Thread: Purgatory: Differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001234
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
I was prompted to ask about this from comments in the discussion about disestablishment of the Church of England, where it was explained that in Catholicism the vows of a couple, rather than what the priest does, make a marriage whereas in Orthodoxy the church makes the marriage and the couple do not make vows.

This reminded me that I have always thought there were a surprising number of differences between two traditions which have always tried to pass on what they received.

Do you agree, and if so why do you think there are a lot of differences ? Does it tell us anything about how realistic it is to pass on the same faith we received ?

[ 05. January 2015, 21:08: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
IIRC, in Catholicism the priesthood is a permanent charism, where buildings can be desanctified*; in Orthodoxy it is the opposite. A church building remains holy indefinitely, whereas priests can be defrocked.

*I forget the right word; sorry.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Erm.. well they've had a long time apart to grow up differently.. haven't they?
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
I think my overall impression is that Catholicism tends to try and pin down, define and categorise things a lot. In essence a lot of the teaching is extremely similar but the explanations are often a lot longer and more complicated when dealing with Western theology.

I am quick to add this is simply an impression and that despite being nominally one my understanding of academic Orthodox theology is very limited.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
IIRC, in Catholicism the priesthood is a permanent charism, where buildings can be desanctified*; in Orthodoxy it is the opposite. A church building remains holy indefinitely, whereas priests can be defrocked.

*I forget the right word; sorry.
Deconsecrated? [Biased]

That's interesting btw. I didn't know that.

I suppose it has something to do with the Orthodox ideal of creating heaven on earth through the liturgy (which would invariably involve the church building)....?
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
IIRC, in Catholicism the priesthood is a permanent charism, where buildings can be desanctified*; in Orthodoxy it is the opposite. A church building remains holy indefinitely, whereas priests can be defrocked.

*I forget the right word; sorry.
This rule against deconsecration of churches might be true of the Russian Orthodox Church, but it seems not to be true of the Greek Orthodox Church. I first came across it after I learned from Josephine that a church "once holy is always holy". There was a Greek festival at the Greek Orthodox Church in Long Beach, CA, where I took advantage of a short informational talk on Orthodoxy and the L.B. church by the church's priest. He said this was their second church, and not on the original property. I was surprised and I asked him if the other church had been deconsecrated before they sold it, and he said, yes.


I took a moment to google some current events and I came across a controversy between historical architecture buffs and the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia. The buffs want to save the buildings and the Orthodox want to raze them in order to use the property for ministry to the elderly. The two churches had already been deconsecrated according to the article and used for child care and as a public hall.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
IIRC, in Catholicism the priesthood is a permanent charism, where buildings can be desanctified*; in Orthodoxy it is the opposite. A church building remains holy indefinitely, whereas priests can be defrocked.

*I forget the right word; sorry.
Even around my right Protty connection, we have Ordination but what is termed "defrocked " in the vulgar is properly "Placed on the Discontinued Service List (Involuntary)". There is no way to "undo" ordination in the UCCan. Ma Preacher certainly thinks ordination is indelible.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
There are also differences in Mariology, and what follows is how this Anglican understands it (I could be wrong).

The RCC believes Mary was conceived immaculately - i.e., without sin - so that she could be a pure vessel to carry and give birth to Christ. My understanding of the Orthodox view (which I think I got largely from the Ship) is that Mary was made perfect through observation of Torah.

The RCC also believes that Mary ascended bodily into heaven - I believe without dying, but I could have that wrong. The Orthodox believe she died, and after a little while, was resurrected. I've read an account where Christ returned to earth to come get her, basically.

Personally, if I'm understanding these views correctly, I side with the Orthodox on both those counts. I can do that as an Anglican. [Razz]


(eta: I'm happy to explain my preferences, if anyone cares, whether here, on another thread, or in a PM. It's probably not relevant to this thread, since I'm neither Catholic nor Orthodox - though I'm definitely catholic and orthodox.)

[ 14. June 2012, 05:18: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

The RCC also believes that Mary ascended bodily into heaven - I believe without dying, but I could have that wrong.
The dogma is simply that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the end of her natural life on earth, was assumed body and soul into heaven. The question of whether or not she died is left open.

The main difference between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is this: Protestants look at Catholics with a magnifying glass, and at the Eastern Orthodox with rose-colored glasses.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
I'll add my thruppence worth from my limited experience of Orthodoxy - I first set foot in an Orthodox church around a year ago.

For us, the immaculate conception is an unnecessary belief because we don't believe in Original Sin in the same way the RCs do. As an Anglican (wait.. I haven't finished!) I always understood we were sinful by nature, but not born with original guilt - ie. that we already had sin which needed to be atoned for before we popped out of the womb.

In my 12 months of Orthodoxy, I've learned of no reason why I need to change my dogma here.

As for the Assumption - I don't know of much difference between the Orthodox and RC understanding, except that RCs will always be more detailed and precise, or legalistic. Essentially though, there is not much argument here.

Concerning the OP, I don't know anything at all about Orthodox weddings, but it will be interesting to find out more.. oh, except one thing - the common understanding of marriage being an icon of Christ and his bride - the Church.
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
This rule against deconsecration of churches might be true of the Russian Orthodox Church, but it seems not to be true of the Greek Orthodox Church. I first came across it after I learned from Josephine that a church "once holy is always holy". There was a Greek festival at the Greek Orthodox Church in Long Beach, CA, where I took advantage of a short informational talk on Orthodoxy and the L.B. church by the church's priest. He said this was their second church, and not on the original property. I was surprised and I asked him if the other church had been deconsecrated before they sold it, and he said, yes.


I took a moment to google some current events and I came across a controversy between historical architecture buffs and the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia. The buffs want to save the buildings and the Orthodox want to raze them in order to use the property for ministry to the elderly. The two churches had already been deconsecrated according to the article and used for child care and as a public hall.
This is interesting but unsurprising, Lyda*Rose.

Without meaning to resort to interjurisdictional bitching, there are many things found in Greek church practice that I would not see as being a standard of Orthodox practice. Those more knowledgeable than I tell me that this is more the case in the parishes abroad than in Greece itself, where most of these things would be greeted with surprise. There are other things too (the use of organs, elements of liturgics, the marriage of clergy who are canonically forbidden to marry). These are not core elements of the faith or anything that would cause serious division but there does seem to be something of a culture of it, (though the marriage thing has been known to cause problems for unsuspecting clergymen who have tried to move jurisdictions later).

I suppose there's one difference: the approach of the Catholic church to governance and disciplinary matters such as these makes for greater adherence to its norms than is often found in the Orthodox Church. Personally, I consider this a small price to pay... [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
There are also differences in Mariology, and what follows is how this Anglican understands it (I could be wrong).

The RCC believes Mary was conceived immaculately - i.e., without sin - so that she could be a pure vessel to carry and give birth to Christ. My understanding of the Orthodox view (which I think I got largely from the Ship) is that Mary was made perfect through observation of Torah.
The Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception is that the Mother of God was conceived without Original Sin. The difference with the Orthodox is not really about this point but rather about the nature of this Original Sin. You will sometimes see the expression Original Sin used by Orthodox writers but, as Mark Betts has rightly said, it is not the same teaching as the Catholic one, which is why English-speaking writers generally avoid the term, often using something like Ancestral Sin in its stead.

So the Orthodox do not accept the Immaculate Conception as a point of doctrine because, although we would accept that the Mother of God was conceived without Original Sin, this is not because she was singled out in any way, but rather we do not believe that this Original Sin exists. Therefore, in being conceived free from it, the Mother of God was just like the rest of us. We are all conceived without sin and in a state of innocence. We do, however, celebrate her Conception as a liturgical feast of great joy, for in it, we have a foretaste of the effects of Christ's Resurrection conquering the effects of the fall. The barrenness of Anna is overturned, and life comes forth.

As for the theosis of the Mother of God, this came as it does for anybody in Christ, through a life of seeking to live in accordance with God's will, striving for union with Him.

quote:
The RCC also believes that Mary ascended bodily into heaven - I believe without dying, but I could have that wrong. The Orthodox believe she died, and after a little while, was resurrected. I've read an account where Christ returned to earth to come get her, basically.

Personally, if I'm understanding these views correctly, I side with the Orthodox on both those counts. I can do that as an Anglican. [Razz]
I think that, as Pancho has stated, there is very little difference here. At the same time, there is great difference. Essentially, both Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Mother of God died a natural death, and was taken, body and soul, into heaven. There is a tradition within Catholicism that the Mother of God did not die first. This is tied in with their teaching on the Immaculate Conception - in a nutshell, the reasoning is that the Immaculate Conception preserved the Mother of God from the effects of the fall so she could not have died. However, the papal decree Munificentissimus Deus (the whole document, and not just the explicit decree near the end that is most commonly quoted to support the "open question" idea) does not appear to my untrained eye to lend itself to that reading. It appears to me to make explicit reference to the Mother of God being taken from out of death and not just being spared it. I'll leave it to the Ship's Catholics to clarify exactly where this variant understanding fits into the scheme of things.

Some people like to draw some sort of distinction, saying that that Orthodox believe in the Dormition while the Catholics believe in the Assumption. This distinction is false. Both terms are readily used in both churches. Where we Orthodox would have problems would be with the variant understanding mentioned above, for without the death of the Mother of God prior to her being taken into heaven, the Assumption/Dormition has no meaning within the Christian economy of salvation. The whole point of the celebration of this event is that in the resurrection and assumption into heaven of the Mother of God, we have a pledge from God of the destiny that awaits all of us who seek to live in Christ, in our sharing in Christ's conquering of our death and drawing of our human nature into the heavenly state - into the life of the divine. The Resurrection and Assumption of the Mother of God are nothing more than the fruits of Christ's Resurrection and Ascension, in which we are all called to share. Remove death from the equation, and what do we have? Nothing more than a party trick on the Saviour's part.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
As the original question was prompted by marriage, is there an Orthodox shipmate who can answer the following?

The individual agreement of both husband and wife, expressed out of their own mouths, is in English law an essential. This is not a modern innovation expressing post Enlightenment ideas about personal autonomy or female emancipation. It goes back to before the Reformation, and I think is a universal of Western Christendom, not a local English innovation.

So, if we think of an over-patriarchal context, to get your son or daughter to enter into a forced marriage, you have to stand behind them with a weapon to make sure they utter the right words.

Somewhere, I seem to have heard or read that to provide a form of marriage that would be valid in English law, the Orthodox Church had to add the standard exchange 'Do you .... I do' etc because in its raw Greek and Russian form, the couple simply appear before the priest and he then marries them. To marry people against their will, without checking beforehand that they both consented properly, might be priestly misconduct, but they would still be married.

So, in our over-patriarchal context, to get your son or daughter to enter into a forced marriage, all you had to do is to get a compliant priest to perform the marriage ceremony over them.

Is that correct, or is it rubbish?
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As the original question was prompted by marriage, is there an Orthodox shipmate who can answer the following?

The individual agreement of both husband and wife, expressed out of their own mouths, is in English law an essential. This is not a modern innovation expressing post Enlightenment ideas about personal autonomy or female emancipation. It goes back to before the Reformation, and I think is a universal of Western Christendom, not a local English innovation.

So, if we think of an over-patriarchal context, to get your son or daughter to enter into a forced marriage, you have to stand behind them with a weapon to make sure they utter the right words.

Somewhere, I seem to have heard or read that to provide a form of marriage that would be valid in English law, the Orthodox Church had to add the standard exchange 'Do you .... I do' etc because in its raw Greek and Russian form, the couple simply appear before the priest and he then marries them. To marry people against their will, without checking beforehand that they both consented properly, might be priestly misconduct, but they would still be married.

So, in our over-patriarchal context, to get your son or daughter to enter into a forced marriage, all you had to do is to get a compliant priest to perform the marriage ceremony over them.

Is that correct, or is it rubbish?
It is correct but incomplete.

It is true that, in the United Kingdom, at least, in those cases where the legal wedding and the sacramental wedding are done together, a registrar must be present and specific words are added to satisfy the legal requirements.

However, this does not mean that the bald wedding service, without legal additions, does not include a declaration of consent and intention, for that is very much a part of the Church's requirements. Indeed, in most cases in my experience here in Britain, the couple usually goes to the register office first for the legal wedding and only later comes to church for the sacrament but the questions are still asked of them at the church wedding.

I know a Georgian/English couple who were married in Russia. The priest spoke no English and the bridegroom spoke no Russian, so the latter had been coached beforehand in how to respond to the questions. The first question asks the bridegroom whether he is entering into the marriage of his own free will. The second asks whether he has promised himself to another bride. Having got confused, the bridegroom answered 'yes' to the second question, resulting in considerable mirth.
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
The Marriage service can be viewed here.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
(Silly tangent: I remember when I lived in the Czech Republic hearing of a Czech girl who married a Scot. At the ceremony she said her vows in Czech and he in English. It turned out, however, that the English words weren't simply a translation of the Czech, but the standard form of words used in Scotland, with the result that he ended up promising rather more than she did ...)
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
On-topic:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I think my overall impression is that Catholicism tends to try and pin down, define and categorise things a lot. In essence a lot of the teaching is extremely similar but the explanations are often a lot longer and more complicated when dealing with Western theology.
My impression is similar, but I also have the impression that a lot of the Catholic verbiage consists of caveats and limitations on the more dogmatic pronouncements, whereas Orthodox statements of belief tend to be shorter but also less flexible.

It certainly seems to me that, for example, a Catholic could have a classically 'Orthodox' view of the atonement and not be considered in any way un-Catholic, but an Orthodox who took a distinctively 'penal' approach would be regarded as Unsound.

[ 14. June 2012, 10:00: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
Would I be right in thinking that, in Orthodoxy, when the bride and groom express their intentions and answer questions, these are not considered vows in the same sense as in the western church?
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Would I be right in thinking that, in Orthodoxy, when the bride and groom express their intentions and answer questions, these are not considered vows in the same sense as in the western church?
That is correct, Mark. The expressions of intention and freedom to marry in the marriage service of the Byzantine Rite are not vows.

However, within the Orthodox Church, this is simply a matter of difference between rites. For instance, in the Orthodox Western Rite, the ancient vows are to be found. Yet the classical Orthodox understanding of the sacraments being brought about at the hands and intercession of the priest remains.

The presence of the vows does not imply a Roman Xatholic understanding of those vows, just as the presence of the dominical words at the Eucharist does not imply a Latin doctrinal understanding of their significance.

