Should the Orthodox church be in dialogue with the Roman Catholic one? Yes. Will we reunite? It would take a miracle.
By Fr. Patrick Reardon
Were I to list the thousand reasons why Rome is my favorite place in all the world, most of them would have to do the Eternal City’s long association with Christian history. On those all too rare occasions when I am able to get back to Rome, most of my time is spent visiting the catacombs, the tombs of Saints Peter and Paul, the Circus Maximus, the Colosseum, and other sites precious to Christian memory. My personal sentiments about Rome were well summarized by St. Abercius, the second-century Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, who had made a pilgrimage to the Eternal City. Later, in the inscription that he crafted for his own tomb, he referred to the church at Rome as “the queen with the golden robe and golden shoes.” Starting with the blood of the Neronic martyrs, there is no city on earth, I think, more deeply saturated in Christian memory.
Surely, then, any Orthodox heart must be saddened when remembering the long and deep estrangement between ourselves and that venerable institution described by St. Irenaeus of Lyons as “the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.”
Should the Orthodox Church be dialoguing with the ancient See of Rome with a view to our eventual reconciliation and reunion? Yes, most emphatically. Such a dialogue, for such a purpose, constitutes a most strict moral imperative, imposed by the will and mandate of Christ for the unity of His church and, for that reason, neglected at the absolute peril of our souls. The reunion of believers in Christ is not a concern that the Orthodox conscience can simply “write off.”
I suggest that the proper model for such an Orthodox dialogue with Rome was provided by St. Mark of Ephesus, the most unforgettable of the Eastern delegates to the Council of Florence back in the 15th century. St. Mark is best remembered because of his casting the sole dissenting vote against the reunion of the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church. At the end, he became convinced that the effort for reunion at Florence would be successful only by an infidelity to the ancient tradition, so he conscientiously voted against it.
Still, St. Mark did not refuse to dialogue and discuss the matter. His fidelity to the true faith did not prevent his taking part in serious theological dialogue with those with whom he disagreed. Even though the Roman Catholic Church was at that time in circumstances indicating great spiritual and moral decline, a decline that would soon lead to its massive dismembering during the Protestant Reformation, St. Mark did not despise Rome or refuse to join his voice to a dialogue summoned to make real that prayer of Christ that we all might be one. Those Orthodox who, like myself, believe that continued dialogue with Rome is a moral imperative, would do well to take St. Mark of Ephesus as their model.
At the same time, we should be under no illusions about the difficulties of such dialogue. Because Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have followed progressively divergent paths for nearly a thousand years, arguably we are right now further apart than we have ever been. For example, it should be obvious that the Roman papacy is the major obstacle to our reunion. Make no mistake–we Orthodox do not miss the papacy, not in the least, because we never had it. Not for a minute did the pope of Rome ever exercise over the church of the East the level of centralized authority he has grown, over the past thousand years, to exercise over the Roman Catholic Church.
In the East, the pope of Rome was simply the senior among his brother bishops, all of whom taught, pastored, and governed the church through local synods and other exercises of consensual adherence, most of them without the slightest reference or attention to Rome except in extraordinary circumstances, and never outside of Rome’s relationship to the Eastern patriarchates.
The current Roman teaching that all doctrinal questions can be definitively answered and settled by an appeal to Rome is not, the Orthodox insist, the ancient and traditional teaching and practice of the apostolic and patristic church. If the ancient Catholic Church really did believe in any doctrine even faintly resembling the current doctrine of papal infallibility, there would never have been any need for those early ecumenical councils, all of them held in the East, which laboriously hammered out the creedal formulations, canons, and policies of the church.
The current papal claims, standard doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church since the defining of papal infallibility in 1870 and repeated most recently by Cardinal Ratzinger’s official Vatican declaration “Dominus Iesus” (released on September 5, 2000), represent an ecclesiastical development radically at odds with the Orthodox understanding of the very nature of the Christian Church as manifest in her ancient life.
The Orthodox “solution” to this problem would be, of course, simply for the pope of Rome to foreswear these recent claims and go back to the humbler status that he enjoyed for the first thousand years of Christian history. Namely, the “first among equals,” the chief and foremost of his brother bishops, within a church taught and governed by the broad consensual understanding of an authoritative tradition.
