Are Catholics afraid of Eastern Orthodox?

[ConstantineTG]

As a long-time convert to Catholicism who is leaning East, I have found nothing to fear in any way. I have been very warmly welcomed at the Greek, Ukrainian, and OCA parishes I have visited with my Orthodox son-in-law (who converted from Church of the Brethren after an intense search for the true apostolic faith- and yes he did seriously look at the Catholic Church but was not edified by the insipid protestantized liturgies he experienced, the antics of a politicized hierarchy, and many other factors, none of which I could effectively counter in my own mind much less his). A wonderful Ukrainian Orthodox priest even joyfully agreed to come bless our house. I realize that just because I haven’t encountered any hostility doesn’t mean it isn’t there, however.
Having always believed that the timeline of Church history consisted of a flat, continuous line which was the Catholic Church, with the first branch off that line being the “Orthodox schism”, and the second the “Reformation”, with that branch rupturing into thousands of “branchlets”, I must admit that when I first saw the Orthodox version of that timeline, it gave me great pause, and may have changed the way I see the Church forever. The flat, continuous line of Orthodoxy, with one major branch (when the Catholic Church separated from the Orthodox faith) which, after a period of relative stability, exploded into those thousands of “Protestant” churches, seems to reflect/presage the reality of the situation we see today in the Catholic Church’s seeming self-immolation. Is the Catholic Church merely bearing the fruit of it’s own willful separation all those centuries ago, with its own dissolution and the scandalous fragmentation of Protestantism the end result? Pondering…

Don’t forget that in the First Millennium, the heresies sprouted in the East. Of course the Ecumenical Councils were effective in fighting the heresies but that doesn’t mean there were no splinter groups that resulted from the Councils. These are the Protestants of the East, those who refused to accept what the Councils have declared to be the Orthodox faith.

And to be fair, many of the Protestant groups today are not breakaway groups form Catholicism, but those who have taken off from the other splinter groups. If I remember correctly, it was only the Lutherans who broke from the Catholic Church. Everyone else today broke from Luther.

 

[dzheremi]

I am not exactly sure of what GT was alluding to: did he specify the current, ongoing genocide? In my post , I was referring to the break up into EO, OO, Jacobite, Nestorian, etc. groups. The conjecture about the Latin church is a bit mind boggling.

While I will let him explain it himself if he wishes, the post I was replying to appears to have been made with the idea of countering Lesley’s idea that the RCC may be bearing the fruit of its own separation from the Orthodox faith. Can you blame me for reading “Are the Churchs in the middle east bearing the fruit of their seperation?” as a case of false equivalency, or do you believe it to be a truly well-formed response though you too are an Eastern Christian? In point of fact, in my reply I mentioned that there are those churches in the Middle East that are under Rome as well, making the comparison even more bizarre and cruel. What, after all, could the Maronite Christian villagers of Damour or the Syriac Catholic worshipers at Saidat an-Najat Church in Baghdad have done to warrant such calamities as befell them, if their long-suffering was truly a result of their own choices? Were they somehow not united enough with Rome? Just where is the comparison here?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Are you seriously comparing the ongoing oppression and attempted genocide of Middle Eastern Christians (including Catholics, by the way) to the Latin Church having lost its moorings centuries ago?

If the Latin Church is self-immolating, it is a self-immolation, not reasonably comparable to the discrimination facing the Christians of the Middle East, who have done nothing beyond continuing to be non-Muslims on what some fanatics call “Muslim land”. From that vantage point, such a comparison actually makes the Latin Church look so much worse, as there was no real reason for its derailment that was external to itself (i.e., nobody forced the RC to go off the rails as the Middle Eastern churches are often forced to comply with rules and laws not of their own making).

And my dear friend, is not the plight of Christians in the Middle East (Orthodox and Catholic alike, as you’ve noted) enough to compel us to unite in their defense, despite any differences we think we have?

 

[dvdjs]

While I will let him explain it himself if he wishes, the post I was replying to appears to have been made with the idea of countering Lesley’s idea that the RCC may be bearing the fruit of its own separation from the Orthodox faith. Can you blame me for reading “Are the Churchs in the middle east bearing the fruit of their seperation?” as a case of false equivalency, or do you believe it to be a truly well-formed response though you too are an Eastern Christian? In point of fact, in my reply I mentioned that there are those churches in the Middle East that are under Rome as well, making the comparison even more bizarre and cruel. What, after all, could the Maronite Christian villagers of Damour or the Syriac Catholic worshipers at Saidat an-Najat Church in Baghdad have done to warrant such calamities as befell them, if their long-suffering was truly a result of their own choices? Were they somehow not united enough with Rome? Just where is the comparison here?

