Catholic/Orthodox Dialogue Resumes this week

[dcointin]

It saddens me to see this thread degenerate so quickly into an argument when the original intention was to talk about the positive dialogue that is taking place on an official level. It’s up to those of us who take Christ’s command to be one seriously to refuse to engage in polemics and work to understand and appreciate each other’s traditions. That doesn’t mean we don’t disagree, but we do it with a genuine desire to learn in a spirit of Christian love.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

It’s up to those of us who take Christ’s command to be one seriously to refuse to engage in polemics and work to understand and appreciate each other’s traditions.

i totally agree. the catholics are by in large indifferent and ignorant of eastern christianity. there are few catholics who oppose orthodox/catholic dialogue. the only exception may be sspx or sspv.

what i see from a much larger portion of the orthodox is a unwillingness to even consider dialogue. this is why i don’t think it will happen anytime soon. even if the orthodox bishops were to somehow agree to unification, these fundamentalist types will not let it happen.

 

[Perogi]

Novus ordo rite catholics are ignorant of Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics. All in part because of the mess Vatican 2 did to the church. Even back then catholics were in disaray. The Latin rite had everybody brainwashed into this POPE IS SUPREME ****.

The Eastern Churches all respect the POPE as advisatory on all matters. The way it should be. The Patriarch of Constantinople is advisatory. And all national (ETHNIC) divisions have their own Patriarchs.

In United States before 1790 whenever and wherever a catholic church opened that parish had to be administered by a Bishop of the same nationality and Home country of origin wherever the catholic Parishioners immigrated from.

All catholics both latin rite and eastern rite who immigrated to the U.S. after 1790 were forced to accept a Bishop who was not of their nationality as supreme. For example Poles who were both Latin and Eastern rite were forced to hand over administrative and economic control of their local U.S. parishes to English-Irish bishops. Many of these English Irish Bishops economically expropriated the Parishes and shut down ethnic churches and schools whenever they felt like abusing their power. As a result we have a secular Humanist and athiest society who is now pro-Islamic— Buddist-Hindu and Wiccan-Devil worshiping.

The reason why a Pole is a Pole because he is Catholic. The Reason why a Russian is a Russian because he is or was Orthodox. The Reason why an Irishman is an Irishman is because he is a Catholic. The reason why an Englishman is an Englishman is because he is or was Anglican.

Why should the Orthodox want to be in direct communion or even maintain a Dialogue with the Latin rite. A Space alien (Who the German said he would like to bring Baptism among) floating over the Planet while viewing all the post-secular decay of the Latin Church would most likely choose to convert to the Eastern church over the Latin church anytime.

The Bilderburg socities influence over vatican 2 and the post-vatican 2 church has destroyed the raison’dtere for being a catholic. Along with financing and making the norm out of ethnic Jews and secular Humanist fools who run around demanding that the Latin rite have an open commun just like the Anglican church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

All Ancient History.

The fact remains that theres a greater good. The on-going battle with evil. Thats the BIG PICTURE. The World. The one that the Orthodox Church isn’t reining supreme over EARTH

But lets look at what makes everyone different, and GEE what would be the purpose of that?

 

[dvdjs]

Pretty clear what it means, especially considering when it was issued.

Apparently it isn’t. You should listen to what the church says instead of exercising your private judgment about the meaning. It is not for you to say what the Catholic church teaches.

 

[trophybearer]

Apparently it isn’t. You should listen to what the church says instead of exercising your private judgment about the meaning. It is not for you to say what the Catholic church teaches.

… you either, then. Who are you, exactly? Some guy who reads something and comes to a different conclusion from some other guy? Forgive, Your Impressiveness!

 

[dvdjs]

… you either, then. Who are you, exactly? Some guy who reads something and comes to a different conclusion from some other guy? Forgive, Your Impressiveness!

Not quite. Some non-catholics make a sport of proof texting various documents of the Catholic Church and telling Catholics what the* must believe*. I am not sure of the point, but it’s and odd practice.

