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

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh I don’t know…because all the bishops comprise the Church and that’s what the council was…a group of bishops prayerfully discerning God’s word.

Where in the world did you get that idea?

There is nothing to overturn. Either a council reflects the faith of the Church or it doesn’t.

If the council makes a decree that is heretical, it needs to be addressed, right?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Amen, Joe! (Joe370 that is! )

Joe, if any Eastern Orthodox Bishop can teach infallibly regarding faith or morals, then why is it such a stretch to believe that the Bishop of Rome can teach infallibly, regarding faith or morals?

 

[Madaglan]

I find it hard to believe that Christ would go out of His way to make Peter the Rock of the Church, pray that Peter’s faith not fail but be strengthened, promise us the gates of hell would not prevail, make Peter the leader of the apostles, have Peter establish this magnificent See of Rome that is the leader of Christendom for centuries and the final word on much, and then allow his great Roman Church to collapse into oblivion with bizarre, unorthodox, heterodoxy and downright sinful teachings while the others remain true. I don’t see it historically and just from a common sense feel for Christ and his assurances and prayers and admonitions in Scripture, I don’t buy it. The gates of hell won’t prevail because of Orthodoxy and the great Western Church falls into oblivion? I just don’t buy it. Newman makes more sense…

The fall of the See of Rome is shocking and a great tragedy. Yet, place not your trust in princes, in sons of men, in whom there is no salvation. If the Pope of Rome errs, one must yet continue in the faith given by Christ to the Apostles.

Personally, when I was RC, I found it just as mind-boggling that the great Roman Church, renowned for infallibility and spiritual wisdom, should put the wrecking ball to its own sacred liturgical traditions.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The fall of the Roman Pontiff and the See of Rome would be sad…if it actually happened! I consider that “Greek Mythology”

I don’t trust in princes, I trust in the Holy Father. He is no political hack like Henry VIII and company. The proverbial wrecking ball of which you speak must be Vatican II and the liturgical dance type junk I presume? I think you might notice that the Church is taking steps to restore some of the poor verbage, gestures, and abuses of the Mass over the last 40 years. The liturgical language is changing for the better soon and we’re already hearing that priests will be expected to chant the Mass again, gestures will change a bit, and many abuses are being corrected. The Church is more than liturgy, it is also moral teachings, theology, etc.

The fall of the See of Rome is shocking and a great tragedy. Yet, place not your trust in princes, in sons of men, in whom there is no salvation. If the Pope of Rome errs, one must yet continue in the faith given by Christ to the Apostles.

Personally, when I was RC, I found it just as mind-boggling that the great Roman Church, renowned for infallibility and spiritual wisdom, should put the wrecking ball to its own sacred liturgical traditions.

 

[dzheremi]

The fall of the Roman Pontiff and the See of Rome would be sad…if it actually happened! I consider that “Greek Mythology”

Which explains so well why the Georgians, Romanians, Indians, Syriacs, Russians, Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians, Eritreans, and others also agree with it…because they’re all towing the Greek line, right? Even the ones that aren’t in communion with the Greeks and have their own different theological and liturgical traditions?

I think you might notice that the Church is taking steps to restore some of the poor verbage, gestures, and abuses of the Mass over the last 40 years.

This is really, really excellent, but I can’t help but think of what an Orthodox poster once wrote here in reply to questions about infallibility as it relates to the development of doctrine also relates to the development of the liturgy: “If no one changes things, then no one has to be infallible.” Maybe you don’t see the connection if you don’t think of liturgy as inseparable from the “faith and morals” (particularly the faith part) that the Roman Pope is supposed to speak infallibly about by virtue of his office, but…I don’t know. The very idea that the Novus Ordo was not rejected before it ever got off the ground speaks to the wide chasm between the way that Rome does things and that the way that other ancient churches do things. Sure, they may be taking steps to correct their absolutely fallible decision of ~40 years ago, but in a system with no accountability at the top, there’s nothing to stop further changes to the liturgy should there be some sort of proposal put forth to do so when the right man is on the chair. This is essentially the reality for any other development in the Roman Catholic church, too: This absolutely flipping insane “Co-Redemptix” business, acceptance of any number of private revelations (e.g., Medjurgorje or however you spell it), and all manner of insanity because…well, from what I can see, just because. Because it can be argued for. Because enough people want it. Because…whatever the reason will be when it comes. Be ready.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Which explains so well why the Georgians, Romanians, Indians, Syriacs, Russians, Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians, Eritreans, and others also agree with it…because they’re all towing the Greek line, right?

To be fair, dzheremi, there are *also *Georgians, Romanians, Indians, Syriacs, Russians, Copts, Armenians, and Ethiopians of eastern Christian traditions who are in union with the See of Rome. As you most likely know, two or three of these eastern Catholic churches (Maronite, Italo-Albanian…) were never out of communion with the Catholic Church.

