A
AndrewAxland
Guest
There are some very vocal conservative Catholics who think that Pope Francis, in particular, is not fire-and-brimstone enough for their taste.
- Status
T
twf
Guest
I think some are looking for more of a Putin approach. Gay in public? Lock ‘em up.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
With all respect, this is partly because the Catholic Church has continued to develop via the continuation of the Church’s teaching office, unified in Peter.
The Orthodox, while genuine expressions of the ancient faith, are ultimately confined to the first 1,000 years of development. That is why they “feel” so ancient and apostolic. But if you go to the earliest centuries, there wouldn’t even be a Byzantine Orthodox culture – at all. Definitely no icons in the first churches. (Byzantine icons are good and holy, of course.)
In other words, Byzantine Orthodoxy went through real developments, too. While the same basic faith, a first century Christian would not necessarily feel home in a modern Byzantine church – or even a sixth century one.
We have to be careful when we confuse cultural expression with authentic Faith.
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
While I disagree with your first point, to begin with, I’m glad you specified the “Latin RCCs,” because, of course, the Catholic Church includes multiple theological and liturgical traditions — Syriac, Coptic, Syro-Malabar, Chaldean, and yes, even Byzantine.
The theological expressions you enjoy in the Orthodox world are very probably also present in the Catholic Church – if not in the Latin West, most definitely in the Byzantine Catholic traditions.
In other words, the Catholic Church today embraces a catholic fullness in both liturgy and theology: Not only from the Byzantine Orthodox (e.g., in Ukrainian, Greek, and Melkite Catholic traditions), but sharing commonalities with other communions as well, like the Assyrian Church (via Chaldean Catholics) and the Oriental Orthodox (via, for example, the Coptic and Syrian Catholics).
Last edited:
P
pacloc
Guest
I definitely thought about it. We visited one Church about 4 hours away and enjoyed it, but I really began to think about how wrong it would be to choose communion with the Latin Church which I think was making big mistakes regarding the Sacraments and teaching Theology over communion with the Orthodox Church that I felt recognized the importance of keeping these things the way the Church was given them. It is very apparent in the liturgical hymns, almost every hymn clearly explains the purpose of the Incarnation, where in the RCC you hear mainly songs that originated in Protestantism and do not clearly explain anything. I was reading writings from St. John Chrysostom and St. Cyril of Alexandria, and felt that they were talking about a different faith than what I saw in the RCC, and yet the Orthodox Church was clearly referring to these same ideas, and even quoting from these fathers. It boiled down to why would I knowingly choose communion with the one that I felt had deviated over the one that kept the same faith as the Fathers. There are huge problems in the Orthodox Church here in the US, but none have anything to do with what I have been talking about, but more with the fact that most of these Orthodox Churches have a cultural tie with the country they came from, so language and culture become problems, but these are fixable, whereas I don’t have that much optimism that the others will be fixed anytime soon. I love that ROCOR is willing to start mission Churches as long is there are people willing to get it going.
A
Angel_Gabriel
Guest
Are you referring to problems in the RCC?
For me I feel like there’s this odd dichotomy going on in Eastern Catholicism…there are Roman Catholics who go just b/c they like the pretty liturgy (smells and bells and all that) but are basically Western through and through. Then there’s the kind who are pretty much Orthodox but who maybe like having the Pope as a visible source of unity. These types may or may not subscribe to Latin doctrines and/or dogma.
All in all it’s just darned confusing at times!
P
pacloc
Guest
I’ve argued with you before about this and it seems that you are unwilling to hear what I am actually saying. I’m talking specifically about the Theology which includes the theology behind the Sacraments. These do not change and that you think that in the second 1,000 years of the RCC that development into doing things contrary to the first 1,000 years is a good thing, makes sense for you to be RC. I’m just saying that the Orthodox think otherwise, that it is good to stay the same in Theology. No one mentioned icons or Byzantine culture.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
The substance of the sacramental theology is the same. If this were not the case, Eastern churches could not be in communion with Rome, and yet they are. Both teach real presence Eucharist, for example.
But again, you will find consistent Eastern Orthodox elements – including their theological traditions – in their Eastern Catholic counterparts. So I maintain the Catholic Church has a proper fullness, embracing multiple traditions all at once. Not just Byzantine. Not just Latin. Also Syriac, Coptic, Chaldean, and so forth.
But again, you will find consistent Eastern Orthodox elements – including their theological traditions – in their Eastern Catholic counterparts. So I maintain the Catholic Church has a proper fullness, embracing multiple traditions all at once. Not just Byzantine. Not just Latin. Also Syriac, Coptic, Chaldean, and so forth.
