Eastern Orthodox

[JesusforMadrid]

We have an OCA parish close by that I am considering visiting this Sunday. I guess that helps me that it does not have X ethnicity tied to it at all. I am expecting it to be stranger than any service I have been too, but if I survived by first Pentecostal service as a teen, I can do this. I am an open book at this point. I just want to “come and see” and nothing more.

It seems to me that OCA does their worship in English, am I right?

The OCA and the Antiochian Church of America both have a majority of converts, so you will likely encounter a DL in English and many parishioners with similar backgrounds to yours. The OCA also have a great choral tradition from their Russian roots.

Having been in your shoes a few months ago, perhaps I could recommend the following:

1. Print out the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, available on-line, and follow it. Much of what happens behind the iconostasis is rich with symbolism and meaning, but you will understand it better if you can follow it.
2. Read “12 Things I wished I’d known” antiochian.org/node/16963
3. Follow Met. Kallistos Ware’s advice that you attend for at least 4 weeks before you form a strong opinion. You have spent a lifetime attending Western churches so you come with many presuppositions. It takes a bit of time for Eastern Christianity to feel “familiar”, but it will. As Tommy Lee Jones said in Men in Black, it’s worth it “if you are strong enough”. As Frederica Mathewes-Green has written, Orthodoxy is the “marines” of Christianity-all that standing, prostrations, fasting and long services–so it tends to attract those who are looking for something special, especially, it seems, males.

 

[Bluegoat]

Why wouldn’t they? Their entire church is the daughter of Rome, not of Alexandria or Constantinople. It’s not as though the Anglicans are some sort of “Western Orthodox” just because they have historically rejected the Roman Papacy. They still grew out of (and remain in) the Western/Scholastic (or whatever you’d call it) cultural sphere, which was and I suppose still is dominated by Rome.

In any case, although some Anglicans are looking at the papacy or a strong leader as the solution to our problems, it is by no means the case that all are. Lots are looking in other directions entirely.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The only Ross I care about is Cody Ross baby!

Everybody should come to Fort Ross! It’s lonely up here…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well when it comes to the ethnic thing, I try to be fair in that regard seeing as how the Catholic Church is often more ethnic than Orthodox. In my area if you aren’t Mexican or Portuguese, you are in the ultra minority for sure.

The Serbian parish was nice actually. Orthodoxy is a HUGE change so just trying to follow those theophanies, litanies, the prayers, the whole liturgy as it is sung so fast, tough to keep up with. The Gospel was hard to grasp as they sang it. Hard standing for 1.5 hours with my foot condition…The people were extremely friendly.

Like your parish, despite it being Serbian Orthodox, there are only like 5 or 6 Serbs there! The rest are Russians, Ukrainians, Anglos, and a little of everything. It seemed predominantly converts. Many were still not chrismated…

It was nice. I’m considering going back this weekend.

Bulgarian, but we are all converts except for our priest’s son (who was baptized at 40 days). No ethnic Bulgarians though. When I went to Ave Maria, I attended an Antiochian and OCA parish for a while. We also have a great relationship with the ROCOR parish nearby (our priest introduced their priest to Orthodoxy about 20 years ago when he was a Methodist minister at the time ).

I have limited experience with the extreme ethnicism, but I can understand the reservations people have about looking into Orthodoxy especially when the church sign in America has X ethnicity Orthodox Church.

How was your experience with the Serbian church? I know the Blessed Seraphim of Platina’s monastery is in the Serbian diocese. I want to get out there one day and see it. California is home to at least 4 Orthodox Saints.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dzheremi]

The only Ross I care about is Cody Ross baby!

Good. Stay out of our beloved Orthodox historical sites, you philistine.

Nah, just kidding, go Giants! (We consider SF “our team” up here, too)

 

[Bluegoat]

Well when it comes to the ethnic thing, I try to be fair in that regard seeing as how the Catholic Church is often more ethnic than Orthodox. In my area if you aren’t Mexican or Portuguese, you are in the ultra minority for sure.

Here, Catholics are largely Irish, French, or Scottish. The parts of the province they settled are Catholic (and Presbyterian for the Scots), where the Germans went they are Lutheran, where the English went they are Anglicans, and the black communities are Baptists. Radical Reformers seem to have put churches everywhere.