Even the ones that aren’t in communion with the Greeks and have their own different theological and liturgical traditions?

Okay, first of all, the various eastern Catholic churches who use the Byzantine Rite are as Greek as any eastern Orthodox church. Nothing makes the Greek Orthodox Church more “Greek” than the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church.

Secondly, what did you mean by this question? I know I misunderstood you before (again, my apologies), and I probably am this time as well. I mean, the eastern Catholics obviously don’t accept that the See of Rome is in schism from Christ’s church on earth, or they wouldn’t want to be in communion with the See of Rome.

This is really, really excellent, but I can’t help but think of what an Orthodox poster once wrote here in reply to questions about infallibility as it relates to the development of doctrine also relates to the development of the liturgy: “If no one changes things, then no one has to be infallible.”

I often find Orthodox theology, traditions, and history quite compelling.

But it’s when they say things like that - “If no one changes things, then no one has to be infallible” - that I find them least compelling. What I said to another poster earlier holds true here as well: the Orthodox Church seems to present itself today the way the Latin Church presented itself before Vatican II: with an historically irresponsible narrative that refuses to acknowledge that some things can and do change. To pretend otherwise simply defies credibility.

The very idea that the Novus Ordo was not rejected before it ever got off the ground speaks to the wide chasm between the way that Rome does things and that the way that other ancient churches do things.

And what is so wrong with the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, dzheremi? It has its roots in ancient Roman Jewish synagogue services, and in many ways it’s actually more “traditional” than the Extraordinary Form.

Besides, in some ways it clearly is an improvement over the Extraordinary Form: more extensive use of Sacred Scripture and more direct participation of the laity, for instance.

I’ve attended plenty of beautiful and reverent Ordinary Form Masses. My personal favorite was the one I attended when I had the good fortune to travel to Rome and go to Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica. It was sung, was in Latin, and had absolutely sublime Gregorian chant.

Of course, in my home city I can also find beautiful and reverent Ordinary Form Masses in the vernacular as well. It’s not hard, and they’re not uncommon. Maybe they were in the 1970s, but I wasn’t alive yet then, and they’re certainly not uncommon now.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Sure, they may be taking steps to correct their absolutely fallible decision of ~40 years ago, but in a system with no accountability at the top, there’s nothing to stop further changes to the liturgy should there be some sort of proposal put forth to do so when the right man is on the chair.

So you find convincing what posters on this thread are presenting as the Orthodox solution - refuse to engage with modernity on any level? Try to change as little as possible no matter what?

I just don’t find that honest, realistic, or theologically or spiritually appropriate. As St. Paul tells us,

“Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law–though I myself am not under the law–to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law–though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ–to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it.” - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

That is why I find this ahistorical, atemporal attitude theologically unpalatable.

This is essentially the reality for any other development in the Roman Catholic church, too: This absolutely flipping insane “Co-Redemptix” business

I agree with you on that, but that’s not official anyway, and even if it were made official, it’s just a title, not a dogma like the Assumption of Mary.

I don’t think the pope will make it official, though; it’s too misleading.

acceptance of any number of private revelations (e.g., Medjurgorje or however you spell it)

Medjugorje is not accepted by the Catholic Church, and I don’t think it ever will be. I personally don’t believe in it.

Besides, even those private revelations that are accepted by the Church are in no way binding on the faithful. The Catholic Church does not ask or require anyone to believe in them.

and all manner of insanity because…well, from what I can see, just because. Because it can be argued for. Because enough people want it. Because…whatever the reason will be when it comes. Be ready.

As I said earlier in the thread, I deeply admire the nuance and taste for paradox and mysticism that it seems to me eastern Christianity consistently offers. But sometimes Orthodox lose that very nuance when they start looking at the Catholic Church. It makes no sense to me. To experience incredulity at how the Catholic Church can “add” dogmas like the Assumption or “change” the Liturgy betrays an attitude just as simplistic and rationalistic as that earlier Roman Catholic poster’s one-sided statement that “You’re either in communion with Peter, or you’re not. It’s as simple as that.”

It’s rarely as simple as that. Orthodox seem to know that quite well… until they look at Catholic ecclesiology.

 

[Madaglan]

He is no political hack like Henry VIII and company.

Ah yes, the “Defender of the Faith”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’d take issue with your “flipping insane” remark about Mary’s role. She plays a part in our redemption in so far as she made the incarnation possible and in that she interceeds in prayer for us while leading us into a deeper relationship with Her Son. I don’t think the Orthodox would disagree with any of those statements. Co-redemptrix is only misunderstood by people who don’t understand the theology behind it and who carelessly and irresponsibly think that the Church is saying Mary is “equal” to Christ in our redemption journey. I’d avoid comments like that. Catholics will and should find that offensive. Nobody is referring to your Orthodox beliefs (if indeed you are Orthodox yet or have committed to it???) as “flipping insane” Jeremy. That’s crossing a delicate line IMO.

