the Pope. No new theology, no new canons, no ‘memos’ to leak about some need to ‘throw off the yoke’ of the Pope (or any such ridiculous thing), such as might be found in northern Europe 500 years later. The Orthodox stayed right where they were, continued to teach and worship in exactly the same way they had before, ran their affairs in the same way and essentially didn’t notice anything different after the ‘Cardinal Humbert Affair’. The Orthodox were always easy to find and talk to, before during and after the unfortunate schism.

There was no crises, there were no recusants and no angst. I am not even sure the Orthodox realized a schism had started, yet Humberto was back in Europe bragging about how he ‘wounded’ the Greeks.

The Orthodox just kept on truckin’ as before. It was the RC that had write new canons to explain the role of the Pope over the centuries. I don’t know myself but I think most Orthodox were unaware of how far things had gone until the crusades, when the RC evicted numerous Orthodox bishops at swordpoint.

But the RC situation reminds me much more of those people who have lost all of their friends, one at a time over many months or years, and really believe that something is wrong with everyone else and fail to look in the mirror.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I personally have NO problem with the filioque and think the Orthodox outcries and outrage against it is much ado about nothing. Regarding the Church having 200 plus rites, so what, respectfully? So what? They all have unique traditions of worship and piety BUT they all agree on the faith, morality, and papal centrality of the West: Catholicism. I think it speaks well of the pope offering Anglicans a way to come into the Catholic Church without throwing away their traditions. It’s a sign of maturity. They’re willing to take married clergy, the Book of Common Prayer (with modifications), kneeling for communion at the altar rail, the Anglican liturgy (with changes), their personality so to speak. How is that a weakness or a misstep? Orthodoxy is broken into ethnic groups and they all jockey over control in North America in chaotic fashion. Take Fresno. It has a Greek Orthodox parish run by a Greek Orthodox patriarch and it has a Serbian Orthodox run by a different patriarch. HUH? If that isn’t goofy, I don’t know what is? Two competing bishops in one little town is unity and superior to the papal model? I don’t think so. San Francisco is even worse. There is politics and drama and competition within Orthodoxy, make no mistake. And it’s a highly ethnic environment. Take that author that Michael (Hesychios) quoted in that link the other day. She is a convert, wife of an Orthodox priest. She is pretty in-your-face Orthodox and not very respectful to Catholics. She even admits in her article that some parishes are so ethnic in Orthodoxy that they just plain don’t understand why you’d want to convert and visit their parish? She says to not be surprised if you go to an Orthodox parish and feel unwanted and actually are unwanted. Just keep looking until you find one that does welcome you. Sounds great!

And as you get a little cozy with Orthodoxy, as many Anglicans do, keep in mind the 39 Articles are anathema to the Orthodox just as they are to Catholics. Justification through faith alone, Calvinist understandings of the Eucharist and predestination, the abhorration of invoking Mary in prayer and elevating the Eucharist or reserving the Host in a tabernacle, all is the 39 Articles. You might like Orthodoxy but your 39 Articles embrace will quickly earn you the same scorn you’d get from the West. I know you said the 39 Articles and Western mentality would keep you from Orthodoxy. You’re right!

I appreciate your post Michael. I have some comments to make if you don’t mind. When I converted to Catholicism, I had a variety of personal reasons for doing such, but in the grand scheme of things, one of the reasons I chose it is because of its accessibility here in America. Parishes are everywhere, even here in the South where evangelical Protestantism is the big thing. Orthodoxy is unfamiliar to me in alot of ways, but the little I know, I like. In particular, as I mentioned before, I concluded in my own studies, that the Orthodox probably were more correct in the Flioque controversy. I only accepted Rome’s teaching on it because I believed that I had to defer to the Church on such matters, and since the Church could not errr, then the Holy Spirit must have guided the church via tradition to add it to the Creed.

As far as Catholicism being more unified than Orthodoxy, I have to wonder how? Both have a defined set of faith and morals followed by the whole church, correct? Catholicism is more centralized, since the Pope has universal jurisdiction in Catholicism, but both believe that the church teaches, it teaches without error. Orthodoxy may be ethnically dividied, but Catholicism is divided into 200 plus rites.

I also find it ironic that the dogmas that I wrestle with from Rome all were defined post schism-transubstantiation, the assumption of Mary, etc…or rejected by Orthodoxy as dogma-such as indulgences.

I am probably too Evangelical at this point to be open to embracing Orthodoxy as a whole. I like the 39 articles too much. I am to Sola Scriptura (althought I accept that tradition has an important role in the church, as does reason and experience). I am too western/Protestant in my views of justification and sanctification.

 

[Hesychios]

Revelation is not dead. That’s the stagnant Eastern mentality talking in you, …

Scott,

The pre-schism church has said this, due to the Montanist heresy (which sucked in Tertullian) but the church under the Papacy (and the Anglican church too) has been squirming around it ever since … like goo leaking out of a cardboard box … so much so that you are now unaware of it.

