JAMES LIKOUDIS apologetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Addai
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**Moderator Note:

** If you would like to continue comparing and contrasting Eastern Catholicism with Western Rite Orthodoxy, please start a new thread in the Eastern Catholicism forum.

If you would like to discuss Western Rite Orthodoxy in relation to Eastern Orthodoxy, please see here for that discussion.

Please keep this discussion on topic. Thank you.
 
So that we don’t miss the obvious here…

Just a thought, but the existence of the WRO seems to be far more akin to the allowance of the Anglican Use than the EC sui iuis Churches.
For example:
1.) the retaining of the Anglican form of the liturgy, with some small adjustment.
2.) the lack of independent hierarchy, i.e. they work under the auspices of the Orthodox or Catholic hierarchy (already in place) with who the hold communion/have converted under.
3.) neither is likely to have its own independent hierarchy any time in the long foreseeable future.

I paint broad strikes here, so if anyone has some hard details to add, feel free. There are some obvious differences to, like the WRO adaptation of Orthodox theology. I would say that there is probably a greater difference between Anglican theology and Orthodox theology than between Anglican and Latin Catholic theologies, which those who use the Anglican use probably most identify with.

There is no real comparison between the the place of the WRO and the Place of the EC in their respective communions.

God Bless,
Rosemary

PS
I realize this is a continuation of the off topic topic. I someone would like to make a thread about this that’s fine, but I don’t think there is any comparison, so I have no interest in starting a thread.
 
Madaglan said:
I do not put much stock in James Likoudis. For one thing, when James Likoudis converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism,** he entered the Latin Church and not the respective Eastern Catholic Church to the Orthodox Church from which he was coming.** Not that this discredits him, but it does seem to imply that Likoudis’ spiritual home is not in Eastern Christian theology (either Catholic or Orthodox) but in Latin Catholicism. This would, I think, have an influence on his ecclesiology.
Click to expand...
Ethnocentrism, much? There is not one whit of real difference between two expressions of the truth! Ethnicity and culture ultimately do not matter. I heartily endorse Likoudis.
 
Gofer said:
Ethnocentrism, much? There is not one whit of real difference between two expressions of the truth! Ethnicity and culture ultimately do not matter. I heartily endorse Likoudis.
Click to expand...
You appear to have completely missed the point Madaglan had made.
 
I’m coming a bit late to the discussion, so my apologies …

As a soon-to-be revert from Orthodoxy back to Catholicism, I generally enjoyed reading James Likoudis’s works. Yes, there were some passages that made me cringe a bit (either because I felt they were inaccurate or just not very gracefully worded), but on the whole I felt that he made many important points.

Perhaps Likoudis only seems to be uncharitable, because Catholics in general these post-Vatican II days really do treat Orthodoxy with kid gloves (as, for the most part, they should). But let’s not pretend that he’s any more polemical than your average Orthodox book or tract on Catholicism.
 
Gofer said:
Originally Posted by Madaglan
I do not put much stock in James Likoudis. For one thing, when James Likoudis converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism, he entered the Latin Church and not the respective Eastern Catholic Church to the Orthodox Church from which he was coming. Not that this discredits him, but it does seem to imply that Likoudis’ spiritual home is not in Eastern Christian theology (either Catholic or Orthodox) but in Latin Catholicism. This would, I think, have an influence on his ecclesiology.
Click to expand...
Respective insofar as liturgy and theology primarily – NOT ethnicity. The point is that he found himself at home in a different formulation and that may have a negative effect on his interpretation of Eastern theology and practice in general.
Click to expand...
 
hormisdas said:
I’m coming a bit late to the discussion, so my apologies …

As a soon-to-be revert from Orthodoxy back to Catholicism, I generally enjoyed reading James Likoudis’s works. Yes, there were some passages that made me cringe a bit (either because I felt they were inaccurate or just not very gracefully worded), but on the whole I felt that he made many important points.