 

[trophybearer]

Not quite. Some non-catholics make a sport of proof texting various documents of the Catholic Church and telling Catholics what the* must believe*. I am not sure of the point, but it’s and odd practice.

So is the pick and choose attitude of certain Catholics. Anything that wasn’t “infallibly defined” is up for grabs, ready to be delegated to the garbage heap, although no one can give a list of infallible declarations because there is no consensus. Your response says it all in regards to the Catholic approach to the faith: what MUST I believe to be considered Catholic (not, "what is the totality of tradition which we have recieved). This attitude shows in the mess you now call a liturgy, the dissent of your monastics, clergy and lay persons.

 

[dvdjs]

So is the pick and choose attitude of certain Catholics. Anything that wasn’t “infallibly defined” is up for grabs, ready to be delegated to the garbage heap, although no one can give a list of infallible declarations because there is no consensus.

First, I don’t see the connection between the two phenomena, other than they are both odd. And I do agree they are both odd practices.

Your response says it all in regards to the Catholic approach to the faith: what MUST I believe to be considered Catholic (not, "what is the totality of tradition which we have recieved).

You really miss the point entirely. I object to the game of proof-texting by opponents of the Catholic. Often the game is to conjure up some extreme perspectives that simply are not Catholic teaching. But it makes no sense for non-Catholics to attempt to bind Catholics to certain beliefs not held by the Church.

At the same time, I don’t like the game of seeking minimal belief at all. But it is ridiculous for you to be laying that charge against Catholics. Go to an Orthodox board and see all of the effort spent, for example, on retreating from the Church teachings - enshrined in the liturgy - on the Theotokos. There is positive pride about the East dogmatizing very little, and adherents happily take advantage of the latitude. My reaction: conform your thinking to the totality of the tradition of the church.

You are preaching to the choir.

This attitude shows in the mess you now call a liturgy, the dissent of your monastics, clergy and lay persons

Are you talking of the my particular church? I don’t think so.

Moreover, I think that it is inappropriate for you to use the world “mess” to talk about the Catholic mass. This “mess” incorporates the Eucharistic Sacrifice and Communion. Respect for that belief, even if you disagree with it, should preclude calling it a “mess”: however poorly practiced, it is, in fact, an awesome mystery.

 

[sidbrown]

First,

Are you talking of the my particular church? I don’t think so.

Moreover, I think that it is inappropriate for you to use the world “mess” to talk about the Catholic mass. This “mess” incorporates the Eucharistic Sacrifice and Communion. Respect for that belief, even if you disagree with it, should preclude calling it a “mess”: however poorly practiced, it is, in fact, an awesome mystery.

Here’s an example of a Catholic Mass celebrated by a Catholic bishop.
youtube.com/watch?v=rh_nqtp3VrU

 

[sidbrown]

Not quite. Some non-catholics make a sport of proof texting various documents of the Catholic Church and telling Catholics what the* must believe*. I am not sure of the point, but it’s and odd practice.

What does the text say? And what does Unam Sanctam say?

 

[prodromos]

The fact remains that theres a greater good. The on-going battle with evil. Thats the BIG PICTURE. The World. The one that the Orthodox Church isn’t reining supreme over EARTH

Being one Church will not make the slightest bit of difference in the above conflict. The only thing that will make a difference is if Christians actually live the Christian faith. As St Seraphim of Sarov once said, “Acquire the Spirit of Peace, and thousands around you will be saved”

 

[trophybearer]

First, I don’t see the connection between the two phenomena, other than they are both odd. And I do agree they are both odd practices.

You really miss the point entirely. I object to the game of proof-texting by opponents of the Catholic. Often the game is to conjure up some extreme perspectives that simply are not Catholic teaching. But it makes no sense for non-Catholics to attempt to bind Catholics to certain beliefs not held by the Church.

