Orthodox miracles?

[gurneyhalleck1]

You have a nice day.

 

[Hesychios]

As I said earlier, the views varries but they do accept the Roman Church as a valid Church because they know of its existence from the beginning.

Please do not confuse common courtesy for some kind of endorsement.

Orthodox hierarchs take the hierarchs of the Roman Catholic church at face value, but there is no way to confirm the legitimacy of an organization outside of Orthodoxy. For the most part Orthodox leadership and clergy would do as much for other church leadership and theologians if they wish to meet or visit. That doesn’t mean there is some kind of formal recognition of validity.

For as many times as various Archbishops of Canterbury have visited the Popes in Rome (and were well received) you should understand this. It doesn’t change a thing where it counts,

 

[Hesychios]

Thank you for answering. What about when the Orthodox Church makes somebody a saint? Do they have to have nine miracles happen like the Catholics do?

There early church did not do this (I had no idea about nine, are you sure you are not mistaken?).

Until about the eleventh or twelfth century the process of canonization was about the same in the east and the west. One diocese would joyfully announce a new saint from among them, and invite the others to join them in celebration and prayer. The calendar was controlled by the diocese or the Metropolitan synod. Other local churches might (or might not) also put the saint on their own calendar, and often the bishops would ask for relics, which as a courtesy would be shared out if possible.

It should be noted that none of the original apostles, nor saint Mary of Nazareth, ever underwent a formal canonization procedure.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I understand this is the Orthodox teaching but it truly bothers me. I happen to know in my bones that, despite you being Orthodox and me being Catholic, we are brothers in Christ. Your baptism was valid, so is mine. When I go to my priest as I did last weekend and confess my sins, I am forgiven. When you, Michael, go to your presbyter, you are forgiven in confession. Your Eucharistic experience is powerful, so is mine. We both are saved through the blood of the Lamb, meet him in the sacraments, and are given sanctifying grace to transform us into His image. I’m sad that Orthodox Christians are doubtful or at best just can’t be sure about our sacraments or validity. I personally believe in yours.

Blessings, brother. Nice to see you today.

Please do not confuse common courtesy for some kind of endorsement.

Orthodox hierarchs take the hierarchs of the Roman Catholic church at face value, but there is no way to confirm the legitimacy of an organization outside of Orthodoxy. For the most part Orthodox leadership and clergy would do as much for other church leadership and theologians if they wish to meet or visit. That doesn’t mean there is some kind of formal recognition of validity.

For as many times as various Archbishops of Canterbury have visited the Popes in Rome (and were well received) you should understand this. It doesn’t change a thing where it counts,

 

[Nine_Two]

What I need has nothing to do with what the process is. What I can accept on Faith also has nothing to do with the conversation.

What I want is an explaination as to how the process works because I’m not familiar with it. That OK will you?

Whats a Latin Catholic mindset? Since you seem to have some preconceived, prejudice notion maybe you could enlighten me?

I do have to apologize, my answer sounded a lot harsher than what I intended.

However you did receive an answer on what the process was, you insisted there must be more to it. This is the Latin mindset - where things have to be formalized. While it would be foolish to argue there aren’t formalities in the Orthodox Church (there is no denying that every Eastern Rite Church using the DL of St. John Chrysostom every sunday and feastday except Great Lent, Holy Week, and the Feast of St. Basil the Great is a formality of a sort), but far and away there is a hands off approach to quite a bit.

 

[Nine_Two]

I understand this is the Orthodox teaching but it truly bothers me. I happen to know in my bones that, despite you being Orthodox and me being Catholic, we are brothers in Christ. Your baptism was valid, so is mine. When I go to my priest as I did last weekend and confess my sins, I am forgiven. When you, Michael, go to your presbyter, you are forgiven in confession. Your Eucharistic experience is powerful, so is mine. We both are saved through the blood of the Lamb, meet him in the sacraments, and are given sanctifying grace to transform us into His image. I’m sad that Orthodox Christians are doubtful or at best just can’t be sure about our sacraments or validity. I personally believe in yours.