[ 14. June 2012, 10:37: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
I think, moonlit door, the question you ask is seriously in danger of being drowned in minutiae.

The key difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism would, I think, best be exemplified in two great and very contrasting theologians: St Gregory Palamas and St Thomas Aquinas.

Palamas was intent on defending the Orthodox tradition of hesychasm, which goes right back to the Fathers of the Early Church and is about the practical realisation of Christian fulfilment through a deceptively simple, but practically difficult, discipline of Liturgy; prayer and asceticism. Living theology?

Aquinas was more concerned with nutting out the essentials of belief in a rather dull, dry legalistic way.

But, I think it is better trying to get an
overall , living picture of both traditions in action rather than discussing abstruse theological matters. To this end, if you can obtain access to them, I would suggest viewing the two episodes of Ronald Eyre's 1978 BBC TV series entitled "Rome, Leeds and the Desert" and "The Romanian Solution" (the latter on Orthodoxy).
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
my undrestanding re: the Orthodox sacrament of marriage is that it is in effect a church BLESSING of a marriage (bond) which already exists between the couple.

The service is actually two services that are now almost always conducted back to back, but used to be separated, sometimes by years. the first is the betrothal, and is conducted in the "pritvor" (not inside the Church proper). this is the part of the ceremony when rings are exchanged. the actual marriage or "crowning" ceremony takes place in the middle of the church.

My aunt and uncle never legally married. they went through the betrothal ceremony to appease my grandmother, but never followed it up with the crowning.

there is also no concept of "till death do us part" because we don't' actually believe that death DOES part us. a marriage is forever, however the Church recognizes that we are fallible humans and it's hard to live as we should, therefore the Church does allow re-marriage (after death or divorce), but the service is different.

the marriage is not a legal contract, but a spiritual bond, a sort of "mini church" (or so I understand it).

Someone above stated that the Romans have more detailed rules that are more flexible, whereas the Orthodox have less elaborate rules that are more firm. I can understand that description, but I see it differently. I see it as the RCC pinning down their rules very specifically (and they are hard and fast, so rather than making exceptions, they work around the rules or change them). the Orthodox on the other hand are less specific in the rules, therefore there is a lot of wiggle room within the rule, thus giving less reason to adjust and change the rule itself. a deeply rooted tree that can bend in the wind, as opposed to a steel pole that is moved around from time to time.

and the Orthodox are more likely to apply the concept of economia.. meaning that sure, IDALLY x is the standard, and it's a high one, but it' also understood that we are human and may not be able to meet it. as I understand it, the RCC instead sets rules that it expect to be met.. and when those rules are for one reason or another not realistic, they are modified. take fasting for exaple. the fasting rules used to be the same, and very strict. people find it hard to meet those rules. the ORthodox just kept the rules and expect people to do the best they can, but don't get too worked up when someone can't follow them perfectly. the RCC isntead relaxed the rules (fewer days, less restrictive etc).

Another exmaple might be Church attendance. the Orthodox have no concept of a day of obligation.. we are just expected to attend as many services as we reasonably can.. for a monastic that would be many times a day, for someone else living in a non Orthodox country it may be once a year.

another difference is (and I don't know what word to use to describe this): a Catholic priest can and in fact should conduct services even when he is by himself. And Orthodox priest can NOT conduct certain services without at least one other person there.

Another difference I know exists, but am not the best person to describe, is the way we view Grace and I guess Salvation.. I don't just mean SA but this idea that it is the state of your soul at death that somehow determines your ultimate fate, rather than the direction your soul is pointing, so to speak. salvation to the Orthodox is definitely a process of Theosis. to the Catholics as I understand it it's also an ongoing process, but somehow more of one where you are moving in and out of salvation based on your deeds and your confession/repentance and participation in sacraments. I hope someone else can elaborate upon this, because I'm a bit fuzzy on the concept from the RCC side, but it's something that, while similar on the surface (what we DO matters as much as what we believe, vs. the "faith alone" approach), but we seem to approach it from different sides. a sort of more organic holistic view vs. a more discreet, individual action(on both our part and Gods) view. I always sort of imagined that the Catholic approach seemed to be of a scale, with bits of Grace balancing out sins. I know that's not accurate, but every description I have heard leads me to this image. the Orthodox see it more as growth, the way an organism grows, with neither sin nor Grace being something that comes in discreet units, but is more a condition we are in, or forces acting within us, or some similar image.
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
I think I should have worded my query a bit better. I am not wondering what the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are, but why there are a lot of differences.

It seemed to me to be implicit in the idea of passing on the faith as received that we can hope that we have as much as possible the same faith those closer to the time of Jesus had.

If Catholicism and Orthodoxy are very similar, that is an indication to suggest they have been successful in preserving the faith without many changes. If, as it seems to me, they have quite a lot of differences, some changes must have been introduced on one side or both.

Wondering about how to explain this, I thought of the following possibilities

1) one or both in past times did not give the same value to tradition as they now think or say they did.

2) it is impossible however hard you try to preserve things over that period of time.

3) it would be impossible by human means to preserve things over that period but one of them had special help from God to do so.

Do you think one of those is true ? What other options are there that I haven't thought of ?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The individual agreement of both husband and wife, expressed out of their own mouths, is in English law an essential. This is not a modern innovation expressing post Enlightenment ideas about personal autonomy or female emancipation. It goes back to before the Reformation, and I think is a universal of Western Christendom, not a local English innovation.
It might even go back to before Christianity came here. Its is at least possible, maybe even likely, that forced marriage was never legal in England. (Hard to tell for sure because aristocrats and royalty regularly disobeyed such laws, and we know far more aboiut their marriages than we do about ordinary peoplle's)
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I think I should have worded my query a bit better. I am not wondering what the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are, but why there are a lot of differences.

It seemed to me to be implicit in the idea of passing on the faith as received that we can hope that we have as much as possible the same faith those closer to the time of Jesus had.

If Catholicism and Orthodoxy are very similar, that is an indication to suggest they have been successful in preserving the faith without many changes. If, as it seems to me, they have quite a lot of differences, some changes must have been introduced on one side or both.

Wondering about how to explain this, I thought of the following possibilities

1) one or both in past times did not give the same value to tradition as they now think or say they did.

2) it is impossible however hard you try to preserve things over that period of time.

3) it would be impossible by human means to preserve things over that period but one of them had special help from God to do so.

Do you think one of those is true ? What other options are there that I haven't thought of ?
I believe that the primary, root difference is that the RCC believes that there is a mechanism for altering Dogma that resides within the ROMAN church, whereas the Orthodox believe that only a full ecumenical council can do that. Therefore while both may have changed over time in some ways, the RCC has "officially" changed over time, as they have a mechanism for doing so (i.e. councils within the RCC, and of course the Pope).

I think it's fair to say that the RCC has changed more, simply because change is part of their setup.

I think also that very early on there was a basic difference in approach to life.. the concept described earlier of "set specific rules" vs "a general rule with more flexibility" means that any time an issue came up that needed interpretation, the RCC just naturally tended to either modify an existing rule or create a new one, whereas the ORthodox generally looked at how it might be fit into the existing framework. over time this resulted in more change on the RCC side.

That of course shows my bias.. that the Orthodox have changed less than the RCC. I think that one can also compare both to the non Chalcedonian churches, who split away even earlier than the Great Schism. I believe that that comparison shows a great deal more similarity between those chruches and the EO, but again, that may just be my bias.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I think I should have worded my query a bit better. I am not wondering what the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are...
Three main differences - the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, and the Pontifex Maximus.

quote:
I
but why there are a lot of differences.
[...]
What other options are there that I haven't thought of ?
The split was on political grounds, as Italy and territories dependent on it gradually became detached from the Empire. Once that was underway the Popes began to be able to assert a degree of independence from the rest of the churches that other patroiarchs still under the sway of the Emperor couldn't get away with (except in Alexandria where they were isolated because thought heretical - which is why the Egyptians have their own Pope)

Docrtinal and liturgical differences emerged slowly and naturally once the split happened. Split first, doctine later. A sort of allopatric speciation ;-)
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Palamas was intent on defending the Orthodox tradition of hesychasm, which goes right back to the Fathers of the Early Church and is about the practical realisation of Christian fulfilment through a deceptively simple, but practically difficult, discipline of Liturgy; prayer and asceticism. Living theology?
Palamas said his interpretation of hesychasm goes right back to the Fathers of the Early Church. It's not obvious to impartial scholarship that he wasn't reading through the eyes of faith.

quote:
Aquinas was more concerned with nutting out the essentials of belief in a rather dull, dry legalistic way.
Aquinas was writing an educational manual for training preachers. He's not legalistic. To some tastes he may be dry. But Aquinas would certainly deny that theology is a subject that can be studied without what we'd call spirituality; indeed, he wouldn't understand what we meant by spirituality - it would be all theology for him.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

...g the Orthodox tradition of hesychasm, which goes right back to the Fathers of the Early Church
No it doesn't, not unless you count the 5th century as "The Early Church", and even then its contentious.

Its easier to find the Holy Trinity, Substitutionary Atonement, and Predestiantion in the New Testament or the very earliest Chrstian writings than it is to find hesychasm. And you have to try to find them...
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
I think, Ken, you'd find Orthodox Tradition consists of a lot more than the Bible, as interpreted by you, or anyone else. Orthodox would trace the origins of hesychasm right back to the Desert Fathers and from there to the earliest days of the Church. Many traditions which developed over the centuries would be seen as being there in embryo as it were and being able to be developed within what is a continuing and living Tradition today.

Dafyd, I wonder if there can, indeed be such a thing as "impartial scholarship" on such matters. It would depend, I imagine, on what "impartial" stance a scholar takes. I would say a dull, uncommitted "value free" approach to matters of deep religious faith and life would be akin to a pathologist dissecting a living body.

Aquinas Scholastic approach, to me, would seem incredibly dull and legalistic. I'm not sure what you mean by "spirituality" and am not sure I would necessarily agree with it. I believe, towards the end of his life, Aquinas had what is described as a mystical experience and after that felt unable to write any more Theology.

Kallistos Ware once said the only worthwhile Theology was a Mystical Theology. By that he didn't mean a sort of fuzzy, vague, "feel good" emotionalism but something grounded. I would suggest the hesychast tradition would provide that. Orthodoxy places authentic, grounded, Christian mysticism at its core. The Roman Catholic Church has traditionally been very wary of mysticism and has placed it very much on the fringe.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
No it doesn't, not unless you count the 5th century as "The Early Church"....
The expression used was "the Fathers of the Early Church", which isn't a contentious expression in either Orthodoxy or Catholicism.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
BTW, Dafyd, I was not meaning to "bag" Aquinas, who was, as a Dominican, writing not just "for preachers" but also as a most distinguished member of the Order of Preachers and writing in a certain context, as was Palamas.

It does seem, irrespective of whatever concrete steps are being taken towards reunion of East and West (which is a contentious subject among many and one I'd rather not go into because it would sidetrack this thread) I think the Pope's recent encyclical, where he talks of the Church needing "to breathe with two lungs" and the existence, within the Catholic Church, of the Melkite Patriarchy, which is probably the truest to its ancient Orthodox traditions, whilst acknowledging the Pope, means that it is not a case of "either ...or".
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Even around my right Protty connection, we have Ordination but what is termed "defrocked " in the vulgar is properly "Placed on the Discontinued Service List (Involuntary)". There is no way to "undo" ordination in the UCCan. Ma Preacher certainly thinks ordination is indelible.
Well, your church is a grandchild of the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church, so it's not surprising.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I think I should have worded my query a bit better. I am not wondering what the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are, but why there are a lot of differences.

It seemed to me to be implicit in the idea of passing on the faith as received that we can hope that we have as much as possible the same faith those closer to the time of Jesus had.
Can you honestly look at the RCC and the Orthodox church and say this is the same faith the first disciples had? Or the earliest church community in Acts?

I think the problem lies in your question.

All that gold and big churches and fancy robes happened in the time of Jesus? [Eek!]

As to how two massive institutions can claim to retain the tradition of the apostles and yet be different - well. That's easy.

Cultural, political, geographical etc (i.e. natural human limitations and conditions) influence faith.

Same way two different people are raised in "the faith" and they end up understanding things in two different ways.
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Can you honestly look at the RCC and the Orthodox church and say this is the same faith the first disciples had? Or the earliest church community in Acts?

I think the problem lies in your question.

All that gold and big churches and fancy robes happened in the time of Jesus? [Eek!]
It is only your posting record that persuades me that you're being serious.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Some time ago I uploaded an article on the similarities and differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism ... you can find it here ... Orthodoxy and Catholicism Compared.

On the matter of conservation within Tradition: Orthodoxy's position is that NO local church no matter how important historically is immune from falling away. (The term "local church" in Orthodoxy refers to the Church in all her fullness in one particular place or region under its bishop).

So, in respect of human freedom, God does not set up one particular local church "never to fail" in the same way that (contrary to Calvin) individuals can and do apostasise.

The Church is always visibly manifest in particular places and over time we can say that these ecclesiastical streams within Tradition both preserve it and are preserved by it but only through faithful persistence and repentant restoration (if having fallen away some return to God).

A key question concerns the Reformation.

Would the Orthodox* in similar circumstances have broken communion with Rome? Answer, yes.

Does that place us closer to Protestantism?

Answer, absolutely not! In repudiating Rome, the Reformers drifted even further away from Orthodoxy (although some made a circuitous manoeuvre over centuries and started to come back towards us a little).

Finally on a point made earlier by Michael about legalising a wedding in the Orthodox Church ... a State Registrar does NOT have to be present if someone in the parish (not necessarily the priest) is appointed by the Registrar as an "Authorised Person" who in English law will fulfil all the duties of a visiting Registrar EXCEPT giving formal public notification before the marriage. (This still has to be done at the Registry Office. Only CofE clergy are allowed to "call banns").


*assuming that Rome up to this same point had been Orthodox which is not actually the case here.

[ 15. June 2012, 14:29: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Finally on a point made earlier by Michael about legalising a wedding in the Orthodox Church ... a State Registrar does NOT have to be present if someone in the parish (not necessarily the priest) is appointed by the Registrar as an "Authorised Person" who in English law will fulfil all the duties of a visiting Registrar EXCEPT giving formal public notification before the marriage. (This still has to be done at the Registry Office. Only CofE clergy are allowed to "call banns").
Thank you Father Gregory. In my parish we have only had one church wedding which also served as a legal wedding, and we had a registrar present. I was not aware of the alternative.

