www.byzcath.org

What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy

Posted By: Tomassus

What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/14/14 06:50 AM

What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy

by Gabriel S. Sanchez
3/14/2104

www.crisismagazine.com/2014/what-not-to-learn-from-eastern-orthodoxy

Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortaiton, Evangelii Gaudium, raised eyebrows within and beyond the Catholic world for what the Sovereign Pontiff had to say on things economic. Considerably less attention was paid to the document’s other discussions which range from the so-called New Evangelization to matters of Church governance. On this latter point, the Pope suggested, in line with the Second Vatican Council, that the local episcopal conferences, “like the ancient patriarchal Churches … are in a position ‘to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegial spirit’” before lamenting that this desire has not been fully realized, since “a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated.” Further down in the exhortation, Francis offered a nod of approval to the ongoing Catholic/Eastern Orthodox dialogue which, in his mind, provides “the opportunity [for Catholics] to learn more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and [the Orthodox] experience of synodality.” That statement was pregnant with unintended irony.

Barely a month after Evangelii Gaudium was issued, the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarch (EP) of Constantinople launched into a very public and unedifying spat over the meaning of primacy in the Orthodox Church. Though opinions differ, it appears that one of the main impetuses for the exchange was the EP’s call for Orthodox leaders to assemble for the purposes of laying out an agenda for a “Great and Holy Council” which Constantinople hopes will take place in 2016. It is a well-known fact that the MP and EP have been engaged in a tug of war for practical primacy in the Orthodox Church since the former’s resurgence after the fall of Communism in Russia. While the EP retains a high position of dignity in the Orthodox world due to its historic link to Eastern Christendom’s crown-jewel city, today the heir of the ecumenical throne, Bartholomew I, directly oversees a tiny flock living a mostly ghetto existence in Istanbul, Turkey.

Meanwhile, in Russia, Patriarch Kirill I can be seen rubbing elbows with Russian President Vladimir Putin as his church continues to re-evangelize Russia and, more controversially, exert considerable political influence in Russian society. As the head of the single largest Orthodox body with parishes spread across the globe, the MP, in the eyes of mean, looks to be the authentic leader of world Orthodoxy even if its governance and magisterial authority is, canonically speaking, circumscribed. Collegiality at the pan-Orthodox level appears to have given way to concrete numbers and the pragmatic authority which accompanies them. At this juncture, a “Great and Holy Council” for Orthodoxy in 2016—or at any other point in the foreseeable future—seems unlikely.

Closer to home in the West, the overlapping Orthodox jurisdictions in the Americas have provided another reason for Catholics to give pause concerning the supposed virtues of collegiality and synodality. Formed in 2009, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America was intended to lay the groundwork for the formation of a unified American Orthodox Church which would no longer be divided along ethnic lines while being under the authority of the EP. This, too, has started to rapidly unravel. On January 15, 2014, the secretary of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR)—an autonomous body of the Russian Church which remains linked with the MP—sent a letter to the Assembly rebuking its early plans to work toward an independent American Church while asserting its canonical right to serve the Russian “diaspora” (and those attached to it) without external interference. Less than a week later, the bishops of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America—the second largest Orthodox jurisdiction on the continent after the Greek Church—withdrew from the Assembly completely, citing an ongoing territorial quarrel in Qatar between the Antiochians and the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem as the impetus for the decision.

Some might see these recent events as unfortunate aberrations in the otherwise healthy governance life of the Orthodox Church, but they would be wrong to do so. Since the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Orthodox history has been littered, and some might uncharitably say defined, by internecine strife and factionalism as those few local Orthodox churches which were not under the Muslim heel rose in practical importance while the more ancient patriarchates receded into obscurity. In the 20th Century large swathes of Orthodox remained out of communion with particular churches for a mixture of jurisdictional, doctrinal, and chauvinistic reasons. While the situation has improved, one has to wonder how long it will last. In addition to the aforementioned dispute in Qatar, there is ongoing acrimony in Estonia, Macedonia, and Ukraine which currently has three different Orthodox churches vying for control. With the EP and MP currently at each other’s throats, how long until they break communion with each other?

The point of summarizing these events is not to provide Catholics with a cheap opportunity to engage in triumphalism over the Orthodox but rather to offer the Church of Rome and the sui iuris churches in communion with her an opportunity to reflect on what collegiality and synodality has meant, as a practical matter, to the second largest Christian communion in the world. While outside afflictions in the form of Islamic invasions and Communist oppression warrant more than a bit of the blame for Orthodoxy’s woes, it cannot be denied that its confederate model of governance—loose, self-driven, and unreliable as it is—has neutralized the Orthodox Church’s attempt to collectively assert itself against the rising tide of secularism while also addressing a myriad of matters which bear directly on faith and morals.

Take, for instance, the issue of contraception. It is no exaggeration that a faithful Orthodox Christian can go to three different priests in the same American city and receive three disparate answers expressing everything from absolute prohibition to prohibition of abortifacient only to complete permissibility. Who is right? Who is wrong? Even if the local ruling bishop of a given priest speaks authoritatively on the matter (which is rare), there’s always another hierarch of another jurisdiction who may go the other way. The problem does not stop there. Fr. John Whiteford, a prominent priest and commentator in ROCOR, recently opined that one of the possible motivators for his church’s decision to distance itself from the Bishops’ Assembly was because other North American Orthodox jurisdictions “have laymen in good standing, and even clergy, who are openly advocating for gay marriage, and proclaim that committed monogamous homosexual relationships are not sinful.” What authority exists in Orthodoxy to tell them otherwise?

Of course the Catholic Church is not without its serious catechetical confusion and oversight shortfalls. Though the final word on the matter has yet to be issued, talk of schism is still in the air as Germany’s bishops are poised to allow Communion for Catholics who have divorced and remarried without having their first union annulled. Under a potential model borrowed from Orthodoxy, whereby the local bishops’ conference in Germany is handed—to use Pope Francis’ words—“genuine doctrinal authority,” what, or who, could authoritatively stop them from taking such an erroneous decision? At some point—hopefully sooner rather than later—Rome would have to speak and speak forcefully. However, if the EP tomorrow did the unthinkable and began to bless same-sex unions, what would follow from this? Perhaps a public admonishment from the MP or other local Orthodox churches, backed up by some dusty old canons, might be issued along with threats of excommunication, but at the end of the day it would be business as usual in Orthodoxy.

