Clarifying

Let's see, my guess on the BIG NEWS is that the Dreher's will soon have little girl. If so, and I truly, sincerely hope so, you have my heartiest congratulations.>

I fear less that Rod will become a bitter ex-Catholic than that he will become a snotty, "the West is just SO inferior" Orthodox, like the guy down in the comment box informing us that we don't celebrate the Feast of St. Peter hard enough.
But if you are having a baby (of either sex), congratulations and may God be with you.>

Rod

Nothing compelling here.

How do I go over to the contracrunchy site and argue with them that CCism is a valid movement and necessary for the greater conservative good of our culture?

All they are going to say is how do you know Rod is conservative. When will he switch from being conservative to being a crunchy liberal? Will he change his views on abortion and contraception?

If you are wishy washy on the rock solid fundamentals of life how can we take you seriously about the philosophical basis of your book?

If you would have given a Scott Hahn like list of scriptural and historical list of reasoned arguments for your conversion it would have been more understandable. But what is your excuse? Essentially--the devil made me do it.

It calls the whole crunchy enterprise into question, your views on faith, your views on schooling, your views on housing, your views on big business, your views on what is and what is not conservatism.

Are you going to move to a McMansion because the trendy hip liberals in your neighborhood refer to you and your wife as "breeders"?

Sorry, my best interpretation of this based on what you wrote is you simply wanted to leave, and were looking for an excuse. You blamed the Church for your action. That is no better than the clergy you excoriate in my Church.

The good news is Mrs. D is going to have a new baby! This is great and congratulations. I pray that she has a safe birth, and is a healthy happy baby. God bless her.>

One of the sorrowful joys of my conversion to Orthodoxy involves the way I've found my criticism of anything and everything external to myself slowly redirected towards my own pitiful life in Christ.

Within the life of the Church, I've come to weep bitterly for my own sins and rediscover the joy of the Gospel.

I continue to be involved in community activism - advocacy for the developmentally disabled (specifically persons with autism) is especially dear to our family. There is so much that is wrong with the world in which we live, so much that is damaging and neglectful to the weakest and most vulnerable among us. I continue to engage and critique and advocate, but do so recognizing that I am chief among sinners.

Grace and peace to you in this transition!>

1)You won't find a Catholic-basher in me. 2)(though I will continue to be CRITICAL where warranted, in my role as an opinion journalist; it's just not personal anymore).
Yeah Yeah - 1 and 2 are the same thing!
The biggest critics are always the EX-guys!>

Have we heard from Bronson yet??>

"As I've said, a decade ago, I argued with a friend considering Orthodoxy and Catholicism that all that mattered was doctrinal truth."

Pope Benedict has often written about the joyful, colorful and warm Catholicism he grew up in. I guess I was very fortunate in having had Catholic relatives before I converted because they were able to model for me the doctrinal/cultural/historical and other totalities of being Catholic.

Rod, I don't mean this in a perjorative way at all, but I think you had a more narrow view of what it means to be Catholic before you ever converted.

I've had many conversations with Methodist/Presbyterian and other Christians for whom the moral failings of some members of the Catholic Church were an obstacle they simply couldn't get past.

But the Church never remains static. She has endured scandals before and the Lord has called her back and purified her.

I have all confidence he will do so again.>

I am curious about something. About his Orthodox-turned-Evangelical, he writes, "I still couldn't take the path he chose."

Why in the world not? The sense of community is down that path, too, as Rod's ex-Protestant wife attested. I believe that Rod was a Methodist before he was a Catholic. And I don't see much written here that couldn't be used to justify a jump to the Evangelicals.

As an Evangelical myself, I'm not playing "Red Rover." I'm just curious.>

I found through the scandal my intellect humiliated.

"Humiliation can be a good road to humility."
-- Bl. Teresa of Calcutta>

St. John of San Francisco???
"he would cross himself whenever he crossed in front of a Catholic Church"
that was because inside the Church in the tabernacle he knew that the -Eucharist resided - that being God!
A wonder he did not convert to Catholicism given such a witness and testimony to the Blessed Sacrament!>

Even though Rod and his family have taken a route that is not for me, I wish him well. He certainly has been let down by the institutional Church. I hope he is happy in his new church and I too pray daily for the reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I do believe the Church needs to breathe with both lungs and that it's failure to do so has something to do with the fundamentalist Islamic threat in Europe and elsewhere and the decline of the practice of Christianity in general. Division in the Church is a luxury we can no longer afford.

