Orthodox: What is your opinion of Kirill I of Moscow?

[GaryTaylor]

All this does is prove exactly what I’m saying. It’s about far, far more than “pretty buildings.”

Now thats the truth. So we should get to these points as we have been without the orthodox-heterodox aspect rolled out as an indictment sheet and deemed “truth”. Repetitive imho.

 

[Seraphim73]

It means calling people heretics isn’t the preferred path to reach any type of unity, but I do find it the last recourse and amusing.

Who did I call a heretic? I challenge you to find a single post I’ve ever made here calling any Catholic a heretic.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Who did I call a heretic? I challenge you to find a single post I’ve ever made here calling any Catholic a heretic.

Well frankly I apparently understood this below post differently than Ridge, not that I don’t appreciate his thinking I do.

The most drastic recent departure has been the iconoclasm that has become rampant in the Catholic Church in the past 50 years or so. But there are many new doctrines that have been declared since the Schism. From the filioque to purgatory to the Immaculate Conception to Papal Infallibility. All of these have driven us farther and farther apart.

i·con·o·clasm
īˈkänəˌklazəm/Submit
noun
1.
the action of attacking or assertively rejecting cherished beliefs and institutions or established values and practices.
2.
the rejection or destruction of religious images as heretical; the doctrine of iconoclasts.

And again, this conversation is repetitive and I have mentioned it several times in relation to orthodox- heterodox insinuations.

Its easily a double standard not fruitful.

 

[wynd]

Can you explain the iconoclasm? I suppose as a Protestant the Catholics seem to love their icons too. What’s the difference in icons between the two faiths and how does it separate them?

He said “the iconoclasm of the past 50 years” which I assumed to mean the fruits of Vatican II. Yes, on paper Catholicism teaches similar theology about icons, but in practice the inside of most Catholic churches looks like this. The same could be said for liturgy, sacred music, etc.

 

[chimo]

Ignorant question:

Why don’t you guys just take communion together and consider each other equal on all accounts but just admit there are some differences in beliefs? Doesn’t Romans 14 cover this sort of thing on petty disagreements, or Paul’s “I follow Cephas, I follow Paul.”

You’re so close that I don’t understand why you’re not united. So what about Peter? Paul even talks about such arguments regarding Peter. How do you not see this and be okay?

Again, maybe a question from ignorance, but what the heck? It all sounds so minor.

You are right. There is no obstacle to unity except for the pride which the Church sometimes display. We seem to talk more about the Church than we do of our Lord Jesus. It may be this pride which needs to be first removed from us if we really want this communion working. I disagree with the Ecumenical Patriarch’s statement when he says we cannot work with our differences. In fact it is my understanding that our Churches needed to be different so that we will lean more on each other’s strengths. Our Churches in fact are not that complete in themselves. That is why God has made us so different either in our individuality and in the particular the Churches. We need others so as to help complete each other and to compete this communion. We are in fact ordained by God to be lacking in certain gifts and virtues so as to move ourselves to those who will help complete us. And it is certain that those who will help complete us are in need of us as well. When we do argue about many things we are only thinking about ourselves. When we decide to put away these arguments than we can see our brother (and sister) who is in front of us.

By the way I believe the election of Kirill I is a good one for the Church. He is a most welcome brother and will help the Church in Russia to regain its spiritual foothold that has long been gone.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It might strike you as at least mildly amusing that many Orthodox consider Protestantism just an “odd subdivision of Roman Catholicism”. Never thought you were Catholic, did you? I don’t think of it that way, but again, a lot of Orthodox do.

I have been saying this for years.

There’s only one Body of Christ, one Church, and it has a name by which it has been known since AD 107: the Catholic Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Who did I call a heretic? I challenge you to find a single post I’ve ever made here calling any Catholic a heretic.

I am willing to accept that, as a gentleman, you didn’t say it. But let’s be truthful with one another here.

As with all threads on CAF about Orthodoxy (which I often avoid) they eventually end up nowhere. The reason, in my mind, is that while Catholics consider themselves and their Church very close to Orthodoxy, that’s far from being the way at least many Orthodox view Catholicism. Usually the process of often slow disclosure leads to disappointment and even hard feelings.