That is to say, the Orthodox would be delighted for His Holiness of Rome, repudiating what we regard as the errors attendant on his recent understanding of his ministry, to take once again his rightful place as the ranking spiritual leader of the Orthodox Church (a position that the patriarch of Constantinople has held since the separation of Rome from Orthodoxy in the 11th century).
To Orthodox Christians, such a “solution” to the problem would seem very attractive. In fact, however, one fears that it would be no solution at all. Such a weakening of the papacy would be an utter disaster for the Roman Catholic Church as it is currently constituted. To many of us outside that institution, it appears that the single entity holding the Roman Catholic Church together right now is probably the strong and centralized office of the pope.
The Roman Catholic Church for nearly a thousand years has moved toward ever greater centralized authority, and it is no longer clear that she would thrive, or even survive intact, without that authority maintained at full strength. If Rome did not occasionally censure the heretics in that church, just who in the world would do it? Can anyone really remember the last time a Roman Catholic bishop in the United States called to account a pro-gay activist priest, or a pro-abortion nun, or a professor in a Catholic college who denied the resurrection? No, take away the centralized doctrinal authority of Rome, and the Roman Catholic Church today would be without rudder or sail in a raging sea.
If an Orthodox Christian, then, loves his Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, he will not wish for a diminished papacy. Indeed, he will devoutly pray for a very strong papacy. Otherwise he may be failing in proper Christian love for those whose spiritual well-being requires this strong papacy. It is a singular irony that our prayers for an effective and vibrant papacy, though motivated by a loving concern for our Roman Catholic brethren, would hardly seem, on the face of it, to further the healing of our ecclesiastical division. However we got into this mess, only God can get us out.
So, let us Orthodox, by all means, engage in dialogue with Holy Rome. But let us also not deceive ourselves respecting the enormous difficulties of the task. The reunion of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism seems so utterly impossible right now that it will require a great and stupendous miracle, something at least on the scale of water transformed into wine. Then again, you know, the example itself may give us hope.
JamesK,
“According to Catholic tradition, lex orandi, lex credendi – the law of prayer is the law of belief. What this means is that how a person worship not only shows what the person really believes, but that how a person worship can ultimately decide what that person really believes.
As people’s patterns of actual worship change, so will their underlying beliefs – even without their realizing it. It is because of this that the Catholic Church can be so strict in maintaining what many might regard as superficial practices, causing them to be seen by many as old-fashioned and tyrannical. The hierarchy realizes that allowing even minor changes in the practice of worship could lead to unforseen and unintended changes in beliefs, and the Church is one organization which understands how to think about how things will turn out over very long spans of time.”
Mere aesthetics? I don’t think so, and neither did the Roman Catholic Church. Once upon a time, that is. The nature of worship and the relationship and the design of sacred space are of utmost importance in Orthodoxy. The fact that they are not in Roman Catholicism is of much, much more importance than a differing belief over more refined points of religious dogma that are lost on the average layman.
The entire experience of worship, in the Post-Vatican II environment, differs dramatically in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States than in Orthodoxy. Such differences cannot be papered over or reduced to mere personal taste.
Orthodox Christians will understand my post. That you seem to not only highlights how far we are apart in terms of our point-of-view. That gap has to narrow, or we simply don’t belong in the same church. I’m not criticizing your communion, merely stating that those with an Orthodox mindset don’t belong in it.
As for Eucharistic ministers, Orthodox practice is opposed to this idea whether they are male or female. The lowest order allowed to distribute the holy gifts is deacon. Non-ordained men have no business distributing the gifts. Neither do women. The consecration and distribution of the Holy Gifts is the exclusive purview of the Ordained clergy who have been called to this office and upon whose backs this burden has been laid. This practice crept into Roman Catholicism as an emergency measure, and has now become standard practice.
Is the above in the Bible? No, but the Bible is not a liturgical handbook. Most Orthodox are not prepared to dispense with 20 centuries of liturgical tradition on the basis that it is not ‘in the Bible,’ especially when the results of such innovations in the Roman Catholic communion have been unfortunate from our standpoint.
Again, of course, you skipped over one of the most primary questions, as Roman Catholics almost always do. My children are communing members of the body of Jesus Christ. If presented before a Roman Catholic chalice, they most likely would be turned away. The reverse would not be true. Eastern Rite churches in communion with Rome serve communion to the baptized children of Catholics.
