Posted on 01/13/2010 3:29:54 AM PST by Cronos
We have a free-for-all fight post that started out over the naming of a caucus. I feel that unless we debate this between Catholics and Orthodox, we're liable to "interruptions" (bad and good) from other groups. Please can we use THIS thread to debate this coolly, calmly and more level-headedly?
As promised,here’s a closed thread where we can debate this sensibly without “interruptions”
posting what Mark said on another thread “The Protestantization of the Latin Church, culminating in Vatican II has come close to destroying it. If it wasn’t for the Orthodox anchoring the Faith, who knows where it might have gone.
“
I agree with the concept.
But there are some who wouldn't.
As it stands, there is a denomination formed in the last century called the "Apostolic Church." It is a charismatic / Pentecostal denomination. In addition, I believe one could find a number of unaffiliated congregations that use the name as part of their title.
Finally, I believe that there is a school of ecclesiology within Baptist circles, called "Landmarkism," who assert that the original Christians, from John the Baptist on forward, were Baptists and that they were forced "underground" by the Catholics and Orthodox until the time of the Protestant Reformation (the term "a direct line of dissenters" is often used along those lines). I believe that they would also have a serious problem with naming a caucus "Apostolic" -- particularly if it doesn't include them.
(My purpose here is to point out potential objections, not to explain the ecclesiology of Landmarkism, so if I have it a little wrong, I would hope that the appropriate folks would be charitable in correcting my errors and would not use this an excuse)
NOTE TO RELIGION MODERATOR: IF THIS POST WOULD "BREAK" THE CAUCUS DESIGNATION OF THE THREAD, PLEASE DELETE THE POST
I like MarkBsnr and enjoy his posts very much, but I can’t agree with him when he wrote:
“If it wasn’t for the Orthodox anchoring the Faith, who knows where it might have gone.”
The simple fact is that no Orthodox prelate has ever been in charge of my diocese or Mark’s (if he’s Catholic, and he is IIRC). Our parishoners aren’t Orthodox. If much in the Church was steered wrongly after Vatican II, it was by bad Catholics. If that is now (thank God!) being corrected, it is being done so by good Catholics and the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox (as wonderful as they are) have NOTHING to do with it. They’re not our priests, not our bishops and not our faithful. Trust me, I would love to have many of them, but we don’t!
Catholics are fixing the problems in the Catholic Church, not any Orthodox.
Mark’s right. As soon as I saw the “Apostolic” idea I thought of Oneness Pentecostals.
Whatever, if anything, gets done, let us above all realize that caucus designations are NOT theological statements, and should not be debated as such.
Cauci exist to limit debate to a group that shares a common platform. Ideally, people should be free to form cauci ad-hoc. For example, one could post a thread and designate it as Catholics Against Female Altar Boys Caucus. So long as the Moderator knows what is comprises, I don’t see why not. This would allow discussion on how to best ensure Altar servants are boys and not be interrupted by proponents of Altar Girls.
It is possible that the same people post in a Catholic Caucus that excludes the Orthodox, — it would make sense for threads on USCCB politics or peculiarly Roman Catohlic things, such as priestly celibacy, — and also post on a wider Catholic-Orthodox Caucus for things that do not require suich narrow concensus.
I have used Catholic-Orthodox designation (Cath-Orth) quite a bit. If Apostolic is used in that sense, it is fine by me. But let us also keep Catholic and Orthodox separately, for things that are specifically for one of the two these communions. For example, why should Salvation’s daily threads that are tied to the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar posted on any other but narrowly-defined Catholic Caucus?
I look forward to the day when “Catholic” means today’s Catholics and today’s Orthodox without distinctions, but that day is not here yet. We have seen posts from the Orthodox that seemed divisive for the Catholics, and maybe vice versa. This points to a need tof a more elaborate caucus system than simply Catholic meaning both Catholic and Orthodox.
If someone can define a workable caucus definition for the invisible universal community of Christian believers that denies hierarchical episcopacy, let them, but they should not usurp the Catholic label.
Just keep things as they are, Catholic, Orthodox, Catholic-Orthodox, plus special-occasion ones.
It would be good to post a brief definition for each, but there is no suitable place to post it. Something that would say, for example, that “Catholic” caucus is reserved for Catholics in full communion with the Pope in Rome, that Orthodox are by default invited but not for matters that still separate us; that those who claim “catholic” in the Protestant sense should find another label for their caucus, that it is not a matter of theology but convenience for ease of moderation. Perhaps someone would volunteer to write a simple definition of Catholic Caucus and if we reach consensus between ourselves and with the Moderator, then the Religion Moderator would graciously agree to place a link to the committee-written definition thread on his profile page. That could be a model for every other frequently used forum.
