What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[Hesychios]

So that means you can be baptized either way?There is no right or wrong way?

The right way in the early Church was triple immersion, sprinkling was allowed by oikonomia.

Its not of issue what the early church did. The Church see’s this as the final act on the Cross of the Christs heart being pierced by the sword, thus the final act and immediate conversion through Baptism of the sprinkled Water/Blood thus the infusion of the Holy Spirit.

Isn’t that what fundamentalist megachurch pastors say, rather than informed Catholic laypeople?

I don’t follow their teaching closely [what fundamentalist megachurch pastors say], I’m thinking Catherine of Siena here.

She didn’t care about the tradition of the Church?

Who said that?..

No one ever said this, sorry you seem to be misunderstanding. As to what Mega Church Pastors teach I suppose one who listens to them would know, I don’t. Thats an irrelevant point to me.

As with Catherine of Siena and her view of Tradition I would say thats not even of question considering how she spent her life in regard to the Pope.

What the heck did Catherine of Siena say or do that prompted all this ?

Is it her position that the practice of the early church does not matter, or is it that she has a better idea for how we should baptize than the Apostolic Fathers did in their day?

Did she have a mystical vision about baptism? Did she come up with a justification for sprinkling after the practice had already been adopted?

Or what?

What are you trying to say exactly??

 

[babochka]

“Easterness” is not a goal in itself. It’s the “Orthodoxy” part that matters, and that’s what the Orthodox don’t see coming from Rome…and not because it’s never been there, but because it hasn’t been there in a long time.

That’s a good point and if that is the primary concern, then of course the Orthodox should preserve the faith, but I see so much from the Orthodox side that contends that something is heretical because it is different from the Orthodox practice or simply because it is an idea unknown in the East. I see less of that, in recent years at least, from the Catholic side of things.

 

[Nine_Two]

That’s not what I’m saying at all, and I’m not sure how you read that into my statement. I’m just saying that it is not wrong to be open to the ideas of the east or west (depending on your perspective) and integrating them whenever it is appropriate. When two churches are considered one body, some crossover of thought will happen. The only way to prevent it entirely is to maintain and entrenched, defensive position that the ideas of the opposing side are bad.

What’s wrong with a little crossover?

 

[babochka]

What’s wrong with a little crossover?

Do you imagine it never happened in the early centuries of Christianity?

 

[Hesychios]

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.

It’s like saying ‘almost pregnant’. Either one is, or one is not. One does not go to a greater pregnancy.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the sense of what you have been trying to say.

 

[Nine_Two]

Do you imagine it never happened in the early centuries of Christianity?

I’m positive it did. It is of no harm in and of itself, as long as the faith is the same.

 

[TrueLight]

It’s like saying ‘almost pregnant’. Either one is, or one is not. One does not go to a greater pregnancy.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the sense of what you have been trying to say.

I’m actually referring to the Latin Church and by orthodox, I mean alignment with earlier traditions (not necessarily pre-schism).

 

[dzheremi]

Like Orthodoxy?

 

[TrueLight]

Like Orthodoxy?

See my revised post.

 

[dzheremi]

Hahaha. I’ll see your revised post, and raise you a deleted post!

 

[ConstantineTG]

But couldn’t that argument be used by Orthodox against the idea of unity altogether?

Yes. And they have. But do we envision a unity brought about by deception? If this is what is happening, we should be honest about it. We shouldn’t pretend to be something that we’re not just because we want to entice the Orthodox towards unity. That is deception. I’m sure the Orthodox do not mind “cross pollination” if they see the Roman Catholic faith as orthodox. Right now, they do not.

And in reality, it is used in that way. " Look what happened to the Eastern Catholics! Wouldn’t that happen to any Orthodox entering Communion with Rome?" Yes, it is a danger. The numbers of the Roman Church dwarf the numbers of Orthodox and Eastern Catholics combined. Is that a valid reason for continued disunity? I know, of course, that isn’t the only reason for disunity, or even the primary one. But to use that line of thinking that Eastern Catholics cannot be in Communion with Rome and maintain 100% Eastern identity and that it is a bad thing almost precludes the two being in Communion with one another. Besides, what is 100% Eastern identity, and have the Orthodox truly maintained it in western nations anyway? As I’ve mentioned on this forum before, our local Greek Orthodox church has pews, an altar rail and a pipe organ.