Our separated brethren in the East (including those now living in the West) have much instruction to offer Catholicism, particularly Roman Catholicism. The beauty, integrity, and reverence of Orthodox liturgy should put us to shame for the barrage of banalities and (sometimes literal) clownishness which invaded Roman Rite worship in the wake of Vatican II. Orthodox theology, despite the insistence of some concerning its intrinsic “anti-Western” bent and “impenetrable mysticism,” offers a complementary pathway to truth built on the towering thought of the Eastern Doctors who are part of the entire Church’s intellectual patrimony. In a sense Pope Francis was right: we ought to look at Orthodoxy’s experience of collegiality and synodality, albeit as a sobering warning rather than a ready-made model for imitation.

Gabriel S. Sanchez is an author and independent researcher living with his family in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Posted By: DMD

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/14/14 09:05 AM

Rubbish.

Talk about a red herring with Sanchez's canard about same sex marriage. "Pot, meet kettle" comes to mind as the the Catholic communion has far more discordant voices worldwide on the local level urging same sex marriage and other heretical changes to dogma than does Orthodoxy.The Papal and Curial model haven't eliminated that trend.

ROCOR's Father Whiteford engages in the worst form of calumny regarding his "claims" regarding supposed support for so-called "gay marriage" within the Orthodox Church. For a Catholic commentator to cite them authoritatively as proof of his theory is absurd, and insulting

The supposed heretical utterances of some unidentified laymen or even clergy hardly serves as a basis to characterize the Orthodox Church's position on such matters. The same mindset of triumphalist "traditional" Orthodox struts around and loves to condemn the Church of Rome over her random aberrations in liturgical practice (oft repeated clown mass videos or puppet shows - as if they were in any way normative), activist, feminist nuns advocating radical changes to Catholic dogma or other oddities in the exponentially larger communion of the Church of Rome.

I suspect Sanchez didn't bother to read the clear, forthright and unambiguous admonition regarding abortion and marriage issued by His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew in his 2013 Nativity message, read in all parishes under his omophor worldwide. http://www.goarch.org/news/patriarxikiapodixeisxristougennon2013-en Moscow, the OCA and others have made similar statements.

We Orthodox and you Catholics live in an imperfect world. Yes, Orthodoxy is struggling with primacy, conciliatory and syndodal vision in the modern world.

News Flash: So is Rome.

We can be man and woman enough to take notice that our respective Churches fall short of the ideal. We can, and must learn from each other. But - this has been true for all time. No good is served by one sided, inaccurate polemic masquerading as apologia or commentary.

We have much to learn from each other and this article fails miserably if that was the author's intent.
Posted By: Irish Melkite

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/14/14 09:14 AM

Well said, David!!

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: Slavophile

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/14/14 02:28 PM

If your post had a 'like' button, DMD, I would press it.
Posted By: Sean Forristal

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/14/14 02:58 PM

DMD:

Great post!

Your unworthy brother in Christ;
Sean Forristal
Posted By: rusynbyz

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/14/14 04:23 PM

Greetings, all. I'm fairly new here.

I concur wholeheartedly with you, DMD, that this fellow doesn't get it. I would add that although many of the spats and disputes between the Patriarchs of the various churches are scandalous and at times obnoxious, I'd much prefer the faithful to know that there are problems and that efforts are underway to remedy them than the alternative that is so prevalent in the West - liberal or rogue bishops going their own way while towing the line with the Papacy.

I live in Fr. Whiteford's area and have met him before. I believe he is a good and faithful priest, but he definitely has a reputation for "leaping off the deep end" from time to time. Some of the resources he's assembled for his parish definitely have a "ROCOR-exceptionalist" bent to them.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Posted By: DMD

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/14/14 05:00 PM

I must say that the magazine in question is not exactly open to ecumenical dialouge with the Orthodox if the comments reflect its tilt. Yikes...

When I hear Roman apologetics speak of 'Orthodox moral laxity' I become far less charitable than is my normal disposition. Frankly, it brings out the part of me which was known for not suffering fools gladly when practicing law back in the day.

Yes, we disagree on aspects of moral teaching relative to divorce, remarriage and contraception. How much of those differences are actually reflective of core dogmatic disagreement and how many of them are routed in genuine theological differences of interpretation is above my paygrade, but that is an argument for a latter time.

IF the actual practice of the faithful of the Roman communion mirrored the Church's teachings on divorce, for example, perhaps our teaching on the subject might be subject to serious criticism. But, even as the Pope in Rome is looking for the means to address the disconnect between words and practice, I hear the same old same old coming from the Latinist triumphalist corner.

I am well aware that Orthodoxy has its own triumphalist apologists. I don't like them either so I am consistent on that point.

But I believe in my heart of hearts that it is the triumphalist corners that contributed to our divisions in the first instance and continue to perpetuate the perceptions and realities which divide our communions.

I'll take to heart what men like Popes Benedict and Francis have to say about us and what men like Patriarch Bartholomew and his immediate predecessors say about you over the comments found in the magazine.

Thanks for listening.
Posted By: Roman refugee

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/14/14 06:59 PM

Rather than acting in a way likely to give the Church unity and proper direction, Pope Francis' idea of giving "doctrinal authority" to bishops conferences will only further weaken the authority of the Roman Pontiff. The Church desperately needs unequivocal leadership that is doctrinally sound as well as pastorally merciful. Giving near schismatics, (as the German RC Bishops' Conference) the idea that they have the authority to legislate independently is probably the worst thing that could happen at this point.

However, it would only be a continuation of the weakening of papal authority perpetrated by John Paul II and nothing new. And, it probably wouldn't fly, given even the weakened Dogmatic Constitution on the Church given at Vatican II. Were I a conspiracy theorist, I might smell an agenda here to destroy the papacy and install goddess democracy.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/15/14 10:16 AM

Seriously this is sickening. I've come to expect this sort of anti-Orthodox propaganda from (many or even most) Catholic bloggers and forums, but it is pretty low for Crisis Magazine to sink.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/15/14 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Peter J
I've come to expect this sort of anti-Orthodox propaganda from (many or even most) Catholic bloggers and forums,


Originally Posted by Roman refugee
Were I a conspiracy theorist, I might smell an agenda here to destroy the papacy and install goddess democracy.


