M
Mickey
Guest
The Orthodox proselytise here?
- Status
S
steve_b
Guest
The following tells us who these patriarchs represent. It starts in paragraph 4
§ 4. Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10).
[snip for space]
§ 8. Yet the Papacy has not on this account ceased to annoy the peaceful Church of God,
This is NOT the Catholic Church speaking.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
That is a rather serious accusation, considering that proselytism is an offense that is met with a ban.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Seen it plenty, both directly and indirectly. Mostly the latter, I’ll admit.The Orthodox proselytise here?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
There have been issues between the Moderators and some proselytizers of various brands.
Perhaps you would think me over-inclusive when I use the term “proslytize”. So as to avoid giving offense to anyone likely to be watching this post, I will say it this way. Let’s say someone, a Baptist perhaps, comes onto CAF and starts touting the Baptist view of things by tearing down (oh, let’s say) the Methodist Church, and does it by citing some of the most virulent anti-Methodist tracts. I don’t think Baptists say “anathema” very much, but let’s say the poster cites something saying Methodists are “hell-bound” because most Methodists don’t accept the notion of “being saved”.
In my way of thinking, that’s also proselytizing, brother.
M
Mickey
Guest
Perhaps you are a bit confused. There are very specific rules against such activities. If an Orthodox Christian is defending their faith…let’s say by using resources such as Scripture, Councils, Fathers, Synods, theologians, saints, etc…I can see where you as a Latin Catholic might see it as some sort of proselytism…but we are merely defending our faith.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t know if I’ve ever heard it put that way before.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I have read “Uniatism: Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion” I actually have it bookmarked on my computer. And I’ve seen in a few writings by Eastern Catholics specifically of Byzantine Rite use the word “uniatism” in a fairly positive fashion. That is actually why I put the word “Unia” in quotation marks - I was going to with the word “uniatism” but I forgot to do that - because for some Eastern Catholics the words still has a pejorative meaning to it and others not so much.
And again I didn’t mean for it to be taken in that manner and for anyone I may have offended I am very sorry, you can imagine how embarrassed I am.I hope I didn’t offended you Peter.
Thanks, Maron. (I saw your post a couple days ago, but today is the first day I’m able to reply.)
D
dzheremi
Guest
Eusebius of Caesarea mentions the concept of “orthodox theology” and “healthy and orthodox knowledge” in his 3rd century Demonstratio Evangelica, but I have to wonder what the point of all this is. As others have written, the Orthodox believe that they are the Orthodox Catholic Church mentioned in the early writings (the Fathers, the Creed, etc.), so you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who would disagree with any early citation you can find, only with your interpretation that they refer to the modern (read: post-Schism) Roman Catholic communion.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I do not remember ever advocating the view that all Roman Catholics are hellbound, or tearing down the Roman Catholic Church. I have simply expressed disagreement with certain dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, the filioque, and Papal Infallibility, as well as certain acts of making theologoumena like Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception into dogmas, and when I see questions about what the Orthodox believe, I simply give details as to what we believe, and why we believe it. I never understand how people manage to construe that as meaning that I believe Roman Catholics are hellbound and that I wish to tear down the Roman Catholic Church.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Never did I say Orthodox claim Catholics are “hellbound”. That’s a fundamentalist protestant term.
You defended and approved the following:
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.asp
in which Catholic missionaries are called “reprobates” and Pope is called worse. Did you read it? If you did, perhaps you think that kind of thing is merely “giving details as to what we believe”. Are you really saying that vicious tract is the heart and soul of Orthodoxy? Personally, I would prefer to think better of Orthodoxy than that, and, in fact, do.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Nothing that the Orthodox write in response to Roman proselytism is “the heart and soul of Orthodoxy”. It is instead a strong response in the face of strong pressure put upon the Eastern church to apostasize from her faith by accepting that of Rome.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
You approve of it too, then? My goodness! Getting a lot of Orthodox votes in here for an awfully mean-spirited tract against Catholicism. Should I give it more significance as perhaps being part and parcel of Orthodoxy then?
My high regard for Orthodoxy mightily resists my thinking so, but you all may persuade me yet.
H
Hasire
Guest
I only posted that document to show that the Orthodox see themselves as the Catholic Church and to show that the Romans don’t have a monopoly on that name…
Well, I’ve only caused trouble with it, forgive me.
Well, I’ve only caused trouble with it, forgive me.