The problem more revolves around their view that the RC is heterodox. They are not worried about evolving traditions to ones that are still orthodox. You will see that some Orthodox parishes have Westernized to some degree, but it hasn’t really been rejected, at least on an official level. I’m sure every Orthodox has their opinions about it as Catholics have about aspects of our own traditions.

At certain points in history, there was less delineation between east and west. Ideas were accepted as Christian or orthodox (as in right-believing) whether they came from a western father or eastern father. Not universally, not always, but it happened with regularity. I think we need to realize that theology is not the same thing as dogma. It is vital that we maintain our traditions and tragic that the western church has seemingly abandoned so many. I believe that it is amazingly short-sighted and weak. The Orthodox are right to be concerned, but it does not equal heresy. I think that the Catholic Church has made great strides in recent decades in being open to the Orthodox (thanks to the much maligned Vatican II?), realizing that we are of one faith and being willing to at least try to look past centuries of talking over each other and entrenched defensive positions. The most recent popes have even acknowledged that unity will require the Catholic church to change the way the office of the Bishop of Rome functions. Are the Orthodox willing to meet us halfway? To enter into serious dialog with us and abandon a defensive entrenched position that if it comes from Rome it must be wrong?

Why are we expecting the Orthodox to meet us halfway? They have made their position clear from early on. If we cannot accept their terms or we expect them to accept our terms, then no union will happen. This is why I have come to realize that unity is so far away that it may never happen. While our faith is essentially the same and a lot of what seems to be different can be reconciled, there are some issues that cannot be reconciled without a complete change of heart from one side. Just the issue of the Papacy is such a big boulder (pun intended ) blocking the path to unity. Its either Rome completely abandons everything she has believed about the Papacy, or the East completely abandons hers. Rome may be willing to give a few inches, but I doubt she will go all the way. As for the East, highly unlikely that they will even give an inch.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Why not?

I’ve heard that Eucharistic Adoration only began approximately 100 years ago in our Catholic Church, is that true? If so, why didn’t we worship Jesus in the Eucharist before then?

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEucharistic_adoration&ei=dS4GUJX0M8eL7AGy9PjLCA&usg=AFQjCNEX-YAl6IQRYxinvKWmiGuRJ4xt-g&sig2=k2DWnSyR8V2Gh_LDx8VaQw

This isn’t an issue for me, I bought it up because I was unaware. The CC see’s Adoration no different then the RP. In other words if we regard the RP as we do, its only right we view this the same IMHO. Right though while it has early roots its for the most part after the schism.

Not a point of contention whatsoever. I’m just trying to grasp the worship aspect with the ins and outs. It dawned on me we usually talk about Doctrine/History etc and I never asked about this aspect.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What the heck did Catherine of Siena say or do that prompted all this ?

Is it her position that the practice of the early church does not matter, or is it that she has a better idea for how we should baptize than the Apostolic Fathers did in their day?

Did she have a mystical vision about baptism?

Page 100-101 of Dialogues she expands on this Michael with Baptism in all its forms. This also coincides with the CCC in one of it paragraphs on Baptism. While the CCC doesn’t expand in depth she does in her conversation through God the Father.

No its not of question on the Councils or early church being of issue. It only sheds light on the sprinkling of water. I thought it was profound in that while the CCC is vague, she elaborates very well on Christ on the Cross and the final act of the spear piercing His heart thus Water and Blood.

Shes an intersting read in that the entire Dialogue is with God the Father, so many issues come up such as worship to God the Father thus bypassing that which He specifically chose to establish with Jesus etc. Not a flowery read at all. straight foward from the perpsective of God the Father. No East-West division. No Marian talk, straight worship of Jesus Christ etc.

Not sure how the entire conversation came up. But no I don’t see her work as justification since without doubt that would cast doubt on the validity of her as a visionary. She lived a Blessed life for sure and from a very early age.