Pre-Vatican II, the gaps between Eastern and Western Christianity, at least at the lay level, were most likely highly bridgable (with the exception of child communion.) Now, I wouldn’t feel comfortable in a Roman Catholic Mass celebrated in most parishes in the United States. You can criticize that and say that I am shallow, but I think that applies to most Orthodox in this country. Aesthetics matter. Worship matters. Art matters. The Eucharist matters. At least, to us anyway.
If that is the case, that we wouldn’t feel at-home enough to even attend a Roman parish, then what would re-union mean to us on a practical level? Not much, really, in my estimation.
Forget history and high theology for a moment. Until a typical Orthodox Christian can feel at-home in a Roman Catholic mass (like we can in the Western-rite Orthodox Churches that exist), then we are not united.
I pray that everyone reads Addison Hart’s essay, from Touchstone, titled Convert Provocateurs, from which I excerpt the following:
“Such polemics can only be engaged in at great cost and potential spiritual harm to the polemicists. The reason for this is twofold, both stemming from pride and a lack of love for other Christians (pride and lack of charity for the brethren must never be treated lightly, even if one attempts to justify them by supposedly “doing God service”). First, such polemics tend to stress the weaknesses of the other Church to one’s advantage. So it is that a Catholic apologist might emphasize Orthodox disunity, or the Orthodox apologist might exploit liberal Catholic dissent. Whatever strengths the other side possesses will be downplayed, ignored, or caricatured as really being part of the problem as well.
Second, the complementary tendency is therefore to magnify the strengths of one?s own Church, ignoring or downplaying its weaknesses and blind spots. This is the way with triumphalism and hubris, the ecclesiastical “self-righteousness” that sees one’s own church’s history as all glorious, its theological Tradition as whole in itself, devoid of the corrupting influences found in the other church’s theological Tradition. It imagines the other Church as inherently deficient, the source of all sorts of enormities, doctrinally diluted, close to heresy where it is not actually in heresy; in short, a threat precisely to the extent that the defending Church regards itself as the sole arbiter of God’s untarnished revelation.
Apologetics, then, which should be, more often than not, the defense of dogma vis-a-vis the world, becomes a bludgeon to be used on other defenders of Christian faith. Evangelism, which should be a proclamation to the world of the good news of God’s kingdom, an invitation to be united with Christ’s Church through the Sacraments, is reduced to attempted “sheep-stealing” from another Christian fold. The real work of promoting unity is disregarded in favor of polemicism; and Christ’s prayer for his disciples to be one is confused with unwarranted demands that others should join the right Church – our Church – which is thought to have in itself unity enough for all (“Just come home and all will be forgiven …”).
The fact that so many can insist on such illusions with deep conviction, imagining themselves to be defenders of the true faith and “the only Church that really saves” (whichever Church that is), in no way lessens the offense done against charity and humility. Even that it is an offense will not be apparent to the perpetrators.
Humility & Hope
I will move on to suggest what seems to me to be two corrective perspectives that we can adopt. I?m addressing members of the Fellowship of St. James and Touchstone readers, so I will be assuming in the remainder of my talk a common vision among us of “mere Christianity” and “ecumenical orthodoxy.” I will assume this, and venture out on a limb.
The first perspective we should seek to acquire is that of humility, a humility that is intentionally the antithesis of ecclesiastical triumphalism. I find myself in full agreement with the view expressed by Thomas Fleming of the Rockford Institute, himself a convert to the Catholic Church from Episcopalianism, in a recent editorial in Chronicles. He writes:
The schisms that have divided Christ’s body – as the soldiers divided His garments – are the worst scandals in Christendom, worse, by far than dissolute popes, heretical sects, and the laxity of faith that is the chief characteristic of modern times. To obviate the usual arguments and exceptions, I am willing to believe most of what is said by all sides against each other: that Rome was poaching on Orthodox territories and inserting innovations into the creed, that the Byzantine Church had fallen under the sway of the emperor, that the Renaissance Church practiced the foulest abuses, that Luther was an egoist and oath-breaker. There is enough blame to go around, as there is in any marriage, and after the shame of a divorce it may be impossible to think clearly or speak honestly of the ex-spouse?until, perhaps, one or both of them are dying. With Christendom in its death throes, I wonder if there is any chance of patching things up. (“One World, One Leader, One God,” Chronicles, Dec. 1998, p. 11)
Fleming’s response to his own question is doubtful. But his point here is a good one: all our Churches stand guilty of words spoken and deeds done against each other, whatever glories there may also be in our churches? histories. In the matter of schism, as both a historical and a perpetuated reality, “they have all gone astray . . . there is none that does good, no, not one” (Rom. 3:12). If we can admit that, then we will have the humility appropriate for dealing with one another.
