B
BusterMartin
Guest
Thank you to all who have replied to my question within the question. I appreciate the responses!
- Status
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
From MY point of view, I have the best of Both Worlds. Having basically Orthodox beliefs----and constantly having the Philokalia as my second Bible--------plus being in Communion with the Pope and Rome-------FYI, I used to write for an independent website, “Ukrainian Orthodoxy” but resigned completely from it when, as I’ve been told, the Ukrainian Orthodox church actually proscribed it, for reasons unknown to me.
One individual contacted me to tell me that I should convert to Orthodoxy before I would presume to write about it . . .
In fact, I wrote about what I always thought were traditions and saints shared by both Ukrainian Orthodox and Greek-Catholics. I would never comment on matters that were clearly outside my competence. Those were left to the priest-administrator. Also, the website states I’m Ukrainian Catholic at the outset.
I was also accused of “pretending to be Orthodox” (when did that happen?) and somehow promoting papal supremacy (I have never mentioned this even once over 500 + articles and when writing about the saints, stuck to only Orthodox saints).
Someone also accused me of having said that I would never take Communion in an Orthodox Church.
And that is true, I never would, since that would be breaking the Canons of the Orthodox Church.
When listing the Saints of Ukraine, I included all those Orthodox saints who lived, at one time or another, on Ukrainian territory but who may not have been ethnically Ukrainian themselves. That got me the label of being “pro-Russian.”
But since the website, as my “friends” told me, is now proscribed officially, there is nothing further to say.
In fact, that experience with my Orthodox friends left me with a very bad taste in my mouth and has definitely opened my eyes to a number of things.
Throughout my exchange with one fellow, epithets against the Pope were hurled at my direction as well.
I think I’ll stick only with the Catholic Church and the Pope from now on!
Alex
Who could ask for anything better?
BTW-----sorry about your experience with the Orthodox folk. I can sort of relate since I’ve had slightly similar experiences. Not as nasty as yours, but still uncomfortable.
All I can do is pray (somehow) against all odds that Reunification will happen one day and the Two Lungs Breathe once again in Unison. Unlikely, but one can only dream…
D
dzheremi
Guest
I tried to see Eastern Catholicism as “Orthodox with a Pope” or what have you at one point. I thought maybe I could be happy in a Catholic Church that had a less scholastic, more mystical approach to the faith such as I have seen when visiting the OCA and talking with Orthodox friends. Instead I found that I was the only one present at DL who didn’t recite the filioque in the Creed, and my questions were answered by the priest shamefully admitting that they have yet to fix many problems in their liturgical books. When I compared his perspective with that of my own (Dominican) priest, it was even more discouraging. The priest explained that the EC’s should not include the filioque in their recitation of the Creed (echoing the principle that the Eastern Catholics are to go back to their traditions) – they just cannot teach against it.
How this is supposed to work, I don’t know. They are not supposed to include it, as it is an understanding that is absolutely foreign and contrary to their (Orthodox, or at least Orthodox-derived) traditions, but they cannot teach against it on the same account (that is, it is against their traditions)? Perhaps my priest meant “traditions” with reference to externalities only, but that would seem a rather poor show of support for what is supposed to be the “other lung” of the communion. And so it seems, at least to me. And this is without even approaching the theological objections of those Orthodox who refuse to be dictated to by Rome!
Therefore, it is hard to see where the shared faith that is supposed to subsist in communion between the Eastern and Western churches would lie. The truth, which Rome fudges at every opportunity (or so it seemed when looking back at my time in RCIA), is that we do not share the same faith, so the two communions should not reunite in the absence of either the Orthodox apostasizing and professing their belief in Catholic doctrines and fidelity to Catholic practice, or Rome and its Eastern compatriots giving up the doctrines and stances particular to them that conflict with Orthodox understandings and practices of the Christian faith. This whole in-between stance, wherein one is “basically” Orthodox while not being actually Orthodox, only frustrates the necessary move. Just think of what you would say to a self-proclaimed “Anglo-Catholic” who denies the necessity of actually being in union with Rome. It is unacceptable, is it not?
Just one heretic’s opinion, anyway…
How this is supposed to work, I don’t know. They are not supposed to include it, as it is an understanding that is absolutely foreign and contrary to their (Orthodox, or at least Orthodox-derived) traditions, but they cannot teach against it on the same account (that is, it is against their traditions)? Perhaps my priest meant “traditions” with reference to externalities only, but that would seem a rather poor show of support for what is supposed to be the “other lung” of the communion. And so it seems, at least to me. And this is without even approaching the theological objections of those Orthodox who refuse to be dictated to by Rome!
