A couple more love notes from our Roman Catholic friends (here and here). I would respond but seriously, I really just don't care. If he doesn't like us I'm sorry. I guess that's one vote against the ecumenical happy club. Well, actually make that two. Moving on...
HT: The Young Fogey
The 4th Century Science of St Macrina (II)
48 minutes ago
38 comments:
It was evident to me who it was before I even finished it. Ah well.
John I would have imagined you'd be wise enough not to feed a troll.
To be fair, I too thought Barnes' article on canons was extremely problematic.
So many words. So little said. Even less worth reading.
I think many of my Roman Catholic friends would be aghast by the tone of these comments. Now, it's us. In a few years this person will have moved on and will be projecting the same negativity on Catholicism too. I've seen this sort of cycle occur many times over. In the meantime, it's incredibly sad to see those internet Catholic apologists who lap up every word.
i have witnessed this same kind of acrimony on both sides of the Tiber and also the Bosphorus. it seems the more individuals feel betrayed, with or without good reason, the more they go on the offensive. When i read these comments from RC writers I usually suggest that they work to clean up the messes in their own households before they tell us how to believe. Most of them tend to be more Catholic than the Pope. Human nature!
John,
i read a comment of yours that was most critical of a certain Russian metropolitan. I penned a response but the webmaster of that site (not yours)did not publish it. Please be careful about quoting canons, especially on RC sites. Please forgive my directness.
The pretentious About Me quotation, Fortitudo mea, et laus mea Dominus, et factus est mihi in salutem, sets the stage for what follows.
The inherent unsteadiness of a bitterly chronic religion-hopper is cheap entertainment in a blogging environment.
Yawn. There are insoluble problems in either confession. Obsessive denigration of one's former confession may be a necessary catharsis in some cases but it's always poor form (whether Orthodox or Roman Catholic). Having tons of family in both, I really find this kind of thing tasteless and never really accurate.
The problem of Orthodoxy is two fold - the Church insisted on being an ethnic rather than Christian organization in the face of assimilationist society and intermarriage - of course people will leave as they shed more and more of that identity.
The second problem is that Americans want a religion that affirms the value of self satisfaction and individualism. Protestantism does that perfectly, Romanism holds a middle ground in the US that is often closer to Protestantism in ethos, and Orthodoxy simply doesn't mesh well with the requirements of the culture. It is bound to suffer the most.
FWIW, his RC is glad & grateful for Orthodoxy.
The Orthodox Churches, and the body of Orthodox Faithful, can & do provide a living witness to (I'm paraphrasing) "the Catholic [I defer to the Orthodox understanding of & use of the word "Catholic" - MA] Faith that comes to us from the Apostles."
Whatever faults are imputed to Orthodoxy can be found more quickly and in quantity amount Roman Catholics. I'm living proof.
Dear Orthodox sisters & brothers: you rock. From my perspective nothing is broken, so there is nothing to fix. If there is appropriate criticism to level, I'll leave that in your capable hands. There is plenty for us Romans to set to rights in our own Church.
I find it odd that someone would give free publicity to something they find detestable without even attempting to to mount a moderately intelligible response.
Thanks for the hits, though.
Who is this guy? Is his identity generally known?
"I find it odd that someone would give free publicity to something they find detestable without even attempting to to mount a moderately intelligible response."
***I think you meant "intelligent," which makes your response REALLY funny, in an ironical sort of way. Unless you really meant that Ad's response wasn't moderately intelligible, which then raises the question of how you could discern he found your thoughts detestable.
No, I think "intelligible" is the right word here. His response is indicative neither of "intelligence" nor "unintelligence"; it is, however, incomprehensible (a widely accepted synonym of "unintelligible") to me for the reasons stated in the previous remark.
I give you permission to call me out for engaging in a bit of hyperbole, though.
P.S. Vis, I find your remark amusing given that you are positing it on the blog of a "religion-hopper." Also, what constitutes "chronic"? Because I was thinking of joining up with the Mormons if Romney takes it in November.
I remember her now. I used to read Diane's comments at Anglican blogs. It is nice that she has her own audience and following, although the blog would be more interesting if she were to read Catholic University's volumes on the Church Fathers.
Modestinus,
Do you really think your bitter commentary on Orthodoxy fits into modern Catholicism? I think not. I'll take Blessed John Paul II's Orientale Lumen as more representative of what the Catholic Church thinks about Orthodoxy, thank you very much.
Thank you, Mark Andrews, for the kind words. I try to take a similar view. I was never Roman Catholic, but I used to be Lutheran and, before that, Baptist. We basically took a long journey from Protestantism to traditional Christianity, with Luther being a path to Orthodoxy. My take with Lutherans tends to be I won't criticize them in such a polemical way because as Orthodox, we have our own back door to sweep around.
I am far less irenic with Baptists, and that is to my shame. I am trying to do better in that regard. Reading your comment is helpful in reminding me of that.
