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

[MartinJordan]

This sort of statement is uncalled for.

I agree. That said, aren’t Kingdom’s a dictatorship?

MJ

 

[Nine_Two]

(5) I’m glad that philitism is condemned, but it doesn’t change that the organization of each Church is by country, and really, by ethnicity. By this, I mean that in the US, there isn’t an “American Orthodox” Church, but Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc., based upon ethnicity, and made up of many people who’ve never even been in the Church’s country of origin. So while philitism is rightly condemned as a sin, it seems to be practiced and encouraged institutionally. Granted, I’m an outsider, so I don’t want to say more than I can, but that’s certainly how it looks from here.

What’s the OCA?

 

[Nine_Two]

This sort of statement is uncalled for.

You’re right, my apologies. It is too tempting sometimes to answer polemics with polemics.

Forgive me.

 

[josephdaniel29]

(5) I’m glad that philitism is condemned, but it doesn’t change that the organization of each Church is by country, and really, by ethnicity. By this, I mean that in the US, there isn’t an “American Orthodox” Church, but Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc., based upon ethnicity, and made up of many people who’ve never even been in the Church’s country of origin. So while philitism is rightly condemned as a sin, it seems to be practiced and encouraged institutionally. Granted, I’m an outsider, so I don’t want to say more than I can, but that’s certainly how it looks from here.

The current situation in the so called “diaspora” is an anomaly arising out of a specific set of historical circumstances. It is going to be addressed at the upcoming Holy Council in 2013.

It is important to point out two things. Emigrants in a strange land wanting to be with their own people is not peculiar to Orthodoxy. The phenomena was prevalent in emigrant Catholic communities as well. Also all of those various Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States are in communion with one another. The issue is having multiple bishops per city, which is against the canons and also not peculiar to Orthodoxy. Philadelphia has a Latin and Ukrainian bishop. Also look at the multiple Patriarchs of Antioch in the Catholic Communion.

 

[jo5]

(5) I’m glad that philitism is condemned, but it doesn’t change that the organization of each Church is by country, and really, by ethnicity. By this, I mean that in the US, there isn’t an “American Orthodox” Church, but Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc., based upon ethnicity, and made up of many people who’ve never even been in the Church’s country of origin. So while philitism is rightly condemned as a sin, it seems to be practiced and encouraged institutionally. Granted, I’m an outsider, so I don’t want to say more than I can, but that’s certainly how it looks from here.

Anyone who is actually in the know on Orthodoxy in America knows that it was the missionary grounds of the Russian Orthodox Church. When Greeks moved here from Europe they asked for their own priests. They got them. And rightly so. Most of them couldn’t speak English, let alone Russian.

But when Greek Churches in America started asking for their own bishops, the Greek Churches denied their request, putting their priests and laity into the hands of the Russian bishops already in America. So, yes, there were “ethnic” parishes in America but this was because of the language barrier. It makes sense for Greek Christians to celebrate the Liturgy and confess in their native tongue. This would have continued to be the norm until an autocephelus (self-governing) church was established in America.

The problems with the jurisdictions in America began when Communism started to attack the Church in Russia. She lost the ability to tend to the sheep overseas. The more difficult this became, the more the other Greek and Antiochian Christians began asking for their own bishops. The Greek and Antiochian’s agreed because the Russian bishops were unable to do so. This is a tragedy.

As people became more comfortable with this admittedly uncanonical arrangement (i.e., more than one bishop in one city) it became harder and harder to reverse. This does not mean that it was suddenly acceptable, but at that time, Orthodox Christians in America lacked the means to solve the problem quickly.

Now we have come to a point where this issue can be worked out. The beginnings of a solution have been in the minds of bishops (Russian, Greek, Antiochian, and OCA) for a while now. This isn’t something that everyone wants, but it won’t go away at the drop of a hat. Like many difficult issues, it will take time to sort out. But believe me, nobody thinks multiple jurisdictions in America is okay.

In fact, this is a special case. It has never (to my knowledge) happened before and the chances of it happening again are slim, especially considering the fact that we’ve gone through (or more accurately, are going through) it right now.

Please, read your history before you comment about this unusual situation.

Jo5

 

[Nicea325]

So you’re saying there is no such thing as a cultural Catholic? We likewise have those who identify with the Church on a cultural level, but who aren’t really Orthodox.

However The comment had nothing to do with who is in union with who, it was a shot at ethnic based Churches, going so far to blame it for causing a war (the post significantly forgot to mention the role of the Catholic faction in that role).

If you want to attack our decentralized organization, that’s fine, I don’t care. If you prefer a divine dictatorship, good for you. But don’t accuse us of having ethnic-first parishes while pretending you don’t have them. That’s garbage.