You use the word “insanity” in conjunction with Catholic thinking and piety a few times and it is absurd and offensive. As you know, I find the theology of Orthodoxy, more specifically, the soteriology of it, quite wrong. But you don’t hear me say Orthodox are “nuts” or “insane?”

Also, what specifically do you find “absolutely fallible” about the second Vatican council?

Which explains so well why the Georgians, Romanians, Indians, Syriacs, Russians, Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians, Eritreans, and others also agree with it…because they’re all towing the Greek line, right? Even the ones that aren’t in communion with the Greeks and have their own different theological and liturgical traditions?

This is really, really excellent, but I can’t help but think of what an Orthodox poster once wrote here in reply to questions about infallibility as it relates to the development of doctrine also relates to the development of the liturgy: “If no one changes things, then no one has to be infallible.” Maybe you don’t see the connection if you don’t think of liturgy as inseparable from the “faith and morals” (particularly the faith part) that the Roman Pope is supposed to speak infallibly about by virtue of his office, but…I don’t know. The very idea that the Novus Ordo was not rejected before it ever got off the ground speaks to the wide chasm between the way that Rome does things and that the way that other ancient churches do things. Sure, they may be taking steps to correct their absolutely fallible decision of ~40 years ago, but in a system with no accountability at the top, there’s nothing to stop further changes to the liturgy should there be some sort of proposal put forth to do so when the right man is on the chair. This is essentially the reality for any other development in the Roman Catholic church, too: This absolutely flipping insane “Co-Redemptix” business, acceptance of any number of private revelations (e.g., Medjurgorje or however you spell it), and all manner of insanity because…well, from what I can see, just because. Because it can be argued for. Because enough people want it. Because…whatever the reason will be when it comes. Be ready.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I had hoped to give some pre-schism events of the Early church Fathers appealed to the authority of the Pope and viewed the Chair of Peter in high esteem.

Your response remains typical as do most Orthodox argue, that is, to place a Post schism sentiment and pride to a unified Catholic Church holding to Peter’s successor in the Popes in high esteem and exercsing the keys in excommunications to Eastern bishops prior to the schism.

Your post-schism Orthodox sentiment of pride and rejection, towards the Pope’s authority does not exist, prior to the Eastern Emperors appointing its Puppet Patriarch’s in Constantinople, which usurped the other patriarch Church’s to himself.

What I had hoped to accomplish here was not bomb bard this thread with sources and facts, so that a Post schism sentiment is forced into a Pre-schism view of the Church in its infant stage, while being persecuted, and how the Pope wrote letters and threatened excommunication holding the Church united during turbulant waters.

Shiranui117;7703546]
Source? I’m not too familiar with this.

This proves my point a pre-schism event reveals a Pope applying an excommunication to a Patriarch of Constantinople with a demand to respond in 10 days! You error by applying your Post schism sentiment against “infallibility” when this was not the case.

The bishop Cyril obeyed the Pope, by carrying the Popes letter to council the matter.
By the Pope giving Cyril much authority to speak in council possessing the Popes letter, which resulted in the excommunication of the bishop Nestorius.

No one else could of excommunicated the heretical Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, without the Letter of support to do so from the Pope. This infant Church was united, a post-schismatic sentiment towards the pope did not exist yet, only after the Pagan Emperor’s and his Patriarchs from Constantinople would gain power.

This same secular power of pride sentiment against the Popes authority gets revealed in the post-schism.

And? Cyril did the work. I don’t recall the Pope speaking infallibly; he saw an issue and called it out. Anyone else could have done the same.

Question? why does the Orthodox Church hold the Pagan Emperor Constantine as a Saint after he was baptized by a known Arian Heretic on his death bed? What was a known heretic doing so close to your Eastern Emperor?

Of course the East boasted and flaunted at the Popes keys and authority, because their Patriarch of Constantinople had the ear and influence from their Pagan Emperor in his pocket. Not to mention very rich and powerful, not by divine providence but by secular powers.

Something Orthodox should revisit this history, on how the pagan Emperors ruled over the Patriarch of Constantinople, and how their Emperor always sought the approval of the Popes in Church matters.

While holding a robber synod or two. Even today, Photius is held as a Saint in both the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic worlds. Photius wanted no conflict; Pope Nicholas simply tried to assert an authority he did not have, and an authority that was openly flaunted by the East. Photius reconciled with Ignatius, and Ignatius named Photius as his successor. I can see you’re only looking at what the Pope did and not what the outcomes were, or the entire story.

The post schism canons do not apply to the united East and West Catholic Church from her infant stage. Constantinople did not exist yet, because the Pagan Emperor had not moved his captial from Rome to Constantinople and their invent the office of Patriarch, when an apostle never ordained a successor there, as they did all the other Patriarchs and Pope.

This is why the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria did not view this new Patriarch as an Apostolic successor.