Perhaps Likoudis only seems to be uncharitable, because Catholics in general these post-Vatican II days really do treat Orthodoxy with kid gloves (as, for the most part, they should). But let’s not pretend that he’s any more polemical than your average Orthodox book or tract on Catholicism.
Click to expand...
I’m with ya Horm, especially with the “kid gloves” comment.

Incidently, is his web site the best place to buy his books?
I’m with
 
Mr. Suaiden prattles much about Tradition and the “consensus of the Fathers” but chooses to totally ignore the simple fact that an “undivided Church” makes historical sense only where the Episcopate of the Church remains “one and undivided” (as St. Cyprian taught) because of its “solidity” with the See of Peter which presides over the communion of the Churches making up the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
How is the Episcopate of the Orthodox Church divided without the “Papal Dogmas”? I don’t see it. As for schisms and dissensions - the Papacy does not prevent this. Catholicism birthed the Reformation, went through “anti-Pope” crises, and has even contemporary schisms and wide spread controversies and disorders. For all of Her trials and obvious human imperfections, the Orthodox have not had all of these problems, and certainly not on this scale.

I don’t point this out as part of a bragging contest - but only to ask just what “unity” you’re talking about. A singular administrative unity? That’s never existed, by the will of God, even back when Orthodox Christians supposedly “were Catholics” by modern Roman Catholic understanding.
 
Palamite said:
How is the Episcopate of the Orthodox Church divided without the “Papal Dogmas”? I don’t see it. As for schisms and dissensions - the Papacy does not prevent this. Catholicism birthed the Reformation, went through “anti-Pope” crises, and has even contemporary schisms and wide spread controversies and disorders. For all of Her trials and obvious human imperfections, the Orthodox have not had all of these problems, and certainly not on this scale.

I don’t point this out as part of a bragging contest - but only to ask just what “unity” you’re talking about. A singular administrative unity? That’s never existed, by the will of God, even back when Orthodox Christians supposedly “were Catholics” by modern Roman Catholic understanding.
Click to expand...
I think he could be refering to all those things. But I took Likoudas’s comment more in the abstract of ecclesiology, like “the Church as Icon” and the basic logic behind that. People are people even if they attempt to follow the Paradosis. Without primacy to be a tie breaker, you end up with either a schism or a statemate, log jam.
 
FrDavidStraut said:
Dear SimpleSinner,

What is OTJ?

Fr David Straut
Click to expand...
Sorry I did not get back to you sooner! I was home for my grandfather’s funeral.

Aramis was right, OTJ = “On The Journey”

Apropos the context of my original comment… Folks who are caught between arguments made by the non-Catholic East and the Catholic Church… and sort of “on the fence”… Well, unfortunately I am not convinced that Likoudis’ works do less harm than good. Some of it is just too “old school cold-warrior” style for today’s more modern sensibilities. The presentation is, at times, problematic for some.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
Sorry I did not get back to you sooner! I was home for my grandfather’s funeral.
Click to expand...
Dear SS,

May the Lord give rest to the soul of your Grandfather who has fallen asleep and may He comfort your family in this time of loss.

Fr David
 
ASimpleSinner said:
Apropos the context of my original comment… Folks who are caught between arguments made by the non-Catholic East and the Catholic Church…
Click to expand...
Arguments made by the non-Catholic East … could you provide examples? (If you like, I’ll reciprocate by giving examples of arguments made by the non-Orthodox West.)
 
Palamite said:
As for schisms and dissensions - the Papacy does not prevent this. Catholicism birthed the Reformation, went through “anti-Pope” crises, and has even contemporary schisms and wide spread controversies and disorders.
Click to expand...
I’m not really sure who/what you’re responding to. Yes, I agree that the Papacy did not prevent the Reformation. But there’s really no doubt in anyone’s mind which Church is the historical continuation of the Roman Catholic Church of the 15th century: we all know that the Pope broke away from the Church of England.
😃
 
