Orthodox have it better... (I think)

  • Thread starter Thread starter 031064
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
theistgal said:
Yes, enough to both sides. I too thought this was a Melkite (Catholic) photo, because I found it posted on a blog discussing the blogger’s visit to a Byzantine Catholic Church. However, when I checked the original source of the photo (you can easily do this on almost any photo online, by right-clicking on it and clicking “properties” to get the original URL), I found it was from an Orthodox church.

So it’s the blogger who misidentified the photo who’s at fault, not anyone here. I say let it go. 👍
Click to expand...
Yes, thank you. I know who the leader of my church is. Patriarch Pavle, Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church is the one in the middle in that picture. Thanks for clarifying it Theistgal
 
031064 said:
this post is meant to be provocative and debateable and I highly encourage you to try and prove me wrong (I’d love to be wrong).
Click to expand...
While I perfectly understand your fascination with the externals of Eastern Orthodoxy, I think you’re confusing a church (building) with a church (institution). That’s a pretty fundamental error.

Faith isn’t a question of matter but of spirit. Pope Benedict said that catholicism is at its most pure when it is being persecuted in the name of Christ, not when it is displaying all of its pomp and ceremony.

I second the opinion of the poster who said you should explore the Byzantine Rite catholicism, if you feel such a strong attraction to this style of worship.
 
Hello,

The externals may be nice, but that is not what faith is about. Our religion is about entering a union with God. Without this inner communion, outer externals are utterly useless and pointless. “This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” (Matthew 15:8).
 
Pravoslavac said:
Claudius, here you go…

home.newadvent.org/cathen/02325a.htm

It clearly states that St Peter’s is the patriarchal basilica for the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Click to expand...
Nice post but it still does not remove the basic historical facts of what a Basilica is, what it is used for or the fact that St. Peter’s never belonged to the EO. Just because it has a dome does not make it EO property. We had domes in our Church before the EO ever existed.

St. Peter’s has a long and interesting history. It took over 100 years to build. It was built AFTER the EO went into schism. There was a smaller Church there before but I hardly think that the Patriarch of Constantinople would have ever said Mass there. As it is now, I do not know that any EO priest or Patriarch has ever said Mass in St. Peter’s. They have attended Masses said by the Pope but have never consecrated in St. Peter’s.

It is very symbolic to have a Church in Rome “assigned” to be for the use of this or that Patriarch to show unity but the fact is that St. Peter’s has never been used by any EO Patriarch.

A much better example of unity is the example of the Holy Sepulcure where Catholics actually SHARE our Church with the EO. They don’t commune with us because they are scared to but we give them some space and let them do their thing.
 
Claudius said:
Nice post but it still does not remove the basic historical facts of what a Basilica is, what it is used for or the fact that St. Peter’s never belonged to the EO. Just because it has a dome does not make it EO property. We had domes in our Church before the EO ever existed.

St. Peter’s has a long and interesting history. It took over 100 years to build. It was built AFTER the EO went into schism. There was a smaller Church there before but I hardly think that the Patriarch of Constantinople would have ever said Mass there. As it is now, I do not know that any EO priest or Patriarch has ever said Mass in St. Peter’s. They have attended Masses said by the Pope but have never consecrated in St. Peter’s.

It is very symbolic to have a Church in Rome “assigned” to be for the use of this or that Patriarch to show unity but the fact is that St. Peter’s has never been used by any EO Patriarch.

A much better example of unity is the example of the Holy Sepulcure where Catholics actually SHARE our Church with the EO. They don’t commune with us because they are scared to but we give them some space and let them do their thing.
Click to expand...
That’s the bumbest thing I’ve heard yet. EO goes all the way back to the first Apostles…silly.
 
vocatio said:
That’s the bumbest thing I’ve heard yet. EO goes all the way back to the first Apostles…silly.
Click to expand...
I’m not ever sure I understand what you’re trying to say. :confused:

What does that have to do with the discussion of St Peter’s Basilica?

Yours in Christ
Joe
 
Amen. I pray that the EO Church will soon reunite w/ the RCC.
👍 :byzsoc:
 
I agree that the EO have more beautiful churches than the CC but you have also ask why.

In England during the Reformation, the English government destroy many of the beautiful statues and other Catholic artifacts, and gave CC’s cathedrals to the Church of England.

