D
Dave_in_Dallas
Guest
The Priest in his homily said so.
- Status
D
Dave_in_Dallas
Guest
Let me further qualify that:
I am not saying ALL Latin Catholics have no spirituality. I am merely agreeing with the priest at my parish that it is lacking in many Latin Rite Catholics (at least in my part of the world).
I am not saying that the EC’s have all the answers or are better either. I don’t want to be constantly searching for a deeper spiritual church because 99% of my time is spent outside of the church building.
I am searching for a closer life with God – like everyone else on here…
I am not saying ALL Latin Catholics have no spirituality. I am merely agreeing with the priest at my parish that it is lacking in many Latin Rite Catholics (at least in my part of the world).
I am not saying that the EC’s have all the answers or are better either. I don’t want to be constantly searching for a deeper spiritual church because 99% of my time is spent outside of the church building.
I am searching for a closer life with God – like everyone else on here…
M
Madaglan
Guest
You can take the worst of the East and magnify it, but to what end? Similar currents can be found in the West, and many Protestants would vindicate themselves over Catholicism by pointing out the “medievalisms” and “superstitions” (their translation of “mystifications”) of Catholic lands. Likewise, Protestants in times past have noted that the industrial revolution and material progress began in largely Protestant countries (England & northern Germany), where a thriving and productive intellectual world was not hindered by, again, the superstitions of the Romanists. But is this really a kind of argument for supremacy?
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Joel,
You raise a number of interesting points!
Heresies did indeed abound in the East and this simply because the intellectual centres of the world were Alexandria and Antioch (and not Rome).
It was because Elder Rome was not an intellectual centre in the early centuries of the Church that allowed it to focus on spiritual life and maintain the Christian faith by defending it against the heretics set upon destroying it.
After the Schism in which both East and West became separated from one another, Roman Catholicism suffered the problem of identifying itself, a Particular Church, as"the Catholic Church." It still does and this is a direct result of the Schism. Orthodoxy, for its part, lost its ecclesial unity on a number of fronts.
But to say that Orthodoxy did not have its own intellectual centres/universities would be wrong and historically false. For example, the Kyivan Mohyla Academy in Ukraine was quite famous as a centre of learning (and because its “lingua franca” was Latin, students from all over Europe went there to study, even when Latin fell into disuse in European universities as a whole).
It is true that the Jesuit schools of Europe were the pinnacle of European education. The rationalist modes of thought at those schools even gave rise to modern scientific development - which later began its own onslaught against faith and the Church.
The oppressive nature of Orthodox states, although not good, are reflected in western European nations and there is nothing new there. The Orthodox Church is completely innocent of contributing to that phenomenon. If anything, it was Peter I’s fascination with the West that led him to be a world-class dictator (he would impose western European ways on his people no matter what).
As for the Old Believers, what that was about went beyond the two-finger Sign of the Cross. They opposed tampering with received tradition in an effort to become “with it” and contemporaneously modern. In that, they were certainly right. The certain exterior forms which identified them and for which they were persecuted merely underlined their cause. Also, how “progressive” was a state that was willing to burn and shoot the Old Believers for their practices? What about the gross intolerance of the modern state in Russia toward them and the way it went after the Old Believers in the name of “social progress?” Was this not a step in the direction of 20th century totalitarianism, as was the French Revolution?
I agree that Roman Catholicism today does not know what it wishes to be. There is a tension between tradition and modernity within RCism that is stifling and confusing. I experienced it when I attended a Latin Catholic high school.
Orthodoxy has nothing of the sort - never had, never will.
At the same time, I believe EC’s can be truly “Orthodox” in terms of both faith, ecclesial praxis and spiritual culture, while being in communion with Rome.
I’ve had disagreements with people here over Latinizations. That doesn’t take away my belief that EC’s are truly Orthodox (and who has a monopoly on that ancient term?). If certain Latinizations are a measuring stick, then we must remember that many Latinizations exist within Orthodox jurisdictions as well. That doesn’t lessen their sense of being Orthodox.
Alex
You raise a number of interesting points!
Heresies did indeed abound in the East and this simply because the intellectual centres of the world were Alexandria and Antioch (and not Rome).
It was because Elder Rome was not an intellectual centre in the early centuries of the Church that allowed it to focus on spiritual life and maintain the Christian faith by defending it against the heretics set upon destroying it.
