What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[Hesychios]

The conversation from Fab wasn’t about the reformation, it was …

This is exactly what he wrote …
" It seemed to me the discussions always ended in ‘Orthodoxy is right, you’re wrong, and what you say doesn’t matter.’ "

In Protestant churches, people get together after worship for coffee and pastries and they can chat all about their differing religious perspectives, which can be many and varied. They can all sit around the coffee table and say “that’s nice” to one another. Perhaps in this sharing they learn from one another.

(Among Latin Catholics, a similar conversation can be observed between the Molinists and the Thomists and Franciscans, I suppose.)

If the question comes up between a Protestant and an Orthodox Christian about who’s right in religion, don’t expect an “I’m Ok, You’re Ok” approach to the conversation. Only one will be ok.

And yes, Protestants have a lot in common with Latin Catholics. Protestantism comes straight out of the Latin Catholic church, and it is this which has shaped their many perspectives.

 

[Hesychios]

The conversation from Fab wasn’t about the reformation, it was …

This is exactly what he wrote …
" It seemed to me the discussions always ended in ‘Orthodoxy is right, you’re wrong, and what you say doesn’t matter.’ "

In Protestant churches, people get together after worship for coffee and pastries and they can chat all about their differing religious perspectives, which can be many and varied. They can all sit around the coffee table and say “that’s nice” to one another. Perhaps in this sharing they learn from one another.

(Among Latin Catholics, a similar conversation can be observed between the Molinists and the Thomists, Augustinians and Franciscans, I suppose.)

If the question comes up between a Protestant and an Orthodox Christian about who’s right in religion, don’t expect an “I’m Ok, You’re Ok” approach to the conversation. Only one will be ok.

And yes, Protestants have a lot in common with Latin Catholics. Protestantism comes straight out of the Latin Catholic church, and it is this which has shaped their many perspectives.

 

[dvdjs]

This is exactly what he wrote …
" It seemed to me the discussions always ended in ‘Orthodoxy is right, you’re wrong, and what you say doesn’t matter.’ "

In Protestant churches, people get together after worship for coffee and pastries and they can chat all about their differing religious perspectives, which can be many and varied. They can all sit around the coffee table and say “that’s nice” to one another. Perhaps in this sharing they learn from one another.

If the question comes up between a Protestant and an Orthodox Christian about who’s right in religion, don’t expect an “I’m Ok, You’re Ok” approach to the conversation. Only one will be ok.

But this response perhaps misses the key point entirely.

The frustrating thing is less the claim that “Orthodoxy is right”, but the attitude that “you’re wrong, and what you say doesn’t matter.”

Too often, the “You’re wrong” part stems from perceptions and claims about the beliefs of others that are given an unbalanced, exaggerated presentation or just simply mistaken. That is why it is important to listen: what another says does matter; it can be an opportunity to dispel mis-impressions. There is no justification for saying: “what you say doesn’t matter.”

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

The frustrating thing is less the claim that “Orthodoxy is right”, but the attitude that “you’re wrong, and what you say doesn’t matter.”

Can you imagine the gaul someone would have to visit a different church and say this is what I believe on this theological issue. Don’t you think I’m right? No way! The obvious answer would be, no you’re wrong. But then the visitor continues to push the issue. Eventually the visitor would have to be told that it doesn’t matter what the visitor says, the church is right, not the visitor.

What an uncomfortable situation the visitor has placed the members of the church in as they are trying to be hospitible to their visitor!

I’m going to get ready to visit a different church, an Orthodox Church, right now. I plan to be a good guest and ask questions about their beliefs and not try to convince them to accept mine.

On a side note, baby is really trying to tear my face off. Grap, sqeeze and yank. Ouchy! The skin over my jaw bone doesn’t want to be moved to my forehead! It’s a good thing I cut her nails yesterday or this could be worse I can see it now “where’d you get that scar” “from my baby”

 

[TEPO]

Too often, the “You’re wrong” part stems from perceptions and claims about the beliefs of others that are given an unbalanced, exaggerated presentation or just simply mistaken."

This is a good point… The thought that Orthodoxy focuses a lot if it’s love for the proper “technique” for worship as the main point in my mind symbolizes a kind of Mohammedenist approach to God -or an Islamic type influence… But I stopped myself from posting this thought because I didn’t want to offend anyone. It’s a perception of mine that may be flawed, unbalanced, or exaggerated.

