www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Death/Immaculate Conception

Dear Anna of Constantinople,

Don't worry about getting under Andrew's skin.

I've been under there for a while.

Plenty of room for more!

Alex

As a newcomer to this forum, I thought you might be interested in my first impressions...
I was quite excited when I first stumbled across the Byzantine Forum, but after reading a number of discussions and participating in a few my reaction is closer to distress.I see too much petty squabbling and too little reasoned and courteous conversation. There is way too much knee-jerk anti-westernism. I mean really, some of you act like praying the rosary before Divine Liturgy is some great sin or something. It is prayer, people, a very beautiful prayer. If the Church is to "breath with both lungs" what is wrong with the East being enriched by certain Western practices? Do you think it only a one way street? Or are we too assume that East is good and West is bad?
I really think that if Easterners were secure in their identity that such things would not be such a threat. I understand that a lot of this attitude comes from a reaction against the Latinizations of the past [which to be fair were too often more than willingly embraced] but is not such reaction a sign of weakness? I mean Western Christians are not threatened by enriching their faith with "eastern" things like icons and the Jesus prayer. I came to the Byzantine Church precisely through such things. I doubt very much if I would have come through the Byzantine Forum. A lot of the tone of the conversation here is simply scandalous [I am not referring exclusively to the Eastern members, by the way. "Pax Tecum" is, I assume, an ironic name]. On this branch of the Forum Francis made what I thought a reasoned, temperate attempt to reconcile certain Eastern theological ideas with what is, after all, defined Catholic dogma. One can argue with his attempts but to react by threatening him with expulsion strikes me as unedifying and an abuse of authority. If you want this forum to be an in-house anti-Roman conversation then state it clearly and I'm out of here. Your fathers in the Faith suffered for their Catholic faith; if you think them fools then state that clearly too, and again I'm out of here.
Again, I am new; forgive me if I speak too harshly. I thought it might help you all to know what kind of first impression you are making...
-Daniel, a sinner

Dear Daniel,

Thank you for a thoughtful post!

You raised a number of important points.

Your point on breathing with two lungs and the adoption of Western practices in the East is an ongoing discussion here.

Yes, a number of our parishes have certain Western devotions that resulted not from a voluntary acceptance of them, but by Latinization.

And "Latinization" is a loaded term.

There is the Latinization that was imposed in the past by certain individuals and due to circumstances (ie. social pressures).

We know that NONE of the Latinizations that we, as Eastern Catholics have, came from Rome. They came from our Roman Catholic neighbours, in Europe as well as in North America.

And our ancestors were also to blame as they suffered from "second-class" Catholic citizenship mentality and so measured everything in our Church by the standard of Latin devotionals etc.

The Rosary, as we know it, is not only widespread in the Eastern Catholic Churches, but is also a popular monastic devotion, in a different form of course, on Mount Athos in Greece and in Russia among the Orthodox.

Saint Seraphim of Sarov, who is being especially celebrated this year on the 100th anniversary of his glorification as a saint, said and promoted the "Rule of the MOther of God" as did St Seraphim Zvezdinsky, shot by the Bolsheviks in 1937.

We have had the Rosary for centuries, probably longer than the West.

But it is a private devotion and should not be said publicly in Church. To do otherwise is to not be faithful to the liturgical traditions of our Church - and that is something that Vatican II and the Holy Father have asked us to do.

A number of our parishes have a way to go yet before becoming fully immersed in their own legitimate liturgical traditions.

But every Eastern Christian, said Fr. Seraphim, should say the Rule of Our Lady (your "Rosary") every day.

Also, we may borrow from any of the traditions of the various Catholic Churches, but we are also called to remain faithful to our own liturgical tradition in the first instance.

The Jesus Prayer is a tradition that is also part of the Latin Catholic Church. And it, too, is not a "liturgical" prayer but a private prayer that can, and should, be said at all times.

Icons are also venerated in the West, along with statues, and at one time the West preferred icons rather than statues.

Sometimes when the West "borrowed" from the East, it was merely returning to a tradition of the once united Catholic Church of Christ, East, West, North and South.

