www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Drawn to Orthodoxy????

[It is common practice to contact the priest before going to a different parish and introducing yourself and telling of your intention to receive the Mysteries. A priest at his ordination is told to guard the Mysteries as he will have to render an account before GOd in behalf of those he has communicated. It is a Sacred trust.]

That's exactly true! My priest will question any stranger who approaches the Chalice. And will refuse those Orthodox who are not prepared. I have even seen him refuse people with cigarette breath and those who admit they have not fasted or received Confession and/or Absolution because of that Sacred trust to protect the Body & Blood or Our Lord.

I have never seen him refuse anyone who is properly prepared because of a jurisdictional issue.

I have received in many Orthodox Jurisdictions but make arrangements with the priest before hand.

OrthoMan

2003.10.31 Slate:
<http://slate.msn.com/id/2090526/>
faith-based
"Property of Rome"?

Does the Vatican have exclusive rights to the word "Catholic"?

By Michael McGough
Posted Friday, October 31, 2003, at 3:59 AM PT
They say the pope's infallible, but does he also hold a trademark on the
word "Catholic"? Readers of a dispatch from the Associated Press last month
might well have wondered. The story reported that "a lawsuit filed by the
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta accuses a network of Spanish-speaking
churches of falsely claiming to be Catholic."

Fox News was laughed out of court when it sued Al Franken for including the
phrase "fair and balanced" in the subtitle of his satirical book Lies and
the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. But the Archdiocese of Atlanta fared better
in its attempt, as intellectual-property lawyers put it, to "protect the
mark." In October, a Fulton County judge entered a consent order that
permanently enjoins the "Mision Catolica: Capilla de la Fe" (Catholic
Mission: Chapel of Faith) from "representing themselves to be a part of or
associated with or sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman
Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta or Archbishop John Francis Donoghue."

The lawsuit didn't exactly chisel a TM under the word "Catholic"; rather,
it alleged that the Chapel of Faith was "intentionally or recklessly"
creating the impression that its clerics and services "are sanctioned by
the Roman Catholic Church." That is a weightier complaint than Fox's brief
against Al Franken; you don't need to be a federal judge to understand that
"fair and balanced" in Franken's title was a joke, not the appropriation of
a trademark for fraudulent purposes.

Mark Chopko, the general counsel of the United States Catholic Conference,
said as far as he knows the Atlanta lawsuit is one of a kind and that the
national church took no official position on it. The American Roman
Catholic Church is not declaring open season on other groups that use the
"C" word in their names.

That's just as well, because it could prove impossible under the First
Amendment to cabin the terms "Catholic" or even "Roman Catholic."

Lots of people who don't recognize the Bishop of Rome consider themselves
just as Catholic as John Paul II. Many Protestants on Sunday recite the
Apostles Creed, which contains the affirmation "I believe � in the holy
catholic church."

Whether the "c" is capitalized or not, "Catholic"-the etymology is from the
Greek katholikos for "universal"-has been a contested term in Christian
theological polemics for centuries. After the churches of Rome and
Constantinople split in a schism usually dated to the 11th century, the
Church of the West became known as the Roman Catholic Church, and the
Church of the East as the Orthodox Church. (To complicate matters further,
there are other ancient churches that went their own way because of
doctrinal disputes even before Rome and Constantinople split.)

The Eastern Orthodox Church believes that it is not only orthodox (correct
in its teaching), but also Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church likewise
considers itself to be orthodox in doctrine. In emphasizing one term over
another in their "trademarks," these two branches of Christianity are not
relinquishing their claims to both attributes. (For a secular analogy,
consider the names of the two major political parties in America: Democrats
would tell you that they believe in a republican form of government;
Republicans like President Bush trumpet the virtues of small-d democracy,
at least in Iraq.)

Of course, "Catholic"-especially when the "C" is capitalized-has other
connotations besides "universal." As a result of the 19th-century Oxford
Movement in the Church of England, some Anglicans began to identify
themselves as "Catholics" in the sense of incorporating Roman Catholic
rituals and vestments (what some called the "rags of popery") in their
worship. To this day some so-called Anglo-Catholic churches are "more
Catholic than the pope" in the sense that they preserve older practices
(like priests celebrating Mass with their backs to the congregation) that
have been suppressed in post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism. Some High-Church
Anglicans even offer prayers during Mass for the pope (and for the
patriarch of Constantinople, for good measure).

