Feast Day

Rod, yesterday was the feast of SS. Peter and Paul in the Catholic Church, too.

The feast of SS. Peter and Paul is a big deal in Rome, because of course they are regarded as the two founders of the Church of Rome. (Much is made of the fact that both the secular, imperial Rome and the later Christian Rome are regarded as having two founders.) Last year when I was in Rome doing Fr. Foster's Latin program, he arranged for the class to take a trip outside Rome on that day, because he said Rome would be a madhouse. That was rather irritating for those of us who, unlike him, haven't lived in Rome for 35 years and would like to have experienced the "madhouse" for ourselves. ;-)>

I converted to the Roman Church when I was 18. I spent 11 years working for it professionally, and over 20 as a member. When I converted to Orthodoxy three years ago, I knew I had really come home. The question is not whether the Orthodox Church has sin (it does) or whether it deals with sin better or worse than any other ecclesial body. The issue is whether it is the Church. Some of us former Catholics have come to the conclusion that the Roman church is schismatic and heretical-working for it helped confirm that for me. The diversity and beauty are selling points, but ultimately the issue is where do you find the Body of Christ. Romans seem to spend a lot of time yelling at potential converts to Orthodoxy-I used to do that too because the pain of trying to be faithful to historic Christianity within the Roman church caused so much pain that I could not bear the idea of someone actually getting to be Orthodox if I could not. To Rod I say, "Come on in-it is far more wonderful than you can imagine-even with the sexual scandals and other sins. God is to be found here.">

Please, readers, let's not turn this thread into a discussion on the heresy of this or that church. The point I wanted to make with this entry is that the social element of the Church -- Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, whatever -- is so important. This is new to me; I've always thought of "the Church" as an institution that defines dogma and dispenses sacraments, and that's pretty much it. My wife grew up Southern Baptist, and she said the hardest thing for her to get used to about being Catholic is the loss of that "dinner on the grounds" sensibility that was second nature to Southern Baptists, at least the ones she grew up with. I'm sure that some Catholics have that too, and I don't intend to be cracking on Catholics in this way. I only wanted to point out that what I saw yesterday -- a small, diverse community of believers, united in belief, feasting together after completing the fast and celebrating the liturgy -- was a model of the Church that is new to me as someone accustomed to a more purely intellectual model. And it's a beautiful thing, whether you get it in an Orthodox parish, a Catholic one, a Protestant one...>

MZF: I doubt it was your intention in this post, but you seem to be inviting a contrast with Roman Catholicism on this point. It is not difficult to be edified when being in the upper room so to speak.

No, that wasn't my intention. I am told that Abp Dmitri is almost sui generis when it comes to bishops ("In all of Russia, you would not find an Orthodox bishop like him," one Russian immigrant parishioner told me, referring to Dmitri's man-of-the-people humility). What was edifying to me was not so much being around the archbishop (though that certainly was), but the feeling of "here we are all together, a family praying and feasting under the same roof." That's new to me, and I see now what I didn't see before.>

I wasn't so much trying to start a thread about the heresy of this or that church as to say that I understand Mr. Dreher's experience at the Cathedral-and that the particular qualities he describes perhaps point to something he is looking for. I don't know if I am a crunchy conservative, but I find a lot in the book that I agree with. My desire to live a traditional, organic, connected Christian life was frustrated a lot when I was Roman-I found my parishes to be lacking in those qualities. That's not to say there are no Roman parishes where that life might be lived. Further, I too practiced for a while at an Eastern Catholic parish. I know that experience too. However I certainly do not want to start a nasty debate.>

Amen to that. :)>

Rod, I've been to those special feast days at Vladika's and it is awesome...but it's not just in the 'upper room' that you get that wonderful family feeling. It is on the parish level, too. We gather together every Sunday for dinner after the Divine Liturgy in Plano (St. Sava Orthodox). I can count off-hand, 5 different languages that you are likely to hear on any given Sunday. Everyone chattering happily and eating together in fellowship. It's really wonderful! In Denton, at St. Maximos the Confessor, it is the same. And up in Denison at St. Paul the Apostle - the same. Like Vladimir said to you, this is Church.>

PS: Thanks Jonathan Carpenter for pointing that out. If Rod didn't want people to argue whether Orthodoxy was better than catholicism, he wouldn't write posts like this one.

It's called being "passive aggressive".>

If you like hearing people speak in languages you don't understand, why are you uncomfortable at the Latin Mass? Perhaps it because there is a different between a worship situation and a fellowship situation? I'm just thinking out loud here.>

My analogy seemed somewhat missed by others. Upper Room was simply denoting joy and celebration. If you look at a lives of the saints, you see the ability to see God's grace amongst sinners. For the Orthodox, Dostoevsky is oft quoted as saying he could see Christ greatest in the drunk or the prostitute.

I have nothing against joy and celebration. They are vital and necessary. I would not call it a mark of discernment on anything. It is easy to see God's presense in joy and festivity. It is the greatest challenge to see His presense amidst wreckage and destruction.>

David White, maybe he doesn't mind hearing russian when he isn't expected to participate, whereas he is expected/invited to participate in the latin mass.

call me crazy, but i find irritating when i'm at a social gathering and people around me are speaking a language i can't understand.>

I sometimes attend a monthly mass from a travelling SSPX priest. After the mass there is always a lunch where everyone comes together united in faith. Being somewhat unsatisfied and dissapointed with the Novus Ordo masses and making the brave move to attend SSPX masses we have a lot in common. There is a real sense of community that is lacking in the mainstream RC parishes no matter how hard they try to artificially promote it.

Archbishop Dmitri looks like a very good man. Keep in mind that he is a convert and converts have a reputation for being the best. When he made his choice to convert, he may have alienated himself from his family and friends and former faith community. He made a conscious choice and does not take his faith for granted. That may be the case for a lot of the parishioners in his church. United in faith and the choices they made on their journeys.

That is not always the case. I live in an area which had a lot of Orthodox immigrants.

Webshots - Images of Alberta's Orthodox Heritage

Depsite their liturgical beauty and rich heritage, most of the Orthodox people I know do not practice at all. Oddly enough given their identical liturgies and beliefs Ukrainian Catholic parishes have far higher mass attendance and vibrant parishes then Ukrainian Orthodox parishes.

As a devout Catholic I am saddened with all of the problems the church is grappling with and the leaderships inability or unwillingness to deal with these problems. However, we are all sinners and if you expect perfection from this world you will always be dissappinted.>

Take it with a grain of salt, Rod.

It means you've got something to say when people take the opportunity to try to discount, counter or distract from it.

I don't always agree with your stances and interpretations, but I respect the way you present them.>

I think to most people, the principle e pluribus unum would dictate the prayer be said in one common language, Latin or Greek or Russian or take your pick.

Sorry the conversation is not up to your standards.>

Last Sunday I attended a special gathering at my Roman Catholic parish, too. It was to say goodbye to our wonderful pastor, whose deserved reputation for orthodoxy caused celebration here in Fort Worth when he was named our new diocesan chancellor by our new bishop. We will miss having him as pastor, but we rejoice to have him as chancellor!

The gathering was certainly not up to Rod's standards. A lovely buffet was served, but the food was quite ordinary, of the sandwiches-cold fruit and veggies-cake variety. Father's blessing before the food was heartfelt and simple, but in ordinary everyday English. (If any foreign language was occasionally heard, it was probably Spanish). The many who attended all had one desire--to thank Father for his years of service and leadership.

