My Disgust with Ecumenism and a Resolution (Rant)

As a Byzantine Catholic I find myself highly concerned with Catholic-Orthodox relations, which only makes sense. I am an Orthodox in communion with Rome, it would be good to know when I get to rejoin my Orthodox brethren! And the only way to get this to happen is to hit people at the ground level and help them understand from where the West and East come from, in as charitable a way as humanly possible. With that in mind, I recently joined an ecumenical Facebook group to see what people were discussing and its...

Discouraging is an understatement. The arguments are about who's right and who's wrong, which is exactly the wrong way to go about it. You wouldn't do that in a friendship, would you? You wouldn't go and tell someone that the entire way they've come to live is wrong if they're your friend, right? You would try and understand why they think so differently, and how it might benefit them, before you open your mouth. If you lay blame in a marriage often enough it's going to just destroy the relationship. These are basic human principles that we can all agree to?

SO WHY THE HELL DOES IT SEEM TO BE THE EXCEPTION FOR A GROUP THAT CLAIMS TO BE ECUMENICAL?

Trust me, I'd understand a little more friction in a Hindu-Christian ecumenical group. Those two groups really don't have all that much to discuss without coming to blows. But the holy, apostolic, and catholic Church? We are ONE body! ONE! But instead we let the cancer of our preconceptions and past experiences get in the way of what we're supposed to be doing, which is healing the greatest cause of scandal we have! We have an incredible amount of work to do, and not a lot of time to do it in, and we sit around bickering about whose theology goes which way when I can guarantee that most of the people making these comments have done no serious amounts of studying?

Well, if you want change, be that frickin' change. From here on out I resolve to know East and West like the back of my hand. I want everyone reading this post who has a book or a source they think is relevant to either East or West to post it up on here or on the Facebook link. Doctrinal explanation, mysticism, apologetics, doesn't matter. Someone has to read the information and get it out there for people to read, and it may as well be me! 

The State of Childhood, and Thus the State of Humanity

Kinda chilling, ain't it? This is pretty much what society wanted my parents to do to me when I was a kid, since I couldn't sit still for longer than a half hour at a time (and still fidget a bit even at 24). It's ridiculous, because the only thing "wrong" with me was an overabundance of energy and the need to express it at every single moment. This cartoon is what's SO frickin' wrong with society, and makes me so damn angry that they want to repress our base urges, except of course for the sexual one...

I Am Very Disappointed (Rant)

By this.

Let me explain.

For those of you who read this blog who are still unaware, I am Byzantine Catholic. Essentially, I am one of the Orthodox Christians who reunited with Rome a few centuries back. We rejoined with two caveats: that we be allowed to stay true to our theology and liturgy (which is different than the Roman Mass), and that we be allowed to keep our married priests.

Oh, wait, what? The Catholic Church allows married men to be ordained?

They sure as hell allowed for it then.

The Orthodox Church has considered married parish priests essential to its ministry since the beginning of the universal Church 2000 years ago. At one point the West had married clergy as well, but that shifted around the 8th century for reasons that the East has never approved of. Not ever. Rome's response has always been one of naive tolerance. "We are Rome, so therefore everything we do is better", has been their attitude for almost as long as Rome has existed. Anyone who is an Eastern Catholic is acutely aware of the prejudice, and takes it about as silently as one is able to.

Well, I've had enough of that. Rome has, once again, overstepped its bounds in its naive idea that it is superior to all others, an idea that is unfounded on any amount of serious reading of history and common sense. I've had enough of the spiritual descendants of Bishop Ireland, that scumbag of arrogance (may he rest in peace, it's a lot better than he ever gave us!) making power plays over us.

My message to my fellow Roman Catholics who agree with the scumbag of arrogance is:

Our origins have little to nothing to do with you, and I am not impressed by your insistence that you are better. Become educated so I can actually take you seriously.

For the rest of my Latin brethren who try to defend the Cardinal's decision: get the hell out of my way. Rome has no right to do what it did, and the fact that B16 did not announce this personally is of little consequence, as his man "over" us (as if they can be!) did. What the Cardinal did is as close to an act of Rome as there's going to be, short of the Pope himself speaking (which B16 probably won't, he hasn't defended us from this idiot before, and there's indication to the opposite).