But it was made after I had noted the earlier splintering in the middle east. So the actual meaning was not so obvious.

I cannot say anything about equivalencies - true of false. I would need a better understanding of all of this self-immolation/willful separation/lost moorings material.

 

[dzheremi]

And my dear friend, is not the plight of Christians in the Middle East (Orthodox and Catholic alike, as you’ve noted) enough to compel us to unite in their defense, despite any differences we think we have?

Indeed. I pray for the Christians of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, and all the other places where violence plagues us, and in that I respect no difference of confession. So we are already united in that sense, despite a lack of communion due to a lack of shared faith.

 

[Pork_Roll]

Indeed. I pray for the Christians of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, and all the other places where violence plagues us, and in that I respect no difference of confession. So we are already united in that sense, despite a lack of communion due to a lack of shared faith.

It’s the devil that keeps us apart fundamentally. There is unity and diversity in catholicism. Time to convert!

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff

If Unam Sanctam doesn’t convince you, I don’t know what will!

 

[ConstantineTG]

If Unam Sanctam doesn’t convince you, I don’t know what will!

I am starting to have a problem with that. I do agree that the Pope has a role to play in the entire Church, and he has the responsibility to steer the ship and all that. But our salvation depends on him? I think it is too much. Our salvation only depends on Christ.

 

[MetitoLoz]

Thread was tl; dr. But I can say that I’m Ukrainian Catholic, and my best friend is a Ukrainian Orthodox Subdeacon. We frequently go to each others’ Liturgies and events. Half the Orthodox in my city think I’m Orthodox as well And a few people think he’s Catholic.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I would not say so. Then again, I’ve only had contact with WO (Western Orthodox) and EC.

There is an EO church on my bus route. Maybe I could contact them someday.

On unification: Bishop Kallistos Ware once spoke about the reunification process to an Orthodox audience. It’s on YouTube somewhere. The meat of it being that instead of trying to work from where we differ, the RCC and EOCs are trying to speak from where we agree - for example, that the Christian Church must have some kind of visible head. I swear, it’ll take them centuries before they finally find an appropriate compromise. But I think the bishops are gonna be sorting out our ecumenism just fine.

Although on a grassroots level, we could try sorting out our differences, too.

 

[Vico]

Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican II, explains the participation of the Catholic Church in our salvation:

1. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.

(124) Cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3.5

 

[GaryTaylor]

the Middle Eastern churches are often forced to comply with rules and laws not of their own making).

Yes I am SERIOUISLY comparing it and also any other time evil manifested itself.

You assertion “off the rails” is your “opinion”. Whats off the rails? The largest Christian Church in the world thats stood since day ONE? What self -immolation since you also seem to enjoy this term? What in the world are you talking about Doctrine, Dogma, the BVM as I have been reading, the reformation. And we should “conclude” by riding the Broom on Rome as “Christians” humm? Lost its moorings Thats a path to communion, through hate? Or would you now like to re-phrase and rationalize to “concern” responsible Love and Concern?

Muslims are not “new” to Rome.

Yes I am “seriously” comparing, the Same Logic appilies. And Catholic’s have done Nothing but to continue to be Christians, I know you find that disturbing, that is YOUR “opinion”.

When you see outside that narrow lense of yours and look the big picture, Islam has nothing to do with Christianity and its current issues, they are the TOOL allowed to be used. There is Division in Christianity and as a world wide result there are major issues. Without Communion there is SACRIFICE. That is the Bible. Islam has been a problem since day one and continues to be and will continue to be, as long as Christian division continues.

Be it the middle-east or right here in your backyard. Of course the same logic applies in regards to the bigger picture.

The fact the churchs “are” in the middle east has Nothing to do with The Problem. The Problem which is NO COMMUNION simply manisfested in the middle-east.

Same as right here with Gay Marriage the assault on Religion Freedom and so forth. And one day Sharia Law will pass in the courts here. And that issue will then be “manifested” here. And how in the world would it happen? NON COMMUNION!!! And no the good Christians will not be to blame. The ignorant ones who chose to divide will be.

Before you blame the sickning assault on anyone else in the ME, blame yourself. Its all OUR fault. Not the Catholic’s, Copts, Eastern Orthodox ALL OUR FAULT.

Before one ride’s the broom of Self Immolation on the Catholic Church perhaps one ought to think about what they are saying.

What in the world are we really talking about here? Reasons to continue in Division of the Apostolic Churchs so the assault continues?

