Eastern Orthodox

[mardukm]

Mardukm, I don’t know if you quote that way for a reason, but I find it really confusing.

Agreed. That’s brother Gurney’s fault. Since he didn’t respond properly using the quote features, I just cut and paste what he posted into my own response.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[hazcompat]

not just EO or OO, or any O. Wether we know it or not we are1 in the Spirit!!.

peace

The will of ur Father is that none shall be lost, the Prayer of the Son is that we Shall be one., Saint Saraphim says the Spirit is plain (simple). The discussion has elements of perfection and qualia of discord. Can we discern the Spirit?

isn’t this the essence of the discussion?

peace

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

With all due respect, Marduk, it seems the opposite to me? The Church has caved into the pressures of modernity in the liturgical life of the Church.

I respect and understand your position. I just don’t share it. I’m not saying you are doing this, but I think Traditionalists who condemn those who are content with the Novus Ordo are guilty of judging others, pretending they have the power or the right to look into the hearts of people. What hubris to think they can do something that only God can do.

Where the priest used to orient himself toward the altar of Christ with reverence, he now faces the people.

The priest STILL orients himself towards the altar of Christ with reverence. Have you seen the priest face anywhere else besides TOWARDS the altar during the Eucharistic Liturgy?

Where incense abounded, it is largely absent. Where reverent liturgical language thrived, now a watered-down verbage supplants it. Where there was Gregorian Chant we have Gather Us In and Bread of Life with guitar-strumming accompaniment, liturgical dancers.

With all due respect, so what? Do you know for certain the person strumming the guitar (or anyone participating in any of the other items you mentioned) is in his heart thinking, “I’m doing this to disrespect God?” If any Traditionalist can prove that, I will agree with their position. Until then, I say they have no business judging what is in the hearts and minds of other people.

I even remember a naked woman as a lector on some native island in front of John Paul II.

I do recall reading about that somewhere, but IIRC, it was from some ultra-Traditionalist site – frankly, I don’t trust ultra-Traditionalists. Can you provide a source for that - pictures, videos?

There is hand-holding

I don’t have a problem with that if the local bishop and Episocpal Conference allows it. May I ask how exactly this diminishes the Mass - I mean, objectively speaking.

Eucharistic ministers doling out the Eucharist,

A use of oikonomia. The rubrics of the Latin Church state that if there is no need for Eucharistic ministers, they should not be used. I agree that it can and is abused, but the official rubric itself is completely orthodox. It boggles my mind what a double standard people hold when it comes to criticizing the Latin Catholic Church (not saying you are doing this, brother Gurney). (Some) Orthodox can so very easily justify any departure from Tradition with the principle of oikonomia, but when the Latin Church does it, God forbid!

altar girls, you name it.

Altar girls are not priests, and perform not the least sacerdotal function. I don’t care for them either, but if the local bishop allows them, I don’t see what that has to do with big “T” Tradition. Can you please explain exactly how this shakes the very foundations of the Faith?

Just in a Eucharistic liturgical context alone, to appease the populace and modernity, things have gone awry terribly.

I’ll believe this the day that the Latin Catholic Church stops celebrating the Eucharist, or teaches that you can receive the Body and Blood without an examination of conscience and confession of your mortal sins, or that the Eucharist can be celebrated with crackers and grape juice, or that a person other than the priest can consecrate the bread and wine, or that a true and real change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ no longer exists. Nothing you’ve provided shows me that the Latin Catholic Church does not have a valid Eucharist at which I, as a Coptic Catholic, can receive with full benefit to my soul.

The doctrine of Infallibility wasn’t proclaimed de fide until the 19th Century.

I find the idea of the unique infallibility of the Church of Rome since the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch. The use of Holy images was not proclaimed de fide until the 8th century. Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Churches made any de fide proclamations against the peculiar doctrines of the Protestants until the 16th-17th centuries. Are we to believe that the use of Holy Images was unknown in the Church before the 8th century? Are we to believe that the doctrines which the Churches affirmed in opposition to Protestantism were unknown in the Church prior to that time?

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

You talk about how the traditions and teachings of the Church have survived the liberal lunacy of the ages and how this is a great testament to the papacy but anybody could walk into a time machine and look at a 18th Century Tridentine Mass and a modern Novus Ordo and know full well that modernity has left a nasty mark!