I wish Rod could have found an Eastern Rite parish to join. Those in charge of the Church, especially in America, have much to answer for.

Well, God bless you Rod and Julie, and all the best to you. I have some dear friends who are Russian Orthodox and their devotion to Christ equals that of the most devout orthodox Catholics I know.>

A further note on St. John of SF --

Here's what he said to say about RCism, in speaking in this instance on the RC dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary: "Thus was the teaching of the Western church changed after it had fallen away from communion with the True Church.... That the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) is promised only to the True, Universal Church; but upon those who have fallen away from it are fulfilled the words: As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in Me (John 15:4)" (from Mary, the Birthgiver of God, pp. 50-51).

So I think it's pretty clear that we can't interpret the actions of St. John of San Francisco to have regarded RCism as part of the Church.>

Why not just admit why you converted Rod:

It was the hats.>

In reference to the scandal, there is an excellent article on the Slate Magazine website today about the new documentary, "Deliver Us From Evil," focused on the career of one particular pedophile priest and the cover-up that followed.

Here is a link to the article: http://www.slate.com/id/2151417/?nav=tap3

What I find particularly disgusting and disturbing is the role that Archbishop Mahony and the institutional church played in enabling a sick and disturbed man to molest very young girls and boys.

I believe it is the institutional corruption of the Catholic Church, not the actions of individuals within that institution that created this dreadful situation.>

And of course, God bless, now more than ever.>

Anon,

Wonder what happened. This slander from Rod:

" ...I don't think it's unfair to say that most of them are doing what most (but not all) orthodox Catholics in this country do: grit their teeth and white-knuckle it out in their parishes, doing what they can to hang on..."

Unfair? Slanderous bile is more like it. That doesn't characterize my faith and that of most of my Roman Catholic friends. Rod has slimed every decent practicing Roman Catholic who take their faith seriously in the United States. I live in a very liberal diocese in the US and his characterization of life in the church in not representative in any way.>

Gee, if Baby Dreher is born today, her birthday will be the anniversary of the great Miracle of the Sun at Fatima---about as Roman Catholic a miracle as there ever was (and one that amply confirms the truth of Catholicism, IMHO).

Won't that be deliciously ironic!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for Rod's (and family's) return to the One True Church. Pray for Baby Dreher, that she may be permitted to grow up in the One True Faith. Amen.>

To Rod's harsh critics who also consider themselves Christians, please read and take this to heart:

"If you want to be a true zealous son of the Church, you must do so by the fulfillment of the commandments of the Gospel toward your neighbor. Do not dare to convict him, do not dare to teach him, do not dare to condemn or reproach him. To correct your neighbor in this way is not an act of faith, but of foolish zeal, of prelest and pride."
- St. Ignatius Brianchaninov>

"He never said anything which would lead one to believe that he affirmed either Roman Catholicism or its sacraments."
Actually Thats not correct Bucko
Look it Up>

Compared to how Timothy Ware in 'The Orthodox Church' talked about the claims of the papacy, including infallibility, the way you talk about the First Vatican Council already sounds like an embittered ex-Catholic.>

SVS - I can't understand why you're so upset by that particular comment. Basically he's saying that most orthodox Catholics are aware of both the gravity of the abuse situation and the extremely poor leadership the church has exhibited in its wake. And, nevertheless, these people bear it out presumably because they think the Catholic church holds the truth. That's a compliment, right? At least they aren't swayed by arguments based on emotion.>

Diane, the only people Rod has "slandered" are Catholic officials who have been silent during and after the abuse scandal. He has maintained respect for lay Catholics committed to the church.>

Anon: not true, as Silicon Valley Steve has shown.

Oh BTW--did you miss the infamous WSJ piece in which he slandered the late Pope, JPII?

Or the countless blog comments in which he painted virtually all priests as pedophiles and/or enablers? Or called faithful Catholics enablers?

I'm sure someone here can dig 'em all up for you.

Not pretty.

Diane>

Tmatt here, the snotty guy who loves St. Peter and all the early saints.