(emphasis added)

Thank you, Roman Refugee, that's an excellent illustration of my comment.
Posted By: Sean Forristal

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/15/14 10:33 AM

To All:

I think we may be living in the "Great Tribulation," but this is my humble opinion. Truly, the shepherd has been struck and the sheep have scattered; the history of the modern Papacy beginning with Pope Paul VI. "And we like sheep have gone astray and have turned every man to his own way." Let us fervently pray that Pope Francis and his successors will have the intestinal fortitude to not teach in a manner pleasing the world; so, that "When the Son of Man returns," he will find "Faith on earth."

Maybe, it is the time for the Orthodox Churches to speak in one voice on the immorality of civil divorce accompanied by civil remarriage and contraceptives. The prophetic voice of Humanae Vitae has come true, for new levels of immorality have arisen in our time. Familaris Consortio must be exhausitively revisited as well. We are gradually being led by secularists into a new Sodom and Gomorrah, but for us it will be worse, "For we have seen the miracles of God." Perhaps, these issues will be dealt with in the 2016 Orthodox Synod called for by His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew. I know that Orthodox Jews and devout Muslims believe that contraceptives are wrong.

We cannot learn anything from each other unless we are united in clear understandings of morality and theology. Those radically liberal clerics aforementioned, whether Catholic or Orthodox, are following the councils of the devil. Let us all pray for the intercession of St. Michael the Archangel in these diabolical times. There are secularists who are in the council of the devil and who desire the destruction of Christianity, but let us oppose them to their faces, by unifying under the banner of Christ in all aspects of faith and morals; for a "house divided will not stand."

God bless you all!

Your unworthy brother in Christ;
Sean Forristal
Posted By: Peter J

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/15/14 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Sean Forristal
To All:

I think we may be living in the "Great Tribulation," but this is my humble opinion. Truly, the shepherd has been struck and the sheep have scattered; the history of the modern Papacy beginning with Pope Paul VI. "And we like sheep have gone astray and have turned every man to his own way." Let us fervently pray that Pope Francis and his successors will have the intestinal fortitude to not teach in a manner pleasing the world; so, that "When the Son of Man returns," he will find "Faith on earth."

Maybe, it is the time for the Orthodox Churches to speak in one voice on the immorality of civil divorce accompanied by civil remarriage and contraceptives. The prophetic voice of Humanae Vitae has come true, for new levels of immorality have arisen in our time. Familaris Consortio must be exhausitively revisited as well. We are gradually being led by secularists into a new Sodom and Gomorrah, but for us it will be worse, "For we have seen the miracles of God." Perhaps, these issues will be dealt with in the 2016 Orthodox Synod called for by His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew. I know that Orthodox Jews and devout Muslims believe that contraceptives are wrong.

We cannot learn anything from each other unless we are united in clear understandings of morality and theology. Those radically liberal clerics aforementioned, whether Catholic or Orthodox, are following the councils of the devil. Let us all pray for the intercession of St. Michael the Archangel in these diabolical times. There are secularists who are in the council of the devil and who desire the destruction of Christianity, but let us oppose them to their faces, by unifying under the banner of Christ in all aspects of faith and morals; for a "house divided will not stand."

God bless you all!

Your unworthy brother in Christ;
Sean Forristal

Um, are you the same Sean Forristal who said
Originally Posted by Sean Forristal
DMD:

Great post!

Your unworthy brother in Christ;
Sean Forristal
Posted By: Peter J

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/15/14 11:20 AM

^^ On second thought, I guess I was a bit needlessly sarcastic there. My apologies.
Posted By: Sean Forristal

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/15/14 12:36 PM

Peter J and All:

Yes, both posts are mine and authentically so. I have great disgust for people judging the Whole of something based on a few fringe members. Truth and Virtue are found in the middle, not on the extremes. You can be sarcastic all you like Peter J, there is freedom of speech in this forum.

In my view, I believe much of what is going on in Christ's Church and in society is of demonic origin, for the devil wishes to destroy them both. We must stand united in faith and morals to weather the coming storm; I have read much commentary from ultra-radical secularist on religious news articles that believe religion is a hoax and must be left for dead. All over the world Christians are being persecuted, even in the US Christians are persecuted by employers who do not tolerate any religious expression or dialogue in the office, especially in governmental offices. Being somewhat pessimistic, I believe these persecutions will increase.

Christ's Church does not operate in a vacuum. Bishops, priests, and deacons are all very effected by society and culture. The sexual abuse crisis of the West in 2001 revealed that there are many homosexuals in the ministry of the Church; 80% of the cases were cases of "Pederasty" on pubescent and post-pubescent boys, 10% actual pedophiles on boys, and a minuscule amount on girls along with an "other" category. One can read about the seminary days of the late 60's and 70's in a book entitled "Good bye Good Men" and realize that homosexuality was present in leadership and seminarians. Maybe, the East had this same problem or may face this problem in the future. What solutions there are for this reality are anyone's guess.

May the Orthodox Synod in 2016 prove to be a source of greater unity on the moral issues of contraceptives and civil-divorce civil re-marriage between East and West. Sacred Writ makes both issues clear (see Mark 10 and the sin of Oman in Genesis). I believe Patriarch Bartholomew to be very holy and wise; and hopefully, the other Patriarchs will follow his good example, especially Patriarch Alexi.

I do not mean to be preachy, lecturing, or dividing. The stakes are high for East-West unity because society is going insane and to "Pot" in many places. Unity would strengthen both East and West; "we are all in this together" my former SD and pious priest from Burma always told me. May God bless, protect, and guide His Church and all of us in these desperate/demonic times!

Your unworthy brother in Christ;
Sean Forristal
Posted By: Peter J

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/15/14 12:45 PM

Well, I'm glad you're still on the forum, fwiw -- that of course doesn't change the fact that I think some of your posts are a bit out in left field. blush
Posted By: Sean Forristal

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/15/14 03:08 PM

Peter J:

By out of left-field what do you mean?