At the same time, I don’t like the game of seeking minimal belief at all. But it is ridiculous for you to be laying that charge against Catholics. Go to an Orthodox board and see all of the effort spent, for example, on retreating from the Church teachings - enshrined in the liturgy - on the Theotokos. There is positive pride about the East dogmatizing very little, and adherents happily take advantage of the latitude. My reaction: conform your thinking to the totality of the tradition of the church.

You are preaching to the choir.

Are you talking of the my particular church? I don’t think so.

Moreover, I think that it is inappropriate for you to use the world “mess” to talk about the Catholic mass. This “mess” incorporates the Eucharistic Sacrifice and Communion. Respect for that belief, even if you disagree with it, should preclude calling it a “mess”: however poorly practiced, it is, in fact, an awesome mystery.

I find it funny that you have such a problem with prooftexting considering that you guys tend to use it all day long to justify things like the papacy and all the post schism Catholic dogmas.

I’m not sure what Orthodox messageboards you’re talking about, so I’ll just have to say, “prove it”.

 

[Nine_Two]

First, I don’t see the connection between the two phenomena, other than they are both odd. And I do agree they are both odd practices.

You don’t see the connection between picking and choosing teachings and picking and choosing beliefs?

You really miss the point entirely. I object to the game of proof-texting by opponents of the Catholic. Often the game is to conjure up some extreme perspectives that simply are not Catholic teaching. But it makes no sense for non-Catholics to attempt to bind Catholics to certain beliefs not held by the Church.

I wasn’t proof texting. He made the claim that the Catholic Church has never taught that non-Catholics are damned. I brought forward a document saying it was taught. I never made a claim that it was an enshrined teaching, he did. He’s the one trying to re-interprete it to say something different.

At the same time, I don’t like the game of seeking minimal belief at all. But it is ridiculous for you to be laying that charge against Catholics. Go to an Orthodox board and see all of the effort spent, for example, on retreating from the Church teachings - enshrined in the liturgy - on the Theotokos. There is positive pride about the East dogmatizing very little, and adherents happily take advantage of the latitude. My reaction: conform your thinking to the totality of the tradition of the church.

Yet Catholics here post about that game themselves, about how as long as you don’t say a teaching is “wrong” you’re fine to not accept certain dogma.
I don’t see how it is “tak[ing] advantage of latitude” to hold non-heretical opinions on things that have not been dogmatized. I’m not sure what aspect of the theotokos you are talking about that is enshrined in the liturgy, but depending on where in the liturgy there are places that take poetic license (esp. troparions and kontakions).

Moreover, I think that it is inappropriate for you to use the world “mess” to talk about the Catholic mass. This “mess” incorporates the Eucharistic Sacrifice and Communion. Respect for that belief, even if you disagree with it, should preclude calling it a “mess”: however poorly practiced, it is, in fact, an awesome mystery.

Whether or not the liturgy is a mess has no barring on the sacrifice. That said given some of the views that seem prevailent in Catholicism, describing the rituals surrounding the Eucharist may well accurately be described as a “mess”.

 

[Nine_Two]

All Ancient History.

The fact remains that theres a greater good. The on-going battle with evil. Thats the BIG PICTURE. The World. The one that the Orthodox Church isn’t reining supreme over EARTH

But lets look at what makes everyone different, and GEE what would be the purpose of that?

Last I checked the Catholic Church isn’t reining supreme over the EARTH (caps?) either.

 

[dvdjs]

I find it funny that you have such a problem with prooftexting considering that you guys tend to use it all day long to justify things like the papacy and all the post schism Catholic dogmas.

You guys?

 

[dvdjs]

You don’t see the connection between picking and choosing teachings and picking and choosing beliefs?

I wasn’t proof texting. He made the claim that the Catholic Church has never taught that non-Catholics are damned. I brought forward a document saying it was taught. I never made a claim that it was an enshrined teaching, he did. He’s the one trying to re-interprete it to say something different.