No COMMUNION=SACRIFICE its thats simple. “Where” …is not the issue. It could be “anywhere”. It could be Russia “tommorrow” Rome the next. But they are pretty hell bent on the USA and Israel.

 

[GaryTaylor]

unite in their defense, despite any differences we think we have?

Unite in defense, despite and differences we think we have. Fantastic thinking and …Amen.

Opposed to …

How does one “Unite in their Division” when one choose’s to divide? Thats the path to resolution, on what planet?

See what I am saying?

But its not “despite” difference, this indicate’s “well, I will go along to get along because we have a problem”

Its by “LOVE” because this IS the only path to Salvation, which equates to COMMUNION. Without Gods “love” for man their would be no Communion still, because their would have been No Cross.

Critical of the Catholic Church IMHO, one must search their own motives in this area of thinking.

The church works from outside as well as from inside. The question is what can we all do to build a better tommorrow in the Apostolic Church. It won’t and can’t come by creating division. The idea of building one Church is NOT a reality. Putting one down to make another “appear” more likable is folly. One is not going to swallow up the other. The idea of the churchs existing in different culture’s and countrys is not new. This can’t help but continue. Still there is a like thinking which must occur.

And btw not to change the topic but to relate to the topic, why would anyone be afraid in a Christian mindset to begin with? Afraid equates to “fear” which is directly opposed to Love. Now we are talking Light and Dark:shrug:

Interesting choice of wording.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Interesting choice of wording.

I’m my professional life, I have responsibilities that require me to be very deliberate with language. Perhaps at the late hour in which I wrote that post, my true feelings crept into the words.

I do strongly believe we - Orthodox & Catholics - have so much more in common than that which separates us. The lifetime of experience as an Eastern Catholics, with a large RC family on mom’s side, and many Orthodox friends (some fallen Catholics), has given me a particularly interesting perspective over the years.

In modern context, I do believe we often create obstacles where few exist, for whatever reasons we may have. As a Catholic, one cannot deny that there is a history associated with some of the people of our Church that at times is outright embarrassing, but much more often shows that many of its leaders (not just those who have sat in St. Peter’s chair) are truly committed to God’s people and Christ’s Holy Church. There have also been times when people of the Church have not dealt well with Eastern Catholics, and virtually all Orthodox Christians are aware of this and rightly look to it with great apprehension.

Yet here we stand, with the world knocking down Christianity every day, divided, and perpetuating the divide. Yet here we stand, with one unfulfilled wish of Our Lord and Savior Himself - that we all be as one …

The future will not be dictated by the past, but by the present. How will we do our part to fulfill the wish of our Lord?

 

[dzheremi]

All the yelling (you know, TYPING IN CAPS LIKE THIS) is kind of off-putting. Maybe you should take a breather?

You assertion “off the rails” is your “opinion”. Whats off the rails?

My assertion was within the context of the post which you had replied to, which did assert that Rome has done so (though not in those words, IIRC). So this is not really a unique opinion, but it was necessary to repeat because of course the theory of the original post said that perhaps Rome was bearing the fruit of its separation from the Orthodox faith, so I needed to continue that idea to show why your comparison was not logical, namely (as I wrote before): If Rome has gone off the rails, it is due to its own decisions, whereas the Middle Eastern churches, Catholic and Orthodox, made no such decision to be oppressed. There was no “spirit of VII” or “Unum Sanctam” to guide the Middle Eastern churches into an oppression they willingly took on, so the comparison doesn’t make sense. The Middle Eastern churches are facing destruction from without; in the way of thinking of the original post you replied to, Rome is facing destruction from within. They both may be some sort of manifestation of the cross, as you’ve suggested, but that doesn’t make the comparison sensible.

The largest Christian Church in the world thats stood since day ONE? What self -immolation since you also seem to enjoy this term?

The term was in the original post you replied to.

What in the world are you talking about Doctrine, Dogma, the BVM as I have been reading, the reformation. And we should “conclude” by riding the Broom on Rome as “Christians” humm?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Can you rephrase it, please?

Lost its moorings Thats a path to communion, through hate? Or would you now like to re-phrase and rationalize to “concern” responsible Love and Concern?

There is no hate here. And I don’t recall either the original post you were responding to or my post talking about communion.

Muslims are not “new” to Rome.

Yes, and…? What does this have to do with anything that I posted?

Yes I am “seriously” comparing, the Same Logic appilies. And Catholic’s have done Nothing but to continue to be Christians, I know you find that disturbing, that is YOUR “opinion”.

Well Gary, you sure seem to know a lot about me. Too bad most of it is wrong, in this case. I would never claim that Catholics are anything but Christians. I wrote as much in my reply to ByzCathCantor.