The EOC has the most liberal standards for divorce and remarriage among all the apostolic Churches, justifications for divorce and remarriage wholly unknown in the early Church. The Low Petrine standard espoused by a lot of EO are a submission to modernist principles as far as I’m concerned. The rampant idea in Orthodoxy that artificial contraception is no longer a sin, or no longer misses the mark has modernism written all over it. IMO, these departures are 100 times worse than the use of guitar in a Mass.

Or take the catechism with its overtures to Islam and the Muslims “first of whom” are in line for God’s mercy. I cannot fathom a 15th Century pope or council of bishops even considering something so audacious?

That God can have mercy on those who have never heard the Gospel? What an audacious thought!

Or look at extra ecclesium non sallus at Trent and then look at the catechism today with its outreach to non-Christian and non-Catholic religions and invincible ignorance and the possibility of salvation?

Yes, the EO used to be much more strict, as well. Now, they have this “I don’t know” principle, which was introduced into their Church only about 100 years ago. At least the principle of invincible ignorance can be traced all the way back to Scripture.

And look at how the Church succumbed to the psychiatric community of the 1960’s and their philosophy that child molestors can be “rehabilitated” and brought back into society. they bought into that thinking and look where it has gotten them? I’ve heard more Catholics and priests make that observation than I can count.

Apparently, EVERYONE thought that way back then. So if you were living in that time, you could have said with absolute certainty that child molesters could NOT be rehabilitated, even when organized, extensive socio-psychiatric studies of the matter barely even existed?

I think the Orthodox are the opposite. Despite communism and Islam, you see none of these disturbing trends. Sure, as you pointed out, there are old vs. new calendarists and small points of contention, but overall things have changed far less than in Catholicism.

Hardly (see comments above). Besides, the Orthodox are human too.

I wonder if a time traveler went back to the 1500’s and 1600’s to, let’s say the era of Trent to 2011 from one Mass to another then he went back to the 1600’s to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy then to one in 2011, which one would appear more altered and innovated?

I wonder if a time traveler went back to the time of St. Maximos, would he wonder why filioque did not separate the Churches then, but it does so now? If a time traveler went back to the days of the Fathers, would he wonder why the hierarchy of the Orthodox Churches now officially permits the use of artificial contraception?

Open your missal hymnal in your church and you’ll see one of the first hymns in there is “A Mighty Fortress is Our God…” Martin Luther is cracking up in his grave!

So God is not a mighty fortress? Really? The early Fathers did not shrink from adopting into the Church anything that was good from outside of the Church. Why should the Church now contradict that principle?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[PbloPicasso]

Catholics are so interested in the church as organization that it is hard for them! We think of church as more organism than organization. !

I personally believe that this is not true. The CC is not just an organization, it is a living organism as you put it. We speak of the “Life of the Church”, not just the institution. You’re splitting very thin hairs here.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

That’s an odd definition of “secular”. By that definition, nearly every country on the face of the earth is “secular”.

I thought we were talking about the ruler. Now, you’re talking about whole countries? It seems you are establishing some very arbitrary boundaries to our discussion (perhaps unwittingly).

I’m not so sure that this is the case.

I believe the Holy Spirit can use ANY situation to help the Church preserve its Faith. The relative smallness of the Church helps a lot, especially if it has a head bishop.

You are the one who is asserting this or that particular system of government fitting a particular style of religion.

I never said that. All I have stated is that Orthodox Churches have found themselves in situations in their particular homelands that have been conducive to maintaining their conservatism. Hence, it is disingenouos to argue that the lack of universal papal solicitude is a positive factor in the maintenance of their conservatism.

Why?

Because it HAS worked for the Catholic Church (all things being equal - i.e., there are instances of modernism and schism in the Orthodox Churches as well).

This is the most debatable statement I’ve ever walked away from a debate about…

Understood. But Catholics have a different understanding of the Catholic Church. Speaking only for myself, I am not willing to judge the hearts of others if they are content with the Novus Ordo Liturgy. If those people somehow are able to have a more full experience of God in the Mass that way, more power to them. Naturally, I oppose the abuses to the Novus Ordo rubrics, as well, but I have no sympathy for the holier than thou attitudes of many Traditionalist Catholics or non-Catholics who despise the Novus Ordo and Vatican 2.

