Does this article (obviously from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) accurately represent Catholicism?

[Nine_Two]

Really? Then why mention the Ukrainian Church? Again,it was you who mentioned the Ukrainian Church and I responded by telling you it is in communion w/Rome. Perhaps the fact it is in communion w/Rome it annoys you or its a source of tension?

I didn’t mention the Ukrainian Church, I believe that was Joseph, in response to your own argument that Belloc’s argument was about ethnic hierarchies.

I know, all of us Orthodox look alike. We can’t help it.

 

[jam070406]

Being “docile” is when you sit there and get slammed by a person with an opposing view and you just nod your head. That happens a lot with Catholics who are afraid to debate the Orthodox. I’m not sure why that is. What it says to the Orthodox is this: if you can’t retort and rebut, you must be agreeing with us or know you’re wrong. It’s pretty simple.
I don’t want boxing gloves either, just for Catholics to apply the same fairness to the Orthodox that they do toward, say, Anglicans. Catholics don’t bat an eye when telling Anglicans “your communion lacks priestly orders! They’re null and void, nada!” and therefore your sacraments are empty bread! But despite the schism, differences between us, and Pope Benedict himself calling the Orthodox “defective,” Catholics rarely are willing to step up and agree with the pope with the vigor they have for shooting down Anglican or Lutheran thinking, etc. My criticisms aren’t so much toward the Orthodox, though I don’t agree with them on many things, as much as they are toward Catholics unwilling to engage them.

Would I like to see more reciprocity and good cheer and openness between the two? Of course! If anything Catholics are too complimentary and charitable, the Orthodox don’t reciprocate because they see nothing worth looking at or grabbing onto in Catholicism. They see themselves as complete and perfect so why acknowledge Catholicism?

It’s like a woman walking up to another woman and saying, “hey, I love your outfit!” to which the other woman replies, “thank you.” The first woman would possibly like to hear woman B say “thanks! I like yours, too!” Isn’t going to happen. That’s what we have here LOL

I wonder how much Catholics would care if Rome had stuck to Tradition better? Perhaps it has some to do with the Liturgy, which has been become watered down and bland in the Roman Church. Would there be as much intrique in the EO?

 

[Nine_Two]

It may well be the case that Catholics are generally more docile, the issue is that not all are. The polemics of Belloc and Nicea in this thread showing this, and it only takes a few hostile Catholics to outnumber Orthodox. So while 99% of Catholics reading a thread aren’t doing anything, we do feel under attack, and even non-combatant Catholics adding in comments that don’t attack, but lend moral support, or that can be interpreted that way, which many of the Catholic posters do, doesn’t help the feeling.

I don’t think this attitude applies only to Orthodox posters. I’ve seen it with Protestants to (not the Protestants who say Catholics aren’t Christians, they deserve everything they get), where most Catholic posters are “docile” as you put it, with a few launching attacks.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I can’t speak for anyone but myself but I see the whole situation a bit different.

I grew up in the Polish church with my mother being polish and from Poland. My father was French and jesuit educated at Holy Cross with his side of the family from Boston. But he liked the Polish church here so he readily adopted it upon marrige. My mother won’t attend another Catholic Church period.

My wife is Italian full blooded and just prefers her church. But she has a full plate so its more of a lets just get it over with attitude.

So to me its trying all the way around at times.

I like the Eastern Catholic Byzintine Church also.

I’m Catholic confused

 

[Hesychios]

I wonder how much Catholics would care if Rome had stuck to Tradition better? Perhaps it has some to do with the Liturgy, which has been become watered down and bland in the Roman Church. Would there be as much intrique in the EO?

I don’t know if there is a connection, but you make an interesting observation.

I was a somewhat satisfied Roman Catholic yearning for more spirituality and going in two directions at once. I became associated with a local Benedictine Abbey as an Oblate and I discovered the eastern churches.

At first, the difference in the Mass at the abbey was inspiring, and the extra involvement fed my spirituality. I think it was a real growth period for me, and I still recommend to anyone who feels a ‘dryness’ to connect with a monastic house, or at the very least start praying the hours at home.