There are other accounts of her visions from childhood which tend to be more Catholic orientated though. This isn’t one.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Hahaha. I’ll see your revised post, and raise you a deleted post!

Lol Poker Posting

 

[GaryTaylor]

Lol Poker Posting

Follow the King or Follow the Queen for the wild card?

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Follow the King or Follow the Queen for the wild card?

Can’t go wrong following the example of either

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Yeah…you can’t really make this point to any OO Christian. And if you want to try, maybe you shouldn’t pick a figure we specifically rebuked both before and after Chalcedon. When Leo sent an incredibly condescending letter to Pope St. Dioscoros prior to the latter’s deposition by the Chalcedonians, trying to tell him how he should run our Church in accordance with what Rome would have the Church of Alexandria be, we refused to be pushed around and went about our business without a second thought as to what some Roman bishop had to say about it (your bishops didn’t call themselves “Pope” yet). When St. Dioscoros was deposed and replaced by a Chalcedonian, we refused to recognize anyone but St. Dioscoros as our leader. When the imperial forces brought a copy of the Tome of Leo to the monks in the Egyptian desert, they tore it up and told the emperor’s minions that we would never, ever believe in it. And we still don’t, even though obviously the dialogue surrounding the Council and what it did and did not say has cooled somewhat in the ensuing 1500+ years. The point is: To us, you guys never “got away” with anything, either before or after Chalcedon. And certainly not Leo, and his “Tome full of heresies”, to quote my priest. To us, he is neither Orthodox nor ‘Great’. The Byzantines may believe as they wish, but in this particular case, it has nothing to do with what we believe.

Little extreme for CAF in regards to a Saint.

Surely you can’t deny that the Tome is dangerously close to Nestorianism? I don’t see any aggresive tone in dzheremi’s post, only where he quotes his priest perhaps.

 

[TrueLight]

No, that is not what usually happens. What you have found there is more properly called a “Coptic Community”, which is the term used in North America for those communities of Coptic Orthodox that are currently working to establish a proper church at their location, but do not yet have a building or their own priest. I belong to one such community, St. Pishoy COC, Albuquerque. Because we are literally hundreds of miles from the nearest Church (St. Mark, Scottsdale - Phoenix), we can only have liturgy twice a month on Saturdays, as the priests from the two churches in Arizona, Fr. Marcus and Fr. Philemon, have their own congregations to tend to on Sundays and the rest of the week, so they alternate months: Fr. Marcus will serve us for our two Saturdays one month, then Fr. Philemon will come for two Saturdays the following month. It is a way of making sure that we can celebrate liturgy on a relatively regular basis, and build connections with the local priests in our diocese, while still giving them the time necessary to serve their own communities at the churches that are already established in Arizona. At this point, we have been a Coptic Community for 16 years (before that, the Copts of the area were apparently communed by the local Greek Orthodox Church, which is much older in the area than the Copts are). Since we are only about 40 people total, it is a very slow process to raise the money to get a church building, and apparently the most recent place we looked at decided that they wanted more money than we could offer. So for the foreseeable future, we will continue with the present arrangement.

If you are curious, here is the schedule at St. Mary & St. Athanasius COC in NJ, where Fr. Antonious usually serves. As you can see, it is pretty full and does have liturgy on Sundays, which is normally when the Coptic Church has them (this is different in Egypt, because Sunday is a workday there, so most churches have them on Friday, from what I’ve been told). I love Fr. Antonios, by the way. He is a very holy man according to all the people I know who have met him, and his voice is really spectacular.

I missed this post. Thanks for the info.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t see

I’ll help you, my comment was as a friend, not to place under critical scrutiny what was stated.I understand all this and the context of the conversation. I agree on many of his points. However, Had I gave this more thought I simply would have sent him a PM as not to give this any more life than needed. Which is exactly what is happening and I regret. So how about we all let this one go?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I’ll help you, my comment was as a friend, not to place under critical scrutiny what was stated.I understand all this and the context of the conversation. I agree on many of his points. However, Had I gave this more thought I simply would have sent him a PM as not to give this any more life than needed. Which is exactly what is happening and I regret. So how about we all let this one go?

I guess we could do that.