Sorry, but if you want to learn about Catholic beliefs you have to listen. It is fine to quote a document and ask a question about its significance within the entire corpus of teaching. There are some folks who post here that are knowledgable enough to teach you. But you have no standing at all to pull out some text, then tell, not ask, Catholics what they must believe.

Yet Catholics here post about that game themselves, about how as long as you don’t say a teaching is “wrong” you’re fine to not accept certain dogma.

If a person does not reject a dogma, then they “accept” it. How significant it is in informing their praxis or spirituality is another matter.

I don’t see how it is “tak[ing] advantage of latitude” to hold non-heretical opinions on things that have not been dogmatized. I’m not sure what aspect of the theotokos you are talking about that is enshrined in the liturgy, but depending on where in the liturgy there are places that take poetic license (esp. troparions and kontakions).

Taking advantage of perceived latitude is the de minimis approach that was being criticized. I agree with that criticism. Drawing a conclusion that a particular text represents poetic license is, unless informed by magisterial teaching, picking and choosing. What is appropriate is this: learn, by patient practice, the teaching of the church and conform one’s thinking to it.

Whether or not the liturgy is a mess has no barring on the sacrifice. That said given some of the views that seem prevailent in Catholicism, describing the rituals surrounding the Eucharist may well accurately be described as a “mess”.

I agree with the first sentence. As such, given the awesome nature of the sacrifice, it strangely flippant if not outright blasphemy to talk of a “mess”. If one wants to talk of an inappropriate ritual, fine. (Start a thread). But “mess” is not appropriate.

 

[Nine_Two]

Sorry, but if you want to learn about Catholic beliefs you have to listen. It is fine to quote a document and ask a question about its significance within the entire corpus of teaching. There are some folks who post here that are knowledgable enough to teach you. But you have no standing at all to pull out some text, then tell, not ask, Catholics what they must believe.

Once again, I didn’t claim it was a Catholic belief, I said a person of authority at one time said something else.

If a person does not reject a dogma, then they “accept” it. How significant it is in informing their praxis or spirituality is another matter.

That is absolutely false. Most Catholics have pointed out what I just said, as long as you remain open to a required idea, you can be a Catholic. You’re the first to contradict it. I’d like to see a source which states your interpretation, that all must be accepted. It will suite me well in discussions with these Catholics you say are wrong.

Taking advantage of perceived latitude is the de minimis approach that was being criticized. I agree with that criticism. Drawing a conclusion that a particular text represents poetic license is, unless informed by magisterial teaching, picking and choosing. What is appropriate is this: learn, by patient practice, the teaching of the church and conform one’s thinking to it.

So you’re saying that it is the doctrine of the Catholic Church that St. Gregory of Nyssa will chase all heretics away from the church? Because that’s what his kontakion says. There certainly is poetic license in the hymns of the church. That said you haven’t stated at which particular statements of the Divine Liturgy you’ve found people disagreeing with. It is entirely possible that you’ve met people who have left the teachings of Orthodoxy.

I agree with the first sentence. As such, given the awesome nature of the sacrifice, it strangely flippant if not outright blasphemy to talk of a “mess”. If one wants to talk of an inappropriate ritual, fine. (Start a thread). But “mess” is not appropriate.

Inappropriate ritual isn’t turning it into a mess?
Christ himself condemned the Jew’s treatment of the Temple without anyone accusing him of saying he was decrying their sacred rites, I see no reason why one can’t call the Mass a mess without speaking on the Eucharist - which has been very much a part of the controversies to face your church.
I would think, if someone were truly reform minded, they would accept criticism which involved their most sacred rituals. It is the closeminded who want no interference with the status quo who get angry over such.

 

[dvdjs]

Once again, I didn’t claim it was a Catholic belief, I said a person of authority at one time said something else.

Sorry. It is the prerogative of the church to say whether what someone said at another time is properly understood as “something else” or the same idea. Not yours.

