Give Me A Reason Why Catholicism Is Preferable To Orthodoxy...

[Selah]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1353034142' post='2511043']
One other thing, Eucharistic Adoration. This is the one thing that actually convinced me Orthodoxy was not the way to go. Adoration is just not a practice in the Eastern tradition and I love it so much! it's an incredible privilege to spend time with Jesus in this way. I would be soooo sad if I never got to go to Adoration anymore
[/quote]


Some Churches have adoration. The main reason that it's not a practice is because of the belief that the Eucharist is meant to be consumed, and consumed only.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1353018497' post='2510818']
what the title of the thread reminds me of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2kEx5BLoC4
[/quote]i love Ms Chapman! Excellent taste.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Light and Truth' timestamp='1352969072' post='2510454'][quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1352949508' post='2510297']In terms of liturgy, art and architecture there's not much room for creativity or for different cultures to bring their own innovative gifts.[/quote]
I find more exposure to creativity within Orthodoxy because of the opportunity to see how different cultures express themselves. In Catholicism, mostly I just hear the same old Roman Rite stuff.[/quote]
The Eastern Orthodox have a very good sense of how to properly celebrate the liturgy, and they also stand firm in their traditions. Moreover, Light and Truth is correct, because there are variations in how the liturgy is celebrated among the different cultures where the Eastern Church is dominant.

That said, what Orthodox do not favor is change to the liturgy simply for the sake of change, or for entertainment purposes. Roman Catholics could really use a dose of solid Orthodox liturgics in order to help them straighten out the liturgical disarray that has ruled within the Roman Church since the close of Vatican II.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Apotheoun

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Apotheoun' timestamp='1353461920' post='2513968']
The Eastern Orthodox have a very good sense of how to properly celebrate the liturgy, and they also stand firm in their traditions. Moreover, Light and Truth is correct, because there are variations in how the liturgy is celebrated among the different cultures where the Eastern Church is dominant.

That said, what Orthodox do not favor is change to the liturgy simply for the sake of change, or for entertainment purposes. Roman Catholics could really use a dose of solid Orthodox liturgics in order to help them straighten out the liturgical disarray that has ruled within the Roman Church since the close of Vatican II.
[/quote]

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that if the Roman liturgy were celebrated more like the Orthodox liturgy it would be a marked improvement.

My issue is more with the rigidness of liturgical and sacramental arts, vs. the celebration of the liturgy itself. For instance, I LOVE icons (obviously note my avatar). This form of art is precious. And yet in the Eastern churches it's pretty much the only fully accepted form of religious art. There are VERY strong opinions about statues for instance. In spite of the fact that pre-schism there were statues in the east, you don't have to question too far to find Orthodox who think if it's a 3D statue vs. a 2D icon, it's idolatrous.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1353551383' post='2514604']
Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that if the Roman liturgy were celebrated more like the Orthodox liturgy it would be a marked improvement.

My issue is more with the rigidness of liturgical and sacramental arts, vs. the celebration of the liturgy itself. For instance, I LOVE icons (obviously note my avatar). This form of art is precious. And yet in the Eastern churches it's pretty much the only fully accepted form of religious art. There are VERY strong opinions about statues for instance. In spite of the fact that pre-schism there were statues in the east, you don't have to question too far to find Orthodox who think if it's a 3D statue vs. a 2D icon, it's idolatrous.
[/quote]
But you see, your comment reveals a lack of knowledge about Orthodox liturgy, because the Typikon only regulates the actions of clergy, while the actions of the lay faithful during the liturgy are a matter of custom and personal preference. Orthodox liturgy can be described in many ways, but "rigid" is not an accurate descriptive term. After all, it is the Roman Church that issues liturgical "laws" that try to micromanage the actions of everyone in the synaxis, and not merely the clergy. It is the Roman Church that tends to be rigid about the liturgy, except that massive disobedience leads to all sorts of strange liturgical situations (see for example the liturgies at the [url="http://www.youtube.com/user/tvaparecida"]Marian shrine of Our Lady of Aparecida[/url] in Brazil).

As far as the importance of two dimensional icons is concerned, that was determined by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which technically binds both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, except - of course - that Roman Catholics by and large have decided to ignore that ecumenical council.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Apotheoun

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Apotheoun' timestamp='1353552200' post='2514612']

As far as the importance of two dimensional icons is concerned, that was determined by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which technically binds both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, except - of course - that Roman Catholics by and large have decided to ignore that ecumenical council.
[/quote]

