How to deal with rude comments from *some* Orthodox people

[dvdjs]

And while on one hand this can certainly be interpreted as charitable, on the other it can be a slight-of-hand that undermines our autonomy and seeks to trivialize our differences.

We see the differences as substanital, and this is just one more instance of not being taken seriously.

I truly hope it is done in love and respect, but I can’t help but have suspicions.

I think that you actually can help it.

Sleight-of-hand? Orthodox are welcome to communion openly, and nothing else is required by way of reciprocation. How does that suggest sleight-of-hand?

Some Orthodox see substantial differences, others do not. There is disagreement within the EOC as to which issues are, if any, are substantial and which are not. There is nothing authoritative on the matter. Discussion on theological working groups are moving forward on these matters; internet discussion are often side-tracked by disagreements over matters that are assumed to be, but are actually not, part of authentic church dogma. In this overall situation, it may be a little unfair to suggests that the CC is trivializing substantive differences or not taking the EOC seriously…

 

[Casilda]

St. Gregory Palamas is venerated as a saint in Byzantine Catholic churches, and Pope Saint John Paul II has called him a saint and a great theologian [source].

To compare him to Calvin, even with your disclaimer, is offensive to many different parties, including, I’m certain, some Latin Catholics.

I understand you did not mean to insult St. Gregory, but I urge you to use your words more carefully, with regards to any saint.

By all means, read the polemical writings of some of our contemporary “scholars” if their anti-Catholic views somehow make you feel better.

And despite your disclaimer, I found this highly offensive

We Orthodox, however, should naturally see Eastern Catholics as dirty traitors who have nestled up to the papal bosom like trained chihuahuas.

(In case it wasn’t evident, this post was in jest. )

 

[Casilda]

In my mind there is a difference between discussing points of doctrine and disparaging another because of their faith.

It doesn’t take a PhD in theology to figure it out.** Christian gentlemen don’t call other people names. It’s as simple as that.**

-Tim-

So howirenic’s characterizations are unchristian?

 

[Peter_J]

I assume you know what satire is …

 

[howirenic]

Ah, the internet.

 

[chimo]

In my mind there is a difference between discussing points of doctrine and disparaging another because of their faith.

It doesn’t take a PhD in theology to figure it out. Christian gentlemen don’t call other people names. It’s as simple as that.

-Tim-

May be it is seen this way because one Church sees differently than the other and nobody wants to accept what the other can bring to them. I understand that the Orthodox are perfectly misunderstood. It doesn’t take a PhD in theology to understand this until we really come to an understanding of what the other can give to us. The Church of Rome insists on her agenda and the Orthodox insist on theirs. I too get very tired over Rome’s insistence because the Church of Rome has decided to overlook the rich treasures and history of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The claims of Rome is far too much for the Orthodox to accept. It is interesting that the Church of Rome has not discovered this until lately when their most recent Popes have declared that certain changes must come if the Orthodox are to accept again the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps this is why the Eastern Orthodox tend to be this way towards the Church of Rome because it is still up for the Church of Rome to make changes so that a better relationship will be there. It is to my observations that Rome has made too much of a claim to be the Church without including the Orthodox. The Orthodox in my opinion is just as authorative and great as the Church of Rome but for some reason Rome is not willing to give what is due for the Orthodox. The Orthodox can make Rome a great Church if Rome will only include the Orthodox to be just as important as they are. This does not mean accepting the Pope for this is in my opinion only politics for there is something much more deeper in our Churches if we will only have the eyes to see it.

 

[Elizium23]

I don’t think Rome has “chosen to overlook” the East at all. Pope St. John Paul the Great referred to “two lungs” of Christianity. The Church has maintained, at least in recent memory with improved East-West relations, that the East holds great riches and is to be held in high esteem. The problem is ignorance and bigotry rampant among the hoi polloi. Many people see Orthodoxy as mysterious, unusual, foreign, weird, if they see it at all. When even many priests and bishops are ignorant and/or bigoted, we get the present situation where much education is still needed. I think it’s great anytime Orthodoxy or Eastern Catholicism makes a splash in the Catholic news sphere, such as Francis’ visit to the Holy Land and his meeting with Patriarch Bartholomew and so forth. Every time Church leaders make a gesture to the East, a few more hearts are softened and a few more minds are educated about the riches of the East.

 

[The_young_fogey]

Just go to any Orthodox blog or forum site and you’ll see just how much they hate the Catholic Church. They really don’t give up any chance to bash on the Holy Mother Church. It’s sad… Just last night I was on a social media thread, my friend was talking about how he was sent to a YMCA protestant church event where they were dancing and being silly. A mutual Orthodox ‘friend’ started saying all kinds of colorful things insisting that it was a Catholic Mass in an attempt to be funny…

As they say in Maine, ayup.