Excuse me? War? Ethnic based churches? It must be an Orthodox thing,because it is you who mentioned it,not I. So I guess it is an Orthodox issue and not so much a Catholic one. Divine dictatorship? Is that you believe the pope is?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Good points, Johnny. I’m ok with Christus Victor as long as it is in concert with the sacrificial language and Christ paying the price for our sins. He was punished in place of us. That is Biblical and obvious. Conquering death is the end result but the journey was a sacrificial one with a heavy price being paid. As you said, we owe Satan jack q. squat. I think Anselm was on to something!

It is unfortunate. Since Protesantism in its classical form has Catholic roots, it also can appear legalistic. Its funny coming from the Protestant, I saw Catholicism has being less legalistic then Evangelicalism/Protestantism. I saw Catholicism as embracing far more mystery. I guess its a matter of perspective. The thing that bugs me about the East is that it seems too mysterious and not concrete enough. Catholicism seems to have a happy medium. Then again, I am Western born and raised.

As far as developement goes, that is where I give the East the most credit and I am more inclined to agree with their prespective.

While there are things in the Christus Victor model that influenced some Anglicans such as Wesley, the Holiness movement and Pentecostalism, I agree that God owes the devil nothing. Satan is a defeated enemy. He needs to get over himself already. I do not like the ransom aspect of that theory. Its off base. The embracing of Christ as Victor over sin and physical sickness and death is to be commended. To take a holistic view of atonement (or at least try to LOL) I include the idea of Christ as victor over sin and death in the context of Christ as a sacrifice for our sin. Christ paid the penalty for our sin, but also redeems us and heals us in body, soul and spirit.

 

[Nine_Two]

Excuse me? War? Ethnic based churches? It must be an Orthodox thing,because it is you who mentioned it,not I. So I guess it is an Orthodox issue and not so much a Catholic one. Divine dictatorship? Is that you believe the pope is?

I didn’t say you mentioned them, they were stated in the original argument you defended. Did you not read the post that generated the post you were responding to? I imagine it must be hard to get context when you do that, which would explain your odd belief that he was talking about multiple hierarchies.

 

[Hesychios]

Anyone who is actually in the know on Orthodoxy in America knows that it was the missionary grounds of the Russian Orthodox Church. When Greeks moved here from Europe they asked for their own priests. They got them. And rightly so. Most of them couldn’t speak English, let alone Russian.

But when Greek Churches in America started asking for their own bishops, the Greek Churches denied their request, putting their priests and laity into the hands of the Russian bishops already in America. So, yes, there were “ethnic” parishes in America but this was because of the language barrier. It makes sense for Greek Christians to celebrate the Liturgy and confess in their native tongue. This would have continued to be the norm until an autocephelus (self-governing) church was established in America.

The problems with the jurisdictions in America began when Communism started to attack the Church in Russia. She lost the ability to tend to the sheep overseas. The more difficult this became, the more the other Greek and Antiochian Christians began asking for their own bishops. The Greek and Antiochian’s agreed because the Russian bishops were unable to do so. This is a tragedy.
…

Quite so. Especially the situation of the Bolsheeviks causing so much martyrdom in Russia. The other churches sent bishops to care for their own.

And when the communists took over the rest of eastern Europe, more splits, as some resisted the call to schism and adhered to the home churches, and others broke with the home churches over it.

These days many of those breaks have healed (I can think of the Serbs reunited, and ROCOR with the Russian church - both within recent memory) and the process continues. SCOBA has been retired within the last two years and a new umbrella organization with stronger ties is in place. The changes have been exciting to witness.

Please, read your history before you comment about this unusual situation.

Jo5

Indeed.

 

[jblake]

I was blown away at that patriarch clear back in 1990 saying something pro-abortion like that. I’ve never heard ANYTHING about that in this or any other forum! I’m glad you posted it. The Catholic Church continues to be THE most pro-life Church on the face of the planet and the loudest voice trashing abortion as an intrinsic fundamental evil. I love that.

You do realize that what the Patriarch said is roughly in accord with Catholic Canon law on abortion, don’t you. If you didn’t realize that, then you need to learn when the Catholic church does approve of abortion.

Both Orthodox and Catholic Christianity have an extremely nuanced position on abortion that is going to be misunderstood, and misrepresented by people that don’t bother comprehending what it actually states. A position in which a five second sound bite is going to not only going to distort it, but flat out contradict it.

jonathon

 

[tomarin]

You do realize that what the Patriarch said is roughly in accord with Catholic Canon law on abortion, don’t you. If you didn’t realize that, then you need to learn when the Catholic church does approve of abortion.