I want to stress something, since Rod brought my name up in the post. In addition to my views, based on years of experience covering American Catholics, about pseudo-mainline-Protestant-status of most AmCatholic parishes, I did have major doctrinal differences with modern Catholicism -- most rooted in Vatican II. I also sought a conciliar church, not a papal church. My doctrinal objections to Rome were sincere and still are, while Catholic priests who are friends of mine have told me that my beliefs are closer to Rome than those of most of their parishioners.

Plus, I could not be an American Catholic because I love ancient Catholic music too much. Period.>

I wrote a post on my blog about how this shapes CCism.

http://immaculatedirection.blogspot.com

If anyone is interested please join in.>

Though this is not a theological forum, I just wanted to note a few things.

First, I do not believe that most Orthodox Christians are "anti-Catholic" anymore than Catholic Christians are "anti-Orthodox." I remember talking to a Greek priest who received his doctorate at Catholic University in Washington (on a scholarship!). He enjoyed his experience and was well treated and respected. He said one can find boorish people anywhere.

Metropolitan MAXIMOS of Pittsburgh received his doctorate from the University of Louvain in France.

I recognize that there are places where ethnic antagonisms play into un-Christlike behavior on both sides, as in the Ukraine. These feelings are the result of complicated political, social, and religious factors which tend to inflame passions on both sides.

There are some parishioners in my small church who have very close RC friends that are active in the local RC parish. When we have our annual bazaar, they come over and help us set up and take down. There is no hint of any "anti" behavior on either side.

As far as the "true" Church is concerned, we should simply recognize that both sides believe they are the true church. This should not be surprising or offensive to either side when one side makes that proclamation. We should recognize that these claims are part of each respective faith.>

Tom:

""As far as the "true" Church is concerned, we should simply recognize that both sides believe they are the true church" Nope! one is right and one is wrong..what you propose is compromise and liberalism, not acceptable.! "

I think you missed the point. If one of them is right, then of course the other is wrong, but both sides still BELIEVE they are the true church. One of them simply believes incorrectly.>

"one is right and one is wrong" - in that case, I'll take the Church that has preserved the faith of the first millenium over the one which has added all sorts of novel doctrines imported from paganism (both Germanic and Roman).>

"imported from paganism"
Now thats even funnier, shows how un-informed people are - did Oprah tell you that?>

I don't watch Oprah. I do read history books, though. "Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine" by John Romanides is a good one.>

Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, = Fiction
not confusing truth and belief in the slightest...the provided link is funny!>

1. I wish Rod and his family all the best in Orthodoxy which, to my (emphatically Roman Catholic) mind remains very much part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, albeit in temporarily impaired communion with the West.

2. What is it about this medium that brings out the worst in so many commentators? The post above by Reader Patrick (Brian) is a model of charity, intelligence and decency. One would have thought it might go a long way to calming down the rabid dogs. But instead it's followed by the multiple ravings of troll who boasts that he! has!! seven! kids! Wowee! and therefore the Catholic Church is true. Uh, okay. In rebuttal, we are informed by the scholarly Nick the Greek that Rome adopted all sorts of "novel doctrines imported from paganism" apparently as a result of the Byzantine army's leaving Italy. And all Westerners are no doubt simply "Franks."

Seriously, I have fairly wide acquaintances within the Roman Catholic Church -- and I've never run across any particular animus against Orthodoxy, much less the sort of nasty anti-Orthodox ideologues found in these comboxes. Nor do my real-live Orthodox Christian friends rant against Charlemagne or the supposed "institutional corruption" of the Roman Church.

I suppose there are real people on all sides who harbor such views. But in the real world they are usually a tiny minority. Why is it that in the blog/combox world the ugly/nasties so often predominate?>

Simon asked innocently:

What is it about this medium that brings out the worst in so many commentators?