I met a woman I didn't know, who talked about the wonderful Bible study classes Father has held throughout his time at this parish. She was a former Episcopalian, and our conversation turned to the current events in that church. I enjoyed talking to her very much. Meanwhile, my husband had met an older gentleman who spoke about his upcoming visit with his one surviving brother, a Benedictine priest in his 80s.

I doubt there is anything about my parish or that gathering that Rod would approve. From the crowded parish hall to the plebian plastic cups and paper plates, from the folded metal chairs to the flicker of fluorescent lighting, the whole thing could be described in Rod's usual pejoratives: middle-class, bourgeois, white-bread, comfortable. But I saw the Church. Love, community, concern for each other's welfare, sadness mixed with joy at the departure of our dear pastor, laughter, conversation, a very ordinary meal transformed into something special by the occasion.

If you have to have gourmet food, the company of archbishops and a kind of exclusivity to have the Church, then what are you really looking for?>

Curious wrote:
> If you have to have gourmet food, the company of
> archbishops and a kind of exclusivity to
> have the Church, then what are you really looking for?

This reminds me of some High Church Anglican friends who love their fancy liturgy and big-fish-in-small-pond access to Bishops but are embarrassed by the "Joe-Sixpack-in-the-pew" types you'll find in a typical Catholic parish, as well as all the unspoken prejudices. Maybe due to the recent rumors of schism in the Anglican/Episcopalian world, the Eastern Orthodox Church will become the new Via Media for Protestants who want a bigger dose of tradition but who can't stomach swimming the Tiber.>

From the crowded parish hall to the plebian plastic cups and paper plates, from the folded metal chairs to the flicker of fluorescent lighting, the whole thing could be described in Rod's usual pejoratives: middle-class, bourgeois, white-bread, comfortable.

That's the problem with the contempoary Catholic church. Perfectly mediocre.

In the link above I posted a link to various beautiful eastern Orthodox and eastern Catholic parishes that were built over 100 years ago by illiterate peasant immigrants. Similar works of beauty can be found in rural Alberta French towns built by the hands of the local faithful. Before criticizing Rod, you should understand that the eastern rites have always taken their religious practices very seriously and feasts are and have always been taken very seriously. This was the case of those Ukrainian peasants 100 years ago and it is still the case with their descendents today.

What is wrong with exposure to high culture anyway? In the practices we worship the lord should we not strive for the best?>

I had a social opportunity recently, too. During lunch today, I did my Meals on Wheels route. At one house, a frail elderly guy had a hard time making it to the door. I tried to unlatch it from the outside but couldn't, so he had to get up and unlatch it for me. He was sitting at the kitchen table just a few feet away from the door, but it took him a while to get to the door. First he had to clutch the table for support, then the refrigerator, then the door jamb. It was heartbreaking.

But he didn't speak Russian, and his meal was certainly not gourmet, so maybe he doesn't count.... ;)>

kathleen reilly writes:
mass is the ultimate "pot luck dinner"

I understand what you're saying, but I think we're still missing something if we as a Christian body don't sit down and eat meals together regularly. I want fellowship and to enjoy the fruits of the earth with my brothers.>

Thank you, Brierrabbit. You got my point entirely. And not that it would matter to you bitching-and-moaning knotheads, but I drank wine out of a plastic cup at the gathering last night, and it was delicious. The people and the occasion was the thing, and it was a lovely thing.

If I wrote a post that said simply, "Christ is risen! Glorify him!", the Knotheads would find something to complain about.>

"here we are all together, a family praying and feasting under the same roof."

That is The Mass. That's not enough for you? I don't mean to be snarky, I ask sincerely.>

Sorry, I'm checking out of this thread. I'm sick of you Catholics who cannot leave well enough alone, who have to turn every post into an occasion to start a fight over Catholicism versus Orthodoxy. If that's your idea of keeping me in the Catholic Church, or of making Catholicism attractive to potential converts, you're pitifully mistaken. You would be a lot more persuasive, and even interesting, by talking about the good things happening in your own parish. That's the only reason I started this thread: for people to talk about moments like this they've experienced in their own church, whatever their church is, and to discuss its meaning in their lives.>

"Knotheads" ??

Rod, if you must label people with whom you disagree, couldn't we stick with "Catholic hotheads?"

I'm sorry you never found community in the Catholic Church. (Did your old parish really not offer any opportunities whatsoever for this?) I'm sorry the priest sex scandal has caused you to turn your back on Roman Catholicism and actively seek another church. But I wish you'd quit acting like the Eastern Orthodox church has all these unique wonderful opportunities that don't exist in the church whose dust you can hardly wait to shake off your feet.>

"not that it would matter to you bitching-and-moaning knotheads, but I drank wine out of a plastic cup at the gathering last night"

you're right Rod, it doesn't matter a whit to "the Knotheads", which is kind of our point, if ya think about it.>

"Sorry, I'm checking out of this thread. I'm sick of you Catholics who cannot leave well enough alone, who have to turn every post into an occasion to start a fight over Catholicism versus Orthodoxy."

Rod, it's clear you've attracted a gaggle of shrews, naysayers and other insufferable types who must comment negatively on your every post simply because you wrote "Crunchy Cons," with which they vehemently disagree, but worse, you announced that you're considering Orthodoxy, which has driven these unstable, insecure types 'round the bend. If it is not possible to weed these folks out, I would recommend you go to a "No Comments" status. What you have to say is too important to be constantly interrupted by these folks.>

No one else has descended to that kind of abuse, IMO.

Except Caedmon.>

"gaggle of shrews" -- sexist abuse at that! tsk tsk!>

Your tolerance for "nastiness" seems to be selective. There is an awful lot of nasty being thrown around on the thread below this one and you haven't peeped once. Can you say...double standard?>

Personally, I agree that the nastiness didn't start with the Knotheads, but with you, Mr. Dreher and the Orthodox, but I would never expect you to see it.>

Lorenz wrote:

There is a real sense of community that is lacking in the mainstream RC parishes no matter how hard they try to artificially promote it.

Lorenz, I disagree. But then, I'm in the Diocese of Charlotte, where Catholics are still so few that they really do stick together. There's almost too much fellowship available at out little parish, and there's nothing the leats bit "artificial" about it. My hermit husband's kind of shy, and it's definitely more fellowship than he prefers. LOL--as I said above, diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. Not everyone is gregarious, and some would rather sink into the earth and be swallowed alive than undergo a "convivial" dining experience with a large group of people.

But anyway, as I say, if it's warm, genuine Catholic fellowship you want, the Southeast is where you'll find it---along with solid orthodox Catholicism.>

"If that's your idea of keeping me in the Catholic Church, or of making Catholicism attractive to potential converts, you're pitifully mistaken."

Rod, your self-centeredness knows no bounds. I for one am barely interested in
"keeping you in the Catholic Church". I don't know you, and anyway I'm not sure you were really in the Church in the first place. I'm just pointing out where in your thinking about the Church you go astray-- not that you care.>

Rod -

Why on earth are you surprised when you get comments like this? You seem like an intelligent man. It's really not that hard to figure out.>

"Hi, Caedmon / Nevski! How verrrry nice to see you here. (Battinf eyelashes sweetly.)"

You've been seeing me here for the last two days, and you've responded to me about a half a dozen times. You're just now getting around to greetings? Does some substance affect your memory?

But what about those friars and the fake bishop, anyway?>

BTW: Yesterday was my younger son's name day, and I must say I rather resent Rod's implication that it's the exclusive property of the Orthodox Church.