Blessings, brother. Nice to see you today.

Does it not bother you that the Catholic Church rejects any validity of Anglican sacraments. I know for a fact Anglicans feel the same way toward Catholics as you say you feel toward Orthodox. Ultimately feelings do not affect what Orthodoxy is, nor do they create a “validity” a term that is only rejected because we do not feel it is our place to label.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not sure why you bring up Anglicanism, Nine. I wasn’t talking about Anglicanism. I was talking about Catholicism and Orthodoxy. And I didn’t say my feelings create anything either. You’re nit-picking my verbage, brother. From a Catholic point of view, Orthodox Christians are living the sacramental life and are part of the Church. It is from your angle that we are anybody’s guess. I feel the Catholic Church is far more charitable, hopeful, and optimistic about reunion and healing the schism than you guys are. I think sometimes, from the tone of your posts, that some of the Orthodox love the exclusivity and feeling that you’re not in communion with Rome. I don’t think the hopefulness, desire for reunion, and sense of brotherhood that Catholics feel toward Orthodox Christians is even remotely reciprocated. It’s like the Cold Warriors who felt a sigh at the end of the Soviet Union, who enjoyed the war, the isolation, the hunt, and the sense of us and them.

I think the Catholics I know, by and large, feel that they could learn a lot from Orthodoxy should such a reunion take place. But I have yet to meet an Orthodox Christian on here who feels the reverse.

As far as Anglicans go, and this is off-topic as heck, you know my feelings about Anglican orders. I’ve repeated it ad nauseum on here, Nine. I’m equally charitable and feel a sense of brotherhood with Anglicans as I do folks such as yourself. It’s unfortunate the reverse isn’t a reality.

Does it not bother you that the Catholic Church rejects any validity of Anglican sacraments. I know for a fact Anglicans feel the same way toward Catholics as you say you feel toward Orthodox. Ultimately feelings do not affect what Orthodoxy is, nor do they create a “validity” a term that is only rejected because we do not feel it is our place to label.

 

[Reuben_J]

edit.

 

[dzheremi]

I can relate to that feeling, Gurney. I felt the same when I was still under Rome, and even posted about it quite a bit here on CAF. So I feel ya. But it is necessary if possible to see things from an Orthodox perspective: No one is dismissing Catholics out of meanness or a lack of love for them. It is just a fact that, when it comes to learning from them, there really isn’t anything that Orthodox Christians need to learn or should adopt from Catholicism. Orthodox is – again, from an Orthodox perspective – whole, complete, lacking in nothing. All that separates Catholicism from it are exactly the things that Orthodox should not learn, adopt, or allow.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Wow, how to even respond to that. I have found that we can always learn devotion, piety, the love of Christ, humility, and virtue from our brethren, even from my Protestant brothers and sisters. Pope John Paul II was a wonderful example of someone to learn from. I still am learning from him long after his death. I am not of the understanding that this attitude you mention is out of meanness. I think it’s out of arrogance, with all due respect. I happen to think Orthodox is wrong on several issues, in some cases quite defective. But I don’t ever even consider that Catholics couldn’t learn a lot from Orthodox brethren. Orthodoxy has so many wonderful facets despite my feeling that it is defective and inadequate as a communion. There is great piety, devotion, lovely worship, learned leadership, rich traditions, and some real depth there. But I also think the reverse is true as well. Take St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Padre Pio, Mother Theresa of Calcutta, John Paul II (hopefully soon St. John Paul the Great), St. Therese of Liseux, St. Bernadette, so many great popes, and all the other great men the Catholic Church has churned out, the miracles of Fatima and Lourdes, the tremendous holiness on the part of so many Catholics and rich traditions. I find it sad that one could think there is nothing to learn there.