Therefore, it is hard to see where the shared faith that is supposed to subsist in communion between the Eastern and Western churches would lie. The truth, which Rome fudges at every opportunity (or so it seemed when looking back at my time in RCIA), is that we do not share the same faith, so the two communions should not reunite in the absence of either the Orthodox apostasizing and professing their belief in Catholic doctrines and fidelity to Catholic practice, or Rome and its Eastern compatriots giving up the doctrines and stances particular to them that conflict with Orthodox understandings and practices of the Christian faith. This whole in-between stance, wherein one is “basically” Orthodox while not being actually Orthodox, only frustrates the necessary move. Just think of what you would say to a self-proclaimed “Anglo-Catholic” who denies the necessity of actually being in union with Rome. It is unacceptable, is it not?
Just one heretic’s opinion, anyway…
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Not a heretic at all, but you’ve echoed things that we’ve all experienced at one time or another.
In addition to having to live up to all the ideals that Rome (and even the Orthodox) expect of us, we are trying to be two things at once with varying degrees of success or failure. As “Orthodox in communion with Rome” we are to be Orthodox in everything PLUS the Pope. And “Orthodox” in such a way that we aren’t critical of Latin theology which the “Orthodox in communion with the Orthodox” regard as downright heresy. With respect to papal jurisdictional primacy and infallibility, we are to, in effect, take the train that says “Orthodoxy” and then we’re supposed to get off at the stop that says “the Papacy.” Like taking a statue and removing its head, only to replace it with another head that comes from another statue.
The result is a truly hybridized Church similar to the “High” and “Low” branches of Anglicanism. My church certainly doesn’t feel like a homogeneous religious institution . . .
Then there are those within our own parishes who look upon you with suspicion for trying to be “too Orthodox” (we had a fellow in one parish who painstakingly went through our pew-books to cross out “Orthodox Christians” in every one . . .
). There are priests who preach against kneeling on Sundays, others who say that if you don’t kneel - that is heresy and so forth. I guess one takes one’s pick of a parish and sticks with it.Then there are one’s own Orthodox people who, as in my case, just don’t like anything having to do with Eastern Catholics - they dislike EC’s much more than anyone else, in fact. Their priests are afraid that their parishioners might consider going over to EC parishes (which are very vibrant) and so build walls of separation where none should really exist. One is either “Orthodox” or not - the fact that EC’s and Orthodox of a given group share the exact same liturgical, spiritual and cultural ethos makes no difference.
When I read RC scholars say that the Unions with Eastern Christians were a mistake - can one truly and honestly disagree with them? Not that union between East and West would be a mistake, only that separating Eastern Christians from their mother Churches for purposes of setting up EC communities was a mistake.
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox may then say that they now finally understand one another with respect to these historical issues.
But Eastern Catholics are the ones left having to continue to suffer the tension and division that persist to this day.
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
You are a Divinely-blessed individual and it is a blessing to all of us here to know you!Very COOL!
That Icon too, the “Kursk-Root Mother of God of the Sign” is the most amazing Icon I have ever seen! The spiritual fragrance that that comes off of it over-powered the incense used in the Russian Church that I saw it in! I have no doubt that it is a miracle working Icon!
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
You are someone who should be shared by all Churches so that they may all garner a bit of what God has given you to their mutual benefit!
A truly remarkable Christian you are!
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Friends,
Just wanted to share with my Friends in Christ here that the website I mentioned before and I have “made up” and apparently there is no problem whatever. The problem was caused by one angry individual and I’ve come from that experience knowing that one should never be overly emotional in reacting to such, as dcointin has said.
It just makes my day!
Alex
Just wanted to share with my Friends in Christ here that the website I mentioned before and I have “made up” and apparently there is no problem whatever. The problem was caused by one angry individual and I’ve come from that experience knowing that one should never be overly emotional in reacting to such, as dcointin has said.
It just makes my day!