I won’t pretend to know the inner workings of every church on the face of the planet, but I will say that such sweeping generalizations and fairly useless labels aren’t very helpful.

The labels are not sweeping generalizations. From what I’ve seen, only Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates dislike the labels, because it exposes the errors of their respective positions.

If the Orthodox Churches have always held such views as you say they do, then obviously they must not lead them to the conclusion that you have embraced by coming into union under Rome.

The High Petrine view does not dictate the acceptance of the papacy. It is simply a principle that describes the relationship between a head bishop and his brother bishops. However, I do believe that the High Petrine view supports a visible universal headship in the Church.

So that’s really neither here nor there, since obviously it doesn’t demand that they bow to the modern Roman Papacy as you do.

I didn’t know I bowed to the Papacy by being a Catholic. If you feel that is the only way to be in communion with the Church of Rome, then I can see why you are no longer Catholic. But IMO, it only means you are invincibly ignorant of what the Catholic Church actually teaches about the Pope. Only God can judge if there is any malice in your heart towards the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

Bow to the Papacy? Thats a Joke RIght?

Lets get this correct, everyone in every church even if you attend Joes Snake Handling Service in the remote Mojave, is serving someone. Your bowing to someone.

You, regardless where you attend, are in essense simply attending a Mass. [Not ran by you]. How you reach the conclusion “you” actually have some say in in your church “Management” I find astounding. Just try to change your “parish” mass and watch how much authority you have. An d the amount of members an time it takes.

Whats makes the EO or the ROC any different than Rome in Authority? Do you honestly think you somehow have more, say, freedom, choice, or anything else because your church is ran like a loose cannon? Theres no order in managment of the EO. Every EOC in essense has nothing to do with the other. Problems have existed for years and have yet to be corrected. Nobody is entering Russia and controling anything there but the Government.

I fail to see where a lack of managment equals a better, smoother running church? To the individual it makes no sense, and would make absolutly ZERO difference.

And you know what, there’s 1/2 dozen different types of Catholic Mass’s which take place weekly, IF you want the TLM by all means attend. If you think Pius XII Mass is your cup of tea? There it is. If you want to hear John Doe play “I believe” by Elvis Presley on the Keyboards theres a Mass to fit your need there also. Whats the BIG DEAL?

Please spare me the nonsense.

The fact the the CC actually works in communion with each other is a plus to the ability to correctly manage a facility as a whole. Something seriously lacking in the EO.

The fact that different Mass’s happen in relation to V-II is just a fact of history. Your welcome to Pray in Latin if you so desire. What is the big deal? I fail to see the difference.

And if you all want to go back to TLM I’m 100% postitive they will help you out. Now just get all the Catholic’s to contact their local Paris and continue down the line.

The “OH were not going to Bow to the papacy” Right, you’ll Bow to someone though, be it the Kremlin the Patriarch or whoever, So you tell me how thats better management I dying to hear?

Did the 60’s change’s affect those attending V-I Mass? Of course it did. Many adjusted and see no difference now. Those who couldn’t make this mental adjustment attend TLM now? Other sit in the same Pew they sat in back in 1960? Or you have the rare breed of catholics who somehow think the last Pope was Pius.

You would think your running a Fortune 500 management company at the EO. We won’t bow to the Papacy, but we’ll bow to whoever happens to be at our local church in the country its in.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

The will of ur Father is that none shall be lost, the Prayer of the Son is that we Shall be one., Saint Saraphim says the Spirit is plain (simple). The discussion has elements of perfection and qualia of discord. Can we discern the Spirit?

isn’t this the essence of the discussion?

peace

Actually, I don´t think it is the essence of this discussion. I think this thread is ostensibly about Eastern Orthodoxy. But I do appreciate your desire to engender unity.

I also like that you respond to your own posts, since that enables you to present a different strand of thought than that found in the main thread discussion.

 

[Mickey]

Uh-oh. Marduk is still marketing his artificial thesis on the various “Petrine divisions.”

 

[hazcompat]

often when i talk to myself i am surprised by my response. i mean no offense.

peace

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Uh-oh. Marduk is still marketing his artificial thesis on the various “Petrine divisions.”