 

[Peter_J]

Just go to any Orthodox blog or forum site and you’ll see just how much they hate the Catholic Church. They really don’t give up any chance to bash on the Holy Mother Church.

It’s sad when posters score points by making blanket generalizations about the other side.

 

[The_young_fogey]

It’s sad when posters score points by making blanket generalizations about the other side.

You know it’s true, and Balamand is not our doctrine, nor the Orthodox’s.

 

[LatinByzCath]

It’s difficult.

I refer OP to this tumblr post. For many ex-Protestant Orthodox Christians, their motive for becoming Orthodox was very Protestant, and they retain much of their anti-Roman Catholic views.

I converted to Orthodoxy as a sort of substitute, to “hold me over” until I could become a Catholic. The reasons for this turn on my journey are many, and it was a long and winding road.

When I finally did become Catholic, my mostly convert parish either sent me very hurtful emails and voice messages, or stopped talking to me all together.

I’m “Roman” now, I can’t have any Orthodox friends, I’m too busy saying the Filioque and kissing the ground upon which the Pope walks!

Honestly, you need to ignore the Orthodox who deliver hurtful comments. Many cradles, “ethnic” Orthodox, have a much better view of the RCC. It’s just those converts who were intellectual Protestants for so long who have a very warped view of who we are, and what our Church is.

I am a Catholic, and I hold the Orthodox as brothers and sisters, and I’ll never stop praying for a reunion, even though the Orthodox would have to renounce several points of contention, as some Eastern Catholics over history have.

 

[wynd]

This entire thread

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

May be it is seen this way because one Church sees differently than the other and nobody wants to accept what the other can bring to them. I understand that the Orthodox are perfectly misunderstood. It doesn’t take a PhD in theology to understand this until we really come to an understanding of what the other can give to us. The Church of Rome insists on her agenda and the Orthodox insist on theirs. I too get very tired over Rome’s insistence because the Church of Rome has decided to overlook the rich treasures and history of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The claims of Rome is far too much for the Orthodox to accept. It is interesting that the Church of Rome has not discovered this until lately when their most recent Popes have declared that certain changes must come if the Orthodox are to accept again the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps this is why the Eastern Orthodox tend to be this way towards the Church of Rome because it is still up for the Church of Rome to make changes so that a better relationship will be there. It is to my observations that Rome has made too much of a claim to be the Church without including the Orthodox. The Orthodox in my opinion is just as authorative and great as the Church of Rome but for some reason Rome is not willing to give what is due for the Orthodox. The Orthodox can make Rome a great Church if Rome will only include the Orthodox to be just as important as they are. This does not mean accepting the Pope for this is in my opinion only politics for there is something much more deeper in our Churches if we will only have the eyes to see it.

In the old days before the “great Schism,” (I have heard some Orthodox acquaintances say) the Pope was “First Among Equals,” meaning he would be informed first of whatever canonical problem/controversy that was going on at the time, then the other churches would take in the question-----------they would consider the question together after Rome was given first “dibs” on the matter. Rome would consult with the other churches and consider their (name removed by moderator)ut.

From their POV, it was more of a collaborative effort and “joint decision” more than a one-sided declaration from Rome “this is the way it is going to be.” That attitude and policy declined over time, according to them. I disagreed with most of their conclusions.

So I get what you are saying in some ways. In SOME ways.

(If anybody wants to correct what I am saying, go ahead. Just going by what my Orthodox acquaintances have told me.)

Good thread.

 

[wynd]

In the old days before the “great Schism,” (I have heard some Orthodox acquaintances say) the Pope was “First Among Equals,” meaning he would be informed first of whatever canonical problem/controversy that was going on at the time, then the other churches would take in the question-----------they would consider the question together after Rome was given first “dibs” on the matter. Rome would consult with the other churches and consider their (name removed by moderator)ut.

From their POV, it was more of a collaborative effort and “joint decision” more than a one-sided declaration from Rome “this is the way it is going to be.” That attitude and policy declined over time, according to them. I disagreed with most of their conclusions.

So I get what you are saying in some ways. In SOME ways.

(If anybody wants to correct what I am saying, go ahead. Just going by what my Orthodox acquaintances have told me.)

Good thread.

I am by no means a patristics or history expert, but my understanding was the opposite—that if two parties disagreed, they would appeal to the local authority (bishop, patriarch, whatever) and then to Rome as a final court of appeal if they were still unable to solve the dispute.

 

[Nine_Two]

I am by no means a patristics or history expert, but my understanding was the opposite—that if two parties disagreed, they would appeal to the local authority (bishop, patriarch, whatever) and then to Rome as a final court of appeal if they were still unable to solve the dispute.

That’s correct. Rome had the final word - if the two parties decided to appeal to it.