Orthodoxy does consider Catholicism heretical; profoundly heretical; irredeemably heretical. Catholicism accepts the validity of Orthodox sacraments. Orthodox do not accept the validity of Catholic sacraments. Catholics think that somehow reunion would be a matter of ironing out some minor disagreements about the Pope and the filioque. Orthodox believe Latin Christianity should be restricted to the City of Rome, maybe with the present Pope if he quits being Pope, but probably with an Orthodox replacement. The “Moscow” Orthodox do not think the Catholic Church should be anywhere in the western hemisphere, western Europe or Asia.

In short, Catholicism looks toward reunion with Orthodoxy whereas literal Orthodoxy looks to the elimination of Catholicism entirely.

Reduced to its most basic, that’s the truth.

Now, I will also say there is some variation among the Orthodox about such things. The Patriarch of Constantinople seems to desire at least a closer union. The Patriarch of Moscow is very, very different from that.

So, it may be well to return to what anybody thinks about Patriarch Kirill.

 

[Randy_Carson]

He said “the iconoclasm of the past 50 years” which I assumed to mean the fruits of Vatican II. Yes, on paper Catholicism teaches similar theology about icons, but in practice the inside of most Catholic churches looks like this. The same could be said for liturgy, sacred music, etc.

But some NEW Catholic Churches look like this:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd....x315/1836761_539677036130753_1502021727_o.jpg

However, would it be fair to say that even ancient Roman Churches are NOT all adorned with icons as completely as Orthodox churches are? Seems like that was more of an Eastern thing as opposed to a universal ancient practice.

And don’t icons and other artwork accumulate over time? Maybe you decorate your churches with icons from day one, but I think the interiors of many Catholic churches are slowly altered over time.

Thoughts?

And let me add this: Protestants routinely rake Catholics over the coals for how rich the Church is and how we have all these beautiful buildings, ornate vestments and gold chalices, etc. Shouldn’t we sell all that and give the money to the poor?

But then Orthodox tell us that our churches are too plain.

Really???

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am willing to accept that, as a gentleman, you didn’t say it. But let’s be truthful with one another here.

As with all threads on CAF about Orthodoxy (which I often avoid) they eventually end up nowhere. The reason, in my mind, is that while Catholics consider themselves and their Church very close to Orthodoxy, that’s far from being the way at least many Orthodox view Catholicism. Usually the process of often slow disclosure leads to disappointment and even hard feelings.

Orthodoxy does consider Catholicism heretical; profoundly heretical; irredeemably heretical. Catholicism accepts the validity of Orthodox sacraments. Orthodox do not accept the validity of Catholic sacraments. Catholics think that somehow reunion would be a matter of ironing out some minor disagreements about the Pope and the filioque. Orthodox believe Latin Christianity should be restricted to the City of Rome, maybe with the present Pope if he quits being Pope, but probably with an Orthodox replacement. The “Moscow” Orthodox do not think the Catholic Church should be anywhere in the western hemisphere, western Europe or Asia.

In short, Catholicism looks toward reunion with Orthodoxy whereas literal Orthodoxy looks to the elimination of Catholicism entirely.

Reduced to its most basic, that’s the truth.

Now, I will also say there is some variation among the Orthodox about such things. The Patriarch of Constantinople seems to desire at least a closer union. The Patriarch of Moscow is very, very different from that.

So, it may be well to return to what anybody thinks about Patriarch Kirill.

Been there, said that, got those infraction points.

:clapping:

 

[GaryTaylor]

You are right. There is no obstacle to unity except for the pride which the Church sometimes display. We seem to talk more about the Church than we do of our Lord Jesus. It may be this pride which needs to be first removed from us if we really want this communion working. I disagree with the Ecumenical Patriarch’s statement when he says we cannot work with our differences. In fact it is my understanding that our Churches needed to be different so that we will lean more on each other’s strengths. Our Churches in fact are not that complete in themselves. That is why God has made us so different either in our individuality and in the particular the Churches. We need others so as to help complete each other and to compete this communion. We are in fact ordained by God to be lacking in certain gifts and virtues so as to move ourselves to those who will help complete us. And it is certain that those who will help complete us are in need of us as well. When we do argue about many things we are only thinking about ourselves. When we decide to put away these arguments than we can see our brother (and sister) who is in front of us.

Amen, its a balance.

 

[chimo]

I am willing to accept that, as a gentleman, you didn’t say it. But let’s be truthful with one another here.