Source for this? Doesn’t line up with the Canons as giving the See of Constantinople a place of honor second only to Rome. Just because some people were bitter with Constantinople doesn’t mean that Rome’s right.

If you re-read my post, I was not placing blame on the Orthodox, but on their enemy, the Iconoclast who gained control over the Orthodox in Constantinople. The Orthodox do not come back into power until 843 a.d. By then the secualr powers had already established East and West boundaries.

When the Orthodox regain Constantinople with a supporting Pagan Emperor, the pride of power struggle and rejecting of the Popes keys and authority along with a new Christian (not pagan) Emperor in the West, begin to appear deeper and deeper until the great schism of 1054 a.d. This is history I was hoping to generate a pre-schism sentiment before Constantinople comes into existance, in comparing a pre-schism sentiment when the Catholic Church was one and viewed the Pope as apostolic successor to Peter in high esteem to post schism sentiment against the Popes authority which never existed in Orthodoxy before the schism.

Peace be with you

So the East was at fault? When the West was claiming more and more power and adding in more and more innovations, such as the already-noted Filioque? What about Humbert walking into the Hagia Sophia in the middle of the Divine Liturgy, slapping a bull of excommunication on the altar, walking out without saying a word, then writing back home about how heretical the East was, when he hardly bothered to speak a word to the East?

 

[joe370]

dzheremi - This absolutely flipping insane “Co-Redemptix…”

Dz we are all, in a sense, co-redeemers which is why Jesus said, * “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me."* Colossians 1:24 is quite clear that we can “fill up in our flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” If that is not a participation in the redemptive suffering of Christ, I’m not sure what is. This bearing of the cross is redemptive, ONLY because we as Christians are united to Christ as part of his saving BODY, the branches in the vine (John 15:1-8). Our Blessed Mother of God, as the preeminent saint and member of the Church, by her loving obedience and cooperation in the Incarnation, by her sufferings at the cross, (“so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too”) - and by her ceaseless prayer and intercession in heaven, has indeed brought salvation to the body of Christ, and redemption to the whole world which is why the CC says that she really is the co-redemptrix of humanity and mediatrix of graces.

Just as Christians are called explicitly in Scripture “co-workers” with God (1 Cor 3:9-15 also 2 Cor 5:18-6:2 - “for we are God’s fellow workers” - the context of both passages is salvation, reconciliation, redemption, etc, so Mary being the first believing Christian and mother of God, is preeminently the “co-worker” with God in salvation, since she cooperated with God in bringing the Son of God into the world. By pronouncing her fiat at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power (my soul magnifies the Lord). Mary’s salutary influence on men flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it, as per the CC, which is why certain approved Marian apparitions, and the miraculous nature accompanying them, can draw us closer to Christ. As you know, no creature could ever be counted along with the Creator, Incarnate Word and Redeemer, but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Creator, the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source." (Catechism 970)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes. And in some small way, when we cooperate with the Holy Spirit, witness to people about our faith experiences, bring people to the Church, we all share in that redemption with Christ yet never would we dare to claim ourselves ‘mini saviours.’ The term “co” often seems to mean “equal to” in the minds of many people. Problem is, it doesn’t mean that. It really means, “along with.” It doesn’t imply equality. Merriam Webster dictionary says

: **with : together **: joint : jointly
2: in or to the same degree
3a : one that is associated in an action with another : fellow : partner b : having a usually lesser share in duty or responsibility : alternate : deputy

In other words, Mary’s in this with us. I’m glad she is! She’s not our equiredemptrix

Dz we are all, in a sense, co-redeemers which is why Jesus said, * “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me."* Colossians 1:24 is quite clear that we can “fill up in our flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” If that is not a participation in the redemptive suffering of Christ, I’m not sure what is. This bearing of the cross is redemptive, ONLY because we as Christians are united to Christ as part of his saving BODY, the branches in the vine (John 15:1-8). Our Blessed Mother of God, as the preeminent saint and member of the Church, by her loving obedience and cooperation in the Incarnation, by her sufferings at the cross, (“so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too”) - and by her ceaseless prayer and intercession in heaven, has indeed brought salvation to the body of Christ, and redemption to the whole world which is why the CC says that she really is the co-redemptrix of humanity and mediatrix of graces.

Just as Christians are called explicitly in Scripture “co-workers” with God (1 Cor 3:9-15 also 2 Cor 5:18-6:2 - “for we are God’s fellow workers” - the context of both passages is salvation, reconciliation, redemption, etc, so Mary being the first believing Christian and mother of God, is preeminently the “co-worker” with God in salvation, since she cooperated with God in bringing the Son of God into the world. By pronouncing her fiat at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power (my soul magnifies the Lord). Mary’s salutary influence on men flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it, as per the CC, which is why certain approved Marian apparitions, and the miraculous nature accompanying them, can draw us closer to Christ. As you know, no creature could ever be counted along with the Creator, Incarnate Word and Redeemer, but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Creator, the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source." (Catechism 970)

 

[dzheremi]

To be fair, dzheremi, there are *also *Georgians, Romanians, Indians, Syriacs, Russians, Copts, Armenians, and Ethiopians of eastern Christian traditions who are in union with the See of Rome. As you most likely know, two or three of these eastern Catholic churches (Maronite, Italo-Albanian…) were never out of communion with the Catholic Church.

