The Myth of Schism

[hazcompat]

I appreciate your kindness, Jack. Thank you.

It’s interesting that you should look at it that way. Just a few hours ago a Coptic friend of mine contacted me about putting together a care package of sorts, as she knows I will be attending my first liturgy soon but also that the area that I am moving to has a very small Coptic community (they don’t have their own church, so they meet in an individual’s house), so she wants to make sure I have some of the basic things that come with life as a Coptic Christian, because who knows where/if I could get them where I’m moving. She asked me about what books I have that relate to the faith, so I told her about the four or five I have. Then she asked if I had read this or that book or pamphlet, and everything she mentioned I said no to, because I haven’t. It really hit me how I’ve barely even stuck a toe into the water yet, you know? So it seems the exact opposite to me. In fact, I imagine that I could spend the rest of my life reading about various forms of Christianity and how they relate to and differ from one another and still not really know all that much. Eventually you have to put down the books and pick a street, I guess.

Amen! God is not in the intellect. God is not in the brain. God is in you! Let all scripture and writings of the saints be the ink the Holy Spirit uses to write the story of your journey to God.

Ephesians 3:14 This, then, is what I pray, kneeling before the Father, 15 from whom every fatherhood, in heaven or on earth, takes its name. 16 In the abundance of his glory may he, through his Spirit, enable you to grow firm in power with regard to your inner self, 17 so that Christ may live in your hearts through faith, and then, planted in love and built on love, 18 with all God’s holy people you will have the strength to grasp the breadth and the length, the height and the depth;19 so that, knowing the love of Christ, which is beyond knowledge, you may be filled with the utter fullness of God.

peace

 

[dvdjs]

Catholicism and Orthodoxy are different experiences. They just are. If they aren’t in your own experience, you’re probably not living up to the standard set by one or the other communion

.

Aha. But it’s really just the other way around.

Let me elaborate on two points.

1. If you see the experiences as** fundamentally** different, the you had probably not been living up to the fullness of one or the other - or both - communions.
2. I am not sure that you (and Mickey, above) are speaking of the same thing that provoked my entry into the discussion. Are you now simply talking about “different experiences”? Originally, you said:

the experience of being Orthodox and the experience of being Catholic are fundamentally different.

To speak simply of differences is essentially meaningless. One could make the same claim about the same claim about different particular churches. The key question is: what are the criteria that you are used to do the analysis and what are the norms by which elements are termed the same, or different? Without a specification of norms and criteria, you may mean just about anything, so who could object – apart from objections to the lack of content.

Originally, your spoke of the experiences being ** fundamentally** different. This is a different matter because it implies essential differences. I think that that idea is wrong. Moreover, your evidence was idiosyncratic and the supporting examples involved examples that were stereotypical misrepresentations of the fundamentals of Catholicism.

 

[dzheremi]

Just FYI, I mean that the experiences are different, and result from FUNDAMENTAL differences in mindset and hence approach to the faith. So, both, I guess. I don’t care to get into another argument with you that will boil down to “nuh uh, YOU’RE wrong”.

 

[Mickey]

Just FYI, I mean that the experiences are different, and result from FUNDAMENTAL differences in mindset and hence approach to the faith.

Yep.

 

[NinjaSnark]

Just FYI, I mean that the experiences are different, and result from FUNDAMENTAL differences in mindset and hence approach to the faith. So, both, I guess.

Emphasis mine.

I’m not really sure what there is to disagree with in this statement. It seems pretty obvious to me, and I actually look at that as a plus if reunion is ever going to happen (true catholicity reflected in diversity). The pertinent issue (especially in these reunion talks) is to get to a point where each can agree that they’re confessing the same faith, not change the other’s mindset or approach. You can still confess the same faith but approach that faith in different ways. To me, I don’t think that’s even an issue worth fighting over.

 

[dzheremi]

I agree, NinjaShark, and that is essentially the way I’ve read it explained by various EO (not so much OO, as Catholicism doesn’t come up so often among them, probably because they’ve been separated from both for longer). The problem is not necessarily different approaches, but different (conflicting) ideas of what is an essential piece of dogma and what is not, or what belongs to the deposit of faith and what does not. Many, many EO I’ve spoken to say things like “(such and such piece of Catholic dogma) should be a matter of private opinion, not enforced as dogma”.