If we are sensitive about our traditions, that is part of the baggage of our "uniate" past, of being a religious cultural minority etc. I notice a similar sensitivity among Roman Catholic converts to Orthodoxy, e.g. in the Antiochian Orthodox Church's Western Rites.

I know discussions can get heated here, and I know I can get out of hand.

But there have been Latin traditionalists here who've come with quite offensive remarks about the Eastern Churches all told. What is more, as some other Latin posters have privately e-mailed me to say, these Latin traditionalists would not be tolerated in most other Catholic circles and would be regarded as "fruit-cakes" at best.

Certainly, I've never before had any problems discussing East-West issues with my Roman Catholic friends in university and at work.

Your point on accepting "defined dogma" is something that some Latin traditionalists also insist upon.

In response, I would just like to say that some Latins don't always accurately differentiate between what is "defined dogma" and what is a Particular Latin theological perspective, valid for the Latin Church, but not for other Catholics Churches in communion with Rome.

The discussion on Purgatory is one example. Some Latins, such as PoxTecum, seem to be saying that they know everything there is to know about the Eastern Church, and yet are either ignorant of, willfully or otherwise, of what was "defined" by Rome for the Greeks at Florence.

In the end, PoxTecum asserted a number of points about Purgatory that he said were "defined dogma" and yet Rome never made the Eastern Churches agree to.

It seems as if we are dealing with TWO Roman Catholic Churches here - one that is what Latin traditionalists would like it to be and another that is presented in Vatican II, the attitudes of Rome toward the Orthodox and the example set by His Holiness Pope John Paul II in this regard.

The East has its traditionalists too - they cannot separate small "t" traditions from the big "T" Tradition of the Church. That is what I see happening among some Latin triumphalists who post here.

That is not being anti-Latin, and I've been e-mailed by other Latin Catholics who wonder why the Administrator here hadn't ejected them from here long ago.

I myself respect the Tridentine tradition and respect traditionalists in general.

I can't see how one can be a Catholic without being in favour of tradition, both small and big "T."

But we have the right to defend our legitimate Catholic patrimonies as Eastern Catholics.

It is not anti-Latin to do so.

And if Latin traditionalists want to continue to old policy of measuring us by their own Latin standards - that some of them are incapable of distinguishing from what is really required by Catholic faith - then they are the ones who are really being "anti-Catholic" since they deny Church teaching on the Eastern Churches and go against the will of the Holy Father toward the East.

The thing is that I was once very much like PoxTecum and others here.

To my regret, I was against the Eastern Churches in general.

I hated the Orthodox Church for what it did, willfully or not, to the Ukrainian Church in 1946.

But the more I delved into these matters, the more I saw how much I was wrong.

It is Rome itself and the Holy Father who are urging us to become fully "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

My old parish priest was, in every which way, "Orthodox" and yet he was loyal to Rome and even received a papal honour for his work to renew our Eastern traditions - and this despite the fact that some of his own parishioners viciously attacked him for being "unCatholic" all his life.

To wake up to the reality of the Eastern Catholic Churches can be a shock indeed.

To wake up to the fact that they are not just Roman Catholics who follow different outward rituals is a further shock.

But I've been told once too often here by Latins that I need not explain our traditions to them because they know all about them.

And yet they give no indication in their discourse that they have a bare inkling about them - or about what their own Particular Latin Catholic Church truly believes about us.

We have the same Catholic faith. But in our approach to it, the East and West could NOT be farther apart.

We are direct opposites in terms of what our different spiritual cultures emphasize in matters of faith and liturgy.

And yet this type of diversity is what we are called to deepen. And in so doing, we deepen true unity among all Christians.

Alex

Dear Alex,

I'm not sorry if I've disillusioned you regarding the beliefs permissible within the Orthodox Church. I think that you would agree that it is better to know the truth and be free than to live under a misconception about the Orthodox Church.

Probably searching the official publications (printed or on the net) of the major Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions will help "to put the nail in the coffin" that what I state (regarding the variety of permissible beliefs) is true.