Yes, but what about them? The Rome-affiliated members of those traditions are obviously not the sections of the above churches I was referring to.

Okay, first of all, the various eastern Catholic churches who use the Byzantine Rite are as Greek as any eastern Orthodox church. Nothing makes the Greek Orthodox Church more “Greek” than the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church.

Secondly, what did you mean by this question? I know I misunderstood you before (again, my apologies), and I probably am this time as well. I mean, the eastern Catholics obviously don’t accept that the See of Rome is in schism from Christ’s church on earth, or they wouldn’t want to be in communion with the See of Rome.

I think you misunderstood this portion of my reply. I said “Even those who aren’t in communion with the Greeks” in reference to the non-EO on the list, like the Syrians, Ethiopians, Indians, etc. I know full well that there are many, many Byzantine churches and would never for a second suggest that one is more or less Byzantine by virtue of their communion or lack thereof with the Roman Catholic Church.

I often find Orthodox theology, traditions, and history quite compelling.

But it’s when they say things like that - “If no one changes things, then no one has to be infallible” - that I find them least compelling. What I said to another poster earlier holds true here as well: the Orthodox Church seems to present itself today the way the Latin Church presented itself before Vatican II: with an historically irresponsible narrative that refuses to acknowledge that some things can and do change. To pretend otherwise simply defies credibility.

I actually don’t think that the EO are pretending as you say (though I defer to any of them to answer your post, should they show up here). From my conversations with EO, it is not the fact that change has occurred in the RC communion that gives them pause, but the fact that the change is very much inorganic and imposed from the top on the entire church. The Tridentine Mass did not naturally evolve into the Novus Ordo. It is an inorganic and unwelcome wholesale replacement of a venerable tradition. The same could be said about the Latinization that has occurred to varying degrees in the EC churches. You have some like the Melkites who have been able to retain or regain a lot of their tradition, but others like the Maronites who are in shambles and unlikely to ever fully reclaim their traditional, authentic spirituality. In such an environment, can you blame outsiders for looking at the Roman communion and deciding that they want no part in it? (And this is without getting into any of the extremely difficult theological issues that Rome often plays off as though they are nothing more than equally valid expressions of the same thing, rather than definite signs that we are ontologically different churches.)

And what is so wrong with the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, dzheremi? It has its roots in ancient Roman Jewish synagogue services, and in many ways it’s actually more “traditional” than the Extraordinary Form.

Please don’t get me started. I don’t feel like being banned today. I’ll just say that some things that look good on paper can be dismal in reality (not always, but sometimes).

Besides, in some ways it clearly is an improvement over the Extraordinary Form: more extensive use of Sacred Scripture and more direct participation of the laity, for instance.

As you see it. Having attended Eastern liturgies as well as others, I can say that I much prefer the style of participation afforded in the more conservative Eastern churches. But this is a personal opinion, so I won’t pretend that it’s “clearly” better.

I’ve attended plenty of beautiful and reverent Ordinary Form Masses. My personal favorite was the one I attended when I had the good fortune to travel to Rome and go to Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica. It was sung, was in Latin, and had absolutely sublime Gregorian chant.

Of course, in my home city I can also find beautiful and reverent Ordinary Form Masses in the vernacular as well. It’s not hard, and they’re not uncommon. Maybe they were in the 1970s, but I wasn’t alive yet then, and they’re certainly not uncommon now.

This is wonderful. I am glad you are able to grow and be happy where you are. God bless you.

 

[dzheremi]

So you find convincing what posters on this thread are presenting as the Orthodox solution - refuse to engage with modernity on any level? Try to change as little as possible no matter what?

No. I don’t recall anyone writing that anywhere in this thread. It sounds like a caricature of anothers’ view. But if someone did write that then, no, I do not agree with it. The point is not to NOT engage with modernity at any level (hey, we’re all using computers right now, right?). Just don’t mess with the ancient traditions like the liturgy. Don’t try to fix what isn’t broken.

I just don’t find that honest, realistic, or theologically or spiritually appropriate. As St. Paul tells us,

“Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law–though I myself am not under the law–to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law–though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ–to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it.” - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

That is why I find this ahistorical, atemporal attitude theologically unpalatable.