Everyone is ethnic in the end I guess.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No joke. The ethnic charge on the Orthodox isn’t fair in light of how ethnic the others are as well. The Anglican parish I belonged to, heck, some of the older ladies looked like George Washington and Alexander Hamilton or Aaron Burr! I was worried a duel could’ve broken out over the lemon bars at coffee hour! (little American history humor there)

Here, Catholics are largely Irish, French, or Scottish. The parts of the province they settled are Catholic (and Presbyterian for the Scots), where the Germans went they are Lutheran, where the English went they are Anglicans, and the black communities are Baptists. Radical Reformers seem to have put churches everywhere.

Everyone is ethnic in the end I guess.

 

[Bluegoat]

No joke. The ethnic charge on the Orthodox isn’t fair in light of how ethnic the others are as well. The Anglican parish I belonged to, heck, some of the older ladies looked like George Washington and Alexander Hamilton or Aaron Burr! I was worried a duel could’ve broken out over the lemon bars at coffee hour! (little American history humor there)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

That is a scary hairline for a lady.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Be kind, Meghan. I’ve lost most of my hair and I’m only 36. Not sure if you’ve seen my photo album. Great pics of the kids and wifey I usually wear a Giants SF ballcap to hide my sparseness!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rAJe_CypsZs/TK_5agIaLxI/AAAAAAAAAxw/Q-Tn_kXv2fs/s320/Aaron_Burr-2.jpg

That is a scary hairline for a lady.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

I didn’t present my understanding of what you said as a quote, because it’s not one. What I am referring to is this: "In the sense that none of the political rulers of Ethiopia were priests of the Orthodox Catholic Church " This was in reply to my question about how exactly the royal court of Ethiopia was secular. Again, this is just how I understand you, and I’m more than willing to be corrected, but it seems to me like you’re saying if the political ruler(s) of the country aren’t also religious leaders, then the country is secular. I presented in reply the case of Sudan, wherein the political leader is not a religious leader, yet the country is far from secular.

Well, nothing in our previous discussion was about the country as a whole. I don’t know why you would assum that now.

I brought up the form of Christianity because that’s what I believe plays a larger role in the preservation/conservatism of the Orthodox church, rather than any favorable or unfavorable form of government might.

But we were talking about the form of ecclesiastical government only. If you want to place it in terms of “form of Christianity” now, we can do that. But I don’t see how someone who is an apostolic Christian can claim it is not the hierarchy especially and primarily who keeps the unity of the Faith/Tradition, since that is their specific responsibility given to them by Christ. Though to be honest, I don’t know where you are at spiritually. You could decide to become Protestant for all I know, and you should go wherever you feel your faith in Christ will grow.

I don’t think it is, either. I don’t believe any non-Catholic Church (Orthodox or otherwise) is united solely by its rejection of Rome.

True, in terms of the EO itself. EO are not united on several levels, as far as the CC is concerned (though that’s actually a good thing, IMO). In terms of non-Catholic relations, on the other hand, there is definitely a loose, but perceptible, unity in terms of rejecting Rome (and that’s a bad thing), based on a lot of ignorance.

Believe it or not, Rome is not the center of the universe, particularly if your church’s own leadership is in Alexandria, or Aleppo, or Moscow, or wherever. You are the one who is using these labels like “Low Petrine” and others. I frankly don’t find them very helpful.

If you don’t understand them, I can see that it may not be helpful. That you make this all about Rome is really all on you, especially as I already explained that the Petrine views are in fact not all about Rome at all, but are merely about the relationship between a head bishop and his brother bishops.

Yes, this is all true, but I would think this hurts your argument more than it helps. If two churches have developed basically the same ecclesiology in vastly (socially) different societies, then how can it be the case that the political/social climate of the nation makes as much of an impact as you seem to say it does? (or will, rather)

Because the ecclesiological principles and possession of the Holy Spirit being the same (unless you believe the Anglicans simply have no Grace), the only other factor that is relevant is the socio-political environment.

Why wouldn’t they? Their entire church is the daughter of Rome, not of Alexandria or Constantinople. It’s not as though the Anglicans are some sort of “Western Orthodox” just because they have historically rejected the Roman Papacy. They still grew out of (and remain in) the Western/Scholastic (or whatever you’d call it) cultural sphere, which was and I suppose still is dominated by Rome.

Not all Anglicans are moving towards Rome, as sister Bluegoat rightly pointed out. Those that are not are merely looking for a place that will align with conservative principles, who probably have the same “the form of religion is what matters” position as you. Those moving towards Rome understand that the ecclesiological principles are the key, since this is the very reason the hierarchy was divinely established.