Viva St. Peter, the Rock on which Christ built his Catholic Church.>

...and I must say I rather resent Rod's implication that it's the exclusive property of the Orthodox Church.

Absurd, yet ridiculous.>

Luke, what's ridiculous about it? Rod's post begins: "In the Orthodox Church, yesterday was the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul." That sentence clearly implies that Rod is telling us something special about the Orthodox Church, when in fact June 29 is the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul in the Roman Catholic Church as well, and even in some Christian denominations according to some people who posted at the top of this thread. Journalistic accuracy would suggest that Rod begin his post in a way that acknowledges this fact, i.e. "In the Orthodox Church as in much of Christendom, yesterday was the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul." To omit this fact while highlighting the Orthodox observance of this feast has much the same effect as a sentence which says, "In the Baptist Church, December 25 is a special feast day known as 'Christmas.'">

"BTW, Nevski: I wouldn't tangle with Kathleen if I were you."

Yes, I've seen Kathleen in action, Diane. Don't sell yourself short: you intimidate me more than she does.

If that tells you anything. :>0>

Don't you mean, "Now cracks a noble heart. Good night, sweet prince,
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!"?


Or you could find some line from Crocodile Dundee, like, "Good shootin', Skippy.">

Good grief, I mentioned that it was the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul in the Orthodox Church because so often there are feast days in the Orthodox church that aren't the same as in the Catholic Church. I meant nothing else by it. And I think you handful of trolls understand that, but have nothing better to do than ruin what might have been a decent ecumenical thread about feasting and social life in the church.

Caedmon, I have no control over who gets to post in these boxes. It's all on Beliefnet. If I did, we wouldn't even have to be having this conversation. I would simply ask those of you who aren't Catholic please not to judge all Catholics by the childish behavior of this small handful of spiteful malcontents. All I can say is that we will apparently have to learn to talk around them.>

'Or you could find some line from Crocodile Dundee, like, "Good shootin', Skippy." '

yeah, i could, but the thing is, i don't really spend much time "finding lines" from shakespeare, current cinema, etc. just so i can be some sort of erstwhile thread champion extraordinaire. but apparently that is something crunchy conservatives like to do.>

"yeah, i could, but the thing is, i don't really spend much time "finding lines" from shakespeare, current cinema, etc. just so i can be some sort of erstwhile thread champion extraordinaire. but apparently that is something crunchy conservatives like to do."

Well, dear, that post was so rhetorically lame that your stock just plunged. Not that it was high to begin with.

Diane, is this an example of the prowess about which you warned me?

(Goodnight, sweet shrews.)>

Caedmon, don't forget your handy Bartlett's book of quotations when you go on your little trip.>

The reaction to what Rod says shows the limitations of the internet, wonderful as it is, in that you can't see the person speak and hear the tone of voice to help you interpret what they mean sometimes. So sometimes what a person says sounds snarky and it really isn't. Like when Rod said that June 29 was the Feast of Ss. Peter and Paul I thought, well, gosh doesn't he know it is in the Catholic Church too? I didn't think about the point that some of the feasts are not at the same time, like All Saints, and that there are Old Testament Saints and such that the East has days for and we don't. I also thought when he said the guy says to him "This is the Church" and he thinks "Yes it is", I thought, oh gosh, Rod has gone and officially converted to Orthodoxy. Actually, I guess what you were trying to say is that when Christians meet together in fellowship, that Christ is there, and where He is, that's where the Church is.

Yeah, I do agree with that and think part of the problem with both the Catholic Church (I am a Catholic, convert from the Episcopal Church) and the Evangelical "Superchurches" is that the average parish is so large it's hard to get a sense of community. I think the average Eastern parish is smaller and more intimate, at least in America. I also think that Americans are a very rootless people who often live at a great distance from their relatives and so look for family in their church community. From what I have read so far, it appears that Rod was born in Lousiana, and has lived in New York and Texas. No wonder he is looking for community. And in a sense our fellow Christians are our family.

It is sad to me that due to the unfortunate break between East and West, a person cannot be big C Catholic and B O Orthodox at the same time but has to choose to join one or the other. This is very unfortunate. Some of the people from my old Episcopal Church joined the Russian Orthodox Church. Well, I said to myself, at least they joined a real church with real sacraments. A sister church, if you will. When I talk to them, they often gently try to get me to consider joining them. I tell them I am not going to do that because I do firmly believe in the necessity of the Petrine office. However, the fact that they want me to join them means that they do care about me because they believe that they have found the True Church and they would be remiss if they didn't try to share that with me. I feel the same way about them and am sad that we no longer can take communion together at the same altar. This is why the present divided state of Christendom is a shame and a scandal. I think the church needs to "breathe with both lungs" and I pray that we may one day all be one. There is much beauty and holiness in both the East and the West. Rod, if you do end up joining the Orthodox Church, I just hope you won't be one of those converts who thinks everything about their previous church was second rate and bogus. I don't even feel that way about the Episcopal Church, as much as it's been taken over by some pretty wacky people. There's a lot of good stuff in the Book of Common Prayer, and if CS Lewis, Samuel Johnson, George Herbert and Jannani Luwuum aren't in heaven, I don't think I'll make it either!>

Rod, you have made it abundantly clear that those of us Catholics who wish to defend the Catholic faith are not welcome on this blog. In fact, any Catholic unwilling to lap up eagerly your honeyed descriptions of your newfound spiritual paradise will be subjected to your derision, childish epithets, and slurs as to our characters and purposes here (I have NEVER been called a troll by anyone but you.)

Enough. I am not willing to commit the sin of being lukewarm. Besides, I have far too much self-respect to remain in a "community" where it is clear that I am not wanted. I will continue to add your name to my nightly rosary intentions, but I will no longer participate in this ugly charade. Though I will miss reading this blog, I will not miss your dismissive and abusive attitude toward posters such as myself; in fact, it is my duty to leave, since it is quite possible that I have become an occasion of sin for you.

A poster above suggests that "Normal Catholics, and a few have chimed in here, would tell Rod, "We're sorry you're thinking about leaving, but God bless you in whatever decision you make."" Actually, "normal Catholics" try to dissuade their friends and acquaintences from schism, whether the ancient schism of the east or the newer one of SSPX. I made the mistake, Rod, of thinking that you actually wanted to debate the merits of Catholicism, both here on this blog and in a few e-mails we exchanged. Now I see that you are set on the course for the Orthodox Church, and have no further interest in Catholicism. I therefore encourage my fellow "knotheads" to join me in my determination to leave you to the road you have chosen. We won't be missed.

Goodbye, Rod. Or perhaps a better word, all things considered:

Dasvidanya.>

Marty, if I do ultimately leave the Roman church, don't worry, I won't be one of those who complain about her.

Good grief. You already do nothing but complain about her. It couldn't possibly get any worse once you Dox. (Or maybe it could. You may fit right in with the Indiana List / ROCOR Cafe crowd. You've already got the "anti" mentality down pat.)

And BTW: The "Roman" church? I don't know any "Roman" church. We're the Catholic Church, thank you very much. Last time I checked, we weren't wearing togas.

Curious, Jonathan Carpenter, C.M.W., and anyone else who's interested: Feel free to e-mail me anytime at diane_kamer@yahoo.com. Like Curious, I am outta here. The atmosphere is noxious.