—end snip—
Please take a look at Hart’s article.
Glen, you may be right when you write “Forget history and high theology for a moment. Until a typical Orthodox Christian can feel at-home in a Roman Catholic mass (like we can in the Western-rite Orthodox Churches that exist), then we are not united.”
The other side of that coin is, of course, until a typical Catholic can feel at home in an Orthodox church, without sideways glances and outright comments about “unwelcome strangers” and “what are they doing here?” and the Orthodox get over their nationalism, then Christ’s Church will remain divided.
On Western-rite Orthodox Churches: Glen, I know that you have written here about the problem of Uniatism. Forgive me for providing Fr. Aidan Nichols’ view on Uniatism from a Catholic perspective:
“This brings me to the fourth and concluding section of my ‘overview’ where, as mentioned at the outset, I will single out for, I hope, charitable and eirenic comment one negative aspect of Orthodoxy where, in my opinion, the Orthodox need Catholic communion just as – for quite different reasons already outlined – Catholics need (at this time in history above all) the Orthodox Church.
The animosity, indeed the barely contained fury, with which many Orthodox react to the issue of Uniatism is hardly explicable, except in terms of a widespread and not readily defensible Orthodox feeling about the relation between the nation and the Church.
There must be, after all, some factor of social psychology or corporate ideology which complicates this issue. Bear in mind that the Orthodox have felt no difficulty this century in creating forms of Western-rite Orthodoxy, for example in France under the aegis of the Rumanian patriarchate or more recently in the United States under the jurisdiction of an exarch of the patriarch of Antioch. And what are these entities if not Orthodox Uniatism – to which the Catholic Church has, however, made no objection.
—end snip—
Note 92. Stephen, my argument with Diane concerns her claims about papal authority and a few other items, but my objections should not be read as a repudiation of Roman Catholicism. In some areas the Romans have done a better job than the Orthodox, so much so that we can learn from them (engagement with the culture of death ideology, for example). I don’t think that complete doctrinal agreement is necessary in order for the Romans and Orthodox to work together on these issues. For this reason I am sympathetic to Pope Benedict’s call that Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants work together to challenge the secularist ideology.
(I argue in fact that secularism may indeed be the heresy of our age. More on this some other time.)
I’m not one to demand perfection before good can occur.
Fr. Hans, I find it admirable that the Pope finds the Orthodox capable of battling against secularism. From the point of view of Rome, I would imagine that the Orthodox are viewed as being somewhat “secular”, perhaps even somewhat riddled with “pagan superstitions”. It is a great honor to be invited as such.
Daniel,
A couple of things. I have many friends, including a priest neighbor, who are Uniates. I have no ill-will towards them. I am not ‘ethnically’ Orthodox, and have no stake in the affairs of the old countries of Europe. As a historian, I recognize the roots of Uniatism and the way in which it was used by both the Polish and Austro-Hungarian Kingdoms to further political ends. It was also used by Ukrainian nationalists to bolster support for development of a national consciousness. Understanding all that, however, doesn’t mean that I am angry or resentful towards them. Though I do understand why that feeling is present among Eastern Europeans. They should forgive and forget, I agree. (The Western Rite Orthodox Churches in the U.S. carry none of this historic baggage, that is why they are so uncontroversial. I like a lot of the Western services, such as the Stations of the Cross, and attend them on a regular basis.)
On the other hand, I am well-aware of their plight as part of the Roman communion. Their experience makes me anxious. Many Ukrainian Greek Catholics got so tired of their ‘latinization’ early in the 20th Century that they up and went Orthodox. Even today, candidates for the priesthood in Greek Catholic Churches either have to attend seminaries in Europe or Orthodox schools such as Holy Cross. Either solution is less than ideal. The Latin bishops in the United States have simply not served their Greek Rite parishes well. That makes me nervous about any future relationship between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. Here, we are a small minority and the Roman Church is the majority. Given the track record, I am not so sure that our treatment would be the best.