It aint the medium Marshall McCluan, it's the message--the discussion is religion, which tends to get a little heated.>

You know the lesson I'm taking away from much of what's gone on and been said in these comments? That the Abrahamic-monotheistic religions automatically and inevitably create quarrels and feuds. 80% of the time, anyway.>

Tmatt: I'm sure you're a fine guy and a good Christian in real life, for we all - Rod, Diane, Steve, me, everybody - come across in comment boxes in ways we never would in face-to-face conversation. But if you can't see how these posts come across as snotty (and this one was even more so), you're less intelligent than I thought.>

I AM ON THE CRUCHCY CON TEAM! Yes, maybe a little late than most... BUT, I got your book today and I can't put it down, just started reading it an hour ago, on page 51, but I wanted to find your site to tell you so far, "PREACH IT"... I finally feel there is a place for our family! I see I may not be posting under the right topic, but sorry!

We are the crunchy cons who let some rainbow gatherers stay with us for a short visit (even though we really disagree religiously but like a lot of what they stand for) We are the homeschooling family who had some hindus for a wedding ceremony at our home to show them the love of Jesus and we are the family that believes in the right to bear arms and we slaughter our own hogs and have a huge organic garden with crunchy chickens and we are the family that wishes for a better choice than rep or dems... and we are the family that does not shop at the MALL! I am so excited to hear what the rest of your book says... although, i was convicted at the time spent on the computer even though we dont watch tv... :)>

TOM, Nick the Greek is right, but he has it backwards. A whole slew of Pagans adopted and/or assimilated Christianity for the best of all possible reasons: so they could maintain their trade and avoid military invasion. In most cases, the leadership (monarchs, despots, tyrants, etc.) did the public conversion thing while maintaining their original practices more or less in private, but they then imposed this "new" faith on their citizens in ways that used to be ascribed to the Christians themselves: torture, pogroms, or taking their children away from them.

This was not, by any stretch, the only way such conversion happened. The Celts, being adaptive and curious about other ways of doing things, freely assimilated Christianity to the point of creating their own branch of it (to the great annoyance and chagrin of the Mother Church). In nearly every case, though, whether internally motivated or used as a statecraft tool of conversion, local practices were absorbed (what some modern pagans insist on calling stolen) and blended with the Christian practices, even to the extent of baldly adopting the old way and giving it a thin veneer of Christian mythos.>

And shame on the folks here for doing a good job of throwing up more obstacles, in case Rod was ever having any second thoughts. Good job.

You've got it.

'Sorry to hear that; hope you come back' and 'I'll pray for you' are legitimate. The scads of personal attacks - 'Rod's a snob, Rod's a flake' and so on - are not.>

Homemakerang - -

Welcome!

It sounds like you had a reaction to Rod's book similar to mine, when I read his "Crunchy Cons" article several years ago in National Review.

A lot of non-crunchy and some non-con stuff gets said in these comments, but please help us to remember good CC insights as we also debate Church history and who knows what.>

Good grief, James. Since when does mentioning someone constitute "dragging her in" to the debate?

I mentioned her favorably, in the connection you describe. C'mon now. Gimme a break here. If you mention Mark Shea's blog or Amy Welborn's or whatever, does that mean you're "dragging them into the debate"?

Sheesh. Some people really need to chill.

Diane>

Welcome to Orthodoxy, Rod! May God grant you and your family many years. You are in my prayers.>

Tom,

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I do believe that there is only one True Church, not two. My point was that if a Roman Catholic says his or her Church is the true one, an Orthodox person should not be surprised or get upset at that statement even though he or she would disagree.

Earnest dialog in love is very important. One of us is indeed right. But my point was that if we should discuss the respective claims of our Churches we should understand at the outset where we both are coming from.

Peace.>

"should NOT feel," of course.>

PM, you wrote:

"I gotta tell you, some of these comments make me ashamed to be Catholic. The bile towards Orthodoxy is just ridiculous, and an insult to the memory of John Paul II, Paul VI, and countless others who have hoped for reunion and who have regarded the Orthodox Churches as part of the "one holy catholic and apostolic church"."

I agree. Rome generally considers our separated Orthodox brethren as part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Their sacraments and apostolic succession are unambiguously affirmed. It is possible for Orthodox to receive Communion from Catholic priests and for Catholics to receive Communion from Orthodox priests as far as Rome is concerned, though the Orthodox forbid it.

Which brings me to why the Orthodox do not allow it. Most Orthodox do NOT consider Catholicism part of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Most Orthodox either reject Catholic sacraments or are agnostic about it. Most Orthodox consider some Catholic doctrine to be heretical.

