H
Hesychios
Guest
Pride is a sin.
WE know where the church is.
We do not know where it is not.
- Status
WE know where the church is.
We do not know where it is not.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Yadayadayada. Talk about tired, old, and overplayed.
But are such posts “respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board”?
You post on this thread as though there is some balance between negative attitudes of Catholics and Orthodox against each other. I think that is sheer nonsense. Is there a single Orthodox forum that would allow such “We are the church…” cant from Catholics?
I probably have more experience in the Orthodox church that you (or Mickey); I certainly have far, far longer experience in Catholic/Orthodox discussions than either of you. From this experience I would say that that the valid points that you make in your longer post here are irrelevant to the OP issue, and the relevant points are not valid.
The issue of authority is not about accepting praxis - however hard or easy. It is about accepting teaching. It is about accepting the truth spoken by the church, rather than shopping for a church whose teaching matches one’s own opinions, however formed (always flawlessly, of course). The old, tired and overplayed idea that the Catholic church is run by some tyrant is a constant in the Orthodox polemics that I have heard over nearly 40 years. It is an ignorant point, but it is it’s not going away - even though our lifetime has been graced with wonderful Pontiffs abiding in love.
Yes there are interesting individuals on the internet. But I can say that in over fifty years I have never heard anti-Orthodox preaching in a Catholic church. I have not heard mischaracterizations (or really much of any characterization) of distinctive Orthodox teachings in a Catholic church. The same is not true in reverse - and my experience with this preaching includes a monastic - now a metropolitan, a priest, a deacon and a subdeacon. I have never heard an Orthodox called a heretic in a Catholic church; the same is not true in reverse.
There is no equivalence here. The Catholic church stands with open arms outreached to the Orthodox; the same is simply not true in reverse. And I think that is an important point, just as it was to Solomon in discerning who was the true mother of the disputed child.
M
Mickey
Guest
Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:
M
Mickey
Guest
Really?
You don’t say?
Amen.
Who says that the Latin Church is run by a tyrant?
Indeed!
LOL! That is because 99.9% do not know anything about Holy Orthodoxy (or Eastern Catholicism for that matter).
See above comment.
Yadayadayada. Talk about tired, old, and overplayed.
Holy Orthodox patiently waits with hope and tears, ready to lovingly embrace all mankind, as they return to the fullness of truth–like the prodigal son.
E
excaliber
Guest
I respect Orthodoxy, and I like eastern traditions. But when an Orthodox say’s we are THE church, I feel as if you don’t understand the responsibility that comes with such a statement…as if words are enuff.Really?
You don’t say?
Amen.
Who says that the Latin Church is run by a tyrant?
Indeed!
LOL! That is because 99.9% do not know anything about Holy Orthodoxy (or Eastern Catholicism for that matter).
See above comment.
Yadayadayada. Talk about tired, old, and overplayed.
Holy Orthodox patiently waits with hope and tears, ready to lovingly embrace all mankind, as they return to the fullness of truth–like the prodigal son.
The difference is that The Catholics here not only make that statement, but show me scripture,
The succession of bishops, Most charitable organizations on the planet, a church on virtually every corner here, There own small country…the Vatican, etc…etc…etc…
So when Orthodox say we are THE
Church, how on earth do you expect people to believe you?
M
Mickey
Guest
Holy Orthodoxy has Scripture–in fact–we have more books in the Old Testament than you.
We have Apostolic Succession.
There are four Patriarchates–sadly, the fifth one–Rome–went on Her own–but we would welcome Her return.
There are many Orthodox charitable organiizations–especially in Orthodox countries. But heck, there are many protestant charities also.
In Russia (and many other countries), you would see many Orthodox Churches. In the American south, you would see a baptist church on every corner.
I believe it is considered to be a state. But that is irrelevant.
Nobody forces you to believe anything. You have free will.
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
Probably somewhere. There is an Orthodox forum I visit, however, where the term “the Church” can only refer to the Orthodox Church, and Catholic posters are required to add on the word “Catholic” or some other identifier when talking about their own communion. It’s a great forum, but I have always found this practice a bit odd, particularly in contrast with the attitude here.
Then again…
E
excaliber
Guest
Has anyone noticed a passive attitude among orthodox?Holy Orthodoxy has Scripture–in fact–we have more books in the Old Testament than you.
We have Apostolic Succession.
There are four Patriarchates–sadly, the fifth one–Rome–went on Her own–but we would welcome Her return.
There are many Orthodox charitable organiizations–especially in Orthodox countries. But heck, there are many protestant charities also.
In Russia (and many other countries), you would see many Orthodox Churches. In the American south, you would see a baptist church on every corner.
I believe it is considered to be a state. But that is irrelevant.
Nobody forces you to believe anything. You have free will.
I have heard them called the best kept SECRET, which means they are aware that they are not well known…and don’t seem to care.