Thanks for the article by the way. Interesting reading, especially this section, “The Christian emperor, though pretending to no power to determine doctrine, did claim an overall right of supervision for the public, external life of the churches. But this was exactly the position which those in the West who supported the developing theology of the unique ‘Petrine’ ministry of the Roman bishop wished to give the pope. In the first millenium there was no generally agreed ecclesiology of the Roman primacy. There are Latins who took a minimalist view of it, Greeks who took a maximalist.”
Struck me as interesting in light of our discussion with Diane, not that I am interested in continuing polemics. In any event, I am concerned about Papal power, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have maximum respect for our recent Popes, among others.
You talked about the other side of the coin for a moment, could a Roman Catholic feel at home in the Orthodox Church? If you ask my Polish wife, the answer is that the Orthodox Church is the Roman Catholic Church in which she was raised in Eastern Poland. She feels perfectly at home, and I think that in an OCA service conducted in English, any sincere Roman Catholic should feel the same way. She isn’t concerned about Theology or the Filioque or any of the other things that might come up. She is basing her reaction strictly on the conduct of the liturgy and how this squares with the church of her youth. It is the practical piety she is interested in, not the theory.
Let’s say that we were in communion, and you brought your family for a visit to my parish. You would be welcomed into a service conducted in English, in which 50% of the congregation are converts. The building would be traditionally Christian, meaning a high degree of decorative artwork, no different than ancient Roman Catholic Churches, though somewhat different from Medieval Churches in that there are no statues.
Traditional Roman Catholics have artwork and sacred space, so do Orthodox. So far so good.
Now, the liturgy begins. Orthodox use chant. The Roman Catholic Church has a robust and beautiful history of chanted prayers that will make you cry in joy. Roman Catholics have chant, Orthodox have chant. So far, so good.
It comes time for communion. Communion is distributed by priests and deacons. Roman Catholics have priests and deacons, we have priests and deacons. So far, so good.
At the Orthodox Church you will be given both the body and blood of Christ. In a Roman Catholic Mass, I would be offered only the body, with an explanation that that is all that I need on a regular basis as a layman. Of course, from time to time both elements are offered to the laity (like at a wedding), but not regularly.
You bring your young children to the chalice. They are given the precious body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. No questions are asked. No comments on their age are made. We are in communion, even with your babes in arms. Your entire family is welcome in our Church and at our altar.
If the Roman Catholic Church is willing to return the favor, then we have a point to begin talking about the details.
What would you, as a Roman Catholic, surrender by attending an Orthodox liturgy, or even joining an Orthodox parish (were we in communion)? You will give up music, particularly the Rock ‘n’ Roll stuff of recent vintage. But is that such a sacrifice, since chanting is also the tradition in the Roman Missal? You’ll give up certain new age charismatic touches as well, and the services will be longer, but that is about it. What am I missing, Daniel?
Are many Orthodox parishes too nationalistic? You bet your life. That is a huge problem for the Orthodox, though not of Orthodoxy. Do the Orthodox need the office of the Pope? I think so. Not as currently understood by the RC, but a leading bishop is definitely needed and the Bishop of Rome is the leading candidate.
I think that you and Diane might be making the same mistake. I don’t think Orthodox like Father Hans or myself hate or despise or are angry with the Roman Church. If I were, then I would be hating much of my immediate family. Such a thing isn’t the case at all. I would like to be in union with Bishop of Rome, but it has to be a real union in which our hearts are truly joined. Paper unions will disintegrate as easily as did Florence.
My dream? A true Synod of bishops in the United States, including what were once Orthodox and Roman Catholic bishops, emerges and begins creating a unique blend of liturgical worship that becomes the foundation of a new, Christianized American culture. This new liturgical model would encompass the spectrum of Christian practice, giving us both the Stations of the Cross and the Paraklesis, all together. Impossible? May be so, but dreaming is free.
Note 105. Stephen, were would you get the idea that from Rome’s POV, the Orthodox are “viewed as being somewhat ‘secular’, perhaps even somewhat riddled with ‘pagan superstitions’?” I could see fundamentalist Protestantism making this charge, but not Rome. In fact, Pope John Paul II made it quite clear that he felt the renewal of Western Europe would come from Eastern Europe, particularly after the Orthodox suffering under communism. Whether this hope will bear fruit remains to be seen, but the Pope was quite clear about this on several occassions.