Whoa, what? What nuances? Either you’re wrong or someone has been pulling the wool over the eyes of about a billion people.

 

[tomarin]

The shocking thing I see, Nine, is a few Catholics actually standing up to Orthodoxy and disagreeing with it instead of trying to get the approval of the Orthodox. For years I’ve watched Catholics have a hands-off approach with Orthodoxy unwilling to debate them or disagree or much of anything. The real record set is how long it took for people to debate and disagree with them.

It’s hard for those of us who find Orthodoxy genuinely fascinating and holy in many ways and desire some recognition on their part yet find it unreciprocated. In addition to getting into a few scraps with the Orthodox posters here (which I’ve generally regretted afterward because the exchanges were more emotional and hurtful than anything else) I’ve also gone to bat for the Orthodox position against Catholics attacking a one-dimensional or distorted version of it.

Added: it would be emotionally satisfying in the short term to go into a bunker mentality and adopt a reflexively combative stance against the Orthodox posters here (not that I’m saying you’re advocating that, far from it) but in the long term it would just be self-defeating and not healthy for the soul, in my opinion.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

My thoughts exactly tomarin; I hope jblake is aware that the Catholic church has placed an “anathema” = excommunication to anyone who engages in a formal cooperation in an abortion. If jblake is correct, then he/she has the Catholic church excommunicating herself?

CCC 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication (latae sententiae), by the very commission of the offense, and subject to the conditions provided by canon law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole society.

Not to dethread the topic here, yet I would respectfully ask for a brief clarification from jblake.

Both Orthodox and Catholic Christianity have an extremely nuanced position on abortion

Whoa, what? What nuances? Either you’re wrong or someone has been pulling the wool over the eyes of about a billion people.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Disagreement with me is more than fine, jblake, but don’t tell me what I need to learn as if I’m a poorly-catechized infant please. Debate the issue without the condescention please

You do realize that what the Patriarch said is roughly in accord with Catholic Canon law on abortion, don’t you. If you didn’t realize that, then you need to learn when the Catholic church does approve of abortion.

Both Orthodox and Catholic Christianity have an extremely nuanced position on abortion that is going to be misunderstood, and misrepresented by people that don’t bother comprehending what it actually states. A position in which a five second sound bite is going to not only going to distort it, but flat out contradict it.

jonathon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My point is that Catholic posters are quite docile with the Orthodox posters in these exchanges. I’m not sure why that is. They seem to want the Orthodox’s approval much of the time and some fancy that the only difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is the pope. The Orthodox usually are very quick to distance themselves from Catholicism as much as is humanly possible and many of them enthusiastically point out the perceived flaws and shortcomings as well as history of conflict with Catholicism. When you ask them the question, ‘what can the Orthodox learn from Catholics,’ the rapid-fire answer is NOTHING. However, Catholics seem pretty enthusiastic to learn from the Orthodox. Watching the exchanges between the Orthodox and Catholics on CAF was one of the first chin-scratching moments for me in which I wasn’t liking what I saw. I saw a complete lack of ecumenical desire and at times things seemed overly-prideful to me. The triumphalist Catholics turned me off who love to tell everyone how invalid they are and argue from an almost fundamentalist angle but the Orthodox seemed to do the same thing in spades. As I have read Orthodox theology, in some areas I’m impressed, others not so much. I’m not convinced by it at all. But what I wish we could see is Catholics debating the Orthodox with the same gusto they do Protestants because the Orthodox are far more aggressive IMO than the Catholics. I’d just like to see some parity if the polemics need to abound. If people can be less triumphalist on both sides, which would be ideal, it’d be nice if the rhetoric is ratcheted down on both ends!

It’s hard for those of us who find Orthodoxy genuinely fascinating and holy in many ways and desire some recognition on their part yet find it unreciprocated. In addition to getting into a few scraps with the Orthodox posters here (which I’ve generally regretted afterward because the exchanges were more emotional and hurtful than anything else) I’ve also gone to bat for the Orthodox position against Catholics attacking a one-dimensional or distorted version of it.

Added: it would be emotionally satisfying in the short term to go into a bunker mentality and adopt a reflexively combative stance against the Orthodox posters here (not that I’m saying you’re advocating that, far from it) but in the long term it would just be self-defeating and not healthy for the soul, in my opinion.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Really?

Yes.

It’s impossible to assess this sort of thing. Does the article represent the Roman Catholic Church’s view of itself? Certainly not. But I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily being unfair, either. I more or less agree with it, but that’s the personal opinion of someone who is not looking to appease either side, so it is also not without problems, either.