Your unworthy brother in Christ;
Sean Forristal

P.S. Thank you for your kindness. I will not be bullied by my fellow Christians or Catholics into silence.
Posted By: Roman refugee

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/15/14 06:30 PM

Peter J.

You are welcome. It was, of course from the snake pit of fundamentalist Catholic bloggers that I even got the idea. Embittered sedevacantists, unquestioning followers of the Pope's every comment as "gospel", this one's a heretic, this one's a schismatic--such disarray and so little charity or humility. There is even a guy who says the last "real" pope was in 1134AD! This forum is so refreshing by comparison.

The wisdom of the "economy" of St. Basil is badly needed.
Posted By: Roman refugee

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/15/14 06:34 PM

Sean Forristal:

Not to be a wise guy, but every age thinks it is living the end times. Remember what Jesus said in Mathew 24 about the signs of the end--we're not there yet.
Posted By: Roman refugee

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/15/14 06:40 PM

To Sean,


Peter J and All:



"In my view, I believe much of what is going on in Christ's Church and in society is of demonic origin, for the devil wishes to destroy them both."

Certainly agree with that. Diabolical disorientation.
Posted By: Pasisozi

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/15/14 09:12 PM

\\There is even a guy who says the last "real" pope was in 1134AD!\\

I think I've heard of him. There's one who says that every pope after Pius IX was an anti-pope, including Pius X and XII.

As a writer for NCReg said, this way lies not only apostasy, but delusion.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/16/14 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Pasisozi
\\There is even a guy who says the last "real" pope was in 1134AD!\\

I think I've heard of him.


SSPI?
Posted By: Pasisozi

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/16/14 04:02 PM

1131 was AFTER St. Pius I.
Posted By: Roman refugee

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/16/14 10:27 PM

It was 11-something. I left the website without wanting to read much more. It is stjohnthebaptist, whatever. It reads like the minutes of the Spanish Inquisition.

But the guy takes the trouble then to condemn as heretics everyone from more modern times. Not consistent. If all are heretics since the 12th Century, why bother about them?

A layman can get caught up in this legalism and name calling because they don't understand the subtleties, for instance, a Mass said by a publicly self sworn sedevacantist can be valid, but is not licit. Where do you go from there?

The Church has to be a visible community of believers. These guys obsessed with legalism end up denying or making impossible the 4 marks of the Church: one, holy, catholic, apostolic. They think that they are the only true Christians left in the world, not even aware of their great faults like lack of humility and charity and faith too, for that matter, and that they are leading more "simple" souls into confusion. Thence leads the slippery slope of private judgement.

Something I read once I never forgot that made a big difference in my own faith. It was to the effect that one must submit one's intellect to the authentic teachings. Once that is done, true faith usually follows. Not the other way around. Faith is above reason, not in opposition to it. This doesn't mean that we must not still be "wise as serpents," especially these days.

Maybe just for fun I'll look up what happened after Pius I. But not on THAT website! Very depressing.
Posted By: DMD

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/17/14 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by Roman refugee
It was 11-something. I left the website without wanting to read much more. It is stjohnthebaptist, whatever. It reads like the minutes of the Spanish Inquisition.

But the guy takes the trouble then to condemn as heretics everyone from more modern times. Not consistent. If all are heretics since the 12th Century, why bother about them?

A layman can get caught up in this legalism and name calling because they don't understand the subtleties, for instance, a Mass said by a publicly self sworn sedevacantist can be valid, but is not licit. Where do you go from there?

The Church has to be a visible community of believers. These guys obsessed with legalism end up denying or making impossible the 4 marks of the Church: one, holy, catholic, apostolic. They think that they are the only true Christians left in the world, not even aware of their great faults like lack of humility and charity and faith too, for that matter, and that they are leading more "simple" souls into confusion. Thence leads the slippery slope of private judgement.

Something I read once I never forgot that made a big difference in my own faith. It was to the effect that one must submit one's intellect to the authentic teachings. Once that is done, true faith usually follows. Not the other way around. Faith is above reason, not in opposition to it. This doesn't mean that we must not still be "wise as serpents," especially these days.

Maybe just for fun I'll look up what happened after Pius I. But not on THAT website! Very depressing.


Interesting and perceptive thoughts on the day Eastern Christians, Catholic and Orthodox, commemorate St. Gregory Palamas.
Posted By: Fr. John Morris

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/22/14 10:20 PM

Although I like and respect Fr. John Whiteford, I must disagree with him. I may be sheltered as an Antiochian, but I know of no one in authority in the Eastern Orthodox Church who advocates approval of same sex marriage or of homosexuality. Certainly our Antiochian Bishops and my brother Antiochian Orthodox Priests are firm on this issue.

Archpriest John W. Morris
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/24/14 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Fr. John Morris
Although I like and respect Fr. John Whiteford, I must disagree with him. I may be sheltered as an Antiochian, but I know of no one in authority in the Eastern Orthodox Church who advocates approval of same sex marriage or of homosexuality. Certainly our Antiochian Bishops and my brother Antiochian Orthodox Priests are firm on this issue.

Archpriest John W. Morris


Didn't an Orthodox cleric in liberal Finland favor it? Also, there's retired OCA Archbishop Lazar (Puhalo). You're right that it's a fringe movement, if it can be called a movement, in the Orthodox Church: ethnic churches that run themselves through tradition so they're not interested in homosexualism.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/30/14 11:03 AM

I like brother DMD's Comment#2 in this thread.

But I actually like the article, if not for its misrepresentations of Holy Orthodoxy.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/30/14 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Roman refugee
However, it would only be a continuation of the weakening of papal authority perpetrated by John Paul II and nothing new. And, it probably wouldn't fly, given even the weakened Dogmatic Constitution on the Church given at Vatican II. Were I a conspiracy theorist, I might smell an agenda here to destroy the papacy and install goddess democracy.

I disagree with this assessment of Vatican 2's teaching on Collegiality. Collegiality is the patristic and biblical way. It is not about the Pope alone, no matter how good of a shepherd he might be.