We all have our issues. Being triumphalistic probably won't do for any of us, least of all myself.
Mod,
I'm delighted that my remark pulled you out of the woodwork, and I hope that it amused you as much as my composing it amused me.
Incidentally, you'd be more qualified to run for President as a Mormon since RCs owe allegiance to a foreign secular ruler. I'm chortling already.
Anon,
Oh hush. Go back and re-read the posts (if you even read them to begin with). I think you'll find they're not as bad as you think. If I really wanted to get the Orthodox's goat, there's a lot better material out there. Poking fun at crazy converts, quasi-Gnosticism, and Orthodox "Canon Law" [sic] is pretty tame. If the Orthodox could deal for 5 minutes with the fact they don't live in the fairy-tale land FMG and Ware delineate in their pop books, they'd probably agree with -- oh, I don't know -- 83.4% of what I write.
Dr. Linsley,
Diane has a blog? Where? I gotta see this.
Isn't this Venuleius' new blog persona? Now, we just need Owen White to assume a new identity and we'll have a reunion!
By the way, John, this Papist has admitted his love of Orthodoxy and even a bit of envy. I just won't convert because I really like knowing who's in charge. Just kidding (kinda)
modestinus,
Yes, I did read them -- time I could have better spent. I suppose Orthodox don't live in the "fairy-tale" land of Orientale Lumen, either, right?
Does American Orthodoxy have organizational problems? Yes. But one need only look to the open revolt of clergy in Austria, so recently in the news, to understand that all is not lock-step in the Roman realm, either.
Are some converts a bit over the top? Yes. But they do, in fact, mean to be counter-cultural, in ways that many Catholic saints have done through the ages. Who is actually hurt by long skirts, head-coverings, beards, or prayer-ropes voluntarily adopted? In an age of belt-width skirts, pierced noses, and crosses as gangster jewelry, maybe they are on to something (though not all that is to my taste except, of course, the beard - which is a 1700-year-old sine qua non for a monk, so I can be forgiven for its length and thickness). Anyway, this is hardly a stinging blow to Orthodox veracity.
Are many Orthodox prone to bigotry? Yes. It is unattractive, unnecessary, and afflicts Roman Catholics in equal proportion, as our blogger friend has just demonstrated. May God have mercy on us all.
Does the Orthodox canonical tradition look confusing, and contradictory if one tries to view it through the lens of Latin Canon Law? Yes. Because it is not properly understood as "law" (which would be "nomos," not "canon"), but as "measuring stick"." The Canons are not so much a "code" as they are a witness to the accumulated wisdom and experience of the Body of Christ, i.e., a written embodiment of tradition. Rome shares a concern with tradition -- at least it did when I was RC. So, this is just another straw man set up for jousting. I mean, really, how many Roman Catholics in the pews know squat about their clear, articulate, and periodically (and unilaterally) changed Code of Canon Law? Probably only the ones who want that ever-popular Roman version of economia, the "annulment." As for the Rudder, it is not meant as light reading for the curious communicant or a rule book for the parish clergy. It is a compilation for scholars and, were I to go to confession and see a copy near at hand to the priest, I would probably excuse myself and find a different confessor (since the Mystery of Repentance is about healing and the restoration of loving intimacy, not judgment and punishment).
Hopefully, the author of this new blog, whom I take to be a former Orthodox/newbie RC, will grow into the gentle and grateful spirit with which a man like Bl. John Henry Newman spoke of his former spiritual home in Anglicanism and refused to rail against it out of gratitude for what he had received while a part of it and how that led him to where, he believed, he had found the fullness of Truth. I know I pray to find that spirit about my former homes of Rome and Canterbury (for all that I may think overblown or deficient in them), although Canterbury does make it rather difficult these days.
It is a hard struggle to work out one's salvation in fear and trembling; too hard for wasting time and energy on a generalized and lop-sided tirade against the people (as opposed to the teaching) of another Christian body. So, Opus Publicum will not go on my list of ecumenical blogs to follow.
Schema-monk Theodore
this article is at least honest.
That is more than can be said about the "dialogue" that has been conducted over the last several decades with Rome.
They are entitled to their views and to express them, and we are entitled to respond as Orthodox leaders should by terminating the dialogue outright while maintaining a posture of civility and kindness and perhaps cooperation on matters of common concern.
Theodoros
Well, you guys are entitled to grumble in peace. I still have mucho love for you Orthodox even if you think all of our sacraments are invalid and that Christ's admonition concerning forgiveness doesn't apply to the Fourth Crusade.
[fist bump]
I love that "sign of contradiction" stuff from RC's.
Obama's HHS mandate is an assault on religious liberty, but it's not exactly being dragged out and shot in the street. How many million martyrs shone forth from the Orthodox Church in the twentieth century, again?
modestinus,
Glad to hear you love Orthodox Christians, though you have a funny way of showing it. BTW, there is no official Orthodox position that 'all Catholic sacraments are invalid' as you claim. See:
http://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders
"Concerning the Eucharist: Many Orthodox Christians do view the Roman Catholic Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ; others today would not subscribe to this. The answer is linked to whether one believes that Roman Catholicism is “with grace” or “devoid of grace.”"