After I started to worship with the Byzantine Catholics though, I was surprised at the difference in the liturgy. It seemed glorious.

Since I would alternate often between my local RC parish, the abbey and the BC parish I found the comparison very striking, and looking back upon it I began to think that part of the problem was the RC liturgy. I stopped attending the local parish and gradually withdrew from my invoilvement with the house. I spent more and more time at the little BC parish, and started to use Byzantine prayer books in place of the Christian Prayer set I had at home.

I heard the same comments from many friends at the BC parish, the RC liturgy often left them feeling empty, most especially after they had become used to the BC liturgy and then went back to the local parish.

 

[jam070406]

I don’t know if there is a connection, but you make an interesting observation.

I was a somewhat satisfied Roman Catholic yearning for more spirituality and going in two directions at once. I became associated with a local Benedictine Abbey as an Oblate and I discovered the eastern churches.

At first, the difference in the Mass at the abbey was inspiring, and the extra involvement fed my spirituality. I think it was a real growth period for me, and I still recommend to anyone who feels a ‘dryness’ to connect with a monastic house, or at the very least start praying the hours at home.

After I started to worship with the Byzantine Catholics though, I was surprised at the difference in the liturgy. It seemed glorious.

Since I would alternate often between my local RC parish, the abbey and the BC parish I found the comparison very striking, and looking back upon it I began to think that part of the problem was the RC liturgy. I stopped attending the local parish and gradually withdrew from my invoilvement with the house. I spent more and more time at the little BC parish, and started to use Byzantine prayer books in place of the Christian Prayer set I had at home.

I heard the same comments from many friends at the BC parish, the RC liturgy often left them feeling empty, most especially after they had become used to the BC liturgy and then went back to the local parish.

Thanks so much for this. I can relate.
I very much love the TLM also but it seems Catholics that have a love for the TLM are treated like freaks. So 98% of the Liturgies are bland. And the majority of Catholics I know just “don’t get” the TLM.

 

[dzheremi]

Things like the arguments in this thread (to say nothing of the article) are exactly why I wrote earlier that it’s impossible for either side to accurately represent the other. In my view, as someone who is not looking to earn the favor of either the EO or the Catholics (I’m looking into the OO, which the EO generally don’t view as orthodox and the RC are generally not aware of), the real difference between Catholics and Orthodox isn’t between docility and brashness or however you’d put it, but between the Catholics, who want the Orthodox to somehow embrace the Catholic way of thinking about the split and the possibility of reunion and are offended when that doesn’t happen (because it seems like they’re being “unfair”, what with all the talk from Rome about how Catholics and Orthodox are so similar), and the Orthodox who want nothing of the sort because they don’t view those issues or even general spirituality in the same way, so they see no benefit to adopting Catholic anything if it conflicts with their already-held beliefs. Think about it: If someone was asking Catholics to adopt, say…the Calvinist view of salvation, but could not show why they should do so other than that it would help reconcile the Catholics and the Protestants, what do any of you think would be an appropriate response?

 

[GaryTaylor]

After I started to worship with the Byzantine Catholics though, I was surprised at the difference in the liturgy. It seemed glorious. .

I hear you, they have a seriously long history with the Theotokos also. It shocked me. Long history in Art with Her also.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Things like the arguments in this thread (to say nothing of the article) are exactly why I wrote earlier that it’s impossible for either side to accurately represent the other. In my view, as someone who is not looking to earn the favor of either the EO or the Catholics (I’m looking into the OO, which the EO generally don’t view as orthodox and the RC are generally not aware of), the real difference between Catholics and Orthodox isn’t between docility and brashness or however you’d put it, but between the Catholics, who want the Orthodox to somehow embrace the Catholic way of thinking about the split and the possibility of reunion and are offended when that doesn’t happen (because it seems like they’re being “unfair”, what with all the talk from Rome about how Catholics and Orthodox are so similar), and the Orthodox who want nothing of the sort because they don’t view those issues or even general spirituality in the same way, so they see no benefit to adopting Catholic anything if it conflicts with their already-held beliefs. Think about it: If someone was asking Catholics to adopt, say…the Calvinist view of salvation, but could not show why they should do so other than that it would help reconcile the Catholics and the Protestants, what do any of you think would be an appropriate response?