In fact, most Orthodox have had this rather uncharitable attitude for centuries. Orthodox hierarchs agreed to full reunion at both the Second Council of Lyon in 1274 and the Council of Basel in 1439, only to see both agreements rejected outright when the men returned to the East.

I am saddened by the prevalence of these Orthodox views toward Catholicism, though some Orthodox leaders exhibit positive signs of softening. It is good that dialogue has begun again.

Rome has done so much over the last forty years to make reunion possible---Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope) even famously wrote this about the relationship between papal primacy and the Orthodox churches: "On the doctrine of the primacy, Rome must not require more from the East than what was formulated and lived out during the first millennium." John Paul II has said the credo in masses without the filioque. The treatment of Eastern Catholic churches has been greatly improved, with their own rites and traditions and theological emphases and perspectives now honored. They have their own canon law and their own eparchies, even in the West. They even participated in the liturgy of John Paul II's funeral mass.

I pray for reunion so much, and I am always saddened to see unnecessary barriers put up through lack of charity on either sad.>

James,

Well said. However, the re-unification agreements made in 1274 and 1439 were simply made for the wrong reasons. They were total capitulations to the Western view on things that were done for political expediency in the face of an encroaching Islamic power, that were of course, seen for what they were back in the East by the people.

True re-unification must be done at the theological level and attack the true divisions between East and West and also be seen as a 'good' thing by the lay people on both sides of the aisle: East and West. There was certainly too much bias towards the other amongst the lay in 1274 and 1439.

While the sampling of statements from both Catholic and Orthodox here in this thread can hardly be taken as a true representation of the sentiments of the lay people, it is bothersome to see the flat out lack of respect some have for the other side. Hopefully we'll see re-unification in our lifetimes as I am convinced both have something to offer to the other.>

Brian,

Some canon law expert should comment, but I think it's permitted because it IS the Eucharist, valid and sacramental, the Body of Christ (amen).

That, I believe, is considered the important part. We aren't asked to affirm papal supremacy as we walk up to receive. Far worse things than the tragedy of separation of the churches do not invalidate the sacraments from the RC point of view (or there wouldn't be such heart-stopping anxiety about, say, a renegade bishop going off to marry as a Moonie).

Now there may be prudential reasons not to partake - not to cause scandal, not to permit ourselves to pretend there is unity where there is not. But this hasn't been decided that way as a blanket restriction.

But it's still Holy Communion. I do believe it's not about the pope, or the patriarchs - it's about Jesus.>

SVS, that has been my experience also. I don't know what planet Rod is inhabiting, but it ain't mine.

I'm afraid I live on Rod's planet. When I have to go to Novus Ordo Mass, it's often 45 minutes of sheer torture. That's why I bury myself in my traditional missal and ignore everything going on around me except for the Consecration.>

If Catholicism believes that Orthodox Christians have left "the church", that is not uncharitable. If Orthodox Christianity believes that Catholic sacraments are not valid, that is not uncharitable. Definitions are impersonal.>

That was me, James, above.>

"Which brings me to why the Orthodox do not allow it. Most Orthodox do NOT consider Catholicism part of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Most Orthodox either reject Catholic sacraments or are agnostic about it."

This is a gross overgeneralization. The 'validity' of RC Sacraments is not really on the 'radar screen' for most Orthodox so they don't have opinions on it.

There is a wide variety of opinions about the validity of RC Sacraments in Orthodoxy. There is no consensus.

As for heresy, most Orthodox (again if they have an opinion) believe that the RCC has added things to the faith that did not need to be added, e.g. papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception.

"In fact, most Orthodox have had this rather uncharitable attitude for centuries."

First, if you dig through RC pre VII history, you'll find lots of "uncharitable" attitudes towards the Orthodox. As far as we're concerned, the creation of the Unia was a huge slap in the face. One that the RCC now regrets and has apologized for, btw.

Second, we've developed this false idea in modern times that it is "uncharitable" not to approve of others. Is it "uncharitable" for Roman Catholics not to accept Protestantism? I doubt you'd think so.

I think what you really mean is that we are uncharitable because we don't accept your Church. It's not "uncharitable" for you not to accept other's faith. You're making too personal.

