Does the Pope have to be Roman Catholic
#11
(05-11-2017, 01:15 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Certainly the Roman Catholic Church's deconstruction of the externals at the hands of the popes in the last 100 years or so makes it hard to see the point for communion with the Pope, at least from the Orthodox perspective.

Externals are important, they communicate a lot about faith. Lex orandi, lex credendi. However, don't forget that the Russian Orthodox Church, despite its iron-glove triumphalism, its unyielding insistence on Slavic as the language of liturgical prayer, and its bearded priests, yielded to the error of contraception in the span of a few decades. And what of the rampant homosexual relationships in the monasteries, often blessed by the superiors that I've heard of from those who escaped that?

So while I agree with you that prayers are important. I don't see liturgy as a magical guard against lax faith. I came from a High Lutheran Church tradition. Grand churches, old paintings, solemn hymns. But it was all an egg shell. Smooth, white and pretty on the outside, but air on the inside. The priests were empty liberals, I even met an openly atheistic priest. My big brother isn't, and remains a solidly Lutheran priest, a dying breed in my country.

I think the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church has proven more resilient has more to do with its strong ethnonational culture, and less to do with Slavic, or the old Julian calendar.

I know, you've prayed a lot, and you just feel this way, and you make at least a post about it every day. But I don't buy your message formerbuddhist. Without faith, all those old rituals are meaningless fluff.
Reply
#12
(05-11-2017, 01:28 PM)Leonhard Wrote:
(05-11-2017, 01:15 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Certainly the Roman Catholic Church's deconstruction of the externals at the hands of the popes in the last 100 years or so makes it hard to see the point for communion with the Pope, at least from the Orthodox perspective.

Externals are important, they communicate a lot about faith. Lex orandi, lex credendi. However, don't forget that the Russian Orthodox Church, despite its iron-glove triumphalism, its unyielding insistence on Slavic as the language of liturgical prayer, and its bearded priests, yielded to the error of contraception in the span of a few decades. And what of the rampant homosexual relationships in the monasteries, often blessed by the superiors that I've heard of from those who escaped that?

So while I agree with you that prayers are important. I don't see liturgy as a magical guard against lax faith. I came from a High Lutheran Church tradition. Grand churches, old paintings, solemn hymns. But it was all an egg shell. Smooth, white and pretty on the outside, but air on the inside. The priests were empty liberals, I even met an openly atheistic priest. My big brother isn't, and remains a solidly Lutheran priest, a dying breed in my country.

I think the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church has proven more resilient has more to do with its strong ethnonational culture, and less to do with Slavic, or the old Julian calendar.

I know, you've prayed a lot, and you just feel this way, and you make at least a post about it every day. But I don't buy your message formerbuddhist. Without faith, all those old rituals are meaningless fluff.

Why the focus only on Russia? The Orthodox Church also exists in Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Japan just to name a few places.

You are right in that Ritualism, architecture and other externals without living faith are facades, but just because that is the case doesn't mean that the type of tinkering and deconstructing that have gone on in most western churches is somehow OK, or somehow doesn't undermine their credibility in the eyes of others. That's really my point.


Reply
#13
(05-11-2017, 01:45 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Why the focus only on Russia? The Orthodox Church also exists in Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Japan just to name a few places.

Russia is the new Constantinople, or at least they act like they are. Whether one can call The Orthodox Church, a Church proper is a matter of discussion way above my head. I think there's only one Church, and it subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. I hope the Eastern Orthodoxy are somehow, in a mystical sense, part of that Church, but to speak of the Russian Church, and the Greek Church, and etc... I think is a bit weird. Frankly I'm not even sure one can speak of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Quote:You are right in that Ritualism, architecture and other externals without living faith are facades, but just because that is the case doesn't mean that the type of tinkering and deconstructing that have gone on in most western churches is somehow OK, or somehow doesn't undermine their credibility in the eyes of others. That's really my point.