As long as you believe this, you have to take what you get, from whatever direction they throw it at you.

And after you are gone, and the faith has kept morphing on your grandchildren and your great grandchildren … perhaps until it would be unrecognizable … they will take it too, because you have taught them to expect changes, and they will be complacent with New Light because they have to be, they will not know where to draw the line any more than you do.

Adherence to Truth is a double edged sword. One can not add to what is received any more than one can subtract from it.

What you so derisively call stagnation is actually the very reason there is a Teaching Office of bishops. Their job is not to act as oracles and channels, but as shepherds guiding the flock down the narrow path as best they can.

Only heretics have ever declared dogma on their own authority.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I personally have NO problem with the filioque and think the Orthodox outcries and outrage against it is much ado about nothing. Regarding the Church having 200 plus rites, so what, respectfully? So what? They all have unique traditions of worship and piety BUT they all agree on the faith, morality, and papal centrality of the West: Catholicism. I think it speaks well of the pope offering Anglicans a way to come into the Catholic Church without throwing away their traditions. It’s a sign of maturity. They’re willing to take married clergy, the Book of Common Prayer (with modifications), kneeling for communion at the altar rail, the Anglican liturgy (with changes), their personality so to speak. How is that a weakness or a misstep?

Its not, its bending over backwards to bring about unity without compromising what the Church teaches. Even the priest at my old parish talked to me about this. He was hesitant to say anything negative, but pointed out how Rome as reached out to the East, and the East had become real rigid and unwilling to work with Rome in healing the scism.

Orthodoxy is broken into ethnic groups and they all jockey over control in North America in chaotic fashion. Take Fresno. It has a Greek Orthodox parish run by a Greek Orthodox patriarch and it has a Serbian Orthodox run by a different patriarch. HUH? If that isn’t goofy, I don’t know what is? Two competing bishops in one little town is unity and superior to the papal model? I don’t think so. San Francisco is even worse. There is politics and drama and competition within Orthodoxy, make no mistake. And it’s a highly ethnic environment

I won’t be as hard on the Orthodox only because they have seen and acknowledged the problem that exists here with their church government. If they had a head in the sand mentality about it, that would be very troubling.

Take that author that Michael (Hesychios) quoted in that link the other day. She is a convert, wife of an Orthodox priest. She is pretty in-your-face Orthodox and not very respectful to Catholics. She even admits in her article that some parishes are so ethnic in Orthodoxy that they just plain don’t understand why you’d want to convert and visit their parish? She says to not be surprised if you go to an Orthodox parish and feel unwanted and actually are unwanted. Just keep looking until you find one that does welcome you. Sounds great!

That is supposed to make one want to convert how…? Maybe if there is an OCA parish, I know the one in Richmond is mostly made up of converts, so if there is one that might be an exception, perhaps it may be one.

And as you get a little cozy with Orthodoxy, as many Anglicans do, keep in mind the 39 Articles are anathema to the Orthodox just as they are to Catholics. Justification through faith alone, Calvinist understandings of the Eucharist and predestination, the abhorration of invoking Mary in prayer and elevating the Eucharist or reserving the Host in a tabernacle, all is the 39 Articles. You might like Orthodoxy but your 39 Articles embrace will quickly earn you the same scorn you’d get from the West. I know you said the 39 Articles and Western mentality would keep you from Orthodoxy. You’re right!

Yeah, I see this and have wondered about it myself, in regards to the Anglicans. There is too much between the two that is different. Way different. I see that. In the past there were strong interfaith dialogues but those have been slowed by the ordination of Women in Anglican circles. Maybe we share a common mistrust of Rome, maybe we were sucking up to the OC to get them to validate our Orders, so we could basically tell Rome with their Apostolic Curae, where to go…

 

[Bluegoat]

Hello my brother,
I think you understand that icons are not a substitute for statues.

Three dimensional protrayals do not work well for the purpose. Icons are ‘windows’ through the misty veil of time and space, as such they are not decorative (although some people think of them as attractive and it is an art form) any more than a picture of one’s dead parents is decorative. They serve a higher purpose, yes, in a sense they are communicative. One author wrote something like they invoke something of an epiphany in their use. I am sorry I don’t know how to describe it better.

Orthodox Christians have absolutely no religious objection to ‘graven’ images, otherwise they would not be using them in public, in parks and memorials. In fact in Orthodox societies everywhere bas-relief and fully ‘in the round’ 3 dimensional art is very common.

Representational art, especially 3 dimensional art, just does not work well for the purpose. Now anyone who has misgiving about the Old Testament Biblical injunction against graven images would theoreticaly be more comfortable in an Orthodox temple and apologists could cite it as just one more good reason to do things the orthodox way, but graven images are not forbidden or sinful, they are more than anything else not traditional for us.

