 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
kololam77
Banned
| Joined: | Tue Aug 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Berlin, Germany |
| Posts: | 67 |
| First Name: | Matthew | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | catholic, nothing, charismatic evangelical, conservative lutheran, conservative evangelical - moving ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 03:45 pm |
|
Thanks so much Dave - but there is ever so much to consider from a Roman Catholic perspective re: Orthodoxy. Do you think you can offer me some bottom line points from an RC apologetic point of view that are significant differences between the RCC and the EOC?I believe what I have gathered so far is that even before the split EO Fathers were deferring to papal authority on issues and that the RCC would consider the early splits in the church (prior to 1054) to be EO splitting from Rome - not the other way around as the EO argue it. Again......the goal for me with this topic is to attempt to hear the RC side of the issue so that I can begin drawing sensible and reasonable conclusions re: Mother Church. Thanks
____________________
There is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved other than the name of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 687 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 02:41 am |
|
Of course there at the Eastern Rite, the Byzantine Churches that use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great.
Give those a try. 
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 03:39 pm |
|
Thanks so much Dave - but there is ever so much to consider from a Roman Catholic perspective re: Orthodoxy. Do you think you can offer me some bottom line points from an RC apologetic point of view that are significant differences between the RCC and the EOC?
You asked a bunch of in-depth questions, so I provided in-depth answers! But my brief overview of the topic is the following paper:
Catholicism and Orthodoxy: A Comparison
I'd be happy to send both you and NotCatholic my book on Orthodoxy for free (Word or PDF version). Just drop me a PM saying you'd like it and indicate what format, and it's yours.
Otherwise, anyone seeking to understand the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism may wish to consult my web page on that:
Eastern Orthodoxy
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 03:47 pm |
|
Cajun can sometimes flaunt electronic intellectual attitude which can appear to be a glossy version of dislike or disdain. He probably does not even realize this - but quite possibly will after he polices this post  ! I have noticed this about him since I too manifest these tendencies in my posts.
I think we should be extremely careful (from the demands of charity itself, but more than that) about making such judgments and conclusions about people. Sometimes temperaments and personalities and personal styles simply clash (as in "real life"), but the Internet is notorious for blurring characteristics of people. It's often been observed how there is no facial expression, tone of voice, loudness of voice, inflection, timing, perceived listening and consideration, etc., in words on a screen.
How well I know this myself. For example, I had clashed with a certain person (Protestant) for eight years on the Internet. Recently, we decided to talk on the phone. We've done so twice, and now are getting along famously. He told me he had a very different opinion of me after he had heard my voice and interacted on the phone. Previously, he had said things such as that I was the most exasperating person he had ever encountered, etc.
I bet the same would apply to you and Rick. I'm not saying you have to talk on the phone, but just keep this in mind (and everyone reading this, because this is VERY common online), that words on a screen don't always convey the whole person who is writing them.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
ASimpleSinner
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 43 |
| First Name: | Simple | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Byzantine Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2007 08:51 pm |
|
I guess the question (and I AM a Greek Catholic) is does this modern Eastern expression represent greater antiquity or continuity to "early Christianity" over and above Roman forms? I grant "Kum-bay-ya folk Mass" is tough to swallow... I also believe that folk Mass is a bit of an aberration that reflects our "interesting times" and the very "multi-national" nature of Catholicism.... (As Joyce said about the Catholic Church "Here comes everybody!" - More saints, more sinners...)
It is a curious thing for me sometimes to hear folks with an attraction to the East describe it as "more ancient" or having greater antiquity than Rome. In fact (1) many forms found in Byzantine Christianity date to the fall of Constantinople and (2) many notable converts to the Catholic (Latin Rite) Church (Scott Hahwn, Alex Jones) were themselves amazed and enamored with how much they could identify the modern Roman Eucharistic liturgy in the Didache. On the latter point, I suppose perspective is relative.
I readily grant and accede that the Antiochian Orthodox especially readily capture (Evangelical) Protestant imagination. As youngsters folks grow up reading from picture Bibles with drawings of ancient Israel and the middle east... The Antiochians have that feel of being out of the Holy Land in churches that are frequently more simple, less monastic, and less ornate. Wihtout as much concentration (like their Slav and Greek counterparts) on saints from the recent era, the focus of the icons are frequently on Biblical saints and Early Church Fathers... (This seems to sit easier with Evangelicals just warming up to "the saint thing")
The very semetic chants straight from the Middle East capture the mind and imagination of Evangelicals who so dreamed of the land of the Scriptures... But does that evidencegreater historicity or greater antiquity (East Syrian forms are older than Byzantine)? Does today's autocephalous polyarchy (which has not been able to call an ecumenical coulcil the East accept in 1200+ years) represent continuity with the ancient Church?