Noted. However, these “Petrine divisions” have helped a good number of Latin Catholics here on CAF overcome their Absolutist Petrine inclinations. That’s a good thing, right?

Btw,

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

I agree with everything you say, but I think the following is a bit over the top:

…because your church is ran like a loose cannon? Theres no order in managment of the EO.

Every EOC in essense has nothing to do with the other.

Actually, in essence, all the EOC’s are very much alike – if one understands the essence of any Church to be its dogmatic Faith.

It’s the same with all the Catholic Churches. Our essence (our dogmatic Faith) is all the same, though there are distinctions and even differences on other things.

The same with the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

However, these “Petrine divisions” have helped a good number of Latin Catholics here on CAF

Really?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Dear brother Gary,

I agree with everything you say, but I think the following is a bit over the top:

Actually, in essence, all the EOC’s are very much alike – if one understands the essence of any Church to be its dogmatic Faith.

It’s the same with all the Catholic Churches. Our essence (our dogmatic Faith) is all the same, though there are distinctions and even differences on other things.

The same with the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

Faith and Administrative managment are totally diifferent concepts. The Faiths may remain the same in all EO Churchs. What does Administrative policy in the USA have to do with Russia? They could care less about each other. Internal tensions have been a constant in the EO.

And its that EXACT administrative role which the EO isn’t willimg to relinquish to the CC. There is no issue with Doctrine thats a falacy. Anyone who has been closely following this alreayd knows bpoth churchs are looking back over “missed” values from the schism. IF thats the case do you honestly believe the existing issues re-hashed here at CAF are a issue? Of course not.

The Papal issue arrise’s constantly as an issue because of administration. And of course in Russia it takes on another significance with the moritorium which has held Catholic Growth at the exact same number since Fatima in 1917? Ironic wouldn’t you say?

Lets not change a thing with our church but later for World Peace? Heck of a self serving plan with communism, directly behind it. What else could it be?

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

Really?

Well one fact is certain. There are simply those who don’t know what the pre-V-II church was. They can’t relate to it, and when suggested its immediatly rejected by them?

Personally I believe the Church is going to do what its followers ultimately demand. Just like the TLM was quickly re-instated. With enough people rising to the occasion the church will have to change. Especially talking pre V-II.

If the attitude is well, its “acceptable” the way it is? Then thats how it will remain.

Its not easy to get them to change though. Theres a constant Quarter Million every year trying to get the Pope to correctly consecrate Russia. And its not happened yet. So it takes a bit to move these people.

And if you think about it. It wouldn’t cost a dime. Could be done by every Bishop at their own Parish in unison with the Pope in Rome. What a Timed Prayer? And all but "three’ Bishops have agreed to do this? Ecumenism is the issue with Russia. Personally I say later for that when World Peace is at stake. What do we have to lose?

Whats the worst that could happen?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Dear brother Gurney,

Nobody is looking into the HEARTS of people? I’m not sure why you say that? When I criticize outward gestures, EME’s trying to “bless” my kids at communion, bad music, and a bunch of other abuses, I never mentioned anyone’s hearts? I am saying that these things matter and do affect the piety of the Mass.
I respect and understand your position. I just don’t share it. I’m not saying you are doing this, but I think Traditionalists who condemn those who are content with the Novus Ordo are guilty of judging others, pretending they have the power or the right to look into the hearts of people. What hubris to think they can do something that only God can do.

I’ve never been in a Catholic Church in my life where the priest faces the altar during ANY part of the Mass? He faces the people.
The priest STILL orients himself towards the altar of Christ with reverence. Have you seen the priest face anywhere else besides TOWARDS the altar during the Eucharistic Liturgy?

Respectfully back atcha, Marduk, I DO care about the dignity of liturgical music and don’t want to sing like a Baptist. If that’s ok with you, God bless. It isn’t for me. I don’t want to sing kumbabya or songs that reflect Calvinist TULIP themes.
With all due respect, so what? Do you know for certain the person strumming the guitar (or anyone participating in any of the other items you mentioned) is in his heart thinking, “I’m doing this to disrespect God?” If any Traditionalist can prove that, I will agree with their position. Until then, I say they have no business judging what is in the hearts and minds of other people.

