Gratitude
Sunday October 15, 2006
posted by
@12:00pm
Permalink
Email This 
Add to »
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
I want to thank all of you Catholics, especially the priests, who have written me privately or publicly expressed your good wishes for me and my family in the path our journey towards Christ has taken us. You haven't approved of what we've done, nor do I expect you to, but you have been extraordinarily gracious and charitable, and indeed Christ-like, with me. And it means a very great deal. I especially want to thank Father Richard John Neuhaus for his words on the matter at hand. Father Neuhaus and I have had disagreements, private and public, since the sex-abuse scandal broke over the American Church, which makes his generous sentiments towards me at this time all the more meaningful to Julie and me.
Subscribe
Comments
"It is a bit hypocritical for you to accuse the Catholics of being uncharitable in their refusal to recognize Anglican orders. Most leaders in your Church do not recognize any orders except their own."
James, you misunderstand me. I don't think that Roman Catholics are "uncharitable" in their belief that there is no grace in Episcopal sacraments. My question was why do you think it's uncharitable for us to not see grace in your sacraments when you yourself do not see grace in the sacraments of another church?
I think you're mixing truth and charity here. It is not uncharitable to think other people are wrong.
"Very ugly stuff."
I looked at it and while I don't agree with the monks I don't see how it's "ugly." It's not "ugly" to disagree.
"One of our clerics, Leonard Feeney, was excommunicated for his presumption that he could determine the limits of God's grace."
No, that's not quite accurate. Feeney wasn't excommunicated because of this teaching, which actually is an allowed opinion with the RCC. Feeney was excommunicated (and eventually reconciled with Rome without recanting his opinion, btw) because of disobedience.
"I would also surmise that many would also argue that since the Anglican (and Catholic) communions are devoid of grace, theosis is not possible among them, and thus they are headed for damnation."
No. This isn't an Orthodox opinion and, look as hard as you might, but you're not going to find any Orthodox theologian or cleric (or even monk on Mt. Athos) who teaches this. There are no Orthodox feeneyites. Let's be clear, saying there is no grace in the sacraments outside of the Church is not saying that everyone who is outside of the Church is going to hell.
"This smug statement speaks for itself."
It is "smug" because we think we're right. And, btw, you do not appear to recognize how "smug" what you've written appears to me.
"Though you have it half right---you still need to talk it out amongst yourselves, especially in the chaotic United States, before you are ready to talk seriously with anybody else. A large number of Orthodox do not agree that their largely ethnic churches have a monopoly on grace and truth. That kind of thinking makes you feel powerful and self-righteous, but it isn't of Christ. I'm glad that the Catholic bishops have agreed to THAT."
This is a very good example of a "smug" statement. I think that you think you're very 'ecumenical' and open to Orthodoxy but these kinds of statements indicate a kind innate belief of superiority on your part. "Largely ethnic," for example.
One of the things I find very offensive about the "we're so open and you're not" arguments of RCs is that, when it comes down to it, you're not open. You think you're right and we're wrong. So why are we "uncharitable" for thinking we're right and you're wrong? Your objection here is not to our "tone" but rather to the fact you think we're wrong.
James, you don't appear to me to really understand where we're coming from.
I think you also need to decide what it is that you really believe. Are you an 'ecumenist,' i.e. we'll just talk through the differences and we'll discover we're the same. Or do you believe that Roman Catholicism is right and that we'll have to "submit?" My feeling is that you think you're an ecumenist but you're really the latter.>
Posted by: Jennifer | October 21, 2006 11:50 PM
Think what you want, Jennifer. Your statements and twisting of the truth speak for themselves.
I have great affection for Orthodoxy and consider it a true church. I count many Orthodox as friends and even attended a Greek Orthodox divine liturgy while in university.
What I have a problem with are smug, superior Orthodox like you who think your relative splinter of the true Church is all there is. Look beyond the narrow confines of your own institution and see the light that shines elsewhere, including in the Western Church which stakes as great a claim to apostolicity as yours.
I believe you are wrong in that you think you are the ONLY bearer of the fullness of truth.
Don't accuse me of superiority. Look at yourself before you lay that charge. Are you a convert to Orthodoxy?
To be honest, you shouldn't be arguing with me. You should be arguing with the many faithful Orthodox who consider East and West to be sister churches, who respect the Western tradition and don't fall into a quasi-Donatist idolatry. Perhaps you should start with your own Ecumenical Patriarch.>
Posted by: James | October 22, 2006 12:40 AM
James, it was obviously a waste of time trying to talk to you. You didn't listen to anything I said.>
Posted by: Jennifer | October 22, 2006 5:12 AM
Jennifer, it was educational and interesting for the rest of us.>
Posted by: Kathie | October 22, 2006 10:36 AM
Granted "papist" has a negative connotation but there's always a struggle to find an appropriate term. "Catholic," technically to us isn't an appropriate term because we're the Catholics because we hold the Catholic faith. Personally I never use the term "papist" because I think it's unnecessarily harsh. We shouldn't use terms that are offensive that they obscure our argument.
Well, the terms "Catholic" and "Orthodox" have a generally understood meaning, regardless of how technically accurate they might or might not be. I don't think we need to start rewriting the dictionary now.
"Papist" is an offensive term? I suppose it's been used that way. But I often refer to myself as a papist, esp. when talking to non-Catholics. I don't have a problem with it. Why do you consider it "unnecessarily harsh"? It's accurate, and it's designation I'm proud of. I'm a papist.
On the other hand, I've been told that many non-Catholics hate to be referred by Catholics as "non-Catholics".>
Posted by: David J. White | October 23, 2006 10:14 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?