My understanding is that in Orthodoxy (and at that council) statues are not specifically banned but just looked down upon as inferior - Russian Orthodoxy in particular I think has 3d stuff. And in some Western Rite parishes too but again I think the rest of Orthodoxy tends to look at the WR parishes as "semi-questionable" in some respects... and understandable given how Eastern Rites in the Catholic Church have fared, why westernization is considered something to be guarded against. I know icons have a special role to play but I don't know... I just think other styles of painting, statues and other art are useful too. The more all-embracing attitude has given us gifts like the Pieta and the David which are just priceless to Christianity. I am sure they were not inspired the way we think of as icons as inspired... but anything that is so beautiful I can see God's hand in. Things like the Ghent altarpiece.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1353591824' post='2514757']
My understanding is that in Orthodoxy (and at that council) statues are not specifically banned but just looked down upon as inferior - Russian Orthodoxy in particular I think has 3d stuff. And in some Western Rite parishes too but again I think the rest of Orthodoxy tends to look at the WR parishes as "semi-questionable" in some respects... and understandable given how Eastern Rites in the Catholic Church have fared, why westernization is considered something to be guarded against. I know icons have a special role to play but I don't know... I just think other styles of painting, statues and other art are useful too. The more all-embracing attitude has given us gifts like the Pieta and the David which are just priceless to Christianity. I am sure they were not inspired the way we think of as icons as inspired... but anything that is so beautiful I can see God's hand in. Things like the Ghent altarpiece.
[/quote]
Displaying statuary is not forbidden, but veneration - according to the council and patristic tradition - is only to be given to two dimensional icons.

Also, icons are not art in the modern sense, nor are they placed in a Church in order to make it look pretty, although icons certainly do add to the beauty of a Church building. Instead, icons are placed in parish Temples in order to be venerated. Icons are liturgical prayers that mediate divine energy to those who venerate them. Veneration of three dimensional images - according to St. Theodore Studite - is a form of idolatry, which is why Orthodox Christians are not supposed to offer any semblance of veneration to statues during the liturgy.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Apotheoun

[Byzantine]

[quote name='Apotheoun' timestamp='1353613937' post='2514848']
Displaying statuary is not forbidden, but veneration - according to the council and patristic tradition - is only to be given to two dimensional icons.

Also, icons are not art in the modern sense, nor are they placed in a Church in order to make it look pretty, although icons certainly do add to the beauty of a Church building. Instead, icons are placed in parish Temples in order to be venerated. Icons are liturgical prayers that mediate divine energy to those who venerate them. Veneration of three dimensional images - according to St. Theodore Studite - is a form of idolatry, which is why Orthodox Christians are not supposed to offer any semblance of veneration to statues during the liturgy.
[/quote]

Why the distinction?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1353591824' post='2514757']

My understanding is that in Orthodoxy (and at that council) statues are not specifically banned but just looked down upon as inferior - Russian Orthodoxy in particular I think has 3d stuff. . . . [/quote]
[i]The information below on icons is taken from an outline I wrote some time ago highlighting some of the differences between East and West on various theological, liturgical, and ecclesiological issues:[/i]




(16) In the Eastern Churches — both Orthodox and Catholic — icons are always two dimensional images written according to specific aesthetic rules often referred to as "reverse perspective," and so one will rarely if ever see statuary (or even naturalistic paintings) in an Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Church (except those that have perhaps suffered a degree of Latinization).

(17) Icons are also believed to contain divine energy, which means that they are a mystery (i.e., a sacrament) that bestows grace upon those who venerate them. Icons, because they are filled with energy, manifest the person or event depicted in them, and are consequently not merely signs pointing to a reality that is absent, but render present the personal reality of the saint or event imaged.

(18) How an icon is produced (i.e., written) is regulated in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic tradition, because an icon is believed to be a living expression of the Orthodox faith. In other words, an icon is not a piece of art, and the iconographer is not an artist in the modern sense of that word, because he is not trying to express his own ideas, nor is he trying to display his own natural talents. The iconographer is first and foremost creating a liturgical prayer, a window into heaven, and in order to do that he must live the Orthodox faith through prayer and fasting, while following the norms established by the Church's iconographic Tradition. Moreover, in writing an icon the iconographer is creating a specific memory ([i]anamnesis[/i]) of an event or person within the life of the Church, a memory ([i]anamnesis[/i]) that is identical to the memory ([i]anamnesis[/i]) of the whole Church. Thus, an icon is a theophany, i.e., it is a manifestation of God through an eruption of divine energy into the world, which means that an icon really is what it signifies; and so, to touch an icon is to touch the personal reality of the mystery itself. For more information on icons I would recommend getting a copy of the book: [u]The Meaning of Icons[/u], by Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir Lossky. Other helpful texts include Fr. Kucharek's book [u]The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom[/u], and Leonid Ouspensky's two volume work entitled [u]Theology of the Icon[/u].

[theculturewarrior]

The development of doctrine.  The Church has been ready to answer questions to contemporary problems always.  We never stopped having councils or shining the light of Christian Revelation on today's issues.  GK Chesterton says that once a thing stops growing, it dies.  That is not what happened to the Orthodox because we are One Church, but this does say something for the authority of the Church.  If Rome moved to Byzantium or Russia, why have they not had ecumenical councils?