Not right now here at work. I cannot access it. I can at home. I have actually posted the link on CAF before in another thread about a year ago. I’ll have to get back to you. Filters at work.
I do recall reading about that somewhere, but IIRC, it was from some ultra-Traditionalist site – frankly, I don’t trust ultra-Traditionalists. Can you provide a source for that - pictures, videos?

I do. It goes against historical precedence. This is a Baptisty style of worship. Our unity is in the Eucharist and the Sacramental life. We have no need to hold hands.
I don’t have a problem with that if the local bishop and Episocpal Conference allows it. May I ask how exactly this diminishes the Mass - I mean, objectively speaking.

I would say it is a poor use of oikonomia frankly. I don’t believe men and women should be touching the Host and doling it out. And we have seen the results of the impiety…one thing leads to another…now they play priest and try to bless people. Dangerous. Slippery slope. It’s impious IMO.
A use of oikonomia. The rubrics of the Latin Church state that if there is no need for Eucharistic ministers, they should not be used. I agree that it can and is abused, but the official rubric itself is completely orthodox. It boggles my mind what a double standard people hold when it comes to criticizing the Latin Catholic Church (not saying you are doing this, brother Gurney). (Some) Orthodox can so very easily justify any departure from Tradition with the principle of oikonomia, but when the Latin Church does it, God forbid!

Strawman. I never said altar girls shakes the very foundations of faith. It just helps chip away traditions and piety. This is not my hill to die on actually but I can see why Orthodox cringe at the thought…
Altar girls are not priests, and perform not the least sacerdotal function. I don’t care for them either, but if the local bishop allows them, I don’t see what that has to do with big “T” Tradition. Can you please explain exactly how this shakes the very foundations of the Faith?

I never sought to somehow persuade you into thinking the Catholic Church didn’t have a valid Eucharist? If I felt that way, brother Marduk, why would I have hung in there so long as a Catholic? But I do believe the lovely and ancient rites of Rome have been polluted with all sorts of modern appeasements and Protestant innovations. It’s pretty hard to deny that, isn’t it?
I’ll believe this the day that the Latin Catholic Church stops celebrating the Eucharist, or teaches that you can receive the Body and Blood without an examination of conscience and confession of your mortal sins, or that the Eucharist can be celebrated with crackers and grape juice, or that a person other than the priest can consecrate the bread and wine, or that a true and real change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ no longer exists. Nothing you’ve provided shows me that the Latin Catholic Church does not have a valid Eucharist at which I, as a Coptic Catholic, can receive with full benefit to my soul.

Not sure why you’re appealing to the age of St. Ignatius of Antioch to prove infallibility nor why you’re referencing sacred images as a proof?
I find the idea of the unique infallibility of the Church of Rome since the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch. The use of Holy images was not proclaimed de fide until the 8th century. Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Churches made any de fide proclamations against the peculiar doctrines of the Protestants until the 16th-17th centuries. Are we to believe that the use of Holy Images was unknown in the Church before the 8th century? Are we to believe that the doctrines which the Churches affirmed in opposition to Protestantism were unknown in the Church prior to that time?

CONTINUED

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

CONTINUED

** That is your a priori observation. From what I’ve read and the Orthodox I know, I have never heard of such liberal attitudes. And just because the EO’s have a slightly different view of divorce or contraception doesn’t prove to me that they’ve departed in a huge way from the catholic faith? **
The EOC has the most liberal standards for divorce and remarriage among all the apostolic Churches, justifications for divorce and remarriage wholly unknown in the early Church. The Low Petrine standard espoused by a lot of EO are a submission to modernist principles as far as I’m concerned. The rampant idea in Orthodoxy that artificial contraception is no longer a sin, or no longer misses the mark has modernism written all over it. IMO, these departures are 100 times worse than the use of guitar in a Mass.

** You’re right, it is audacious. I’m glad we finally agree. **
That God can have mercy on those who have never heard the Gospel? What an audacious thought!

hardly.
Yes, the EO used to be much more strict, as well. Now, they have this “I don’t know” principle, which was introduced into their Church only about 100 years ago. At least the principle of invincible ignorance can be traced all the way back to Scripture.