As with all threads on CAF about Orthodoxy (which I often avoid) they eventually end up nowhere. The reason, in my mind, is that while Catholics consider themselves and their Church very close to Orthodoxy, that’s far from being the way at least many Orthodox view Catholicism. Usually the process of often slow disclosure leads to disappointment and even hard feelings.

Orthodoxy does consider Catholicism heretical; profoundly heretical; irredeemably heretical. Catholicism accepts the validity of Orthodox sacraments. Orthodox do not accept the validity of Catholic sacraments. Catholics think that somehow reunion would be a matter of ironing out some minor disagreements about the Pope and the filioque. Orthodox believe Latin Christianity should be restricted to the City of Rome, maybe with the present Pope if he quits being Pope, but probably with an Orthodox replacement. The “Moscow” Orthodox do not think the Catholic Church should be anywhere in the western hemisphere, western Europe or Asia.

In short, Catholicism looks toward reunion with Orthodoxy whereas literal Orthodoxy looks to the elimination of Catholicism entirely.

Reduced to its most basic, that’s the truth.

Now, I will also say there is some variation among the Orthodox about such things. The Patriarch of Constantinople seems to desire at least a closer union. The Patriarch of Moscow is very, very different from that.

So, it may be well to return to what anybody thinks about Patriarch Kirill.

The problem with most Orthodox are these lack of contacts with the Church of Rome. You cannot really understand someone unless you begin to live in their shoes. The Orthodox do not know Rome in the way they could and it precisely because of these lack of contacts. The Orthodox are not taught anything that Rome teaches when they are young so you cannot blame them when they get older about their evaluation of the Church of Rome. There is no time given to understand each other’s Church and this is not only a problem for the Orthodox, it is the same for the Catholic. We really do not know each other the way we could. We are not taught or exposed to each other when we are young. We are clueless and we need only to blame ourselves for our own lack of knowledge and experiences that was not given to us. Most people only go about their own business. They have not the time to look in each other’s domain. Perhaps some do and here it is a small elite that will try. One of these small elite is the Pope of Rome. At least he is trying to convey to the rest of us what we all need to do and that is to make contacts and to make personal engaging contacts.

 

[wynd]

But some NEW Catholic Churches look like this:

However, would it be fair to say that even ancient Roman Churches are NOT all adorned with icons as completely as Orthodox churches are? Seems like that was more of an Eastern thing as opposed to a universal ancient practice.

And don’t icons and other artwork accumulate over time? Maybe you decorate your churches with icons from day one, but I think the interiors of many Catholic churches are slowly altered over time.

Thoughts?

You’re probably right, and if new Catholic churches look like that I would consider it a much-needed step in the right direction. Anything that allows the Western church to begin to reclaim its liturgical heritage is a win in my book.

 

[wynd]

And let me add this: Protestants routinely rake Catholics over the coals for how rich the Church is and how we have all these beautiful buildings, ornate vestments and gold chalices, etc. Shouldn’t we sell all that and give the money to the poor?

But then Orthodox tell us that our churches are too plain.

Really???

To be blunt, who cares what Protestants think? That sounds mean, but I’m of the opinion that if the Catholic church wants to move towards Protestantism or towards Orthodoxy, I think both Catholics and Orthodox would prefer the latter.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The problem with most Orthodox are these lack of contacts with the Church of Rome. You cannot really understand someone unless you begin to live in their shoes. The Orthodox do not know Rome in the way they could and it precisely because of these lack of contacts. The Orthodox are not taught anything that Rome teaches when they are young so you cannot blame them when they get older about their evaluation of the Church of Rome. There is no time given to understand each other’s Church and this is not only a problem for the Orthodox, it is the same for the Catholic. We really do not know each other the way we could. We are not taught or exposed to each other when we are young. We are clueless and we need only to blame ourselves for our own lack of knowledge and experiences that was not given to us. Most people only go about their own business. They have not the time to look in each other’s domain. Perhaps some do and here it is a small elite that will try. One of these small elite is the Pope of Rome. At least he is trying to convey to the rest of us what we all need to do and that is to make contacts and to make personal engaging contacts.

In America, and among the “Greeks” I would tend to agree. I would also agree that Latins, by and large, don’t know a whole lot about Orthodoxy or even the Eastern Catholic Churches. Part of it, as you say, is because people are busy. Part of it, I think, is that in many places, it’s not too easy to be well catechized in one’s own church, let alone in another.