I guess my question, dzheremi, is why don’t you go down to your local Coptic or Greek or Russian Orthodox presbyter and sign up? You seem totally convinced and ready to get chrismated? You have a lot of hostility to Catholicism and have thrown it under the bus pretty hard so maybe you’d make a perfect candidate based on the attitude I read in here toward the Catholic Church

I can relate to that feeling, Gurney. I felt the same when I was still under Rome, and even posted about it quite a bit here on CAF. So I feel ya. But it is necessary if possible to see things from an Orthodox perspective: No one is dismissing Catholics out of meanness or a lack of love for them. It is just a fact that, when it comes to learning from them, there really isn’t anything that Orthodox Christians need to learn or should adopt from Catholicism. Orthodox is – again, from an Orthodox perspective – whole, complete, lacking in nothing. All that separates Catholicism from it are exactly the things that Orthodox should not learn, adopt, or allow.

 

[dzheremi]

I have found that we can always learn devotion, piety, the love of Christ, humility, and virtue from our brethren, even from my Protestant brothers and sisters.

Well, the individual’s personal piety is really variable, and not a function of their ecclesiastical affiliation. We all know someone who is Catholic, or Orthodox, or Protestant who appears to live as we would like to. That really isn’t the issue. As I have said to a Coptic acquaintance of mine recently who expressed some feelings of inadequacy around Protestants because of their apparent dedication and spirituality: Those “dedicated and spiritual” Protestants would have you leave your Church and its traditions and adopt theirs instead, because they do not understand the value of your traditions and your faith. There is a difference between admiring someone and hopefully being inspired by them to work towards a deeper understanding of your own faith and learning, adopting, or allowing things from their traditions and churches that aren’t a part of your faith to begin with. One is wonderful and the other is not good at all.

I am not of the understanding that this attitude you mention is out of meanness. I think it’s out of arrogance, with all due respect.

I don’t really see it as being fundamentally any different than the attitude that the Catholic Church has taken in the past to many Protestant communities. Do you feel that Catholicism is somehow lacking in something that could/should be filled in by the teachings of the Pentacostals, or Christadelphians, or Quakers? I really hope not, even if you happen to know people from all of these communities who are models of kindness, piety, and all that other good stuff that you want more of in your life and in your parish.

I don’t ever even consider that Catholics couldn’t learn a lot from Orthodox brethren. Orthodoxy has so many wonderful facets despite my feeling that it is defective and inadequate as a communion.

This is fine. I’m only trying to speak practically and say that, just as you obviously would not say that Catholicism is missing anything, the Orthodox would take a similar view of their own communion. What is in Catholicism that isn’t in Orthodoxy? Various dogmas and other things that the Orthodox reject, again not out of meanness (and I don’t think it’s out of arrogance either, unless you are willing to also concede that Catholics may be seen as arrogant on the same grounds), but because according to the Orthodox they are contrary to the Orthodox faith. Do the Orthodox need to learn from the Catholics how to glorify the Theotokos? Nope. How to treat the Pope? Nope. How to view original sin? Nope. So what exactly do the Orthodox as a communion need to learn from the Catholics, or anyone else? (If I were Catholic, I’d be asking the other way around. I don’t see why this is in the least bit arrogant.)

Take St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Thomas Aquinas …] I find it sad that one could think there is nothing to learn there.

Once again, looked at from an Orthodox perspective, this seems odd. I do understand that you want others to embrace these saints of the Catholic Church as the great men and women that you think they are. I also respect your opinions of them, but cannot share them. It would be a bit like if an Eastern Orthodox poster implored you to glorify St. Photios I of Constantinople for his wise and steadfast leadership. Looking at the stances the man took against the Roman Pope (and his resolve to stand by them and dismiss calls for an apology to Rome) you’d likely say “no thank you”. How is the Orthodox disinterest in Latin saints and miracles any different? They are outside of Orthodoxy, so they’re another communion’s saints and miracles, to be embraced by those who share the theological and epistemological outlooks of the churches that accept them. The majority of Orthodox apologetical works I have read that deal with them say little more than that, perhaps only expounding upon them to remind the faithful why their ideas are unorthodox.