Thanks for your admission, then, that the CC succumbed to modernity and liberal, lax attitudes about such things, precisely my point.
Apparently, EVERYONE thought that way back then. So if you were living in that time, you could have said with absolute certainty that child molesters could NOT be rehabilitated, even when organized, extensive socio-psychiatric studies of the matter barely even existed?

Nobody suggested they were more than human.
Hardly (see comments above). Besides, the Orthodox are human too.

You have a one-trick pony argument today with contraception. I have a laundry list for the CC of innovations, you have contraception. I’m happy with my position!
I wonder if a time traveler went back to the time of St. Maximos, would he wonder why filioque did not separate the Churches then, but it does so now? If a time traveler went back to the days of the Fathers, would he wonder why the hierarchy of the Orthodox Churches now officially permits the use of artificial contraception?

LOL!!! Two sides of the same coin argument is affirmed today by Marduk What’s next? Amazing Grace and it’s “wretch” TULIP language? Oh wait, that’s already in there!
So God is not a mighty fortress? Really? The early Fathers did not shrink from adopting into the Church anything that was good from outside of the Church. Why should the Church now contradict that principle?
And to you as well, Marduk
Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

I thought we were talking about the ruler. Now, you’re talking about whole countries? It seems you are establishing some very arbitrary boundaries to our discussion (perhaps unwittingly).

We are talking about the governance of various countries in light of your contention that “As societies become more democratic, the concept and need of central Church leadership will become more obvious to our Orthodox brethren.” The portion of my reply that you are saying is “arbitrary” was in the context of your further assertion that a country is secular if its leader is not also a leader of the state/majority Church. I have problems with both of these ideas. Your definition of “secular” applies to non-secular countries like Sudan, too (a country with an elected president as its head of state, where the judicial code is nonetheless based on Islamic law).

I never said that.

Then please forgive me, because that’s exactly how I’ve interpreted you when you wrote this: “As societies become more democratic, the concept and need of central Church leadership will become more obvious to our Orthodox brethren.” It really does sound to me as though you are saying “political structure X fits ecclesiastical structure Y”. I disagree with this, but if you meant something else perhaps I don’t actually disagree with you…

All I have stated is that Orthodox Churches have found themselves in situations in their particular homelands that have been conducive to maintaining their conservatism. Hence, it is disingenouos to argue that the lack of universal papal solicitude is a positive factor in the maintenance of their conservatism.

You believe that the political situation in a given country in which Orthodoxy is the majority form of Christianity is the largest conductive factor to maintaining the hallmark conservatism of said churches? Rather than something inherent in the form of Christianity they’ve embraced? I believe the latter.

Because it HAS worked for the Catholic Church (all things being equal - i.e., there are instances of modernism and schism in the Orthodox Churches as well).

I don’t believe it has. To each their own, I suppose.

Understood. But Catholics have a different understanding of the Catholic Church. Speaking only for myself, I am not willing to judge the hearts of others if they are content with the Novus Ordo Liturgy. If those people somehow are able to have a more full experience of God in the Mass that way, more power to them. Naturally, I oppose the abuses to the Novus Ordo rubrics, as well, but I have no sympathy for the holier than thou attitudes of many Traditionalist Catholics or non-Catholics who despise the Novus Ordo and Vatican 2.

Fair enough. I think you’ll find most Orthodox insisting, as I too insist, that the problems of the Roman Catholic Church run much deeper than any given example, and are in fact epistemological problems inherent in the RC model of Christianity, which is not conductive to maintaining the Apostolic faith. Rome will have to go back a lot further than 1950 or whenever “traditionalist Catholic” groups romanticize in order to demonstrate its commitment to true unity with the Orthodox. I don’t think it will happen, but at the same time I am open to the workings of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of all Christians.

The labels are not sweeping generalizations. From what I’ve seen, only Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates dislike the labels, because it exposes the errors of their respective positions.

I think they are because if, as you say below, they do not dictate acceptance of the Papacy, and there is more than one way to be in communion with Rome, then there must be some nuances them that are ignored when you use them as you do (to say that “the EO take X Petrine view”, for instance). Not that they’re all that helpful either way, because if you’re right about all the things that don’t follow from them, then they don’t really explain all that much.