In my earlier post, then, please read "registrar or other person authorised by law".
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
quote:

originally posted by Evensong

Can you honestly look at the RCC and the Orthodox church and say this is the same faith the first disciples had?
I don't know is the honest answer to that. What I said was that the intention of passing on the faith as received is that we should have the same faith as the early church. How well it has worked I don't know. That was the point of my question. If two sets of people try to preserve something but end up with different things, does that mean that the preserving has not worked ?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
If the "different things" are mutually exclusive or incompatible then it depends first on how crucial those are in the overall scheme of things. If they are minor or inconsequential then inevitable "noise on the line" can settle the matter. If the "things" are more substantial then clearly, someone is not "plugged in" properly ... but that can happen to anyone, anywhere and at any time.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
IngoB has said that in his estimation, the thing that most seriously stands in the way of the reconciliation of the two churches is the question of remarriage. Orthodox are allowed to remarry after divorce (up to twice, i.e. 3 marriages, and always at the discretion of the bishop(s)); Roman Catholics, not at all.

Of course the latter have their "annulment" process which to those outside the RCC looks very much like a huge fudge. Especially when they square such circles as saying people who have been married 40 years and who have had kids and grandkids "weren't really married" and yet their kids are not thereby made bastards. But that's maybe a topic for another thread.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Actually, one of the points brought up by a number of bishops in the Melkite Church has been the question of religious divorce as with their sister church, the Patriarchate of Antioch.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
The late Latin tradition has rarely avoided moralising inflexible rectitude.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Can you honestly look at the RCC and the Orthodox church and say this is the same faith the first disciples had? Or the earliest church community in Acts?

I think the problem lies in your question.

All that gold and big churches and fancy robes happened in the time of Jesus? [Eek!]
It is only your posting record that persuades me that you're being serious.
[Confused]

Care to explain this comment?
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Finally on a point made earlier by Michael about legalising a wedding in the Orthodox Church ... a State Registrar does NOT have to be present if someone in the parish (not necessarily the priest) is appointed by the Registrar as an "Authorised Person" who in English law will fulfil all the duties of a visiting Registrar EXCEPT giving formal public notification before the marriage. (This still has to be done at the Registry Office. Only CofE clergy are allowed to "call banns").
Thank you Father Gregory. In my parish we have only had one church wedding which also served as a legal wedding, and we had a registrar present. I was not aware of the alternative.

In my earlier post, then, please read "registrar or other person authorised by law".
Indeed. The Authorised Person is a very important person in a Free Church (well any church that isn't Church of England really). But they are acting on behalf of the state registrar not the congregation. I believe their authority extends throughout the registration district in which they have been authorised. So no reason why you couldn't ring up the local methodist or baptist church and ask to borrow their person for the day. It's usually a layman - actually it is usually a lay woman in my experience.

Michael, I think it would be an admirable civic duty for you to volunteer for...
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
If two sets of people try to preserve something but end up with different things, does that mean that the preserving has not worked ?
Yeah. That's right.

Things change.

Things grow.

People are limited.

We are not capable of being "plugged in" to God (as Father Gregory says) and completely following God's will 100% of the time.

But the question remains: if we all followed God's will 100%, would we all think the same way and do the same things? And would that be a good thing?

Is that our purpose as creatures of God?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
If two sets of people try to preserve something but end up with different things, does that mean that the preserving has not worked ?
I think that the question needs to be unpacked. In particular, what do you mean by "different things"? It seems both the RCC and the OC have tried to preserve Christianity, and they both have. They don't have "different things" -- they both have Christianity.

There are a lot of things that have accrued along the way, and a lot of differences of opinion that we didn't "set out to preserve" -- so having such differences is not proof of a lack of preservation. Some of them are more important but for the most part they are secondary. The basic deposit of the faith, the creed, the mysteries/sacraments, have been preserved. (Well one side unilaterally fucked with the creed but I'm feeling charitable so I won't make a big deal about it.)

The whole question needs to be a bit more specific.
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Can you honestly look at the RCC and the Orthodox church and say this is the same faith the first disciples had? Or the earliest church community in Acts?

I think the problem lies in your question.

All that gold and big churches and fancy robes happened in the time of Jesus? [Eek!]
It is only your posting record that persuades me that you're being serious.
[Confused]

Care to explain this comment?
The impression that I got some time ago (and the reason that I have for some time generally skipped over posts of yours, even when the subject is of interest to me), was of an unwavering reading of things through a particular protestant lens, which appeared impervious to anything presented to the contrary, no matter how obvious or widely accepted it was.

However, I realise that many of us do this to one degree or another, and that I am not guiltless here, and I had no place becoming frustrated and sniping. The particular point in this instance was one of the stock criticisms based on protestant assumptions that are customarily rolled out by some people of protestant mindset against Orthodox and it becomes wearying after a while, so I suppose I allowed that to compound things. I also realise that people change and I shouldn't be basing my response to your thoughts on how they were presented over a year ago. It is out of character and unfair, and I am sorry.
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Finally on a point made earlier by Michael about legalising a wedding in the Orthodox Church ... a State Registrar does NOT have to be present if someone in the parish (not necessarily the priest) is appointed by the Registrar as an "Authorised Person" who in English law will fulfil all the duties of a visiting Registrar EXCEPT giving formal public notification before the marriage. (This still has to be done at the Registry Office. Only CofE clergy are allowed to "call banns").
Thank you Father Gregory. In my parish we have only had one church wedding which also served as a legal wedding, and we had a registrar present. I was not aware of the alternative.

In my earlier post, then, please read "registrar or other person authorised by law".
Indeed. The Authorised Person is a very important person in a Free Church (well any church that isn't Church of England really). But they are acting on behalf of the state registrar not the congregation. I believe their authority extends throughout the registration district in which they have been authorised. So no reason why you couldn't ring up the local methodist or baptist church and ask to borrow their person for the day. It's usually a layman - actually it is usually a lay woman in my experience.

Michael, I think it would be an admirable civic duty for you to volunteer for...
I was excited at the prospect when I first read this, FreeJack, but then I almost immediately saw a pitfall. Our people (I'm talking about our parish here) have a very clear idea of sacramental Holy Matrimony as distinct from the legal institution of civil marriage. This is reinforced by the fact that, with one exception, weddings at our parish have taken place after the legal wedding in the register office.

This is something that I welcome for a number of reasons because of both religious and social convictions. Firstly, I think that a proper Orthodox sacramental understanding may potentially be undermined if we begin to do things that could give the impression that sacramental marriage and civil marriage are the same thing. This separation of religious and civil marriage is a large part of why I can be quite vocal about my support for current government proposals pertaining to marriage without coming under too much fire. I also wonder whether the "two birds with one stone" approach, while practically convenient, may serve to conflate the practicalities of the two in people's minds. I can see this potentially involving, at least in people's minds, the church in any unpleasantness that may arise to do with legal issues or fees. (We don't charge for sacraments.)

No, I think I don't want to tamper with our status quo. It works well enough for us. [Smile]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I would of course resign as an Authorised Person if I was forced to do anything.

Anyway, back to the question ... let's take it down another route ....assuming that the Church (unspecified) is preserved from error (let's say in the "long view") .... how might that work, practically speaking?
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Can you honestly look at the RCC and the Orthodox church and say this is the same faith the first disciples had? Or the earliest church community in Acts?

I think the problem lies in your question.

All that gold and big churches and fancy robes happened in the time of Jesus? [Eek!]
It is only your posting record that persuades me that you're being serious.
[Confused]

Care to explain this comment?
The impression that I got some time ago (and the reason that I have for some time generally skipped over posts of yours, even when the subject is of interest to me), was of an unwavering reading of things through a particular protestant lens, which appeared impervious to anything presented to the contrary, no matter how obvious or widely accepted it was.
I completely understand. It's usually the same reason I ignore your posts. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
The particular point in this instance was one of the stock criticisms based on protestant assumptions that are customarily rolled out by some people of protestant mindset against Orthodox and it becomes wearying after a while, so I suppose I allowed that to compound things.
Hit a raw nerve hey?

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
I also realise that people change and I shouldn't be basing my response to your thoughts on how they were presented over a year ago. It is out of character and unfair, and I am sorry.
I wouldn't worry too much. I don't believe in change. Tradition is what's important. So I stick to my ways.
[Angel]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
IngoB has said that in his estimation, the thing that most seriously stands in the way of the reconciliation of the two churches is the question of remarriage.
Mind you, not necessarily because the doctrinal disagreement is irresolvable in principle. I just cannot imagine either side moving for the fear of the fallout, whether that is conscious or subconscious. Assume that tomorrow the RCC adopted something like the Orthodox position. They would get absolutely hammered for having caused so much grief to separated couples, and who would take any other RC hard line position seriously again? Assume that tomorrow the Orthodox adopted something like the RC position. There would be a massive outcry by those suddenly declared "invalidly remarried", by their supporters and simply by laity seeing a "right" being revoked. Finally, there seems to be no "middle ground" left between the RCs and the Orthodox. (The Orthodox are kind of the middle ground between the RCs and the Protestants on this one.) Hence I just cannot see how a unification on this matter could be handled without major unilateral damage.

Apart from this and more generally, I think the difference between the two Churches can be summed up in a very simple, practical manner. Try to find out what the RCC teaches on X. Then try to find out what Eastern Orthodoxy teaches on X. Pretty much all issues that one could mention on ecclesiology, doctrinal development, global vs. national approaches, etc. play into this one.

Most other differences are in my opinion overplayed, partly in order to maintain the "us vs. them" feelings, partly for the purpose of "advertising" to potential converts. I buy almost none of it. The filioque is a theological non-issue. The spiel about "original sin" gets old real fast. Governance turns out to be remarkably similar in practice, it is rather the chaos and mismanagement that differs (each side having their own flavour). The pope is a lot more powerful and does a lot more things in rhetoric than in reality. Roman Catholicism is not Scholasticism, and the Orthodox have been busy with theology beyond icon kissing. Etc.

There's an old joke along the lines of "Heaven is a place where the police are English; the chefs are Italian; the car mechanics are German; the lovers are French and it's all organized by the Swiss. Hell is a place where the police are German; the chefs are English; the car mechanics are French; the lovers are Swiss and it's all organized by the Italians." I think to a degree it applies here. I think we can see which part of the Church had Northern Europeans in it, and which part had the Middle Easterners in it. There is, I believe, quite some willingness on the RC side to absorb the strengths of what has been missing or lost in their development. I don't see as much willingness on the Orthodox side yet. But ... speaking as a German, I guess ... Rome makes me weep and rage as far as organisation, clarity and efficiency is concerned, but Constantinople is just ... positively Byzantine.
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Rome makes me weep and rage as far as organisation, clarity and efficiency is concerned, but Constantinople is just ... positively Byzantine.
I can see Constantinople as I'm typing this and I often wonder how different things would be if the Ottomans had never sacked her? I also wonder how the Russian church would be if not for the Bolshevik revolution, or the Church of Antioch, Alexandria, etc?

Probably not as organized as Rome is now, but I'd think they'd have a few more of their ducks in a row.

That may be another difference between the two: without making a value judgement towards either one, Orthodoxy seems to get kicked in the 'nads a lot more often by invaders etc.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Probably a good idea then IngoB that I do not belong to Constantinople and neither am I Byzantine ... any more than you are Italian.
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
IngoB has said that in his estimation, the thing that most seriously stands in the way of the reconciliation of the two churches is the question of remarriage.
Mind you, not necessarily because the doctrinal disagreement is irresolvable in principle. I just cannot imagine either side moving for the fear of the fallout, whether that is conscious or subconscious. Assume that tomorrow the RCC adopted something like the Orthodox position. They would get absolutely hammered for having caused so much grief to separated couples, and who would take any other RC hard line position seriously again? Assume that tomorrow the Orthodox adopted something like the RC position. There would be a massive outcry by those suddenly declared "invalidly remarried", by their supporters and simply by laity seeing a "right" being revoked. Finally, there seems to be no "middle ground" left between the RCs and the Orthodox. (The Orthodox are kind of the middle ground between the RCs and the Protestants on this one.) Hence I just cannot see how a unification on this matter could be handled without major unilateral damage.
This is not a direct parallel but there are some similar elements. In the case of independent Orthodox groups, we say with little reservation that they have no priesthood. Yet, when they are received into the Orthodox Church, whether individually or corporately, (by whatever means, which varies), the view of what went before often differs from one party to the next. Those receiving them consider them new priests while those being received see their priesthood of years simply being exercised in a different place. The done thing seems to be to focus on the present unity and see these differing views of the past as of little significance, for when the present generation is gone, it will have faded from living memory anyway.

Speaking theoretically, therefore, if the Orthodox were to adopt the RC position on marriage and union came about as a result, would those who had been Roman Catholics perhaps find it possible to extend some Orthodox-flavoured economy to those remarried couples who had been Orthodox? Once the present generation had passed, it would be a moot point, but the question is whether even the suggestion of this would cause the sort of shockwaves that you suggest would take place if a more lenient approach were to be taken.

quote:
There's an old joke along the lines of "Heaven is a place where the police are English; the chefs are Italian; the car mechanics are German; the lovers are French and it's all organized by the Swiss. Hell is a place where the police are German; the chefs are English; the car mechanics are French; the lovers are Swiss and it's all organized by the Italians."
I like this.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Speaking theoretically, therefore, if the Orthodox were to adopt the RC position on marriage and union came about as a result, would those who had been Roman Catholics perhaps find it possible to extend some Orthodox-flavoured economy to those remarried couples who had been Orthodox? Once the present generation had passed, it would be a moot point, but the question is whether even the suggestion of this would cause the sort of shockwaves that you suggest would take place if a more lenient approach were to be taken.
Well. What we would need to suss out is a distinction within the state of "living unrepentantly in sin". If we can do this, I can imagine that the compromise solution would be that one can only marry once in Church, full stop (no ceremony there for "remarriages", which amounts to an official recognition of some kind, however subdued). But that those who "remarry" will not generally be refused communion, due to their unrepentantly remaining in what amounts formally to adultery, but rather be readmitted as Catholics in acceptable standing - perhaps after a period of penance.