M
Mickey
Guest
For continually proclaiming that you do not want to get into the fray…you have…well…gotten into the fray.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I have not read the document in question as it does not concern my communion, and furthermore I don’t particularly care what the Roman Pope had to say to the Eastern Orthodox (or vice-versa; I can guess, knowing the general stances of both, so I don’t feel I have to read it). I am instead stating a general principle that it is not wrong that any church or communion should stand up for the integrity of its faith and the continuance of its communion and the preservation of it from schism. Far from being “the soul of X” (EO, RC, OO, ACOE, whatever), it is entirely understandable (even in cases where I might not agree with the substance of the faith being defended) that the communions should react this way to attempts to poach their faithful. After all, it has always been the case in the Church that it is the heretics who call forth a reaction (always quite strong!) from the faithful, rather than the faithful striking out of malice toward those who hold different opinions. It is on those grounds that I am dismissing the idea that the document should either be called “vicious” or misconstrued as “the heart of Orthodoxy”. Had the Roman Pope or his missionaries never set upon converting the Eastern churches, their faith and praxis by which they live in worship of God would still remain at the heart of their existence; that Rome should try to upset that by introducing its own way via missionary work and thereby provoke what you see as a harsh reaction is more of a cause and effect relationship than something elemental about or unique to Orthodoxy. The Roman Popes too used to tell their faithful (e.g., Unam Sanctam) that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that all should be subject to the Roman Pontiff, without regard to whether or not those who were not so in submission would find it a particularly nice thing to say or not, so please spare me this diversion into personal feelings. In the face of the encroachment of heresy, there really can’t be too strong a refutation. As the monks of the desert tore up Leo’s Tome before the imperial messengers (so the story goes), the Eastern Chalcedonians anathematized those who would not accept it (e.g., me and my compatriots), and the Romans anathematized us both for a list of real and imagined “heresies” in the Roman mind (e.g., not accepting the filioque, not bowing to the Pope as supreme universal authority, etc). Does that make you vicious hateful creatures, as well? Of course not! You are doing what you feel needs to be done.
Maybe I’m crazy but I much prefer this (as it is rooted in reality…“mean”, “vicious”, but entirely sensible reality) to the other strain of thought in RC-non RC relations, wherein we are all just so close to you in all things, and only a hair’s breath away from communion (until we point out that this is not actually the case, and then it’s “WHY ARE YOU GUYS SO GOSH DARNED MEAN?” or some iteration of the same).
As HH Pope Shenouda III put it, in response to the lure of Protestantism among some misguided Copts, “Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy”. This is why we say anything at all about churches outside of our own, and I don’t imagine the EO in the linked document to be doing anything different. Elucidation of principles, even in strong terms (or maybe especially in strong terms), is not viciousness. It is necessary when you believe you have the truth, and see threats posed to that truth in the form of overtures from others who would have you give up the truth for their (deficient, wrong, however you want to put it) version of it. I would hope that RCs would understand and affirm this principle, separate from any bad feelings they might feel at having it applied to them by the Orthodox.
Maybe I’m crazy but I much prefer this (as it is rooted in reality…“mean”, “vicious”, but entirely sensible reality) to the other strain of thought in RC-non RC relations, wherein we are all just so close to you in all things, and only a hair’s breath away from communion (until we point out that this is not actually the case, and then it’s “WHY ARE YOU GUYS SO GOSH DARNED MEAN?” or some iteration of the same).
As HH Pope Shenouda III put it, in response to the lure of Protestantism among some misguided Copts, “Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy”. This is why we say anything at all about churches outside of our own, and I don’t imagine the EO in the linked document to be doing anything different. Elucidation of principles, even in strong terms (or maybe especially in strong terms), is not viciousness. It is necessary when you believe you have the truth, and see threats posed to that truth in the form of overtures from others who would have you give up the truth for their (deficient, wrong, however you want to put it) version of it. I would hope that RCs would understand and affirm this principle, separate from any bad feelings they might feel at having it applied to them by the Orthodox.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
No, my friend. I only wished to express my disapproval of posting a divisive and scurrilous tract about Catholicism, and it was my thought that any Orthodox in here justifying it would seem to endorse the attack; something I felt would do nothing but cause ill will.For continually proclaiming that you do not want to get into the fray…you have…well…gotten into the fray.
It is sometimes easy to miss something of that kind. I do my best to avoid arguing religion with Orthodox; first because I know from experience that it goes on forever and gets so far into the weeds of historical analysis that even my own eyes glaze over after awhile; second because there is no end to the number of grenades each has available if they want to use them; third because I actually do think better of Orthodoxy than to do it.
Still, in discussing protestantism, which i sometimes do on CAF, one has to be very careful, and I try to be, because it’s easy, in the course of defending or even explaining one’s own religion to inadvertently say or cite something truly offensive and needlessly so.
In Catholics discussing Orthodoxy or vice versa, that should be kept in mind as well.
T
tomarin
Guest
I second that emotion.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Given that you did not intend to endorse any of the rest of it, no apology is necessary.
By the way, I will readily stipulate that Orthodox do see themselves as the Catholic Church.
Perhaps a bit off topic, but relevant to your post, I have also learned on CAF that various others do so as well, but in a different way. Many Methodists, for example, not only maintain that, but say it in their creed. I have heard Lutherans say it too. They do not, however, mean it in quite the same way as Catholics or Orthodox do, though I have heard Methodists limit the difference to the near vanishing point. I have never heard Anglicans say it, but I imagine they do.
T
tomarin
Guest
I’ve heard Anglicans say it. After all, they recite the Nicene Creed just like we do.
- Status