 

The Church is visible, it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.  There is no Church on earth that is more visibly One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.  The answer St. Francis of Assisi is very apt for this, as is Bl. Mother Theresa of Calcutta.  Even the scandals recently testify to this.  The Church is so visible that it was targeted (justifiably) by media outlets around the world for a problem that is rampant in several international organization and in public schools throughout the country.  The Church was targeted because it is visible, because the scandal was sweeter to the media due to the call to holiness, and because the Holy Spirit purifies the Church.  This is a problem in the Orthodox Church too, and in the protestant churches.  Where is the media frenzy?

 

The Church is visibly Catholic.  If someone says that I am Catholic, nobody asks "are you anglo-catholic, Old-Catholic"  The assumption is that I follow the successor to Saint Peter, the Bishop of Rome.  The first of the Apostles.  The Chair of the visibly apostolic Church.

 

If the Church is visible, and Catholic, how does the primacy not belong to Rome, when we have called ourselves Catholics for 2 millennia and non-Catholics described themselves as such to distinguish them from us?  If the Church is visible and Catholic, and if Jesus as promised did not leave us orphans, how did we get away with calling ourselves Catholics for two millennia if we are not the Catholic Church described by the Nicene Creed?

 

And also, what makes this my Church, just as important as any philosophical argument, is that this is my heritage.  This is the faith of my ancestors.

Edited December 3, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[Apotheoun]

If Rome moved to Byzantium or Russia, why have they not had ecumenical councils?

 

You probably are not aware of this, but the Eastern Orthodox Churches are preparing to convene an Ecumenical Council in late 2013 or early 2014.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Apotheoun

[Selah]

You probably are not aware of this, but the Eastern Orthodox Churches are preparing to convene an Ecumenical Council in late 2013 or early 2014.

 

Ooh, I didn't know that. Is there anything on what will be discussed?

[Apotheoun]

Ooh, I didn't know that. Is there anything on what will be discussed?

 

There are a range of issues.  One of the most important being the creation of autonomous Churches in the diaspora.  The Eastern Orthodox have already established Episcopal Assemblies in the various regions of the world (e.g., the Episcopal Assembly of North and Central America).  All the bishops within a given region participate in the Episcopal Assembly for their geographic area, regardless of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  Ultimately these Bishops Assemblies will become the Holy Synod within their region, and the various jurisdictions will be united into one self-governing Orthodox Church for their area, with a metropolitan or patriarch.  

Other issues will also be discussed, as established and set forth in the pre-conciliar Pan-Orthodox conferences, which have taken place over the last few years.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Apotheoun

[theculturewarrior]

You probably are not aware of this, but the Eastern Orthodox Churches are preparing to convene an Ecumenical Council in late 2013 or early 2014.

 

That is good to know.  Really cool.  Question though, because I really don't know.  Have they convened any ecumenical councils to address doctrinal challenges to the deposit of faith?  For example, a council in which liberation theology says this about God, this is what it means to us as Orthodox?  If so, when was the last ecumenical council that the Orthodox convened to address doctrinal challenges (eg the development of doctrine)?

 

Will doctrine be discussed at their next council?

Edited December 4, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[Apotheoun]

That is good to know.  Really cool.  Question though, because I really don't know.  Have they convened any ecumenical councils to address doctrinal challenges to the deposit of faith?  For example, a council in which liberation theology says this about God, this is what it means to us as Orthodox?  If so, when was the last ecumenical council that the Orthodox convened to address doctrinal challenges (eg the development of doctrine)?

 

They have convened councils over the centuries that dealt with doctrinal matters, but Orthodox Christians reject the notion that doctrine "develops" over time.  They believe - as scripture teaches - that the "faith was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) is - like God, who is its source - an immutable reality. As far as "liberation theology" is concerned, and some of the other modernist heresies that have affected the West over the course of the last few centuries, the Orthodox have not had these strange kinds of heresies develop within their own Tradition. Perhaps some of the difficulties the West has experienced are due to the fact that theology and liturgy were separated from each other in the Scholastic high middle ages in the Roman Church, while this approach was never adopted in the East.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Will doctrine be discussed at their next council?

 

It is my understanding that there may be discussions about matters of doctrine related to the "mysteries" of heretics, and whether they are grace filled or not.  The predominant viewpoint of Orthodox at the present time is that grace is inherently present in the Church when she celebrates the holy mysteries, but that heretical and schismatical groups, because they have separated themselves from the Church, cannot validly / efficaciously celebrate the holy mysteries.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Apotheoun

[theculturewarrior]

It is a dogma of the Catholic Church that doctrine does not evolve.  We believe that it is the same faith that the Apostles received, just like the DNA of a mustard seed is the same as the DNA of the tree.

Edited December 4, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[theculturewarrior]

Do the Orthodox believe that Catholics have valid sacraments?

[theculturewarrior]

As a grace-filled Catholic, I would object to that.

[Ice_nine]

Do the Orthodox believe that Catholics have valid sacraments?

 

 

I don't believe so. I kinda remember the Orthodox talking about having to do with God's economy? That the sacraments aren't valid but perhaps in God's mercy there's grace or something or other. My memory's a little bit fuzzy and this is probably a waste of internet juice. Don't quote me (and don't think you're cute if you actually hit the quote button like LOLZIMSOCLEVER)