Yours sounds like a very Latin point of view. I have read many posters in this forum who struggle with the “doctrinal development” of the Roman church, post Schism. So, they try to assuage their cognitive dissonance with dogma such as purgatory and indulgences, the IC and papal infallibility by arguing for an “Eastern understanding” of these theologies. Based on my readings here, many Eastern Catholics would very much prefer to simply define themselves as “Orthodox” and find the doctrinal development as more problematic than beneficial.
What about “Old Believers”?
So where do Americans with no other cultural background than the U.S. go for a more a spiritual christian life? Many of the the Latin Rite churches may be full on Sunday but most that attend are spiritually empty.
The “Old Believers” controversy is evidence of exactly the opposite to the problems of “truncated doctrinal development”. That is, doctrinal development has caused more problems than lack of doctrinal development in the Russian Orthodox church.
Go to one of the more traditional parishes.
It would depend on what is meant by “more spiritual Christian life.” If we are saying that the Latin Catholic Church is totally bereft of such - then this is simply not the case!
) asked this very question - shoudl the Ukrainian Church become less Ukrainian to allow other non-Ukrainians to come in etc.
That is one thing I’m really appreciating when looking into Orthodoxy like I am right now. There is no plan B. There is no Divine Liturgy where there are people holding hands, playing Amazing Grace, there are no extraordinary Eucharistic ministers handling the Host and trying to “bless” children and adults, there is no worship without incense, no worship with the priest facing the people, no worship where the liturgy isn’t sung, it’s always the same. Liturgically, IMO, this is more catholic/universal!
Well, you are on a fascinating journey! For my part, I marvel at the tremendous spiritual insights you’ve gained along the way. God be with you!I’m not sure we can use geography as a measuring stick for truth, though? Orthodoxy is NOT very accessible where I am. I have to drive about 45 minutes. I’m not happy about that. But when I get there I am wowed at the beauty and truth of the liturgy as well as its lack of innovation and pandering to modernity. I don’t see a wiff of protestantism in it at all. Plus the Orthodox tend to make more sense to me.
As far as doctrinal development, the Orthodox seem to me to represent the classic maxim “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And when it does need fixin’ you hold a council and do things holistically, not depending on a few scholastics to innovate. And there have been few times in which a council has even been needed since the Schism, which is a testimony to the goodness and complete nature of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy hasn’t had a Reformation. I think that is telling. If the Church doesn’t theologically innovate, no need for a reaction to the reaction of those heretics from within because you won’t have heretics!
As far as Eucharistic Ecclesiology, that is more historically the approach and praxis of the ancient Church from what I’ve read, especially in Meyendorff’s works.
Promoting intellectual growth, is that the purpose of the Christian religion? I am truly asking myself that. Faith, marveling at the divine mysteries, theosis, the journey, they all trump intellect.
Well Scott there is a Western Rite Orthodoxy, but I am very unfamilar with it. You know anything about it? As far as accessibility goes, its even harder. I would have to drive to Lynchburg for it, and well, thats just too far, thats an hour easily from where I live. The OCA parish near me is as solid and ancient as it comes, and I am blessed to be only 15 minutes away.My problem with this idea within Catholicism of either going to the older, more traditional, true-to-the historic Mass tridentine liturgies versus the modern Novus Ordo that is loaded with human-centered trappings and Protestant-style worship is that this is a choice the Church shouldn’t offer. Modernity should have no place in the worship of the Lord Almighty. No choices should be on the table—ancient, true, dignified, kingly, God-centered or nothin’ in my book.
Unity would solve alot of problems for folks like myself and others. What a witness to Protestantism it would be to see the Apostolic Churches of the East and West reunified. Then, I think some more Catholic minded Anglicans would come into the fold. Others who are more Protestant minded would remain out and establish Anglicanism once and for all as a Protestant tradition.I have to strongly disagree.