The same is true in the former Soviet Union. The government gave the catherals to be EO because the EO was willing to play ball (the EO traditionally has been willing to compromise and allow civil leaders to influence the affairs of the church - this is called caesaropapism. They do not want to be ruled by the pope, but they do not mind being ruled by Caesar!). In exchange of the EO receiving special favors, the EO would give its blessing to any governmental affairs. I remember seeing old footage of the Patriach blessing the army troops as they went to war.

The EO puts all its emphasis in personal mysticism. Unlike the CC, the EO stays aways from public moral issues, which put them in conflict with their civil leaders.

I think historically the CC has done a much better job at standing up to governments. I stand in front of an abortion clinic with other Catholic and pray the Rosary. I have never seen an Orthodox joining us. I am not saying anything against the Orthodox as indiviuals. I just think the the EO stresses personal piety over public moral issues. In the CC, I think they have a better balance between public and private morality.
 
Pravoslavac said:
St. Peter’s Basilica had originally belong to the EO (Patriarch of Constantinople). Each of the five Patriarchates of the old order (taxis) had a church presence in Rome. You can tell that it was by the typical domes the EO’s use in all their churches.
Click to expand...
Pravoslavac,

Actually, St. Peter’s was “assigned” or “dedicated” to THE LATIN patriarch of Constantinople–not the EO one. The Latin patriarch was installed after the fourth crusade as a rival or replacement for the EO patriarch, but was ejected from Constantinople in 1261, and “reigned” hundreds of miles away at St. Peter’s.

St. Peter’s a Latin church, long under the guidance of a Latin patriarch. The thought that one could claim St. Peter’s for Eastern Orthodoxy is (honestly) ridiculous. You keep Hagia Sofia, we’ll keep St. Peters, lol. Thank you. 😉 (Though technically, Hagia Sofia is a legacy of the undivided Church.)

P.S. St. Peter’s dome was modeled on the Pantheon’s dome (an ancient Roman temple, later converted into a Latin church)–not an “EO style.”
 
Just for interest’s sake:
Catholic Encycolpedia:
Major basilicas
To the former class belong primarily those four great churches of Rome (St. Peter’s, St. John Lateran, St. Mary Major, and St. Paul-without-the-Walls), which among other distinctions have a special “holy door” and to which a visit is always prescribed as one of the conditions for gaining the Roman Jubilee. They are also called patriarchal basilicas, seemingly as representative of the great ecclesiastical provinces of the world thus symbolically united in the heart of Christendom.
  • St. John Lateran is the cathedral of the pope, the Patriarch of the West.
  • St. Peter’s is assigned to the Patriarch of Constantinople,
  • St. Paul’s to the Patriarch of Alexandria,
  • St. Mary Major to the Patriarch of Antioch.
  • St. Lawrence-outside-the-Walls is also reckoned as a greater basilica because it is specially attributed to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
 
031064 said:
this post is meant to be provocative and debateable and I highly encourage you to try and prove me wrong (I’d love to be wrong).

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about the EO Church. I came really close to want to join actually but the papacy holds me back.

I look at the EO and think to myself "nicer vestments, way nicer churches, the priests ALWAYS were their clerical garb (unlike ours who wear ‘street clothes’), nicer music, nicer symbolism, more ‘heavenly’ liturgy etc.

Here are some pictures to prove it:
http://www.kerygma.org/lee/liturgy_y.jpg
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/i...urch-with-Ocean-Beyond-Oia-Greece-Posters.jpg
Catholic (even eastern Catholic) monestaries pale in comparison to the beauty and location of most Orthodox monestaries:

Mount Athos
http://www.travel-to-halkidiki.com/gallery_images/39.jpg
St. Catherines, Sinai:
http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/St Catherines Monastry in Sinai.jpg

Need I mention the fact that the EO has almost all of the great holy sites like the Holy Sepulchre, tomb of Mary, Nativity etc.

The only thing is I have some theological love of the Latin Catholic church- the filoque for example. I also like the use of uleavened bread as Jesus used. can someone pls. try and convince me that these ‘externals’ are actually better in the Latin Catholic Church, or at least in the Eastern catholic Church.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
The beauty is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. I happen to like Latin Liturgy, Catholic worship and music, esp. Gregorian Chants (which I listen to even when I work as a software developer).

