www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox Hail New Ecumencial Officer

ukrainiancatholic,

I suspect there are American Catholic parishes around.

Yes.

Well are these people associated with the regular RC dioceses here in America?

Technically they are. A kind of fifth column or "quislings' (traitors) to the faith clinging to the official structures of the Church, like woodworms or termites, doing a lot of damage.

I wonder also if this trend has found or will find its way 'East'

It has, and even has vocal spokesmen here. But its numbers in the East are microscopic and its influence minimal. The objective, unchanging character of Eastern liturgies protects Eastern Churches from a lot of this.

http://oldworldrus.com [oldworldrus.coom]

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear ukraniancatholic --

'AmChurch' is definitely a part of the official Catholic Church -- their whole point is that, unlike Michael's suggestion that they go to ECUSA (which has been made umpteen times to the CTA type folks), they want to stay in Catholicism and pursue their agenda there -- that's their whole point.

Sometimes it is hard to tell if a given parish is more AmChurch inclined. Clues would be the structure of the liturgy and the content of sermons. Another clue might be the presence of National Catholic Reporter (the mouthpiece of the 'AmChurch' faction in American Roman Catholicism) around the parish. Here in Arlington, which is considered a rather conservative RC diocese, the people have tended to vote with their feet -- such that most of the parishes seem more 'orthodox', while a few parishes in particular seem to attract many of the 'AmChurch' crowd -- here, where they do not have the upper hand hierarchically, they tend to congregate in certain parishes where they can have the upper hand parochially.

Brendan

Anastasios,

Why do you think that Metropolitan Theodosius's congrats and well wishes for the new Anglican ecumenical guy were wrong?

No.

Was the comment that "well he's not infallible" necessary? It didn't seem like he was saying anything inappropriate.

He wasn't but I wanted to deflect any post-er who would construe from the metropolitan's polite press-release words that he backs liberal "ecumenism'. If in a worst-case scenario, he does, so what? Orthodoxy remains the same.

Are comments like this necessary?

"Clever swipe — "allusions to one-on-one sports aren't Catholic'."

Yes. That was to Kurt, who as you know makes swipes.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Anastasios,

I salute your erudition and fairness. You should be a moderator yourself.

Alex

Dear Brendan,

I see that the Amchurch can also be known by another name, especially by RC converts to Orthodoxy: The Last Straw.

I guess what I always thought was the "Latin Rite" was, in my experience, the Amchurch or Last Straw.

This is what led me more deeply into my Byzantine Catholic Church during university.

Is the Amchurch what definitely turned you off RCism?

If so, then it must have been other issues that finally got you to move from the Melkites, since I can't imagine them being a part of Amchurch.

I guess you don't accept my explanation of the relationship between Rome and the Eastern Particular Churches.

And yet it goes on all the time and I've come to accept it.

Alex

ukrainiancatholic,

There are many members of the AmChurch here on this forum. You can tell by their responses on the Church Architecture thread. I believe DrJohn is a member of that Church.

Hope this helps!

"Is the Amchurch what definitely turned you off RCism?"

Not as such, no. I was interested in the Eastern Churches for a long time before ever worshipping in one regularly. I *did* have some bad, bad run-ins with AmChurchers during my RC days -- but I wouldn't say that this "turned me off" the Latin Church in any significant way, but it did open my eyes to problems in that church.

"If so, then it must have been other issues that finally got you to move from the Melkites, since I can't imagine them being a part of Amchurch."

Most of the AmChurch types there are no longer with the Melkite Church but with the Latin Church, where they can be with fellow AmChurchers. By contrast, the Melkite Church has a good number of people who have left the Latin Church precisely because of the abuses that they perceive there. There is, in all, quite a bit of "coming and going", and most of it informal.

And, yes, following on that my issues with the Melkite Church did not relate to AmChurch, but rather to dogma.

"I guess you don't accept my explanation of the relationship between Rome and the Eastern Particular Churches."

I agree with your characterization of what goes on there. For me, the dogma itself is not true, and so since I cannot accept it as being true I can't be a Catholic in good faith. That's different from saying "I believe it's true, but not the last word on the subject". I simply don't think that Vatican I is true in itself, first or last words. Appelate jurisdiction is probably true -- the council of Serdica indicates as much -- but certainly not direct universal jurisdiction in every diocese -- from my perspective, in my opinion, this is not truly a dogma of God. Therefore, my position was not "legitimate dissent" from a certain set of pastoral practices but rather considered dissent from a "de fide dogma" required for salvation, per Roman Catholicism. And that was not a tenable long-term situation, at least not for me.

Brendan

Dear Servant of Christ, Brendan,

I see your position more clearly and it is entirely justifiable and defensible.

Perhaps if the Catholic Church taught that Vatican I WAS the last word on the papacy, I would have difficulty accepting it.

My "return to Orthodoxy" however, if it came to that, would not be about episcopal authority issues, as I see any bishop, Catholic or Orthodox, as possessing absolute power, however one defines it, but about other things having to do with further encroachments on our nature as a Particular Church.