One thing I will take issue with, for the sake of trying to address a line of thinking that seems like it could lead to some pretty nasty fighting (and because I know he’s a good guy and wouldn’t be provoking something like that on purpose), is the idea that it’s some sort of shock or anomaly that Catholics would “stand up” to Orthodoxy. Gurney…I dunno what to say, but…really? Does the defense of Roman Catholicism not come through loud and clear in every approach to the EO that asserts the Roman Catholic viewpoint as normative and inherently sensible, in contrast to the Orthodox who are deficient in one way or another (likely many ways)? Such things come up in literally every thread that has Roman Catholics and EO interacting with each other. Maybe you don’t get over to the EC sub-forum very often, but titles like “When did Eastern bishops start allowing for remarriages?” don’t exactly scream “accurate representation” of anything: Ecclesiastical history, Eastern Christianity, how to properly phrase a question about a situation you’re not sure about the basics of, etc.

It’s easy to complain about the others’ misinterpretations of what we believe, do, etc. It’s much harder to admit that we are not any more likely to represent them accurately than they are to represent us accurately. And from the “it’s about damn time” tone of your post, it seems like you’re relishing this misrepresentation when Roman Catholics engage in it, while at the same time finding it very “unfortunate” when Orthodox do the same. Apparently you’d like to see more misrepresentation, or maybe quicker misrepresentation, or more strident misrepresentation…in some way the current level or intensity of misrepresentation is not good enough!

 

[Nicea325]

I didn’t say you mentioned them, they were stated in the original argument you defended. Did you not read the post that generated the post you were responding to? I imagine it must be hard to get context when you do that, which would explain your odd belief that he was talking about multiple hierarchies.

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?

 

[tomarin]

My point is that Catholic posters are quite docile with the Orthodox posters in these exchanges. I’m not sure why that is. They seem to want the Orthodox’s approval much of the time and some fancy that the only difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is the pope. The Orthodox usually are very quick to distance themselves from Catholicism as much as is humanly possible and many of them enthusiastically point out the perceived flaws and shortcomings as well as history of conflict with Catholicism. When you ask them the question, ‘what can the Orthodox learn from Catholics,’ the rapid-fire answer is NOTHING.

I agree. And I genuinely think all Western Christians can learn something from Orthodoxy (hopefully the reverse is true too). And we certainly can’t engage them or show them where we have common ground if we approach them with boxing gloves on. That I’m pretty sure about. The best thing we can do, I guess, is try to avoid hard-nosed apologetics and get a grip on what we believe and why and present that to them as a witness to our faith, in as respectful and charitable a way as possible. I hope that’s not the same thing as being “docile”!

 

[Shiranui117]

My point is that Catholic posters are quite docile with the Orthodox posters in these exchanges. I’m not sure why that is. They seem to want the Orthodox’s approval much of the time and some fancy that the only difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is the pope. The Orthodox usually are very quick to distance themselves from Catholicism as much as is humanly possible and many of them enthusiastically point out the perceived flaws and shortcomings as well as history of conflict with Catholicism. When you ask them the question, ‘what can the Orthodox learn from Catholics,’ the rapid-fire answer is NOTHING. However, Catholics seem pretty enthusiastic to learn from the Orthodox. Watching the exchanges between the Orthodox and Catholics on CAF was one of the first chin-scratching moments for me in which I wasn’t liking what I saw. I saw a complete lack of ecumenical desire and at times things seemed overly-prideful to me. The triumphalist Catholics turned me off who love to tell everyone how invalid they are and argue from an almost fundamentalist angle but the Orthodox seemed to do the same thing in spades. As I have read Orthodox theology, in some areas I’m impressed, others not so much. I’m not convinced by it at all. But what I wish we could see is Catholics debating the Orthodox with the same gusto they do Protestants because the Orthodox are far more aggressive IMO than the Catholics. I’d just like to see some parity if the polemics need to abound. If people can be less triumphalist on both sides, which would be ideal, it’d be nice if the rhetoric is ratcheted down on both ends!

The Catholics point out the similarities between them and the Orthodox. All the Orthodox do is point out that reunion is still a long ways off, and that there are still big differences between the two of us. Neither is being dishonest; we are pointing out two sides of the same coin. We are very similar, but the differences are still there.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

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 agree. And I genuinely think all Western Christians can learn something from Orthodoxy (hopefully the reverse is true too). And we certainly can’t engage them or show them where we have common ground if we approach them with boxing gloves on. That I’m pretty sure about. The best thing we can do, I guess, is try to avoid hard-nosed apologetics and get a grip on what we believe and why and present that to them as a witness to our faith, in as respectful and charitable a way as possible. I hope that’s not the same thing as being “docile”!