So, to be clear, I am done pulling punches with people who seem to think that "us Byzantines" are backwards. We are older and, quite frankly, our theology developed while you were still getting destroyed in Rome by the weekly barbarian raids. Everything that you have that you're so proud of came from us, from your Mass to your Rosary to your celibate priests. A little more than an idiotic "well put up with you" is required, seeing as the East is the source of your basic theology. To get respect you must give respect, and I've lost my patience, short as it was to begin with.

(And to those of you who are my friends and who are offended by my referring to the Cardinal as an idiot, please go back to one of the man's earlier statements that clerical celibacy was an apostolic tradition. The fact that that man can even consider such a statement shows a profound ignorance present in all idiots that I've met, hence the term. I am not attacking the office, he is a bishop after all. But the man? If there's anyone who has earned wrath, it is him. And I will not stay silent anymore. Will my temper eventually calm down? Of course. But do not think it will change my opinion of Rome, for it is a reaction against what Rome thinks of itself. My opinion will change when Rome wises up, and not a moment before.)

Top Five Things I've Learned about the Church Schism

Well folks, I'm sitting around in the library, waiting for my class to start, so I figured I'd write up a reflection of sorts on my study into the East-West Schism. If you don't care, too bad, it's up here. Deal with it. If you do, these are the five most important points I've learned from my time studying the Schism of 1054 so far. This written in the style of a Cracked article. If you need me to cite anything, please ask, and I will do so.

5. Language (and Schoolin') is Crucial
Did you know that the people in Constantinople were reading Augustine at the same time as Aquinas? No? Me neither. It's pretty sad, but it's true. Language was possibly the biggest barrier to people actually understanding each other, since none of the people in the West spoke Greek, and pretty much no one spoke Latin in a non-liturgical setting. At all. Don't believe me? The current top-to-bottom command structure of the Roman Church was made in the tenth century because the lay people could no longer understand their Liturgy, and thus couldn't participate all that much in Church affairs, and so no lay person actually learned all that much theology. In Byzantium (where they still used the vernacular Greek) theology was part of training to be a statesman. That's right: if you wanted to become a part of the government you had to learn theology. Oh, and to convert you usually had to go through about 3 or so years of catechism before being admitted.

What's my point?

The West and East couldn't communicate, and therefore things fell apart. The language barrier was so great that a lot of things took a lot longer to be understood (the Seventh Ecumenical Council, for instance, where the translating was so poor the West  thought the East were preaching the very thing the East was condemning), or were never really looked at at all until centuries out of context (AUGUSTINE ANYBODY???).

4. The State is a Jerk
There's this idea that religious killings were a common thing back in the day, and that if a war wasn't religious it wasn't a war. I appeal to the almighty common sense, and ask you to think about that. You're telling me that politicians actually have a group of people that are worse than them? Just look down, deep in your gut, and ask yourself that.

No, Obama, it wasn't worth a try.

Didn't think so. No, turns out that politicians have always been backstabbing bastards, particularly when it comes to the Church. Don't believe me?

• The Iconoclast Heresy (all sacred images are bad, essentially) was enacted by the Byzantine Emperor out of a desire to calm down his Arab buddies, who had taken most of his empire. (I know things are a little more complicated  than that, but damn! It sure was convenient!)
• Charlegmane repeatedly tried to usurp Church authority, and his descendants eagerly played the Eastern and Western Churches against each other in the fillioque controversy, so they could keep their "divine right". (Moral of the story? The Germans have always been awful, awful people) The Germans even attempted to conquer Rome later on, which led to the building of the Papal States that we're all so very afraid of. Hear that? The Papal States were built in self-defense against the state. That's something Obama may need to pay attention to.
• The Arabs played both East and West against each other when they had control of Constantinople (no, I will not dignify them by calling it the new name), and made darn well sure that Christianity couldn't unite, cause they'd gotten a taste of it at the Battle of Lepanto and knew the whole of Christianity would own them faster than a hacked Halo player.