After the Schism in which both East and West became separated from one another, Roman Catholicism suffered the problem of identifying itself, a Particular Church, as"the Catholic Church." It still does and this is a direct result of the Schism. Orthodoxy, for its part, lost its ecclesial unity on a number of fronts.
But to say that Orthodoxy did not have its own intellectual centres/universities would be wrong and historically false. For example, the Kyivan Mohyla Academy in Ukraine was quite famous as a centre of learning (and because its “lingua franca” was Latin, students from all over Europe went there to study, even when Latin fell into disuse in European universities as a whole).
It is true that the Jesuit schools of Europe were the pinnacle of European education. The rationalist modes of thought at those schools even gave rise to modern scientific development - which later began its own onslaught against faith and the Church.
The oppressive nature of Orthodox states, although not good, are reflected in western European nations and there is nothing new there. The Orthodox Church is completely innocent of contributing to that phenomenon. If anything, it was Peter I’s fascination with the West that led him to be a world-class dictator (he would impose western European ways on his people no matter what).
As for the Old Believers, what that was about went beyond the two-finger Sign of the Cross. They opposed tampering with received tradition in an effort to become “with it” and contemporaneously modern. In that, they were certainly right. The certain exterior forms which identified them and for which they were persecuted merely underlined their cause. Also, how “progressive” was a state that was willing to burn and shoot the Old Believers for their practices? What about the gross intolerance of the modern state in Russia toward them and the way it went after the Old Believers in the name of “social progress?” Was this not a step in the direction of 20th century totalitarianism, as was the French Revolution?
I agree that Roman Catholicism today does not know what it wishes to be. There is a tension between tradition and modernity within RCism that is stifling and confusing. I experienced it when I attended a Latin Catholic high school.
Orthodoxy has nothing of the sort - never had, never will.
At the same time, I believe EC’s can be truly “Orthodox” in terms of both faith, ecclesial praxis and spiritual culture, while being in communion with Rome.
I’ve had disagreements with people here over Latinizations. That doesn’t take away my belief that EC’s are truly Orthodox (and who has a monopoly on that ancient term?). If certain Latinizations are a measuring stick, then we must remember that many Latinizations exist within Orthodox jurisdictions as well. That doesn’t lessen their sense of being Orthodox.
Alex
J
Joel_PF
Guest
Oh yes, surely; during the first centuries of Christianity the East was indeed more intellectually advanced than the West. That is why heresies used to arise there, and also the best theology.Do the schools of Alexandria and Antioch mean nothing to you?I am seriously dumbfounded that someone could argue as you have, especially while accusing others of “historical naivete”! There were also the schools of Nisbis and Edessa, which are central to the history of Syriac Christianity (Orthodox and otherwise).
These were all founded long before the first universities in Europe.
I was speaking of the later period, the formation of Christian civilizations, in the Middle Ages, when East and West were no longer united. There were theological schools in the East; and I’m sure they gave a sound theological and patristic formation. But to compare the intellectual development of Russia or Egypt or Syria to that of the West from the Middle Ages on is almost a joke.
D
dzheremi
Guest
The Middle East and North and East Africa prior to the invention of Islam were Christian societies. Alexandria, Axum, and Meroe were major centers of Alexandrian spirituality, just as Numidia and Carthage were aligned with the church of Rome during its orthodox period. You’re looking at a later period after all those places are gone so of course the West looks better (to you) by comparison. That’s completely ridiculous. How’s about we compare the Roman church under the various “anti-Popes” to the Alexandrian church under St. Athanasius? It’s not hard to make one side look better than the other by emphasizing the best of whatever you prefer and ignoring everything else.
I agree. You’ve got to be joking.
M
Madaglan
Guest
Something to keep in mind that the vast majority of books were presserved and passed on through the Christian monasteries. Christian civilization owes its existence to the monastery scriptorium as much if not more than to the university lecture halls.
Also, the Muslims of the Middle Ages through the 14th century were quite scientifically and philosophically adept compared to the West of the time, even if their civilization was not Christian. .
A
Augustus24
Guest
I am somewhere between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic. I like the Byzantine Catholic Churches, and I think if one was more accessible, I would make the jump canonically. I am still canonically Roman and I like many aspects of RC theology, for example St. Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, and St Bonaventure and the rest of the medieval western theologians. I attend Eastern Catholic DL about once a month.