If this is your argument, couldn’t the same be said of Rome? After all, during the period in which it separated itself from the rest of Apostolic Christianity, it was in a…let’s say, “pre-democratic society”. It hasn’t been until relatively recently (in the context of a 2,000 year old institution) that this has changed. Not as recently as the case of the EO, but still…the same essential observation applies to Rome.

The West and East were on even keel for the better part of the first millenium, so we were all in “pre-democratic” societies. AFTER THE SCHISM, the socio-political environment has been vastly different. After the Schism, the EO have existed in absolute monarchies or other totalitarian forms of government for the better part of its entire existence. The Latins, on the other hand, have existed for the most part in constitutional monarchies, or an atmosphere of competing super-powers that were all Catholic.

CONTINUED

 

[dzheremi]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Well, nothing in our previous discussion was about the country as a whole. I don’t know why you would assum that now. But we were talking about the form of ecclesiastical government only.

I’m pretty sure I already gave you the context for the statement I made. You wrote that Ethiopia was secular because none of its rulers were priests. I think that’s plain silly. We’re talking about ecclesiastical government, I suppose, but within the context of political government, as the claim of yours I was originally objecting to was within that framework (connecting a certain form of political government to a certain or expected form of church structure).

If you want to place it in terms of “form of Christianity” now, we can do that.

What do you mean “now”? I already think that this is a much better explanation for the conservatism and the unity of the Orthodox.

But I don’t see how someone who is an apostolic Christian can claim it is not the hierarchy especially and primarily who keeps the unity of the Faith/Tradition, since that is their specific responsibility given to them by Christ.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let’s back up a minute here. What I am objecting to is your claim in post #63 that “as societies become more democratic, the concept and need of central Church leadership will become more obvious to our Orthodox brethren.” I did not for a second downplay the role of church hierarchy, only question your reasoning with regard to the above assertion.

Though to be honest, I don’t know where you are at spiritually. You could decide to become Protestant for all I know, and you should go wherever you feel your faith in Christ will grow.

Thank you, I will.

If you don’t understand them, I can see that it may not be helpful. That you make this all about Rome is really all on you, especially as I already explained that the Petrine views are in fact not all about Rome at all, but are merely about the relationship between a head bishop and his brother bishops.

Yes, I understand that, but to the benefit of who/what? Is this “Low/High Petrine” business about the low or high position of, say, the Bishop of Antioch? (Antioch also being a Petrine See)

Obviously not, because no one (not even any of the claimants to that title from the various churches!) appears to have any sort of problem with the prerogatives already given to them by their office! You don’t find HH Zakka Iwas triggering these kinds of discussions with a bunch of fantastic statements about his place within Christianity. You can fudge it and tell me that it’s really a general statement about a head bishop and his brother bishops, but I don’t believe you. That’s not the context in which I’ve seen anyone invoke this distinction. I just did a search for “high Petrine” and here are the titles of the top 3 threads that come up (disregarding the current thread):

How much authority does the Bisop of Rome has in the Estern churches?
Will there be EC in America in 40 years?
Canon 34. Papal Primacy of “HONOR” ?

They appear to be related to the Pope of Rome and his contentious claims to this or that and how to justify (or not) justify a given stance regarding those claims and the role he may play in the administration of the various churches. I would think that if it is meant to be as general a statement as you say it is, perhaps equally applicable to all bishops, we might actually see some Orthodox using it without reference to Rome, as they too have bishops whose roles relative to their brother bishops must also be worked out…

…or, y’know, not, because they’re relatively uncontroversial, so they don’t necessitate any sort of special “low/high” dichotomy. From where I’m sitting (yes, I got tired of flying around, righting the wrongs of the world, and have come back to the Cave of Invincible Ignorance for the night) this seems like another unnecessary distinction that Rome and its followers feel a need to make to substantiate that Rome is plain specialer than everybody else, darn it.

Not all Anglicans are moving towards Rome, as sister Bluegoat rightly pointed out. Those that are not are merely looking for a place that will align with conservative principles, who probably have the same “the form of religion is what matters” position as you.

Wow…I’m an Anglican now? Even I’m surprised by that one! Also, I thought you said you had no idea where I am spiritually? That didn’t last long.

Those moving towards Rome understand that the ecclesiological principles are the key, since this is the very reason the hierarchy was divinely established.

Oooo…take THAT, everybody else. (Seriously, Mardukm? This is really what you’re going with…?)