Alex
J
JohnVIII
Guest
How odd to me since my experience has been the opposite! Things surly must vary from one location to another. In my 25 year experience in the Eastern Orthodox Church only one time did I ever hear anyone say the “and the Son” (filioque) phrase, and that was done by accident by a priest that converted form the Anglican to the Orthodox, and he apologized to the parish for doing so. (I told his that he need not worry because his guardian angle said it for him correctly.) But now that I am going to a Roman Catholic parrish (and BTW it is a Dominican parrish!) I have seen all kinds of things that have tempted me to think I should return to the Eastern Orthodox, the priest is gay and has loads ultra-liberal views, he has often said we can pray to God as “Heavenly Mother” (and I know he wasn’t referring the the Virgin Mary), (and there are other things I could say but will not).
BTW I like that phrase “Orthodox with a Pope”, I may start calling myself that.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I do not understand this stance. If Orthodox Christians regard your beliefs as heresy, then how can you claim to be any kind of Orthodox? Surely they establish what is Orthodox? It would not be appropriate for a Protestant to claim to be Catholic if they held to beliefs that the Catholic Church sees as heresy, would it?
There is no reason why anyone should have to bless such things by their tacit approval. This is the problem that I have with the Roman communion: Individual variations in practice and teaching, not for the sake of economia or similar considerations, but because from place to place you’ll find different views that are entertained out of personal preference/conviction to the detriment of the supposedly consistent teachings and guidelines promulgated by Rome. Nobody seems to be bothered if some people want to have a jazz combo play as part of the liturgy, insert a secular patriotic hymn in place of the one actually called for according to the missal, let the priest preach Protestant heresies in the homily, etc. After all, everybody does things differently and maybe you should try a Latin Mass if you want something reverent? Nobody seems to stop and think about the implications of allowing all sorts of contradictory teachings, beliefs, and practices within the same communion, because there’s the fallback position of the Latin Mass and/or the Eastern Catholic Churches (as though by their very existence they excuse a schizophrenic approach to communion). I hate to say it, but that’s really how I felt the RCs I dealt with approached the communion: The paramount consideration is corporeal unity under the visible leadership of the Roman Pope, not orthodoxy and orthopraxy, and the ECCs are showpieces of “the Church’s” diversity, rather than individual faith traditions with their own histories, spiritualities, and prerogatives that have inherent value.
As a point of comparison, I spent some time recently reading a discussion between two Coptic Orthodox laypeople regarding the disciplining of the particularly popular priest and monk who oversaw the monastery at Wadi El Natroun, the late Father Matta El Meskeen (“Matthew the Poor”), by HH Pope Shenouda III. It was asked why the priest had been dealt with in that manner, and the explanation was something like this: While for instance in the Roman Catholic Church you may have some monastic community that follows the teachings of St. Anselm, and another that does not follow those teachings in favor of a different approach, in the Orthodox Church you cannot do such a thing because any particular teaching or practice is viewed in light of its relation to the Apostolic faith in toto. If you go off and do your own thing, it will not be accepted. As the spiritual father of a community, you are accountable not only to those above and below you (the idea being that Orthodox laypeople ought to have some innate sense of what is acceptable within their faith by virtue of their close adherence to it), but to those who have come before you. Add your own wacky ideas (“Heavenly Mother” or whatever) and you should expect to be disciplined!
How different this is than the indifference of other churches and communions…
If someone said that to me, I would assume they are Coptic Orthodox.
T
tomarin
Guest
That would make a pretty good name for a blog.
C
countertenor
Guest
That’s what I thought too.If someone said that to me, I would assume they are Coptic Orthodox.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
I would concur that all the points you just made in you post are valid. My aim is not to find any kind of ideal church. I am Orthodox in my faith. I would wish to communion with all the Orthodox that likewise hold the same faith as I, but I hold one non-(modern-day)-Orthodox view and that is that the Pope in Rome is the successor to St Peter in a unique way, and as such, when he properly speaks as the successor to St Peter, he speaks with authority, not only to the whole Church (both East and West), but to the whole universe. If I leave again and return to the Orthodox Church there are many there who, like me, also see the Pope as the leader of all Christians, so I would not be alone. It is also very clear that Eastern Orthodox did hold a view of the Pope much the same as mine several centuries ago.I do not understand this stance. If Orthodox Christians regard your beliefs as heresy, then how can you claim to be any kind of Orthodox? Surely they establish what is Orthodox? It would not be appropriate for a Protestant to claim to be Catholic if they held to beliefs that the Catholic Church sees as heresy, would it?
[snip]
If someone said that to me, I would assume they are Coptic Orthodox.
And BTW, although I’m not a Coptic Orthodox, if anyone made the mistake of calling me one I would take it as a complement! Thank you!