No, you tend to make a much stronger point than that. In fact, I don't really see you post much of anything other than it really. You see the prayers, language, and rituals, as essential. And I agree they're important. I disagree that they're essential. And I disagree with you that modern day Catholicism doesn't teach the faith. I know many converts who come to the Church, one of them, a close friend of mine is an old lady who converted in her old age. She doesn't read much, except the lives of the saints. She's has trouble concentrating, and remembering. Yet, as a friend of mine, who is now a postulant of French Dominicans, told me, she was every bit as orthodox in her thinking as any scholastic.

I'm still seeing my former Lutheran churches rot away from the inside, growing more and more liberal by the day. Despite being proud of their traditions, clothes, rituals, history and architecture. I posted some of those, and they seemed to impress you. But those churches are just egg shells. Big and beautiful, and old, and grand, but everything that was inside that is mostly gone.

I am not fond of the liturgical changes, nor am I clinging to the 1962 Missal. Unlike you think the change to the divine office made by Pius Xth was both timely and good and had been in considerations for a long time. And when it was promulgated to be a prayer of the laypeople, the Liturgy of the Hours was a gift from above, basically.

As for whether the Orthodox would ever be our friends. I don't know. I think there's a lot of what they do that's worth imitating, and a lot worth not imitating. Traditionalism is fine, but the Orthodox clinging childishly to the Julian calendar, with even some of them accusing the rest of the Orthodox Church for even modestly correcting the Julian calendar as having formally defected from the faith... you think that's worth imitating?

You might have anxiety about the modern day Catholic Church, but I don't see how you can diminish the problems in the Orthodox Church. Do beards and Slavic really mean that much to you, that you'd take their problems, their mutual bickering, and accusations of heresy and schism, just so you could enjoy old form masses, the way you imagine it must have been like in 600AD?

The Orthodox are a bunch of cats hissing at each other, and the collection of them hissing even more at the genuinely good uniate Orthodox, who are considered the worst of all by them. Once they get their act together, if they ever do, we might be able to talk of us getting together. Until then I don't think the Orthodox has a lot to tell Catholics about how we should be a Church.

I'll pray for them, I hope we're part of the same mystical body and I hope Christ and the Blessed Virgin will unite us somehow even before Heaven, where all argument will cease.

Whenever someone posts something like this post, you just say this is how you feel after praying, reading and reflecting on it (as if you were great mystic for us to respect). However, if it's simple how you feel, why do you repeat it like you do. Don't you want a conversation on it? I get that you're in anguish on it, but why not at least talk a bit. I thought you'd have at least changed the tune after the year I've been gone.
Reply
#14
(05-11-2017, 02:01 PM)Leonhard Wrote:
(05-11-2017, 01:45 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Why the focus only on Russia? The Orthodox Church also exists in Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Japan just to name a few places.

Russia is the new Constantinople, or at least they act like they are. Whether one can call The Orthodox Church, a Church proper is a matter of discussion way above my head. I think there's only one Church, and it subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. I hope the Eastern Orthodoxy are somehow, in a mystical sense, part of that Church, but to speak of the Russian Church, and the Greek Church, and etc... I think is a bit weird. Frankly I'm not even sure one can speak of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Quote:You are right in that Ritualism, architecture and other externals without living faith are facades, but just because that is the case doesn't mean that the type of tinkering and deconstructing that have gone on in most western churches is somehow OK, or somehow doesn't undermine their credibility in the eyes of others. That's really my point.

No, you tend to make a much stronger point than that. In fact, I don't really see you post much of anything other than it really. You see the prayers, language, and rituals, as essential. And I agree they're important. I disagree that they're essential. And I disagree with you that modern day Catholicism doesn't teach the faith. I know many converts who come to the Church, one of them, a close friend of mine is an old lady who converted in her old age. She doesn't read much, except the lives of the saints. She's has trouble concentrating, and remembering. Yet, as a friend of mine, who is now a postulant of French Dominicans, told me, she was every bit as orthodox in her thinking as any scholastic.