The problem is - and perhaps here we see the difference between RCC and Orthodoxy - that the RCC cannot simply just allow this for the case of marriage. If such a distinction is made, it will coherently spread through all RC moral doctrine and practice. Probably very rapidly... Can for example an unrepentant abortion provider get communion? If not, then why not? The distinction concerning ongoing sin must be precise enough to avoid such "license creep". Nothing can be maintained in "splendid isolation" in RC doctrine and practice for long, "if this, then why not that" will be asked near instantly and very persistently.

We really need some very smart theologians on the job. Unfortunately, RCs are heading more for an era of fervour than thoughtfulness, I would say. I see a window of opportunity closing there rather soon. Within a few decades, the remaining intellectual fire power of the Western RCC will be very busy handling the charismatic and eclectic tendencies of the Southern and Eastern RCC.
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We really need some very smart theologians on the job. Unfortunately, RCs are heading more for an era of fervour than thoughtfulness, I would say.
Hmmm. What do you mean by this?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Hmmm. What do you mean by this?
What I said in the next but one sentence.
 
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
Well said, Ingo [Overused]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
One's me slightly estranged Italian grannie, who'll let me in the house and be lovely and has some really lovely kids, my second cousins or first cousins once removed, but she has a houseful of stuff and won't let me take tea with her. The other's her Greek twin sister. Who has a more exotic cluttered house but who's disturbingly attractive because you can see the girl in her still and when she was young she had a truly beautiful mind which is still in there.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Are you saying then, IngoB, that the job of western Catholic theologians is to tame the southern and eastern ones? That sounds a bit patronising, particularly in a church that claims to be universal. Is it RC teaching that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Holy Father alone, or might He have given some of these other less 'sophisticated' Catholics something to say to the western ones?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Do Orthodox priests get away with murder like Roman Catholic ones ?
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Do Orthodox priests get away with murder like Roman Catholic ones ?
Hmmmm, it never occured to me that my parish priest killed anybody but it might explain a few things. I should go check the church basement.

I think I see what IngoB is getting at in his last sentence. The demographic center of the Catholic Church has been moving south and east for a while now and the issues of the South and East are what's becoming important for a majority of Catholics and not so much the issues that get attention in Western Europe and North America. People like reporter John Allen have been pointing this out, and this is true for the rest of Christianity as well (see what's going on in the Anglican Communion, for example). The issues of the white, middle-class West are probably going to become less prominent in discussions within the Catholic Church as Catholics themselves realize this. Even in the U.S. they'll start receding a little because of the growing proportion of Latinos and Asians in the U.S. Church (Latinos now make up something like 40% of the Catholic Church in the U.S.).

I'm not as learned as IngoB but I don't see a "compromise solution" happening as the possibility he envisions for divorced and remarried couples. I don't see how you can square that circle, someone considered to be formally in a state of adultery and still allowed to communion.

Nor do I think we are headed towards an ere of fervour than thoughtfulness. If anything I think the coming years will require more creative thinking as the Church truly attempts to be catholic in it's approach to dealing with issues important to the South and East while keeping tabs on the North and West which for a time will still be the places where issues infecting, I mean affecting the rest of the world are born.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Its really hard to imagine that if the Orthodox and RCs got to a position where they could contemplate a formal restoration of complete intercommunion then they would allow a comparitively minor matter of church government such as remarriage to stand in their way.

IngoB suggests that it would be a permanent block because if the RCs budged even a little on the absolute authority of the Pope and dropped its dogma-ratchet and admitted that it had got something wrong - even something like this that does not concern the central doctrines of Christianity - then no-one would believe what they said every again.

I think that's wrong for two reasons, one comparitively unimportant, the other convincing. the unimportant one is that if they changed their teaching on this they could no doubt find some form of words to make it look as if they hadn't but they really believed the same thing all along. That's happened before when the Vatican has changed its doctrines and it will happen again. (Not just Rome of course, all churches do it)

The convincing reason is that Rome will never be in a position to formally re-unite with the Eastern patriarchies until after they have already admitted that they have been wrong about some things. And the Orthodox (and also most Protestants) would never be in a position to contemplate joining in with Rome unless the absolute authority of the Pope has already been removed - because that claim to absolute authority is precisely the main block to re-unification.

Any Christian, Orthodox, Protestant, or anything else, who really thought that the Pope was the "perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful" who "has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered" - who can not only govern all churches anywhere in a political or organisational sense but can also define doctrine that must be believed by all Christians at peril of their immortal soul - any Christian who really believed that can just become a Roman Catholic anyway. And maybe they ought to.

So the ones who remain in the Orthodox churches (or any other churches) will mostly be ones who don't believe that. And they aren't going to want to reunite formally with Rome if that means putting themselves under that authority. So there could be no question of any formal unity as long as that claim to authority and control remains.

And of course once its gone, IngoB's scruples about changing even the least bit of papally-defined doctrine in case the whole house of cards falls apart becomes irrelevant.

Of course I'm not Orthodox, I'm a Protestant. I'd be quite happy to see full communion between our churches without any organisational or bureaucratic re-union that requires any church to put themselves under the authority of anyone. And I can imagine circumstances in which that might come about de facto if not de jure. Perhaps only marginally less likely than the disestablishment of the Church of England.


quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
The demographic center of the Catholic Church has been moving south and east for a while now and the issues of the South and East are what's becoming important for a majority of Catholics and not so much the issues that get attention in Western Europe and North America. People like reporter John Allen have been pointing this out, and this is true for the rest of Christianity as well (see what's going on in the Anglican Communion, for example).
Yes, and its been happening for a while - going back as far as the Pentecostal revivals of about a century ago, and including the recent rise of charismatic-evangelicalism.

I know I've said it here before, but Anglicanism is the largest black-majority denomination in the world.

quote:

The issues of the white, middle-class West are probably going to become less prominent in discussions within the Catholic Church as Catholics themselves realize this. Even in the U.S. they'll start receding a little because of the growing proportion of Latinos and Asians in the U.S. Church (Latinos now make up something like 40% of the Catholic Church in the U.S.).
Yes, but those Latinos in the USA mostly are part of the "white, middle-class West" (for US rather than British usage of "middle class") and those Asians are already probably on average almost as prosperous as their Anglo neighbours, and quite likely better educated, so maybe there will be fewer changes than we might expect.
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, but those Latinos in the USA mostly are part of the "white, middle-class West" (for US rather than British usage of "middle class") and those Asians are already probably on average almost as prosperous as their Anglo neighbours, and quite likely better educated, so maybe there will be fewer changes than we might expect.
Don't be so sure. I'm not white, I'm not middle-class, and the issues concerning us Latinos Catholics still overlap a lot with those of our relatives in Latin America. It's one reason for the prominence of the Charismatic movement among Latinos, for example, or trouble the Church in this country has had in figuring out how to help Latinos. The main Asian groups are Filipinos, Vietnamese, and Koreans, and I'm not sure how widely the first two groups fit into stereotypes of Asian success in this country.

And I've lost my train of thought again, so I may come back to this paragraph later.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Catholicism is holding its own in the US because of immigrants, and they're by and large neither white nor middle class. The Christian churches that are white and middle class are shrinking.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I just wondered if Orthodox clergy would also fear for their pay rather than turn in a murderer Pancho ? Or 'lesser' criminal. Like a serial child molesting ... priest.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And the Orthodox (and also most Protestants) would never be in a position to contemplate joining in with Rome unless the absolute authority of the Pope has already been removed - because that claim to absolute authority is precisely the main block to re-unification.

Any Christian, Orthodox, Protestant, or anything else, who really thought that the Pope was the "perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful" who "has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered" - who can not only govern all churches anywhere in a political or organisational sense but can also define doctrine that must be believed by all Christians at peril of their immortal soul - any Christian who really believed that can just become a Roman Catholic anyway. And maybe they ought to.

So the ones who remain in the Orthodox churches (or any other churches) will mostly be ones who don't believe that. And they aren't going to want to reunite formally with Rome if that means putting themselves under that authority. So there could be no question of any formal unity as long as that claim to authority and control remains.
I think "be ones who don't believe that" is too polite an understatement. I would go as far to suggest that most of the people who "don't believe it" actually regard this claim as a very serious error, a usurpation of the heavenly throne. I sometimes wonder whether many Catholics appreciate quite how presumptuous, in the Psalm 19 sense, the papal claim looks from outside the Roman obedience. It's almost as though, if it were true, humility would preclude anyone from claiming it.

There are a lot of impediments to church unification. Nevertheless, unless the traditional RC position on papal authority actually is true - and we are all either persuaded or not persuaded by this - it is probably the most far reaching of those impediments.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
But, IngoB, all the Catholic Church doesn't need to allow unrepentant sinners. All it has to do is recognize that marriages can, in fact, end, before the death of either spouse. Which you say is completely and utterly impossible. I do not understand why. It's not in any of the creeds. Has this been expressed as one of those dogmas the Pope makes which you say don't matter because he doesn't do it but once every couple hundred years?

Even our Lord, in the Gospel of St. Matthew, allows for the possibility of divorce and remarriage in cases of πορνεία. Whatever exactly that means, but at any rate it is an exception to the ironclad rule.

[ 16. June 2012, 22:40: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I just wondered if Orthodox clergy would also fear for their pay rather than turn in a murderer Pancho ? Or 'lesser' criminal. Like a serial child molesting ... priest.
Ah, yes. Those old chestenuts. Funnily enough, this sort of thing popped up on another thread and was being discussed in the Styx. And now here you are, trying to drag this thread down another rabbit hole, rather than asking about differences in spirituality, theology, teaching and culture which I naively thought this thread was about.

For what it's worth, there have been scandals involving Eastern Orthodox bishops and monastics in this country. I hesitate to bring it up but it's only in quick reply to your comment so as to satisfy your curiosity and keep this thread from veering off course (no "junior hosting" implied on my part). I could also mention a story related to the TEC, merely to point out Catholics aren't alone in this sort of thing, or the scandal going on at Penn State, whether or not the accused is guilty but merely to point out churches in general aren't alone in this sort of thing and you're just as likely or more to encounter it in families and schools. Be careful of that funny uncle of yours.

I haven't trained my Spidey-sense to reach across the pond yet but I imagine if I were to train my superpowers correctly I (and frankly, I don't have the time to go digging up other people's dirty laundry) would find some questionable happenings in that green and pleasant land.

If you still haven't got your jollies out of your system snarking about stuff as if we weren't already keenly aware of it you can always start a new thread or revive an old one where that's being discussed. I'm sure there are still a few around in Purgatory.
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
I did not realize that the charismatic movement was prominent in Latino Catholics?
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
No, it's prominent with Latinos. People who were generally born Catholic turn* into Charismatic Protestants, often Pentecostals.

A third of Guatemala's population are now Charismatic Protestants. For the Roman Catholic Church to lose such ground in Latin America is unprecedented.

The nearest equivalent would be Quebec's Quiet Revolution which emptied the ultramontane Roman Catholic Church** almost overnight in the 1960's.

*use whatever word you want here, they are all loaded.
** The Roman Catholic Church in Quebec has a history of being fervently ultramontane and extreme even by pre-Vatican II standards.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But, IngoB, all the Catholic Church doesn't need to allow unrepentant sinners. All it has to do is recognize that marriages can, in fact, end, before the death of either spouse.
Sacramental marriages end with the death of (one of) the spouses only, and I feel confident in predicting that the RCC will not teach otherwise till the Second Coming.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which you say is completely and utterly impossible. I do not understand why. It's not in any of the creeds.
Sorry? Does your Church hold nothing as dogma that isn't in the creeds? Apostolic succession? Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Etc. And what creed, actually? Do you think the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is enough to establish the orthodox view of the Trinity? I wouldn't think so, with some evidence from Greece that you may well recall...

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Has this been expressed as one of those dogmas the Pope makes which you say don't matter because he doesn't do it but once every couple hundred years?
Nope. I'm not a historian of the Church, so I'm not going to defend the following, beyond providing the link. But it does look as if the Orthodox had divorce imposed on them by the emperor in the 6th century, with its first "canonical" acceptance in the 11th century. Catholics stuck with the original teaching, the pope explicitly resisted the emperor over this matter in the 7th century, and by the tenth century indissolubility was established even as civil law in all Catholic countries. From then on it remained unchallenged until the Protestant came along. And from that time I get my confidence that Catholic teaching will not substantially change, since the Council of Trent hammered down dogma with a series of anathemas. No going back from this, I reckon. And if the "RCC" were to go back from the Council of Trent, then I would certainly put my lot with whatever of the RCC remains true to that Council - for I consider it fully legitimate, and hence empowered to decide irrevocably matters of faith and morals.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Even our Lord, in the Gospel of St. Matthew, allows for the possibility of divorce and remarriage in cases of πορνεία. Whatever exactly that means, but at any rate it is an exception to the ironclad rule.
I'm afraid that you simply misunderstand scripture there. We have just had a long thread on the matter, and I do not (!) wish to repeat all that. To summarise my point of view: I consider the case against your interpretation conclusive from scripture and knowledge of Pharisaic teaching. As for what is right, I find John Piper's explanation very convincing. But my rejection of your interpretation does not depend on this.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Are you saying then, IngoB, that the job of western Catholic theologians is to tame the southern and eastern ones? That sounds a bit patronising, particularly in a church that claims to be universal.
Sorry, I don't do "political correct" Church-speak. The simple facts of the matter are that much of the explosive growth of the RCC in the South and East, particularly in Africa, is in the typical mode of sects, with heavy emphasis on spiritual warfare, enthusiastic prophecy, faith healing, etc. Hand-in-hand with the emphasis on conversion goes intolerance of competing faiths and morals and the ready adoption of whatever local habits push growth. It's "Die Hard" religion, tough, exciting, but also quite "dirty" and certainly lacking clarity and sophistication. The RCC is broad enough to host these growths, but if they are going to be new organs of faith, rather than tumours, they must be contained in a church governance sense and their new contributions to doctrine and liturgy must be integrated and streamlined with tradition. It will take centuries to work this out completely, but it is pretty damn clear that this work will need to be started by the dying remnants of Catholicism in the West. Likely at some point the East and South will reach the required level of organisation and sophistication to deal with this, but not yet. And I would expect that the torch will pass from Europe first to Latin America, rather than to Africa and Asia, in spite of the latter leading in growth.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it RC teaching that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Holy Father alone, or might He have given some of these other less 'sophisticated' Catholics something to say to the western ones?
Without doubt the impact of Southern and Eastern "New Catholics" will change Catholicism massively. But Catholicism is organic in its development. And where there is a rupture, there Catholicism must grown over the break, closing it with particular strength, as the body does for a broken bone. As for the Holy Father, the next one will likely by a Latin American. And perhaps in my lifetime I will still see an African pope, I sure hope so! But the Catholic DNA must never be lost, and we will need the Europeans for a while yet to maintain the Body of Christ healthy and whole.

