What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[Trebor135]

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.

Nifty. Keep us posted with your comments on the book. I hope to be able to read it myself within the next month.

Also, how would you envision the papacy being reformed from the inside, post-Vatican I?

 

[Trebor135]

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.

What are those latinizations he was talking about, and why are they permanent?

We also talked a bit on Fr. Loya’s very public statements of late.

There was a thread in the Eastern Catholicism sub-forum about a letter he wrote. But can you elaborate on the comments Fr. Loya has made?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Nifty. Keep us posted with your comments on the book. I hope to be able to read it myself within the next month.

I might start a thread on it somewhere. I will let you know when I get to it.

Also, how would you envision the papacy being reformed from the inside, post-Vatican I?

Ah, that is something way above my theological pay grade. But my limited knowledge has two options. The only way to turn over a infallible declaration by a Pope is to declare the Pope a heretic, thus he had vacated the seat by heresy and was never actually able to make a statement ex cathedra. But that won’t happen. Pius IX is beatified.

The other is to make a later “clarification”, similar to what has been done with indulgences. I cannot even begin to guess how that will work out.

 

[ConstantineTG]

What are those latinizations he was talking about, and why are they permanent?

He sees communion in the same theological concept we see communion with Christ. We form one body. The blood that circulates the hand also circulates to the foot. We breathe the same air. So Latin influence will never cease on the Eastern Catholic Churches. The good thing is there also seems to be, as of late, a somewhat Byantinization of the Latin Rite, to a small degree. Theology of the Body, for example, has brought Theosis to Latin mainstream.

There was a thread in the Eastern Catholicism sub-forum about a letter he wrote. But can you elaborate on the comments Fr. Loya has made?

It would derail this thread. But from an Orthodox perspective, well, what Fr. Loya and other proponents of “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is trying to do is fighting an uphill battle. Only the hill is Mr. Everest, and they are at the bottom. He continues, unless these communities isolate themselves in a bubble, like St. Elias and similar parishes, we can’t really practice genuine Orthodox spirituality without Latin influence. The Roman Catholic Church will always loom over the Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What sacrament?

Trebor, if you do not know, obviously you “missed” the entire point of the conversation.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Trebor, if you do not know, obviously you “missed” the entire point of the conversation.

That is a very evasive answer. For the sake of those of us who are so oblivious, perhaps you could be kind enough to enlighten us as to which of the seven sacraments you meant?

 

[GaryTaylor]

which of the seven sacraments you meant?

Baptism, which btw I clearly stated already.

 

[TrueLight]

The other is to make a later “clarification”, similar to what has been done with indulgences. I cannot even begin to guess how that will work out.

As someone not raised as a Catholic, and able to see objectively the differences between the Pre-Vatican II and Post Vatican II Church, I can assure you that unless the Church begins to lean more towards Pre-Vatican II teachings, there will certainly be “clarifications” regarding Pastor Aeternus.

I don’t even know why you are letting this document trouble you so.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I think that they are my separated brethren. I feel sorry for them for thinking that Catholic miracles are of the devil.

I wish people could see that God works miracles through all Christians;

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I feel sorry for them for thinking that Catholic miracles are of the devil.

What are you suggesting? That Orthodox do not believe in modern miracles, and/or that they assume all miracles as affirmed by the Catholic Church are false?

I really don’t think either is true. There are indeed some Catholic miracles and apparitions which might be considered “fantastic” in the classic sense by non-Catholics generally, and that the Orthodox tend to ignore, but the Orthodox are surely well aware of the intervention of the holy and blessed in our daily and worldly lives. Indeed, there have been and will continue to be many Orthodox pilgrims who literally crawl on their knees long distances seeking the intervention of the holy and blessed.

Here’s an interesting Orthodox belief to consider: Miracle of the Holy Fire

 

[InJesusItrust]

While researching Catholicism and Orthodoxy that seems to be the most popular explanation for miracles like at Lourdes or Fatima.

Catholics also tend to easily label something of the devil, like Medjugorje.

I have noticed an asymmetry. While a Catholic will be able to accept an Orthodox miracle, an Orthodox will not be able to accept a Catholic miracle, most of the time.

An Orthodox miracle that impresses me is the reversing of the Jordan river.

 

[GaryTaylor]

While researching Catholicism and Orthodoxy that seems to be the most popular explanation for miracles like at Lourdes or Fatima.