I guess my question, dzheremi, is why don’t you go down to your local Coptic or Greek or Russian Orthodox presbyter and sign up? You seem totally convinced and ready to get chrismated? You have a lot of hostility to Catholicism and have thrown it under the bus pretty hard so maybe you’d make a perfect candidate based on the attitude I read in here toward the Catholic Church

Wow…I can only pray to find a priest one day who thinks I’m half as ready as you do! Thanks! No, really…look, if it is God’s will it will happen. I can only do what I can do, and right now with most of my life up in the air, that’s not as much as I’d like to be doing. The nearest Orthodox Church is OCA, and while I love going there as much as I can, I do not consider myself a proper candidate. They don’t cotton to someone with as many Alexandrian proclivities as I have. I am actually a bit shocked to read that you think I have so much hostility towards Catholicism. That really makes me re-think what it is I’m doing here and how I am perceived. I thought I had made it clear in many posts that I loved the Latin Church and it broke my heart to leave it. Anyway…I am going to try not to read too much sarcasm into the last line of that paragraph, because frankly if I do I might end up fulfilling your idea of how an “Orthodox” would respond. I can’t do anything but write about things as they look from where I sit, and that’s definitely with the 4-5 good years I gave the Catholic Church very fresh in my mind. I wouldn’t trade them for anything in the world. They’re why I’m here (both on CAF and in my spiritual life). I’m sorry that my posts apparently don’t reflect that. Clearly I have a lot to work on.

 

[gmcbroom]

I think that whether one is Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Denominational, or Non-Denominational. We as Christians should remember at an absolute minimum on phrase of Jesus when confronted with this issue by his own disciples. He said somthing along the lines of leaving them be. Those that do miracles in his name won’t speak ill of him. Admittedly, I forgot the actual biblical passage but I think we all should get the gist.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m not sure why you bring up Anglicanism, Nine. I wasn’t talking about Anglicanism. I was talking about Catholicism and Orthodoxy. And I didn’t say my feelings create anything either. You’re nit-picking my verbage, brother. From a Catholic point of view, Orthodox Christians are living the sacramental life and are part of the Church. It is from your angle that we are anybody’s guess. I feel the Catholic Church is far more charitable, hopeful, and optimistic about reunion and healing the schism than you guys are. I think sometimes, from the tone of your posts, that some of the Orthodox love the exclusivity and feeling that you’re not in communion with Rome. I don’t think the hopefulness, desire for reunion, and sense of brotherhood that Catholics feel toward Orthodox Christians is even remotely reciprocated. It’s like the Cold Warriors who felt a sigh at the end of the Soviet Union, who enjoyed the war, the isolation, the hunt, and the sense of us and them.

I think the Catholics I know, by and large, feel that they could learn a lot from Orthodoxy should such a reunion take place. But I have yet to meet an Orthodox Christian on here who feels the reverse.

As far as Anglicans go, and this is off-topic as heck, you know my feelings about Anglican orders. I’ve repeated it ad nauseum on here, Nine. I’m equally charitable and feel a sense of brotherhood with Anglicans as I do folks such as yourself. It’s unfortunate the reverse isn’t a reality.

I have a few thoughts about this.

One is that although some Orthodox would say there is nothing any Orthodox Christian or the Orthodox church could learn from other Christians, I think that is more in the area of opinion. There are, as you know, Catholics with similar attitudes. (I`ve seen Catholics really upset about the Anglican Ordinariate on similar grounds - why do Anglicans have that Catholics need:shrug.

What would be non-negotiable for either the CC or the OC is that there was noting in dogma or doctrine that they needed, or could safely take, from the other group.

But even within Orthodoxy, there is actually evidence of taking in learning and experiences from other groups. One example that comes to my mind id the Orthodox Study Bible, which I believe was spearheaded by evangelical Protestant converts. Those groups of converts seem in general to have brought in some real evangelical energy to Orthodoxy - in a somewhat transformed way. Some people have been suspicious, but others seem to embrace it - most of the Orthodox I have spoken to seem very happy about this.