Last edited:
P
pacloc
Guest
Yes, I’m talking about the Latin Church’s choice of doing things different from the past or from the East that have been proven to be the more correct way. That they allow the East to continue doing these things correctly brings confusion to the matter.
A
Angel_Gabriel
Guest
What do you think about the whole theology and practices surrounding marriage? By that I’m basically referring to the practice of annulments and the use of NFP over artificial birth control. Annulments are foreign to Eastern thinking yet they are forced on the Eastern Catholics. As for birth control…well I like the whole practice of oikonomia quite a lot…I’ll just leave it at that lol!
P
pacloc
Guest
As a Catholic, I seriously began to question the whole null marriage thing, long before we decided to become Orthodox. The grounds by which you could declare a marriage null were common to every marriage I’ve ever seen. I use to say that only Jesus Christ and the Holy Virgin would be able to qualify to be married. Then I found out that even though people entered into marriage purposely with the mind to contracept to never have kids and would easily divorce if the other cheated, were technically not in a null marriage until it is declared null by a marriage tribune, I lost all respect for this innovation. At least in the Orthodox Church, we call a marriage a marriage and acknowledge that people sin and ruin marriage, and can allow a second and possibly third marriage with permission, but it is not the same joyous celebration as the first, but rather one of penance. The RC who got their marriage declared null gets to start fresh with a white dress and all, seems very backwards. As for contraception, I don’t know. I think NFP is the preferred thing, but I think it is easy to accidently get pregnant if you do not chart it well, so I think some are willing to allow non-abortifacient contraception for those that struggle with NFP, but I am not sure. Personally, we stopped using birth control when we became Catholic, and have not gone back to it. Just having our third baby, I think my wife is done, but I’m guessing either we will just be celibate or use NFP again.
A
Angel_Gabriel
Guest
Yes, I agree with this as well. Heck, I’m sure that even my marriage could be declared null if they really wanted too…perhaps on the grounds of being too young and not fully understanding what we were doing. (I’ve been married for nearly 15 years and have a completely different mindset now then I did then for sure!)
I think this is a better approach as well. People mess up.
We use NFP as birth control We’re pretty sure we’re done (4 kids already, plus some health issues and age). It’s not that I disagree per se with the use of artificial contraception but I do think that they could be a little more lenient on it and use oikonomia more… life is not black and white but I don’t’ think that type of mentality is what fuels the RCC…for them things are very black and white…
I think ultimately I would love to find a spiritually fulfilling parish. The one I’m at is starting to go down the crazy rad-trad path…for some reason we’re attracting a lot of RCs who lean in that direction. (I suspect that they come b/c we have a more traditional liturgy.) As someone who has struggled with religious OCD in the past and who is very prone to relapses, this isn’t an ideal environment at all.
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
Yes, it should.
While things are far better here than they used to be, if I was coming from the outside, and the posts here were all I had to judge by, I expect that I would end up Orthodox rather than Catholic . . .
Several hundred years ago, bishops came to be seen as more administrative than pastoral. Specifically in response to this, most of the west reserved Confirmation to the bishop when he came to the town.
As a completely separate matter, in response to a heresy (largely in France, and I believe also in one other country which I forget) which maintained that Communion was not complete unless both species were received. As a disciplinary measure, the Cup was withheld to flush the heretics out, as they refused to receive the Body alone.
As a consequence, infant Communion became impossible, as it was (for obvious reasons) only the Blood.
While the practice of withholding the cup “should” have ended years or maybe decades later, it took about seven centuries . . .
Everything about age of reason, maturity, and understanding were explanations added well after the fact, and had nothing to do with how and why the changes happen.
I absolutely think that the RCC should return to the ancient practice as my BCC does–but let’s keep the facts straight about what happened.
I think the Orthodox approach to divorce with oikonomia makes more sense, but my hat has a 5 inch brim, not a point or a bunch of bulbous things, so my opinion doesn’t matter . . .
hawk
While things are far better here than they used to be, if I was coming from the outside, and the posts here were all I had to judge by, I expect that I would end up Orthodox rather than Catholic . . .
This is simply untrue. I don’t believe that the practice is correct, but this has nothing to do with how it came about (although it may be a practical factor for some who want to keep it).
Several hundred years ago, bishops came to be seen as more administrative than pastoral. Specifically in response to this, most of the west reserved Confirmation to the bishop when he came to the town.
As a completely separate matter, in response to a heresy (largely in France, and I believe also in one other country which I forget) which maintained that Communion was not complete unless both species were received. As a disciplinary measure, the Cup was withheld to flush the heretics out, as they refused to receive the Body alone.