Catholics also tend to easily label something of the devil, like Medjugorje.

I have noticed an asymmetry. While a Catholic will be able to accept an Orthodox miracle, an Orthodox will not be able to accept a Catholic miracle, most of the time.

An Orthodox miracle that impresses me is the reversing of the Jordan river.

The point of rejection becomes the point of the miracle which confirms Catholicism. As with Lourdes or Fatima.

Medjugorje is under investigation by the Vatican, so in this regard we can only speculate on the final outcome.

Thats said I’m impressed with Zeitoun Egypt in the late 60’s thus the Coptic Church.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Indeed - well put as always JC!

Much can be found on the internet, claiming to be the position of a given Church or people, and that can be misleading. We need to be appropriately skeptical before concluding on the basis of such statements.

Discounting such and specifically as regards Marian apparitions, for example, a careful study will find that the Orthodox experience with Marian miracles occurs more commonly through her image in iconography vs. apparition. There are well over a thousand documented instances of miraculous icons of the Theotokos across Orthodoxy, which some Catholics might find hard to believe.

That said, I doubt that the first though of many Catholics would be to seek out a weeping or bleeding icon of the Blessed Mother for healing or general intercession. The experience in the tradition of Latin Catholicism would more likely guide one to the waters of Lourdes.

It is of course quite possible that Our Blessed Mother speaks to us in different ways, and we should perhaps consider that in measuring any commentary or comparison of the views of Catholicism and Orthodoxy as regards miraculous intervention of the holy and blessed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As someone not raised as a Catholic, and able to see objectively the differences between the Pre-Vatican II and Post Vatican II Church, I can assure you that unless the Church begins to lean more towards Pre-Vatican II teachings, there will certainly be “clarifications” regarding Pastor Aeternus.

I don’t even know why you are letting this document trouble you so.

It is the greatest roadblock to unity. I was one of those that started to believe that unity is around the corner. But after understanding the Orthodox side and reading Pastor Aeternus, I don’t believe that we will be reunited with any of the Apostolic Churches with that document in effect as is.

 

[Nine_Two]

The point of rejection becomes the point of the miracle which confirms Catholicism. As with Lourdes or Fatima.

Medjugorje is under investigation by the Vatican, so in this regard we can only speculate on the final outcome.

Thats said I’m impressed with Zeitoun Egypt in the late 60’s thus the Coptic Church.

I find the Catholic reliance on miracles disturbing.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I find the Catholic reliance on miracles disturbing.

Some of it no doubt is. Me too. Its one thing to research something and see the profound and beauty. Very different to disregard the Church teaching as a result. Basically this was the path of the Knights Templar in error.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I find the Catholic reliance on miracles disturbing.

I would agree that an individual reliance on miracles as a prime source of connection to the Divine (i.e. instead of praise and worship of God and relationship with Christ) as exhibited by some is inherently dangerous and problematic.

Yet, I’m sure you would agree that a strong association with the miraculous (perhaps a more healthy perspective) can also be seen in Orthodoxy.

Indeed this is reminiscent of the Protestant objection to veneration of Mary and the Saints, as taken to an extreme (like anything else), can interfere with one’s proper relationship with the Almighty.

I personally tend to look at such (from any tradition) to be a source of inspiration and extraordinary evidence of the presence of God and the holy in our daily lives. They serve as reminders that He is indeed always present and dwelling among us.

Yet, we should be ever mindful that it was only for those who had True Faith that Christ himself performed the miracles of healing and bestowed His divine mercy and forgiveness. Many may have believed in His power to cure, yet there was a condition a worthiness that had to be met.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would agree that an individual reliance on miracles as a prime source of connection to the Divine (i.e. instead of praise and worship of God and relationship with Christ) as exhibited by some is inherently dangerous and problematic.

Yet, I’m sure you would agree that a strong association with the miraculous (perhaps a more healthy perspective) can also be seen in Orthodoxy.

Indeed this is reminiscent of the Protestant objection to veneration of Mary and the Saints, as taken to an extreme (like anything else), can interfere with one’s proper relationship with the Almighty.

I personally tend to look at such (from any tradition) to be a source of inspiration and extraordinary evidence of the presence of God and the holy in our daily lives. They serve as reminders that He is indeed always present and dwelling among us.

Yet, we should be ever mindful that it was only for those who had True Faith that Christ himself performed the miracles of healing and bestowed His divine mercy and forgiveness. Many may have believed in His power to cure, yet there was a condition a worthiness that had to be met.