I think the author of the article is thinking of what I've often called the "Low Petrine view" in his assessment of Orthodoxy, wherein the head bishop has no real authority outside of his own diocese. I think he does not consider that there is also the "High Petrine" view within Orthodoxy, which has a greater respect for the authority of the head bishop, and this is what collegiality is about. The High Petrine praxis can be observed particularly in the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Russian Orthodox Church. It is not about depriving the head bishop of his proper authority, but about placing him in the proper context of the divinely-instituted College. Just as the head bishop can act as a bulwark for the possible excesses of other bishops, so can his brother bishops act as a bulwark for the possible excesses of the head bishop.

Also, could you link to the statement of HH's statement about giving episcopal conferences more "doctrinal authority?" I suspect you might be misinterpreting or exaggerating the relevance of it. Not even in Holy Orthodoxy is any Church considered to be completely independent on matters of doctrine.

Blessings
Posted By: Pasisozi

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/30/14 12:58 PM

\\Didn't an Orthodox cleric in liberal Finland favor it? Also, there's retired OCA Archbishop Lazar (Puhalo). You're right that it's a fringe movement, if it can be called a movement, in the Orthodox Church: ethnic churches that run themselves through tradition so they're not interested in homosexualism.\\

When did Abp. Lazar say such a thing?
Posted By: Apotheoun

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 03/30/14 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Pasisozi
\\Didn't an Orthodox cleric in liberal Finland favor it? Also, there's retired OCA Archbishop Lazar (Puhalo). You're right that it's a fringe movement, if it can be called a movement, in the Orthodox Church: ethnic churches that run themselves through tradition so they're not interested in homosexualism.\\

When did Abp. Lazar say such a thing?

Doesn't he have a youtube channel?
Posted By: Roman refugee

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 04/02/14 03:21 PM

marducum,

The new collegiality has been proven a disastrous novelty. What if a bishop's conference were to "declare" that, say, divorced and re-married can be allowed Holy Communion in Germany, not permitted in the USA and so on? Then would exist a rupture of unity, one of the essential marks of the true Church. A pope, no matter how reluctant to exercise his authority, will always have supreme authority over any and every member of the Church. This has been the practice since even before the Council of Chalcedon, and was definitely defined by Vatican Council I


Regarding this "doctrinal authority," I will try and find the link where I read this. The idea is obviously an error and could not be implemented. I believe that HH did insinuate this idea at one point while regarding this Synod on the Family, but as you know the Vatican is constantly scrambling to minimize and "explain" the hasty words of this Pope.

The bottom line is that the Pope must retain the supreme authority on matters of faith and morals, and discipline as well. Pope Paul VI himself demonstrated this by promulgating Humanae Vitae solely on his own authority, even though he was all in favor of excess collegiality.

The High Petrine and Low Petrine concepts are not relevant to the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth, in direct apostolic succession from St. Peter, the rock upon whom Christ founded His Church. (In my opinion, which might not be strictly kosher, the Orthodox patriarchs have not lost this genuine succession, despite the state of schism that exists.)

All bishops must be subordinate to the Pope on matters of faith, morals and discipline, except in cases where the pope may promulgate erroneous novelties. The use of Right Reason and reference to the traditional magisterium can easily identify these errors.

Some bishops complain that collegiality has robbed them of the absolute control of their dioceses, since the democratic nature of bishops' conferences tend to a tyranny of the majority. I think it is plain that Vatican II collegiality is a damaging novelty.
Posted By: eastwardlean?

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 04/02/14 05:04 PM



Roman refugee,

I haven't managed to figure out yet how to use the quotation features with any measure of elegance, so I've incorporated quotations from your own post within the body of my response.

Your main argument is that "the new collegiality has been proven a disastrous novelty..." I see two problems with this claim. First, the 'new collegiality' really represents a 'novelty' only against a very recent backdrop of centralization. Second, your worry about differing decisions suggests to me that your expectation for uniformity might be a little anachronistic. Doubtless, not all differences in practice would be tolerable or acceptable to all. But it seems to me equally doubtless that some differences are. In my opinion, your example of differing decisions about admitting divorced and remarried persons to communion as some kind of pastoral provision is a tolerable difference, though I am sure that we could agree on many differences that we would both find to be instances of an intolerable divergence. At any rate, I find it hard to agree that 'the new collegiality has proven to be disastrous' (or anything else) on the basis of a hypothetical example of what some bishops' conference might decide in the future.

Clearly related to your estimation of collegiality--and related to my quibble with it--are your corresponding remarks on papal primacy. I don't understand your claim that the "the High Petrine and Low Petrine concepts are not relevant to the Roman Catholic Church." It seems to me that various accounts of the papal primacy and Petrine ministry are precisely (indeed mostly) relevant to Catholics. I think what you mean to say is that there isn't room for the 'lower' iterations of the primacy within an adequately Catholic account of it. But the center of gravity is clearly no longer ultramontane, and this movement or drift isn't simply evident in revisionists somewhere out on the edges, but in those usually regarded as orthodox, the magisterium, and even in the teaching of the recent popes themselves. Finally, the primacy of the Popes was exercised historically within, for, and through, a communion that was also inescapably collegial and synodal. If a genuinely Catholic view of primacy cannot coexist with multiple structures of regional authority, (which is what it seems to me you are really insisting on), then it would be hard to find it in the ancient church, and the Popes haven't really exercised it for very long.

To be clear, I'm not trying to refute your every concern about potential problems with greater realizations of collegiality, but I do think your total rejection of this tendency is mistaken and untenable.

Caleb
Posted By: mardukm

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 04/07/14 01:32 PM

Dear brother Roman Refugee,

Originally Posted by Roman refugee
The new collegiality has been proven a disastrous novelty.

Regarding this "doctrinal authority," I will try and find the link where I read this. The idea is obviously an error and could not be implemented.

With all due respect, I don't believe you understand what the Church's teaching on collegiality actually is. I will simply repeat what I recently wrote in response to another poster on this matter in CAF:

There are certain Latin Catholics who think that Bishops' Conferences are examples of "collegiality," but they are not, because the true authority in a Bishops' Conference are the individual bishops, not the college as a whole. Only Oriental and Eastern synods, and the Ecum Council (and the College as defined by V2, whether spread throughout the world, or joined together in an Ecum Council) are true examples of the principle of collegiality.