But I will add that I think it’s probably easier for Orthodox (at least those living in the west) to understand Catholicism than the other way around. Catholicism (and some Orthodox criticize this) is an “open book” in a lot of ways. Literal, plain spoken, ethically-minded. Some would say “legalistic”. In short, the Latin Church is “Latin”. We’re a lot more “Roman” than we know.

The East is harder for westerners to really understand, and precisely because westerners tend to be literal-minded. You watch an Eastern liturgy and it’s sort of hard to understand because what’s “going on” isn’t precisely what’s “going on”.

 

[YADA]

He said “the iconoclasm of the past 50 years” which I assumed to mean the fruits of Vatican II. Yes, on paper Catholicism teaches similar theology about icons, but in practice the inside of most Catholic churches looks like this. The same could be said for liturgy, sacred music, etc.

I beg to differ … I have been to many Catholic Churches and have never seen one like the picture you posted … which looks to be a very newly constructed parish …

here is a link to a nearby parish - recently constructed and the video of the creation of the altar Crucifix … resurrection-catholic-parish.org/video/video/show?id=2277237%3AVideo%3A29065

More on their Icons here resurrection-catholic-parish.org/icons

But the Church building was in use before the Icon was established … so even the Church you posted my change over time …

St Mary’s Cathedral - Portland, OR - maryscathedral.com/artwork/

Far more common are Catholic Church that look like this -

Sacred Heart Parish - Klamath Falls OR - shpkfo.shutterfly.com/268

St Boniface - Sublimity, OR - henrystrobel.com/saintboniface/album1/images/amy%26george.jpg and henrystrobel.com/saintboniface/album1/images/mainaltar.jpg

 

[Randy_Carson]

To be blunt, who cares what Protestants think? That sounds mean, but I’m of the opinion that if the Catholic church wants to move towards Protestantism or towards Orthodoxy, I think both Catholics and Orthodox would prefer the latter.

Amen.

I guess I could add that non-believers also look at the wealth of the Church and question how that matches up with the teachings of Jesus. So, there is a balance to be struck, as well as some “apologetics” work to be done to answer certain accusations.

 

[Ridgerunner]

To be blunt, who cares what Protestants think?

I’m one who does, or at least what some of them think. I was raised among “country Fundamentalists” in the Bible Belt, and while their practices and beliefs are “country simple” to the point of being almost laughable, they tend to believe many of the same things we do as Catholics, and a lot of them mean it wholeheartedly.

I remember two things (and I’ll have to paraphrase) that Flannery O’Connor said. One was that Southern Fundamentalists would be greatly suprised to learn that their beliefs and practices are a lot closer to those of the Catholic Church than they are to classic protestantism.

The other was that she believed, in the future, the greatest field for conversions in the U.S. would be among the Southern Fundamentalists. Maybe so, and maybe not, but it’s an interesting for her to have said.

 

[chimo]

In America, and among the “Greeks” I would tend to agree. I would also agree that Latins, by and large, don’t know a whole lot about Orthodoxy or even the Eastern Catholic Churches. Part of it, as you say, is because people are busy. Part of it, I think, is that in many places, it’s not too easy to be well catechized in one’s own church, let alone in another.

But I will add that I think it’s probably easier for Orthodox (at least those living in the west) to understand Catholicism than the other way around. Catholicism (and some Orthodox criticize this) is an “open book” in a lot of ways. Literal, plain spoken, ethically-minded. Some would say “legalistic”. In short, the Latin Church is “Latin”. We’re a lot more “Roman” than we know.

The East is harder for westerners to really understand, and precisely because westerners tend to be literal-minded. You watch an Eastern liturgy and it’s sort of hard to understand because what’s “going on” isn’t precisely what’s “going on”.

Yes you are right that here in the West these contacts are more available. Perhaps this is why the Orthodox have immigrated here to the West so that these contacts will be forthcoming. I am an Eastern Orthodox who has lived first as a Catholic so my understanding of the Catholic Church has taken a more personal setting. I agree with you that most Orthodox are often told about Rome than the usual check it out for yourself way. I know of Rome from personal experience so I don’t listen to those who will criticized the Church of Rome. I have a more positive relationship with the Church of Rome and I know she can teach us much to become better Christians even to be better Orthodox. I value her teachings and have integrated them to be part of my life. I admire her many Church devotions which has helped me in my spiritual life. Catholic devotions are more simplified for home use and it will be to the advantage of the Orthodox to find them out as Catholic devotions are best suited for the times we are living in.