As a consequence, infant Communion became impossible, as it was (for obvious reasons) only the Blood.
While the practice of withholding the cup “should” have ended years or maybe decades later, it took about seven centuries . . .
Everything about age of reason, maturity, and understanding were explanations added well after the fact, and had nothing to do with how and why the changes happen.
I absolutely think that the RCC should return to the ancient practice as my BCC does–but let’s keep the facts straight about what happened.
Not just elements! If so, that particular BCC is way off course . . .
I think the Orthodox approach to divorce with oikonomia makes more sense, but my hat has a 5 inch brim, not a point or a bunch of bulbous things, so my opinion doesn’t matter . . .
hawk
Last edited:
P
pacloc
Guest
I did not say that it was started this way, just the reason for why they continue to do it. I know that it had to do with waiting for the Bishop supposedly. This is still ridiculous because the Bishop still comes and does it for all the high school kids. It simply would be a bunch of newborns instead.
D
dochawk
Guest
I think inertia is a far more likely explanation than any actual purpose . . . seven centuries seems to be about typical for response time. (e.g. the Cup, and the loophole of the priest witnessing rather than requesting marriage vows [when first required as a witness, as couples would disappear and contradict one another as to whether or not they had exchanged vows, couples would sometimes break into the rectory in the wee hours, wake the priest, and quickly exchange vows while the still-groggy priest came to his senses . . . ])
hawk
hawk
O
Onthisrock84
Guest
Technically they are.
One shouldn’t view the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox as two, but one in a state of schism.
One shouldn’t view the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox as two, but one in a state of schism.
U
UrbaErmito
Guest
I would say that the Orthodox Church is quite “sterile”, there is not much interest in evangelizing new countries / nations. Perhaps it is a practical consequence of “caesaropapism” - leaving the Orthodox Church very accommodated in specific ethnic states, in a rather lazy state of affairs. Protestants and Catholics are much more aggressive and missionary - in fact, the number of post-CVII movements and institutions is evidence that the Holy Spirit is blowing in the Church. Now, if you feel called to the Eastern tradition, there are particular Eastern churches in full communion with Rome.
D
dochawk
Guest
I agree that together they comprise the One, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and that it is a grave matter that the prelates haven’t pulled their heads out of there collective [ * censored * ] and resolved this.
I find the best term to be “violent agreement” . . .
You can start with the OCA (but, like ACROD, its origin is actually in the pig-headed bigotry of a certain RCC bishop I refused to name), and there are several more. I’ll leave it to our EO members to list them (I can’t even keep up with the EC, or the current count [which seems to change every year or two, and then there’s the one that we’re not sure whether or not went extinct, and . . . I leave it as “about two dozen”)
hawk
V
Vico
Guest
There are us eastern Catholics.
S
steve-b
Guest
Go back to the first century. NOT commentary but what the ECF actually said in writing.
The 1st 3 centuries (condensed)
The English word Catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means the whole / universal, Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 830
where does kata holos ekklesia appear in scripture?
From the Greek NT
Acts 9:31 “the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ," = the Kataholos Church, = the Catholic Church.
ἐκκλησία = church
καθ’ = according to
ὅλης = whole / universal
τῆς = the
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.
Catholic Church by name, is used in writing by
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. A direct disciple of St John.
St Ignatius, uses Christian in (ch 2) and Catholic Church in (ch 8)
Epistle to the Smyrnæans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm of which schismatics won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3) . http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm .
St Polycarp, ~ a.d. 140 Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church”
From The Martyrdom of Polycarp , http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm
Muratorian canon~170 a.d. Muratorian Canon (Roberts-Donaldson Translation) uses authority of “Catholic Church” in determining the canon
Irenaeus ~180 a.d. from Smyrna, became bishop of Lyon, wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses [Bk 1 Chapter 10 v 3] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm . Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, and teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, Chapter 3, v 2-3] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm on account of its preeminent authority
Cyprian~250 a.d. calls the Church the Catholic Church Epistle 54 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm
The only Church Jesus established, is on Peter and those in union with him, The Catholic Church.
Jesus does NOT approve of division from His Church. John 17:20-23 # SEARCH jn 17 , and since the HS only teaches what comes from Jesus John 16:12-15 Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16 no one then can say the HS inspired THEM to divide, or inspired all the dissensions / divisions / schisms we see today in Christianity.
St Paul, condemns division
Romans 16:17-20 # SEARCH rom 16
Galatians 5:19-21 # SEARCH gal 5
both quotes use the same Greek word [διχοστασίαι,] for dissension / division /schism http://bibleapps.com/greek/1370.htm . The consequence? Those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God”.
Last edited:
- Status