I do not find this applicable to the RC changes of the liturgy at all. St. Paul is writing about his approach to winning converts from OUTSIDE OF CHRISTIANITY. Presumably once those people are inside the church, they would not be allowed to keep their old traditions where they conflict with church discipline. Also, I don’t know why RC apologists (you’re not the only one I’ve conversed with who does this) seem to take the apostle’s words as though he is saying he actually becomes these things. Very clearly he writes that he becomes “LIKE” this or that, in order to effectively evangelized those who are ____ (whatever the thing is). Is this what the Roman church has done in changing her liturgy and watering down her theology? I do not think so. Let me try an admittedly weak analogy here: I would think that it is right to use the vocabulary that is common to a community in which you are evangelizing in order to explain the faith in terms they can understand. However, it would be wrong to actually BECOME whatever they are and abandon what you believe as inviolable in order to appeal to them. This is what I believe the RC church has done in (for instance) equating the Christian God with the various gods of others (I use this example specifically because it is with reference to this that others have trotted out the very same passage from St. Paul’s letter). That is wrong. It doesn’t bear witness to our God, but degrades Him by placing Him alongside the false Gods of others. Similarly with the liturgy. It does not glorify God to abandon the reverence found in traditional liturgies in favor of something that may in the short term attract people who would be put off or bored by such reverence, and so demand irreverence. You are right that this is not always how it actually happens in the Mass, but to the extent that it does happen (and it does), and is supported in the context of the debased Mass, it is wrong.

I agree with you on that, but that’s not official anyway, and even if it were made official, it’s just a title, not a dogma like the Assumption of Mary.

I don’t think the pope will make it official, though; it’s too misleading.

That was kind of my point. This Pope doesn’t like it, but the next Pope or the Pope after him or the Pope after him? Who knows. I have seen old catechisms that directly violate what is now established doctrine (in the case of infallibility), so I know that it is just a matter of time, not of continuing to teach what has always been believed.

Medjugorje is not accepted by the Catholic Church, and I don’t think it ever will be. I personally don’t believe in it.

Besides, even those private revelations that are accepted by the Church are in no way binding on the faithful. The Catholic Church does not ask or require anyone to believe in them.

I know. This used to be one of my favorite parts of the Catholic Church, because I never was comfortable with all these apparitions and the various novenas or other things established by this or that vision. Now when I think about it blows my mind that such phenomena which establish so many practices are optional! I don’t want to belong to a church where I don’t have to believe everything it teaches and participate in every one of its devotions. I think that’s dangerous, even though I do understand and respect the Roman church’s position on this.

To experience incredulity at how the Catholic Church can “add” dogmas like the Assumption or “change” the Liturgy betrays an attitude just as simplistic and rationalistic as that earlier Roman Catholic poster’s one-sided statement that “You’re either in communion with Peter, or you’re not. It’s as simple as that.”

But I do believe it actually is as simple as that, to the extent that things are only as complicated as you make them. I cannot tell you how amazingly transformational it has been for me to discover the sayings of the Desert Fathers and the history and practice of the monastic life in the Egyptian desert. Contrasted with the Roman Catholic approach to the faith, it really is that simple. There is such a thing as having too much dogma. If the things that have been raised to that level in the Latin church were “demoted” to private theological opinion, I think you might find it easier to approach the Orthodox.

 

[joe370]

What you said even made sense to me as protestant. We all, as co-workers (like you said, “along with”) - of Christ, participate in the salvation of others when we evangelize, as ambassadors of Christ, drawing people to Christ’s Mystical Body of which Christ is the Head and Savior.

*Since we are God’s coworkers, we urge you not to let God’s kindness be wasted on you.

We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.*

Yes. And in some small way, when we cooperate with the Holy Spirit, witness to people about our faith experiences, bring people to the Church, we all share in that redemption with Christ yet never would we dare to claim ourselves ‘mini saviours.’ The term “co” often seems to mean “equal to” in the minds of many people. Problem is, it doesn’t mean that. It really means, “along with.” It doesn’t imply equality. Merriam Webster dictionary says

: **with : together **: joint : jointly
2: in or to the same degree
3a : one that is associated in an action with another : fellow : partner b : having a usually lesser share in duty or responsibility : alternate : deputy

In other words, Mary’s in this with us. I’m glad she is! She’s not our equiredemptrix

 

[dzheremi]

I’d take issue with your “flipping insane” remark about Mary’s role.

As is your right, but I still think it is wrong, dangerous, and yes, frankly, a little bit crazy. This kind of hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper dulia is rejected (not just by me; see your co-religionist Fone Bone 2001’s response to this portion of my post) precisely because it so easily leads to heretical understanding. That is dangerous and I would worry about the sanity of anyone who would advocate for it in light of its potential pitfalls.

Co-redemptrix is only misunderstood by people who don’t understand the theology behind it

Um…not to be a smart alec, but isn’t this true of absolutely every single theological stance ever? The Holy Trinity is misunderstood by those who misunderstand the theology behind it, for instance. St. Cyril’s famous formulation of “one nature of the incarnate word” has certainly been misunderstood by those who favor the two-nature Christology of Chalcedon. Even the heretics can and do claim this. To the Nestorians, Nestorius wasn’t wrong, his doctrine has just been misunderstood for hundreds upon hundreds of years. This can’t seriously be a point in favor of adopting ANY theological stance, since anyone can claim it.

