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

[Nihil Obstat]

Sui juris is the term you want.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Selah' timestamp='1353029585' post='2510939']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUSqJixodXY[/media]
[/quote]

Yah, see it's pretty (except for the groom's chest hair hehe). I imagine in weddings in Italy you'll see some manly hair too

In ancient Orthodox countries I think it's possible for the crowning to be done very beautifully, sadly from the weddings I've been to in the USA the crowns can look kinda tacky (like you are prom king and queen). Surely a real antique crown that is the right size wouldn't have that effect but... it can be cheesy especially if the crown that is used doesn't really fit and it just perches there on the tippy top of the bride's head or the groom's head. Done well it's beautiful, but done poorly it can look like a Barbie Tiara.

And again, there are no vows. It's something that is done "to" the couple by the priest, the couple are not the ministers of the sacrament. As a Catholic it's so amazing to be a minister of sacramental grace to my husband!! Something that changes his soul forever. That's an experience Orthodox brides never get to have unfortunately. Unfortunately, that is, from my POV.

Then there's how holy Communion is handled. For the Orthodox it's given to infants (which is lovely) but I treasured being able to make my first holy Communion at a time when I understood what was happening to me. It was a huge moment and a beautiful memory which children who are brought up Orthodox also don't get to experience (I mean the experience of being able to remember receiving for the first time). I loved dressing in a white dress, little white gloves and a veil. I loved going up to receive along with my sister and my classmates. I will treasure that memory forever. As a grown up I enjoy seeing the class of 8 year olds questioned at Mass and they answer very solemnly about how they are going to receive the Host and it's truly Jesus, body and blood, soul and divinity.

Similarly for confirmation/chrismation- I loved the option to choose a patron saint and taking their name. If you're brought up Orthodox you don't get to do that, you're confirmed as an infant. There HAS to be a saint's name somewhere in there, too, when you are baptized as a baby, they're very rigid about that, and I believe it has to be a pre-schism saint, too. You can't name your son Hunter Riley or your daughter Ashley Gemma or Derek or Fiona or things like that.

There's basically a list of baby names you have to pick from (granted it's a looooong list).

Whereas in Catholicism it's traditional to choose a saint's name for your baby but it's not REQUIRED to name them after a saint in order to baptize your child.There's just so much more flexibility and adaptability in the Roman church.

As a grown up if you convert to Orthodoxy, my understanding is if your name isn't biblical or a saint's (like your name is Mackenzie or something) you HAVE to pick a new name - and then traditionally you're supposed to make everyone call you by it! Like at work, your friends.

I love how there are so many different types of religious orders in the Western lung of the church - to me it really shows the Holy Spirit working overtime inspiring people to serve God in so many different ways, responding and adapting their ministries to the needs of the times. While still maintaining the monastic tradition, too. The Romans just have so much more diversity and the multiplicity of types of religious orders are an expression of that.

Again I really do appreciate the eastern lung of Christianity! It's beautiful, rich and meaningful and precious to God, but these are just a few of the reasons why I would never convert to Orthodoxy (and for some of them, it's why I wouldn't join an eastern rite Catholic church). I have thought about it in the past but ultimately rejected it. A few are deep reasons and others are not so deep

[Maggyie]

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

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='vee8' timestamp='1353030812' post='2510977']

[/quote]
Is that movementarian opinion? You may keep it!

[quote name='vee8' timestamp='1353031414' post='2511000']
hold on i need to look up terminology
[/quote]
You need to look up Christianity!

Edited November 16, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1353028043' post='2510919']
The thing is Jesus didn't really allow for a mistake or two. If you're going to allow 3 there's no real reason to stop at 4. After all, if a woman just has bad luck and her 3rd husband starts beating her, Orthodoxy won't allow her to divorce him and marry again. She's stuck with him. There is NO flexibility in allowing a 4th try.

In that regard I prefer the Protestant and Catholic approaches, very much so. The Protestants (most of them) go all the way and say "divorce and remarry as many times as you need to, to be happy." The Catholics say "Till death do you part." The Orthodox say "three strikes and you're out" which to me undermines both the need to be happy in your marriage (if the 3rd husband turns out to be a stinker, too bad) and what Jesus taught about marriage (remarrying after divorce is adultery). I'd love to hear the history of how they settled on 3, and not 2 or 4. From what I understand it was adopted under secular imperial pressure.

Another difference I like is the wedding ceremony itself. In Orthodoxy the priest is the one who confects the sacrament, he is the "minister" of the sacrament. Whereas for Romans the bride and groom themselves are the ministers of the sacrament. The Roman approach echoes Jewish traditional theology much more strongly. In an Orthodox wedding ceremony there are no vows - the bridal couple simply appear before the priest and he makes everything happen. I loved being able to say my vows!
[/quote]
Yes I know! It's a problem! The problem with that protestant idea is that it wrecks too many children's lives. Jesus has best answer! One of our RCIA candidates had to go through the pain of an annulment in order to become a Catholic. She was told in advance not to worry that it would happen. Seemed rather pointless and as far as I know Jesus taught no divorce in spite of what Moses had said but doesn't reject those that have from following him.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Selah]

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


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

[Anomaly]

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

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

[Apotheoun]

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

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

Edited November 21, 2012 by Apotheoun

[Maggyie]

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

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

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

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

[Apotheoun]

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

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

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

Edited November 22, 2012 by Apotheoun

[Maggyie]

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

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

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

[Apotheoun]

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

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

Edited November 22, 2012 by Apotheoun

[Byzantine]

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

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

Why the distinction?

[Apotheoun]

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

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




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

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

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

[theculturewarrior]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited December 3, 2012 by theculturewarrior