When you see outside that narrow lense of yours and look the big picture, Islam has nothing to do with Christianity and its current issues, they are the TOOL allowed to be used.

Well then why bring up what the Middle Eastern churches are going through, as you did? It seemed like a cheap shot to me, but since you apparently feel there is some logic to the comparison, I figured I should find out what it is, since I do not see it.

There is Division in Christianity and as a world wide result there are major issues. Without Communion there is SACRIFICE. That is the Bible. Islam has been a problem since day one and continues to be and will continue to be, as long as Christian division continues.

We left communion with Rome and the Byzantines hundreds of years before Islam was ever thought up. And the rise of Islam itself should show how little Christian disunity had to do with it: They took Palestine, Lebanon, formerly Roman North Africa, etc. all during their first two centuries, before the Great Schism between the Latins and the Byzantines. In repelling the Islamic invasion of Ahmed Gragn in Ethiopia, the Ethiopian (Orthodox Tewahedo) appealed to the Portuguese, and they together beat back the Muslim advance…all without being in communion. So there are two historical precedents here: One in which two very large churches in communion could not stop the Muslims, and another in which one comparatively smaller church received help from those not in communion with it, and stopped the conversion of their Christian land into another Islamic state. I would say that whatever conclusion you draw has more to do with your own stance than with reality, and that you are probably more optimistic than I.

(cont’d.)

 

[dzheremi]

The fact the churchs “are” in the middle east has Nothing to do with The Problem. The Problem which is NO COMMUNION simply manisfested in the middle-east

.

It is funny that you should claim this, as the Middle East has long been used as an example where the rules on intercommunion are much less strict than most other places, given the reality of the religious divide there being usually “Christian v. Muslim” not “Catholic v. Orthodox”. So it would seem like your idea applies more to the rest of the world.

Same as right here with Gay Marriage the assault on Religion Freedom and so forth. And one day Sharia Law will pass in the courts here. And that issue will then be “manifested” here. And how in the world would it happen? NON COMMUNION!!! And no the good Christians will not be to blame. The ignorant ones who chose to divide will be.

I see. Well, uh…I don’t see how they’re related, but okay. Also, “ignorance” and culpability is in the eye of the beholder. You too could chose to come to the great Orthodox patriarchates of the East and the Orient, tiring of your division from the faith that they hold.

Before you blame the sickning assault on anyone else in the ME, blame yourself. Its all OUR fault. Not the Catholic’s, Copts, Eastern Orthodox ALL OUR FAULT.

I didn’t blame anything on anyone in the Middle East. They are my brothers and sisters after all. I don’t think there’s anything to blame them for in the first place. With all due respect, I think you are a little bit too wound up at the moment to see this issue clearly.

Before one ride’s the broom of Self Immolation on the Catholic Church perhaps one ought to think about what they are saying.

:compcoff: No comment.

What in the world are we really talking about here? Reasons to continue in Division of the Apostolic Churchs so the assault continues?

That’s what I was trying to ask, as I didn’t understand what the Middle Eastern churches have to do with anything. I still don’t, since your reply has largely consisted of yelling and writing in a very obscure manner about brooms and about how Islam would not have gained the territory it did if we weren’t divided, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

No COMMUNION=SACRIFICE its thats simple. “Where” …is not the issue. It could be “anywhere”. It could be Russia “tommorrow” Rome the next. But they are pretty hell bent on the USA and Israel.

Once again, I don’t understand what you are getting at. I’m sorry, Gary, but I don’t think this will be a very fruitful discussion if subsequent replies are like this. We simply see things far too differently, apparently to the point where much of what you write is inscrutable to me. I’m sure you have a good point to make, and good intentions in making it, but the way in which you are arguing is too abstract and hyperactive for me. Thank you for trying to explain it in more depth, though.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The future will not be dictated by the past, but by the present. How will we do our part to fulfill the wish of our Lord?

Good phrase, Good question. Not one easily answered. I believe its happening already. Some of us see this much clearer through constant dialogue. Many of existing issues of course will not be issues once the Apostolic Churchs are united. The Three Mysteries of the Apostolic Church will of course always remain in Christ, Mary and the Eucharist.

Personally I have no issue which of these Apostolic Churchs one would choose to enter. What I see is a few issues. One is the complete withdrawal of Christians in the Apostolic Churchs in favor of …well whatever. Then the Fastest growing religion in the US is Joe Smith and close behind is Islam.