Indeed, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocesan site does not include any mention of the Dormition at all in its discussion of Church Tradition (capital "T").

Of course, any discussion of Church tradition (lower case "t") would necessarily discuss the several major and diverse teachings regarding her death and its aftermath.

Rest assured, in all of my time participating in this esteemed forum, I've only felt offended once. I handled that through private correspondence.

I apologize to you and any other participants who feel offended by my posts highlighting permissible Eastern Orthodox teachings.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Alex, that was a great post - - - congrats. Eastern traditions need to be restored ASAP.

One eency weency little thing, if you don't mind...

The Church is not divided against herself. Remember, a house divided against itself cannot and will not stand.

Logos Teen

Alex-
Thanks for a thoughtful post. I agree with most of what you said. Certainly there are a lot of Latin Catholics who cannot distinguish between what is essential and what is accidental in dogma- witness the discussion on Purgatory elsewhere on the Forum. However, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are infallibly defined dogmas and Francis' attempt to wrestle a reconciliation between East and West on the issue ought to have been more respectfully treated. The Easterner may not be comfortable with the way the West has insisted on defining things but if a Catholic he must take the essential truths being stated with some seriousness. I have, as I said, not been around long and this all may have been covered before but I sense a willingness to view all Latins as confrontational when in fact they may possess good will, as I believe Francis does...
Please be aware that you never know who may be listening to our conversation. I have a friend in south Alabama, a convert to Roman Catholicism. He has never attended the glorious Byzantine liturgy, in fact lives two hundred or so miles from the nearest Eastern liturgy. His only contact with Eastern Christians has been online and what he has seen has not been at all attractive, to say the least.
Perhaps it is true that recitatiion of the rosary before the liturgy is contrary to Eastern custom. I am only saying that if this is your main complaint about your parish, that people are praying in a non-traditional manner before liturgy, then you don't have it so bad. Would you rather they were hanging around gossiping?
I confess to not being a purist; my spiritual formation was in the Western church and I see no reason to reject the saints who have been my friends for so long or ways of prayer that have sustained me, all the while growing in the new things I am discovering. In my parish some people do pray the rosary before liturgy. I don't join them, as for some reason corporate recitation has always left me cold- private meditation is a different matter- but I can't criticize them either: we are blessed with a beautiful temple and a priest who one senses lives for the liturgy and is an excellent preacher [and something of an Eastern purist].
As I said, one must have some perspective on these things.
Again, thanks for the thoughtful post; I half expected to get skewered...

Wel, I agree on this. The East has enriched my understanding on the points of my Catholic Faith. The East and West has different traditions and I think this boundary should be overcome so that we can discuss things.

ruel

Alex,

i think Father Thomas awhile back asserted that Orthodoxy does indeed believe that the Theotokos was taken up bodily into heaven after her death. It is not a theological opinion as with Toll Houses for example. I would tend to believe a priest of his knowledge if i were you! I know this is what I was instructed in my Catechetical class.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

No!
Sounds like it's time to introduce Matins!
Why, you are a great poster.

Intelligent, respectful and very open. Your opinion is understandable, everyone knows where you are coming from and will respect it.

I am sorry if I seem to butt in here, but my formation was Latin too, and I had a difficult time at first discerning what the problem was with those earlier posts from Francis. So I see where you are coming from.

But the Administrator and Alex are right on this. One cannot rewrite anothers spirituality for them and expect them to just say "gee, you're right!".

That would be like saying to a Latin "you don't really believe in the stain of Original Sin and I'll show you why" and then rephrase everything they have been taught in words with two senses and call it equivelant to something else and say "see? you really think the Greek way, you just didn't know it!". Try that on some other Catholic board and they will smash you like a bug, they will come at you in legions!

I know that's a poor example but I was trying to explain how arrogant it can sound while so innocent in intent.

Protestants are always accusing Catholics of being Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians and we are not. If you have ever engaged in apologetics you know how frustrating it can be to have someone put words in your mouth, build up a straw man, and then knock you down over it.