When we go to venerate the cross at the end of liturgy our priest or bishop is holding a crucifix, with a sculpture of Jesus affixed (or bas-relief engraved), and we kiss Jesus and we kiss the hand of our priest.

OT but we seem to be anyway - Tell me, do you think that the Eastern emphasis on icons is related to their insistence on not using visualization in prayer?

 

[Hesychios]

Hi JohnnyReb,

He was hesitant to say anything negative, but pointed out how Rome as reached out to the East, and the East had become real rigid and unwilling to work with Rome in healing the scism.

I don’t see how he can say that.

We have been dialoging with Rome since the days of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras. There have been volumes published with the communications, some of which I have read.

But we cannot share communion with people who do not share the Faith. That is the bottom line. If the Papacy is willing to share communion with people who do not believe everything it teaches that is their own business, they can admit Lutherans and Baptists and Mormons to communion if they want, and leave the cafeteria door open … but Orthodoxy does not work that way. We have never ever been able to knowingly commune people outside of the Faith. That’s a 2000 year old rule of Christianity, it didn’t start with us just recently.

I tell people this all the time. I am quite sure that this turns people off and away from the church. But I don’t have an option like “oh, I am sure it will be ok”. It’s not.

If I bring a friend to church with me the first thing they are going to hear from me is “don’t go up for communion” if they are not Orthodox, and I tell people here on CAF the same: if you have a problem with this or that, stay clear of Holy Orthodoxy, you are not ready and you don’t belong there.

Now if allowing married priests and an Anglican use liturgy is a sign of openness, we have already done that* with the same conditions Rome imposes*, that being they must accept our theology and repudiate any novel beliefs. If Rome can insist upon this for Anglicans, Methodists and Lutherans, how can it be wrong when Orthodox insist on it too?

We also have a version of the Tridentine liturgy in use, kneeling included (in Europe certainly, probably not much in north America), the same conditions apply. I have also seen where the Mozarabic liturgy has been used by Orthodox, the same conditions apply. One must accept Orthodox teaching entirely, adding nothing and taking away nothing if one wants to share communion.

The Vincentian Canon

It’s the same ‘rigidity’ and ‘stagnation’ we have always endeavored to maintain, and we have no right to make exceptions for one group or another.

Pax et Bonum,

 

[Bluegoat]

Its not, its bending over backwards to bring about unity without compromising what the Church teaches. Even the priest at my old parish talked to me about this. He was hesitant to say anything negative, but pointed out how Rome as reached out to the East, and the East had become real rigid and unwilling to work with Rome in healing the scism.

Bending over backwards would mean allowing them to continue to have married priests, which they aren’t. And Roman theology doesn’t say that married priests are impossible anyway. I don’t see how this is any more accommodating than the Orthodox Western Rite?

 

[JohnnyReb]

Bending over backwards would mean allowing them to continue to have married priests, which they aren’t. And Roman theology doesn’t say that married priests are impossible anyway. I don’t see how this is any more accommodating than the Orthodox Western Rite?

Oh. I thought Anglican priests could remain priests if they were married when the came in, but even so, its not any more accommodating. I thought all the Orthodox asked of the Anglicans was to drop Filoque and and references to Calvinist thought and they would be good to go.

 

[Hesychios]

OT but we seem to be anyway - Tell me, do you think that the Eastern emphasis on icons is related to their insistence on not using visualization in prayer?

I can’t answer that. I do think it is an insightful question though.

I was very influenced by Frank Sheed at one time, and it was he ( a Roman Catholic apologist from Australia) who through his writings pointed out the dangers of using the imagination to me.

I never discussed this subject with my priest, I just know how I pray naturally, often without words and usually without visualization of any sort.

For my part, I can understand why some people don’t personally take to icons. It can seem to newbies like icon veneration is de rigueur for eastern Christians, just like it can seem to newbies that saying the rosary is de rigueur for Roman Catholics but neither is actually the case.

The justification for iconodulia is based upon incarnational theology. The Son came in the flesh, and therefore can be portrayed. When we become Christians we ‘put on’ Christ. We can ‘see’ Christ in a portrayal, we can ‘see’ Christ in one another and also in portrayals of each other. I can see Christ in you, even through your words, but if you were standing here with me I should think I would be able, even expected, to see Christ in your person. If you became recognized a saint we could one day keep an icon of you.

So it’s OK.

But if all I have is my imagination to go on, I might not see Christ at all. I might be looking at a projection, a creation out of my own head. Then I could be seeing a Christ of my own making too, seeing what I want to see instead of what is actually there. A bit of pious fiction.

This particular subject is trailing off into some seemingly arcane thought and I am not really up to it …