One lung cannot be more true than the other. One lung cannot be at home and the other one just "visiting." Some (Roman) Catholics will just have to understand that brothers are not visitors when they share the same house. It would be as wrong to treat (Roman) Catholics as "guests" on (Eastern) Orthodox caucuses as it is wrong to treat the (Eastern) Orthodox as guests on (Roman) Catholic caucuses.
I suggest the designations remain unchanged with that understanding in mind. We don't have to accentuate what Pope Benedict XVI aptly called the "shame of our division" (May 16, 2009 addressing the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem).
There has been a steady stream of Orthodox traffic into the Vatican as far back as JPII's early years. The USCCB 20 years ago had perhaps 1/3 orthodox bishops and 2/3 bishops that will grace the floor of hell with their skulls.
This traffic has only increased under BXVI. I do not think that you understand the scope of your claim; and I do not agree with its accuracy.
Shame is a correct and accurate term. With all the neochristians careening about the landscape with partial and inaccurate knowledge and resultant fervour, it is shameful that we engage in partisan and fraternal bickering, as I would say that the Orange and Green Irish do, or the Serbs and Croatians do, if the analogy holds.
I’m on board. I’d like to know more about those who deserted the Church in her time of need.
But there should be proper mutual decorum. A Roman Catholic should not pepper an Orthodox thread with negative remarks, and an Eastern Orthodox should not do anything similar, to the extent that they take over the original topic. If an Orthodox wants to discuss, for example, the behavior of some Roman Catholic bishops vis a vis Notre Dame, a Roman Catholic (!?) University, he should not do it on threads designated as Catholic and devoted to a intra-Catholic activism. A remark or two would be OK, but a redirection of the thread into what the Orthodox have to say about this is no different than a Protestant coming onto a thread about a liturgical matter and disputing whether liturgy is “biblical”. Recall that it is the latter phenomenon that necessitated caucuses in the first place.
I don’t know if Kolokotronis ever did so, but the core of his parting remarks was that he considers that his right on a “Catholic Caucus” thread. I am his friend, as you know, but I think he was incorreect on that and so he should come back and have a virtual drink with us.
proper mutual decorum...sounds like “positive persistent presence” (great line from In The Bedroom)...what exactly does that mean Mr. Spock?
Well, I don’t know.
I know how it was before the caucuses with the Roman Catholics. Someone would post a devotional to the Virgin Mary, and next thing you know there would be a dozen posts about idolatry and how Mary was a sinner like all of us.
The Eastern Orthodox do not get that kind of hostility, but trust me anyone with a memory here on FR who is Roman Catholic would remember that vividly.
Now, between our two confessions there is much ground for irenity, but still at times there is a need to discuss something peculiar to one “lung” or the other “lung”. My suggestion is that when a topic is tilted toward the Catholic side the Orthodox should not make it a battleground and vice versa. It would be fine to open a Cath-Orth thread then and there have at it.
For example:
A “Catholic” (narrowly) thread on how to get the Roman Catholic US bishops to defeat the Obama’s recent initiative. Let the narrow-Catholics talk about it. Do not make it a thread whether canonical disciplines should prevent Roman Catholic Bishops from involving themselves in political debates. To do so will violate the decorum because we, narrow Catholics cannot discuss what we want to discuss. You may very well be correct that our bishops violate the canons, but it is not the place to make that point.
An “Orthodox” (narrowly) thread is about the suffering of the Serbs at the hand of the Ustashi. The Roman Catholics should resist the temptation to celebrate Blessed Stepinac on that particular thread. For the same reason.
A Cath-Orth thread. There, have at it. Martino, General Drozdov, Filioque, celibate priests shaving, bearded priests married, what have you.
I don’t know if Kolokotronis ever did so, but the core of his parting remarks was that he considers that his right on a “Catholic Caucus” thread. I am his friend, as you know, but I think he was incorreect on that and so he should come back and have a virtual drink with us.
Catholics are comprised of all Latins and all Orthodox. If Kolo was acting in a sense that members of a caucus should not act ie. abusive language etc., then action taken against him as a member of that caucus is appropriate. If he is denied access as a non member of the caucus, then I take his side completely. There is a proper meaning to Catholic and I will not have a bunch of poorly catechized yahoos attempt to hijack it, any more than I will not have a bunch of poorly educated yahoos attempt to hijack the name of Christianity.
I do not put up with it from the children of the Reformation and I will not put up with it from the poorly catechized Catholics of any stripe.
It is not about “poorly Catechized”. It is about taking a thread on the Notre Dame scandal and converting it into a thread on episcopal jurisdictions. You don’t have to be rude to hijack a thread, and the ecclesiology has nothing to do with the intent of forming one caucus or another.
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.