Easter Orthodox Church lost some of its charm to me once I saw their priests and bishops (equivalent of) blessing tanks and volunteer soldiers in Bosnia before going on mass murder (ethnic cleansing of Muslems) rampage, and openly inciting war.

Catholic Church on the other hand preached forgiveness in the same context (bringing some faithful to anger, since forgiveness seems like a silly idea in the madness of the war).

It seems to me Eastern Orthodox church has lost some of the spirit of the original Christ’s teching, making it basically a fallen church.
 
As for my two cents on this thread…

In many ways I personally prefer many aspects of Byzantine Christianity to Latin Christianity. But I think either-or contrasts between the traditions are inappropriate.

Christianity would be impoverished without the magnificent cathedrals and basilicas of the West (Notre Dame, St. Peter’s), especially in the gothic style. There are many unique features on these cathedrals lacking in the architecture/liturgical theology of the East (e.g., gargoyles), just as many aspects of their churches are unique to theirs.

Also, Christianity would also be lost without the exquisite sculpture of Western churches (since the West expresses itself in many more mediums than the East does, including statuary). The quest for realism among Western artists (in statuary and lifelike paintings) reflects the reality of the incarnation perhaps more fully than the more abstract qualities of Byzantine iconography (however much I prefer Byzantine icons).

And the Latins may not have iconostases, but they reserve the host for public worship, with red candles lit to mark the presence of the Lord, or in ornate chapels of Eucharistic adoration, for instance (which are lacking in the Byzantine tradition). Honestly, I’d rather worship Christ in the Eucharist all day in an adoration chapel, than through the most beautiful icon. (And what about the uniquely Latin tradition of displaying the Eucharist in a monstrance, and parading through the streets, with bells and candles? I love it.)

The extraordinary form of the Latin Mass can be indescribably gorgeous. And the modern Roman rite is beautiful in its simplicity and mobility (the take-everywhere liturgy that requires almost nothing architecturally, and works as well in a prison cell as in the largest cathedral).

The list could go on… Point being:

WE SHOULD CELEBRATE all that makes the Latin rite different from the Byzantine rite.

This is one lesser reason I became Catholic rather than Orthodox. I appreciated the fact that the Catholic Church contains many rites and traditions (Latin-rite, Byzantine, Maronite, etc.), reflecting the diversity of Christianity. If Byzantine Christianity speaks to you, transfer to one of the Byzantine Catholic churches.

And yes, the state of many Roman Catholic parishes is distressing. But this is the church militant: if something is wounded, attend to it–heal it. Also, realize that the Eastern churches have not confronted secular and liberal challenges to Christianity on the level the West has. Obviously, if one were to find churches infected with modern liberalism, they would find them in the Latin-rite, simply because of the prevailing trends in West. Again, confront it, and heal it.

And yeah… some Orthodox churches leave alot to be desired as well. Beware the “grass is greener” fallacy. The problems in Orthodoxy are different from ours, but no less distressing (e.g., jurisdictional chaos, individual priests with their own concepts of “grave sins” as regards music tastes, clothing styles, etc.).

(P.S. I’m sorry if this post comes across as anti-Byzantine. I would gladly retract anything I wrote if it seems to undermine the integrity of another branch of Catholicism.)
 
adventistnomore said:
As for my two cents on this thread…

In many ways I personally prefer many aspects of Byzantine Christianity to Latin Christianity. But I think either-or contrasts between the traditions are inappropriate.

Christianity would be impoverished without the magnificent cathedrals and basilicas of the West (Notre Dame, St. Peter’s), especially in the gothic style. There are many unique features on these cathedrals lacking in the architecture/liturgical theology of the East (e.g., gargoyles), just as many aspects of their churches are unique to theirs.

Also, Christianity would also be lost without the exquisite sculpture of Western churches (since the West expresses itself in many more mediums than the East does, including statuary), and the more lifelike paintings. The quest for realism among Western artists reflects the reality of the incarnation perhaps more fully than the more abstract qualities of Byzantine iconography (however much I prefer Byzantine icons).

