A
Aramis
Guest
Pretty much my understanding.
- Status
P
peary
Guest
The historical problem that has always been for the eastern churches is their total dependence on their own culture for the spread of their brand of Christianity. Whether it be Russian, Greek, or other, the eastern churches are, in fact, still embroiled in their own ethnicity and country of origin’s politics that makes their unification with the western church that much more difficult. For better or worse, the Western church has always been the more dynamic of the two, building and shaping cvilization wherever it found itself in the world. ‘Hellenizing’ the west is a fantasy that needs to be put away.
W
Woodstock
Guest
The east emphasizes that we are not superior to the culture or to be removed from it. Instead, the icon of the Transfiguration is always over the back wall to tell us that we are to go back into the world and *transform *the culture.
Now that the east is present in geographically western lands like the US, the Byzantine Church and the OCA Church are establishing themselves as American churches. Neither seeks to import a Roman or Russian or Greek culture to the US but seeks to transform the *American *culture to one infused and enlightened by God.
There is no intention to hellenize the west and the triumphalistic exertions about the need for the east to be subsumed into the superiority of the west is highly ironic considering the unfounded charge.
Now that the east is present in geographically western lands like the US, the Byzantine Church and the OCA Church are establishing themselves as American churches. Neither seeks to import a Roman or Russian or Greek culture to the US but seeks to transform the *American *culture to one infused and enlightened by God.
There is no intention to hellenize the west and the triumphalistic exertions about the need for the east to be subsumed into the superiority of the west is highly ironic considering the unfounded charge.
J
jimmy
Guest
It is not really more dynamic. It has spread its own culture. Now that its own culture is dead it is having problems. The west has been no more willing to addapt to other cultures than the east has.
M
Magicsilence
Guest
Marduk,
As far as I am aware the Ecumenical Status and acceptance of the Ecumenical Councils is not up for discussion.
W
Woodstock
Guest
See post #14
P
peary
Guest
Historically, that isn’t accurate. The Catholic Church has made great inroads into the various African cultures(not to mention Chinese) without spreading a ‘western culture’ viewpoint. It has been adapting quite successfully. And since Vatican II, Catholic evangelization has been more adaptation than imposing one culture upon another. The eastern orthodox are still ‘jailed’ to the cultures and ethnic groups from which it sprung and to which it ministers. There is a big difference here.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
I don’t believe it’s Hellenizing of the West that’s being advocated by some in the Eastern Churches, but rather a weakening and de-centralizing of the Papacy as an attempt to curry favor with the Orthodox Churches, some of whom have very negative views of our Church as it is. Weakening the Papacy would not only weaken our Church, but it’s also contrary to our traditions.
N
NewAbdalMaseeh
Guest
WOW! For someone like me, who is (A) on the brink of embracing Catholicism, and (B) seriously considering joining an Eastern (i.e. non-Latin rite), this thread has proven to be both shocking and rather confusing. Could someone recommend source documents which those who are as ignorant as I am can read in order to gain a better understanding of what the relationship is between the Pope and the Eastern rites? What do the Eastern rites officially believe? What does the Pope (or Vatican?) require them to believe? Is there a vagueness or grey area between the two?
M
mardukm
Guest
I would also like to add that in my reading of the articles in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, I very often come across the expression “general Councils of the West” when referring to the Ecumenical Councils beyond the Traditional Seven.
Blessings
M
mardukm
Guest
Decentralizing the papacy is not tantamount to weakening it. On the contrary, decentralizing the papacy will give the papacy more weight and more respect with other Churches, both within and without the Catholic communion. That can only serve to strengthen the papacy, wouldn’t you agree?
After all, the Pope is the servant of servants.
Blessings,
Marduk
E
East_and_West
Guest
I doubt it will create respect for the Papacy. This is basilly compromising on our faith to impress the Eastern Orthodox. How can they respect a Chruch that compromises its faith?
M
mardukm
Guest
Can you please explain how decentralizing the papacy compromises the faith?
I don’t believe part of the job description dogmatized at Vatican 1 was micromanagement.
Blessings,
Marduk
P
peary
Guest
**What exactly do you mean by “decentralizing the papacy”??
**
W
Woodstock
Guest
I know a lot of faithful Roman Catholics who will quickly say that Pope John Paul II centralized far too much and who hope for a large-scale decentralization as a return to traditional ROMAN practice.
E
East_and_West
Guest
It was universal and immediate jurisdiction. It means all Catholics must submitt to him. ALL… Including those in the East.Can you please explain how decentralizing the papacy compromises the faith?
I don’t believe part of the job description dogmatized at Vatican 1 was micromanagement.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Please forgive us, brother. Instead of giving you a complete rundown, I believe the best course of action is for you to present a particular issue you have heard is a conflict among Eastern/Oriental/Western Catholics on a new thread. Then we will respond to demonstrate how the respective beliefs are complementary, though not necessarily obviously so. Start a new thread for each issue - I believe each issue will garner many posts/responses.
Blessings
Blessings
J
jimmy
Guest
Yes, there has been a change since Vatican II. But if you look at the Catholic Church throughout history it has generally forced its culture on others. Take for example the fact that they sent Jesuits over to Lebanon who changed parts of the Maronite liturgy and burned the old copies. They have forced their own culture on all other cultures.
The east can adopt any culture just as easily as the west can even since VII. The Oriental Orthodox Church is just as diverse, if not more so than the Catholic Church. It contains the Syrian, the Coptic the Armenian, and other traditions that are authentic to their own cultures. The Malankara Orthodox(part of the OO Church) are thoroughly Indian in character.
M
mardukm
Guest
I am not the one who initially coined the phrase. So before I give my response, I would ask the other person to define it for you.**What exactly do you mean by “decentralizing the papacy”??
Blessings
P
peary
Guest
**The CHURCH itself is to be a NEW SOCIETY to supplant the old ones. When Christ founded the Church, He founded a SOCIETY or BODY OF BELIEVERS, a universal Davidic Kingdom, and one that would have its own jurisdiction, laws, beliefs, etc., that would incorporate and intertwine itself within the prevailing cultures of the times so that the revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ would be disseminated, and salvation be offered to those who belong to a culture.
It wasn’t the Church which ‘forced’ cultures on other cultures; it were other cultures which did this that the Church was a part. The Church itself was usually at the mercy of the culture in which it found itself.
And there were certain aspects of those cultures that the Church respected to be good and worthy.
Also, in 1773, the Jesuits were suppressed, for the most part, in most of Europe (I think mostly in France), and this affected their evangelization efforts in Lebanon. I do not their burning sacred books as part of their ‘culture’ but moreso an Order run amuck.**
- Status