Your right.

 

[jam070406]

Things like the arguments in this thread (to say nothing of the article) are exactly why I wrote earlier that it’s impossible for either side to accurately represent the other. In my view, as someone who is not looking to earn the favor of either the EO or the Catholics (I’m looking into the OO, which the EO generally don’t view as orthodox and the RC are generally not aware of), the real difference between Catholics and Orthodox isn’t between docility and brashness or however you’d put it, but between the Catholics, who want the Orthodox to somehow embrace the Catholic way of thinking about the split and the possibility of reunion and are offended when that doesn’t happen (because it seems like they’re being “unfair”, what with all the talk from Rome about how Catholics and Orthodox are so similar), and the Orthodox who want nothing of the sort because they don’t view those issues or even general spirituality in the same way, so they see no benefit to adopting Catholic anything if it conflicts with their already-held beliefs. Think about it: If someone was asking Catholics to adopt, say…the Calvinist view of salvation, but could not show why they should do so other than that it would help reconcile the Catholics and the Protestants, what do any of you think would be an appropriate response?

Your opinions are ALWAYS bias towards the Orthodox. I think Catholics feel unity with EOs would be great. But why should Catholics bend to demands launched them? Isn’t the essence of false ecumenism you despise? Do you think Catholics take such little pride in their Church. Frankly, I don’t think Catholics envy Orthodox as much as some would have us believe.

 

[Nicea325]

I didn’t mention the Ukrainian Church, I believe that was Joseph, in response to your own argument that Belloc’s argument was about ethnic hierarchies.

I know, all of us Orthodox look alike. We can’t help it.

Well then my apologies,if I am at fault. And no,I have nothing against my Orthodox brothers and sisters. They also follow a beautiful tradition and liturgies. :grouphug:

 

[dzheremi]

Your opinions are ALWAYS bias towards the Orthodox.

With regard to the context in which I qualified my statement (Gurney’s assertion that Catholics are docile towards the Orthodox because they seek their favor), I don’t think this is true. And were we talking about some specific issue rather than the overall view of the different churches, I know that wouldn’t be the case, so no. My opinions are NOT always biased towards the Orthodox, I simply see the differences as differences and not merely different expressions of the same thing (which is what i heard most often from the RC when I was in it; mostly didn’t believe it then, and don’t believe it now).

I think Catholics feel unity with EOs would be great. But why should Catholics bend to demands launched them?

Who said they should? I sure didn’t. I was making an analogy to a similar (hypothetical) situation so that Catholics could understand a bit better WHY some people (Orthodox people) do not see these issues in the same way as those in the Roman communion do.

Isn’t the essence of false ecumenism you despise?

I suppose it would be if that’s what we were talking about, but it isn’t anything that I brought up.

Do you think Catholics take such little pride in their Church.

No. I’m sure you’d find a wide variety of opinions expressed about the Catholic Church by Catholics (same as by Orthodox, Protestants, or anybody), depending on the context. I don’t really see what this has to do with what I wrote.

Frankly, I don’t think Catholics envy Orthodox as much as some would have us believe.

Okay…

 

[manualman]

RC and EO folk generally get along about as well as Shia and Sunni muslims or Protestant and Catholic Irish and for the same reason: fallen humanness.

I’m not going to react to the linked article point by point simply because I’m human too and my irritation will show through. So I’ll simply make a few observations.

