www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Any writings that answer Orthodox polemicists concerning Rome?

I can't help but feel like I'm starting to sympathize with these folks. When I look at the history of the Roman Church I see a Mass that no one could follow, I see clericalization, I see an odd focus on suffering, I see a split between theology and private devotion, I see pietism and moralism, and I can't help but spaz out a bit. That's why I'm asking for some materials that don't just either 1) deal with the Papacy or the Filioque and 2) don't just pull a reverse-polemic sort of triumphalism. Because I really do not get how all this happened. Right now it's my belief in the Papacy keeping me here, and my personal feeling that Catholicism is more (c)atholic. But even the spirituality of the East works so much better for me.

On that note, has anyone noticed that Rome seems to be Hellenizing, at least at the upper levels?

Sorry can't help you with resources. But I can sympathize perhaps at your frustrations.
For me it's not the papacy that's keeping me here, but rather there's no place else to go.
1) Did the Protestant thing for several years and I found their constant splitting, multiple variations on theology, no clear authority
2) the local Orthodox parish has so much negative / polemical anti-Catholic drivel on its website that I couldn't stand to be at yet another place that lacks so much charity

We that were raised in the RC here in the US know so little of the truth about the Catholic church because the US is a Protestant country and we confuse Protestant ideology and theology with Catholic theology. We are taught in school that the Reformation was a political and error-correcting movement. And it was but they didn't teach us about the radical changes in theology that also occurred. We RC are also embattled by some of the Orthodox because they paint a caricature of us as ONLY legalistic and scholastic.

I'm not, like, a master strategist or anything, but if my church conducted liturgy behind a curtain and a wall, with large portions inaudibly, such that our liturgy even included bits where the priest actually comes out to say "hey everybody, pay attention to this next part" I guess I'd feel kind of silly criticising how well the laity of some other church could follow their own liturgy.

Have you checked the Catholic Answers website for some apologetics information? www.catholic.com [catholic.com]

It might be helpful. I have not checked it for that particular information myself.

I would *personally* avoid the Catholic Answers website. Having said that, rather than seeking out 'polemics', it would probably be more worthwhile reading theological and spiritual works that reflect the mind of the Church.

So, for example, you might read Josef Ratzinger's 'The Spirit of the Liturgy', which contemplates the Liturgy along lines not inconsistent with Schmemann's 'For the Life of the World'. What I mean is: while Schmemann appeals for his mystical elucidation of the actions of the Church in the Liturgy, so does Ratzinger. Yet few (if any) Orthodox would read the latter.

And of course, many Latin medieval mystics are hardly distinguishable for their musings on the Holy from their Eastern counterparts. Yet, considering they are all part of the repository of faith, they hardly get a look-in when one side is criticising the other for being too scholastic (or whatever).

You might consider James Likoudis' webpage at http://credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm

Personally I have never found Mr. Likoudis' apologetics compelling. The biggest difference between the two churches stems from the role of the bishop of Rome. I think that historically Orthodoxy has the better case in this instance. For an interesting give and take on this topic this debate might be a good place to start:

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/

I like to refute Orthodox polemicists with Orthodox scholars. Meyendorff is always very even-handed, as is Metropolitan John of Pergamon, Olivier Clement, David Bentley Hart, Metropolitan Kallistos of Deiocleia and many others. I usually refute Catholic polemicists with Catholic scholars. I don't refute one set of polemicists (Romanedians, for instance) with another polemicist (Jim Likoudis, for instance).

We ought to be past the point of polemics and entering into an era of ecumenical scholarship.

Well stated. Many would actually be surprised that the rabid, self congratulating type of polemicists are typically not the type of men and women training our future priests in our Universities or Seminaries be we Orthodox or Catholic. Sadly there are exceptions and when the day comes for our churches to reunite, i am sure that the descendants of that sorry bunch will start their own schism anew. Such is the way of men - not the Lord. And, for the record, Cardinal Ratzinger's works have far more 'street cred' in the academic circles of Orthodoxy than most of you would expect. Scholars could solve the gap between us rapidly if given the chance, it is the loud mouths, i.e. the polemicists and apologists who stand in the way as they have been propagandizing our faithful for centuries. Fear is tough to counter with truth. Doesn't mean you have to stop trying tough. Christ is Risen!

Good description.



Amen.

Unfortunately due to groups such as catholic answers the ecumenical progress made at scholarly level trickle very slowly (if they trickle at all) down to the laity.

Well, I wasn't aware of the whole curtain thing LOL.