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Dzheremi,
Believe me. I understand where you are coming from, for I used to feel there was nothing in common between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. But it turned out that it was just a matter of misunderstanding on my part on what Catholicism taught.
As far as the the issue of filioque is concerned, perhaps this thread will help you out. It is relatively (and thankfully) short and to the point (only 6 pages).
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=493246
Blessings,
Marduk
Believe me. I understand where you are coming from, for I used to feel there was nothing in common between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. But it turned out that it was just a matter of misunderstanding on my part on what Catholicism taught.
As far as the the issue of filioque is concerned, perhaps this thread will help you out. It is relatively (and thankfully) short and to the point (only 6 pages).
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=493246
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Alex,
For a person who feels the conflict, it really seems being Orthodox in communion with Rome is the best bet. In the Catholic Church, EO’xy is officially seen as a sister Church, and Eastern Catholics are not in any danger that their Tradition would be branded as heretical. But an Orthodox longing for union with Rome would have the added conflict of being possibly heretical in the eyes of their Church, and probably eventually being driven out anyway.
What do you think?
Blessings,
Marduk
On an individual level, it seems a non-ideal situation either way. Either we have Orthodox in communion with Rome, or we have Orthodox longing for union with Rome but are forbidden to do so. It seems the latter circumstance would be more intolerable.
For a person who feels the conflict, it really seems being Orthodox in communion with Rome is the best bet. In the Catholic Church, EO’xy is officially seen as a sister Church, and Eastern Catholics are not in any danger that their Tradition would be branded as heretical. But an Orthodox longing for union with Rome would have the added conflict of being possibly heretical in the eyes of their Church, and probably eventually being driven out anyway.
What do you think?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother dzheremi,
The reason I had earlier asked about the status of pre-union ROCOR and Old Believers is that schism does not necessarily cause you to lose your status as “Orthodox.” From the Catholic perspective, the EO have always been objectively in “schism,” not heresy. So EO are Orthodox not in communion with Rome, while there are other Easterns who are also Orthodox, but are in communion with Rome.
So according to you, just because there are different Traditions within the same communion, then that is tantamount to “indifference.”
Blessings,
Marduk
By the same account, then, you agree that it is Catholics who should establish who is Catholic and therefore Orthodox Christians don’t have a right to call themselves Catholic?I do not understand this stance. If Orthodox Christians regard your beliefs as heresy, then how can you claim to be any kind of Orthodox? Surely they establish what is Orthodox? It would not be appropriate for a Protestant to claim to be Catholic if they held to beliefs that the Catholic Church sees as heresy, would it?
The reason I had earlier asked about the status of pre-union ROCOR and Old Believers is that schism does not necessarily cause you to lose your status as “Orthodox.” From the Catholic perspective, the EO have always been objectively in “schism,” not heresy. So EO are Orthodox not in communion with Rome, while there are other Easterns who are also Orthodox, but are in communion with Rome.
Of course, you are using this circumstance and completely taking it out of context. Please, oh please, do not try to use statements from HH Pope Shenoute to suit your own ends that do not at all support your position. The Oriental Orthodox Communion is composed of three distinct Traditions (with some distinct sub-Traditions within those Traditions) that do not in the least agree with your idea of uniformity!How different this is than the indifference of other churches and communions…
So according to you, just because there are different Traditions within the same communion, then that is tantamount to “indifference.”
As I’ve always stated, the OO definitely adhere to a High Petrine view.If someone said that to me, I would assume they are Coptic Orthodox.
Blessings,
Marduk
F
Formosus
Guest
Not wanting to derail this thread, but if the OO communion adheres to a High Petrine view, then why do they not enter into communion with the Pope of Rome?As I’ve always stated, the OO definitely adhere to a High Petrine view.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dzheremi
Guest
Dear Mardukm,
It is not necessarily that there is nothing in common between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The Church in Rome shared roughly 1000 years of communion with the Chalcedonian East (albeit with some serious bumps in the road, increasing in severity and consequence as the schism became finalized). This is not a negligible point. To my way of thinking, it was the increasing estrangement of the West and the East that arguably started with the change in the language of the liturgy in the West from Greek to Latin (I can’t remember the details at the moment, but as I recall this happened under one of the African popes c. 4th century AD) that prefigured the establishment of two separate communions, not the more obvious flash-points like the filioque (I only brought this up as an example of the way that my experience in Eastern Catholicism was not as edifying as I had hoped it would be). In the absence of a shared understanding of their once common faith, each developed in isolation from the other to such a degree that by the time Rome positioned itself to bring sections of the East under its control, it could be rightly seen as the intrusion of a foreign faith into the established order of the Eastern churches.