That is absolutely false. Most Catholics have pointed out what I just said, as long as you remain open to a required idea, you can be a Catholic. You’re the first to contradict it. I’d like to see a source which states your interpretation, that all must be accepted. It will suite me well in discussions with these Catholics you say are wrong.

Acceptance and rejection are complete and mutually exclusive. I am not sure what you think is absolutely false, and have even less of an idea about the meaning of “remain open”. Perhaps you have some examples that may make this clearer.

So you’re saying that it is the doctrine of the Catholic Church that St. Gregory of Nyssa will chase all heretics away from the church? Because that’s what his kontakion says. There certainly is poetic license in the hymns of the church. That said you haven’t stated at which particular statements of the Divine Liturgy you’ve found people disagreeing with. It is entirely possible that you’ve met people who have left the teachings of Orthodoxy.

My recollection is that the kontakion refers to his wisdom as having driven back heretics. In any case, I probably misunderstood you misunderstood you. It appears that you are distinguishing literal versus figurative meaning of texts - which I have no issue with - versus rejection of the church teaching by privately judging that the teaching is symbolic. It is the latter that is objectionable.

Inappropriate ritual isn’t turning it into a mess?
Christ himself condemned the Jew’s treatment of the Temple without anyone accusing him of saying he was decrying their sacred rites, I see no reason why one can’t call the Mass a mess without speaking on the Eucharist - which has been very much a part of the controversies to face your church.

Christ’s knowledge, wisdom, and authority is different that ours, so that is a bad place to go. Christ was not critical of sacred rites, but of commercial operations in the temple. If some one wants to defend that idea that a particular practice and abuse, fine. But don’t call the mass a mess.

I would think, if someone were truly reform minded, they would accept criticism which involved their most sacred rituals. It is the closeminded who want no interference with the status quo who get angry over such.

Some criticism is acceptable, some is not. Some is respectful and constructive, some is not. Objection to remarks that are not constructive, not respectful, and thus not acceptable does not reasonably imply anything about desire to reform or to maintain the status quo.

 

[Nine_Two]

Sorry. It is the prerogative of the church to say whether what someone said at another time is properly understood as “something else” or the same idea. Not yours.

Ok, so provide a source where your church said what was said in that situation meant something other than what it sounds like. As it is all I have is your interpretation, which as you said, you don’t have the right to interprete what the church said.

Acceptance and rejection are complete and mutually exclusive. I am not sure what you think is absolutely false, and have even less of an idea about the meaning of “remain open”. Perhaps you have some examples that may make this clearer.

Yes, acceptance and rejection are mutually exclusive, and the point that has been argued by other Catholics is that a middle possition, of not knowing but being open, is acceptable. Please provide a source if this is otherwise.

My recollection is that the kontakion refers to his wisdom as having driven back heretics. In any case, I probably misunderstood you misunderstood you. It appears that you are distinguishing literal versus figurative meaning of texts - which I have no issue with - versus rejection of the church teaching by privately judging that the teaching is symbolic. It is the latter that is objectionable.

Yes, that’s called “poetic license”, since you still haven’t said what bit of the Divine Liturgy you’re talking about being rejected. I made a suggestion as to a possibility of why it might seem that way, but I also said they may be outside of Orthodox teaching. Provide an actual example.

Christ’s knowledge, wisdom, and authority is different that ours, so that is a bad place to go. Christ was not critical of sacred rites, but of commercial operations in the temple. If some one wants to defend that idea that a particular practice and abuse, fine. But don’t call the mass a mess.

Christ wasn’t critical of sacred rites, he was critical of how they were conducted, namely through commercial operations (money changers) in the temple. He was far closer to criticism of the sacred rite than anyone calling the Mass a “mess” (an opinion I’ve heard shared by many Catholics) is.

Some criticism is acceptable, some is not. Some is respectful and constructive, some is not. Objection to remarks that are not constructive, not respectful, and thus not acceptable does not reasonably imply anything about desire to reform or to maintain the status quo.

And you’re the judge?