And I know many Orthodox that are devoted to C.S. Lewis, or Chesterton.()

So I would say the tendency to conservatism is more prominent in Orthodoxy than in Catholicism, but the principle is essentially the same.

As far as recognizing orders - just to suggest another perspective - I tend to think Anglican orders are valid - I think the Catholic position on them is a bit silly. OTOH, I do see a bit of a problem in the idea that one could have apostolic succession that is valid, but believe totally crazy things, and still be valid. I`ve met some old Catholics (online) who re basically pagans, but still maintain valid orders. Now, in practice, once your theology gets that weird, it is probably impossible to maintain a valid apostolic succession. And that is essentially what the CC has said about Anglican orders.

But here we have a situation where they accept some crazy Old Catholic orders, but not Anglican ones, on a pretty flimsy argument. And it ends up looking political, and maybe even being political. And how do we precisely define the line where belief goes from not affecting validity, to where it does - is it even possible. (* my question mark is not working - sorry!) And whether can we be sure God will not give validity to those outside the historic episcopate is another problem.

In this light, I kind of appreciate the Orthodox position on this. It prevents having to make decisions on something that it is probably not possible to make a good decision about. I actually find the OC saying it cannot comment on Anglican orders less offensive than the CC saying that they do not exist for such questionable reasons. And in the end, what is served by saying the orders are valid - We are still separated - we still can`t communicate together. If we come together in unity at some point, the rule should probably be to re-ordain according to the most conservative principles, even if it is simply a matter of allaying the conscience of the weaker brother.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on this - it is something that used to bother me, but less so now.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I do have to apologize, my answer sounded a lot harsher than what I intended.

However you did receive an answer on what the process was, you insisted there must be more to it. This is the Latin mindset - where things have to be formalized.

First of all go back and read the thread. There was an answer and a question Period. No insisting on anything , but a question, if in fact the answer was a personal statement or in fact exactly what the church stated, that was my response. Thats what was said…exactly! If you are the “question” police then everyone would be running their questions by you, in fact they are not. And while your certainly entitled to respond, broad sweeping statements in regards to "behavior’ have nothing to do with the question or answer. They place individuals in a catagory which you “assume” they all fit. And it then becomes an indicator of your state of mind in “attitude and personal feelings”.

You apologize then go right back to trying uphold a foolish statement. There is no mindset. Just like Blacks here don’t have a Afro-American mindset, Mexicans all don’t carry knifes and wear pointed shoes and belong to the Cartel, and on and on etc.

The Orthodox teaching and understanding on “apparitions” doesn’t cast you into a “mindset” either. Though “you” might very well “think” so.

What the guidelines, or any particular aspect of the Church are, is just that. The people within it are all different people. Which may be Black, White, Latin, American, Italian, Polish whatever. And believe it of not, they actually may or may not agree with all written? Imagine that theory??

And if I personally thought the question was answered to my understanding. I would have not asked another question. So again this first of all becomes either a choice to mind you business, or simply respond. Nevertheless The attitude and pre-judgement is exactly what it is…Personal Behavior Issues, which in fact is what I am talking about. Which have zero to do with anything here.

Now we can talk about this till the cows come and they don’t come home. And at the end you’ll still be wrong. For the simple fact that you are taking guidlines of the church and applying them to an individual by the word “mindset”, that individual in fact you do not know. Then trying to make it a neat tidy package to boot.

And I to am sorry if you can’t raise above your limitations in order to see others without a preconceived notion which is no doubt distorted. People are people and statements as such are a good indicator of why the chaos continues worldwide.

What I find even more astounding is others from the Orthodox Church would run to you aide to uphold a perposterous statement. Unreal.

Mindset - is “an established set of “attitudes” held by someone,” says the Oxford American Dictionary. A set of “assumptions”.

Note the words “attitudes” and “assumptions”.

Have a nice day.

Do we really need to go further with this?

 

[tomarin]

I think if no examples were given of either mindset that both sides could read prejudices into, we would all agree that they do have different mindsets. The Eastern Church is not the same as the Western Church in its approach to the faith or any given aspect of it, and vice-versa. Thinking otherwise seems to be against the evidence that even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges in the establishment of specifically Eastern Catholic Churches.