And the Latins may not have iconostases, but they reserve the host for public worship, with red candles lit to mark the presence of the Lord, or in ornate chapels of Eucharistic adoration, for instance (which are lacking in the Byzantine tradition). Honestly, I’d rather worship Christ in the Eucharist all day in an adoration chapel than through the most beautiful icon. (And what about the uniquely Latin tradition of displaying the Eucharist in a monstrance, and parading through the streets, with bells and candles. I love it.)

The extraordinary form of the Latin Mass can be indescribably unbelievably gorgeous. And the modern Roman rite is beautiful in its simplicity and mobility (the take-everywhere liturgy that requires almost nothing architecturally).

The list could go on… Point being:

WE SHOULD CELEBRATE all that makes the Latin rite unique.

This is one lesser reason I became Catholic rather than Orthodox. I appreciated the fact that the Catholic Church contains many rites and traditions (Latin-rite, Byzantine, Maronite, etc.), reflecting the diversity of Christianity. If Byzantine Christianity speaks to you, transfer to one of the Byzantine Catholic churches.

And yes, the state of many Roman Catholic parishes is distressing. But this is the church militant: if something is wounded, attend to it–heal it. Also, realize that the Eastern churches have not confronted secular and liberal challenges to Christianity on the level the West has. Obviously, if one were to find churches infected with modern liberalism, they would find them in the Latin-rite, simply because of the prevailing trends in West. Again, confront it, and heal it.

And yeah… some Orthodox churches leave alot to be desired as well. Beware the “grass is greener” fallacy. The problems in Orthodoxy are different from ours, but no less distressing (e.g., jurisdictional chaos).

(Sorry this post seems anti-Byzantine. I would never want it to be that, and would gladly retract anything to respect the integrity of another branch of Catholicism.)
Click to expand...
I think this post sums up the Latin beuaty wonderfully.

Personally, i think one of our greatest attributes is our organization! Romans were always the best at administration, and the Roamn Church continues the trend! Thank God we do not suffer the jurisdictional difficulties Orthodox Christians face. I think that the Orthodox jurisdictional struggles are some of th ebiggest barriers to full communion.
 
mario_grgic said:
The beauty is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. I happen to like Latin Liturgy, Catholic worship and music, esp. Gregorian Chants (which I listen to even when I work as a software developer).

Easter Orthodox Church lost some of its charm to me once I saw their priests and bishops (equivalent of) blessing tanks and volunteer soldiers in Bosnia before going on mass murder (ethnic cleansing of Muslems) rampage, and openly inciting war.

Catholic Church on the other hand preached forgiveness in the same context (bringing some faithful to anger, since forgiveness seems like a silly idea in the madness of the war).

It seems to me Eastern Orthodox church has lost some of the spirit of the original Christ’s teching, making it basically a fallen church.
Click to expand...
I assume you’re joking, right? Can anyone say “Crusades”?

Or how about this.

http://www.moriel.org/assets/images/Notice Board/sungenis15.jpg



Catholics and Orthodox are both capable of incredibly stupid things. Simply because some clerics are bad doesn’t mean the Church is “fallen.” 😉 I thought a Catholic would understand this.

Yours in Christ
Joe
 
There is a big difference between using a “common greeting of the time” in 1933 (which is when these pics are from), before Nazis have committed any atrocities vs. blessing someone going into murder (including a murder weapon).

If you know your history well, you will also know that Hitler actually had quite a beef with Catholic church and wanted it “replaced” with his own kind of Christianity.

No one can prevent sin (except God perhaps by taking our free will from us), but the big difference is what happens after the sin has been committed. True Christ’s church would (and it has) condemn any wrong doing from both theological and practical points, and that has not happened in Eastern Orthodox Church.
 
This is the a CATHOLIC Norbertine abbey across the street from my house. It’s where I came to love the Church and the Rosary

http://abbeynews.com/gallery/ChurchJungle.jpg

http://abbeynews.com/gallery/ChurchFlowers.jpg

http://abbeynews.com/gallery/abbey.jpg

My favorite prayer location, the highest point on the abbey with the stations of the cross spaced throughout
http://abbeynews.com/gallery/Dscn3599.jpg

And currently I’m on vacation in Honolulu, Hawaii (Waikiki) and the church here (St. Augustine’s) is gorgeous! Right on the beach!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top