Latin Catholic critics of Bishops' Conferences wrongly criticize the principle of collegiality as the cause of the cavalierism of certain bishops in some countries. Such critics really have little understanding of what collegiality is. These critics claim that Pope Francis' comment about giving episcopal conferences more doctrinal authority will lead to more chaos. On the contrary, the reason that calavierism among certain bishops exists in these countries is precisely BECAUSE Episcopal Conferences have no doctrinal authority over them. Currently, the nature of an episcopal conference designates the individual bishop as the highest authority in the land. THAT is why cavalierism exists in certain Latin Catholic countries (it is NOT because of collegiality). These bishops don't have to answer to any higher authority in their countries. Far from inspiring cavalierism in doctrinal teaching, the principle of collegiality will actually curb it.

I hope that helps.

Blessings
Posted By: Roman refugee

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 04/08/14 06:00 PM

eastwardlean?,

I too have not been successful in the learning the quote format

Regarding the disastrous results of the New Collegiality:

The setting up of episcopal conferences has had two effects: the distortion of the structure of the Church, and the enfeebling of individual bishops. The New Collegiality has encouraged bishops to think that episcopal authority is to be exercised collegially within individual national episcopal conferences. The Vatican II doctrine fails to realize that a new juridical bond of this sort alters the Church's constitution, by replacing the individual bishop with a board of bishops, thus tending to replace individual responsibility with a collective responsibility.

This is why abuses and sacrileges such as Communion in the hand, "altar girls," and lay "Eucharistic ministers" spread to the whole Church. No bishop had the power to stop these things, even though they knew that these things were evil innovations. After all, Archbishop Leferbve stood up and told the truth to power, and see what happened to him?

As to the idea that bishops have authority directly as part of the apostolic body, Vatican I and Vatican II both taught that the pope is the principle and foundation of the unity of the Church, and it is through communion with him that bishops have communion with each other.

It is not possible to base episcopal authority on some common ground upon which pope and bishops are equal, but now with the new ideas of collegiality, the Church has become a "poly-centric" body, the centers being the various national bishops' conferences.

This has weakened each individual bishop's bond of unity with Rome, and has diluted responsibility for and authority in each bishop's diocese, replacing these essentials with a collegial body, in which authority does not rest in any particular member.

Further mixing the subjectivity of synods into this situation, as Pope Francis has "learned" from Orthodox practice, can only splinter the Catholic Church into many sects, like the Protestants, or at best, into a situation similar to Orthodoxy--many divided members with no Head.

I quote: "I think what you mean to say is that there isn't room for the 'lower' iterations of the primacy within an adequately Catholic account of it."

Yes, that is exactly correct. Regardless of the subjective errors of modern times, the objective fact is that the Pope holds supreme and final authority over all members of the Church in all matters of faith, morals and discipline. (I suggest that you read the Varican I document "Pater Aeternus" for a clear explanation of the role of the Pope in the Church.) This will always remain true, even when there are Popes who do not believe it, as the current pope, and however the Church is temporarily distorted by modernist errors such as democratic bishops' conferences, and the like. The Petrine primacy was fiercely defended by St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and all the Eastern Fathers. Certainly Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople would act of their own authority as Patriarchs in the ancient Church, but needed, desired and required the approval of the Bishop of Rome of their actions. When they did not, the cries of "schism" and "heresy" were immediately heard from their own subordinates and from the faithful themselves.

I will grant you that a certain Pope worship exists in the Church today, among both "traditionals" and "Neo-Cathlics," but not in the Ultramontane form that you speak of. Today's Novus Ordo Catholics accept everything the Pope says as "gospel," (except those things that they do not like, such as the ban of contraception,) not understanding the strict limits of papal infallibility. It is unfortunate, in a way, that the great popes who reigned during the 150 years before Vatican II were so strongly orthodox. It conditioned the faithful to obey a pope without question, even to the point of accepting Paul VI's abuse of authority when he promulgated the new mass, forbiding the real Mass, even when Pius V's condemnation of such a possible future action was printed in the front of the Roman Missal before the mid-1960s. No pope has the right to make up a new liturgy, and the actions of Paul VI and his successors in so far as they "forbade" the real Mass have been truly egregious abuse of authority.


One of the errors of Modernism is a constant referral to the "ancient Church," and a desire to return to it. The Deposit of Faith was sealed at the death of the last Apostle, it is true, but many aspects of the Faith that Jesus gave us have been explained and elaborated upon over the years and this is how it should be. The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption (Dormition) of the Blessed Virgin Mary are examples.

You say,"First, the 'new collegiality' really represents a 'novelty' only against a very recent backdrop of centralization. Second, your worry about differing decisions suggests to me that your expectation for uniformity might be a little anachronistic."
This recent backdrop that you speak of is a serious error, and what you call anachronistic represents the Tradition of the Church, which is even more important than Scripture, since the Church existed before the New Testament and not the other way around.

You say " In my opinion, your example of differing decisions about admitting divorced and remarried persons to communion as some kind of pastoral provision is a tolerable difference," Absolutely not! If the Church is not in unity concerning such a matter as the sanctity of the Sacrament of Matrimony, then there would be no one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. But this is the kind of error that the new collegiality and other novelties promulgated since the council that is destroying the faith of the faithful, and the hierarchy is leading this apostasy. What about all those whose spouse left them and who did not "re-marry," seeking to remain faithful Catholics. Will Cardinal Kasper and Pope Francis now tell them that they needn't have bothered?

It would be like saying that the English martyrs who were murdered by Henry VIII were wrong, since the Anglicans are our brothers and part of the Church of Christ that does not happen to "subsist" in the Catholic Church. But this is another grave error of the post conciliar Church, the mistaken notions of "religious liberty."

All this stuff really doesn't belong here. This forum is supposed to be about the Eastern Church. I have tried to answer your questions, which necessitated all this talk about the Roman rite. Maybe, out of respect for others in the forum, we might continue this discussion privately by e-mail, if you wish.

