www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Traditionalist RC Periodical Blasts Orthodoxy

Glory to Jesus Christ!

In the Fall 2002 issue of �The Latin Mass,� a complimentary copy of which I received in the mail, there appeared a review (of sorts) of the new abridged edition of V. Solovyev�s �Russia and the Universal Church� (tellingly renamed �The Russian Church and the Papacy�). The review was written by H.W. Crocker III, author most recently of �Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church.�

I know we have broached the subject of Solovyev�s thought concerning Rome and Orthodoxy before. Whatever his virtues as a philosopher � and there are many � I think he was fundamentally misguided in his estimation of Orthodoxy�s relationship to the world and was certainly not a very good Church historian.

Be that as it may, what concerns me here is the book review that appeared in this traditionalist RC magazine. I wanted to share some excerpts with you and ask, particularly of those more traditionalist-leaning RCs that lurk on this board, for thoughts on how widespread this (so-called) conception of Orthodoxy is among both traditionalist RCs and RCs in general. Does any of this sound familiar or believable? Is Crocker a well-respected journalist / historian / apologist? Is this to be dismissed as foolishness, the stuff of fanatics and fundamentalists?

Crocker writes:

�As Newman might have said, but didn�t, �To be deep in history is to realize that the Eastern Orthodox are crazy.� They are now, they were then, and they always have been.�

�Wherever you find Eastern Orthodox, there you will find people who live not by the words of Jesus � �forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who trespass against,� words admirably embodied by Pope John Paull II � but by the grudge and the �narcissism of small differences,� to use Freud�s apposite phase (sic). In their surly defensiveness, hatred, and envy of the West, the Eastern Orthodox are the Islamicists of the Christian world. The West offers the the hand of friendship, the East responds with intemperance, abuse, and fear.�

�For readers who are dyspeptic, antiquarian, nationalist, cranky, bearded fanatics, it [Solovyev�s book] might even offer inspiration to join the Eastern Orthodox. But if you, like me, yearn for the Sack of Byzantium to become a feast day of the Church, and feel wistful when you muse on that one brief moment when there was a French-speaking Catholic Crusader kingdom there, this book will be a pleasure and confirmation.�

Seems to me that Mr. Crocker is guilty of exactly that of which he accuses the Orthodox: a severe lack of charity.

In Christ,
Theophilos

While 'The Latin Mass' is generally a pretty respected Traditionalist publication, I would point out that some things do get by that shouldn't.

Speaking as a very Conservative RC,I concur it was uncharitable and unworthy of a Christian.

I generally go for sticking this type of article in the 'That Person doesn't Have a Clue' bucket.

Pray for those people, that they may be enlightened, (and soon, as that bucket is getting fuller everyday )

God's Peace to all,

Brendan

The sack of Byzantium comment is vile and disgusting. These evil comments stretch one's capacity to forgive and forget.

S Bogom -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Food for Thought:

By all standards of logic Crocker must apply what he has written to those of us who are Byzantine Catholics. I have substituted the words �Byzantine Catholic� for the words �Eastern Orthodox� in the excerpts quoted by Theophilos to demonstrate Crocker�s utter lack of understanding of the Christian East:

�As Newman might have said, but didn�t, �To be deep in history is to realize that the Byzantine Catholics are crazy.� They are now, they were then, and they always have been.�

�Wherever you find Byzantine Catholics, there you will find people who live not by the words of Jesus � �forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who trespass against,� words admirably embodied by Pope John Paull II � but by the grudge and the �narcissism of small differences,� to use Freud�s apposite phase (sic). In their surly defensiveness, hatred, and envy of the West, the Byzantine Catholics are the Islamicists of the Christian world. The West offers the the hand of friendship, the East responds with intemperance, abuse, and fear.�

�For readers who are dyspeptic, antiquarian, nationalist, cranky, bearded fanatics, it [Solovyev�s book] might even offer inspiration to join the Byzantine Catholic. But if you, like me, yearn for the Sack of Byzantium to become a feast day of the Church, and feel wistful when you muse on that one brief moment when there was a French-speaking Catholic Crusader kingdom there, this book will be a pleasure and confirmation.�

Does that make Solovyev a self-hating Greek Catholic?

In Christ,
Theophilos

No. But I think you were correct when you stated that "he was fundamentally misguided in his estimation of Orthodoxy�s relationship to the world and was certainly not a very good Church historian."

Dear Friends,

Well, I think that the placement of "Byzantine Catholic" for "Orthodox" in those statements is NOT the same thing, but I don't want to push any (more) envelopes here .

The traditionalist RC stand is basically the same as the traditionalist Orthodox stand - outside the true Church there is only darkness etc.

Neither side, which is NOT synonymous with mainstream Catholicism or Orthodoxy, lest any misunderstand me, has a developed ecumenical ecclesiology that is tolerant enough to see a hierarchy of apostolic values that runs through the length and breadth of all denominations within Christendom.

And the view that the Church of Christ is SYNONYMOUS with the Roman Church is heretical even from an RC perspective.

Personally, I would rather leave such "traditionalists" alone to their "traditions."

Alex

Dear Theophilos:

A spirited "defense" of one's chosen Church has been observed by many, including members of this Forum, to be typical of converts, like Mr. Crocker, who converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

His views do not represent "mainline" Catholicism.