 

[chimo]

I don’t think Rome has “chosen to overlook” the East at all. Pope St. John Paul the Great referred to “two lungs” of Christianity. The Church has maintained, at least in recent memory with improved East-West relations, that the East holds great riches and is to be held in high esteem. The problem is ignorance and bigotry rampant among the hoi polloi. Many people see Orthodoxy as mysterious, unusual, foreign, weird, if they see it at all. When even many priests and bishops are ignorant and/or bigoted, we get the present situation where much education is still needed. I think it’s great anytime Orthodoxy or Eastern Catholicism makes a splash in the Catholic news sphere, such as Francis’ visit to the Holy Land and his meeting with Patriarch Bartholomew and so forth. Every time Church leaders make a gesture to the East, a few more hearts are softened and a few more minds are educated about the riches of the East.

When the laity of the Church of Rome decides to come to know the East than you are right. As yet the Laity do not know. The Pope cannot do this by himself. It is the Laity which has this responsibility to come to know more. The Orthodox and Catholic as for now are not discovering each other as does the Pope. Follow the leads of your Popes.

 

[chimo]

In the old days before the “great Schism,” (I have heard some Orthodox acquaintances say) the Pope was “First Among Equals,” meaning he would be informed first of whatever canonical problem/controversy that was going on at the time, then the other churches would take in the question-----------they would consider the question together after Rome was given first “dibs” on the matter. Rome would consult with the other churches and consider their (name removed by moderator)ut.

From their POV, it was more of a collaborative effort and “joint decision” more than a one-sided declaration from Rome “this is the way it is going to be.” That attitude and policy declined over time, according to them. I disagreed with most of their conclusions.

So I get what you are saying in some ways. In SOME ways.

(If anybody wants to correct what I am saying, go ahead. Just going by what my Orthodox acquaintances have told me.)

Good thread.

I think it will be wonderful if the Pope will be able to serve the Orthodox. I also think it will be wonderful if the Orthodox will be able to help the Catholic Church. The Pope has great wisdom, experience and insights so that a joint decision will be to our advantage. I have not studied much history but I have the notion that most decisions be it in the East and the West were done much locally except for instances when greater councils were convened such as the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Peter_J]

Follow the leads of your Popes.

I second that. Despite papal-suspicions that so many Orthodox have, the recent popes have really been very Orthodox-friendly. Most of the polemics that are standard fare on Catholic “apologetics” websites are missing from Vatican statements/documents.

 

[Miserissima]

I’ve had an on/off relationship with several Orthodox folks for years.

One person, though, has presented arguments in ways that have “gotten under my skin,” so to speak. I can’t stop thinking about his points. In fact, when he learned I was studying to become Eastern Catholic, he then asked, “Why not come all the way home?”

The literature and conversations have been a bit…detrimental to my faith, in that I think about converting more than I should.

Two sticky wickets, though, are papal infallibility (I can’t un-convince myself of it) and contemporary writings of Orthodox folks just not “getting over” the 4th Crusade. My response to the latter was to comment how ironic it is that Ukraine and Poland can share a border without animosity today, but both used nationalism and national churches to attempt genocide and land grabbing. In the past century, the people “on the ground” in this region learned how to get along and rebuild – but the leaders who hold to principle and not forgive can easily incite a crowd into doing it again. *

Mind you, I never meant one system of worship was better. But if we look at each other as two functioning organs rather than two functioning heads, then the Orthodox would have a better opinion of the Eastern Catholic churches.

The reality from the Orthodox perspective is that their leaders would be required to be submissive to the Holy See. This is not necessarily so.

In theory, the Eastern Catholics are not submissive but recognize the Pope as “first among equal [bishop]s.” Here is where the Orthodox are correct: in practice, expression is suppressed (take priests married before Holy Orders, for example).

I asked my friend to see Orthodoxy v Catholicism theologies independent of national identity and did not receive a clear answer. Some of it has to do when Rome had more of a secular role in ages past. More had to do with a sense of national identity and desire for autonomy from a ruling body in which there would be only a “tolerance” for their perspective, theology, and expression.

But I always come back to the Eastern adage, “When one has a full belly, there is no reason to fight.” Joe Smith wants the security of his faith and his family and his spiritual welfare is not served by holding an epoch-old grudge.

But until the Eastern Catholic churches are recognized and treated better consistently, the Orthodox have every reservation to demur. The Latin Church, for its part, can and should reign in its Bishops Ireland and [Oh…what’s the name of the Cardinal who recently forbid married ECs to offer DL in Rome? Yeah, THAT guy!]. After all, if the Latin Church is allowing Pastoral Provision, it should certainly allow – no, encourage – expression and recognition of Sacraments of Churches with whom the Latin Church is already in Communion. Full communion.*

 

[Miserissima]

OK. It’s been decided. I hate you guys!

Right back at 'ya! I hope that my last post made sense to you.