The High Petrine view does not dictate the acceptance of the papacy. It is simply a principle that describes the relationship between a head bishop and his brother bishops. However, I do believe that the High Petrine view supports a visible universal headship in the Church.

Okay.

I didn’t know I bowed to the Papacy by being a Catholic. If you feel that is the only way to be in communion with the Church of Rome, then I can see why you are no longer Catholic.

Let me put it this way: What do you call those people who DO NOT take the directives of the Roman Pope as binding? You most likely would not refer to them as fellow Catholics. It is your assent to Papal doctrines and Papal prerogatives that are unique to Rome that make you a Catholic. So, yes, you bow to the Papacy. Why deny it? Are you ashamed? Don’t be ashamed. You’ve made your decision after a long period of study. I’ve had a considerable period of study and it seems to be leading me in the other direction. There’s no harm meant in either of these things. We just have very different perspectives.

But IMO, it only means you are invincibly ignorant of what the Catholic Church actually teaches about the Pope. Only God can judge if there is any malice in your heart towards the Catholic Church.

Oh. Hmm. Nevermind. I’m “ignorant” I guess. Nice. I wonder: Would I have been described as similarly ignorant when I thought that Rome was the real deal, or are people only ignorant when they leave Rome?

 

[Mickey]

I’ve had a considerable period of study and it seems to be leading me in the other direction.

Me too!

Oh. Hmm. Nevermind. I’m “ignorant” I guess.

Correction. He said “invincibly ignorant”. This means that you are not really aware of your ignorance and therefore not responsible.

 

[dzheremi]

Correction. He said “invincibly ignorant”. This means that you are not really aware of your ignorance and therefore not responsible.

Y’see, this is where I begin to have real problems… (Gurney, you might want to look away now, if you’re reading this, since you thought I was mad the other day…)

It would be one thing if the RC church were to insist that it does not in fact teach what the rest of the world thinks it teaches. I’m used to that: the Filioque apparently means “through the Son” in “Latin theological language” or whatever, the Pope is only infallible in very particular circumstances which are not satisfied in those instances when outsiders might think they are, etc. I’m used to these kinds of defenses. I don’t find them convincing, but I am used to them.

But, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t stop there. It’s not enough for the RC to defend itself using those arguments, if it wishes to. Instead, it extends this concept of “invincible ignorance” to every person on the planet who does not accept them, as though if we really “got” them, of course we’d come running (back) to Rome! They’re JUST THAT SENSIBLE, why you’d have to be not just ignorant, but invincibly ignorant, not to accept them! It’s not your fault…you just don’t understand…

Nevermind the study you’ve done. Nevermind the conversations you’ve had with learned clergy of many different churches. Nevermind the official statements you’ve read on all sides, Nevermind your own sense of what’s plainly BS and what’s plainly not. Nevermind your prayers and struggles with God to show you what is true. Your ignorance is invincible, damn it!

There…now don’t you feel better?

In all seriousness, it’s as though the RC church has never read Matthew 5:37:

But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

I have said “NO” to the Roman Catholic Church, but it just cannot accept that. There simply has to be something else going on here! The arguments…you guys, the arguments! They’re just so reasonable! So self-evident! What is my major malfunction?

I may be ignorant, but I am not so ignorant that I am making this decision on my own. If Rome doesn’t want to respect that decision, fine, but at least don’t throw it back in my face as evidence that I clearly do not understand the choice that I’ve purposely taken two years and counting to make! I took less time than that to convert to Catholicism, so what does that mean of my conversion?! If I am invincibly ignorant now (and wasn’t then, when I made the “right” decision, in Rome’s eyes), then what of the Desert Fathers, who are so instrumental to my spiritual growth? What of the Pope of Alexandria, and the examples of the monasteries and monks from Wadi al-Natroun to Athos and back? What of the Philokalia, the Agpeya, or the prayers of St. Ephrem the Syrian, or St. Gregory of Narek? Heck, what of the Basilian liturgy itself? When does the ignorance stop/start? Are all of these wrong, and only Rome is right? How likely is that?

Whether anyone likes it or not, sometimes the “invincibly ignorant” choice is the far better-informed choice. If this is invincible ignorance, then I guess I wish I had been this ignorant 6 or 7 years ago. I guess it’s true what they say about ignorance being bliss…