On the matter of governance, territorial disputes over jursidciton have lead to virtual paralysis in both the old world (as Russia and Romania both assert jursidiction in Moldova, Constantinople and Moscow duke it out over Estonia, Ukraine is just a mess) and the new world (No unified jurisdiction, Constantinople and Moscow disagree on the status of Churches here, jursidictions overlap...) Disputes over the Gregorian and Julian calendar lead to major schisms which remain unhealed with one grouping (ROCOR) being in communion with major national churches in some countries and minor (old calendar) bodies in schism with national churches in others. If the heritage and domain of the Orthodox Church is that of the ancient church, why can't such issues be settled with authoritative resolve?
One poster here notes "I like the fact that the Orthodox Church has not had as many developments in doctrine, they seem to want to keep the teaching away from developments and I think this is a good thing." Firstly I am not so sure that the Christian east does not have as a part of their patrimony an emphasis on the development and definition of doctrine. Looking at the seven councils the (Byzantine) Orthodox accept, you will note that STRONG emphasis was made on understanding in a precise fashion Christological teaching during those early councils.
On matters of doctrine and discipline some level of division can be seen as different bishops have been confronted with the same circumstances at different times. How do I mean?
In the reception of Roman clergy into the EO, there has been at least three different canonical realities.
(1) Some Byzantines, (like the Johnstown Greek Catholics, the liquidated Ukrainian Catholic Church, etc.) have been recieved into communion en masse perhaps with simple chrismation or an oath of allegiance to an Orthodox patriarch.
(2) SOME Roman clergy who married post ordination were NOT recieved as priests or re-ordained because it was the perception of the hierach that the petitioner's Roman orders were valid, and that it would be uncanonical for them to serve as Orthodox priests, having entered marriage after ordination.
(3) Others have roundly ignored this idea and accepted and incardinated ex-non-Orthodox clergy who contracted marriage after ordination, recognizing the ordination as valid but not recognizing the post-ordination marriage as an impediment….
(4) Some have been re-ordained (or in the eyes of some EO, ordained for the first time!) in the same mannner certain ex-Anglicans who have come to Rome have been. While it seems to be a minority opinion among what we recognize as mainstream EO (in the US) today, some pozit that the original Roman ordination was graceless. I believe this would be the likely view of the majority of “Old Calendar” Orthodox - some of whom are in communion with SOME national churches, some of whom are not.
If those in party #1 were right, how could #4 assert such error? Bare in mind also that a priest turned away by party #4, and taken in by party #1 could then end up at the altar concelebrating with the bishops who viewed his Catholic ordination invalid if #1 & #4 are in communion!
On the issue of contraception, a variety of theological opinion has cropped up. "In support of Bishop Ware's 1963 expression of the position of the "Orthodox Church" comes no less a personage than the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople. In 1968 the Roman Pope Paul VI wrote the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae in which he reaffirmed the Latin Church's rejection of contraception. After reviewing the encyclical, the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras wrote to the Pope to assure him of the Orthodox Church's "total agreement" with the encyclical's contents:
"We assure you that we remain close to you, above all in these recent days when you have taken the good step of publishing the encyclical Humanae Vitae. We are in total agreement with you, and wish you all God's help to continue your mission in the world."
Certainly issues of continuity in that matter are worth examing.
I love being an Eastern Catholic, I love the Orthodox... But the idea that thier liturgy is the older one, or that their current situation outside of communion with Rome represents greater continuity to the Early Church than Rome does today... Well that is problematic.
|
|
|
tedjenczewski
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | Richmond, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 358 |
| First Name: | Ted | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Presbyterian, revert Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 8th, 2007 12:57 am |
|
| I am really overcome by all of the history and theology discussed in this forum. All I can do is recite John 18 v 20-23 in unison with our orthodox brothers.
____________________
"...the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." 1Tim 3, 15
|
|
|
tedjenczewski
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | Richmond, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 358 |
| First Name: | Ted | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Presbyterian, revert Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 8th, 2007 08:59 pm |
|
| Whoops, I meant John 17, v 20-23
____________________
"...the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." 1Tim 3, 15
|
|
|
ASimpleSinner
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 43 |
| First Name: | Simple | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Byzantine Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 8th, 2007 09:11 pm |
|
tedjenczewski wrote: Whoops, I meant John 17, v 20-23
LOL - easy typo!
That does make more sense than
(20) "I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. (21) Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said."
(22) When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded.
(23) "If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"
|
|
|
Current time is 11:40 pm | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