Fr. Hans, on the other hand, why doesn’t Rome join forces with the Orthodox against secularism? Well, my guess is that they probably wouldn’t take such an invite seriously themselves.
Pope John Paul II was a unique Pope for many reasons, but IMO being that He was Polish and suffered himself under communism, he had more of an appreciation for Eastern Orthodoxy than most of his Catholic contemporaries. Still, his comments about the renewal of Western Europe coming from Eastern Europe strike me as being more or less opportunistic. Western economists think the same way about Eastern Europe serving to bolster their economies. The Roman Catholic missions opened in Eastern Orthodox countries have been viewed as largely predatory rather than being supportive of the indigineous Church.
Though Rome may have an appreciation for Orthodoxy, my sense is that she still holds much of it to be idiosyncratic and unnecessary. If the Roman Patriarchate doesn’t share the same sense of the sacred as the Orthodox, the converse is that Rome also defines “secularism” differently too. I would contend that the Orthodox witness of the Holy Spirit originating only from the Father is still viewed as “pagan superstition” by the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church understands and fights secularism in a different way than Rome. How can they join forces to fight a common enemy when they can’t even agree on the enemy?
Hello Everyone!
I have just finished reading( and yeah OK skimming) all of your comments on the East/West , Orthodox/Catholic train of thought. And I must say that I find it to be a wonderful source of communication and personal thought, so if you would allow me to add my own:
Reunification, Yes Vs. No
I believe that we should as Christians try to mend our arguments with our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, and that this applies to all those who worship in the shadow of the Cross. Specifically about RC/GO (Roman Catholics/ Greek Orthodox), first you leave out Western Rite Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Catholics, so east/west isn’t as accurate. I will show my opinion on the following that were written in a previous post.
1) Full communion for children, including infants. (yes need to have in RC)
SOLUTION: re-educate and stop Council of Trent thumping and go back further
2) Baptism, chrismation, and first communion happening at the same time. (duh…tell the RC bishops)
SOLUTION: This is where the RC’s have mixed up tradition and customs…the first is given to us my the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, the second is made up on the circumstances at hand, and then becomes “the way we’ve ALWAYS done it!” (7 last words of a dying community)
3) Married clergy as a fully embraced option. ( Key word FULLY…like I said tell the RC Bishops..and pray that they get the point)
SOLUTION: See Above
4) Correction of the currently ?stripped down? Latin Liturgy.( Oh, there is a really beautiful Vatican II liturgy, that quite closely resembles a GO liturgy, but no one wants to take the time to do it)
SOLUTION: Many of the local RCC’s have 4-7 masses on a weekend and NO time for any thing extra than 45 min…not allowing for a true liturgy…. this would be a problem with a TON of fixing to do, smaller parishes, more clergy, a re-education into the meaning and purpose of Mass ( and No, it is not for the plenery indulgence, and don’t get me started on that one!) After all of that, you would be able to re-introduce liturgy that is already written into our liturgy depraved society.
5) Ending Eucharistic ministry. Only Ordained Deacons or priests should be allowed to distribute the host. ( Well yeah.. RC’s made and allowance of EXTRA-ordinary ministers to have a person when the priest was too ill or infirm, in the desolate missions of the west and this carried over into a custom…see what happens when you abandon your traditions? you end up with customs without a reason, but given enough time can be stuck with some random theology)
SOLUTION: See above, smaller sizes and a more close-knit community would make this problem obsolete, and extra-ordinary ministers as well.
6) The election of bishops through local synods as is the practice in the East, rather than direct selection by the Pope.( I do know that there is a commitee in Rome that actually decides bishops and not the Pope alone, but why not have a synod?)
SOLUTION: I do not know if this could stay a patriarchal thing or if the other 4 object, then it should be discussed.
I see that both the Orthodox and the Catholics have stuff in there churches that needs fixing, kind of like when they split one got the spritual/sensual side, and the other got the philosophical/legal side…not really helpful for either one.
This inner conflict must really be cleared up before any true serious progress could be made.