God bless!>

If you would like to learn the historic/patristic teaching on what it really means to be 'catholic,' St. Vincent of Lerin's 5th century Commonitory is a very good start.

http://www.westernorthodox.com/commonitory

If you read early church writings at all, you will see that this teaching is consistant throughout the early Church. And the Orthodox Church today, continues to hold on to it in her definition of what it means to be 'catholic'.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/9/story_917_1.html

Also, Caedman, the biggest problem among Orthodox today, especially on the two lists mentioned by another poster here, is the number of Orthodox who presume they have the spiritual perfection (and the humility and grace that comes with it) to be like the great saints of the past who fought against heresy. It is better to follow St. Seraphim and 'acquire the Spirit of peace so that a thousand souls maybe saved around us.' Unfortunately, most of us are not anywhere near that level of perfection, and we are more likely to do harm out of our own uncontrolled passions, than good out of the indwelling grace of God.>

>>> And BTW: The "Roman" church? I don't know any "Roman" church. We're the Catholic Church, thank you very much. >>>

Absurd, yet nonsensical.>

James Likoudis, like yourself, Diane, is an anti-Orthodox fanatic.

His famous last words: To go deep into history is to cease to be Eastern Orthodox.

I'll be sure to remind Archbishop Dmitri of that when I see his this evening.>

"Richard Hofstader called Anti-Catholicism "The Pornography of the Puritan.""

I've also heard anti-Catholicism described as "the anti-Semitism of the Left".

***

I'm sorry that this thread has degenerated the way it has. It is possible that I started it, without meaning to. T think I'm the first one who posted a comment here. I'm one of those who interpreted Rod's opening statement, the way he phrased it, as an indication that he wasn't aware that July 29 was the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul in the West, as well as in the East. I'm sorry if I misunderstood, and I'm sorry if I was in any way responsible for the way this thread has degenerated.>

CMW and Curious, I hope ultimately you will decide not to ban yourselves. It's fun to point out the emperor has no clothes-- especially when pointing it out to the "emperor" himself (well, the emperor and his courtiers). Don't let the resultant squawking rattle you. We are on the side of truth, justice and the American way!>

Looking at how this thread has devolved, I would suggest that it is very clear why rapproachement between East and West is not coming anytime soon. One cannot mandate unity from the top down--"you can't legislate love," as my dad always used to tell me. Until we start acting like brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of whose bishops will commune who (something that is entirely out of the control of the layperson to begin with), nothing on which our bishops reach concord will make a whit of difference. (See also the Council of Florence.)

Rhetorical oneupsmanship is not the business of the Christian people. Loving each other is. A conversation focused on that point would be far more productive, and dare I say it, far more crunchy.

Richard>

Richard Barrett:
> I would suggest that it is very clear why rapproachement
> between East and West is not coming anytime soon.

You're probably right about that, but I don't think a few comments like the ones solicited by this blog post prove anything of that kind. Catholics are just as likely to jump on each others throats. It's just that Rod has an expert talent for pushing buttons and he's doing it with this extremely public "conversion". This blog post & ensuing comments merely represent the latest installment in that drama.

Dave Armstrong, a renowned convert and apologist, weighed in above with this question: "I'm just curious, why you are considering possibly leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy? I'm assuming the reason must be more than the pleasantness of interesting social gathering with good food (not that you intended to leave such an impression!)." Mr. Armstrong is no internet troll and I echo his question. I wonder if I missed Rod's giving of his theological basis in another part of the blog, other than what he mentioned in the comments here: "I've always thought of 'the Church' as an institution that defines dogma and dispenses sacraments, and that's pretty much it." (emphasis mine) Obviously if "that's pretty much it" is his final answer, Catholics and Orthodox would do well to point out that both churches have much more fully-developed ecclesiologies.

I wish Rod would give some solid theological reasons for his move. I became Catholic in 1994 after studying the teachings of the church for several years. During that time, I hungrily read Peter Gillquist's "Becoming Orthodox" alongside many Catholic books. But he really didn't answer the question "why not Roman Catholic" to my satisfaction.

During that time, I also attended a Maronite Rite liturgy which I found to be very beautiful. I've also enjoyed the traditions and congregational singing of the Byzantine Rite Catholics. I don't know why these aren't good enough for Rod anymore. Is it the whole scandal thing? See, I don't get that; everyone knows Rod had nothing to do with bad priests or any scandals or coverups -- does he think it reflects personally on him more than on anyone else?>

Well, it's too bad this thread has gone downhill so badly. However, speaking as a Catholic, I don't think the use of the term "Roman
Catholic Church" is necessarily perjorative. I have often heard the term used to delineate between Latin Rite Catholics and those of the various Eastern Rites. It's true that some of my Episcopalian friends call it the "ROMAN catholic" church, big emphasis on Roman because they claim that the Anglican Church is part of the Catholic Church. And fundies often talk about "Romanism"

However, I have heard Catholics use the term Roman Catholic of themselves without perjoration. So I don't think you should go looking for offense where none is meant.

I read a good article in the American Conservative magazine recently (Amconmag is put out by Pat Buchanan and others of the "Old Right" who want to present a different point of view from the neocons). There is an article by an EO lady who describes herself as EO but an admirer of the Pope and the Catholic Church. She reports on some hopeful movement in rapprochment between our two Churches. Part of this is driven by the increasing secularism and godlessness of Western Europe. Unfortunately, too many Christians seem to be arguing about how to arrange the furniture while outside the house the whole neighborhood is burning down.

I certainly don't like to see people leave the Catholic Church because I believe that the fullness of Christian truth is there. However, if someone ceases to believe that the Papacy is a necessity for the Church, what should they do? People are always saying that people who don't believe in the Church's claims should leave. So if Rod doesn't believe anymore that ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia, what is he supposed to do? I mean, if he does leave, at least he's not joining some fundamentalist sect like lots of ex-Catholics. The Pope has described the Orthodox Church as a "sister Church" and there is no doubt in our minds of the validity of her sacraments and priesthood.

So what I am trying to say is I don't think all you well meaning Catholics who are trying to either argue Rod into staying in the Church or threatening him with eternal damnation, are accomplishing your intended ends.

I am not trying to be indifferentist about this whole thing. Rod, I wish you would choose an Eastern Rite Catholic Church if you are so enamored with all things Eastern. You get all that cool Eastern spirituality and communion with the Successor of Peter both. What's not to like about that???

However, the best I can do is pray that God will guide you and give you enlightenment. God bless.>

As one Orthodox hierarch put it, "fanaticism alone" exaggerates the "insignificant differences" between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Correct. Is that hierarch Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) of the Moscow Patriarchate?

Apparently, Rod, you have aligned yourself with the fanatics.

I disagree.

And BTW: The "Roman" church? I don't know any "Roman" church. We're the Catholic Church, thank you very much.

There is such a thing as 'the Roman Church', I think technically called 'the Latin Church'. At least until recently it had the Pope as its patriarch as well as its universal leader. The Eastern Catholics are Catholic but not Roman/Latin.

(Strictly speaking the Roman Church is the Diocese of Rome.)

James Likoudis is a nice man - we've corresponded - and does yeoman service for the Roman Rite but is biased against Orthodoxy and not an expert on it as far as I can tell.

Out of fairness I'll balance that by saying IMO Frederica Mathewes-Greene is a nice woman - we've met - but biased against and knows little about Western Catholicism.>

In the late 197o's and early 1980's I often attended Russian Orthodox and other Othodox churches. Without wanting to give offense, I found that many considered their own national or local churches "more orthodox" than the others,..