Alright, I’m pretty sure we’re boring everybody else, and quite frankly I’m starting to get a little sleepy myself. I don’t think we’re going to reach a breakthrough anytime soon, so I bid you adieu. You’ve given me a bit to think about. Thank you.

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

And, I would argue, there is nothing inherently special about the RC ecclesiology that could preserve its traditions, either,

Well, that’s certainly not true, as any non-Catholic will admit, since the one thing non-Catholics all share in common is the fact that Catholicism has a head bishop for the universal Church.

as the various RC divisions (schismatic groups; trad./NO acrimony, etc.) show, and the various problems of the ECCs and OCCs show (I know you know what I’m talking about, as this is a constant conversation on the EC sub-forum!).

That’s a misunderstanding of what Church authority is about. Church authority is not about ENFORCING unity - it’s about PRESERVING unity through love and service. If you (mis)perceive authority in the CC as all about ENFORCING unity, then your POV would make sense. But if one shows no bias, and understands ALL forms of Church authority as about PRESERVING unity through love and service, then all things being equal (since the EO and OO have also had their share of divisions, despite having extra-ecclesial factors that promote conservatism), then the papacy has indeed amply shown its worth in Church history as a divinely established form of governance for the Church.

I have no idea how to gauge this, as I do not live in Russia. I would only remind you that people who live in glass dachas should not throw kamni.

You can look it up on any website about international human rights violations. The U.S. gov’t has its own, aside from privately-run organizations. Russia has never left the list of offenders, precisely because of violations in religious freedom.

the ecclesiology

How?

the over-reliance on scholastic modes of thinking and philosophical sophistry to defend its positions (and the various developments of doctrine that have come out of this),

This is an overplayed, and rather hypocritical canard (not on your part, but on the part of EO who use it). Anyone knows the Fathers never denied the value of philosophy flat out. Even St. Palamas had a great respect for St. Aquinas, the “Father” of scholasticism. The anachronistic, hypocritical biases against the CC from non-Catholic sources is staggering. The OO are not so frightened of philosophy as the EO (though not all EO are like that). I notice that you are thinking of joining the COC. More power to you. You will find a good respect for intellectualism and philosophy there, since the Alexandrian Tradition has always had a healthy respect for what is good and right that can be found even outside the Church, not the insular extremisms you can easily encounter in EO’xy.

the lack of aestheticism, etc.

I guess you’ve never been to a Latin Catholic church in the “old countries?” You find a lot of beautiful Churches even her in the U.S., and beautifully celebrated NO Masses.

This is interesting. Having once been OO yourself, can you elaborate on what some of those things might be?

I’m sorry, that came out wrong. The OO are not entirely pure from developments beyond the standard of the first millenium Church. But I’m not one who believes, like others here, that developments are necessarily bad or heretical. I am willing to accept EO developments. When I say that I will not accept EO as they are now, I am referring mostly to their pretensions that certain ideologies in Latin Catholicism that existed even when the Church was united, and did not separate the Church back then, should so separate the Church now. And there are a lot of items on that list.

And it doesn’t bother you that Rome itself holds (if I’m understanding these distinctions correctly) the Absolutist view? (Or you don’t see that from Rome, or what?)

No. The CC dogmatically teaches the High Petrine ideal. This is very evident from V1 itself (if you’ve ever read any of my debates with Absolutist Petrine advocates here on CAF). There are those within the High Petrine camp who feel that the CC today is not living out this ideal fully. I myself partially agree with that. However, we all believe that the High Petrine view, not the Absolutist Petrine view, is the actual doctrinal position of the CC according to her teachings.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

It is not meant in a friendly or unfriendly way. By “assenting” to the Pope, you bow to Rome’s decisions should they be over or against your own sui juris church’s own recommendations or what have you. This does happen, as was recently the case in denying married priests among the some Byzantine Catholics in Italy (? I believe it was…there was a thread about this on the EC sub-forum, but I cannot locate it). In light of the very real control that Rome exercises, benevolently or not, I am afraid I do have to say that I see the relationship in the negative terms through which you have re-framed my original statement: You are subservient, and you do not have true freedom. This, in and of itself, is not negative but that you’ve thought of it that way.

Sorry. I don’t believe any of this. The fact that you feel free and are able to leave the CC according to your conscience amply demonstrates the falseness of your assumptions about lack of freedom in the CC.