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I'm not as learned as IngoB but I don't see a "compromise solution" happening as the possibility he envisions for divorced and remarried couples. I don't see how you can square that circle, someone considered to be formally in a state of adultery and still allowed to communion.
I don't see that either. If I did see how to make the necessary distinction, I would make it, or at least start making it. However, I can see that this is the only "attack line" that realistically exists, even though I do not know how to carry out the "attack" myself.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
For an interesting Catholic perspective on Orthodoxy and the consequences of a possible reunion between the Eastern and Western Churches, the excellent CTS pamphlet by Fr. Robin Gibbons, "The Eastern Churches", is probably the best short introduction.

Fr. Gibbons is an English Melkite priest and a member of the Dominicans.

Realistically, I think the prospect is not on any current timetable.

It was interesting to see earlier that Evensong seemed to have no understanding of what both Catholics and the Orthodox consider to be the key shaper of Church practice from earliest times: Holy Tradition. They would both say that, as the New Testament - the key Christian scripture - came after the time Christ was alive, its interpretation must be within that Tradition guaranteed by him guarded by the Church he founded.

The disagreement is about which Church possesses that Tradition in its fullness.

Certain incidentals, such as vestments, developed within the Tradition but are not a crucial part of it. The Eucharist/Mass/Liturgy is and both would say it has come down to us basically unchanged from Christ himself.

Both Churches would say that, despite the human weaknesses and frailties of human beings within the Church, the essential deposit of the Faith, as made by Christ himself and guarded by this Holy Tradition, has not altered. Certain practices, approved by the Church, may have developed over the centuries as the Church is living, not dead, but they must be in concord with Tradition (not traditions).

The Reformation view of the Church is quite different as is its view on the Bible.
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The Reformation view of the Church is quite different as is its view on the Bible.
Well yes, as unlikely as reunion between Rome and Constantinople is, it's far more likely than either a unified Protestant church or reunion between Protestants and the rest of Christianity.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
The essential issue between Rome and us as Orthodox, Ken as correctly pointed out, is papal power and authority. We are not opposed to the primacy of Rome as it was practised before that disastrous pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand) ascended the throne of St. Peter but anything more than a primacy of love, respect and leadership (all of which are charismatic rather than juridical) is not going to wash with us at all ... EVER.
 
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
Right. We RC’s have got the Pope. But just for the record: This fact is hardly such an overridingly important aspect of faith for your average Thinking Roman Catholic™ that it would preclude him or her from harbouring a deep respect of, and longing for, aspects of Orthodox faith: Among them: less scholasticism, the Hesychast tradition, and apophatic theology.

On a personal note, the one book that got me back into Christianity’s fold in my late adolescence was Kallistos Ware’s “The Orthodox Way”.

On a general note, I fear that there's more sympathy among many RCs for the Orthodox than the other way round. Not all of us are ultramontanist ogres or neothomist nitpickers.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Thanks Pancho, if a schismatic heretic can say that. Is that a G.K. Chestenut? I like him. Nobody has EVER said I'm wrong, that the extra-canonical accretion of the utter sancrosanctity of confession is not ringed by excommunication on Earth and therefore heaven for priests protecting criminals. I just wanted to know if that's the same in Orthodoxy. I know I should know better, as I want to be for the good and any friend of Henri Nouwen is a friend of mine, but I can never get over being regarded as a third class citizen, that the broken Roman Catholics I will be brokenly serving this evening will let me clean their shoes in heaven but still not take tea with them.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Desert Daughter ... [Axe murder] ... feel like planning a quiet revolution? We have awkward squads as well of course.
 
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
Anytime, Father Gregory... it would be an honour and a pleasure
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The simple facts of the matter are that much of the explosive growth of the RCC in the South and East, particularly in Africa, is in the typical mode of sects, with heavy emphasis on spiritual warfare, enthusiastic prophecy, faith healing, etc. Hand-in-hand with the emphasis on conversion goes intolerance of competing faiths and morals and the ready adoption of whatever local habits push growth. It's "Die Hard" religion, tough, exciting, but also quite "dirty" and certainly lacking clarity and sophistication. The RCC is broad enough to host these growths, but if they are going to be new organs of faith, rather than tumours, they must be contained in a church governance sense and their new contributions to doctrine and liturgy must be integrated and streamlined with tradition. It will take centuries to work this out completely, but it is pretty damn clear that this work will need to be started by the dying remnants of Catholicism in the West. Likely at some point the East and South will reach the required level of organisation and sophistication to deal with this, but not yet. And I would expect that the torch will pass from Europe first to Latin America, rather than to Africa and Asia, in spite of the latter leading in growth.
That still sounds like a velvet-gloved version of the way northern and particularly western hemisphere piskies look down on the Nigerian and Ugandan bishops as uppity 'boys' who have the temerity not to do as their betters tell them on theological and ethical liberalisation/dilution.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That still sounds like a velvet-gloved version of the way northern and particularly western hemisphere piskies look down on the Nigerian and Ugandan bishops as uppity 'boys' who have the temerity not to do as their betters tell them on theological and ethical liberalisation/dilution.
Piskies have neither a Vatican nor a magisterium. Sorry, it's just not comparable. This is not about power moving to to the South and East in some epic struggle about authority, this is about the South and East growing into the authority structures that exist and will remain, and making them theirs. Latin America is a young man starting to make his mark. Africa and Asia are still children. Little doubt that they will surpass their parents Europe and USA - and what else could parents ever want? I pray for that, let them shape Christianity as we have with what we had to offer. But it's not quite time yet for Europe and USA to finish parenting (or in the case of Latin America, to foot a bill or two...).
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
So there's nothing the Vatican or the Magisterium might gain or learn from these kiddies then, nothing the kiddies might be saying to them that could be worth their while listening to?
 
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
This happens on several levels.

The "kiddie" analogy is deeply flawed, especially in the case of Asia. That part of the world is home to a great range of spiritual traditions and wisdom preceding Christianity and, frankly, they have a lot to teach us.

On the other hand, every corner of the world has its folk religion, and it would be sad to see Christianity turned into just that. Strong in numbers, but no longer in substance.
 
Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :
 
from Ingob

Latin America is a young man starting to make his mark. Africa and Asia are still children. Little doubt that they will surpass their parents Europe and USA - and what else could parents ever want?

Really offensive and just plain wrong, no matter what metaphor you were trying to stretch about ecclesial maturity or where you think the church should be headed.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So there's nothing the Vatican or the Magisterium might gain or learn from these kiddies then, nothing the kiddies might be saying to them that could be worth their while listening to?
I have learned from my child since the day he was born. Nevertheless, there is an asymmetry there which comes from maturity and experience.

quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
The "kiddie" analogy is deeply flawed, especially in the case of Asia. That part of the world is home to a great range of spiritual traditions and wisdom preceding Christianity and, frankly, they have a lot to teach us.
That's totally besides the point, of course. In the analogy, these religions would be other adults.

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA :
Really offensive and just plain wrong, no matter what metaphor you were trying to stretch about ecclesial maturity or where you think the church should be headed.
I couldn't care less that you are offended. The "plain wrong" however you will have to argue, or I'll consider your comment to be plain rhetorical.
 
Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :
 
There's no point in arguing with someone who hasn't outgrown Catholic triumphalism. There are ways of talking about the church in Africa or Asia without resorting to paternalistic or xenophobic tropes.

You really don't care if you offend a poster here? You know, I get the defensiveness underlying the arrogance and weird grandiosity. Many Catholics feel beleaguered or attacked and even paranoid. But if we don't listen and talk to one another with respect, there is no way forward and you will alienate even those (like myself) who feel sympathetic to where you're coming from.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I couldn't care less that you are offended.
If you are interested in constructive debate and understanding each other then you should care. These possibilities diminish the more offence that you give.

Given the legacy of colonialism the parent/child metaphor is particularly unfortunate. I'm sure it's possible to get your point across without that. And whatever metaphor you choose, describing examples of the immaturity of the growing church in Africa and the helpful support of Europe in dealing with it would be more persuasive.

I think you also need to take account of the fact that exercising such cross-cultural authority is fragile, prone to misunderstanding, and prone to building up resentment.
 
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :
 
Applause, Desert Daught, MaryLA and mdijon. The problem is that the extremist pedants tend to be the ones who feel that they represent the true RCC point of view where as it is far more disparate and nuanced than is generally represented on these boards.

When it comes to Africa, Asia and Latin America the tail is beginning to wag the dog despite efforts to the contrary. There is an increasing divide within the RCC between a hierarchy that is becoming increasingly conservative in it's approach and shrill in inverse proportion to those who accept its pronouncements unquestioningly and that means majority of the laity, those in consecrated life and the lower clergy. This is probably most noticeable in the USA at the moment. Something has to give in the long run and it's fascinating to watch.

Part of the problem was the long papacy of JPII who appointed bishops and cardinals who agreed with him; whether they were any good pastorally or not was just luck. Benedict XVI is as conservative but at least he has taken more interest in pastoral appointments despite their conservative opinions.

The hierarchy, because of a long conservative papacy, has become self-perpetuating and, in my opinion, increasingly out of touch with the people and situations at grass roots level. Fortunately there are more positives than negatives and I'm sure that the because the Church is a Divine Institution it will obviously survive despite these problems.

[ 18. June 2012, 13:50: Message edited by: Fuzzipeg ]
 
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
Thank you, Fuzzypeg; at least this discussion shows that we RCs are a refreshingly mixed bag, a foolish dinghy of The Ship.

As to JP II, I agree, the appointments made over his long pontificate still shape what is happening today. But I've heard many times that this was such a "provocative" pope that he triggered discussion and **gasp** critical thought [Eek!] amongst his flock.

Now let me tell you a joke (some of you already know it, my apologies):

The Holy Trinity wants to go on a vacation. They have to decide where to go. The Holy Spirit suggests they go to the desert.

- "Oh well,", says the Father, "I've trecked through that desert for forty years with the people of Israel, and believe me, it was no fun. That place means work for me, not a holiday. How about going to Jerusalem instead?"

-"No way!", says the Son, "last time I went there it ended very badly for me. I've got bad memories of that city. Let's go to Rome instead."

-"Great idea!", says the Holy Spirit, "I've never been to Rome!"
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
There is nothing offensive about some of the language IngoB used. Condescending and patronizing? Maybe. Offensive, not really. It's the kind of language Catholics use all the time. Catholics call their church "Holy Mother Church". France is called "the Eldest Daughter of the Church". Such-and-such is a daughter church of such-and-such. So-and-so are sister churches. It's normal Catholic language.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Have I missed it? But should there not be a discussion of Filioque somewhere in this discussion?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Indeed but such is the state of Rome right now, the internal dialogue / conflict is more pressing. Not that the Ship is a representative slice of that of course ... necessarily ... on the other hand ... (IngoB thinks it a non-issue .... it may not be the most important issue but it's certainly not a non-issue!)
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
What intrigues me about Orthodoxy is the apparent absence of a missionary and evangelising impulse, at least in the modern era, whereas Roman Catholicism is clearly otherwise. Is this an accident of history, because presumably there was a period when Orthodoxy sought to extend its influence, or is there some doctrinal reason for the differences in this regard?
 
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
The conflict is more "pressing" indeed. I know theologians and/or Religious in both the Americas and in India. We talk a lot about what they indeed call "forces of pressure". The "rebellious" nuns from the West, the Upanishadic Christians (for want of a better term) from the East, both pressing on Rome on different, but important, if not crucial (no pun intended) matters ("they are complementary", I am told). I am no expert on Africa, but I am sure there's "pressure" from there, too.

The Magisterium? Move over! We need a simpler, more pastoral church. At the same time, we need a more intelligent church, a theology that stops using sophistry and pseudo-certitudes borrowed from half-baked enlightenment concepts.

The funny thing is that all this movement appears "centrifugal", ie going away from the centre. True if the "centre" is Rome. But I think it is really "centripetal" ( towards the centre), for the true centre of the Church (beyond admin) might be no longer be Rome.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Kwesi

Not true here! Consider also the example of St. Nicholas of Japan. Go here for my resources .... Mission in Orthodoxy. For Africa the best modern example is here ... "Apostle to Zaire."

[ 18. June 2012, 17:39: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Both are knocked in to a cocked hat compared with Syriac Christianity surely ?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Agreed - the Nestorian missions in China were impressive.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Desert Daughter:
quote:
The Magisterium? Move over! We need a simpler, more pastoral church. At the same time, we need a more intelligent church, a theology that stops using sophistry and pseudo-certitudes borrowed from half-baked enlightenment concepts.

This is why I like so many Catholics in the pews and parishes. They can cut to the meat of what matters, while the hierarchy and theologians too often just keep doing micro-surgery on over-scarred tissue.
 
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
This is why I like so many Catholics in the pews and parishes. They can cut to the meat of what matters, while the hierarchy and theologians too often just keep doing micro-surgery on over-scarred tissue. [/QB]
Indeed. And that is why I'm still happy in that "family".
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Father Gregory,
Thanks for your reply. I have no axe to grind, it's just that I'm very ignorant as to the spread of Orthodoxy, both historically and contemporary. How many Orthodox Christians are there in Africa?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Kwesi

Go here ... Global Orthodoxy Stats .... you will need a calculator!
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Father Gregory,
Thanks for trying, but I found the index so incomprehensible that I never got to the point where I required a calculator. [Help]
 
Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :
 
Kwesi, I have no idea of numbers but I know the Coptic Orthodox Church belongs to the All Africa Conference of Churches and is said to be growing fastest in East Africa, following the initiatives of Bishop Antonius Markos. The Coptic Orthodox Church in Gugulethu near Cape Town is very well-attended (liturgy in isiXhosa and Zulu) and there is another Coptic Orthodox church in Soweto.