Long before the Archdiocese of Atlanta cried foul about the Mision
Catolica, Roman Catholics were rejecting the notion that one could be a
Catholic and not be in communion with Rome. And aggrieved Anglicans
responded in kind. Consider this sniffy entry in Fowler's Modern Usage,
published by Oxford University Press: "Catholic. It is open to Roman
Catholics to use C. by itself in a sense that excludes all but themselves,
but it is not open to a Protestant to use it instead of Roman-Catholic
without implying that his own Church has no right to the name of C."

So there. But Roman Catholics were unimpressed by this point of order. When
I studied religion at the University of Kent, one of my classmates, a Roman
Catholic priest in training, mocked this hair-splitting. When you asked an
Englishman for directions to the local "Catholic church," he told me, you
would always be pointed to the Roman Catholic church.

To add to the confusion, some Eastern Rite Catholics-whose churches
recognize the authority of the pope in Rome but follow rituals similar to
those of Eastern Orthodoxy-don't like to be referred to as Roman Catholics.
Then there are the churches that don't acknowledge the pope in Rome but
incorporate the term "Catholic" in their title. Some, like the "Old
Catholic" churches that broke from Rome over papal infallibility, have what
the Vatican considers "valid" holy orders. That means that an Old Catholic
(or, in this country, Polish National Catholic) priest has the power to
consecrate the Eucharist.

Even the presence of "Roman" in a church's name doesn't guarantee a
connection to the Vatican. According to the Web site of the Old Roman
Catholic Church in North America, schisms in its flock produced the Old
Roman Catholic Church in North America-Diocese of Michigan and the Central
States; the North American Old Roman Catholic Church; and the Old Roman
Catholic Church-Diocese of Florida within the Historic See of Caer Glow (!).

Lest that litany seem fantastic or facetious, consider the "Catholic Mass"
celebrated every Sunday evening at the Episcopal church in my Dupont Circle
neighborhood in Washington, D.C. The Mass is sponsored by Dignity, a group
of gay and lesbian Catholics that takes issue with the Vatican's
condemnation of homosexual acts.

Peggy Hays, a spokeswoman for Dignity says, that "we never hide our status"
as an autonomous group or pretend to be approved by the American hierarchy
(though some priests who celebrate Mass for Dignity are members in good
standing of religious orders who are acting with the tacit approval of
their superiors). Hayes says she knows of no attempt by the hierarchy to
move against Dignity for (mis)use of the term "Catholic." Given the
multiplicity of meanings of "Catholic," that seems like a prudent policy
even after the Archdiocese of Atlanta's legal victory
.
Michael McGough is a Washington-based editor at large for the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090526/

Do a little reading on the history of, say, the Serbian Patriarchate, then revisit you remarks.

Not at all. I am not referring to dogma. Or doctrine, or theological opinion, or canons or any such thing. Just uncontested historical facts.

For example:
"Roman Catholics on the other hand, backed themselves in a corner with the Immaculate Conception. Because if Mary was conceived without 'Original Sin' then she would have been immortal as Adam & Eve were originally designed before the 'fall'. Thats why the RC's don't emphasize her 'Dormition' rather than both her Dormition and Assumption."
This is errant nonsense. Likewise, you have been resisted the administrator's careful dissection of core dogma from mode of expression and illustration in the case of Purgatory, and have suggested a wholesale acceptance of Latin tradition. Etc.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being 'in communion' with the EP HAS NEVER meant being "under" the EP's authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do a little reading on the history of, say, the Serbian Patriarchate, then revisit you remarks.

------------

As an Orthodox Catholic I stand by what I wrote. BEING 'IN COMMUNION WITH THE EP' DOES NOT MEAN BEING UNDER HIS AUTHORITY! HE IS NOT THE ORTHODOX VERSION OF THE VATICAN POPE!

[For example:
"Roman Catholics on the other hand, backed themselves in a corner with the Immaculate Conception. Because if Mary was conceived without 'Original Sin' then she would have been immortal as Adam & Eve were originally designed before the 'fall'. Thats why the RC's don't emphasize her 'Dormition' rather than both her Dormition and Assumption."
This is errant nonsense.]