3. The Fillioque Controversy is No Controversy at All
For the uninformed, the Fillioque is three words from the Western form of the Nicene Creed: "and the Son". These three words did more to damage Church unity back in the day than almost anything. Why? Well, it was sorta unilaterally inserted by the West into their Creed without asking the rest of the Church if it was OK. And back in the day when Rome was a backwater that got steamrollered by barbarians once a week? This sorta stuff just didn't fly. Rome's response was to apologize, and to command the Carolingians (Charlegmane's people, what a coincidence!) to take the Fillioque out of the Creed. But the damage was done. Pushed on by the Carolingian bishops the people kept the Fillioque in place, and it became common usage in the West.

Why's this a big deal?

Back in the day, whenever you needed to get something done doctrine-wise, you called an Ecumenical Council. This was standard procedure. A unilateral insertion was a huge no-no, and considering that Rome didn't have nearly the power and authority that it claims it has now, it couldn't just face the rest of the East without blinking.

Now, granted, there are some doctrinal concerns. The Fillioque appears to further subordinate the Holy Spirit while robbing the Father of his "monarchia" that the East is so concerned about. But considering that even the Cappodocian Fathers (y'know, the guys who basically wrote Byzantine theology) allude to the fact that the Son has something to do with the spiration of the Holy Spirit? It's not that much of a stretch, and if people actually sat down and worked out their terms? It wouldn't be that much of a problem. It's an issue that's there "because we don't wish to understand each other" (Union of Brest). Imagine that!
 
2. It's Like Watching a Soap Opera
The next two points may seem a bit juvenile in comparison to the first three, but only because the real reasons why everyone were arguing were... well... juvenile! Reading about these people made me think of an awful soap opera, where people are almost schizo in their decisions and the reasonings behind them, circumstances sway more than anything, and just one wrong word will bring the whole damn thing screeching to a halt. It's ridiculous, at best, and well... as soon as you get into the issue of Eastern Catholics, it gets ugly. Real ugly. Now a kid's involved, who loves Mom and Pop, but is understood by neither one of them (and loved even less), but only wants them to be back together again. There's more BS-level angst in Church history than a Twilight novel, which leads me to my next point.

1. If It Seems Like Someone's Being a Jerk, You're Right!
If you've been near the Catholic or Orthodox Church for any longer than two seconds, you've heard the following: We are the true Church, and that's that. We've kept the faith, and everything we've done is to keep it that way. 

Right. Uh huh. Excuse me while I plug my nose, there's a strong smell in the area.

I thought I told you to go outside!

  The fact of the matter is that no one's hands are clean. From the insertion of the Fillioque, the willing ignorance of Western theology (need I re-emphasize that backwater thing again?), the sacking of Constantinople, to selling out to the Communists and helping them almost wipe out the Byzantine Catholics, I think I can safely say that there are some really truly evil people on both sides. This has nothing to do with either side being blessed by God to the exclusion of the other! And it definitely doesn't have anything to do with "the truth" that both sides insist they have the entirety of so strongly it makes me wonder if they actually believe it. Everyone split up because they're fallen, and they're so ashamed to admit their mistakes that they point fingers at the other side and spread blame. I know I have no say, and that my opinion doesn't hold weight with all the bishops of the world, but I have to say it.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, GROW UP ALREADY!  I want my family back together again.

Eden of the East: Anything NOT the Series

Oh good... What the hell is this???

How did something that started out this good end this badly? The TV show was a show about two young people falling in love with the backdrop of Japan falling apart and people trying to save it. It worked, and it worked really damn well! Takizaway and Sake (or however you spell her name) had awesome chemistry and were a blast to watch, so much so that I hoped that it was on purpose.

I HATE WRITERS!!!!!

Particularly ones who aren't good on purpose!

OK, so here's basically the sum up: all the things that work in the TV show? That gets moved to the back burner. The awesome romance and character development that made the show what it was? Yeah, pushed aside. The stuff that was alright, but definitely couldn't stand on its own? Like the stuff about how Japan's falling apart and it needs saving, and all the philosophy that (while fascinating) is in no way shape or form sufficient for a show? That's the stuff that gets moved to the front! Do I find that entertaining?