I have lived to worship in both the Mass and the Divine Liturgy with the Mass coming first into my life. I have found the Divine Liturgy for me to be much superior to what it can give than what the Catholic Mass does. Perhaps it is because my mentality and framework was built to experience God more in the Divine Liturgy yet I find the Catholic Mass an experience that also can connect me with God. I am at home in both worlds.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I beg to differ … I have been to many Catholic Churches and have never seen one like the picture you posted … which looks to be a very newly constructed parish …

here is a link to a nearby parish - recently constructed and the video of the creation of the altar Crucifix … resurrection-catholic-parish.org/video/video/show?id=2277237%3AVideo%3A29065

More on their Icons here resurrection-catholic-parish.org/icons

But the Church building was in use before the Icon was established … so even the Church you posted my change over time …

St Mary’s Cathedral - Portland, OR - maryscathedral.com/artwork/

Far more common are Catholic Church that look like this -

Sacred Heart Parish - Klamath Falls OR - shpkfo.shutterfly.com/268

St Boniface - Sublimity, OR - henrystrobel.com/saintboniface/album1/images/amy%26george.jpg and henrystrobel.com/saintboniface/album1/images/mainaltar.jpg

I almost wince when I see Catholics refer to Church artworks as “icons”. Yes, in western usage that’s correct. But the thought behind “icons” in the east is really different, and so the meaning is different. I’m not an easterner, but I’ll bet an easterner here could point out the differences quicker and better than I could.

But stated briefly and as well as I can. In Catholicism, statues, paintins, mosaics are “reminders” and “illustrations” to emphasize something…rather like putting a photo of Abraham Lincoln in a book about Abraham Lincoln. It personifies something beyond the image itself. It is intended to remind one of the characteristics of the person personified in a personal and literal way.

In the East, icons are considered a “portal” into another world; the world of the sacred. People “lose themselves” in them, almost like an out of body experience. They are regarded as sacred in themselves because of that. That’s true, as I understand it, of both the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics.

Even the most ornate Catholic churches are “plain” compared to eastern churches. We even turned the altars around so people could see what’s going on. Literalness. In eastern churches much of the liturgy is performed behind a screen. Of course, it’s a lavishly gilded and jeweled artwork screen. Mystical.

The East is East and the West is West, etc.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes you are right that here in the West these contacts are more available. Perhaps this is why the Orthodox have immigrated here to the West so that these contacts will be forthcoming. I am an Eastern Orthodox who has lived first as a Catholic so my understanding of the Catholic Church has taken a more personal setting. I agree with you that most Orthodox are often told about Rome than the usual check it out for yourself way. I know of Rome from personal experience so I don’t listen to those who will criticized the Church of Rome. I have a more positive relationship with the Church of Rome and I know she can teach us much to become better Christians even to be better Orthodox. I value her teachings and have integrated them to be part of my life. I admire her many Church devotions which has helped me in my spiritual life. Catholic devotions are more simplified for home use and it will be to the advantage of the Orthodox to find them out as Catholic devotions are best suited for the times we are living in.

I have lived to worship in both the Mass and the Divine Liturgy with the Mass coming first into my life. I have found the Divine Liturgy for me to be much superior to what it can give than what the Catholic Mass does. Perhaps it is because my mentality and framework was built to experience God more in the Divine Liturgy yet I find the Catholic Mass an experience that also can connect me with God. I am at home in both worlds.

There are undoubtedly westerners who have “gone east” mentally and perhaps culturally, just as there are easterners who have “gone west” the same way. There are probably reasons for both. Without intending anything negative, I will say that while I think eastern liturgies (both Orthodox and Eastern Catholic) fascinating and sensually gorgeous, I guess I am so thoroughly “Roman” in culture, education, blood and bone that I can’t truly be anything other than a westerner no matter what I might try to do.

I should add, though, that I think in both east and west, real integration of the young into the life of the Church has suffered a lot over the last few decades. A lot of people “don’t know who they are”. It is at least somewhat comforting to me that many Catholic young people (and not a few converts from Protestantism in my part of the country) are turning to more traditional (and profound) understandings of their faith. One trusts that may be the case in the east at some point if it isn’t already turning.