However, if you yourself are an Orthodox Christian, we will never agree on certain things. I maintain and hold to the eternal and traditional magesterium, as taught up to and including the reign of Pius XII, and I reject all novelties that have, often dishonestly, come in the name of the "spirit of Vatican II," and especially the Modernist idea of a "living magesterium" which binds Rome today, and will pass away into the history of error when the Holy Spirit sees fit to restore the authentic teaching of His Church. These errors, mainly, are the novel ideas about collegiality, religious liberty and ecuminism, and these errors are expressed (lex orandi, lex credenti) in the Novus Ordo Missae.

cfburns17@gmail.com

Many happy years,
Charlie



Posted By: Roman refugee

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 04/08/14 07:38 PM

Dear mardukum,

I get what you are saying, about some "superstar" bishops. However, I don't understand any need for bishops' conferences at all. Each bishop has communion with his fellow bishops only through and only in so far as he has communion with the pope. The pope is the principle, the living principle, of unity. Only in this way can a bishop truly reign as sovereign in his diocese. Bishops' conferences rob each individual bishop of his authority. All is done through the conference, based on a two-thirds majority vote. The Church is not a democracy, it is a top down Monarchy, and the very problems that the bishop conferences are causing point out the weakness of democracy.

How can you say that the true authority in the conferences is the individual bishops? It is like saying that the true authority of the US government is the individual voter. Theoretically true, but never so in reality.

Or, do you mean that other more orthodox bishops of the conference could rein in one of the cavalier bishops, who may be out there spreading heresy? Possibly, if they get a two-thirds majority. It seems better to me if the pope would "do his job" and be the one to discipline heterodox bishops. The only true duty of the pope is indeed to protect, defend, and hand on the Deposit of Faith that has come down to us through Jesus and the Apostles. (It is certainly NOT the pope's job to create novelties and to change doctrine and make up novel liturgies. "Who am I to judge," indeed!)

Were I a bishop, I would much rather to be answerable to only the pope of Rome than be controlled by my brother bishops, the conferences often headed by the very superstars that you mention. This rule by committee is the reason that more orthodox bishops were not able to stop abuses in the new mass, Communion in the hand, lay Eucharistic ministers, etc, in their own diocese.

For example, think how much the touching of the sacred Body of Christ by un-consecrated hands weakens the belief of the faithful in transubstantiation. Priests now often talk of the "Real Presence" the same as Protestants do, that is, His Real Presence within the assembly of the "people of God," glossing over the inconvenient truth that Christ actually exists and is present on our altars, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under the "accidental" appearance of bread and wine. I would think that, things being as they are these days, that any individual bishop who dared to declare these truths would soon find himself marginalized in his conference.

Modernist thought cannot deal with the scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas, by which all the Truths of the Church have been taught and understood, until the unfortunate appearance of the "spirit of Vatican II." And because of the tyranny of the conferences, the individual bishop is emasculated to the point of not feeling able to expound correct doctrine in the face of error, as he is now only one member of a ruling committee, and no longer the supreme head of his diocese

I explained in more detail below in reply to "eastwardlean?." I don't know, maybe I am not getting it. But to me, any attempt to introduce "democracy" to the ruling structure of the Church is a mistake.

Regards and many happy years,
RR
Posted By: mardukm

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 04/11/14 05:23 AM

Dear brother Roman Refugee,

Quote
I get what you are saying, about some "superstar" bishops. However, I don't understand any need for bishops' conferences at all. Each bishop has communion with his fellow bishops only through and only in so far as he has communion with the pope.

To be precise, it iis that each bishop has communion with his fellow bishops through membership in the College (i.e., the Pope along with all the other bishops of the College). So the principle of communion you propose is not the full teaching of the Catholic Church.

Quote
The pope is the principle, the living principle, of unity.

The teaching of V1 is that St. Peter is the principle of unity. The Pope of Rome has an obligation to remain united to St. Peter just like any other bishop. (It could even be said the Pope of Rome has an even greater obligation than any other bishop!) St. Peter exercises this role through his successors, the bishop of Rome. But, as even great Saints such as Francis de sales and Robert Bellarmine preached, if the bishop of Rome is found to be tearing down the Church, we as Christians are morally obligated to resist him and his brother bishops to correct him (though formal schism is not an option).

Quote
Only in this way can a bishop truly reign as sovereign in his diocese. Bishops' conferences rob each individual bishop of his authority. All is done through the conference, based on a two-thirds majority vote.

The 2/3 majority vote of episcopal conferences do not have binding force on Latin bishops (unlike that of a Synod in Oriental and Eastern Churches). The decree of an episcopal conference is binding on a particular diocese only if its bishop allows it for his diocese. The reason you might think this is the case is because V2, an Ecum Council, had granted a very concise and unique executive power to episcopal conferences in one, specific area of the liturgy - to determine whether the TLM or NO would become the norm in the country. But apart from that, Latin episcopal conferences generally and normally do not have the same plenary, executive power as Eastern/Oriental Synods on any other matter. So the statement "all is done..." is not a true statement about the episcopal conference.

Quote
The Church is not a democracy, it is a top down Monarchy,

More like a presidency than a monarchy.

Quote
and the very problems that the bishop conferences are causing point out the weakness of democracy.

No evidence has been given of the weakness of the bishops' conferences (unless one counts the fact that they have no authority over individual bishops a weakness). A preference for the Latin Mass is certainly no proof of the weakness of the episcopal conference. The abuses in the Liturgy are not the fault of the episcopal conferences; rather, the abuses that occurred resulted from a contradiction of the standards set by episcopal conferences. The real weakness is the schismatic spirit inspired by the SSPX.

Quote
How can you say that the true authority in the conferences is the individual bishops?

Because it is true. An Ecum Council granted episcopal conferences the authority it now has regarding the Mass. It is a delegated authority, not an inherent one.

Quote
It is like saying that the true authority of the US government is the individual voter. Theoretically true, but never so in reality.

You seem unaware that, aside from a general determination of the standard Liturgy to be used in the country (TLM or NO), and whether the country can have married priests, episcopal conferences ordinarily don't have executive power in any other matter (it may vary from country to country, according to custom).

Quote
Or, do you mean that other more orthodox bishops of the conference could rein in one of the cavalier bishops, who may be out there spreading heresy? Possibly, if they get a two-thirds majority.

On a matter of Church doctrine, why would you need to have a 2/3 vote? The 2/3 vote would be relevant for the type of discipline that must be applied in violation of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. On matters of the Church's doctrine itself, no Episcopal Conference or local Synod has the ultimate authority to judge it (only an Ecum Council or the divinely instituted College has such a prerogative).

Quote
It seems better to me if the pope would "do his job" and be the one to discipline heterodox bishops.

