What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[TrueLight]

True Light,

I fear one fact that may be in danger of getting lost if we continue our conversation is that I, as a believer in the Orthodox faith and as a Westerner, do not have a sort of “shopping list of ingredients to make the Romans/Latins Orthodox again”. If I could’ve done it, I would have.

See, I have to stop you right here because I don’t see unification as the Roman Catholics becoming Orthodox. That would be taking the Orthodox view, which of course, as a Roman Catholic, I don’t.

I personally believe the church is moving towards greater “orthodoxy” (small o), but in ways that have nothing to do with the Orthodox, but that’s a different topic.

The Western Church must rediscover its own Orthodox faith. It is definitely there, and every bit as rich as the faith of the Egyptians, or the Syrians, or the Ethiopians, or the Russians, or whoever. It’s not the exact same as any of them in its externals, but especially for me as an Oriental convert, that is absolutely not a problem. This would be, if you can believe it, what might even be called “the fun part” of the whole process of reunification. That’s not to say it isn’t work, of course, but in my few years of contact with some priests and believers within the British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate (these nice folks), I have marveled at some of what has been rediscovered and brought back to life, even on a tenuous, ongoing basis. We’re talking about the rediscovery of British and Celtic monastic history, iconography, and hymnology. And every place in the West where Christianity spread prior to the Schism has its own similar history to embrace. So rather than thinking about it in terms of concessions to be made for the sake of others, why not think of it in terms of true renewal (not just periodic retranslation of a particular form of the Mass) for the sake of your own now often forgotten Orthodox faith, which is one with ours?

Interesting. I have never read that point of view before.

 

[TrueLight]

Don’t tell me you’re going all 'dox on me

I knew you would get that.

It depends what you mean by lovefest. My priest-friend from the OCA was brutally honest with me and sometimes he almost brings me to tears. But he is just being honest. That is how he loves me, by being what he is and what he believes as a priest of the Orthodox. No trying to paint a brighter picture or trying to liberally use euphemisms for the sake of avoiding hurting my feelings.

Like I said, I expect the Orthodox to be well… Orthodox.

 

[ConstantineTG]

See, I have to stop you right here because I don’t see unification as the Roman Catholics becoming Orthodox. I personally believe the church is moving towards greater “orthodoxy” (small o), but that’s another topic.

But to the Orthodox, orthodoxy is believing in the faith of our Church Fathers. The beliefs and practices of the First Millennium.

 

[TrueLight]

But to the Orthodox, orthodoxy is believing in the faith of our Church Fathers. The beliefs and practices of the First Millennium.

Who drew the line at the First Millennium?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I knew you would get that.

You sure know how to bait me

Like I said, I expect the Orthodox to be well… Orthodox.

And it is one thing I admire about them. I wish the Catholic faith is more like that. I can understand accepting the validity of the true Apostolic Churches, but accepting the validity of Protestant baptisms and weddings, as well as the ability of validly ordained priests to confect Sacraments after leaving the Catholic faith. We already teach that intent is an integral part of making a valid Sacrament, so I do not know how we can judge the intent of one outside the Catholic Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Who drew the line at the First Millennium?

Well, tradition should be consistent all throughout. So we have to look at the faith of the people with whatever evidence we have. The Scriptures tell us of the First Century, then there are other writings for every century thereafter. If our beliefs today aren’t consistent with the First Millennium, then we are disconnected to the First Century where Christ walked on earth and the Apostles lived and taught the faith. The First Millennium isn’t a line, but a bridge between now and the past. Remember, Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Our faith on him should be as such.

 

[Nine_Two]

Who drew the line at the First Millennium?

It is a term used because it is when Orthodoxy and Catholicism branched away from each other.

When discussing with Oriental Orthodox you would talk about the first four hundred years. It’s just shorthand for “back when we were in union with each other.”

 

[TrueLight]

It is a term used because it is when Orthodoxy and Catholicism branched away from each other.

When discussing with Oriental Orthodox you would talk about the first four hundred years. It’s just shorthand for “back when we were in union with each other.”

Oh I see.

You sure know how to bait me

 

[dzheremi]

See, I have to stop you right here because I don’t see unification as the Roman Catholics becoming Orthodox. That would be taking the Orthodox view, which of course, as a Roman Catholic, I don’t.

This is the only way in which any non-Orthodox can hope to be reunited with the Orthodox Church, as it was during the first millennium. So there is no union otherwise, and no real point in talking.

I personally believe the church is moving towards greater “orthodoxy” (small o), but in ways that have nothing to do with the Orthodox, but that’s a different topic.