Nobody is referring to your Orthodox beliefs (if indeed you are Orthodox yet or have committed to it???) as “flipping insane” Jeremy. That’s crossing a delicate line IMO.

Why are you comparing the two, when Fone Bone 2001 very kindly reminded me that Co-Redemptrix is not accepted as dogma? Is it your position that acceptance of this “co-redemptrix” idea is or should be the Catholic position? Because this is really something you should be fighting out amongst yourselves, in that case, and not with me for pointing out that to the outsider it seems loony. If it isn’t, why not explain to your fellow Catholics who believe that it is (and my experience here on CAF and elsewhere shows me that there are many) why it is not? That would be a lot more productive in advance your position than to chastise people like me who will never, ever accept it. I am sorry that you are offended, but I stand by my original statement regardless of what you say about Orthodoxy. I do not mean to make this a personal issue, and if I have offended you or anyone here, I am sorry. To some extent, offense is inevitable in calling another’s sincerely held beliefs wrong, but that’s what they are. They’re wrong. I will try to moderate my writing a bit more in the future. Again, I am sorry if I have offended you or any Catholic.

You use the word “insanity” in conjunction with Catholic thinking and piety a few times and it is absurd and offensive. As you know, I find the theology of Orthodoxy, more specifically, the soteriology of it, quite wrong. But you don’t hear me say Orthodox are “nuts” or “insane?”

Well, no, I do not. Again, I am sorry that I have offended you with my words, but I cannot be sorry that you find my position offensive. I hope you understand the distinction I am trying to make, after reading the paragraph above this one.

Also, what specifically do you find “absolutely fallible” about the second Vatican council?

In the context of the reply that you have excised this from, it is something you brought up as reformable (in fact, being reformed right now), and hence I take it to be fallible: The Vatican II-era reform/modernization/perversion (depending on your perspective) of the Latin-rite Mass.

 

[joe370]

Dzheremi, you and I are co-redeemers, co-workers, ambassadors of Christ, “as though God were making his appeal through us,” imploring others on Christ’s behalf to be reconciled to God - right?

Dz we are all co-redeemers which is why Jesus said, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me" - and Colossians 1:24 is quite clear that we can “fill up in our flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” Again, if that is not a participation in the redemptive suffering of Christ, I’m not sure what is?

Of course, if you want to “think it is wrong, dangerous, and yes, frankly, a little bit crazy” to view Mary as a co-redeemer, that is certainly your right as one of God’s creatures endowed with free will.

 

[dzheremi]

Sorry, Joe. If it is something that applies to everyone, then I should think it would be better to not approach the title at all for Mary in particular (since it is really equally a title of every saint, and really every person), or to anyone at all, since you write about it as though it should be self-evident in light of the verses you present. So I still disagree with this potential dogma or title or whatever it may be, and on the same grounds that I rejected it before I wrote anything in this thread: It is at best unnecessary, and at worst invites people to embrace a heretical understanding of the Holy Virgin.

 

[Madaglan]

I’d take issue with your “flipping insane” remark about Mary’s role. She plays a part in our redemption in so far as she made the incarnation possible and in that she interceeds in prayer for us while leading us into a deeper relationship with Her Son. I don’t think the Orthodox would disagree with any of those statements. Co-redemptrix is only misunderstood by people who don’t understand the theology behind it and who carelessly and irresponsibly think that the Church is saying Mary is “equal” to Christ in our redemption journey. I’d avoid comments like that. Catholics will and should find that offensive. Nobody is referring to your Orthodox beliefs (if indeed you are Orthodox yet or have committed to it???) as “flipping insane” Jeremy. That’s crossing a delicate line IMO.

You use the word “insanity” in conjunction with Catholic thinking and piety a few times and it is absurd and offensive. As you know, I find the theology of Orthodoxy, more specifically, the soteriology of it, quite wrong. But you don’t hear me say Orthodox are “nuts” or “insane?”

Also, what specifically do you find “absolutely fallible” about the second Vatican council?

Insofar as I understanding the teaching, I do not have any serious objection to Mary as Co-Redemptrix. I even believe the word (or something similiar to it) is found in a kontakion or troparion in the East, as I remember hearing it and thinking about it in relation to the Latin understanding.

Something I wonder though: is Mary already called Co-Redemptrix in the liturgy of the Latin Church? I don’t understand the demand for the doctrine to be infallibly promulgated by the Pope of Rome. If the teaching already is claimed to be true in the liturgical life of the Church, there is no need for an official proclamation.