Now to the subject of who needs to go to whom. NEITHER
Now all of you have made references to where you believe that the theology and doctrine differ…might be true, yet doctrine can be wrong, it is only dogma that is considered concrete. And I believe that if we searched through each of these issues and got past that need to fight over phrasiology, I think you might find that we are saying the same thing. How about this, the Patriarch of the West comes back into comunion with the other 4, and then the 5 of them hold an election to elect the new Pope to be the “first among eqauls” and to be contained to 2 powers, the power to convene a council and the power to break a tie? Each Patriarch would hold his own power and together and the 5 Patriarchs they would adminsiter to the needs of the people. This would be a secratorial nightmare, as the Western Rite Orthodox would be under Rome, and the Byzantine Catholics would be also re-assigned to there proper Patriarchs. As to the “vicar of Christ” that title means that the Pope is the vessel that Christ works through (just as HE works through the priests)during a council( which RC’s are in a sore need for…7 is just not enough)
RC’s also need to apologize, for alot , re-defining the rule to a council to create ther own, sacking Constantinople, and for the harsh remarks in the Council of Trent.
As far as the actuall theological interpretations go, I’d say that our best bet is to follow the suggestion in the post by Garrison Bauman, and pray for God to mend our sepparation and to lead those who wish to reconcile on a path of Love, understanding and the Light of Truth. Because as I see it, there is a lot of misunderstanding on all sides, and I believe that in a world so depraved, that we as Christians must stand together and fight together, and if we are not unified, that will be a difficult task. I do not think that the majority of the laity, or the clergy for that matter, actualy realizes the doctrinal differences, and since unity is a unity of faith, I believe that the faith is the same, but that the clarification and the presentation is different.
Anybody up for a Nicene Creed?
ICXC NIKA
Apologies for barging in here, I randomly came across this when looking for something completely different on a search engine, and offer my thoughts…
1) Although Catholic, I find myself in major sympathy with those criticising prevelant modern Catholic liturgical practises. In the UK it depends on which parish you go to whether you get a bare room with a few holy images, or a church bustling with art. Although you can get Gregorian chant, especially in London, most parishes offer folk mass or nothing.
Ironically, a church richly decorated, ringing with Gregorain chant, is closer to the mind of the Church as expressed in Vatican II’s _Sacrosanctum Concilium_.
(And we cannot deny we do abuse Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist. I have been scandalised to see them used when the Mass has been concelebrated by a number of priests.)
Having said that, there is something to be said generally about people having problems when they encounter liturgical practises which are differnt to those they are familiar with. When Bishop Kallistos celebrated the Liturgy of St James for the first time at the Orthodox Chaplaincy at Oxford and gave the body of Our Lord to the communicants in their hands most of them were rather shocked.
2)
>RC’s also need to apologize, for alot , re-defining the rule to a council to create ther own,
>sacking Constantinople,
Pope John Paul II did apologize for the sacking of Constantinople years ago (June 2001 to be precise). Please see:
http://www.detnews.com/2001/religion/0105/18/religion-220664.htm
Yes, I am quite aware that JPII did ALOT of apologizing, yet I think that it must also be made aware to the “everday” Catholic, where the hostility of the East comes from, and then to offer a personal apology. This way everyone understands that the RC’s messed up and are sorry, and not just that the heads of states .
But thanks for your comments!
Re note 94: Stephen, you have a very good point. You are right that in the struggle against moral wrongs the solution is to “embrace what is sacred.” To me though that is the long term goal; what I am trying to do is to look at practical shorter term methods of combating moral decline. I believe that if Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and Orthodox happen to agree that, to use your example, abortion is wrong, then there is nothing to stop all of these groups to state publicly that abortion is wrong. If all of these groups did this then there would quite a lot of numbers speaking out against moral decline. And stopping abortion or any other moral wrong does not mean you must convert to their faith. Re BeckyAnn note 109: Thank you for agreeing with me. To clarify something that I am saying: The unity of the Church will not happen without the unity of the Faith. Re John note 110: John: Why were “the communicants in their hands most of them were rather shocked” about the Liturgy of St. James I happen to be Orthodox, and I have celebrated the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, and the Divine Liturgy of St. James.(Fr. Jacobse correct me on this if I am wrong) The only differences that I see between the Liturgies is longer prayers. So if they were not used to the longer version then they would be surprised. And just because the Pope apologizes does not mean that all of us hard headed Orthodox are going to accept it.
Just came across this board and skimmed over some of the posts.