In the Roman Church, it seems like the Liturgy must posess certain sacramental qualities, and must be pious and proper, but there can be some alteration to the Mass, and it is still considered valid.

In Islam there is no alteration to their worship style.

But again, I’m sure this is not true.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is a good point… The thought that Orthodoxy focuses a lot if it’s love for the proper “technique” for worship as the main point in my mind symbolizes a kind of Mohammedenist approach to God -or an Islamic type influence… But I stopped myself from posting this thought because I didn’t want to offend anyone. It’s a perception of mine that may be flawed, unbalanced, or exaggerated.

In the Roman Church, it seems like the Liturgy must posess certain sacramental qualities, and must be pious and proper, but there can be some alteration to the Mass, and it is still considered valid.

In Islam there is no alteration to their worship style.

But again, I’m sure this is not true.

Tepo,

You say “the thought” suggesting little experience or no experience.

I spent some time going to Melkite, Maronite, Byzantine, Chaldean, Syrian and any other service I could find in my area…it is a good education. I took my children to these services.

You live in San Diego…go here

holyangelssandiego.com/

They have services for Byzantine, Melkite, and maybe others…attend for a few months…then after this go visit some Orthodox Churches and experience what they have to offer…spend some time with the people…they usually have gatherings after mass…talk to them about what you express here…

then go back to your mass and I believe you will find that you will appreciate your mass and you will understand that they do what they do…you do what you do…and I believe you will find yourself wanting to go back to an Eastern service.

Ok

 

[Cavaradossi]

This is a good point… The thought that Orthodoxy focuses a lot if it’s love for the proper “technique” for worship as the main point in my mind symbolizes a kind of Mohammedenist approach to God -or an Islamic type influence… But I stopped myself from posting this thought because I didn’t want to offend anyone. It’s a perception of mine that may be flawed, unbalanced, or exaggerated.

In the Roman Church, it seems like the Liturgy must posess certain sacramental qualities, and must be pious and proper, but there can be some alteration to the Mass, and it is still considered valid.

In Islam there is no alteration to their worship style.

But again, I’m sure this is not true.

Unless you’ve actually seen how the liturgy gets done in practice in several different parishes under several different Orthodox bishops, I don’t know how you are qualified to make that observation.

 

[TEPO]

I’m going to get ready to visit a different church, an Orthodox Church, right now. I plan to be a good guest and ask questions about their beliefs and not try to convince them to accept mine.

So it’s defiantly okay for us to attend these Masses?

 

[TEPO]

Unless you’ve actually seen how the liturgy gets done in practice in several different parishes under several different Orthodox bishops, I don’t know how you are qualified to make that observation.

True, I’m not. I’m just saying my initial perception as an outsider based solely on my interpretations from the Orthodox who have posted here on CAF, along with the geographical locations of the eastern Churches… Like I said, I’m sure this thought can be a flawed one.

 

[CopticChristian]

So it’s defiantly okay for us to attend these Masses?

Tepo,

As far as I know it is OK…the Eastern Catholic services are full participation including the Eucharist…however it is my belief that receiving communion in an Orthodox Church as a Catholic is not acceptable…and that is not a problem…attending the service without communion is not the end of the world…you can attend two services in one day…and how many people do you see at mass that do not go to communion…not so uncommon…

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The thought that Orthodoxy focuses a lot if it’s love for the proper “technique” for worship as the main point in my mind symbolizes a kind of Mohammedenist approach to God -or an Islamic type influence… But I stopped myself from posting this thought because I didn’t want to offend anyone. It’s a perception of mine that may be flawed, unbalanced, or exaggerated.

TEPO - your perception may be based on a presently superficial exposure to Eastern Christianity (which would include Eastern Catholicism), but I would attest that Orthodoxy is far from “form over substance”. In fact, it is the deepest respect for “substance” that is expressed with and emphasized by the consistency of the form of worship, chiefly in the Divine Liturgy.

BTW - even within the Churches of the Byzantine Rite and tradition, Catholic and Orthodox, one can observe variation in practice and emphasis, with the exception perhaps of the Anaphora. I’ll spare the details here as they are nor relevant, but I’m sure my fellow Eastern Christians would agree with me on this point.

 

[Nine_Two]

"Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii. The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope. In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: “Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.”
newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

As I said, I’m curious when this change in thought came about. The Canon’s of the Council’s are quite clear that someone who is anathema is no longer to be considered a part of the church at all. They can be excommunicated to the same extent that someone who never was a member of the Church can. I wonder when this changed.