It was, I daresay, this same issue that led to the return of Ukrainians in Russian Orthodoxy, to the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Ukraine, my cousin a case in point.

Ultimately, I go with my Church/community. We're still hanging on!

But may God bless you in your path and as an Orthodox Christian. I am convinced it is His Will for you. As for us, we shall see!

Alex

Dear RC@work,

I think it is definitely NOT helpful to cast such aspersions on people with whom we do not agree, ie. Dr. John.

Amchurch is a Catholic phenomenon in the main. Are you sure you are not Amchurch?

Do they gather around the altar in your NO parish? Sing and dance, perhaps? In short, does the liturgy you attend measure up to the standards outlined here by Reader Sergius as a "litmus test" of not being Amchurch?

Dr. John has way too much education, spiritual training and charitable works under his belt to be so easily and unjustifiably characterized by the likes of any of us.

I would hope you offer an apology or else withdraw your comments above.

I should be so lucky at the Last Judgement before the Throne of Christ to be able to say that I took Dr. John's spiritual advice and guidance.

Alex

Gee, I missed out on a lot here.

Two thoughts:

I happy we now have a detailed definition of AmChurch and it is one that does not describe me in anyway! So whatever it is, its not people like me.

Second, similiar to what unions are required to do, should not the Orthodox Churches rebate to their members the portion of their parish dues and contributions that are given to the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches? Just a thought.

K.

Orthodox Catholic,

You are making assumptions that the 'AmChurch' is a derogatory term. Certainly, those members of the 'AmChurch' would disagree with you. As for my statement calling Dr. John a member of the 'AmChurch' I gathered from his comments that he was a member. For example,

"For better or worse, architecture is architecture. It's either good, bad or a disaster. And also a matter of taste.

As for "plain" or empty space, it's generally a cultural thing. Apparently, the Swedes like it -- minimalists, you know.

I guess it's mostly a question of taste. Some like southwestern simple; others like scandinavian angular; some like 'Mafia' baroque."

Now as for me I now attend a Byzantine Catholic C hurch in Florida. I find the Church is very traditional (i.e. some of the liturgy is said in Old Slavonic). When I visit home I now attend a Russian Orthodox Church complete with Curtains and all. In addition, I highly disagree with the theology the 'AmChurch' and I believe they are trying to bring about the destruction of the RCC. I do believe we are living in the "End Times" (Whatever that means). The 'AmChurch' is another example of how Satan is getting his way with us. So, I would have to disagree with you.

I am sorry you feel I owe anyone an apology but I shall not give one since I feel I have not said anything wrong.

Good Day!

Dear RC@work,

It isn't my purpose to argue with you, but to define clearly a derogatory comment you made to someone that was uncalled for.

In your last post you said that you didn't feel that "Amchurch" as an appellation was derogatory.

Right?

Toward the end of your post you associated Amchurch with Satan.

Right?

Therefore, and when I went to school, this implies that you do indeed feel it is derogatory.

What is worse, you feel that Dr. John is, by your "logic", also associated with the work of Satan.

How nice if we were to all call those we don't agree with "associates of Satan."

It would certainly bring discussions on forums like this to a quick head.

The downside is that we could never have colour anything, since everything would be in black and white. Neat, but boring.

No, sir.

What you said is clear.

If you don't want to apologise, at least make clear, PLEASE, that you didn't intend to associate Dr. John with the "work of Satan."

Have a better day!

Alex

So Dr. John is trying to bring about the destruction of the RCC. Beautiful.


Our "tradition" is to have the liturgy in the language of the people...


If you don't know what that means, how can you believe one way or the other about it?


Yet another loaded sexual metaphor. Reading this thread has been quite an experience today. I think when I get home I'll have to take a cold shower!

Dear RichC,

Actually, RC@work's position is also problematic from the fact that he is canonically in communion with those who he says are doing Satan's work, whether he goes to a BC church or not!

I agree that this whole business here puts one on the horns of a dilemma . . .

My point is not to comment about Amchurch, but to ask for some civility in referring to other members of this Forum such as Dr. John.

When we impute such motives, then we are really not on the side of the Angels!

This has turned into a real soap opera, "As the Stomach Turns."

Alex

Orthodox Catholic,

Awe, I see you took Logic in college.

You said, “What is worse, you feel that Dr. John is, by your "logic", also associated with the work of Satan.” Well, if you would like to make that inference so be it. Just remember that I did not directly associate Dr. John with the work of Satan.

RichC,

As for your comment, “Yet another loaded sexual metaphor. Reading this thread has been quite an experience today. I think when I get home I'll have to take a cold shower!” I believe you need special Help! Apparently, there is a fixation here that does not need be discussed in this forum.

Finally, you said, “If you don't know what that means, how can you believe one way or the other about it?” Do you know what that means? Does the Church know what that means? I believe the only thing that was revealed to us through Sacred Scripture and Tradition is that an end shall come. How and when that end shall come can be left to the “Fundies”.