Alastair Kee has written several articles on the renewal of Orthodox Christianity in the diaspora (a journal called Studies in World Christianity). AFAIK, in South Africa most of the Orthodox immigration has been from Greece and Cyprus, with smaller groups of Russians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Lebanese and Romanians.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Mary the Coptic Orthodox are Oriental Orthodox: like the Armenians. It's interesting they're spreading in East Africa because they are definitely one Church that is Africa based.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I just wondered if Orthodox clergy would also fear for their pay rather than turn in a murderer Pancho ? Or 'lesser' criminal. Like a serial child molesting ... priest.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Thanks Pancho, if a schismatic heretic can say that. Is that a G.K. Chestenut? I like him. Nobody has EVER said I'm wrong, that the extra-canonical accretion of the utter sancrosanctity of confession is not ringed by excommunication on Earth and therefore heaven for priests protecting criminals. I just wanted to know if that's the same in Orthodoxy. I know I should know better, as I want to be for the good and any friend of Henri Nouwen is a friend of mine, but I can never get over being regarded as a third class citizen, that the broken Roman Catholics I will be brokenly serving this evening will let me clean their shoes in heaven but still not take tea with them.
Bless you Martin. You have a unique talent for obscurity!

Of course your point re confessional differences is relevant to this discussion. But do have a care over your provocative and sometimes Hellish openers. You are easily misread.

Confessional differences are indeed very much to the point of this thread. Consequences may be a bit more of an issue.

Have a care, Shipmate, to distinguish between the real issue and the overly-provocative opener.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Sir.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Mailbox is full, Martin. I've got a PM in waiting.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Indeed but such is the state of Rome right now, the internal dialogue / conflict is more pressing.
Oh! The irony!!!

The last Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church saw this happen:

quote:
At Ravenna, a dispute between the Churches of Constantinople and Moscow led to the withdrawal of the Moscow delegation from the Ravenna meeting. The occasion for the dispute was the presence of a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church, which is associated with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. There is a larger Orthodox Church in Estonia which is associated with the Patriarchate of Moscow. Before the Russian Revolution and after the end of World War II, the Orthodox Church in Estonia was fully within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. The acute dispute over Orthodoxy in Estonia emerged in the 1990s, when part of the Orthodox community in Estonia was accepted by Constantinople. For a relatively short time, the Patriarchate of Moscow stopped commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch, signaling a temporary break in communion. What emerged eventually was a tacit peace, with two Orthodox Churches in Estonia existing in parallel. From the Moscow point of view, Constantinople’s invitation to one of the Churches in Estonia transgressed against the status quo.

The withdrawal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Catholic-Orthodox meeting in Ravenna causes awkward complications for the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue process. On the one hand, the procedures of this dialogue have acknowledged that the absence of one or several Orthodox Churches does not stop the process or invalidate its results. On the other hand, the absence of the Moscow Patriarchate—the largest Orthodox Church, with many millions of adherents—puts into question the effectiveness and practical results of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

Another dimension of the withdrawal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Ravenna meeting—ironically—shows again that there are significant unresolved questions within the Orthodox Church. Even as the Catholic-Orthodox statement on “Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority” was being composed at Ravenna, the dispute between Constantinople and Moscow demonstrated that the balance between conciliarity and primacy articulated in the Orthodox teaching on the nature of the Church is not easily found in practice.
That's from the OCA Report on the issue.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I just wondered if Orthodox clergy would also fear for their pay rather than turn in a murderer Pancho ? Or 'lesser' criminal. Like a serial child molesting ... priest.
I find this very objectionable. The absolute confidentiality of confession is nothing to do with pay (for neither RC nor OC) - and the implication that Orthodoxy has anything to do with child molesting (with no evidence whatsoever) is nothing short of slander!
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
Has it not occured to anyone that a priest, after hearing a most grievous confession, might deny absolution until the confessor has done the right thing (like go to the Police and admit his offences?)

This way, absolute confidentiality is still upheld (as it should be). Would you go to a priest, when the confidentiality of the confession was a matter for his personal discretion?

[ 19. June 2012, 20:06: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
I fear this thread, potentially of great interest, especially to Catholics and Orthodox, is becoming lost in the mire of historical ill will and irrelevance.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I fear this thread, potentially of great interest, especially to Catholics and Orthodox, is becoming lost in the mire of historical ill will and irrelevance.
To be honest it held out longer than I had expected.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
So let's shove it positively in a different direction.

What do the Orthodox to receive and learn from Rome?

(1) That the Church is not to be confused with or subordinated to local cultures, nationalisms and the like.
(2) That a universal primacy can be to the Church's good.
(3) That being efficient, clear and organised is not "of the devil."

In a spirit of genuine irenic goodwill it is not for me to say what they need to receive from us. However, I am not going to get all "hissy" if they point out our frailities .... nor in my experience do RC's here get all hissy when we talk about theirs.

Stop being so b****y English!

[ 20. June 2012, 09:38: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Stop being so b****y English!
Indeed, that's the Anglican USP.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
There's no point in arguing with someone who hasn't outgrown Catholic triumphalism. There are ways of talking about the church in Africa or Asia without resorting to paternalistic or xenophobic tropes.
So you have no arguments worth airing, therefore you decide to try an ad hominem. Surprise, surprise....

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
You really don't care if you offend a poster here? You know, I get the defensiveness underlying the arrogance and weird grandiosity.
Hmm? I'm simply here to speak my mind, and I've done this for many years now. If that offends you, I don't particularly give a shit. As long as I stay within the rules of this place, which I try to do. That is my unrest. Yours may be contemplating whether you should put honey in your cup of tea. Do I deny you the thrill of that? Of course not.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If you are interested in constructive debate and understanding each other then you should care. These possibilities diminish the more offence that you give.
In my consistent experience, people who freak out at my frankness have nothing to say that would interest me.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Given the legacy of colonialism the parent/child metaphor is particularly unfortunate. I'm sure it's possible to get your point across without that.
In my opinion, colonialism was a great boon for the colonies at the level of culture and religion, and a nightmare at the level of politics and economy. I'm entirely unapologetic about bringing them Christianity, which is the only true religion, and hopefully will replace absolutely every other religion, spirituality and philosophy of life on the planet (while absorbing of them what is true and useful). And as for culture, our knowledge production system, our educational system, our ideas about law etc. were and still remain the envy of the world. That we ineptly forced artificial nation states on them, and sucked them dry of their natural and human resources - and try our best to continue to do so - is of course also true.

In many ways the colonies, and by now practically the entire contemporary world, are children of the West. Children grow up, parents grow old. Instead of fighting a metaphor that is so obviously true, people should simply follow it to its logical conclusion. In fact, of course Christianity is not European, certainly not Northern European, but Middle Eastern. We were children in the faith once. It took many centuries for us to grow up in it. But now we are the adults in the faith. To pretend that we are not is actually to shrug off our obvious responsibilities.

quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
The problem is that the extremist pedants tend to be the ones who feel that they represent the true RCC point of view where as it is far more disparate and nuanced than is generally represented on these boards.
Nice, more insults... Whenever I claim to speak for the RCC, you will find plenty of quotes from official documents. If you feel that your point of view not represented enough, then there is a simple way of changing that: represent it.

quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
There is an increasing divide within the RCC between a hierarchy that is becoming increasingly conservative in it's approach and shrill in inverse proportion to those who accept its pronouncements unquestioningly and that means majority of the laity, those in consecrated life and the lower clergy. ... Something has to give in the long run and it's fascinating to watch.
Naw, nothing will give there at all. That would require some backbone somewhere. For all his heresy and schism, dear old Luther had some good German stubbornness in him "Here I stand, I can do no other." That's just about the last thing you will hear from either side in this. They will all go on with their "constructive debate and understanding each other", to quote mdijon, right until Christ returns. But that's OK, unintentionally all this chicken-shit weaseldom ends up doing the Lord's work, as per Matthew 13:24-30.

quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Thank you, Fuzzypeg; at least this discussion shows that we RCs are a refreshingly mixed bag, a foolish dinghy of The Ship.
Indeed.

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
(IngoB thinks it a non-issue .... it may not be the most important issue but it's certainly not a non-issue!)
Theologically, it is a non-issue. The compromise with which everybody can live is obvious, and backed by the Church Fathers ("and" = "and through" = "through"). The compromise on the Creed is also obvious (simply recognize the status quo as valid variability, as per the theological insight), and could be confirmed dogma by mutual agreement even without calling a council (because one would simply recognize different expression as all meaning what has always been taught). All that would be required here is to turn the argumentative and ecclesiastic intent from "against each other" to "towards each other". That's the issue.

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
In a spirit of genuine irenic goodwill it is not for me to say what they need to receive from us.
Splendid liturgy. Some of the spirituality (though you very much can keep the yogic hesychasts, as far as I am concerned). Icons. Palamite theology as an irritant to grow another pearl of Trinitarian theology around. But most importantly - people, communities, churches. Ecclesiastic disunity is not really an option for Catholics, that's Protestant thinking. We don't need to receive from you, we need to receive you. And vice versa.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Has it not occured to anyone that a priest, after hearing a most grievous confession, might deny absolution until the confessor has done the right thing (like go to the Police and admit his offences?)

This way, absolute confidentiality is still upheld (as it should be). Would you go to a priest, when the confidentiality of the confession was a matter for his personal discretion?
Does this happen? Interested to know.
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Has it not occured to anyone that a priest, after hearing a most grievous confession, might deny absolution until the confessor has done the right thing (like go to the Police and admit his offences?)

This way, absolute confidentiality is still upheld (as it should be). Would you go to a priest, when the confidentiality of the confession was a matter for his personal discretion?
Does this happen? Interested to know.
The nature of Confession is such that what is disclosed, any penances given, and the conditions under which a true confession with amendment of life is deemed to have been made, and thus absolution granted, is such that nobody outside of the confessor and penitent would know about it.

All of which is to say that I suspect that your question would only be answered if somebody were to reveal publicly (or at least in a PM) the circumstances of one of his confessions.

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I just wondered if Orthodox clergy would also fear for their pay rather than turn in a murderer Pancho ? Or 'lesser' criminal. Like a serial child molesting ... priest.
I find this very objectionable. The absolute confidentiality of confession is nothing to do with pay (for neither RC nor OC) - and the implication that Orthodoxy has anything to do with child molesting (with no evidence whatsoever) is nothing short of slander!
Orthodoxy the faith and way of life? No. But Orthodoxy as in those within the Orthodox? Yes, we've had our share of unfortunate incidents. To our credit, in the public cases of which I have known, the church authorities have handled things reasonably responsibly but that doesn't mean that the incidents didn't take place.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In my consistent experience, people who freak out at my frankness have nothing to say that would interest me.
You wouldn't accept a certain circularity in that assessment? We all have our sensitive spots and I doubt it invalidates everything we might have said on the topic, but it may well degrade what we actually do end up saying when pushed.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In my opinion, colonialism was a great boon for the colonies at the level of culture and religion, and a nightmare at the level of politics and economy. I'm entirely unapologetic about bringing them Christianity
Interestingly many East Africans I know would be equally positive about the gift of Christianity (although now in flavours that you might not be so keen on) and similarly snooty about the impact on politics and economy. However I don't detect much appreciation for the imported European culture in general.

But none of this changes the point that the adult/child metaphor was part of the justification for the sucking dry of resources that you rightly disapprove of, and therefore most unfortunate.

There is also much in the Beatitudes other Christian ideals that an African Christian might reasonably claim to have a head-start over a European in.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I fear this thread, potentially of great interest, especially to Catholics and Orthodox, is becoming lost in the mire of historical ill will and irrelevance.
To be honest it held out longer than I had expected.
I think Father Gregory attempted to revive it in a positive way.

As someone who has always been a Western Christian
what do I think Orthodoxy has to offer us?

I think the feeling of deep spirituality as seen in the whole Orthodox Tradition but especially in the Hesychast tradition with the Jesus Prayer and the tradition of genuine spiritual direction as seen in the continuity of Elders coming out of Mt Athos; the monasteries of Romania and Russia (the latter two even under Communism) such as Elder Paisios; Father Cleopa Ilie; St John of Shanghai and Fr. Arseny.

Recent Western Christianity has, indeed, had some remarkably saintly men and women, such as the late and sadly downplayed Michel Quoist but they have tended to live in isolation, or to become, quite against their will, "spiritual celebrities" like Padre Pio, rather than Spiritual Fathers in the Orthodox Tradition who engender further Spiritual Fathers in a continuing tradition.

I think this tradition of engendering saintliness in everyday life (as seen in the West in someone like Brother Laurence) is something the Orthodox can show us.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
@Michael Astley

Not at all, just requires someone to say 'yes, I know this happens'.
 
Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :
 
IngoB: honey in my tea it is then. mdijon put it better than I could.

And the posts by Desert Daughter and Fuzzipeg reminded me why I keep wanting to return to the RCC, despite the self-appointed Defenders of the Faith.

I did a course on ecumenism about 20 years ago and seem to recall that the Orthodox Church was among the founders of the World Council of Churches in 1948? Surprising to me then but impressive Orthodox arguments for unity however elusive and impractical it might be.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Not at all, just requires someone to say 'yes, I know this happens'.
I have a first hand account from a Catholic who had been a serial petty thief (and serial insincere confessor of said petty thefts) of having been ejected from his confession with express instructions to confess his latest petty theft to the victim, repay the money, and then to return to receive his absolution.

I don't know how typical this is, but if it can happen for petty theft I'm sure it can happen for more serious crime.

The individual concerned is now cured of his penchant for petty theft.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
We were children in the faith once. It took many centuries for us to grow up in it. But now we are the adults in the faith.
Gracious. You'll be saying 'mankind has come of age', next.
 
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
Right, please allow me to be slightly flippant:

grown up? While so frequently displaying behaviour that strongly resembles two quite different age groups

- teenagers (take themselves very seriously and feel misunderstood by the rest of the world),

- old f@rts (closed upon themselves and hankering for the certitudes of a well-ordered nursing home, complete with bossy staff).

None of it very grown up. And I won't start discussing signs of a male mid-life crists (this spawned Opus Dei [Devil] )

--- flippancy ends here ---

[ 20. June 2012, 13:08: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You wouldn't accept a certain circularity in that assessment?
Nope. I do not consider in this only their output after their buttons have been pressed.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
However I don't detect much appreciation for the imported European culture in general.
Argumentum ad Monty Python. People tend to forget that there is nothing obvious about having say a university or a court of law with independent judges. Neither has it always been obvious that one protests against a current dictatorship with the aim of achieving democracy. Etc. A lot of things are "obvious" to the world now merely by virtue of us having them or doing them.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But none of this changes the point that the adult/child metaphor was part of the justification for the sucking dry of resources that you rightly disapprove of, and therefore most unfortunate.
Really? I would have thought that this metaphor would be more (ab)used to deny self-governance etc. "Because you are to us like children, we will take away all your stuff," doesn't work for me as an argument. What parents let their children die of hunger?