This is absolutely right, and the roots of the difference lie in intellectual trends (or “mindsets”) present in the Eastern and Western halves of the pagan Roman empire. In the East hellenistic philosophy exerted an influence that wasn’t present in the West, where Roman law held sway over the minds of the intellectual class (hence the legalism, the idea of God as a judge. etc.) If Gary Taylor is interested in learning more, I’d recommend “Light from the Christian East” by James R. Payton, which is my source of information for what I’ve written here.

I don’t really blame the Orthodox posters here for believing what they believe (after all if they didn’t think their tradition was superior they wouldn’t be Orthodox) but they do come off as a big smug and self-satisfied at times. (I understand there may be more ecumenically-minded Orthodox out there, but they don’t seem to come to this message board.)

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t really blame the Orthodox posters here for believing what they believe (after all if they didn’t think their tradition was superior they wouldn’t be Orthodox) but they do come off as a big smug and self-satisfied at times. (I understand there may be more ecumenically-minded Orthodox out there, but they don’t seem to come to this message board.)

I think that maybe it* is* the more ecumenically minded who come here. The die-hards stay away.

I agree too, that the Western and Eastern approach is different - it tends to have a different set of assumptions and way of working, and it has inherited a different language. Language is significant when talking about metaphysical issues.

Really most Catholics I think would not have a problem with saying the East and West have a different mind-st, and to say `we would never talk about issue X this way, we take a different approach is legitimate. It can mean more work for the two groups to talk about issue X, but so what.

 

[tomarin]

I think that maybe it* is* the more ecumenically minded who come here. The die-hards stay away.

Then we’re really in trouble!

Really most Catholics I think would not have a problem with saying the East and West have a different mind-st, and to say `we would never talk about issue X this way, we take a different approach is legitimate. It can mean more work for the two groups to talk about issue X, but so what.

Most just aren’t aware, I’m sorry to say. Most Westerners – Protestants and Catholics alike – assume the Orthodox are Catholics with the addition of Greek. I made all the same assumptions until I did some reading.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes I agree and we are “getting closer”, for sure. Again your talking “mindset” or “collective thinking” and assuming. without in fact knowing if an individual can or does fit in the catagory. So the assumption then becomes based of preconceived thinking or to “pre-judge”.

Its exactly why I made the statement to the Orthodox Brother above. “You don’t know me from a can of paint, and I don’t know you” You may assume, but in fact what does assumption indicate? So in fact its a process of walking into the situation with a completely open mind, or not which leads to results such as this.

The fellow above Universal Guy {I think} had a preconvieved notion about both Catholic and Orthodox and in fact to a large degree was incorrect. But he approached the situation with an open mind quickly and politely gained the insight he desired and moved on. Would I be correct to place him in any one group of “collective behavior” because of his questions" Of course not I don’t know him, he may in fact be a Bishop of the Catholic Chrurch checking to see what “you” know? Its all assumption, and one wild assumption is almost as good as another at this point.

In other words, An afro-american may well fit in a “collective thinking”. Yet that individual may in fact have been adopted and raised by a Red, White or a Yellow family. Might have futher challenged his learned beliefs through being constantly placed in various racial, ethnic or social situations. And in fact he very well may have a complete understanding of “Afro America” and be able to expand on it completely. But in fact he very well not hold true to its behaviors, beliefs or attitudes. In fact without knowing the individual through in depth observation he may despise all the Afro America model represents. We simply wouldn’t know and wouldn’t just throwing him in a group, and would be wrongly doing so I might add.

So in fact your assuming that I uphold completely to the Catholic Teaching and theory. Yet we have people here who claim to be “Catholic,” Orthodox and Islamic who in fact may or may not?? Happens every day. In fact the variables are so vast and numerous at the moment, that once again its an assumption to believe I may fit in this or any catagory. In fact I may be an Pagan, Islamic or whatever. and you wouldn’t know at this point.

