Posted on 07/22/2005 6:58:08 PM PDT by jec1ny
The Japanese priests and bishops I have seen are indeed not young. But I have seen several Japanese monks who may be on their way to receiving Holy Orders along with others.
THANKS.
Will be 2-3 weeks before I'm home again and handling pings well.
Appreciate the notice, though.
Blessings,
What is your reference point of the "one holy, catholic and apostolic?" The ever-changing, ever-redefining, ever-searching Church of the West, or the Church that celebrates the same Liturgy it celebrated 1,600 years ago?
Blasphemy! I rest my case.
1600 years?
What happened to the first 400 years?
Quite a sizeable gap.
And if you're ever at the Orthodox bookstore at Hellenic College in Brookline, MA, you really should pick up the little brochure there, "How to Celebrate the Divine Liturgy in About An Hour" - or something like that. I was very amused by one Orthodox priest who told our class that he omits the Litanies of the Catechumens ("We haven't got any"), and another one who told me he "reads" the silent prayers "with my eyes - Evelyn Woods' Speed Reading Dynamics". Take it easy with that "unchanging liturgy" line!
My reference point to the "one holy catholic and apostolic" church is Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Savior who commissioned Peter and his successors, "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep, tend my sheep."
For me at least, it is a surer reference point than the one enjoyed by the three churches down the street road about 1/2 hour from here, all called Orthodox, none sharing Communion - or even a civil word, for that matter - with each other.
But based on the postings here and the words from Mt. Athos and Alexy II, civil words are in short supply on your side of the mountains.
It is no blasphemy. The Pope is rightly called our "Christ on Earth" inasmuch as he is considered as representing Christ to us as his vicar. Similiarly for the bishop of a local Church:
"For when ye are obedient to the bishop as to Jesus
Christ, it is evident to me that ye are living not after
men but after Jesus Christ, who died for us, that
believing on His death ye might escape death." (St. Ignatius, To the Trallians, 2:1)
"Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let
the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is
the universal Church." (St. Ignatius, To the Symrnaeans, 8:2)
What happened is that the Liturgy of St. James, the first Liturgy of the Church, was shortened by St. John Chrysostomos (it used to be 4 hours long -- and try standing for the entire thing) without taking out the essentials of the original. As far as I know your Church recognizes St. John Chrysostomos, so I rest my case.
As for the other anecdotal evidence you site, it is not what one father says or what even a Church Father says, it is what the Church as the Body of Christ teaches.
We know that there are apostates in both Churches, but they do not speak for nor represent the Church. You need to widen your horizons my friend.
For your information, the Orthodox recognize +Peter and his role, but not the Roman Catholic interpretation of it. You may wish to read up more on how the popes acted and how the church was before the 4th century. You will find that such "Petrine Supremacy" was not claimed by early popes, and that Petrine primacy was a different thing altogether. But that's something for another thread -- and has been regurgitated too many times to make it worthwhile.
"it is not what one father says or what even a Church Father says, it is what the Church as the Body of Christ teaches."
Ah, but each of these parishes belong to a Diocese that calls itself "Orthodox," and they do NOT teach the same things . . . to the extent that they do not even recognize the legitimacy of each other's bishops.
So who's to say that one of these bishops isn't more correct than another?
Or that one Diocese or Synod is right and the other wrong?
People on this site consider the Ecumenical Patriarch a heretic.
Others consider the monks who consider him heretical to be heretical themselves.
It seems to me perfectly borne out by both your Church and the Episcopalians that when you have no single Pope, you have a bunch of popes (bishops).
No, I'm sorry. I still think your Orthodox "unity" is theoretical and abstract, not real and incarnate.
Quoting 1st century St. Ignatius out of context and connecting it to the "Vicar of Christ" concept is misleading to say the least.
St. Ignatius worked when the Church was nascent and under persecution. In his writings, +Ignatius had to stress the necessity of following all clergy as representatives, as icons of the Lord on earth, not as personified Christ. The Church theology was as yet not clearly defined and, let's not forget, the man was a man of God, but he was no Apostle.
He is known to have said "we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself." First, coming from the Church of Antioch, founded by none other than +Peter himself, it is plain that +Ignatius did not mean only Peter, but all bishops. It is also clear from his life that he did not become a saint for his teaching but for his martyrdom, and that his teaching may have taken liberties that were not uncommon in the nascent Church.
His writings are notorious for being not well thought-through, unorganized, with run-on sentences and often apparently written in haste. Thus he says
"In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles." [my emphases]
This is quite different from the generalization quoted before.
To say that the Pope is "our" Christ on Earth is saying that the Pope and Christ are one and the same! Then the Roman Catholics should have no problems worshiping the Pope, who is then considered "God" on earth, for Christ is God and assuming his Name is blasphemy.
You can think whatever you want, the fact remains that you have various offshoots of the Roman Catholic Church as well, all of which claim to be Roman Catholic. The unity of orthodoxy is in theology and not in man made traditions. The Orthodox Churches share the same canons. I have no clue which churches you are talking about, but I would bet that some of them are in schism, just as Old Catholics are.
I'm familiar with most Orthodox jurisdictions of any size here in the US, and I have trouble thinking of 3 jurisdictions that don't recognize the others as being Orthodox. Well over 90% of American Orthodox are in one of four jurisdictions (Greek, Serb, OCA, Antiochian), all of which fully recognize each other -- and there are multiple other smaller jurisdictions that also are mutually recognized as Orthodox.