It's a fact. Adam and Eve were originally created by God to be immortal and live forever in the Garden of Eden. When they sinned they were banished from the garden and THEIR IMMORTALITY WAS TAKEN FROM THEM! We Orthodox refer to it as the 'fall' of Adam & Eve. We, as their descendents carry the result of their 'fall' by being subject to death. If Mary was conceived Immaculately (without the stain of that fall) then she would not only have have been immortal and as such, would have been a higher breed of human than we are. Which would also affect the doctrine of the Incarnation - {If the Holy Virgin Mary's human will was interfered with (ed.?as in Roman Catholic doctrine) She would not be totally human and therefore Jesus Christ would not be totally man (ed.?human) and totally God."}


"Original Sin" and
the Mother of God
By a Priest of the Orthodox Church in America

See Also:The Meeting of Our Lord in the Temple (The Purification of Mary)

By Fr. Thomas HopkoandOur Most Holy Lady Theotokos


First: The use of the term the stain of Original Sin is exclusive Roman Catholic Church terminology and is NOT Orthodox.

The Orthodox position is that we are all born into a sinful world made sinful by the Fall of Adam. No one is or ever has been conceived and born with a "stain" resulting from Adam's sin. In her lifetime, the Blessed Virgin Mary did not sin by her own choice with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Because Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that all people bear the stain and guilt of original sin from the moment of their conception in the womb, the Roman Catholic Church had to devise a "Doctrine of Immaculate Conception" to confirm that the Holy Mother was sinless because, the Vatican rationalized, our Lord could not be born of someone sinful. The immaculate conception doctrine makes her different from the rest of humankind; it makes her not fully human because she was not by her own choice sinless but by the will of God.

If Mary were sinless by God's choice, not hers, then by virtue of the fact that she was as fully human as all of humankind is and has been, then God could make us all sinless and take away the free will given to us by our being created in His image and likeness.

The following is from the book Life of the Virgin Mary, The Theotokos by Blessed John Maximovitch, published by Holy Apostles Convent, Buena Vista, CA:

The Heterodox Teaching
of "Immaculate Conception" and "Original Sin"

"Saint Ambrose (339-397), Bishop of Milan, comments that, 'Of all those born of women, there is not a single one who is perfectly holy, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ...'

"The Orthodox Church teaches that the Virgin Mary was conceived by Joachim's seed and the period of gestation was nine months. None of the ancient holy Fathers (ed.?only the Roman Catholic Church) say that God in miraculous fashion purified the Virgin Mary while yet in Anna's womb.

Only Jesus Christ is completely pure of every sin, while all men, being born of Adam, have borne a flesh subject to the law of sin. Many have correctly indicated that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by her Divine Son."

Blessed John Maximovitch (1896-1966) affirms that The Church teaches that "through the fall of Adam and Eve, all of the human race inherited death, becoming enslaved to the devil through the passions.
The progeny of Adam and Eve are not guilty of their first parents' tasting of the fruit; we are not being punished for this first sin or 'original sin.' If, for the sake of argument, we maintain the invalid heterodox teaching that the Theotokos was preserved from this 'original sin,' that would make God unmerciful and unjust. If God preserved her, why then does He not purify all men?
But then that would have meant saving men before their birth, apart from their will. This teaching would then deny all her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Anna, when she could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God's grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after her birth, then in what does her virtue consist? She would have been placed in the state of being unable to sin.

"The Virgin, as a true daughter of Adam and Eve, also inherited death. She was not in a state of never being able to die. Thus, St. John of Damascus writes on the occasion of her Dormition,


'O pure Virgin, sprung from mortal loins, thine end was conformable to nature.'"

Blessed Archbishop John continues to comment that the Virgin was not placed in the state of being unable to sin, but continued to take care for her salvation and overcame all temptations. The righteousness and sanctity of the Virgin Mary was manifested in the fact that she, being "human with passions?like us," so loved God and gave herself over to Him, that by her purity she was exalted above all other creatures. Mary was to become the Mother of God, the Theotokos, not because she was to give birth to divinity, but that through her the Word became true man, God-Man.
The last comment made by St. John is so important -- "Mary was to become the Mother of God, the Theotokos, not because she was to give birth to divinity, but that through her the Word became true man, God-Man".

If the Holy Virgin Mary's human will was interfered with (ed.?as in Roman Catholic doctrine) She would not be totally human and therefore Jesus Christ would not be totally man (ed.?human) and totally God."

[ Likewise, you have been resisted the administrator's careful dissection of core dogma from mode of expression and illustration in the case of Purgatory, and have suggested a wholesale acceptance of Latin tradition. Etc.]

No. What I did was point out that you agreed to accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of 'Purgatory' right from the get go. And even copied and pasted the article it refrences in the 'Union of Brest'.