Imagine if you can, Stephen Hand, that in the early 20th Century, an atheist political power had overtaken Europe or Italy, had taken the Pope of Rome captive, murdered most of the clergy of the Roman patriarchate, and cut off all communication between the Pope and the Roman Catholic bishops in the United States. Imagine still further that the murdering atheist government in Europe or Italy had begun to go to the US courts and succeed in taking RC church properties from their congregations. Think about the magnitude of that situation for awhile, and how the RC bishops and churches in the US would have fared without their pope. Then talk to me about how messed up the Orthodox Church is in America. The RCC hasn't begun to drink from that cup.

And she is slowly but surely overcoming the martyrdom of the past 100 years. She is far along from where she was in the late 1970s.>

I was collecting heirloom seeds from my winter garden all day and I missed the bulk of this.

Caedmon you said:
Yes, Madam: you are very much the shrew, but to your credit somewhat more manly than the wisps of men who blog on your blog.

Wisps of men? I blog at concrunchy.blogspot.com as cubeland mystic. I suspect you re your comment might have been directed at me since I have the ethereal handle and the unusual picture. Please consider that I fall more in the crunchy camp, and I blog there for the engaging thoughtful discussion. Although I am Roman Catholic, my picture is of an Orthodox hermit, out of respect for the Orthodox faith.

The contras have never treated me with disrespect. I blog on their subjects, and try to engage them from the crunchy point of view when applicable. The only other crunchy that blogs there is a gentlemen named Jeff, and only infrequently.

There is a lot of intellectual gravitas over there, which makes it a very challenging environment. If you feel you have what it takes perhaps you should join us? If the crunchies want to be taken seriously they should patiently address their critics every time, and in great detail since crunchies are the ones asking for the lifestyle change. Especially when they make bold statements that they can see things that matter more clearly.

They are not wisps of men , they are good men and women engaging what they see to be spurious challenges to their political beliefs. Kathleen is not a shrew she is a woman trying to live out her vocation in a difficult world. That is a dehumanizing, unchivalrous, and shameful thing to say about her, especially coming from, and it is difficult to say in light of this exchange, someone on our side.>

"[I]s it not possible that Mr. Dreher is simply coming to the conclusion that Orthodoxy is the faithful expression of the Church? Is it inconceivable that someone could come to that conclusion?"

Photini, certainly not. But you are misreading any catholic anger to be found here -- at least mine. Do you think it is mature or respectful to publicize one's conversion process so shamelessly? and all the while, implying that one's refined tastes and superior intellect are part and parcel of such a decision? People constantly refute this point with "Dreher said no such thing" -- perhaps not explicitly, but context is all. As a professional editor, Dreher should know this (IMHO he does know it, but that's another issue). And how do you explain Dreher's indulgence of outrageously rude Orthodox commenters, coupled with his lashing out at not-nearly-as-rude catholics?

that was a rhetorical question. I'm not particularly interested in an answer at this point. but you seem like a reasonable person, so I would urge you to reconsider the catholic input on this thread.>

Well, I haven't spent large amounts of time on this site, therefore I could have missed really rude Orthodox commentary. If so, then I would say the same thing-rude is rude and uncalled for. I'm not bothered by vigorous debate at all, but nastiness seems to be counterproductive. Mr. Dreher, I think, can struggle with his issues anywhere he wants. I don't know if he has a superior intellect. If taste is objective, and to a certain extent I think it is, he may or may not have superior tastes. You may of course take issue with him, but frankly I find you in particular extremely harsh. That sounds harsh in print, and I apologize. I doubt very seriously if Mr. Dreher would deny that intelligent and tasteful people can be Roman Catholics.
What I would say is this. I found many good and holy people in the Latin church. There is much in it that I still admire and agree with. However, I found the actual practice of Roman Catholicism in this country very far removed (in general) from the historic Christian faith. I found myself and other theological conservatives like myself hanging on to the idea of the Pope for dear life because the bishops, priests and parishes around us were so often dysfunctional to the point of heresy. This made my faith cerebral and abstract beyond a certain point because I could not practice a vigorous, theologically orthodox Catholicsm in the parishes I worked in. If you want to e-mail me privately I can explain further.
One of the reasons I became Roman is because there were no Orthodox churches in the town where I grew up. I may have been Orthodox from the beginning if there had been. Perhaps Mr. Dreher has always been more Orthodox than Roman, and is now finding that out. Perhaps not, and he will work out his issues with the Latin church and remain in communion with Rome. This is his blog, however, if I am not mistaken. He can work out his stuff in whatever manner he likes, and while it is right and just to challenge him if you disagree, to attack him personally is not OK. Examples would be questioning whether he was ever a faithful son of the Roman church or insinuating that he has already left the Roman church. Unless a person is his wife, his spiritual director or Mr. Dreher himself, I cannot imagine where they would think their remarks along this line were justified. I'm just sorry that remarks I made led Mr. Dreher to think he should opt off this thread because the tone got so nasty so fast.>

"Do you think it is mature or respectful to publicize one's conversion process so shamelessly?"

What Jennifer said. Roman converts do this all the time. It is a red herring.>

Photini and Jennifer, the blog has a comments section and I felt compelled to use it. I will say that the only reason I'm on the blog is because Dreher wrote Crunchy Conservatives, and the habits of thinking Dreher exhibits in that book that are all too consistent with what I see, and have described to you, here. I'm sorry if you believe I'm extremely harsh, but Dreher makes me angry, so I guess the anger shows.

I should clarify: IMHO *Dreher believes* he has a superior intellect and superior tastes. I don't believe that either are superior to, say, mine, or those of many people I know.

Personally, I'm not interested in peoples' reasons for their religious orientation (unless I know them personally). Likewise I don't expect you to be interested in mine. Now it's my turn to sound harsh, but I don't see what your conversion story has to do with my problems with Rod Dreher.>

"It may not be 'respectful' but it's certainly normal"

Jennifer, it may be normal, but so is thong underwear being sold in the little girl's clothing section. And if you agree that it's not respectful -- synonymous with "disrespectful" -- then I see no reason why catholics should pipe down.>

"Jennifer, it may be normal, but so is thong underwear being sold in the little girl's clothing section. And if you agree that it's not respectful -- synonymous with "disrespectful" -- then I see no reason why catholics should pipe down."

I don't think that you should "pipe down" but I think you should refrain from writing that he was never Catholic to begin with or that he's a narcicist, etc.>

Dave Armstong weighs in with some great comments on this thread. Hey, can't help it -- I'm a huge fan of Armstrong, he's one smart Roman.

Also, there's a 4th of July sale at Blockbuster.

So, Luke, how's that list of Romans who blogged their conversions coming along?>

"So, Luke, how's that list of Romans who blogged their conversions coming along?"

I'm jump in with an example. I know for a fact that some Anglicans were not too thrilled with the Pontificator's blog. They didn't feel that he represented Anglicanism in a fair light. Some of them felt that he was disrespectful towards where he came from.

I doubt seriously that any Roman Catholic reading the Pontificator's blog had the same impression.>

Jennifer, thanks, that's at least a start. I haven't read his blog much. If the other entries are like this current one then I appreciate his theological astuteness and clarity. If you could point me to a direct blog entry made before he formally converted but when he was considering Romanism, I'd be very interested in reading it. That would be a good "apples-to-apples" comparison with Rod's current posts.>

Kathleen,

Forgive me for chiming in. But I don't see the need to be angry at Mr. Dreher.

He has not said that the RC is bad. He has said that his experience as a Catholic was (is?) positive. He has also not made the argument that his personal tastes arise to the level of "theology." I have not read his posts that way.