There is perhaps some parallel with this in the earlier controversy over the doctrinal pronouncement of Chalcedon, which was likewise rejected due to the very different understandings of what was being affirmed (and, perhaps more importantly, what was implied) in the formula promulgated there. Another very complicated situation, as I am sure you are well aware, having a non-Chalcedonian background as you do. I do not think it is fair to reduce the very nuanced arguments for/against the positions taken by the various communions to mere “misunderstandings”. I think it would be fair to presuppose that they may have started out that way, but in the same way that the acknowledgment of some Orthodox (ex. Bp. Kallistos Ware) that the filioque need not necessarily be the insurmountable barrier that many think it is does not diminish the many other ways in which Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are not compatible expressions of the same faith, the fact that these “misunderstandings” have helped to produce faiths that are in some ways very different and contradictory to one another cannot be minimized.
It is not necessarily that there is nothing in common between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The Church in Rome shared roughly 1000 years of communion with the Chalcedonian East (albeit with some serious bumps in the road, increasing in severity and consequence as the schism became finalized). This is not a negligible point. To my way of thinking, it was the increasing estrangement of the West and the East that arguably started with the change in the language of the liturgy in the West from Greek to Latin (I can’t remember the details at the moment, but as I recall this happened under one of the African popes c. 4th century AD) that prefigured the establishment of two separate communions, not the more obvious flash-points like the filioque (I only brought this up as an example of the way that my experience in Eastern Catholicism was not as edifying as I had hoped it would be). In the absence of a shared understanding of their once common faith, each developed in isolation from the other to such a degree that by the time Rome positioned itself to bring sections of the East under its control, it could be rightly seen as the intrusion of a foreign faith into the established order of the Eastern churches.
There is perhaps some parallel with this in the earlier controversy over the doctrinal pronouncement of Chalcedon, which was likewise rejected due to the very different understandings of what was being affirmed (and, perhaps more importantly, what was implied) in the formula promulgated there. Another very complicated situation, as I am sure you are well aware, having a non-Chalcedonian background as you do. I do not think it is fair to reduce the very nuanced arguments for/against the positions taken by the various communions to mere “misunderstandings”. I think it would be fair to presuppose that they may have started out that way, but in the same way that the acknowledgment of some Orthodox (ex. Bp. Kallistos Ware) that the filioque need not necessarily be the insurmountable barrier that many think it is does not diminish the many other ways in which Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are not compatible expressions of the same faith, the fact that these “misunderstandings” have helped to produce faiths that are in some ways very different and contradictory to one another cannot be minimized.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Formosus,
In point of fact, as the Churches of the Syriac Tradition assign theological importance to primacy on the basis of St. Peter’s headship among the Apostles, the Latin CC and all the Churches of the Syriac Tradition (Syriac Orthodox, ACOE, Syro-Malankara Catholic, Syro-Malabar Catholic, Chaldeans, Maronites, Syrian Catholic) have had their own annual colloquy hosted by the Pro Oriente foundation since 1994.
Blessings,
Marduk
The High Petrine view is not specifically in relation to the papacy. It is about the status, role and nature of a head bishop in relation to other bishops.
In point of fact, as the Churches of the Syriac Tradition assign theological importance to primacy on the basis of St. Peter’s headship among the Apostles, the Latin CC and all the Churches of the Syriac Tradition (Syriac Orthodox, ACOE, Syro-Malankara Catholic, Syro-Malabar Catholic, Chaldeans, Maronites, Syrian Catholic) have had their own annual colloquy hosted by the Pro Oriente foundation since 1994.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Dzheremi,
In point of fact, EO communion is not free from such supposedly “contradictory” beliefs. Neither is the OO communion. Such beliefs are relegated to “theologoumena,” but they exist nonetheless. No Churches are free of such apparent “contradictions” because the Church is composed of fallible, weak, and sinful human beings. But do you let such differences divide, or is there something deeper - and more important - that should be the basis for unity?
And what does it mean to “minimize?” If two different Traditions exist in the same communion, a communion based on the same Faith, yet don’t wish to impose each others’ Traditions on each other, is that “minimizing” the importance of each others’ Traditions, or is it simply living together in Faith while acknowledging the legitimacy and orthodoxy of each others’ Traditions?