--------

Now, before someone comes back and quotes the ecumenist Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware in the latest edition of his book 'The Orthodox Church' where he says 'An Orthodox can believe in the Immaculate Conception and not be considered a heretic.' Let me just say that is one Bishops opinion, nothing more. I don't know of any other Orthodox bishop (well maybe one Ukrainian one) that agrees with him. It's no different than the RC bishops who go around preaching Mary as Co-redemptorix. It's just their opinion rather than an accepted view of the RCC.

Since this has gotten off the subject matter, than maybe someone should start a new thread. But I bet its already been rehashed a few times.

djs: I'm not trying to define Roman Cathoilc doctrine, I'm refuting it! There's a difference!

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman,

And a top of the morning to you too, Big Guy!

(We are getting a lot of Irish here of late, you know . . .).

You really shouldn't be upsetting yourself over these matters - it's not as if we haven't talked about them before.

I know - but we Eastern Catholics don't seem to learn, we still keep calling ourselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome" and affirming all kinds of things that aren't true.

As the Irish would say, "Quite right - they're a bad lot!"

Here is my own take on the matter, for what it's worth (I know it's unsophisticated, but I'll try and hold off on my usual arrogance, rudeness et al!)

1) I agree that the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is both confusing to many Eastern Catholics and upsetting to Orthodox. I don't know of even one Ukie Church that would ever allow this term to be used to describe even one parish. The fact that it is upsetting to Orthodox is a good reason to not use it or at least keep it to ourselves. "Orthodoxy" today means the Orthodox Catholic Church that has nothing to do with Rome. The word can also mean "Russian Church" to a number of Eastern Catholics.

2) The Immaculate Conception as a doctrine is purely RC and relates to the Latin view of Original Sin. I'm not sure, anymore, WHAT the Latin view on Original Sin is, what it used to be, what it now is - one book I saw said RC's can believe in TWO versions of Original Sin and TWO versions of the Immaculate Conception. In any event, many of our Eastern Catholics believe in TWO versions all the same. There are those who accept the RC versions all the way. Others, like myself, who say that both East and West believe the Mother of God to have been completely sanctified by the Spirit from her Conception (the Feast of the Conception) but that this does not exempt her from the effects of Original Sin - which, in her, were mitigated i.e. she felt no pain in giving birth to her Son, her death was a "falling-asleep" etc. The theology of the IC is definitely Western - but the reason the West has sought to impose it on Eastern Catholics in the past is because the West always assumed that everyone had the same understanding of Original Sin as it (and St Augustine) did. And that is not so.

3) Purgatory was formerly conceived as a "place" by RC theology between heaven and hell. This is clear from the documents of the Council of Florence - something that horrified the Greeks, especially our Father among the Saints, Mark of Ephesus. It was formerly the case that Eastern Catholics were obliged to accept the Latin terminology and theological context of Purgatory, I have an old Greek Catholic text that outlines the Catholic oath of loyalty for Eastern Catholics and this is mentioned. But the "pith and substance" of what the East believes about prayer for the dead is similar, if not exactly the same, to what the West believes. We pray for the dead much more than the West today does. And we don't pray for the dead who are consigned to a destiny in hell, and we don't pray for the dead who are consigned to a destiny in heaven. We pray for those who have yet to enter heaven, who need our prayers to get closer to God, as Fr. Meyendorff states in his Byzantine theology. We don't define who is where in the afterlife, we pray and we're done with it.

4) I think that much of the Latinization we see in the Eastern Catholic Churches is our own fault. When Rome told our churches to be more faithful to our Eastern tradition, many of our priests and laity said, or words to the effect: "We stand by our Stations of the Cross etc.!" One priest of ours actually told me this.

There are many, even on this forum, who don't like "vostochniks" like you and me . I don't need to tell you who that is either!

I don't agree that Rome is the crown of Orthodoxy. Rome and Orthodoxy, to use the common parlance, are separated from each other.

And our union with Rome has already been discredited by RC theologians themselves - it is considered an historical mistake that should not be repeated again. (Thanks for all your support, Your Eminences!)

So when East unites together with West, according to God's Will, we, as uniates, will disappear back into our Mother Orthodox Churches.

So get ready - we'll be coming with our Stations of the Cross, our monstrances and rosaries, our miraculous medals and scapulars.

In fact, all of the above devotions have been practiced by many Orthodox Saints in the last few centuries any way.

So there you have it, Bob. I hope you'll come to my defence when the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" crowd read this and feel the need to come after me for spoiling their arguments.

I know you will!

Who da man?

YOU da man!

You da ORTHOMAN!