The difference, of course, is that no one is infallible in that particular scenario…

Sounds like a very Protestant attitude, forgive me for saying. Either you believe the Church you will join has not erred, and therefore infallible, or you feel you are yourself the font of infallibility. I suppose you could claim, “I said no ONE is infallible,” but that would simply demonstrate you don’t know what papal infallibility is actually about (invincible ignorance and all that ).

Indeed. And yet, to be called any kind of “ignorant”, especially in light of my past in which I would not have been called such, is a trifle insulting, don’t you think? It really does seem more like Rome is providing itself with a sort of philosophical salve by brushing off any and all criticism of it with such patronizing terminology. I, for one, do not appreciate it at all.

If you were really immersed in Catholicism fully, you would not now be pretending that “invincible ignorance” has any insulting connotations. But isn’t it in fact the case that the great many who leave Catholicism do so because they never fully understood her in the first place? But I hear you. After this post, I will avoid using that term with you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Or there is another line of thinking…that the Church is infallible when all the bishops come together and are of one mind in a council, not a papal proclamation. Infallibility can exist without a papal approach to it, holistically throughout the Church’s declarations at councils and synods and through the triumphant theology of the saints…

It isn’t necessarily fair to say that, if someone doesn’t accept papal infallibility then they are individualistically playing pope.

CONTINUED
Sounds like a very Protestant attitude, forgive me for saying. Either you believe the Church you will join has not erred, and therefore infallible, or you feel you are yourself the font of infallibility. I suppose you could claim, “I said no ONE is infallible,” but that would simply demonstrate you don’t know what papal infallibility is actually about (invincible ignorance and all that ).

 

[dzheremi]

I’m done with this conversation, but I just saw in one of the quotes that I apparently made a typo in one of my replies. Where it says “lack of aestheticism” , I meant to write “lack of asceticism”. This probably applies more to the Latin Church specifically than all of the Catholic Church, but it still remains the case that the ascetic tradition is a pale imitation of what it once was in the Western church, and does not inform the practice of the Church in the way it does in the Orthodox Churches (or the more “Orthodox-leaning” of the ECC and OCC, I suppose).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

You wrote that Ethiopia was secular because none of its rulers were priests. I think that’s plain silly.

Ummm…But I never wrote that.

What do you mean “now”? I already think that this is a much better explanation for the conservatism and the unity of the Orthodox.

Fair enough. If you understand ecclesiology as being part of the overall “form of Christianity,” I can see where you are coming from.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let’s back up a minute here. What I am objecting to is your claim in post #63 that “as societies become more democratic, the concept and need of central Church leadership will become more obvious to our Orthodox brethren.” I did not for a second downplay the role of church hierarchy, only question your reasoning with regard to the above assertion.

But I had specifically noted that we were talking about the ecclesiological principles. Then you brought up “the form of Christianity” as a different principle from the one I thought we were talking about. But it appears you take “ecclesiological principles” as being part of “th form of Christianity.” So let’s move on from there.

Yes, I understand that, but to the benefit of who/what? Is this “Low/High Petrine” business about the low or high position of, say, the Bishop of Antioch? (Antioch also being a Petrine See)

Currently, the Antiochene Patriarchate is exhibiting an Absolutist Petrine position, given that it demoted all its bishops as auxiliary bishops to the Metropolitan in the U.S. Not even the Catholic Church has ever exhibited that sort of novelty. In fact, V1’s Decree on the Primacy forbids the Pope from doing such a thing. I have met some EO online who object to what occurred in the Anitiocene Patriarchate, so these distinctions may hold relevance, even if they do not use the actual terminology of “Absolutist,” “High” and “Low” Petrine.

Obviously not, because no one (not even any of the claimants to that title from the various churches!) appears to have any sort of problem with the prerogatives already given to them by their office!..They appear to be related to the Pope of Rome and his contentious claims to this or that and how to justify (or not) justify a given stance regarding those claims and the role he may play in the administration of the various churches.

Discussions within the Catholic Church among Catholics about ecclesiology are normally focused on the papacy. So the High Petrine and Absolutist Petrine positions are normally discussed in the context of the papacy. As you say, there is general satisfaction from our hierarchs about their own prerogatives in relation to our OWN Churches. Claiming that because the distinctions are utilized in relation to the papacy in the context of intra-Catholic ecclesiological debates, then that means the distinctions ONLY apply to papal issues is a rhetorical fallacy (but I forget at the moment what it is formally called).