Blessings,
Marduk
I guess the question is, “Are they really contradictory?” If two things are different, are they necessarily “contradictory?” This would seem to be an apporpriate thread to discuss specific issues that you feel are “contradictory.”
In point of fact, EO communion is not free from such supposedly “contradictory” beliefs. Neither is the OO communion. Such beliefs are relegated to “theologoumena,” but they exist nonetheless. No Churches are free of such apparent “contradictions” because the Church is composed of fallible, weak, and sinful human beings. But do you let such differences divide, or is there something deeper - and more important - that should be the basis for unity?
And what does it mean to “minimize?” If two different Traditions exist in the same communion, a communion based on the same Faith, yet don’t wish to impose each others’ Traditions on each other, is that “minimizing” the importance of each others’ Traditions, or is it simply living together in Faith while acknowledging the legitimacy and orthodoxy of each others’ Traditions?
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dzheremi
Guest
No, I do not agree with that. If we look at the etymology of the word “Catholic” (here), we see that in the original Greek it denoted something like “found throughout the whole”; when applied to religious doctrine of the ancient Church, it took on the sense of “believed throughout the whole/universally accepted”. It is with this sense in mind that I feel the Orthodox are completely justified in using it (and, indeed, I think this is the sense they have in mind when they refer to themselves as such). The geographic meaning of “found everywhere (in every place on Earth)”, which is the one I have most often encountered operating in the understanding of Roman Catholics, is obviously related but of much less importance or profundity. This goes back to my earlier point about the difference between mere corporeal unity and true unity of faith. If “large C” Catholics want to define their communion and catholicity in this or that particular way, fine, but I think there are certain Catholic-specific understandings of these terms and concepts that do not nurture a healthy understanding of the Christian faith. If I thought otherwise, I would gladly return to Rome.
From whose perspective are you writing this? I would leave any such determination of a schismatic group’s orthodoxy (and, as the case may be, Orthodoxy) to the leaders of the church(es) from which they deviated – in the case of ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox Church. I do not think it is appropriate to extrapolate from such situations how “cross-communal” (sorry, can’t think of a better term) determinations of orthodoxy may be affected. For instance, it is the Roman Pope’s sole prerogative to determine the status of schismatic groups such as the SSPX vis-a-vis Roman Catholicism and its communion. Since the Eastern Catholic churches (with the possible exception of the Maronite Church) are in schism from their respective Orthodox counterparts, we should look to the leaders of those churches to see how the ECCs relate to the EOC and OOC. When we do so, we do not find agreement with this principle that Eastern Catholics are orthodox in any fashion.
Yes, I am aware of this.
How so?
Please quote where I used any statement from HH Pope Shenouda in any way. I was paraphrasing a discussion I read between two Coptic Orthodox laypersons, to the best of my recollection.
I am certainly aware of the distinct traditions within the Oriental Orthodox Communion. I do not think you are making a sincere effort to understand the position I have taken.
If you read the post you are referring to, you will see that what I am critical of is not the presence of different traditions within the same communion, but the indifference with which the Roman Catholic Church seems to treat its own traditions and its communion. Other “Orthodox in communion with Rome” posters seem to have understood this, and agreed. As someone who has attended both Western and Eastern Catholic churches, as well as Eastern Orthodox churches, I definitely see the paramount importance of the different traditions practiced within Christianity. I guess you missed the parts of my post that were highly critical of the poor treatment and understanding of Eastern Catholic churches and their traditions on the part of Latins (and I wrote that as someone who was part of the RCC, speaking from personal experience with many ignorant fellow Latins). It seems to me that you took from my post pretty much the exact opposite point. Was St. Athanasius arguing for uniformity when he refused to commune with the Arians on account of their heresies? An extreme example, no doubt, but as I wrote to someone else in this thread, there is no need to acquiesce to any particular innovation simply because it exists somewhere within a communion (it took some time before Arius was formally declared a heretic, after all). To use the example from the previously-mentioned poster, this “Holy Mother” business is not simply another “tradition” within Catholicism – it is one person’s personal conception of God that he is foisting upon others instead of shepherding them according to the ACTUAL tradition of the Church, and as such it should be curtailed immediately, as it is a teaching that destroys tradition.So according to you, just because there are different Traditions within the same communion, then that is tantamount to “indifference.”
Still unfair? If so, I don’t know what to do other than repeat the old cliche about what can happen when you stand for nothing…
- Status