Alex

Alex writes:

[Dear Orthoman,

And a top of the morning to you too, Big Guy!

(We are getting a lot of Irish here of late, you know . . .).]

Welcome back Alex! I knew you couldn't stay away from here any more than I can! IT IS STILL THE BEST DISCUSSION WEBSITE AROUND. Even though I disagree with a ot of whats discussed.

Can't really disagree with anything you posted except mabe waiting until east and west reunite to 'come home'. COME HOME NOW! The calf is fatted and the pierogis are cooking. It just awaits the prodigal sons return!

[So there you have it, Bob. I hope you'll come to my defence when the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" crowd read this and feel the need to come after me for spoiling their arguments.

I know you will!]

Ya got that right!

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman:

You have evidenced on this thread an ability to distinguish between dogma and illustrative modes of expression. So why do you lapse and scramble things here.

OS & IC has been discussed exhaustively in other threads. Search the archives. Let me just treat your quote from Fr. Hopko.

First, is Father being careful to avoid saying that his descriptions of RC ideas on OS correspond to dogma? Is he aware that his idea about "guilt" while it may have been terminology used by some writers is not only not dogma but not doctrine, and in fact is specifically stated as not being the Catholic teaching in the CCC? Does he understand precisely what is entailed by the use of the word "stain" both in the Catholic OS and IC teachings? Or is he attaching meanings inconsistent with Catholic teaching? Building straw men to knock down? Etc.

I am happy to learn of the Orhtodox view of OS.
I have, however, previously posted clips from various Orthoodox websites that in fact use terminology that Fr. Hopko might consider Orthodox, if the quoted remark were to be taken rigidly. Moreover, there are Orthodox sites that list not only mortality but other fallen attributes as part of our legacy from Adam. I would not presuppose to tell you what is Orthodox teaching, but would ask for clarification when there appears to be more latitude in the teaching than you are suggesting.

I won't speak for others on Purgatory. I have posted the same article from Brest myself here and have enjoined others to post the whole article. I readily and thankfully accept the idea that our salvation may be advanced even after death, through prayers and offerings. I would even go further than many here and say that I am grateful for the little bit of guidance that the the church gives in attaching an accounting scheme to such acts - in early training anyway - insofar as they help motivate them.

Of course the East and West have argued about lofty expressions: is it a place (Catholic teaching allows different opinions here); does it involve fire (a traitional metaphor but not dogma in Catholicism); is it the same fire as hell-fire or another fire (sheesh!). And here, we have sunk to issues of fuzzy grammar: is it a noun or a verb. These lie outside the core; they lie outside what must be believed. So when you talk about what we accept, it would be nice if you would attach the same wisdom that you do in understanding the allowable range of opinions on analogous subjects within Orthodoxy.

Yes, I agree that your comment was in poor taste.

I don�t think that Father Deacon John�s assumption was in any way absurd but rather a fair conclusion based upon observation. If you add to the mix that there were actually news articles stating that Greek priests could not serve with MP priests back during the Estonian crisis and that some may have read a news account of it the conclusion is a fair one. If anything I am surprised that you had responded without offering the same explanation that I offered.

It appears to me that you seek out the worst interpretation and then purposely use it as an instrument to clobber someone.

If you were an OCA pastor and one of your parishioners came up to you and asked:

�Fr. Tony, I�m going on vacation next week and will be going to the Greek Orthodox parish in Florida. Can I receive the Eucharist in a Greek Orthodox Church? Are Orthodox able to receive the Eucharist in another diocese?�

Would you respond:

�Where did you get such an idea? Do you believe that Jews put the blood of Christian babies in matzoh too? Or was that meant to be some joke? Is this something crazy you read on byzcath.org?�

I sincerely doubt that you would ridicule your parishioner. My guess is that you would either offer an appropriate explanation or ask a few questions to determine the real question.

You are studying to be a priest. You should always go the extra mile to see behind the words to the real question and minister to everyone you speak with.

Admin

Who are you thinking about with this?
Vostochnik is a loaded word of course.

I like very much what Diak wrote on another thread. I respond negatively to ad hoc standards originating from either RC or EO consensus practice. I am completely in favor of and committed to continuing efforts to invigorate our our practice, our cathechesis, our church. But I don't like, at all, any copy-cat defaults that say do this to be more like other Catholics; or do that to be more like other Orthodox. We have a long and beautiful tradition. One that goes directly back, arguably to Sts. C&M. We are not a church that was "created" with the Unia.