 

[NinjaSnark]

Yes exactly, dzheremi. I think the point is seeing if the dogmas are reconcilable with each other- and if not, deciding what to do from there. Is it simply a matter of expressing the same idea in two (or three) different ways, or are we truly talking about two (or three) different, conflicting ideas? If the latter, what then?

 

[gregdaly]

Yes exactly, dzheremi. I think the point is seeing if the dogmas are reconcilable with each other- and if not, deciding what to do from there. Is it simply a matter of expressing the same idea in two (or three) different ways, or are we truly talking about two (or three) different, conflicting ideas? If the latter, what then?

As someone searching for a Church to call home myself, this is an excellent analysis of the situation.

From what I’ve seen, Catholics officially teach the beliefs have the potential to be reconcilable, and that is the purpose of the dialogues. Eastern Orthodox - well, there does not seem to be an official, united voice on the matter. I agree with you that diversity is wonderful. IMO, it is even necessary.

But does diversity equate to opposition? I don’t believe it does, or at least not necessarily. I would personally not join a Church who has an official position that states diversity equates to opposition.

It would be wonderful to converse with you on your own faith journey through these Forums. God bless you.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[dvdjs]

Just FYI, I mean that the experiences are different, and result from FUNDAMENTAL differences in mindset and hence approach to the faith. So, both, I guess. I don’t care to get into another argument with you that will boil down to “nuh uh, YOU’RE wrong”.

There are things that are mere matters of opinion or mere matters of taste, or as you suggest, picking a street, and there are other things that are simply matters of fact (and, btw, matters of correct and incorrect, notwithstanding the modern tendency to relativize everything.) It is a good idea to keep that two categories separate. And I would further suggest that while the latter might or might not be fundamental, the former are certainly not. That would be an interesting discussion but we never got there.

At the level of fundamentals is the* faith*; differences at this level are small and are with time, study, and de-politicization diminishing . We now have shared Christological statements in the OO and other, post-Chalcedonian churches. On approach to faith, there are great differences, but why would that be fundamental. The risen Christ is fundamental, how we celebrate it and synergize with its grace in diverse manners throughout different cultures is not; it is an startling innovation to suggest otherwise.

As to mindset, I think that you are, as I have repeatedly cautioned, way off base: what really do you know of the mindset of a billion Catholics or 250 EOs of 100m OOs.

In the end, if what you are doing is* picking* a street, you might make an attempt to be respectful, rather than dismissive of the path not taken. And react with humility about your own lack of progress on that path not taken - especially considering the spiritual giants who were enlivened by that pathway. Whatever it is about you, that leads to you to pick, should not be projected onto the Church as a whole. That is stereotyping and that stereotyping is highly divisive. Is it part of your picked path to reinforce the schism?

Maybe it would help if you took a look at another thread, where the shoe is on the other foot (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=571539 starting at post 49), a poster writes in general terms of his limited experience that led his dismissal of Eastern Orthodoxy. The reaction is swift, caustic, and not without merit.

Perhaps you would also consider listening to Fr Taft’s lecture at the Oriental Lumen conference (linked to in another thread); it might also be illuminating.

 

[dvdjs]

I think the point is seeing if the dogmas are reconcilable with each other- and if not, deciding what to do from there. Is it simply a matter of expressing the same idea in two (or three) different ways, or are we truly talking about two (or three) different, conflicting ideas? If the latter, what then?

And that is the major point that should help you to see what there is to disagree with. Are we talking about fundamentals, such as dogma, or are we talking about enculturated modes of expression? Are we fundamental matters of faith, or are is it just a matter of looking down, like the Pharisee, on the practice of others like the wretched publican. I have read a lot on this thread of about incidental differences, and about erroneous perspectives on fundamental ones. But not about genuine fundamental differences. And that is the point of disagreement.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t care to get into another argument with you that will boil down to “nuh uh, YOU’RE wrong”.

 

[NinjaSnark]

As someone searching for a Church to call home myself, this is an excellent analysis of the situation.

From what I’ve seen, Catholics officially teach the beliefs have the potential to be reconcilable, and that is the purpose of the dialogues. Eastern Orthodox - well, there does not seem to be an official, united voice on the matter. I agree with you that diversity is wonderful. IMO, it is even necessary.