Now you may be upset that his positive Orthodox experiences imply that his Catholic experiences were not as good. I would feel the same way if the shoe were on the other foot. I would be upset and sad, but not angry. His experiences are what they are.

I have read many times about protestant converts to Rome talk about how they considered Orthodoxy but rejected it in the end, especially for what I would call poor reasons (e.g. ethnicity).

This upsets me, but does not make me angry at the person.>

Luke, could you post some links as examples re: these Romans? I'd like to compare and contrast. Thanks in advance.

Here's but one example - ">http://catholica.pontifications.net/?page_id=956>

Brian, Rod exhibits a pattern. He is doing to the catholic church, and by extension fellow catholics, what he did to "mainstream conservatives" in his book Crunchy Conservatives. If you haven't read his book or his previous "crunchy con" blog on National Review then perhaps you are not as familiar with the pattern as I am. This blog is named after that book -- his way of thinking about religion and politics is of a piece, and IMHO is harmful to Rod himself. I feel compelled to point it out. He has zero interest in what I have to say, that has been amply illustrated. But I'm betting that life will have its way with him and he'll be forced to figure out he's building castles (OK, orthodox cathedrals) on sand. By saying this I'm manifestly not impugning Orthodoxy, i'm impugning Rod. Whether or not he converts is almost irrelevant. I have huge issues with the catholic church, but whether or not he converts barely matters to me.>

"I would argue that these supposedly non-intellectual reasons for his 'enchantment' with Orthodoxy are in fact 'theological,' what we worship is what we believe and all that. "

I don't discount that point, but often the enchantment inevitably cheapens the process. You can become infatuated with a religion, just like you can become infatuated with a rock band or a person. *One must guard against such infatuation, not celebrate it.* That's why the conversion process should remain private, and why mature people consider conversion privately.>

"That's why the conversion process should remain private, and why mature people consider conversion privately."

I would argue that there is no such thing as a private conversion. Little "c" catholicism is by definition 'communitarian.'

As to your assertion that mature people consider their conversion privately, I would argue that's a matter of taste and personality. You're falling into what you accuse Dreher.

This is a cliche, but none the less it's true. Some of us live our lives very privately. Some of us don't. I don't think it's necessarily a matter of "maturity" but rather of disposition.

For that matter, there have been a number of very public conversions to Roman Catholicism chronicled on blogs, e.g. Alvin Kimmel. I watched him over the year or so when he was considering conversion and it was obvious where he was going but I don't know if it was as obvious to him as it was to me and other readers of the blog. It never occured to me that he was immature because his 'steps towards conversion' were so public. And I doubt seriously that any RC reader of his blog thought that Mr. Kimmel was "immature." On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the ECUSA readers of the blog thought he was "immature" and wished he considered his conversion in private.>

Let s not forget the entire Surprised by Truth series about conversions to the Roman Church.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0964261081/ref=pd_sim_b_3/102-7743943-3575325?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

And apples to apples, Muggeridge s (an editor) public conversion to Catholicism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Muggeridge

There is also the Journey Home series on EWTN, a multi-year series dedicated solely to the conversion stories of those returning to Roman Catholicism.
http://ewtn.com/journeyhome/index.asp

Kathleen and Pauli, is this the type of thing you are talking about when you are critical of Rod s public kvetching about our faith, and then his subsequent flirtation with the Orthodox church? If so this is minor, perhaps consider ceding this trivial point. You have much more substantive criticisms to offer than this.

Rod,

Please allow me to offer a little advice. If this were my blog, and I had a consistent group of dissenters I would engage them every single time that they showed up. Do it in a consistent friendly manner and then welcome them back for more. Also I would engage them at their home field too (http://concrunchy.blogspot.com/). When you allow them to impugn your ideas without response they diminish them. Hence they are winning in my book. A rope-a-dope strategy works in sports, but is not effective in the world of ideas. After all it was you who gored their factory farm raised ox. These folks are not knotheads , they are smart and consistent, and that s why you cannot afford to ignore them any more.>

Kathleen,

You said: "By saying this I'm manifestly not impugning Orthodoxy, i'm impugning Rod."

You shouldn't be impugning anybody. Thats the point. :)

What human knows what is going through somebody else's mind, what struggles they are going through, what awful experiences they have had? This applies to Pamela Anderson and Paris Hilton.

That is why Christ said not to judge the person. We can judge what they say or what they do (regarding the moral law, not in regards to attending a pierogi eating contest) and label it correct or incorrect.

Some on this thread accuse Mr. Dreher of not engaging the issues "theologically." Well, perhaps his whole point is not a theological one. He is just reflecting on his experiences of a community.>

Jennifer, I honestly have no earthly idea what you are talking about. I have never, in all my years of churchgoing, had a potential convert publicly discuss with the parish the whys and wherefores of why he or she may or may not convert. I also have never heard of such a thing in any parish anywhere. The only time when converts are publicly identified is at the actual conversion mass. That is a far cry from doing an "I may convert, I may not" dance on a public blog for months on end. If you can't see the difference then I can't help you.

one final thing: Maturity is not subjective. Perhaps you will find that out at a later date.>

doh! it appears I do "make an apology".>

"Kathleen and Pauli, is this the type of thing you are talking about when you are critical of Rod s public kvetching about our faith, and then his subsequent flirtation with the Orthodox church? "

No. a book about someone's conversion that has already taken place is different than what is going on here. Dreher states he has not yet converted. A public consideration of one's own possible conversion is what I have a problem with.

There is obviously no problem with catholics trying to get people to convert, as with the EWTN series. catholics owe that to potential converts.>

Why are you so obsessed with Rod, his supposed sinister motives, his personality, the ways he talks about his religious experience or what foods he likes? If it doesn't float your boat, why do you bother reading it?

It s not an obsession in my view. Rod wrote a book about the influence of faith on politics. He created a category of conservatives that may or may not exist. The dissenters have some skin in conservative politics, and I suspect they see Rod's incursion as a weakening of the base. They are pointing out the inconsistencies of Rod's message. For example in this specific case Rod makes negative public statements about our faith as practicing Roman Catholic, and then talks publicly about his infatuation with Orthodoxy. (Disclaimer: I have the same infatuation and respect for Eastern Orthodoxy, but I will not convert.)

When the dissenters pursue Rod he does not engage them. Since he makes his statements publicly in a discussion forum they think that he should debate them on the issues. Hence they keep criticizing his ideas. Rod has the ability via his position in the media to influence thousands of people's decisions on faith and politics.

Here is where they are rightly concerned, Caleb Stegal. Right now the thought of a third party is laughable. However in a perfect storm scenario a power splitting third party scenario could occur in the near future. This would be a bad thing.

If Rod's book were called Crunchy Catholics you would have never heard of Pauli, Contra, Bubba and Kathleen or anyone else I forgot. If they were off point stragglers or whacko s you would have forgot about them by now. However, they have consistently and intelligently stated their cases against Rod's ideology for a long time now. The problem is Rod does not challenge them on this forum or their own contra crunchy site. By allowing them to drive the debate here unchallenged, he is weakening his own credibility in my view.

I propose the following challenge.

Rod should go out and get some of his high powered Crunchies (Stegall, Larison etc.) and the Contra's should get Goldberg and other dissenters. You have 10 crunchies vs. 10 contras. Create a blog with only the selected 20 participants. Come up with a list of 30 questions, and have a neutral party post them over the course of a month. I volunteer to be the neutral party.>

Pauli, I agree that Al Kimel takes a more negative view of his former communion than is typical of converts to Catholicism. Most converts to catholicism--either high-profile or obscure--have many positive things to say about their former confessions. Steve Ray, Mark Shea, Thomas Howard, Peter Kreeft, Greg Krehbiel, and many others extol the solid grounding in Basic Christianity they received from their evangelical backgrounds. They praise the evangelical zeal for souls, the love of Scripture, the emphasis on closeknit Christian community, and the many other virtues associated with their former communions.