No.

Do I find it annoying beyond all recognition?

If you haven't picked up on that yet YOU'RE A MORON!

Y'know the worst part? This show had potential. Real potential. If this show was awful from the start I wouldn't be pissed, because I wouldn't have sunk the time into it that I did. I would have just left it alone, and gone about my business, and not bothered to write a review stating how much I liked it. 

The Fail is still not adequately addressed by the above picture. Allow me to insert ANOTHER one. 

... nope! STILL not enough! 

I give up. You get it. Awful ending for what really could have been so much more. I'm done. I'm done!

BANG!

Something That's Really Starting to Piss Me Off (Rant)

So I'm starting to look through artistic organizations, as per the assignment of my Professional Practices class. I decided that I wanted to look up  stuff for my iconography-related work, since that's my primary medium. The list is... uninspiring. I found one such organization, and their website's down (but their Facebook isn't!). I returned, a bit concerned, and was told to broaden my search to Catholic art in general. That's slightly less discouraging, but only just: none of these people are backed by a diocese, near as I can tell. It's all independent work.

What in the cold hell is the purpose of that, may I ask?

The whole purpose of being a Catholic artist is that you may do Sacred Art (yes, I capitalized it, I consider it a part of Tradition, but that's another topic) for the edification of what? CHURCHES. Y'know, those ugly buildings most Roman Catholics enter to do a watered-down version of the Novus Ordo (PLEASE someone link me to a Novus Ordo with the full chant as it's supposed to be)? Yeah, surprise, those are supposed to be beautiful! But I guess it's hard to do that when people, even at a Catholic university, seem to forget that the whole point of art is to lift the mind and senses up to God! Allow me a rant for another paragraph, and I promise you something more akin to coherency.

It is my experience (all 23 years of it!) that the Church has lost something very very important: an appreciation of the physical world. You have people saying the sexual urge is holy and then condemning it in the next breath, idiots who pretend that Sacred Art pays for itself, and the ugliest shit produced by anyone and everyone in this day and age, and you wonder why we have such problems? I get a better sense of what's sacred from the Boondock Saints then walking into most churches, people! Why?

I am willing to bet money (without looking it up even!) that Mr. Duffy isn't Catholic, and yet with this opening scene I got a better sense of what a Catholic Church was about then 95% of Catholic Churches I walk into. This movie that most devout, conservative, Catholics will never watch because of its language and violence has a better witness to what they're about than most of them will ever be able to conceive of, because it actually shows beauty! Oh the wicked irony!

Sacred Art isn't cheap, Nathan, is what you'll tell me. Artists are expensive to keep around, and we can't afford it. To those wonderfully smart people I say, "No shit. Really? I've been doing Byzantine iconography for 7 years! I think I know how expensive sacred art can get!" But to the eternal shame of those who point this out I will point out that most of the beautiful churches we have in this world were built by hand. You heard me, by hand. The community put their money where there mouth was, and built their sacred space! They then hired an artist with their hard-earned cash, in economic situations that make ours look wondrously awesome, and put all their hopes and dreams into one building where they went pretty damn often. And what's the result, may I dare ask?

You really want me to go on? Really? Cause if I do I really might actually get angry, I really might. This world has been abandoned by our wondrous Catholics, and I sincerely hope we stop ignoring the people who live in it and the unarguable fact that art does more good for people than any polemical work on chastity ever will. Does it work the same way? No, but it does work better. To  those of you who wish to argue with me go take a long, hard, look at human nature. Then come back to me. You'll get a truly rational post from me at some point, but for the moment be left with this.

We will fail to convince people we are following the true Way until our art convinces them. We will fail so epically that most of us will wonder why we're so ineffective. And the answer will be so simple that it'll sting when we die and see why all these people that we want peace for so badly had so much difficulty: we forgot that humans respond to beauty, not arguments.

I should stop ranting now. Before I say something truly asinine.