 

[LionHeart777]

As I said, I’m curious when this change in thought came about. The Canon’s of the Council’s are quite clear that someone who is anathema is no longer to be considered a part of the church at all. They can be excommunicated to the same extent that someone who never was a member of the Church can. I wonder when this changed.

Nine_Two,

What am I missing?

The citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia supports your statement: “…someone who is anathema is no longer to be considered a part of the church at all…” as I understand the citation.

 

[Nine_Two]

Nine_Two,

What am I missing?

The citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia supports your statement: “…someone who is anathema is no longer to be considered a part of the church at all…” as I understand the citation.

The idea that it is considered a type of excommunication. We wouldn’t say that a person born a Jew and raised a Jew, and still a practicing Jew is excommunicated, no more should we say (and this is my opinion) that someone who has been cut off from the Church - not simply denied the sacraments - is excommunicated.

 

[dzheremi]

Anything someone doesn’t understand becomes “Muhammadan”…kinda reminds me of how certain EO I’ve discussed our differences with seem to take the prevalence of the orans posture among the Copts as a sign of “Protestant” influence among the Coptic Orthodox…nevermind the fact that it is traditional to depict St. Mina the Wonderworker (one of the most popular Coptic saints of all time) in iconography in this position, testifying to its antiquity among the Orthodox Egyptians. Look at that proto-Protestant and his camel!

 

[LionHeart777]

The idea that it is considered a type of excommunication. We wouldn’t say that a person born a Jew and raised a Jew, and still a practicing Jew is excommunicated, no more should we say (and this is my opinion) that someone who has been cut off from the Church - not simply denied the sacraments - is excommunicated.

I see, you are objecting to the classification of anathema as a type of excommunication (as the article states, “…a major excommunication…”)

If I understood, in your view, excommunication only refers to not being able to receive Communion (edit: I see you include “the [other] sacraments”), and this is based on your reading on the Canons of various Councils?

 

[Nine_Two]

Anything someone doesn’t understand becomes “Muhammadan”…kinda reminds me of how certain EO I’ve discussed our differences with seem to take the prevalence of the orans posture among the Copts as a sign of “Protestant” influence among the Coptic Orthodox…nevermind the fact that it is traditional to depict St. Mina the Wonderworker (one of the most popular Coptic saints of all time) in iconography in this position, testifying to its antiquity among the Orthodox Egyptians. Look at that proto-Protestant and his camel!

I find that post a bit disturbing, considering the Orans posture appears several times during the Divine Liturgy. I’m not sure how prominent it is during the Coptic liturgy (having never been - I’ll have to some time), I can’t recall ever seeing it in a Protestant service.

 

[Nine_Two]

I see, you are objecting to the classification of anathema as a type of excommunication (as the article states, “…a major excommunication…”)

If I understood, in your view, excommunication only refers to not being able to receive Communion, and this is based on your reading on the Canons of various Councils?

Pretty much.

 

[LionHeart777]

Pretty much.

Ok, thanks. I don’t know much (if anything) about the matter so I will have to look it up sometime.

 

[LionHeart777]

Here is a citation immediately preceding the citation under discussion, from the article, “Anathema” from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: ‘If any one says . . . let him be anathema’. Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two. A Council of Tours desires that after three warnings there be recited in chorus Psalm cviii against the usurper of the goods of the Church, that he may fall into the curse of Judas, and ‘that he may be not only excommunicated, but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven’. This distinction was introduced into the canons of the Church, as is proved by the letter of John VIII (872-82) found in the Decree of Gratian (c. III, q. V, c. XII): ‘Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church.’ This distinction is found in the earliest Decretals, in the chapter Cum non ab homine. In the same chapter, the tenth of Decretals II, tit. i, Celestine III (1191-98), speaking of the measures it is necessary to take in proceeding against a cleric guilty of theft, homicide, perjury, or other crimes, says: ‘If, after having been deposed from office, he is incorrigible, he should first be excommunicated; but if he perseveres in his contumacy he should be stricken with the sword of anathema; but if plunging to the depths of the abyss, he reaches the point where he despises these penalties, he should be given over to the secular arm.’ At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication.

Source: Gignac, Joseph. “Anathema.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 22 Jul. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm. (Bolding and underlining mine)