Right thats the opposite side of the coin. Its also as Benedict XVI stated that in a very real way through the Holy Spirit souls regain their spiritual eye. Its been said as mankind closed a door, God opens a window.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I suppose it’s the one about the source of sacerdotal unity? That was my first guess.

(Aye, that and the related one about where error cannot enter. I hesitate to cite it because I do think it’s easy for Catholics to take out of context. Actually, the nature of the dispute between St. Cyprian and Pope St. Stephen to me is a crystal-clear indicator of the truth of the High Petrine interpretation: St. Cyprian insisted on his episcopal prerogative because he saw the issue at hand to be, by definition, one belonging to a bishop’s proper jurisdiction, and St. Stephen presumed the right to dispute this, because he saw it as an issue of inherently universal relevance.)

Certainly the definition of primacy is not the same between the two communions.

For example, the primate of the RC church in the USA is the Archbishop of Baltimore (and the primate of Italy is the Archbishop of Rome). What does that mean in practice? Almost nothing. Most RC don’t even know the Archbishop of Baltimore has primacy in the USA. The position has so atrophied under the increasingly powerful papacy in recent centuries it has even lost it’s symbolic value.

Today, among RC when ‘primacy’ is mentioned it is automatically assumed to refer to papal prerogatives. People have almost all nearly completely forgotten what it used to mean in their own church.

The fact is, in the early church primacy functioned at many levels.

We can fix that. It may take a long time, but as long as our Lord hasn’t returned yet, we’ll be working on it.

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

While I really can’t comment responsibly since I wasn’t there and don’t know specifics, I’ll say something nonetheless. I would not at all be surprised if he doesn’t understand Catholic teaching.

In his defense, I have heard some eastern Catholics take positions that aren’t consistent with Catholic teaching: for instance, an old thread on the ByzCath forums once held a “Melkite FAQ” by a Melkite Catholic on what Melkites believe. He claimed - without further clarification - that Melkites don’t believe in papal infallibility.

If that’s the sort of thing you and your OCA priest friend were discussing, then I agree with you. More often, however, what I hear is unjustified suspicion - from, ironically, Catholics as well as Orthodox - that the laudably and justly nuanced explorations and expressions of Catholic teaching from the perspective of eastern theology and spirituality are actually inconsistent with Magisterial teaching; this most often happens in the context of papal supremacy and universal papal authority. All the while those who harbor such suspicions absurdly ignore the self-evident fact of Catholic theology’s extraordinary capacity for flexibility and nuance.

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.

I’m not surprised he said that. It only makes sense for a devoted Orthodox priest.

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

This is one of the reasons I find the Catholic hermeneutic of Tradition more compelling: while revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, is “development of doctrine” in any sense permissible?

To me, the Orthodox often seem to want to say “no,” and yet they (rightly!) value the Church Fathers and first seven Ecumenical Councils as necessary bulwarks and foundations of the Orthodox Faith.

Well, if - as we all agree - public divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, then why is theological development so easily permissible in the first millennium but so ideologically anathematized in the second?

**To be fair, I don’t think this is a flaw in the faith of our Orthodox brothers and sisters; I think it’s a flaw in contemporary EO apologetics. **Their often suspicious response to Latin development leaves their own perspective on Tradition deeply incoherent.

We look at the ancient Western Church and say “that’s our faith”.

And then we Catholics experience puzzlement in light of figures like St. Leo the Great, concerning whose actions you guys - well, perhaps not the OO, but certainly the EO - let slide the very straws that apparently broke the camel’s back in the eleventh century.

And we ask why it was okay for us to get away with certain things then, but not now…

It is the greatest roadblock to unity. I was one of those that started to believe that unity is around the corner. But after understanding the Orthodox side and reading Pastor Aeternus, I don’t believe that we will be reunited with any of the Apostolic Churches with that document in effect as is.

See, I do not believe that unity is right around the corner, for practical reasons, despite the fact that I believe Pastor Aeternus is not Absolutist…

I find the Catholic reliance on miracles disturbing.

In what way, Nine_Two? I don’t think we rely on miracles… I don’t, anyway. Well, I suppose I rely on one: the Resurrection of our Lord…

 

[GaryTaylor]

I find daily Eucharist/Communion a Blessing along with the Blessed Sacrament. Hows that work in the East?