Of course, I'm sure you know that but you seem to like to make the worst case possible in your writings (as is further shown by claiming that Orthodox can't forgive).
Shame on you. This Catholic has a hard time seeing the love.
Proskomen,
I find few things more disgusting than contemporary Orthodox, sitting in relative comfort and quietism, drag innocent souls into the gutters of their flimsy arguments and use them for street credibility. If you are an American convert, you should be triply ashamed.
Anon,
You need to get a sense of humor.
Modestinus,
It's no laughing matter when someone like yourself attacks Orthodoxy in the name of the Catholic church. I'll stay with Blessed John Paul II and Orientale Lumen as a safer guide.
Anon,
What did I attack in the "name of the Catholic Church"? You'll find nothing of the sort from my fingers.
modestinus,
Just read your latest about your tone and trying to improve. You're doing better now. Perhaps a note to indicate that the American Orthodox Bishops are also opposing the HHS mandate would be nice. There is some good coming out of American Orthodoxy, don't you think?
Just a quick reminder, please debate issues, not personalities. No Ad Hominems. Thanks...
The Management
modestinus,
The EA recently released a statement of protest of the HHS mandate. They intend to fight it.
I object to using the HHS mandate as some kind of mystical "sign" proving the RCC is somehow the "real church". No one will die because of this mandate, because we have the option of paying fines rather than paying for the abortifacient birth control. No one will be shot or imprisoned. It would be stretching things to even call it a jizya, since we do have several options to fight it before the mandate is even implemented.
Also, I have friends from the "old country". Rather, I should say I have dear friends, who were exiled from the "old country" for being Orthodox and not having the decency to be dead. Some still can't go back for fear of their lives.
If invoking that actual persecution (purely because it is an example of actual persecution, not as a "sign of contradiction" proving the Orthodox Church is right) is cheap moral gravitas, then what, pray tell, is the motive behind invoking the HHS mandate as a sign of contradiction for Roman Catholicism?
Mod, the chief irony in this discussion is your availing yourself of a forum, hosted by an easy-going Orthodox, to engage in a frank and open discussion of religious differences. Heaven forbid that you'd tolerate such a frank discussion on your censored blog.
On another note, I don't see a big sea change in your views since you hopped. If you remember, I used to chide you for your papalized approach to Orthodoxy and dissent from your seeming frustration at our more charming attitudes and ambiguities, like our divergent and bickering hierarchs. Your tone has become harsher, but I see that you're aware of it.
Finally, I don't have a problem joining forces with RCs when they happen to be right, such the HHS outrage. Part of Orthodox ambiguity, however, includes the simultaneous correctness of Proskomen's view, which I didn't interpret as leeching from our martyrs' "sanctity capital".
Proskomen,
It's difficult to follow your reasoning here, perhaps because it's absent altogether. I know of no Catholic who is using the HHS mandate to justify Catholicism as the "true Church." If you've come across any, please feel free to tell them there is surer footing out there.
Moreover, you can try and backtrack out of your comment all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you pulled a stunt which, sadly, is all too common amongst American Orthodox. (And by "all too common" I mean a "single instance" -- but, even sadder, it's not limited to that.)
It seems to me that in your desperate attempt to score points on the Catholic Church, you resorted to one of the basest tactics available. Now that you've been called out on it, the best you can do is posit a comforting fiction that the Catholic Church writ large is trying to compare the HHS mandate to a violent persecution. Please.
Vis,
How is my blog censored? My previous blog featured open comments; my new blog has a very limited restriction, i.e., one approved comment in order to have an "open forum." It's a way to screen nuts. Or are you referring to the fact I once threatened to ban you? Well, I never did. In fact, I've never banned anybody. So nice try.
As for "chiding" me, that's fine. I suspect most people would take your insults as compliments. I always did.
Again I ask that comments be confined to issues and not personalities. The tone of recent comments is straining the bounds of civility.
Hi, John;
Unfortunately, I think that Ingemar @#2 is correct. You are feeding a troll here.
I used to think that Venuleius/Modestus was basically raitional, but the tone of his posts on this thread has persuaded me otherwise. I don't put him in the same moral universe as another infamous blogger (whom everyone knows and who shall remain nameless for now). Nonetheless, I think that Venuleius/Modestus is only posting here in order to "push the buttons" of as many people as possible. This is not healthy, and needs to be stopped.
I think it is time for you to invoke the "50 reply rule" here, albeit 10 replies early. I see no other way to end this.
All,
I am closing the combox on this thread. It appears that we have exhausted the supply of constructive and thoughtful commentary on this matter. On a side note if you think someone is posting inappropriate comments on this blog please drop me a line privately as opposed to posting an accusation in the combox. My email is linked in the sidebar. Thanks.
Post a Comment