Hmm. Alright. I don’t play the “we’re small this, you’re small that” game (because this is against the ecclesiology of the Church that says that we are the true Orthodox Catholic Church), but I can respect that you believe this for the future of your church. I hope you’re right. (I would rather have self-proclaimed “small-o orthodox” Catholics, even though I don’t recognize that as a thing, than “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”…which I likewise don’t recognize as a thing).

Interesting. I have never read that point of view before.

It is the view of the Orthodox Church, from both OO and EO. We look at the ancient Western Church and say “that’s our faith”. We in the Coptic Church, for instance, look to the West and see great Orthodox saints like St. Arsenius (one of the Romans among the Desert Fathers), the great pillar of Orthodoxy St. Athanasius the Apostolic twice blessing Treves (in northern Gaul) with his presence during long exile, the Theban Legion venerated for centuries by the Christians of the Swiss Alps, the monks of the Church in Ireland glorifying the Egyptian fathers, etc.

 

[TrueLight]

This is the only way in which any non-Orthodox can hope to be reunited with the Orthodox Church, as it was during the first millennium. So there is no union otherwise, and no real point in talking.

So be it.

Hmm. Alright. I don’t play the “we’re small this, you’re small that” game (because this is against the ecclesiology of the Church that says that we are the true Orthodox Catholic Church), but I can respect that you believe this for the future of your church. I hope you’re right.

Rest assured that I’m not playing games.

We in the Coptic Church, for instance, look to the West and see great Orthodox saints like St. Arsenius (one of the Romans among the Desert Fathers), the great pillar of Orthodoxy St. Athanasius the Apostolic twice blessing Treves (in northern Gaul) with his presence during long exile, the Theban Legion venerated for centuries by the Christians of the Swiss Alps, the monks of the Church in Ireland glorifying the Egyptian fathers, etc.

Good stuff for me to look up.

 

[Augustus24]

I am very comfortable with Orthodox liturgy and spirituality and I disagree with some theology but not very much. It’s the followers of Orthodoxy I generally have a problem with.

I have met some very warm and friendly Orthodox believers, but most of the Orthodox believers that I have met are some of the most arrogant Christians I have ever run across. They have completely discounted anything that the “west” has to offer in terms of spirituality or theology even to the point of denigrating anything “western” including St Augustine (who is a blessed in Orthodoxy as well). Also, it seems to me that the Catholic Church has been a lot more flexible in terms of relations with the Orthodox then the Orthodox have towards the Catholic Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am very comfortable with Orthodox liturgy and spirituality and I disagree with some theology but not very much. It’s the followers of Orthodoxy I generally have a problem with.

I have met some very warm and friendly Orthodox believers, but most of the Orthodox believers that I have met are some of the most arrogant Christians I have ever run across. They have completely discounted anything that the “west” has to offer in terms of spirituality or theology even to the point of denigrating anything “western” including St Augustine (who is a blessed in Orthodoxy as well). Also, it seems to me that the Catholic Church has been a lot more flexible in terms of relations with the Orthodox then the Orthodox have towards the Catholic Church.

The same can be said of any group of people. We are all the same humans after all.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The same can be said of any group of people. We are all the same humans after all.

Nope, apparently the Orthodox are uniquely arrogant amongst all of humanity.

 

[dzheremi]

Rest assured that I’m not playing games.

Sorry, that came out much meaner sounding than I meant it to. I wasn’t even thinking of you (this is the first time I’ve discussed anything with you in depth, I think), but more the tendency I’ve seen from both Orthodox and Catholics to say “okay, you (Church that I am not in communion with) are small C/small O _____, we’re large C/large O _____.” I think that’s really silly. Not only do many of our traditional languages not have a distinction between capital and lower case letters in writing (Arabic doesn’t; Coptic originally didn’t, but it was added later on), no matter who is what case what, nobody in the relevant communions seriously makes a distinction between “orthodox” and “Orthodox” or “catholic” and “Catholic”. The Orthodox say that they are Orthodox AND Catholic, and I should hope that Catholics also teach their people that they are Orthodox (have “right belief”, or whichever other English translation you’d prefer). So I see the whole thing as a rather silly and unhelpful for serious discussion. It is better if we are honest about how we see ourselves, and let others do the same.

Good stuff for me to look up.