1. Don’t simply take his word for it on catholicism. Find out from catholics what catholicism believes, preferably authoritative sources. Bias happens and his, while mild, still paints a bit of caricature. I’m not educated enough to say if his description of EO worldview is correct or not, but the catholic stuff is tainted at best.
2. I’m struck in several of the early points that the author seems to be saying that in EO, God is inscrutable in the same way that Islam’s Allah is inscrutable. I’ll be so bold as to say that this is perhaps THE fatal aspect of Islamic worldview that caused that culture to fall from the massive cultural lead they had after conquering the East to the stagnant backwater of a culture that they are today. God is NOT inscrutable! We are made in his image and likeness and as a result, we CAN learn about him in observing creation. Similarly, that likeness is the basis upon which catholics understand that there IS no conflict between faith and reason. When there appears to be one, there is merely poor understanding on the one side or the other. I’d assert that this worldview is how the Western (i.e. catholic based) world advanced from the status of barbarian backwater in spite of plague, military threats and internal divisions to become the most advanced civilization in the history of earth. It’s not a coincidence, it is a consequence of worldview. The article author might just want to pause his superior attitude long enough to wonder if his culture might not have gotten their ‘inscrutable’ vision of God from the Early Fathers or perhaps there might not have been a later, outside, sinister source that tacked that on…
3. There is no doubt in my mind that the author DOES make some good criticism points in regards to catholic tendencies towards legalism. But IMO he fails to recognize that weaknesses are often the flip side of strengths and as a result wonder what BENEFITS may have accrued from catholicism’s consistent use of law as a means of tempering mercurial human tendencies towards imprudent actions.

I tend to doubt that the author represents the prevailing opinion among EO patriarchs. He discredits himself early on by insinuating that catholicism today is further than ever from good relations with Holy Orthodoxy. Can anybody here seriously imagine a pope and Patriarch of Constantinople greeting each other as “Peter” and “Andrew” more recently than a few decades ago? Methinks not.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My assertion is related to the forum, not most Catholics. Most Catholics on the street haven’t a clue who the Orthodox even are. Most wouldn’t know. I would probably guess that the average American Orthodox Christian knows more about Catholicism than most Catholics know about Orthodox. So I don’t think most Catholics try to see Orthodox approval. We can’t seek the approval of people we don’t even know. But inside this forum, I think there is a docile reluctance to engage, yes. This is all a priori of course. It’s my observation, that’s all. Gabriel of 12 is a poster whom I think has no qualms about debating the Orthodox to the hilt but aside from him I think it’s all quiet on the Western front and the East is pretty much the opposite.

With regard to the context in which I qualified my statement (Gurney’s assertion that Catholics are docile towards the Orthodox because they seek their favor), I don’t think this is true. And were we talking about some specific issue rather than the overall view of the different churches, I know that wouldn’t be the case, so no. My opinions are NOT always biased towards the Orthodox, I simply see the differences as differences and not merely different expressions of the same thing (which is what i heard most often from the RC when I was in it; mostly didn’t believe it then, and don’t believe it now).

Who said they should? I sure didn’t. I was making an analogy to a similar (hypothetical) situation so that Catholics could understand a bit better WHY some people (Orthodox people) do not see these issues in the same way as those in the Roman communion do.

I suppose it would be if that’s what we were talking about, but it isn’t anything that I brought up.

No. I’m sure you’d find a wide variety of opinions expressed about the Catholic Church by Catholics (same as by Orthodox, Protestants, or anybody), depending on the context. I don’t really see what this has to do with what I wrote.

Okay…

 

[dzheremi]

That’s fine, Gurney. I only made the statement to begin with to show that I am not motivated by a desire to win the favor of the EO, but nonetheless agree with them more than the Catholics on this occasion (or, rather, I agree with that position more than the most common position I have heard from Catholics). Again, if we were discussing a different issue (say, the supposed “heresy” of using unleavened bread) then my sympathies could be just the opposite. It really depends on what we’re talking about, so I felt Jam’s characterization to be a bit hasty.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

It seems, then, that you’re unfamiliar with the actual text of the Canons. Here is Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople:
“The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.”

Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html

I stand correct! That said, it still clearly lists him as second to the pope. So “New Rome,” in the context of Constantinople does not mean that he replaces or supplants the papacy. My underlying point (while poorly made) still stands. The Orthodox can’t claim the papacy as their own, but only a number two spot. Given that the model of Church Christ established had a clear head (Peter), this means that the Orthodox are an unwitting witness to the authenticity of Catholicism.

Christ is in charge. The Orthodox have done just fine without Rome for nearly a thousand years. Patr. Bartholomew is one leader among many in the Orthodox Church; the Orthodox posters can put this better than I can, and correct me in where I err, but the Ecumenical Patriarch works with and among his brother bishops. He is not over them, nor does he pretend to exercise control over them. And what about when Popes, such as Pope Honorius, have been condemned as heretics by ecumenical councils?