In Fr. Kimel's defense, he is coming from a communion--TEC/ECUSA--that has become increasingly hard to take seriously. I know he appreciates its positive aspects (majestic liturgy, lovely church architecture), but I think he has become so overwhelmed by its negative aspects that he cannot help but testify to their deleterious influence. I believe he converted to Catholicism for essentially positive reasons; he would have preferred to convert to Orthodoxy, all things considered, but the Scriptural and patristic witness to Petrine jurisdictional primacy proved too mcuh for him. So, it was Peter that made the difference--IOW, theological and historical considerations. However, Fr. Al might never have considered the claims of Rome at all had not the ECUSA descended into "madness." In the wake of GC2006, who can blame him?

I believe it is entirely different for converts from Catholicism to Orthodoxy. They are not coming from a church that has officially abandoned all commitment to biblical and patristic Christian faith. Rather, they are converting from the Church which most fully and consistently upholds the entire Christian Faith, whole and intect, via the threefold witness of Scripture, Tradition, and the living Magisterium. Thus, IMHO, whereas converts from ECUSA can perhaps be forgiven a certain negative attitude toward their former communion, converts from Catholicism to Orthodoxy cannot. And, in my experience--my Internet experience, at least--converts from Catholicism to Orthodoxy almost invariably become fiercely anti-Catholic. I have seen few exceptions--and, of those few exceptions, every single solitary one has ended up coming back to the Catholic Church. (One revert told me he had intended to remain an ecumenical, irenic Orthodox, free of anti-Catholic sentiment, but this was rather difficult to pull off in Bishop Tikhon's diocese.) Personally, I think the ex-Catholic Orthodox's hostility toward Catholicism--which is often extreme--reflects a certain "kicking against the goad." Some just go on kicking until they've whipped themselves into a froth of pure hate and fury. Others get tired of kicking and come back home to Rome.

I hope Rod will be one of the latter, but his unfair, slanted comparisons of Orthodoxy and Catholicism--always to the latter's disadvantage--do not give me much reason for hope.

Simon, BTW: I find your indignation selective indeed. You ignore the MUCH more inexcusable behavior of certain Orthodox on this forum--and of Rod himself for that matter--and single out the Catholics for censure. This is precisely the sort of double standard that IMHO does no service to either God or Truth. If Catholics' reasoned objections to Rod's misrepresentations supposedly give such bad witness, then what can be said of the ad hominem rants of Caedmon, Luke, and co.? Why do the Orthodox get a free pass? Can you say "double standard"?>

Kathleen,

You said: "PS Brian: that is exactly what I'm doing, and i make no apology for it. It appears you simply don't like it. sorry about that."

First, forgive me for saying that is not what you are doing. I was talking about the ligitimacy of criticizing Mr. Dreher's comments, not Mr. Dreher himself, which is what you did.

I don't see much to criticise in relating a positive experience of attending another church's celebration, other than to comment that he is not attending Mass.

Second, its not a matter of me liking what you say or not. I do not want to patronize you, so forgive me if you think that is what I am doing. I have said before that I fully understand your concern and your being upset.

All I am saying is that it is not spiritually healthy to condemn the person.

Pax.>

maria said: If Catholics' reasoned objections to Rod's misrepresentations supposedly give such bad witness, then what can be said of the ad hominem rants of Caedmon, Luke, and co.? Why do the Orthodox get a free pass?

1. We all need to distinguish better between reasoned argument and bigotry. If I state my opinion that the Orthodox misread history with regard to the Petrine office or the pentarchy of partriarchates in late antiquity, I am not "anti-Orthodox." If I express gratitude for the fact that as a Western Christian I have the opportunity to attend Holy Mass and receive Our Lord in the most holy Eucharist every single day, I am not being "anti-Orthodox."

Conversely, if an Orthodox Christian points to historical evidence in favor of his Church and against mine, he is not being "anti-Catholic." Likewise, if he points out the merits of some particular Eastern Christian devotion or practice that in his opinion has been unfortunately neglected in the Catholic Church, he is not "anti-Catholic".

It's when we start the ad hominems, or when we make sweeping generalizations about problems that are supposedly endemic to each other's communions, that we go off the rails. To that end, I think your comments about the supposed ill-will of "Internet Orthodox" are way over the top.

2. I am not Orthodox, so my personal concern is that my fellow Catholics in this, er, "debate" uphold the law of charity.>

Good grief, Simon. Have you read this thread? I am not referring to Orthodox arguments contra the papacy; I would consider such arguments typical grist for the blog-combox mill and a welcome change from insulting ad hominems!

No. I am referring to Caedmon's rants about "a gaggle of shrews" and Rod's rants that all Catholics who dare to disagree with him are "knotheads" and "loudmouthed malcontents."

Such comments go way, way beyond the pale and have no place in a forum like this one.

Surely you would agree...?>

Simon,

I fully agree with your post. Hearm hear!!>

"Rod's rants that all Catholics who dare to disagree with him are "knotheads" and "loudmouthed malcontents.""

Where did he write that "all Catholics" who disagree with him were knotheads or loudmouthed malcontents? I agree that you wrote that about you and your friends but "all Catholics who dare to disagree with him..." Come on now, Diane.

If you can't find the exact passage, then please apologize to Mr. Dreher for slandering him.

Thank you>

Jennifer, he has said worse than this, as you well know. Check out the "Heat" thread as well as this one. I am sure you can find the relevant quotes.

And no, I am not going to apologize to Rod for the fact that he has repeatedly, unprofessionally, and unChristianly insulted me and my fellow Catholics. (Insert Rolleyes emoticon here.)>

Simon,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

However, I must disagree that the estrangement is due to "not listening" to each other or "pride."

There are very legitimate differences. These differences have not been helped by the political/social issues you mention, but they are legitimate none the less.

I have had the priviledge of listening to Metropolitan MAXIMOS of Pittsburgh, who was one of the major contributors to the recent statement on the filioque issue by the North American Orthodox/Catholic Theological Consultation. He shared with our class the proposals of that statement before the final document was released. He said quite specifically that there IS a difference (on the filioque) and we should recognize it and go from there.

I would encourage any Catholic or Orthodox to read it. The address is:

http://www.usccb.org/seia/filoque.shtml

IMHO the schism could have been overcome by now IF the theological situation was similar to that of the 12th Century. But it is not. From the Orthodox POV, Rome has added doctrines such as infallibility (something not even mentioned by RC theologians when the schism occurred).

After Vatican I, it is now very difficult to come to a common understanding. Papal Supremacy is one thing, Papal infallibility as a doctrine is quite another.

As I said in the previous post, does any Catholic think that Papal Infallibility is negotiable? Does anybody seriously think that the Orthodox would accept that?

From my POV, both Vatican I and II were not good councils for the latin church. One set the bar way too high, the other set it too low, and now they are reaping the whirlwind.

Sorry if my comments offend you or anyone else on this site.>

"If you don't see 'em, Jennifer, you're not looking very hard."

If they are so easy to find why you don't quote them here?

"Now go away and harass someone else, please, as I have repeatedly asked you to do on at least three fora."

Sorry, Diane, but I just want clarification.