Charity to encourage understanding and communication thus communion in the Apostolic Churchs where none exists. Luke warm followers is a concern, for example with Obama. The issue with Orthodoxy in the USA is very real, doesn’t just exist in the CC but nation wide. Christians are not flocking to these churchs, they are avoiding them to entertain the idea which is acceptable to their behavior. Whatever that may be as we see. Gay Marriage another example, whatever, and the church which accepts this behavior.

IMHO the idea is to push Orthodoxy in general, thus a appearence of division will diminish.

Hate to use a Jesse Jackson quote yet it is relevant, the idea is “If we can conceive it, and believe it, we can acheive it” to paraphrase.

Personally I’m convinced the argument strengthens when I say “You need to be in an Apostolic Church, pick one and get involved.” etc etc. Now, I’m not promoting a team color, I am promoting 3 proven way’s of life where each confirms the other. Now numbers becomes a strength instead of an obstacle to the greater good through individual issues which are immediately used as a weapon.

I honestly can’t see the current path doing anything but getting much worse. The M.E. is appauling as is 2012 in the US with religious freedom, gay marriage, basically a complete breakdown of Christian values.

Countries are thinking world control now. Christianity is the first to go by default of all the evils manifested. Satan doesn’t care if Islam or China rules the world, he wins either way. The only thing which stands in the gap is Christianity and correctly applied it brings Gods Blessing.

Are we to actually sit here in derisive pride and assume our church “is” the Blessed Church which will survive this tragic loss of Souls? Communion brings the Blessing by Gods will. Thats what bought it the last time.

I’m sorry I don’t have all the answers, certainly we have to think outside the incapsulation of our individual Church. As dysfunctional as satan is, we seem just as dysfunctional at the moment.

Certainly the “plan” isn’t to sit around and pray and watch the martrydom year after after year. Thats it???

Just Sayin,

Anyway, dzheremi how you been? Glad to see you where you are. Serious. No hard feelings? Yes. I know I get anti climatic, I’m OK in CT. We have a problem Bro, and its getting worse daily. Church, Eucharist, Prayer is fantastic. I still believe beyond a shadow of a doubt we can do better and stop and this slaughter.

We are even losing mainline Protestants today.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thank you for trying to explain it in more depth, though.

Crossed paths. My thinking is more in depth above.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am not sure which specific point that you are contesting. But what I wrote is true.

See chapter nine of this epistle written by St. Basil, epistle 188. newadvent.org/fathers/3202188.htm

At the end of chapter nine he writes: Here then the wife, if she leaves her husband and goes to another, is an adulteress. But the man who has been abandoned is pardonable, and the woman who lives with such a man is not condemned. But if the man who has deserted his wife goes to another, he is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman’s husband to come over to her.

Surely if the hypothetical abandoned man is able to live with another woman without making her an adulterer, that means that they are either married (meaning the church would have granted the abandoned man a second marriage), or that the Church (God forbid!) sanctioned at one time sexual relationships outside of marriage. My bet is on the first position bring true, not the second.

 

[dvdjs]

See chapter nine of this epistle written by St. Basil, epistle 188. newadvent.org/fathers/3202188.htm

At the end of chapter nine he writes: Here then the wife, if she leaves her husband and goes to another, is an adulteress. But the man who has been abandoned is pardonable, and the woman who lives with such a man is not condemned. But if the man who has deserted his wife goes to another, he is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman’s husband to come over to her.

Surely if the hypothetical abandoned man is able to live with another woman without making her an adulterer, that means that they are either married (meaning the church would have granted the abandoned man a second marriage), or that the Church (God forbid!) sanctioned at one time sexual relationships outside of marriage. My bet is on the first position bring true, not the second.

You lose the bet. The church did not do second marriages for another half a millennium after St. Basil - even if it admitted those who undertook a secular, second marriage to communion after excommunication. See "Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, John Meyendorff. Or the earlier CAF threads with links on this matter.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You lose the bet. The church did not do second marriages for another half a millennium after St. Basil - even if it admitted those who undertook a secular, second marriage to communion after excommunication. See "Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, John Meyendorff. Or the earlier CAF threads with links on this matter.

No wager was ever made. That distinction which is brought up is unimportant. Either way, the church winds up allowing for a second marriage out of pastoral practice. The fact that St. Basil deems a marriage obtained outside of the Church by a divorced baptized Christian (if we are to hold that what you say is true) not to be adulterous should already indicate that he held a rather different definition of marriage. Is then, the Catholic rejection of civil remarriage (without concern for whether one was wrongfully divorced or abandoned) somehow more faithful to the patristic mindset than the Orthodox allowance for performing a second marriage, given St. Basil’s view on the matter?