I have thought about making the switch to Eastern Orthodoxy. If I did, I would probably go Russian Orthodox, as that is the only EO Church near me. I visited the church and wrote about my experiences and posted it here a few weeks ago. Every time I think about making the switch over the Russian Orthodox though, there are some things about Eastern Orthodoxy that give me pause. The fractured unity that exists in the EO church is one example. That many EO parishes are still centered around ethnic identity. The fact that there is no english EO liturgy near me. That the EO, like protestants, have no real way of officially settling a doctrinal dispute. In all, I think there are just too many things in EO that I cannot accept, mainly having to do with church practice and polity and not doctrine. So for now, I am going to stay Roman Catholic, and soak up the spirituality from my local Byzantine Catholic Church.
A
Augustus24
Guest
Your two assertions are false. Some of the greatest theologians in the first centuries of the church were Latin theologians: Tertullian, Sts. Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory the Great.
And the intellectual development of the West in the Middle Ages has been more influential to the modern world then Russian, Egyptian or Syrian developments during the Middle Ages. But for the sake of discussion what Russian or Egyptian intellectual developments during the Middle Ages do you see as greater then Western during the same period?
M
Mickey
Guest
A true theologian experiences God.
M
Mickey
Guest
Your perspective on this would be different if you lived in a predominantly Orthodox country.
Indeed.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Notice I say “global,” not “national,” Mickey. I’m not being combative to Orthodoxy here. I’m just saying that I find it a fact that Catholicism has a stronger global voice that people here than Orthodoxy. That doesn’t diminish or marginalize the truths Orthodoxy teaches of course. The Divine Liturgy I attended Sunday, by the way, was lovely.
M
Mickey
Guest
Yes. I understand–I did not think you were being combative. I suppose I was trying to say that you would be surprised how many Orthodox countries there are in the world.
I am glad you enjoyed the Divine Liturgy…it is heaven on earth.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
My wife was really impressed, too.
Yes. I understand–I did not think you were being combative. I suppose I was trying to say that you would be surprised how many Orthodox countries there are in the world.
I am glad you enjoyed the Divine Liturgy…it is heaven on earth.
5
5Loaves
Guest
So, is that a sort of salutation in the Latin Church?The Holy Family.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I’ve never heard it…? Maybe it is confined to a particular community within the Latin church… 
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I would like to agree with the other posters and say: Communion with the Holy See.
That, and the fact that I believe in the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory.
Plus, the EC rites are more to my “taste.” This way (and I don’t mean to sound “flip” here) me and other ECers get to have the “best of both worlds.”
That, and the fact that I believe in the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory.
Plus, the EC rites are more to my “taste.” This way (and I don’t mean to sound “flip” here) me and other ECers get to have the “best of both worlds.”
H
hazcompat
Guest
In Spirit and in Truth we are one.
peace
peace
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Dzheremi,
I agree that the attraction of the Oriental and Eastern Churches is the spirituatlity.
But the combatting of heresy is an intellectual endeavor, and this is just as important for the phrenoma and very life of the Church.
All the great Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils were intellectuals and utilized philosophy to assert the Orthodox and Catholic Faith of the Church over and above the heresies.
That is the great inconsistency of modern Eastern Orthodoxy. It is when modern Eastern Orthodoxy tries to oppose the intellectualism of the Westerns that the holes in its rhetoric pile up without end, for its anti-Catholic rhetoric depends on the very intellectualism it pretends to oppose. And it’s not just in the method, but in the very arguments themselves that the weakness of modern EO’xy shines through.
TBH, IMO, anti-Catholicism is not inherently Eastern, but was imported into it for the most part from Protestant converts. I find that the Eastern Fathers of the Middle Ages were more interested in defending the Faith, rather than opposing what was “Latin.”
Blessings,
Marduk
I agree that the attraction of the Oriental and Eastern Churches is the spirituatlity.
But the combatting of heresy is an intellectual endeavor, and this is just as important for the phrenoma and very life of the Church.
All the great Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils were intellectuals and utilized philosophy to assert the Orthodox and Catholic Faith of the Church over and above the heresies.
That is the great inconsistency of modern Eastern Orthodoxy. It is when modern Eastern Orthodoxy tries to oppose the intellectualism of the Westerns that the holes in its rhetoric pile up without end, for its anti-Catholic rhetoric depends on the very intellectualism it pretends to oppose. And it’s not just in the method, but in the very arguments themselves that the weakness of modern EO’xy shines through.
TBH, IMO, anti-Catholicism is not inherently Eastern, but was imported into it for the most part from Protestant converts. I find that the Eastern Fathers of the Middle Ages were more interested in defending the Faith, rather than opposing what was “Latin.”
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status