I'm still seeing my former Lutheran churches rot away from the inside, growing more and more liberal by the day. Despite being proud of their traditions, clothes, rituals, history and architecture. I posted some of those, and they seemed to impress you. But those churches are just egg shells. Big and beautiful, and old, and grand, but everything that was inside that is mostly gone.

I am not fond of the liturgical changes, nor am I clinging to the 1962 Missal. Unlike you think the change to the divine office made by Pius Xth was both timely and good and had been in considerations for a long time. And when it was promulgated to be a prayer of the laypeople, the Liturgy of the Hours was a gift from above, basically.

As for whether the Orthodox would ever be our friends. I don't know. I think there's a lot of what they do that's worth imitating, and a lot worth not imitating. Traditionalism is fine, but the Orthodox clinging childishly to the Julian calendar, with even some of them accusing the rest of the Orthodox Church for even modestly correcting the Julian calendar as having formally defected from the faith... you think that's worth imitating?

You might have anxiety about the modern day Catholic Church, but I don't see how you can diminish the problems in the Orthodox Church. Do beards and Slavic really mean that much to you, that you'd take their problems, their mutual bickering, and accusations of heresy and schism, just so you could enjoy old form masses, the way you imagine it must have been like in 600AD?

The Orthodox are a bunch of cats hissing at each other, and the collection of them hissing even more at the genuinely good uniate Orthodox, who are considered the worst of all by them. Once they get their act together, if they ever do, we might be able to talk of us getting together. Until then I don't think the Orthodox has a lot to tell Catholics about how we should be a Church.

I'll pray for them, I hope we're part of the same mystical body and I hope Christ and the Blessed Virgin will unite us somehow even before Heaven, where all argument will cease.

Whenever someone posts something like this post, you just say this is how you feel after praying, reading and reflecting on it (as if you were great mystic for us to respect). However, if it's simple how you feel, why do you repeat it like you do. Don't you want a conversation on it? I get that you're in anguish on it, but why not at least talk a bit. I thought you'd have at least changed the tune after the year I've been gone.


All you're doing is engaging in personal attacks and insults. This was initially about whether the Pope ought to be a Catholic,and whether Orthodox would be inclined to convert should there be a Ukrainian Catholic Pope;you've turned it into a personal attack. I refuse to engage you in this here.
Reply
#15
formerbuddhist Wrote:I refuse to engage you in this here.

I have not seen you engage anyone on this who actually disagreed with you. You always slink away, and then write almost the exact same post again, at some later stage when an opportunity to write presents itself.
Reply
#16
(05-11-2017, 02:18 PM)Leonhard Wrote:
formerbuddhist Wrote:I refuse to engage you in this here.

I have not seen you engage anyone on this who actually disagreed with you. You always slink away, and then write almost the exact same post again, at some later stage when an opportunity to write presents itself.
un


To be honest I'm happy to discuss it, but not if you're going to engage in personal insults.  You did the same thing the last time you were around here and it detracts from the conversation.  I don't sit and call you names so I would appreciate the same courtesy. 

I don't think you and I will ever see eye to eye on this. I bring up my own journey because I know I'm not alone in how I feel.  I've talked to plenty of others, even on this forum that share my own struggles. This is one of the few forums where one can discuss this sort of thing with breathing room.

As for the calendar issue, it is not trivial,at least it shouldn't be.  The calendar is part of the tradition ands tampering with it is not good.

If Lex Orandi,Lex Credendi means anything it is that inner and outer are related.  You can't destroy the externals and have the same faith,it's like translating Shakespeare into modern english and calling it the same thing, or expecting it to have the same depth and meaning. 

And I also like this topic because we'll, it is a passion of mine.  We discuss what we are interested in.

Honestly I don't see why you seem to take this personally.  All we are doing is discussing.  :)
Reply
#17
(05-11-2017, 04:40 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(05-11-2017, 02:18 PM)Leonhard Wrote:
formerbuddhist Wrote:I refuse to engage you in this here.