I would think that if it is meant to be as general a statement as you say it is, perhaps equally applicable to all bishops, we might actually see some Orthodox using it without reference to Rome, as they too have bishops whose roles relative to their brother bishops must also be worked out…

I don’t know why any Orthodox would be using these distinctions (though I do think it would help in official discussions between Orthodox and Catholic Churches). These are distinctions I proposed myself about two years ago as I viewed the situation being a new Catholic coming from Oriental Orthodoxy. It has helped a lot of Catholics flesh out their own “I can’t quite put my finger on it” concerns. Several Latin Catholics have given me personal e-mails thanking me for the distinction, since they previously felt their only option was to leave the Catholic Church for what they perceived were excesses in Vatican 1. I demonstrated to them, from the very teachings of V1 and V2, that these excesses they perceived were not the actual teachings of the Catholic Church. In other words, I demonstrated that the High Petrine view was the true position of the Catholic Church, whereas previously, they thought the Absolutist Petrine view was the only viable option.

However, the Absolutist Petrine advocates, and one EC I know who sympathizes with the Low Petrine view are the only Catholics that have expressed a similar “these distinctions are of no use” attitude - frankly, I think because it exposes the errors of their positions, and they are very uncomfortable with that.

this seems like another unnecessary distinction that Rome and its followers feel a need to make to substantiate that Rome is plain specialer than everybody else, darn it.

Actually, the High Petrine distinction does the exact opposite in relation to the Absolutist Petrine view. It reduces the exaggerated assumptions that Catholics - especially Latin Catholics - have about the papacy, based on the very teachings of V1 and V2.

Wow…I’m an Anglican now? Even I’m surprised by that one! Also, I thought you said you had no idea where I am spiritually? That didn’t last long.

I only repeated what you stated. Now you’re denying it? Oh, well.

Oooo…take THAT, everybody else. (Seriously, Mardukm? This is really what you’re going with…?).

These are the views expressed by Anglicans who want to join the Catholic communion that I’ve read online. You can talk to them yourself to see what it is about Catholicism that is important to them. The papacy obviously is not iimportant to you, but it’s rather presumptuous to think it could not be so for others, no?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

I forgot to respond to this specific part:

This does happen, as was recently the case in denying married priests among the some Byzantine Catholics in Italy (? I believe it was…there was a thread about this on the EC sub-forum, but I cannot locate it). In light of the very real control that Rome exercises.

The Pope had absolutely nothing to do with that. It was the Italian Episcopal Conference that imposed the rule. It is, after all, their canonical territory. Personally, I don’t think it was a just decision, especially as there are (IIRC from my reading of an article on the matter a while back) about half a million Romanian Catholics in Italy. I guess in the minds of the Italian bishops, less than half a percent of the population is not a big number. But, to repeat, it had nothing to do with the Pope.

In case you are wondering, the President of the Italian Episcopal Conference is NOT the Pope.

IMO, the Pope should grant indults, as he had done for the Byzantine Catholics in the U.S. in the early 20th century despite the “law of the land” in the United States. But the Pope can’t exercise even that authority willy-nilly, as the Pope has no authority according to V1 to impede the rightful authority of a local bishop. A Romanian hierarch has to appeal to the Pope to get this done.

I do recall reading one or two EO comments about it on different websites - the usual ignorant polemics - namely, it was the Pope’s fault, even if the Pope had nothing to do with it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I’m done with this conversation, but I just saw in one of the quotes that I apparently made a typo in one of my replies. Where it says “lack of aestheticism” , I meant to write “lack of asceticism”. This probably applies more to the Latin Church specifically than all of the Catholic Church, but it still remains the case that the ascetic tradition is a pale imitation of what it once was in the Western church, and does not inform the practice of the Church in the way it does in the Orthodox Churches (or the more “Orthodox-leaning” of the ECC and OCC, I suppose).

Absolutely.

 

[Bluegoat]

Be kind, Meghan. I’ve lost most of my hair and I’m only 36. Not sure if you’ve seen my photo album. Great pics of the kids and wifey I usually wear a Giants SF ballcap to hide my sparseness!

For a man it’s one thing, but a hairline like that for a woman is another! Though there was a time that was the fashion.

My husband is rather thin on top too, though I notice that it doesn’t seem to have got any worse over the last few years.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have heard terms like “high petrine” and “low petrine” in this discussion. In all my theological readings, I have never heard such terminology from Orthodox or Catholics?