But does diversity equate to opposition? I don’t believe it does, or at least not necessarily. I would personally not join a Church who has an official position that states diversity equates to opposition.

It would be wonderful to converse with you on your own faith journey through these Forums. God bless you.

In Christ,
Greg

Re: diversity and opposition- I agree with you completely. I don’t see that diversity automatically means opposition, assuming all parties have a fraternal love and respect for one another. I think with closed-minded people it is certainly possible for diversity to be interpreted as opposition, which is a shame, IMO.

I would love to hear your thoughts on your own journey, and where you’re at with it all. I will keep you in my prayers as well.

God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Holy Orthodoxy is the fulness of truth and I represent the faith as best I can. I am able to make some unique comparisons having been RC and EC prior to that.

From the past several years I’ve read your tirades, it sure doesn’t look like you knew the teachings of the Latin Catholic Church very well.

I harbor no jealousy, and I attempt to represent my faith truthfully. In fact, I am grateful that the RCC has led me to my ultimate path.

Fine. Stick to representing Eastern Orthodoxy. You have no business misrespresenting Catholicism.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

From the past several years I’ve read your tirades,

LOL! Tirades?!? You are a hoot. I have often noticed that when my posts interfere with your novel theological inventions…you begin hurling your insults.

it sure doesn’t look like you knew the teachings of the Latin Catholic Church very well.

I know the teachings of Roman Catholicism quite well, thank you.

Fine. Stick to representing Eastern Orthodoxy.

I shall. Thank you.

 

[Ken_Taki]

I agree, D. My point is that everybody’s experience is different. It is silly to pretend otherwise. Within that overarching point is the particular point that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not the same experience.

If this was quoted by a Catholic, dz would have utterly disagreed with it and argued violently against it.

 

[Mickey]

If this was quoted by a Catholic, dz would have utterly disagreed with it and argued violently against it.

Then it is obvious that you have not followed many of dzheremi’s posts.

 

[dzheremi]

Wow. Yeah. I’m not really even sure how to reply to that. So instead I’ll say this…

Look, there are two kinds of people in the world:

(1) People who have particular experiences and try to place them within a wider context of similar experiences by following the guidance of others who have more experience in order to form some sort of idea about the subject and make decisions based on that.

(2) People who do (1), but insist that anyone who disagrees with them is not doing (1), and is just being bigoted and polemical or what have you.

Less type (2) arguing would improve the atmosphere around here significantly.

 

[marlo]

Ahh Mickey, the guy who always need justification for his action of leaving the church. You left CAF as advised by your spiritual director, but its obvious that all you want is to debate.

if you really knew the doctrines and teachings of the catholic church, here is my challenge.

Prove to us that the filioque is heresy by using ONLY the writings of the Latin Fathers

Start a thread in Apologetics now.

LOL! Tirades?!? You are a hoot. I have often noticed that when my posts interfere with your novel theological inventions…you begin hurling your insults.
I know the teachings of Roman Catholicism quite well, thank you.
I shall. Thank you.

 

[dvdjs]

The OP was made with high hopes. It is a shame, how things turned out.

I was sad that the biggest myth-makers here could not take a moment to respond thoughtfully to Hart’s ideas. Or to similar, balanced remarks by Fr Taft, in the Orientale Lumen thread. But I was very happy that one EO did, that means so much, even as the others were reacting with aggression already on the first two pages.

It is clear that we are not going to get at the substance of the ostensible fundamental, and even ontological (not just practice) differences between our churches. It appears that this has idea, whatever it may have meant to the EP, has fossilized into a mere slogan with no defensible substance - at least among those who wield it here. Just like: the Catholic church has not preserved the Apostolic faith; the The Catholic church separated it self from the Orthodox churches; etc. Such remarks are enormously disrespectful of the Catholic church, but are just slipped into conversations as thought there are true and even self-evident. Then we get passive-aggressive cries of foul when they get the response that they deserve, particularly here.

Does anyone have any idea what the point of such remarks are?

 

[hazcompat]

John 19:

23 When the soldiers had finished crucifying Jesus they took his clothing and divided it into four shares, one for each soldier. His undergarment was seamless, woven in one piece from neck to hem;

24 so they said to one another, ‘Instead of tearing it, let’s throw dice to decide who is to have it.’ In this way the words of scripture were fulfilled: They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothes. That is what the soldiers did.

peace