I have not seen you engage anyone on this who actually disagreed with you. You always slink away, and then write almost the exact same post again, at some later stage when an opportunity to write presents itself.
un


To be honest I'm happy to discuss it, but not if you're going to engage in personal insults.  You did the same thing the last time you were around here and it detracts from the conversation.  I don't sit and call you names so I would appreciate the same courtesy. 

I don't think you and I will ever see eye to eye on this. I bring up my own journey because I know I'm not alone in how I feel.  I've talked to plenty of others, even on this forum that share my own struggles. This is one of the few forums where one can discuss this sort of thing with breathing room.

As for the calendar issue, it is not trivial,at least it shouldn't be.  The calendar is part of the tradition ands tampering with it is not good.

If Lex Orandi,Lex Credendi means anything it is that inner and outer are related.  You can't destroy the externals and have the same faith,it's like translating Shakespeare into modern english and calling it the same thing, or expecting it to have the same depth and meaning. 

And I also like this topic because we'll, it is a passion of mine.  We discuss what we are interested in.

Honestly I don't see why you seem to take this personally.  All we are doing is discussing.  :)

To throw in my chips for what it is worth, all the liturgical purity and pretty churches in the world wouldn't bring me to the Orthodox church (something I at one point considered).  They can argue all that they want about how they are the most traditional and so on, but then to permit people to divorce and remarry up to three times and allow contraception... to me, that is abandoning the Gospel, and there is no reconciling that.  Their prayers may be beautiful, their churches my be majestic and their priests may be manly, but that is breaking point for me. 

And for Leonhard, yes, the beards really are that important...  :LOL:
Reply
#18
The Western Church allowed divorce in the first millennium. The Orthodox continue the same tradition as it was handed down.  https://shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com...-addendum/

Contraception is a tougher debate, and one that I'm not enough informed about to comment on. Personally, I can see legitimate pastoral need for it, so long as it isn't abortifacient. The question is simply handled by priestly consultation in Orthodoxy, which is at least honest when compared with the reality that the vast majority of Catholics contracept without getting priestly advice.
Reply
#19
No, the Pope could be an Eastern rite Catholic.
Reply
#20
(05-11-2017, 06:23 PM)ermy_law Wrote: The Western Church allowed divorce in the first millennium. The Orthodox continue the same tradition as it was handed down.  https://shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com...-addendum/

Contraception is a tougher debate, and one that I'm not enough informed about to comment on. Personally, I can see legitimate pastoral need for it, so long as it isn't abortifacient. The question is simply handled by priestly consultation in Orthodoxy, which is at least honest when compared with the reality that the vast majority of Catholics contracept without getting priestly advice.
The Western Church allowed divorce only based on adulterousness, or not? But the Orthodox Church allows divorce and remarriage (and remarriage is not the same as divorce) on the basis of many reasons. Dr. Hull writes : ,,In the area of Christian morality the most troubling of imperial influences on the Greek Church was the practice of remarrying divorced persons, albeit with ceremonies of a penitential character. Following the Gospel of St.Matthew (5.31-32; 19.3-9) the Catholic Church tolerated legal separations on the grounds of adultery (porneia), but given the indissolubility of Christian marriage, divorced men and women were required to remain single until the death of their legal spouses. This position had been staunchly maintained by the Roman Church since apostolic times but in the mid-sixth century the Emperor Justinian, who notoriously treated the Church as a department of state, enacted without papal sanction legislation allowing the divorced to remarry." (Banised Heart, p.113) The point is that the Church  simply has not the power to allow remarriage because it contradicts the clear words of Our Lord. Deus dixit causa finita. The orthodox thinking concerning this subject is absolutely modernist or liberal. You believe that God cannot be so cruel that he really does not allow remarriage...so you feel authorized to contradict the clear teaching of our Lord.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)