I know you do not approve of Eastern soteriology. However, this is the soteriology of the Church the first thousand years. I am not aware of Anselm’s views on the atonement being found in the early Western Fathers either. If you know of Western Fathers who do write of propitiatory sacrifice as Anselm does, I would be interested in reading their passages.

 

[Shiranui117]

I had hoped to give some pre-schism events of the Early church Fathers appealed to the authority of the Pope and viewed the Chair of Peter in high esteem.

I asked you to point me to where I could read about this information. I did not ask you to attack me. And currently, I am not Orthodox, but a Catholic-Orthodox fence-sitter. Attacking me because of my “post-schism Orthodox sentiment of pride and rejection” isn’t going to do me any favors in remaining Catholic, and you are currently being quite prideful and rejecting yourself. I asked where I could read more about the event you referenced with Irenaeus, not personal attacks. You gave me quotes that you feel prove that the Papacy was supreme and all-exalted. I responded and said it’s not just Rome that was honored, and it’s not just the Pope that had any authority whatsoever.

This proves my point a pre-schism event reveals a Pope applying an excommunication to a Patriarch of Constantinople with a demand to respond in 10 days! You error by applying your Post schism sentiment against “infallibility” when this was not the case.

This same secular power of pride sentiment against the Popes authority gets revealed in the post-schism.

Please, would you be more civil and avoid demeaning remarks like this? Tone it down; this is not a battle to the death, this is a conversation between two rational people hoping to come to some sort of common agreement on something.

That being said, I think it’s quite plain that not only the Pope can excommunicate someone. I believe that is the prerogative of any bishop who is orthodox. (Note: Small “o.” Happy?)

Question? why does the Orthodox Church hold the Pagan Emperor Constantine as a Saint after he was baptized by a known Arian Heretic on his death bed? What was a known heretic doing so close to your Eastern Emperor?

Constantine is called a Saint because he legalized Christianity and ended the slaughtering of Christians in the Roman Empire. He nearly single-handedly brought Christianity out of the catacombs. He also convened the First Council of Nicaea. A Saint doesn’t have to be a perfect by any means; there is only One who is perfect. And if I may bring this up, Arian baptisms were recognized by the Church. Just like my Lutheran baptism was recognized by Rome as being fully valid.

Of course the East boasted and flaunted at the Popes keys and authority, because their Patriarch of Constantinople had the ear and influence from their Pagan Emperor in his pocket. Not to mention very rich and powerful, not by divine providence but by secular powers.

Quit painting with so broad a brush. I could say unutterably bad things about the Pope, but I won’t, because I know better than to insult and demean people I don’t even know.

Something Orthodox should revisit this history, on how the pagan Emperors ruled over the Patriarch of Constantinople, and how their Emperor always sought the approval of the Popes in Church matters.

How many Emperors were pagan after Constantine? Got any estimates? I grow weary of your mudslinging.

The post schism canons do not apply to the united East and West Catholic Church from her infant stage. Constantinople did not exist yet, because the Pagan Emperor had not moved his captial from Rome to Constantinople and their invent the office of Patriarch, when an apostle never ordained a successor there, as they did all the other Patriarchs and Pope.

Yet Constantinople has Apostolic succession through a bishop. Or is an entire See, recognized as one of the five greatest in all of Christendom, wholly invalid, without any connection whatsoever to the Apostles, with no Apostolic succession to speak of? This I will have to see sources on.

This is why the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria did not view this new Patriarch as an Apostolic successor.

What proof do you have of this?

If you re-read my post, I was not placing blame on the Orthodox, but on their enemy, the Iconoclast who gained control over the Orthodox in Constantinople. The Orthodox do not come back into power until 843 a.d. By then the secualr powers had already established East and West boundaries.

East and West, if I understand you correctly, had been divided ever since Constantine split the empire.

When the Orthodox regain Constantinople with a supporting Pagan Emperor, the pride of power struggle and rejecting of the Popes keys and authority along with a new Christian (not pagan) Emperor in the West, begin to appear deeper and deeper until the great schism of 1054 a.d. This is history I was hoping to generate a pre-schism sentiment before Constantinople comes into existance, in comparing a pre-schism sentiment when the Catholic Church was one and viewed the Pope as apostolic successor to Peter in high esteem to post schism sentiment against the Popes authority which never existed in Orthodoxy before the schism.

The icons were restored by Empress Theodora, for one. And I would like to see evidence of her being pagan. And to be quite honest, you seem to view the Orthodox as prideful little children who won’t obey their father. Is this really what you’re saying?

And, if you look closely, there is much condemnation of Popes; a sentiment of universal Papal jurisdiction did not exist before the schism. Councils came down quite hard on the Popes sometimes, and rightly so; the Popes were never above ecumenical councils.

And, one more thing I’d like to add: There is not one, but there are three Petrine (meaning of Peter) Sees: Antioch, which was founded first, Alexandria, and Rome, which was founded last. Rome is not the one See of Peter.