Orthodoxy, especially Oriental Orthodoxy (because it has much less shared history to argue with the RCC over than the Byzantines do), is really not as anti-Roman/Western as it might seem from an RCC perspective. Heck, one of the most famous Coptic monasteries of the Egyptian desert is known as The Monastery of the Romans, referring to Ss. Maximos and Dometeos, the sons of the Roman emperor Valentinian who came to the desert to answer the call to monasticism in the time of St. Macarius the Great.

 

[Nine_Two]

… to the point of denigrating anything “western” including St Augustine (who is a blessed in Orthodoxy as well).

This makes me laugh actually (not that you said it, I’ve encountered it before myself). He’s one of the most popular personal patron saints in Greece, but some members of the Orthodox Church are adamant he isn’t a saint.

He isn’t nearly as influential in our communion, but he is undeniably present.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Just make sure you wave “hi” to me if we ever see each other on the same path

 

[Trebor135]

About the positions that Eastern Catholics are taking that are not consistent with Roman Catholic teaching.

Can you elaborate?

He also told me that Eastern Catholics can never be Orthodox in communion with Rome. I was offended and hurt at first, but after much contemplation I discovered that he is right about that matter.

Why did he say that, and what led you to conclude that he was correct?

Or Anglicans who claim to be “Reformed Catholics” or to any degree of Catholic.

Well, I wanted to give an “extreme” example, where a certain group A which self-identifies as Christian fails to extend that same recognition to another particular group B which does acknowledge group A as Christian, yet group B fails to show much concern at all about the stance of group A because group B doesn’t–and shouldn’t–take the views of group A on matters of faith very seriously. (Anti-Catholic Calvinists have about as much credibility as Mormons: they both allege that a “great apostasy” took place in order to justify the existence of their idiosyncratic sect.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

Can you elaborate?

The most common stance is about the role of the Papacy. I was ignorant of the dogma on the Papacy then, but after reading Pastor Aeternus, I realized that there really is only one view on the Papacy. And any other view is condemned, “let him be anathema.”

Why did he say that, and what led you to conclude that he was correct?

Reading more about Pastor Aeternus. It is consistent with how the Roman Church has acted, and inconsistent with how the Eastern Catholic Churches have acted against the Papacy. I do believe we can reform the Church from within, but at this point we do not even have the liberty of being against Pastor Aeternus. Because it would be heretic for a Catholic to do so.

Well, I wanted to give an “extreme” example, where a certain group A which self-identifies as Christian fails to extend that same recognition to another particular group B which does acknowledge group A as Christian, yet group B fails to show much concern at all about the stance of group A because group B doesn’t–and shouldn’t–take the views of group A on matters of faith very seriously. (Anti-Catholic Calvinists have about as much credibility as Mormons: they both allege that a “great apostasy” took place in order to justify the existence of their idiosyncratic sect.)

A good example are the Traditional Anglicans. Although they have made the giant step forward and have actually reunited with Rome. But for a time, they believed they were “Catholics not under the Pope”.

 

[Trebor135]

The most common stance is about the role of the Papacy. I was ignorant of the dogma on the Papacy then, but after reading Pastor Aeternus, I realized that there really is only one view on the Papacy. And any other view is condemned, “let him be anathema.”

Reading more about Pastor Aeternus. It is consistent with how the Roman Church has acted, and inconsistent with how the Eastern Catholic Churches have acted against the Papacy. I do believe we can reform the Church from within, but at this point we do not even have the liberty of being against Pastor Aeternus. Because it would be heretic for a Catholic to do so.

Thanks for clarifying. I originally thought you might be referring to the tendency among some Eastern Catholics to deny dogmas proclaimed by the Latin Church–papal infallibility, purgatory, and the like.

Regarding Pastor Aeternus, have you read James T. O’Connor’s “The Gift of Infallibility”?

A good example are the Traditional Anglicans. Although they have made the giant step forward and have actually reunited with Rome. But for a time, they believed they were “Catholics not under the Pope”.

Indeed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thanks for clarifying. I originally thought you might be referring to the tendency among some Eastern Catholics to deny dogmas proclaimed by the Latin Church–papal infallibility, purgatory, and the like.

Regarding Pastor Aeternus, have you read James T. O’Connor’s “The Gift of Infallibility”?

Indeed.

Currently I am reading “The Primacy of Peter”. I think you know about this book from the other tread. I got the book last Friday and began reading it last night. I’m done with the first part that examined St. Peter’s role in the Church as depicted in Scripture.

Also to add, other parts of our discussion revolved around Latinizations in the Eastern Catholic Churches, and why we will never be able to be rid of them. We also talked a bit on Fr. Loya’s very public statements of late.