The Pope will be involved if it is a matter of deposition. Otherwise, no (notwithstanding his own Metropolitan and Patriarchal Church).

Quote
The only true duty of the pope is indeed to protect, defend, and hand on the Deposit of Faith that has come down to us through Jesus and the Apostles. (It is certainly NOT the pope's job to create novelties and to change doctrine and make up novel liturgies. "Who am I to judge," indeed!).

That's the duty of the whole divinely-instituted College, not of the Pope alone.

Quote
Were I a bishop, I would much rather to be answerable to only the pope of Rome than be controlled by my brother bishops, the conferences often headed by the very superstars that you mention.

The excesses of the superstars would likewise be curbed by the principle of Collegiality. Just as even the Pope can be corrected by his brother bishops in an Ecum Council, so can even superstar bishops be corrected in the context of the local college of bishops (Episcopal Conference or Synod)

Quote
This rule by committee is the reason that more orthodox bishops were not able to stop abuses in the new mass, Communion in the hand, lay Eucharistic ministers, etc, in their own diocese.

Not true. Those things exist in a diocese only because the local bishop allows them to exist in his diocese, not because the Episcopal Conference has the authority to impose them. Communion in the hand is not an abuse. The Lay Eucharistic ministry in itself is not an abuse - the excessive use of them is (which is what often happens).

Quote
For example, think how much the touching of the sacred Body of Christ by un-consecrated hands weakens the belief of the faithful in transubstantiation.

That's rather stretching it. First, don't confuse Holy Orders with particular consecrated ministries. EMHC's are trained and consecrated for a particular purpose in the Latin Church. That in and of itself is not an abuse - it is their excessive and normative use that is the abuse. Second, ff the consecrated host should not touch an "un-consecrated" body, we should not be having Eucharist at all. In case you are thinking, "if EMHC's did not exist at all, we would not have these abuses," that is a fallacy -- similar to saying, "if the Mass did not exist at all, we would not have these abuses."

Quote
Priests now often talk of the "Real Presence" the same as Protestants do, that is, His Real Presence within the assembly of the "people of God," glossing over the inconvenient truth that Christ actually exists and is present on our altars, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under the "accidental" appearance of bread and wine.

Not relevant, unless:
(1) these priests are overtly denying the Real Presence in the Eucharist;
(2) you are claiming that the seminaries are actually teaching what is contrary to the Church's doctrine (if so, prove it).

Quote
I would think that, things being as they are these days, that any individual bishop who dared to declare these truths would soon find himself marginalized in his conference.

Which supports the principle of collegiality.

Quote
Modernist thought cannot deal with the scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas, by which all the Truths of the Church have been taught and understood, until the unfortunate appearance of the "spirit of Vatican II."

Where did V2 teach something contrary to St. Thomas Aquinas? Please cite the exact place.

Quote
And because of the tyranny of the conferences, the individual bishop is emasculated to the point of not feeling able to expound correct doctrine in the face of error, as he is now only one member of a ruling committee, and no longer the supreme head of his diocese.

That's not an exact assessment of the situation. The bishops are the supreme head of their diocese. The NO exists because most of the bishops wanted it there. The bishop has always had the authority to allow the TLM at particular places and particular times within his diocese- it is simply that the NO has remained the norm. But because of the schism of the SSPX, desire for the TLM eventually became equated with the spirit of schism. That is not the fault of the Catholic bishops or Episcopal Conferences, but of the SSPX. On a separate note, the abuses of the NO exist because of individual pastors of parishes, not because of the bishops. This highlights the active role of the laity in the life of the Church. It is their job, if their parish pastor is abusing the proper rubrics for the NO, to inform the bishop, so appropriate action may be taken. But extremists, instead of pleading for the proper rubrics, instead want to get rid of the Church's NO altogether. Neither is that the fault of the bishops or the Episcopal Conferences, but of a schismatic spirit (that desires to completely replace the NO, contrary to the decision of the individual bishops and the Episcopal Conference, besides) that needs to be humbly removed by the Traditionalists from among their ranks.

I don't know if you are a member of the SSPX or some other schismatic group, or a Traditionalist Catholic, but the idea of blaming the NO itself, or the Episcopal Conferences, for the abuses that have occurred is a wrongheaded approach to this matter, and cannot be seen by a local bishop as anything more than a schismatic spirit.

Quote
But to me, any attempt to introduce "democracy" to the ruling structure of the Church is a mistake.

The mistake would be stating that Collegiality is "democracy." The principle of democracy can introduce novelty if the majority demands it. The principle of Collegiatlity (a principle established by Christ Himself), contrary to the democatic principle, is for the purpose of preserving the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Blessings
Posted By: Roman refugee

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 04/23/14 06:49 PM

ok mardukm, have it your way. Be a part of the new one world pan-catholic church, if that is what you want. You just want to fight with me, and that sort of thing is detrimental to Faith.

Moderator, please note mardukm's disparagement of the SSPX, a completely legal order of priests in Communion with the Holy See.

The NO, by its very nature, is detrimental to the faith of a Catholic. It is the "mass" of Thomas Cranmer, and attacks the sacred priesthood, transubstantiation and the notion of the Mass as a sacrifice for sins, while giving the impression that the "people of God" need to be present for a Mass to be of any worth.

I will pray that you can overcome your modernism and your Americanism, but I will no longer discuss issues with one who casts aspersions on those who live by the Eternal Magesterium and not by the novelties of the "pastoral" council.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: What Not to Learn from Eastern Orthodoxy - 04/23/14 08:39 PM

Dear Roman refugee,

Yes, the Roman Church is one big disaster on a number of fronts . . .

(Is the SSPX a legal order of priests in union with Rome? Since when did that happen? I thought talks with Rome broke down and even though they have valid sacraments, Catholics are not allowed to attend their Masses . . .).

But Marduk is no modernist. Does everyone who disagrees with you or me have to be a modernist or something like that?

Can't we engage in conversation without disparaging one another?

Let me understand your position here. You are against episcopal collegiality and wish to return to a more centralized ecclesial authority emanating from Rome. But, at the same time, you reject the "pastoral council" even though it was approved by Rome?

So who is being modernist here?

Ale
© 2020 The Byzantine Forum