If you're going to make accusations you should be able to back them up.>

"One could assume" that, and one would be wrong.

VCI is non-negotiable. The Church does not repeal the solemn decrees of ecumenical councils.>

Jennifer: There are delicate political reasons for this. (And BTW, Rome doesn't target any one group for conversion; that doesn't mean Rome has ceased to believe that she is the one True Church which all are bound to belong to. Please see Dominus Iesus and the Catechism. Also Lumen Gentium and the VCII Decree on Ecumenism. They, not the Bamamand Statement, are the authoritative, official sources for Catholic ecclesiology.

And BTW--I notice above that you are once again practicing spiritual direction without a license. As I said before, please practice it on someone else for a change. Like, maybe, on your friend Caedmon / Nevski, who has called women on this thread "shrews" and told them to "suck eggs." Of course, your double standard blinds you to this sort of viciousness---but then, how can I take you seriously as my would-be spiritual director when you exhibit such selective indignation? ;)>

Jennifer, did I say he called *all* women "shrews"? Stop putting words in my mouth, dear.

You forfeited your credibility a long, long time ago.

Bye-bye!>

Bye-bye, Jennifer.

Find someone else to harass.

And for the 80 thousandth time, honey, you are NOT my spiritual director. Stop telling me what to do. Go. harass. someone. else.>

criminy, get a life Jennifer.>

LOL, Kathleen. You ain't kiddin'.>

Come on, every one, please let's be civil. As Gandhi said, if we adopt the "eye for an eye" scenario we will all end up blind. :)

Jennifer, I don't believe Balamand opens "Papal Infallibility" to negotiation. Many Orthodox, as you know, don't like Balalmand, either. The same goes for RC traditionalists.>

"Jennifer, I don't believe Balamand opens "Papal Infallibility" to negotiation. Many Orthodox, as you know, don't like Balalmand, either. The same goes for RC traditionalists."

I agree, however, IMHO, it does indicate a 'shift' in RC thinking about the papacy.

I'm aware that some RC trads hate the Balamand Agreement. I believe there are groups in Eastern Europe, affiliated with the SSPX, that consider it to be a betrayal.>

Jennifer: Please, ixnay with the divide-and-conquer stuff. God has not granted you special insight into Kathleen's soul. OK?

You know, when you're not insulting people, you have some really good things to say. I thought your posts about modernity over at Crowhill were very insightful.>

Dear Maria,

Yes, I quite agree with the thrust of your statement. Bishop KALLISTOS said basically the same thing you said about the way the communists forced the EC's into Orthodoxy in his book, "The Orthodox Church."

However, I wouldn't say the Orthodox "gleefully" did anything. At the height of the purges under Stalin, there were only two functioning bishops in the Soviet Union. The rest had been tortured and shot. During the height of "Holy Mother Russia" when the Orthodox Czars reigned supreme, they never forced the EC's back into the Orthodox Church. It was the communists who came up with this idea because they looked with dread upon the Papacy.

The Orthodox were doing what they were told, which is certainly no excuse, but I don't think "gleeful" would describe anything they did during those times.

Also, many churches have been restored to the EC's, which is a good thing. However, some have also been confiscated by the EC's. Hence the tension between the Vatican and the MP.

I also agree with you regarding religious persecution. Not to excuse Russian behavior, but you must remember that there has never really been religious freedom in Russia until now. There was not complete religious freedom in the US until 80 years AFTER the Consitution was ratified. The first amendment was thought to apply ONLY to the Federal Government. The Congrgational Church was the established Church in Massachusetts until before the Civil War. Hence Thoreau's civil disobedience...he did not want to pay the church tax.

Moreover, both the EC's and Orthodox are dismayed by the activity of evangelical groups and cults. The so-called "registration process" does not apply to any established religious groups, only to new ones. The established groups would include the ECs, the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, and some existing protestant groups like the Baptists.

I don't condone this at all. I am just trying to put it into context.>

Simon,

Yes, there is always hope.

I had as a professor, Fr. Michel Najim, who served on those commissions with the Oriental Orthodox. He was hopeful. :)

However, he also served on the previous RC/Orthodox International Diologue Commission meeting in Emmitsburg, MD (?) which broke up over the EC controversy. He was not so hopeful. :(>

"The Orthodox by any stretch of the imagination are not what I would classify as an intensely "missionary" church- to its discredit"

I submit that this is a fairly ignorant statement. See the Orthodox missions today in Africa which are reaping great fruits, and the missions in Alaska, Kamchatka and Siberia, China, Japan, Indonesia, and others. They even have a mission today to Jews in Jerusalem. The Antiochians especially in this country have brought many Protestants into the Church, and there is some effort within the OCA to begin reaching out to African-Americans.>

Brian or Simon

Two questions:

Do both churches consider each other's members heretics?

Is there an Eastern Orthodox equivalent for say the Carmelites?

These are serious questions I have. If you don't mind answering them please contact me at my site via email. I have no intentions of arguing with you, I am truly curious.>

John,

This is a complicated question. In the past, both sides have hurled accusations of schism at each other. Some Orthodox consider the filioque and Papal Infallibility as heresy, while others see it as a very flawed doctrine. There is a continuum.

As far as I know, the Synodikon does not list the filioque or PI as heretical, but when we receive converts from the RC the rite requires that they renounce the filioque, though in practice this is not usually done.

Nowadays, I would say that the RC's have (officially) a much more tolerant attitude towards the Orthodox than vice-versa. RC's will allow their faithful to participate in some Orthodox sacraments under certain circumstances and allow us to partake of their Eucharist. The Orthodox do not allow this either way.

Orthodoxy does not have "orders" as such. We have monks and nuns which follow the rules laid down by St. Basil and others. We don't have "secular" orders like teaching nuns and brothers. Our nuns and monks are in a monastery.

Hope this helps. Others can chime in.>

As an Orthodox Christian who loves the Catholic church to which my parents belong (I was raised "nothing" - they redeiscovered their faith) I think the negative respose to this post is completely without measure.

Not getting it.....

Justyn>

Diane writes: VCI is non-negotiable. The Church does not repeal the solemn decrees of ecumenical councils.

As long as in Roman Catholicism an individual stands as the locus of Tradition ("I am Tradition"), all decrees will be negotiable.

How does the Roman church repeal the decree of the Council of Constance, which rules that a council is of a higher authority than a pope? By the word of a pope! And so it goes.>

Thanks guys. I appreciate all your replies. I am looking for books/articles on Eastern Orthodox Mysticism. If you know some please post here or contact me through my site. Thanks again.>

Also, I would ask you to honestly look at most Orthodox parishes and tell me how they are doing local missions. Sadly, many are not. Many Orthodox recognize this situation.

Your point is taken. Overall, the witness of local churches is really the more pertinent, in my opinion. Sending foreign missionaries is not nearly the "white field" that it once was because most countries have established churches. Orthodox foreign mission is primarily one of supporting the local churches in a given place.

But the ethnically insular parishes are, in many cases, as you say. These parishes will eventually grow old and die. However, for each of those you can likely find a new mission parish springing up where there is a need.>

dropping in late in the conversation. i just wanted to state that there is not a man on earth i love so much, yet know so little than our dear Archbishop Dmitri. i'm glad you got to spend some time with him. He is a wonderful bishop. God grant him many years!>

The response above was to JohnT, by the way.

And Rod, something tells me you're tolerating all these frenzied attacks by Roman Catholics in the comments boxes for a very good reason. (Wink-wink!)

Adieu to all.>