Again it gets to an assumption without actually knowing the individual. The models used in society would give one a different perception. For example American Indians. Yet this can be further broken down in “bahaviors” of tribes. Then in behaviors of age groups. Then in behaviors of male and female. Then we come across the individual who walked away from the tribe because he wanted to be a cowboy? So whats his “collective” thinking?

Its all an assumption till you know “all” the varibles which relate to thinking, attitudes, and behavior.

We can say a group presents a collective thinking, but I challenge that on the individual basis. And should you go back and read this thread, thats what was presented. In fact trial without jury and a quick, fast guilty. Its Impossible!!!

And don’t disagree with the last two posts least not totally.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t have much time here so I’ll have to be pretty chicken-feed with my reply. Apologies for brevity. I would say that the Catholic Church has things that the Orthodox lack. First of all, the Coryphaeus, as you could call him, the Pope. As an Anglican, I sought to try to bolster my opinion that the pope was just a first among equals, a gavel-banger. As I advanced my research, I found quite the opposite. I found the Holy Father the final word, possessing not only a primacy of honor but true authority over faith, morals, and doctrines. IMO, lacking the papacy is a serious defect. Maintaining a nice liturgy, rich worship, traditions, and not having a lot of heresies doesn’t necessarily mean a Church is complete. I think the Orthodox approach of “hey, you Catholics are the ones with the heresies and Reformation, not us!” isn’t a valid approach to looking at the two communions. I actually bought that argument for quite a while. The reality is history is a mess, as GKC reminds us, and it mitigates a lot! The Reformation happened for so many reasons and I don’t think the Orthodox argument is compelling as to why it happened (the fault of popes and Catholic weak theology). So, I think not having the papacy is a loss for Orthodoxy. Of course they’re going to say otherwise and consider the papacy a mess and full of error. I disagree. I have criticized Eucharistic Adoration when I was an Anglican. As I have prayed about it and approached the Sacrament, I find it meaningful and powerful. Not having it is a loss. I find the Stations of the Cross powerful and deep during Lent especially. Not having that is a loss. Not accepting the miracles of the Marian apparitions and writing them off as Vatican hoaxes or nonsense is a loss as these miracles admonish us, embolden us, and strengthen our faith. I think the Christus Victor and ransom approaches, divine healer, angle of the Atonement are detrimental to a proper understanding of the Atonement of Our Lord. I think not having the rosary and scapulars is a loss. Not having many of the great saints in the picture is a loss, as I mentioned previously, and ultimately not having real unity in the magisterium, not having the Catholic catechism, on and on, I think these things are a loss. I think in Orthodoxy there is a heavy, heavy desire to “maintain” and not develop. I think development of doctrine is a needed thing and appreciate that aspect of Catholicism.

So I think you and I are in different quadrants with regard to ecclesiology.

And also, interestingly enough, we have a Coptic church in town here, mostly 99% middle-easterners. My wife ran into the priest at that church at Starbucks p) and he invited us to worship there. I wouldn’t consider Coptic Christianity even on my radar really.

I don’t really see it as being fundamentally any different than the attitude that the Catholic Church has taken in the past to many Protestant communities. Do you feel that Catholicism is somehow lacking in something that could/should be filled in by the teachings of the Pentacostals, or Christadelphians, or Quakers? I really hope not, even if you happen to know people from all of these communities who are models of kindness, piety, and all that other good stuff that you want more of in your life and in your parish.

This is fine. I’m only trying to speak practically and say that, just as you obviously would not say that Catholicism is missing anything, the Orthodox would take a similar view of their own communion. What is in Catholicism that isn’t in Orthodoxy? Various dogmas and other things that the Orthodox reject, again not out of meanness (and I don’t think it’s out of arrogance either, unless you are willing to also concede that Catholics may be seen as arrogant on the same grounds), but because according to the Orthodox they are contrary to the Orthodox faith. Do the Orthodox need to learn from the Catholics how to glorify the Theotokos? Nope. How to treat the Pope? Nope. How to view original sin? Nope. So what exactly do the Orthodox as a communion need to learn from the Catholics, or anyone else? (If I were Catholic, I’d be asking the other way around. I don’t see why this is in the least bit arrogant.)