I think that the best approach for a budding amateur theologian would be to come here with questions, listen respectfully and post ones theories somewhere else, like on a BLOG or something. As theory it might make interesting reading for someone outside the forum and evolve into something worthwhile.

I respect that because people will not automatically understand what you are trying to say and somtimes you have to be creative in your explanation. We often note that the well known apologists like Scott Hahn and Tim Staples never even give a mention about the eastern Catholic Churches but they cannot really bring it up without confusing some people, but if one wants to explain Catholicism in all it's fullness you are going to have to address it at least superficially.

I am sometimes asked to explain eastern thought in terms others can understand, it's hard because I am not qualified to do so and in a conversation with mixed theological perspectives everyone wants to understand everyone else and you cannot automatically expect that to happen. You say something technically correct and they presume you mean something else. People persist in their questions and your answer comes out half baked, it's pretty frustrating.

Like if you met someone that's totally ignorant and you need to explain what a wrench is, so you tell them it's a tool to pry mechanical parts loose and tighten them up again and they walk away thinking of a plier. You can't blame them, it's the best they can do with a poor explanation. When they come on some board to start an argument that wrenches are pliers and you all are lucky because I am here to heal all misunderstandings and bring peace in the toolbox how does one respond? No amount of semantics will turn a real wrench into a real plier.

Does any of this make any sense?

God's Grace and Peace to you
Michael, that sinner

Bingo. Well put, Coalesco.

Coalesco, with all due respect, I have a problem with your conclusion.

Truth is one. Contradictory things cannot both be true. Thus, either the Eastern and Western approaches agree, or one of them is wrong.

1) No one on this board would like it if I were to say that the Eastern approach is "wrong." (I don't think it's "wrong" either).

2) I certainly do not think that the Western approach is "wrong."

Therefore, I must either give an account of how they are in agreement, or I abandon statement 1 or 2.

I like to think of the Eastern and Western approaches as emphasizing different aspects of the same Truth. They are NOT like a wrench and a plier, totally irreconcilable.

Francisg was trying to flesh out a reconciliation.


Just some thoughts.


LatinTrad

I don't think Francis asked anyone to agree with him, a courteous "no and here's why" would have sufficed.I really think the guy was attempting to reconcile apparently contradictory things. We know, as Latin Trad said, and common sense dictates, that two contradictory things cannot both be true. He did not come in declaring that you all are heretics, though I don't doubt that you've had Latin exremists who have taken that approach. He was trying to get to the essential truth behind the apparent contradiction. If he failed- and incidently I think he did- he at least deserved a civil rebuttal...

Lest this thread continue to go round in circles, may I offer a few points:

1. I am sorry for my shortness towards the original poster.

2. The reason for my shortness (and that of others) has been explained by several people on this thread already. They include:

a. A thoughtful reply was offered IMMEDIATELY in the very first reply. So those who keep insisting the original poster should have got one should recognize this.

b. I found it irksome that the original poster seemed to ignore this original thoughtful reply. His apparent smuggness and lack of reply to this first reply appeared to me to be an indication that thoughtful dialogue was not finally the intention of his post on this thread. Using childish terms like "hey dude" and "I just asked for 'Yes' or 'No'" reinforced my suspicions.

c. If infact reconcilliation of two apparently opposed views was indeed his heartfelt intention, it is still very irksome to Eastern Christians that the Eastern view was the one he chose to modify rather than his own Latin. Regardless of his sincerity (which in the end I don't really doubt) he should recognize that modifying our Churches' 2000 year old Tradition to match his own Churches doctrinal developements is not going to get him a good reception, regardless of his sincerity.


If I have offended francisg for my shortness with him, I apologize. Because of the above mentioned reasons I don't now see any point in my continuing in this thread. If I have turned someone off of Eastern Christianity by my sinfulness, get over it. The Church is full of sinners, don't judge a Church by those who fail to keep its faith but rather by the faith it professes.

Continuing to Trust in Christ's Light,
Ghazar DerGhazarian