"Rome has done so much over the last forty years to make reunion possible"

40 years in the history of the Church is about two minutes. There's a lot of stuff in the past that needs to be undone first, e.g. the Unia. What about the ecumenical council that declared that the Greeks were condemned because they were schismatic heretics?

RCs want to wipe the slate clean and say "now we really mean to be nice, ignore everything we said for the last 900 years." It doesn't work that way.

"The treatment of Eastern Catholic churches has been greatly improved, with their own rites and traditions and theological emphases and perspectives now honored."

I think this thread (and the other one) begs the question about how respected they really are. I get the feeling from reading this thread (and the other) that there is little respect in the RCC for eastern traditions and spirituality, e.g. the accusation that Orthodoxy is gnostic or is missing something because there's no tabernacle. All of these things can be said of the EC Churches.

And if EC traditions are so honored then why are still no married Ruthenian priests in this country? I think I've heard they have no seminarians right now but they still do not accept married candidates.>

Jennifer,

Honest question and not a flame. Why is the issue of the Unia so important. If some Orthodox churches wish to accept the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, why is that so offensive? I honestly don't understand.>

Steve,

If it really were as simple as some Orthodox coming to believe in the primacy of the pope, then the Orthodox would not have been offended. What we find offensive is the way that these churches were created. Their purpose was not theological but political. Many of their members were not even aware that they were no longer Orthodox. The only place the pope was commemorated was at the Cathedrals not the local village churches.

I will note that the Rome now regrets the creation of the Unia and has apologized.

Think of it this way, if the Orthodox were to have come to the US and converted a large number of American Roman Catholics to a *real* Western Catholic Church and then set up a parallel hierarchy to the RCC, would you be offended? And let's remember that the Orthodox have not done this. There are a few Western Rite Orthodox parishes but no hierachy has been established.

At its heart the Unia is offensive to us because its establishment shows that the RCC had no interest in reuniting with us as a Church but instead in converting individual Orthodox which is a denial of our church-ness. This is why the RCC now regrets the Unia. The current position in the RCC is that individual Orthodox are not to prosletized. The RCC hopes for a corporate reunion not individual conversions.

This position proves that the hardliners here who say that Rod is now a protestant or outside of the Church don't understand their own Church's position.>

Steve,

You said: "Why is the issue of the Unia so important...I honestly don't understand."

That is the problem, isn't it? Forgive me for saying so. Perhaps if more RC understood our position (and vice versa) we would all be better off.

As Jennifer pointed out, many thinking RC hierarchs now do understand, hence the statement at Balamand concerning the issue.>

The concept of papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception were not "added" to the faith. These are long-held doctrines that were only given their wax seal, so to speak, in the 19th century.

I understand the differences between Orthodox and Catholic on the Immaculate Conception. The important thing we should remember is that we both believe Mary did not sin, which is the point of real theological importance in the doctrine.

As for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome---that is the most difficult issue, I think. It would necessitate an Orthodox return to an understanding of the pontiff as more than just "first among equals" or "primacy of honor" only. It would also necessitate a move on the part of the Holy See not to require more from the East than was understood at the end of the first millenium. And I think that can be done without undermining the Pope's authority over the West.>

Dear Steve,

I understand your point but I think you may not really understand ours.

I don't think your statement that the Orthodox somehow are "not reciprocating" is accurate.

We certainly do appreciate the steps at healing. However, there are some important issues that need to be addressed and short of an agreement (best word I can think of) on theological issues, not much more can be done.

This is not "nursing old grudges" its just a reality. I would not impugn your heartfelt beliefs about the RC position, and I would hope in charity that you would extend to me the same courtesy.>

SiliconValleySteve, why do you say that the Orthodox are sheep-stealing? I have not noticed any particular effort by the Orthodox to attract converts from Roman Catholicism, certainly not where I live. The Orthodox churches here have Serbian and Greek festivals once a year but as far as I know that is the extent of the outreach.

And I don't see why the Orthodox should cede the Americas to Catholics, whether Roman or Uniate. There are Serbian and Greek and Armenian and Russian Orthodox churches in my town because there are Serbian and Greek and Armenian and Russian immigrants. They worked hard and established congregations and built churches. Why should they have to abandon allegience to their respective churches because they immigrated to the United States?>

Steve, I read your post several times and that is all the sense I could make of it. Sorry if I misinterpreted it.>

"But I don't know if our 'development' rises to the level of doctrine (big "T" tradition."