You apparently live in a very odd place, if you have three local Orthodox parishes, none of which recognize the other as being Orthodox. I'm surprised that your Orthodox bishop and priest buddies haven't been able to clarify the situation for you.
There are TWO Ukrainian Orthodox Churches. I know the problem with one (from my bishop-friend who is no longer in New England and has not been for a long time; he was moved to Chicago and is not part of any of the three at all, he's OCA) has to do with a "self-ordination" at the hand of a dead bishop. A parishioner from the other one said their priest was pushing the idea of affiliation with the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine (independent of Moscow).
And one that is affiliated with a very strict monastery in Boston (where they've always had the picture of the Czar inside the front door with an oil lamp in front of it).
None of them are OCA or Greek Archdiocese.
The Czar and his martyred family were canonized as Saints in Russia, so for his icon to be in the church with an oil lamp is nothing "unacanonical."
... pushing the idea of affiliation with the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine (independent of Moscow)
You obviously don't know much about Orthodox Church but a good summary can be found here along with a detailed list and descriptive links for each "regular" and "irregular" church.
"All that having been said, I must sadly admit that, every time I come to Free Republic and read the Orthodox postings, I wonder why the Holy Father would even bother? We surely don't need the "numbers" or the money. And do we need the grief?"
Something to remember about Free Republic and really any forum where debate is public: the debate is not about the debaters. It's about the audience. Or in net-speak, it's all about the lurkers.
You see, far more people are reading this thread than those actually posting it. And often times how we conduct ourselves tells far more about us than the content of what we actually say. You will know a tree by the fruit that it produces.
In my view, Pope Benedict is pursuing ecumenism for one reason: he thinks it's the right thing to do and what our Lord wants.
That said, it would be naive to fail to note that there are some advantages to pursuing ecumenism from both a theological and practical perspective. The author of this article very succinctly lists some of the theological advantages and I see no reason to repeat those.
What I would add to that is a brief discussion of the more subtle advantages to pursuing ecumenism in spite of the rude response being received from some members of the Orthodox church. Again, it revolves around the notion that debate is not about the debaters, but about the audience. You see, in a subtle yet very powerful way, the Catholic church through it's actions is stating to the whole world: This Is What We're About. Conversely, the Orthodox are stating the same thing. This Is What We're About.
So ask yourself: which church is sending the more positive message? Which church would you rather be associated with? Which church is going to attract the people that you would want to be associated with?
There are ALWAYS people watching.
Hmmmm. Psycho-masochistic tendancies? Or just maybe a realization that there is something is very very wrong with his entire Weltanspraung?
"The Pope answers this abuse with continued charity and good will. And yet again, he receives grief and humiliation for his efforts. But he always goes back for more."
"Your Church looks great on paper, sounds great in theory. It's just nothing I recognize as 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic.'"
What is it that you are inspecting? I look at a lot of Eastern jurisdictions that I myself do not recognize any more than you as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. I look at some that come close but don't quite measure up, and I look at some that don't even come close.
So I have to ask you, other than union with your pope, what do your require to persuade you that a jurisdiction is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic?
"So who's to say that one of these bishops isn't more correct than another?" TaxachusettsMan
Finally, you ask an intelligent question. I will endeavor to provide an intelligent answer, courtesy of a Western saint whom most Pope-worshipping azymites devoutly wish would go away.
"What is to be done if one or more dissent from the rest
What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.
But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation" (St. Vincent of Lerins, "Commonitory", chapter III)
At least you don't challenge either facts: that the Pope approaches Orthodoxy with charity and good will and that Orthodoxy most often responds with nastiness and grief.
But I think RKBA Democrat has it right.
The Holy Father is doing what is right because it is right and because Our Lord asked it.
By doing this he is saying: This is what we are about.
And the nasty response he always gets, and that so many Orthodox people on this site chime in with, is saying: This is what we are about.
Thank God I'm already in the Church I want to be in.
There is nothing about the Orthodoxy I've met on this board, your own posts chief among the exhibits, that even remotely resonates with the high priestly prayer of Jesus: "that they all may be one."
Orthodoxy, at least in the USA, still strikes me as primarily a group of disgruntled converts from other denominations who, maybe a dozen years ago, didn't like Prayer Book revision and who now are re-fighting the Fourth Crusade and calling the Ecumenical Patriarch a heretic for not keeping their new-found church as strict (and as anti-their old church) as they'd like it to be. Of course, it's still "episcopalian": i.e., a plethora of bishops, with no functioning primus inter pares, grouped in various mutually-non-recognizing Synods arguing over jurisdictions, with the converts resting easy only because at least there are no female acolytes or women priests (which obsession is an entire Weltanspraung in itself!).
The whole thing strikes me as bizarre, kind of an alternative hobby, really, for people who don't like stamp-collecting or model railroading.
"The whole thing strikes me as bizarre, kind of an alternative hobby, really, for people who don't like stamp-collecting or model railroading."
Orthodoxy does not = the people who post at FR. I think your comment quite apt as applied to the people who post here, including yours truly, but I certainly would not confuse any one of us with any religion. You can tell where we come from, ideologically, and also detect our personal strengths and weaknesses sometimes, but that only tells you where to begin.
If you really want to find out what Orthodox is all about, there is only one way to do it and that is by doing it, i.e. by spitting on your current heresies and becoming an Orthodox Christian catechumen. Any number of Roman Catholics who have gone before you will tell you it was rough going in, but a great and a joyful relief once it was done. Finally, for the first time in their lives, they were able to really concentrate on theosis. And theosis, after all, is what it's all about or should be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.