Excuse me though, my faith is really weak right now, the Roman parishes near me kind of stink, and for some reason no matter how hard I try I cannot for the life of me settle in to Roman theology and spirituality. Historical issues only make it worse, but doubts are likely to spring up in an atmosphere like my mind's, being as it is that when try to be Roman I feel like I'm running full speed against a brick wall whereas everything just flows when I try out Byzantine traditions. I sometimes get the feeling that God hasn't given me the grace to be Roman, and I find it funny that the priest at the Byzantine parish nearby pretty much suggested the same thing. "A spirituality is a grace from God. It's not like setting out to build a house, where you lay out your plans and gather your materials and just do it." The problem I'm having is that, now that I've been called East, I'm coming across all these differences and ecumenical issues and I'm getting really confused. Like I said, "Orthodox" spirituality works so much better for me that I feel like alarm bells are going off. It's hard not to question why. I'm just vulnerable right now. I notice things like the wave of Charismatic revival that hit the Western forms of Christianity and it makes me wonder about pneumatology, then the Filioque, and how that all plays into personal spirituality, Church unity, and the Papacy. I mean, it's a valid question, asking what practical effects things like different pneumatological views. Do you guys know where I can find top-level ecumenical documents about the Filioque and the Papacy and such? I've seen quotes from some on here before, but I don't remember the names. And of course books, definitely good scholarly books. Like you guys say, the polemics online are annoying. It's like Youtube: Ancient Christian Edition!

But yeah, I don't get why there are differences like focusing on the Passion vs the Resurrection and stuff. It just seems like Roman spirituality takes the "darker" path. No blasphemy intended, but yeah I just don't get it.

I should probably add that I definitely see that Vatican II was trying to fix a lot of this stuff. It seems the council called for a revival of aspects that had become overshadowed over time, like Patristics, Biblical theology, the role of the laity, the Holy Spirit in the Church, etc. etc. I find it interesting the the Ressourcement school of theology, which had a big part in VII, was focused on Patristics and thought the Fathers were more understandable to modern man. Here's one modern man who agrees! although I don't hate it, scholastically phrased theology gets my head in knots. But that might be a reason why the East is doing better after VII than the West, because we were already on board with the things they wanted to "reintroduce". The West seemed to have undercurrents that blasted off in different directions after the Council and no one - not even the Reform of the Reform Trads - are really pulling off this whole Bibliopatristic thing. It seems confined to the upper hierarchy right now.

You don't say? And how's the water around there? Wet, I presume.


I know this forum is maybe not the place to be flippant about the state of Roman Catholicism at the parish level, and I know everybody here's really big about 'running to the East' instead of 'running away from the West'. Well, I've run from the West.

I don't know that I plan on switching rites (yes, yes blah blah sui juris.. canonical enrollment) and I don't really know what people mean when they talk about being "called" here or there, but I'm benefiting immensely from my Ukie parish. Because as much as I see that there are busloads of politics involved in Slavic Christianity too, I don't personally care about any of it, and I like it that way.

So, speaking as one also gravely disturbed by the state of my own beloved Roman rite, I can tell you that going to an Eastern parish for a couple of years now, I have found that what I do now on Sunday is pray. To the extent that you can forget about the rest, I really, really recommend it. If you can set aside the disturbing questions for a while, I would. You can always go back to them later. They'll keep.

[quote=JDC][quote=HeavenlyBlack]the Roman parishes near me kind of stink [/quote]

You don't say? And how's the water around there? Wet, I presume.
;)

I know this forum is maybe not the place to be flippant about the state of Roman Catholicism at the parish level, and I know everybody here's really big about 'running to the East' instead of 'running away from the West'. Well, I've run from the West.

I don't know that I plan on switching rites (yes, yes blah blah sui juris.. canonical enrollment) and I don't really know what people mean when they talk about being "called" here or there, but I'm benefiting immensely from my Ukie parish. Because as much as I see that there are busloads of politics involved in Slavic Christianity too, I don't personally care about any of it, and I like it that way.

So, speaking as one also gravely disturbed by the state of my own beloved Roman rite, I can tell you that going to an Eastern parish for a couple of years now, I have found that what I do now on Sunday is pray. To the extent that you can forget about the rest, I really, really recommend it. If you can set aside the disturbing questions for a while, I would. You can always go back to them later. They'll keep.[/quote]

Truly I'm doing both. It seems I only understand the West when I look at it from the East, as strange as that might seem. Then again, my life in Christ has always been a bit strange. I'm a bit strange! Haha. But you say you don't know what other people mean when they talk about a calling... for me it was just that when I was Roman I was looking at everything in a more typically Eastern way to begin with, so traditional Latin teaching and spirituality just didn't make much sense to me. The language, the flavor, the path it walked was stony for me when it would be smooth to others. So I had prayed to St. Therese for roses as a sign that I should go Byzantine. What I got was a rose garden at a park nearby that I had totally forgotten was there! And a couple of other things. But I fought the call for a few months and let me tell you those were some of the worst months in my life --- I felt like I had been abandoned by God and thrown to the devils by my disobedience. Now that I'm finally doing what I was supposed to do my life is getting better again.