I think it does. It took centuries of bishops' epistles, theological work and councils after the birth of the Church to develop and establish many of the fundamental doctrines. It took centuries even to decide on a complete canon. That's not to say that the catholic-orthodox view did not exist before, but it took time for these truths to be defined and defined against the alternatives.

I don't think the tap of relevation was suddenly shut off in the first seven centuries. Certainly the biggest, most fundamental stuff was established then, but refinements and clarifications can come, especially when new heresies come along.

Of course, current Eastern ecclesiology was a much later development. I would admit that Western ecclesiology has also changed over the last 1,000 years. I think prospects for reunion will hinge on whether we can work out a more common ecclesiology, one that more resembles that of the first millennium. We have to recognize that papal jurisdiction and prerogative cannot be supreme over the East, while you have to recognize that papal primacy is not merely honorary, as the writings of so many Church Fathers attest.

I really have hope for a reunion, and I think it can happen, especially now that Rome has stopped trying to Romanize the Eastern Catholics---and apologized for doing so. Western theological perspectives need not be forced on the East. The issue of ecclesiology should be addressed in an ecumenical council of Western and Eastern bishops.

Of course, I am no churchman or theologian---just an historian. I am not an expert. I don't have the answers, but I pray that what I have discussed are honestly considered and that charity is in great abundance during the ongoing East-West dialogues. Christ's call in John 17:11, "Ut sint unum," "Ίνα ώσιν εν," "That they may be one," is not optional.>

Why does Jennifer have such a dislike for the Catholic Church? If she is Orthodox - thats up to her, !
The Immaculate Conception for Catholics is dogma! We believe! If you do not, then we pray for you that some day you do..>

I forgot to add---some Western theological perspectives do exist among Eastern Catholics. Some Eastern Catholics choose to accept the doctrines of Original Sin and Immaculate Conception, just as some circles of Russian Orthodoxy, under the influence of St. Augustine of Hippo, did the same.

Over the past 40 years, since the Vatican started its "de-Latinizing" project, it has encouraged Eastern Catholics to follow their own historic traditions and practices.

There's a really nice overview of the Immaculate Conception from an Orthodox perspective here: ">http://www.ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/articles/catholic/holymother.htm>

Mary was spared of original sin, not the consequences of sin in the world. Of course she could die. Why is it that you folk always seem to misunderstand that?

Now, it's perfectly possible she did not die. It's possible she did. Catholics are free to believe either, though popular devotion to Mary tends to make the first position more popular.

-------

"before you can suggest that an Orthodox Catholic could believe in the IC you have to first agree on what both sides say original sin is and isn't. When you do that you may find that the agreement you think is there isn't."

Some Orthodox have believed in Augustinian original sin, as I've already mentioned. I don't see why they would not be allowed. The Orthodox discovered Augustine much too late to condemn his theology of the fall in an ecumenical council. If Augustine had been known in the East a thousand years earlier, many more might subscribe to it today.

There are significant numbers of Eastern Catholics who believe in IC. That's their choice. Perhaps they trust the teaching of the Church on this matter.

But they need not to. I don't think the different theologies of the Fall are that great a barrier between the two churches---one side need not "convert" to the other. The issue of papal primacy and ecclesiology is a much tougher problem.>

I don't assume all would have accepted it. But it shouldn't be a surprise that some might find Augustine's interpretation of what Paul said in Romans 5:18 ("Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."), and of Christ's requirement that we be "born again," compelling.

Augustine was one of the most holy and erudite bishops ever in the Church, celebrated for his attacks on heresies, considered a saint by both East and West. His words carried much weight in the Latin-speaking West. Had his words been available in the Greek-speaking East, he might have gained quite a following in that part of the undivided Church. He wasn't considered a "Latin" (and thus to be viewed with skepticism) until later. As it was, his views on sin and grace did gain (much later) a following among some circles of Orthodoxy, especially in Russia and the Ukraine.

However, at no time do I mean that Orthodox SHOULD adopt the Western perspective on original sin. Your own perspective does not fall into the trap of semi- or neo-Pelagianism, so we do not consider it a heresy.>