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
There is also much in the Beatitudes other Christian ideals that an African Christian might reasonably claim to have a head-start over a European in.
For sure, I think in some ways "early Christianity" is happening there right before their eyes. However, the truth also is that this is not really "early Christianity" any longer. For many, many things, Christianity can say "been there, done that". So our new "early Christians" will get from the apostolic successors a much more detailed picture of good, bad and ugly than the actual early Christians from the apostles. One may like this or not, that is just naturally the case.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
So here we are evaluating colonialism and metaphors for the relationship between the African and European church on a thread about Catholicism cf Orthodoxy. We should perhaps consider a breakout if you have energy to pursue it.

While considering that, let me point out that it isn't quite as Pythonesque as that. The law courts and other pilars of civil society were instruments to sustain colonial rule in many cases, and turned out to be very fragile in the early days of independence, and haven't been robustly instituted since in some countries. Hence "besides the corrupt judiciary supporting the current quasi-dictatorial rule" isn't such a troublesome line for the Judean People's front.

And I agree with your logic regarding the parent/child metaphor - it was indeed an argument for denying self-rule, but also for confiscating various resources. "Abusive parent" would indeed be an appropriate description in my view.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In my opinion, colonialism was a great boon for the colonies at the level of culture and religion, and a nightmare at the level of politics and economy. I'm entirely unapologetic about bringing them Christianity
Interestingly many East Africans I know would be equally positive about the gift of Christianity...
Evangelism doesn't, and didn't, require colonialism though. In most of East Africa the first missionaries preceded the conquerors - in Kenya by fifty years. In much of inland West Africa the first mass conversions preceded European imperialist invasions (though there were many colonial settlements on the coast)

You could make an argument that colonialism hinders evangelism. Or is at least unconnected with it. Look at the big Asian countries - there is a a higher proportion of Christians in China (which we interfered with greately but never conquered) than in India, which we ran for over a hundred and fifty years. Of the large East Asian countries South Korea is the one with the largest proportion of self-identified Christians, yet it was never colonised.

But anyway the idea that Africans are religiously in some sense like children compared with Europeans is not only offensive but quite baseless - IngoB's usual scientific objectivity seems to have been left on the laboratory bench on this one.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But anyway the idea that Africans are religiously in some sense like children compared with Europeans is not only offensive but quite baseless - IngoB's usual scientific objectivity seems to have been left on the laboratory bench on this one.
I'm sure I'll hear some actual counter-arguments soon. I've mentioned the typical signs of their youthfulness above already, to quote myself: "The simple facts of the matter are that much of the explosive growth of the RCC in the South and East, particularly in Africa, is in the typical mode of sects, with heavy emphasis on spiritual warfare, enthusiastic prophecy, faith healing, etc. Hand-in-hand with the emphasis on conversion goes intolerance of competing faiths and morals and the ready adoption of whatever local habits push growth. It's "Die Hard" religion, tough, exciting, but also quite "dirty" and certainly lacking clarity and sophistication."

And by the way, to neatly separate "political / military" colonialism from missionary activity is in my mind an anachronism, to say the least. It probably is not even true today, but it sure wasn't true back then. To quote (probably) Desmond Tutu: "When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "let us close our eyes and pray." When we opened them, we had the Bible, and they had the land."
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Mark Betts in particular. And all my Orthodox - Great Aunt - and Roman - Grandma - brethren, who have to deny me brotherhood (which makes me a spiritual bastard at best), in general. I'm sorry. Even though I am truly appalled, outraged at your non-oecumenical, extra-canonical, mandatory distinctives that don't just exclude me, like the sacrosanctity of confession, which both traditions appear to share in common, I AM sorry.

I'm utterly bemused by Western Thomist reasoning that gives us the Immaculate Conception and Assumption ( Orthodox Dormition ) and other mandatory narratives - dogmata, the etymology of which is so ironic - on the transfiguration, transubstantiation: on the mysteries.

How does Orthodoxy differ from Romanism on these ?

Believe it or not I would argue fully for your right to these exclusive, excluding, esoteric distinctives.

Some of which have only recently dawned on me, in my invincible ignorance, like the sacrosanctity of the confession.

I do NOT want to distance myself from you, from forever extending the hand of brotherhood, of fellowship, of being in this together, regardless that you CANNOT reciprocate and be true to your traditions.

As for horrors like paedophile ministry - 2 Corinthians 11:29 Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?

That this is apparently a lesser reality for Orthodoxy is good news and a difference to note.

Martin
 
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :
 
to get back to the Copts in Africa and Bp Antonius Markos. After reinforcing the Coptic Orthodox Church in East Africa he came to South Africa to find a "continuing" Coptic congregation in KZN, the result of a brief Coptic visit by priests just after the 2nd World War which gave him a basis to work on there.
The congregation in Johannesburg is predominantly Egyptian and the cathedral is situated here though there is much fraternal contact with the Ethiopian Orthodox Congregations and also an Indian congregation.
Initially the Copts attempted to evangelise existing African Independent Churches but with mixed success as often they were seen as a source of money and trips to Egypt! Subsequently they have been much more cautious and have managed to establish a monastery in the near Cullinan. It is early days yet but Marcos felt that with the powerhouse of the monastic life spiritual benefits would flow...and I am sure he is right.

The Copts ecumenical relationships with what they refer to as the Apostolic Churches are excellent, even with the Greeks & Russians which might not be the case in Europe! Where Rome is concerned the late Coptic Pope Shenoudah III signed an accord with Paul VI concerning agreement on Christology thus removing the slander of Monophysitism that has hung over them since 451.

They have good sales pitch...We are the ancient church of Africa. we have always been persecuted, except for a brief 200 year period and we have been at the receiving end of colonialism...never part of it.

[ 20. June 2012, 18:55: Message edited by: Fuzzipeg ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So here we are evaluating colonialism and metaphors for the relationship between the African and European church on a thread about Catholicism cf Orthodoxy. We should perhaps consider a breakout if you have energy to pursue it.
It always makes me a little crazy when IngoB says things like this:

quote:
Instead of fighting a metaphor that is so obviously true, people should simply follow it to its logical conclusion.
Metaphors aren't true! Not in the sense you mean, at any rate. They are frequently good illustrations of your point, but they always break down. Metaphors are in fact a very bad way to make an argument because of the many dissimilarities between tenor and vehicle -- because their logic breaks down, they're great poetry, but terrible argument. You do better with analogical arguments, another favorite of yours, but still frequently fail to see where your analogies break down.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Dear Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard

Even though I am truly appalled, outraged at your non-oecumenical, extra-canonical, mandatory distinctives that stands against the Faith of the Church as believed in the first Millennium by all Christians;

Even though your Orthodox - Great Aunt - and Roman - Grandma - brethren, extend to you the open door of communion and fellowship with that family of faith which reaches back to the first millennium, whereas you choose to place yourself outside that fellowship thereby denying yourself brotherhood (which makes you a spiritual bastard at best), in general.

I'm utterly bemused by your idea that ancient beliefs are Western Thomist reasoning that gives us the Immaculate Conception and Assumption ( Orthodox Dormition ) and other mandatory narratives - dogmata, the etymology of which is so ironic - on the transfiguration, transubstantiation: on the mysteries.

Believe it or not I would argue fully for your right to hold contrary views, which are not the ancient beliefs of the Church but only recent, post 16th century, exclusive, excluding, esoteric distinctives.

Some of those ancient practises have only recently dawned on you, in your invincible ignorance, like the sacrosanctity of the confession, and yet you scorn them as if they were something new-fangled, whereas it's just your awareness of them which is new.

We do NOT want to distance ourselves from you, from forever extending the hand of brotherhood, of fellowship, of being in this together, regardless that you CANNOT reciprocate and be true to your new traditions which reject the ancient traditions.

As for horrors like paedophile ministry - 2 Corinthians 11:29 Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn? Because I sure as hell do not know what "pedophile ministry" is, but it sounds utterly revolting.

That this is apparently a lesser reality for Orthodoxy is good news and a difference to note. I wonder what it would look like if the Orthodox were subject to a little scrutiny and examination. It may be that there is no child abuse in the Orthodox Church, for which I would be most full of praise to Almighty God and filled with admiration for the obvious sanctity of the Orthodox clergy, compared with those vile Westerners. It MAY be.......
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Excellent rhetoric. Full marks TT.

How do I stand against Christ ? His body ? By what mandatory, exclusive, excluding distinctives ?

How does my utterly invincible incapability of integrating extra-canonical dogma exclude you ? Deny you Christ ? Deny your inclusion in Christ ? Make you a second class citizen in the Kingdom ?

I submit to your dogmatism without the slightest comprehension, I fully accept you with it: I have none by comparison.

Again, well done and for making my point: you COMPLETELY reject me as your brother as you must.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I do NOT want to distance myself from you, from forever extending the hand of brotherhood, of fellowship, of being in this together, regardless that you CANNOT reciprocate and be true to your traditions.
You are so incredibly full of grace, I expect you will become miraculously pregnant next.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
[Biased] no more than you IngoB, my sins are ever before you.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear TT

quote:
That this is apparently a lesser reality for Orthodoxy is good news and a difference to note. I wonder what it would look like if the Orthodox were subject to a little scrutiny and examination. It may be that there is no child abuse in the Orthodox Church, for which I would be most full of praise to Almighty God and filled with admiration for the obvious sanctity of the Orthodox clergy, compared with those vile Westerners. It MAY be.......
Not hiding anything. We only have 150 or so parishes in this country and the Child Protection protocols are pretty tight across the board. Eternal vigilance and all that though ....

In the US though there have been problems. Comparisons are odious .... statistical or otherwise. A chronicle of shame is kept here ...

Orthodox clerical abuse in North America

No church is immune ... not even those nice Protestant ones where ALL the clergy can have (legitimate) sex.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Reverend gentlemen, please, can we get away from the "who has more paedophiles" theme? [Waterworks]

Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy are about so much more.

BTW, for an Australian Catholic magazine (run by the Jesuits, of course) which does not shy away from difficult topics: http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/?gclid=CJOf3f_s3rACFaVKpgodpWxF1g
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In fairness, Martin, whilst (as a Protestant) I can understand your outburst, I don't think that the RC posters here are denying that you are their brother in Christ.

I've always found that I've been treated as a fellow-believer (as well as a human being) by both RC and Orthodox clergy even though they might not consider my own ecclesial affiliation to as much 'church' as their own Church is ... if that makes sense.

None that I've met have ever suggested that I mightn't be a Christian or that my eternal destination is in jeopardy because I don't happen to belong to their Church. Although they would like me to cross either the Tiber or Bosphorus should I wish to do so, of course.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Dear Father Gregory

Thank you for that. I hope you understand that I was not trying to impute or imply anything concerning the Orthodox Church, but was rather responding to Martin's silliness.

Given that, I am nevertheless doffing my hat to you for your readiness to post that link and make the point you did.

The sexual abuse of children is a great evil. Unfortunately, the magnifying glass placed on the Catholic Church, and especially the Catholic Church's mismanagement of the matter, has caused it to be considered a "Catholic issue". That myth needs to be blasted right out of the water or children will continue to be abused and the perpetrators will continue to evade justice.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I spose I should apologize for going off thread. Which I duly do. Much as I'd like to retort to you TT. I must forgo that guilty pleasure.

Back to the thread, surely the first and greatest difference is Augustine ?

"Augustine of Hippo is the fount of every distortion and alteration in the Church's truth in the West" Christos Yannaras

"Lord deliver us from the Augustinian dialectic". Saint Gennadius Scholarius

Doesn't all else - actus purus and theoria - follow from this ?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
No church father is immune from error Martin. Calvin took some of Augustine's worst errors and built a whole monstrous edifice out of them. Some Orthodox (not knowing Augustine properly) indulge in Gussy-baiting. Actually Augustine was a very fine Orthodox Catholic theologian ... but he had his blind spots .... as did all the rest. (For the west's modification of Augustine on predestination, see the Second Council of Orange in 529).
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
"Monstrous edifice?" How much Calvin have you actually read, Fr.Gregory?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Quite a lot actually. (Remember I had a thoroughly western theological education).

[ 21. June 2012, 14:26: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Calvin's the big villain of the Protestant piece as far as the Orthodox are concerned, Zach82, in case you hadn't noticed ...

Forgive me if I'm teaching you to suck eggs.

An Orthodox priest once told me that Calvin was the 'last of the medieval Scholastics' and I suspect he was right.

I've come across some Orthodox (Tell it not in Gath, or rather, tell it not on Athos) who would concede that Calvin rings true on certain points, but for the most part they see him as epitomising the cold, calculating, Latin mindset to the nth degree - with views that led to double-predestination and all the shenanigans of Dort etc .

I don't know enough about it, but I'm generally inclined to be charitable. What little I know about Calvin convinces me that he wasn't as Calvinist as those who came after ... but I s'pose there was a continuum them - going back to Aquinas, Anselm and Augustine.

We're all under the shadow of it to some extent, even Arminians, who, as Jengie Jon has identified are simply another form of Reformed Christian in that they're reacting against Calvin from within a broadly Calvinist paradigm.

That's also why so many of Charles Wesley's hymns are also popular with Calvinists - because he wrote at his best when ending up writing like a Calvinist when trying to be an Arminian ...

Both are part of the same mindset.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Ah, Fr.Gregory has merely transposed the usual case of "Orthodox Westophobia" from Augustine to Calvin.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Could it not also be that he finds some of what Calvin says to be objectionable on theological grounds? Or is it all just "Westophobia"?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
He's not wrong there. It's a continuum. Calvin is the apotheosis of Augustine on wooden predestinarianism. Modernism took it to its heart where it still is.

I'm not surprised to hear you sing Augustine's Orthodox Catholic praises Father Gregory, as both sides of the Drina are united in knowing that God knows it's going to rain tomorrow and that's what makes predestinarianism inevitable.

So its hypocritical for faiths that believe that God is somehow 'outside' time, that every tick of Ptolemy's eternal future clock is tocked, to call Calvin heretic.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Could it not also be that he finds some of what Calvin says to be objectionable on theological grounds? Or is it all just "Westophobia"?
Which option does "monstrous edifice" fit under better?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
One of the things I find most attractive about Orthodoxy is the way that the whole Calvinism/Arminian thing is an irrelevance to them.