We can and we must be faithful to our patrimony, our way, and the way of our saints. We who had nothing as the world judges these things, were riotously wealthy in our church. Nothing short of amazing, when you think of all of the obstacles we faced, to have created such beauty and such goodness.

We can and we must do our own homework to solve our own problems - to discern our particular authentic tradition, and our particular organic growth, and to do so with particular pastoral sensitivity. We cannnot just copy. Any hint otherwise, contains, deep inside, the idea that we are not a church at all. Is outrage.

Bob,

Please don�t post such stuff in the middle of a thread unless you are also explain why you are posting it.

No one has disputed that others have the right to use the term �Catholic�. It is perfectly acceptable for the Moscow Patriarchate, for example, to identify itself as �The Catholic Church at Moscow�. [Although it would be technically very correct I wouldn�t want to be anywhere near the place if they did. ]

The issue in the story you linked is the purposeful use of the term �Catholic� to insinuate that they were part of the Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta and were operating under its authority. This is a quite different issue than the one under discussion in this thread.

Admin

I apologize to the learned Orthodox brethren for my previous post, however, as the Admin stated, if my statement is inaccurate, it is certainly understandable. This was not some rash conclusion based upon urban legend. Perhaps the following will put it in perspective.

This weekend at the Divine Liturgy, I noticed a young couple who were visting. As it is my practice with all visitors, after the Divine Liturgy I approached them, introduce myself and welcomed them to our parish. I discovered they were an engaged couple (he is RC, she is GO), and they are planning to move to Phoenix from Boston. Both are committed to their Faith, and it was from the GO Christian, that I was informed of how the Eucharist is received (or not) within Orthodoxy. Her comment followed my comment about how any Catholic, properly prepared, may receive the Eucharist. My comment was in response to her fiance's question if whether or not he could receive the Eucharist in our Byzantine Church since he is a Roman Catholic. I guess this is a sign that we need to better educate the faithful.

Dear Administrator,

Part of the problem, Sir, is that I think you just don't understand my brother, Orthoman, as I have come to!

We've had our wars, but we've come to admire each other as the brothers we are.

Sometimes I think there are those who provoke him here.

He represents the "straight goods" of Orthodoxy here without wishy-washy ecumenical "feel good" views.

He is, in fact, our Mark of Ephesus who, as you know, when he left Florence without signing the instrument of union, prompted Pope Eugenius to say, "We have accomplished nothing."

To work out these issues with Orthoman to his satisfaction and his standards of what Orthodoxy is - now that is to accomplish something!

Orthoman - the Defender of Orthodoxy!

Alex

Bob,

There is no statement anywhere in Latin Catholic theology indicating that Mary is �perfectly holy� on the same level as Jesus Christ himself.

There are certainly differences in the Eastern and Western theologies of original sin and the effect or non-effect on the Theotokos. It does not help, however, when you post stuff claiming that the West actually believes something that it doesn�t and then attempt to shoot it down. It renders the rest of your argument powerless.

I have a personal devotion to St. John Maximovitch. His teaching on this issue, however, demonstrates that he had an erroneous understanding of Latin theology. He makes some classic assumptions that are simply not true. It is very easy to distort someone else�s belief and then shoot it down. The challenge is to actually understand what someone else believes and then respond to it. We can re-examine this new topic if you want under a new thread with an appropriate title.

Admin

Dear djs,

Actually, you are right, I was thinking of you!!

You yourself referred to the "Vostochnyk straightjacket."

Now that I found interesting!

It's part of a debate that exists in the UGCC as well.

I don't know what you mean by "Vostochnyk" but in our community it tends to mean two things: a) a Russifier and b) someone who has a general, if vague, commitment to "easternizing" our church.

So what I don't understand, and would ask you to comment on, is what constitutes a Vostochnyk Straight Jacket?

You say that you are for our Church maintaining its old traditions - are indulgences et al. part of those traditions?

If so, then this means you really do consider your Church to have begun at the time of its union with Rome.

There are others in my church who would say the Ukrainian Church was always in union with Rome etc.

So I'm just not clear where you are coming from.

I'm all ears!

Alex

Dear Administrator,

Not to want to be seen to be picky, but I think St John Maximovitch was correct here!

St John of Shanghai was well acquainted with Western theology - he saw many positive things in it and began the trend back to placing Western saints into the Orthodox calendar.

His view was that the Mother of God grew dynamically in holiness - and he rightly critiqued the West's more static view of Mary's holiness.

Orthoman is correct in what he says on this point even from Eastern Catholic standards.

Alex