Madaglan said:
How long is the Coptic Divine Liturgy? You guys normally ollow the Liturgy of St. Basil, right?
Click to expand...
As brother Addai stated, it is normally about three hours. I know of parishes in the U.S. that have a shortened form of about 1.5 hours (ALONG WITH the Traditional 3-hour Mass) for the sake of visitors/recent converts/ new generation Copts/infirm.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Palamite
Palamite said:
How is the Episcopate of the Orthodox Church divided without the “Papal Dogmas”? I don’t see it. As for schisms and dissensions - the Papacy does not prevent this. Catholicism birthed the Reformation, went through “anti-Pope” crises, and has even contemporary schisms and wide spread controversies and disorders. For all of Her trials and obvious human imperfections, the Orthodox have not had all of these problems, and certainly not on this scale.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox have never had to deal with the intellectual fervor that the West had to face. Basically, the Orthodox have been insulated from the kind of intellectual free-for-all pressures the West had to face throughout the Middle Ages. That is the reason that the Orthodox have “not had all these problems.” It certainly was not because of your ecclesiology, but simply because the environment in which the Orthodox existed was not amenable to the free-thinking atmosphere in which the Latin Church was forced to exist. But Latin Catholics believe that it was the Holy Spirit working through the papacy that preserved the Catholic Faith DESPITE the quite different circumstances that the Latins had to endure.

I once spoke to a member of the TAC and asked whether or not he ever considered Orthodoxy. He stated that Orthodoxy did not present the same kind of solidity that Catholicism represented, opining that he was unsure whether Orthodoxy would have survived the kind of intellectual pressures that the Catholic Church had to face if placed in the same situation - simply because of lack of central leadership.

So whether or not the Reformation, or other schismatic/heretical movements existed in the West cannot really be brought to bear on the issue of the validity of the Catholic Church. That’s like doubting the validity of God because there are sinners! The real issue is whether or not the Catholic Church itself remained pure throughout such troubling times.

Blessings,
Marduk

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Peter_J said:
Arguments made by the non-Catholic East … could you provide examples? (If you like, I’ll reciprocate by giving examples of arguments made by the non-Orthodox West.)
Click to expand...
Or maybe you’d prefer examples from the non-Lutheran South? Or perhaps the non-Pentecostal North?
 
Palamite said:
How is the Episcopate of the Orthodox Church divided without the “Papal Dogmas”? I don’t see it. As for schisms and dissensions - the Papacy does not prevent this. Catholicism birthed the Reformation, went through “anti-Pope” crises, and has even contemporary schisms and wide spread controversies and disorders. For all of Her trials and obvious human imperfections, the Orthodox have not had all of these problems, and certainly not on this scale.

I don’t point this out as part of a bragging contest - but only to ask just what “unity” you’re talking about. A singular administrative unity? That’s never existed, by the will of God, even back when Orthodox Christians supposedly “were Catholics” by modern Roman Catholic understanding.
Click to expand...
A couple of additional thoughts:
  1. I believe that the Reformation was, to an extent, a reaction against certain things in the Catholic Church. But keep in mind that this cuts both ways. For example, the Protestant attitude toward authority is largely a reaction against the corruption and abuse of authority in that time period; but on the Catholic side, where previously there had been a certain amount of ambiguity in Church teaching on authority, the Church now found it necessary to pin down more precisely what the Pope’s authority is, in the face of blatant denial of it. Same for “administrative unity”.
  2. If you’re going to use the Reformation as evidence against the Catholic Church, you might want to consider that many Catholic polemicists frequently point to the many heresies that took place in the East (Arianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, etc.) as evidence against the Orthodox Church. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?:cool:
 
mardukm said:
I once spoke to a member of the TAC and asked whether or not he ever considered Orthodoxy. He stated that Orthodoxy did not present the same kind of solidity that Catholicism represented, opining that he was unsure whether Orthodoxy would have survived the kind of intellectual pressures that the Catholic Church had to face if placed in the same situation - simply because of lack of central leadership.
Click to expand...
Scott Hahn beats your TAC friend hands down: “Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms”

I don’t really want to get into it again (having been in a couple other recent discussions on the topic) but to me the Protestant attitude toward Orthodoxy is one of the biggest enigmas of the Protestant world. (And that’s is really saying something!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top