One of the things I find least attractive about it is its 'Westophobia' but I'm prepared to give both Fr Gregory and Mousethief the benefit of the doubt on this one in terms of listening to what they find most 'monstrous' about Calvinism. Double-predestination, I suspect, the idea that God is some kind of Molech ...

But then, most small r reformed people have long since given up on that one and even at the Big R end of things it isn't always put in such clear-cut or wooden terms.

There are Calvinist universalists around too.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dort won't go away. When Calvinism resorts to universalism it's still based on the unopposable inexorable will of God. It's determinism-phobia not western-phobia. There's nothing Greek about me.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Do you believe God creates people He knows will be damned?

[ 21. June 2012, 18:28: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Which is rather different to creating them in order for them to be damned ... or willing them to be damned ...

I know this question is aimed at Fr Gregory, not me, though.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
We may be dealing with Calvinophobia instead of Westophobia, which would be my mistake. No one actually likes being a Calvinist, I should add. I don't think Calvin even liked being a Calvinist. [Biased]

The next question, Gamaliel, is whether God is just in damning souls to hell, and after that whether it would be right for God to regret this justice or any justice.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Zach .... to answer that question (the one before but the one above as well) would be to claim to know the mind and foreknowledge and providence of God. I actually have more agnostic respect for that than classical Calvinism.

[ 21. June 2012, 20:04: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I suppose this isn't the place to argue about it anyway. It's just that calling Calvinism a "monstrous edifice" looks more like Calvinophobia, or what have you, than reasoned disagreement because it completely ignores its own perspective on itself. Calvin ultimately imagined himself to be saying that salvation was a matter of what Christ has done on our behalf, rather than anything like trying to earn salvation through works. The Cross and resurrection have accomplished the Kingdom. God just gives us the grace of that Kingdom, for free, out of His profound goodness and love, and we as Christians can have faith in that grace in this life and the next.

That system might be just plain wrong, but it doesn't look monstrous to me.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
As you have presented it Zach that's just peachy but I am not phobic about anything and your portrayal is not the whole story. Dort and nothing but the Dort.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I'm not asking you to accept or refute Calvin- just to not sling around phrases like "monstrous edifice," and maybe to have a little charity for Calvinists.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Why on earth should I if it's crap ... and psychologically dangerous crap at that? No apologies. No retractions. (Of course I could use the "H" word ... )

[ 21. June 2012, 21:37: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Calvinophobia it is.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
It's really tedious how this culture sticks "phobia" on the end of anything that it becomes unacceptable to criticise strongly. It's not an argument ... it's the inference of a psychological flaw which deflects and subverts engagement. It's contemptible.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I can't see that you've offered any real engagement with Calvinism to subvert or deflect. Is that what your name calling is supposed to amount to?
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Obviously there is no escape from the local "Calvinophobia police" here.

I thought the brief theological implications were dealt with adequately.

We must be approaching the 100th cut. [Votive]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
He called Calvinism a mean name, waved off questions as a mystery not worth thinking about, and then refused to be held accountable for his statement.

So compelling.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
He called Calvinism a mean name, waved off questions as a mystery not worth thinking about, and then refused to be held accountable for his statement.

So compelling.
He wouldn't be Orthodox if he DIDN'T consider Calvinism a heresy.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
So it's therefore appropriate to lob vicious comments about Calvinism whenever he pleases? I would think anyone clodding about using phrases like "Orthdoxy's monstrous errors" would rightfully be called on it.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So it's therefore appropriate to lob vicious comments about Calvinism whenever he pleases? I would think anyone clodding about using phrases like "Orthdoxy's monstrous errors" would rightfully be called on it.
He should be able to call Calvinism an error, a heresy. Yes
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
And you honestly see no difference between "monstrous edifice" and "error?"

Would you see it if someone was talking about Orthodoxy like that?
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
And you honestly see no difference between "monstrous edifice" and "error?"

Would you see it if someone was talking about Orthodoxy like that?
I don't defend "purple " language on either "side" but I would expect a zealous Protestant to consider much of the doctrine of Catholicism or Orthodoxy errors.
To me, it depends on if they are coming to that from misinformation or real knowledge about beliefs that they just reject
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I am not sure what you mean by purple language, but let me repeat again that I am not complaining about people disagreeing with Calvinism or even saying they disagree with Calvinism. Have an anti-Calvinism party if you want. I am complaining here only about Fr.Gregory's reference to Calvinism, the foundation of the Protestant Faith, as a "monstrous edifice," and his weasely refusal to be held accountable for it.

[ 22. June 2012, 02:47: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Starting new thread.

[ 22. June 2012, 05:56: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
Going back to the OP, aren't the main reasons for the Great Schism:
  1. The supremecy of the Pope of Rome
  2. A Change to the Nicene creed which was not agreed to by the rest of the patriarchates? (The Filioque)
There have been many changes since then, mostly in the Roman Catholic Church, but these were the things that split the Church in the first place weren't they? I'm aware of course that the whole cultures of East and West was drifting apart, but, as far as I can understand, these two things comprised of the last straw which broke the camel's back.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
No, Mark, I don't think that they are. The East had put up with the growing/developing claims of the papacy for at least six centuries without seeing the need to break communion and they'd put up with the West's belief in the filioque for almost as long.

The more I read around this subject, the more I come to share the view expressed around here by, amongst others, ken, that the historical and cultural factors were decisive. The nearly one thousand years since the final break have seen the way in which East and West think about the faith become so distinct that it is difficult to see how the breach may ever be healed, particularly in the presence of the heritage of scholasticism in the West and in the absence of either a unified or unifying voice in the East or of much discernible good will there.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
No, Mark, I don't think that they are. The East had put up with the growing/developing claims of the papacy for at least six centuries without seeing the need to break communion and they'd put up with the West's belief in the filioque for almost as long.

The more I read around this subject, the more I come to share the view expressed around here by, amongst others, ken, that the historical and cultural factors were decisive. The nearly one thousand years since the final break have seen the way in which East and West think about the faith become so distinct that it is difficult to see how the breach may ever be healed, particularly in the presence of the heritage of scholasticism in the West and in the absence of either a unified or unifying voice in the East or of much discernible good will there.
Six centuries - are you sure it was that long? I don't think the Eastern Patriarchs ever had a problem with the notion that the Pope of Rome could be the "first among equals" - it was that Rome started to do things arbitrarily, without the need of Ecumenical Councils which seems to be the problem.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Well that is the interpretation from a particular kind of apologetic. However, it is a vast over-simplification and ignores the reasons Constantinople was irked with Rome. It really was not as simple as the East maintaining doctrinal purity in the face of Western pollution.

Part, at least, of some Constantinopolitan objections to the Papacy was that several popes had reined in various Patriarchs of Constantinople for the way they were throwing their weight around - such as deposing other bishops. Since the secular court had moved to Constantinople, the Patriarchs had a growing sense of their own importance because of their proximity to the Emperor. The history of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate at the time is not a pretty one.

The Caesaro-papism that developed is something that I find far more serious and objectionable than the question of the jurisdiction which the Roman Pontiff has. But then I am on the other side of the divide. From my perspective having the Primacy protects the local churches.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
It's really one of those questions which come up regularly: "Will East and West ever come together?"

In some ways I think it's the wrong topic to focus on. Whilst the reunion of Rome and Orthodoxy may seem a pipe dream, they are, in many ways, much closer than they once were. Mutual anathemas have been revoked. People do actually talk to each other.

Eastern Orthodox spirituality has greatly effected many in the West often via the writing of the emigre or convert Orthodox such as Anthony Bloom or Kallistos Ware. This, and the discovery of iconography by many Western Christians, has, I think, deepened their own understanding and also rekindled an interest in their own spiritual traditions.

The problem with much current Western spirituality is that it seems to be pretty surface and cerebral and thus lacking in real depth. Orthodoxy has helped many Western Christians go deeper. It is interesting when such people discover similarities in their own tradition.

A lot of Christian emphasis in the West is on social welfare and attempting to save the world. While this is well and good there seems to be little attempt to focus on why. Orthodoxy, which has suffered greatly under Communism (yes, Catholics and Protestants did as well), might help give a fresh perspective on just what saving the world might mean.

A surface Christianity, focussing mainly on contemporary issues, may not help to bring about the deep spiritual revival I think it so desperately needs in the West.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
The excommunications at the Great Schism were subsequently revoked at both sides.
The main reason that the East and West fell out irrevocably is that the Pope issued only token condemnations of the Fourth Crusade and then took the opportunity to church plant in Constantinople while the Latin kingdom ruled there.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Calvinism is NOT the foundation of Protestantism as is well said elsewhere. It is the capping out of the monstrous edifice of Augustinean wooden predestinarianism. Which Father Gregory is blissfully blindly just as guilty of.
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
IngoB has said that in his estimation, the thing that most seriously stands in the way of the reconciliation of the two churches is the question of remarriage.
Mind you, not necessarily because the doctrinal disagreement is irresolvable in principle. I just cannot imagine either side moving for the fear of the fallout, whether that is conscious or subconscious. Assume that tomorrow the RCC adopted something like the Orthodox position. They would get absolutely hammered for having caused so much grief to separated couples, and who would take any other RC hard line position seriously again? Assume that tomorrow the Orthodox adopted something like the RC position. There would be a massive outcry by those suddenly declared "invalidly remarried", by their supporters and simply by laity seeing a "right" being revoked. Finally, there seems to be no "middle ground" left between the RCs and the Orthodox. (The Orthodox are kind of the middle ground between the RCs and the Protestants on this one.) Hence I just cannot see how a unification on this matter could be handled without major unilateral damage.

Apart from this and more generally, I think the difference between the two Churches can be summed up in a very simple, practical manner. Try to find out what the RCC teaches on X. Then try to find out what Eastern Orthodoxy teaches on X. Pretty much all issues that one could mention on ecclesiology, doctrinal development, global vs. national approaches, etc. play into this one.

Most other differences are in my opinion overplayed, partly in order to maintain the "us vs. them" feelings, partly for the purpose of "advertising" to potential converts. I buy almost none of it. The filioque is a theological non-issue. The spiel about "original sin" gets old real fast. Governance turns out to be remarkably similar in practice, it is rather the chaos and mismanagement that differs (each side having their own flavour). The pope is a lot more powerful and does a lot more things in rhetoric than in reality. Roman Catholicism is not Scholasticism, and the Orthodox have been busy with theology beyond icon kissing. Etc.

There's an old joke along the lines of "Heaven is a place where the police are English; the chefs are Italian; the car mechanics are German; the lovers are French and it's all organized by the Swiss. Hell is a place where the police are German; the chefs are English; the car mechanics are French; the lovers are Swiss and it's all organized by the Italians." I think to a degree it applies here. I think we can see which part of the Church had Northern Europeans in it, and which part had the Middle Easterners in it. There is, I believe, quite some willingness on the RC side to absorb the strengths of what has been missing or lost in their development. I don't see as much willingness on the Orthodox side yet. But ... speaking as a German, I guess ... Rome makes me weep and rage as far as organisation, clarity and efficiency is concerned, but Constantinople is just ... positively Byzantine.
In an indirect way, IngoB hit the nail on the head as to why the Vatican won't or can't change on practically any current issue. Paul VI ran with the minority report on the issue of contraception, because the Curia wouldn't wear any change from Pius XI's position.

Paul withstood Peter to his face, but no matter who Peter is, he will never be able to withstand the dead hand of the dead generations of the Curia.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
In an indirect way, IngoB hit the nail on the head as to why the Vatican won't or can't change on practically any current issue.[
What is a "current issue" and what is it about those issues that makes you think the Catholic Church should alter her teaching in response to them? Has Orthodoxy (after all this thread is supposed to be about the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy) got a record of changing its teaching on these current issues and what mechanism has it developed to do that?

quote:
Paul VI ran with the minority report on the issue of contraception, because the Curia wouldn't wear any change from Pius XI's position.
This is pure speculation presented as fact. it is as least as likely that he went with the minority report because it accurately and faithful reflected Catholic teaching and correctly concluded that the grounds for changing were neither substantial nor persuasive.

quote:
Paul withstood Peter to his face, but no matter who Peter is, he will never be able to withstand the dead hand of the dead generations of the Curia.
Then you know less about the Roman Curia than you think.
 
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :
 
Trisagion: What is a "current issue" and what is it about those issues that makes you think the Catholic Church should alter her teaching in response to them?

Fortunately the Catholic Church does change its teaching in the light of a developing world though it tends to take a long time to make the change otherwise some of us would still be justifying slavery and a whole host of other issues. There has been a marked shift in the attitude of the Church to capital punishment very recently, for example.

Humanae Vitae is a dead letter anyway to the vast majority of Catholics if they have even heard of it and I would question it as "Catholic Teaching".

Papal encyclicals are not "infallible documents" and some of them have reached the level of just being historical curiosities!
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What is a "current issue" and what is it about those issues that makes you think the Catholic Church should alter her teaching in response to them?
Fortunately the Catholic Church does change its teaching in the light of a developing world though it tends to take a long time to make the change otherwise some of us would still be justifying slavery and a whole host of other issues. There has been a marked shift in the attitude of the Church to capital punishment very recently, for example.

Humanae Vitae is a dead letter anyway to the vast majority of Catholics if they have even heard of it and I would question it as "Catholic Teaching".

Papal encyclicals are not "infallible documents" and some of them have reached the level of just being historical curiosities!
All interesting stuff but none of which provides an answer to the questions I asked.
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
quote:

originally posted by Fuzzipeg

Fortunately the Catholic Church does change its teaching in the light of a developing world though it tends to take a long time to make the change otherwise some of us would still be justifying slavery and a whole host of other issues.
Isn't it generally a good thing that the Catholic church takes a long time to make a change ? Without the resistance to change of the Catholics and Orthodox, how much would we know of the faith of the apostles ? We might choose to say that traditional teachings are wrong, but surely it would be worse not to even know what the church traditionally taught.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
What have the traditions of Rome and Constantinople got to do with the apostles ?
 
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :
 
Ex moonlitdoor: Isn't it generally a good thing that the Catholic church takes a long time to make a change ?
I agree with you...discretion is the better part of valour!

Oh MartinPC, that stupid comment doesn't justify an answer simply because I assume you read these boards occasionally.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
So you don't have an answer then Fuzzipeg ?

What do I need to know about the traditions of Rome and Constantinople that can tell me anything about the apostles that I NEED to know, MUST know, beyond the NT, to be a your brother in Christ ?
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0