Go to any bookstore and you find books on Catholosism, but hardly anything on Orthodoxy…and Orthodox don’t seem to care.
Orthodox seem to be very introverted, or they don’t seem to care much about anything out side there particular church.
How is it that in AMERICA there are not more Orthodox churches?
Pentecostals,Baptists,and everyone else can grow and let everyone know who they are…how could THE Church not do just as good in a free country, where there is knowone to stop Orthodox expansion?
In my area I have seen ONE Orthodox church in my LIFE.
Plain Logic say’s that one branch canot break away from the vine
and grow to be larger then the vine itself. If the Latin Church broke of from the true church as you say…how did it Prosper after doing so…that’s not logical.
So you have more books, The Oriental Orthodox have MORE BOOKS then the eastern Orthodox,
so what’s your point…mabey the Oriental Orthodox are correct then?
T
The_Fool
Guest
Haven’t met enough to qualify.
The Orthodox are separated along cultural lines, and I don’t think they were ever really that big on evangelization. I mean, when we evangelize someone, we try to push our culture on them, and the Orthodox never seemed all that interested in doing that, in my opinion… Unless you’re the king, but that’s different.
Most people over here don’t know who the Orthodox are, either, and they are, generally, a very spiritual people. Just reading one of their writings leaves me feeling daunted, so I can understand a reluctance… And people like strict rules and such, but the Orthodox are big on surrendering to God.
Who said God has to confirm to human logic. If he wills the branch to grow larger, and the branch cooperates, then it will. By the way, whoever said the branch is breaking from the vine? That implies refusing communion with the bishop, right?
Quantity does not equal quality or even certainty that you’re the One. Our Eastern brothers and sisters have a lot of writings, beautiful writings, and their manner of thinking is often not our own. Hmm. I heard a story once, that might be true, but I think it illustrates a difference. The Angelic Doctor wrote Summa Theologica. An Orthodox priest who heard bout it thought it was silly. How were you supposed to write anything that encompassed God?
I probably got something wrong above, so everyone, feel free to correct me.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Oh yes, very big on evangelization.
Unfortunately history has not been kind. Arabs, Mongols, Crusaders and Turks had a way of chopping at the Orthodox.
It is helpful to have state sponsorship. The RC had the Spanish, Portuguese and French empires. Quite clearly the French were the least intrusive upon native peoples.
The geography of Eastern Europe did not give opportunities to develop great seafaring nations, Catholic or Orthodox.
After the Byzantine empire was ground down under the Turks there was only the Russian state standing to open up lands that could be open to evangelization, and this many years later. Missions flourished under the Russians across Asia and into Alaska.
Orthodox missions were forbidden in the Spanish empire. Russian Orthodox missions were stopped north of California.
After the establishment of the United States most churches grew through immigration. Everyone is familiar with that process, the Irish came early because they spoke English and had ready access to transatlantic ports. The Germans next, then central Europeans as industrial recruiters worked their ways through Europe. By the time Eastern Europeans started coming in strong numbers the US government was imposing immigration quotas.
Actually a significant percentage of the Orthodox in the USA are descendants of Eastern Catholics from central Europe.
Interesting observation.
Actually, most of Orthodox spiritual practice is mainly pre-schism. This is the heritage of Catholics as well, but Orthodox are very religiously conservative by nature.
For instance, traditional Orthodox fast on Wednesday and Friday, and it is a real fast, not just giving up meat. But this was also true in the west long ago, we have just not changed it. Our Lenten Fast is about the same, but our Advent is longer, we have a couple of other fasting periods as well.
I don’t know if that’s what Saint Thomas was trying to do, I certainly hope not!
I probably should not be quoting Wiki here, but I found this interesting:
Final days and “Straw” (1272-1274)
In 1272 Aquinas took leave from the University of Paris when the Dominicans from his home province called upon him to establish a studium generale wherever he liked and staff it as he pleased. He chose to establish the institution in Naples, and moved there to take his post as regent master. He took his time at Naples to work on the third part of the Summa while giving lectures on various religious topics.
On 6 December 1273 Aquinas was celebrating the Mass of St Nicholas when he unexpectedly abandoned his routine and refused to dictate to his socius Reginald of Piperno. When Reginald begged him to get back to work, Aquinas replied: “Reginald, I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me.” (mihi videtur ut palea).
What exactly triggered Aquinas’s experience is not known. Some have posited that he suffered a stroke, while others point to a physical or nervous breakdown. Some think it was a combination of all three—a complete collapse. More commonly, it is believed he had some kind of spiritual experience which caused him to doubt the efficacy of logic and reason to understand God. After taking to his bed, he did recover some strength.
It does not actually state whether or not he resumed his work.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t have any problem with the Orthodox considering themselves “Catholic”; but personally I only apply the term “Catholics” to Roman Catholics, i.e. those who are in full communion with the Pope.
(I have no problem calling them “catholics”, with a small-c, but I don’t think that’s what you meant by “Catholic”.)
- Status