Touted by the publisher of his new book
"Triumph: The Power And The Glory Of The Catholic Church" as a former speech writer for the Governor of California (not specified) and an editor of a publishing company, Mr. Crocker might have written that review of Soloviev's book (reprint) in behalf of the traditionalist magazine "The Latin Mass" as a marketing tool.

AmdG

Although I disagree with your assessment of Soloviev, I must wholeheartedly agree that Crocker's commentary was beyond the pale. The crack on the sack of Constantinople was particularly eggregious. Uncharitable hardly begins to describe it.

As another has said, perhaps the fact that Crocker is a convert has brought about this kind of nonsense. Odd though, usually such a strident attitude comes from those converts of fundamentalism. At any rate, this Latin Catholic takes great issue with Crocker's article -- as would Pope John Paul II, I'm sure.

God bless.

Well, that's nothing if compared with this thing I saw in the "traditio" site.

Eastern Orthodox Schismatics Prevent Restoration of Traditional Latin Mass

This is a BIG revelation that explains a lot. According to a Zenit News Agency story, the pope in a speech on May 24 in Bulgaria praised "diversity" with respect to the Eastern Schismatics. The reason the pope resists the general use of the Traditional Latin Mass is that it obstructs "dialog" with the Eastern Schismatics.

The post-Vatican II popes have particularly fixated on compromising with the Eastern Orthodox Schismatics. Those popes have been more than willing to sell out the Roman Catholic Faith; it is the Eastern Schismatics who have been dragging their feet on the pope's sweetheart deal.

Whereas the Vatican is willing to sell out the true Roman Catholic Faith, the Eastern Orthodox are virulently anti-Roman. The current persecution of Catholics in Russia is just one example of this hostility. I have seen anti-Catholic vitriol from the Eastern Schismatics that makes Fundamentalist Bob Jones look like a pussycat!

This "unity in diversity" ploy was used by the Modernists of the 19th century to undercut the praestantia ritus Romani, the pre-eminence of the Roman Rite, the Rite of Sts. Peter & Paul, in the Roman Catholic Church. That ploy has lead to the terrible liturgical, doctrinal, and moral relativism that we have suffered in the post-Vatican II period.

That ploy has also led to the deconstructing notion of "inculturation," palmed off by Vatican II. "Inculturation" means that if you're an African Catholic, it makes sense for you to include the sacrificing of chickens at Mass. I kid you not. A "Catholic" archbishop of Africa seriously proposed this because certain African communities were used to animal sacrifice in religious worship. They wanted real blood, not wine transubstantiated into the Precious Blood. This, of course, is blasphemy and heresy of the worst kind.

To the Eastern Orthodox Schismatics, the Traditional Roman Rite is despicable. It stands for true Catholic and Apostolic orthodoxy and orthopraxis against the schism and heresy of Eastern Orthodoxy. Its nearly universal use in centuries past was a slap in the face to Eastern Schismastics, who are virulently anti-Roman. No wonder the pope is willing to sell the Traditional Roman Rite out in order to please his new friends, the Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Schismatics!

It is incredible how ignorant they are, they have no idea about what the orthodox would think in this case. I do think that the restoration of the Traditional Mass would be a great Ecumenical step toward unity with the Orthodox Church.

Why is this becoming a "Well I can show you something even more disgusting" contest?

ChristTeen287

It is clear that Mr. Crocker does not know the position of his pontiff or his Church with regards to her position regarding the Christian East. Orientalium Dignitas, Orientale Lumen, Ut Unum Sint, several documents from Vatican II, amongst others, all just got chucked out the window by Mr. Crocker.

If we were to take Mr. Crocker's position we would have to rip out one of those two lungs that the Holy Father so eloquently explained the Church needs to breathe with.

I can't stomach his unbelievably short-sighted and contorted view of history, either. It is certain 1054 would not be nearly as significant without 1204. This is truly offensive to both Orthodox and Eastern Catholics.

This line of polemic sadly occasionally finds its way in the traditionalist literature, but usually more so with the schismatic groups like the SSPX. This is sad proof that "praestantia ritus Latinae" is alive and well in some circles.

Poor Mr. Crocker the IIIrd. If someone wants to be a conservative, it is necessary to be very well informed. Ignorance and conservatism do not fit well together, and the one will discredit the other.

Gross ignorance gives way to bigotry. There can be no other label for this kind of offensive drivel.

I agree with all that the comments on the sack of Constantinople are vile and actually quite bizarre. On the other hand I am not unsympathetic to the idea that there is within Orhtodoxy a streak of Romophobia; Mr. Crocker helps to remind me that this is a two-way street. I also have to admit that I love his use of Freud's phrase, "the narcissism of small differences", for describing some of the theological hair-splitting that keeps us apart.

I agree with Alex that the sense of substituting Byzantine Catholic for Orthodox in the quotation totally escapes me. Indeed, I would imagine that Mr. Crocker might see Byzantine Catholicism as Eastern practice and theology, i.e., oOrthodoxy, with openess to the hand of friendship, forgiveness, and grudge-burying, raised to the finest art. But maybe not.

Not based on the actions of its leading proponents.

Axios