The Orthodox are what they “should be”. The image of Orthodox Churches coming into the Catholic Church is unthinkable. Union if and when that comes would have to be like the Church before West and East divided. If there ever comes a day when there is unity again then we Eastern Catholics will disappear having returned to our mother Orthodox Churches. At present they are quite often a home for us. On any given feast day I think Eastern Catholics, and canonically Latin Church Catholics are quite often found worshiping in Orthodox Churches because we lack access to our own Eastern Catholic Churches, or they have become Latinized shadows of their true selves.
I’d have to agree with you. That is one of the trials and tribulations the Church is facing, and it is not the first time the Church has faced trying times. But the Church shall overcome as it always has, with the Spirit’s guidance.My problem with this idea within Catholicism of either going to the older, more traditional, true-to-the historic Mass tridentine liturgies versus the modern Novus Ordo that is loaded with human-centered trappings and Protestant-style worship is that this is a choice the Church shouldn’t offer. Modernity should have no place in the worship of the Lord Almighty. No choices should be on the table—ancient, true, dignified, kingly, God-centered or nothin’ in my book.
I’m about an hour from Lynchburg as well.
I don’t know Fr. Alban at Holy Trinity that well, but I know he was an Anglican bishop before received into Orthodoxy. I do want to go visit them sometime and show my support for Western Orthodoxy. This is what prompted me to post. There is no Divine Liturgy A and B. Just the Divine Liturgy. There is no modernizations or protestant overtones in their Masses while in the Roman it is in obvious use. There is no significant changes but preservation. The Catholics are a wash which I find difficult accepting. I could be traditional but there are many who aren’t. That is the main reason I am looking into Orthodoxy. It is as it is. What I find equally troubling is I would not be thinking of looking into Orthodoxy if the Roman Catholic Church had just stayed with the old rite and not made any changes. There were no problems like this before the sweeping changes.My problem with this idea within Catholicism of either going to the older, more traditional, true-to-the historic Mass tridentine liturgies versus the modern Novus Ordo that is loaded with human-centered trappings and Protestant-style worship is that this is a choice the Church shouldn’t offer. Modernity should have no place in the worship of the Lord Almighty. No choices should be on the table—ancient, true, dignified, kingly, God-centered or nothin’ in my book.
I’m just some guy, but I really don’t think so. In my parallel journey to Orthodoxy, what I have noticed is that I grow closer to church I have been looking at not through argument or philosophical musing, but by very simple, almost childlike actions and instruction. The actions are prayer, fasting, and seeking blessings. The instruction, such that I have been able to grow from it so far in relative isolation from the church (since there isn’t one around me right now), has had to come from hymns, talks, and various explanations of the liturgy that have come from people trying to prepare me for what I will eventually be experiencing. The thing is, my Coptic friends have told me that it wouldn’t be any different if I were attending liturgy with them. The liturgy itself, in its simplicity and timelessness, educates even those who have been born into the church. There isn’t some sort of separate “school of apologetics” for Orthodoxy, wherein X,Y,Z is argued for based on some philosophical “hole” left by a given position (e.g., the Immaculate Conception vis-a-vis the Latin understanding of original sin). It is precisely by not philosophizing in that way that the Orthodox church has no holes to fill in the first place.
I understand this. I need less dogma, less theology and more spirituality. More fasting, more prayer and more almsgiving.
We are on similar paths.As far as doctrinal development, the Orthodox seem to me to represent the classic maxim “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And when it does need fixin’ you hold a council and do things holistically, not depending on a few scholastics to innovate. And there have been few times in which a council has even been needed since the Schism, which is a testimony to the goodness and complete nature of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy hasn’t had a Reformation. I think that is telling. If the Church doesn’t theologically innovate, no need for a reaction to the reaction of those heretics from within because you won’t have heretics!
As far as Eucharistic Ecclesiology, that is more historically the approach and praxis of the ancient Church from what I’ve read, especially in Meyendorff’s works.
Promoting intellectual growth, is that the purpose of the Christian religion? I am truly asking myself that. Faith, marveling at the divine mysteries, theosis, the journey, they all trump intellect.