Honorius wasn’t condemned for anything he said or did, but for his cowardice. The Holy Spirit doesn’t promise that the Catholic Church won’t have wimpy popes who pay the eternal consequences for it. He promises that She won’t be lead into error.

Then what about the Fifth Council of Constantinople (1341-1351) ruling on the Hesychast controversy? What about the pan-Orthodox Council around the 1920’s? What about the coming of the 2013 Pan-Orthodox council? Why do the Orthodox need papal infallibility, if the Pope is supposedly simply exercising the infallibility of the Church, as I’ve so often heard it explained to me?

None of those councils are recognized throughout Orthodoxy. A great number of Orthodox recognize the first seven only as infallible, and there’s no Church Body *capable *of even saying how many infallible Councils there are. The fact that the 2013 Pan-Orthodox Council is being hyped as the “Eighth Ecumenical Council” (orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/towards.aspx) shows that there’s nothing past the seven. Besides that, Pan-Orthodox Councils, despite their names, are not Ecumenical, which is why the “Eighth” is in quotations in that link.

To your related question, papal infallibility and Conciliar infallibility are the two forms that the Holy Spirit works in an infallible manner (see Matthew 16:17-19 and Matthew 18:17-18 for a clear example of the parallelism with the bind/loosening). Orthodoxy has neither, and to my knowledge, claims neither.

It was fine, until the heresy of double procession started creeping in. The Filioque can be deemed orthodox when understood correctly, but understand it incorrectly, and it’s indeed heretical.

Then don’t misunderstand the doctrine.

Yes, the fact that there’s no one Orthodox Church here in the States is an issue that the Orthodox, I assure you, are working on day and night. Many predict that this is going to be one of the issues discussed at the coming pan-Orthodox council in 2013.

I pray that this is resolved, of course. Despite focusing here on the disagreements we have, my heart goes out to the Orthodox in a special way.

 

[Hesychios]

…I’m not going to react to the linked article point by point simply because I’m human too and my irritation will show through. …

I was warned by other Orthodox years ago, that father Azkoul had a hard polemical edge to his writing style. I never recommend him, it’s sort of like recommending Dave Armstrong to read, or perhaps Adrian Fortescue.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

What’s the OCA?

An off-shoot of the Russian Orthodox Church.

I’m pretty sure you realize that the Ecumenical Patriarch denied the ROC’s ability to do this, declaring it a violation of Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon. So add it as yet one more Orthodox denomination in the US.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Then Metropolitan Bartholomew of Chalcedon makes one somewhat cryptic statement about abortion prior to his election as Ecumenical Patriarch and that is somehow proof that the Orthodox Church condones abortion? The bishop of Chalcedon, a diocese with just a handful of Orthodox, does not speak for the Orthodox Church. I would have thought that would go without saying.

The Orthodox Church condemns abortion and always has. One “gotcha” moment from one individual bishop of a largely vacant see doesn’t change that.

As to the statement that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the “head” of the Orthodox Church, it belies an ignorance of Orthodox ecclesiology. It is a very common mistake made by Western Christians.

The EP is not some kind of Orthodox pope. He has jurisdiction over approximately 4,000 Greeks in Istanbul. Outside of his own diocese he has no jurisdiction. He doesn’t even have jurisdiction over the other dioceses of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Church of Constantinople is governed by the Holy Synod with the EP sitting as primate. Major decisions are made in a conciliar manner and if asked to mediate in a dispute between other Churches those disputes are heard and decided by the Holy Synod.

Thank God they do. God knows that the CC counts on the EO for support on these issues.

 

[manualman]

I was warned by other Orthodox years ago, that father Azkoul had a hard polemical edge to his writing style. I never recommend him, it’s sort of like recommending Dave Armstrong to read, or perhaps Adrian Fortescue.

Or learning about Martin Luther only from 1900’s era polemics like O’Hare’s “Facts About Luther.” Yes, we have our fair share of hotheads too! At times, I’m one of them…