Once again, looked at from an Orthodox perspective, this seems odd. I do understand that you want others to embrace these saints of the Catholic Church as the great men and women that you think they are. I also respect your opinions of them, but cannot share them. It would be a bit like if an Eastern Orthodox poster implored you to glorify St. Photios I of Constantinople for his wise and steadfast leadership. Looking at the stances the man took against the Roman Pope (and his resolve to stand by them and dismiss calls for an apology to Rome) you’d likely say “no thank you”. How is the Orthodox disinterest in Latin saints and miracles any different? They are outside of Orthodoxy, so they’re another communion’s saints and miracles, to be embraced by those who share the theological and epistemological outlooks of the churches that accept them. The majority of Orthodox apologetical works I have read that deal with them say little more than that, perhaps only expounding upon them to remind the faithful why their ideas are unorthodox.

. Anyway…I am going to try not to read too much sarcasm into the last line of that paragraph, because frankly if I do I might end up fulfilling your idea of how an “Orthodox” would respond. I can’t do anything but write about things as they look from where I sit, and that’s definitely with the 4-5 good years I gave the Catholic Church very fresh in my mind. I wouldn’t trade them for anything in the world. They’re why I’m here (both on CAF and in my spiritual life). I’m sorry that my posts apparently don’t reflect that. Clearly I have a lot to work on.

 

[dzheremi]

So, I think not having the papacy is a loss for Orthodoxy.

I have cut most of your point out here, because it is not at all relevant to the Coptic Orthodox Church, which obviously has a Pope (the Church in Alexandria assumed this title long before Rome ever did). The fact that the Papacy is so old in Alexandria and yet they do not now, nor have they ever, asserted the kinds of prerogatives that Rome has asserted over the whole Church points to the relative newness of the RC understanding of the Papacy. Yes, I know you can marshal many Patristic quotes about the Catholic Church in favor of your position, but those quotes obviously have different interpretations in the East, and I don’t think a “quote mining war” really helps anybody, so I’ll hopefully preempt any such thing from either of us by saying that we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the position of the Bishop of Rome in the Church.

…Eucharistic Adoration…the Stations of the Cross…the miracles of the Marian apparitions…the Christus Victor and ransom approaches, divine healer, angle of the Atonement…the magisterium…the Catholic catechism…I think these things are a loss.

These are all particularly Latin devotions and understandings of the faith. So are you saying that not being Latin Catholics is a big loss to the Orthodox? I wonder what the Eastern Catholics would say about this…nothing too positive, I’m fairly certain…

I think in Orthodoxy there is a heavy, heavy desire to “maintain” and not develop. I think development of doctrine is a needed thing and appreciate that aspect of Catholicism.

I absolutely do not agree. This is one thing that really rankled me as a Catholic. I do not understand this view of the development of doctrine as an essential and inherently good thing. I do not think it is (this probably comes from my rejection of my Protestant upbringing; I have a very sensitive “making-it-up-as-we-go-along” alarm). I do not think that the Roman Popes before the great schism thought it was a good thing. As long as it is the prevailing view in the Catholic Church (if it is; I have met many Catholics who see things as I do), all the hand-wringing in the world about the various schisms in Christianity will not amount to anything. You can’t have one Church saying “no new doctrine” and another Church saying “whatever we need to come up with, in accordance with advancing understandings” and have them both be in communion with each other. This is essentially why I could never be Eastern Catholic. It just doesn’t make sense to me. The approaches to the faith are contradictory, and to the great detriment of the East so long as they remain yoked with Rome and Rome espouses certain approaches that may not be defied.

So I think you and I are in different quadrants with regard to ecclesiology.

Yes, I would say so.

I wouldn’t consider Coptic Christianity even on my radar really.

It’s okay. Nobody’s perfect.