As an Orthodox Christian I am quite ambivelent about the whole idea of Union with the Papists. (I refrain from using the word “Church” in relation to the Papists and any non-Orthodox group, simply on the basis that they cannot be considered to be part of the Church/body of Crist due to their heretical and false teachings).
The issues with the Papists are many, but they can be boiled down to one key concept which is really at the root. EGOTISM. Within the Orthodox mind, the “EGO” is a word which is anathematised and despised. Where man asserts his “EGO” ahead of the Lord, he then does his own will and not the will of God. Furthermore, he falls in to the same sin that Lucifer fell in to.
To be Orthodox is not merely to maintain the faith as handed down to us by our Holy Fathers, but it is to fully place yourself (via “Orthopraxia”) in the hands of the Lord and supplant your own will with His. In this manner, we walk within the Truth as revealed by the Lord to us.
This concept of the diminishing of the EGO is in direct opposition with the heresy and fallacy of the Papsit claim that the Pope is the “head of the Church”. Scriptually, the idea that a mere mortal is “infallible in cathedra” is both reprehensible and a blasphemy. CHRIST is the head of the Church, not the Pope. Moreoever, Christ loved his Apostles EQUALLY and did NOT set one above the other. The primacy of Peter is false and find no basis in scripture.
On another note, the Papists have also created doctrinal differences which are just as heretical. ie, the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit (the “Filioque”) clearly has NO basis scripturally. St John the Evangelist is quite clear on this point.
The issue of so called “Greek-Catholics” and Uniates is also a thorny one. It is obvious that the Papists are merely interested in having numbers and have people believe in the primacy and the authority of the pope. If this was not the case, and if doctrine and the truth of the faith was at the forefront of Papist intentions, then they would not have incorporated MONOPHYSITE groups such as the Melkites, Maronites, Armenian Catholics (to name a few) in to their fold and let them maintain their Monophysite credos despite it being completely against Papist doctrine. It would seem that the Papist will take anybody they can get if they merely believe in the pope. It seems that it is all about worldly authority.
If there is to be union between the Papists and the Orthodox, it is the Papists who must come to the realisation that it is they themselves who, through their false and heretical teachings, have cut themselves off from the True Church of Jesus Christ. For union to occur, they must give up their heresy and embrace humility before the Lord and restore the See of Rome to its true identity as a mere bishop amongst equals. Nothing more, nothing less.
For those of you who may feel angered or hurt by my words, I suggest that you read “What is Orthodoxy?” by Botsis and then engage further in discussion.
George.
George,
I agree that the Church generally identifies egoism, as you put it, as a sickness, but the Church is full of sick people. The Church is full of egoists. I am curious as to how you would contrast the functioning papacy as different than say the Orthodox Holy Roman Emperors (or Russian Tsars).
George,
I tried to find the title you mentioned by Botsis, but couldn’t. I found a Protopresbyter at a Greek Orthodox Church in Illinois. Is this the same one?
I have to confess I’m a little taken back by the tenor of your comments. Your neglecting to own any responsibility on the part of the Orthodox for this tragic schism shows a singular lack of the humility about which you write. I believe we Orthodox have much to repent of in the past and present. Even if we’re right, much more charity and forgiveness is needed.
I’m a little curious. Are you Greek Orthodox? Are you a convert or have you been Orthodox your whole life? I hope you don’t mind indulging me a little after firing off a salvo like that one.
114- Stephen,
I didnot use the words “sickness”. As far as saying that the Church is full of “sick people”, you are positively correct. It is the sick that are in need of healing and the sick, the injured and the sinful are called to Christ for salvation.
There is no correlation between the position of the Emperors and the idea of the Pope. No emperor at any time in either Byzantium or Russia (or any other Orthodox king), at any time asserted religious authority such that they were “infallible”. That they are considered “protectors” of the Orthodox faith is quite a different matter. Moreover, I do not believe (i may stand corrected), that Emperors took unilateral action on any theological topic without consulting the Church as a whole (whether it be the Patriarchs, Synods or the Ecumenical Council).
Stephen, can you please explain to me why it is that the Pope wishes to wield worldly authority and why it is that he is the head of a worldly state?
115 – David,
The question of whether I was raised as Orthodox or a convert to Orthodoxy is immaterial. What matters is that I am Orthodox, and as all Orthodox do, I merely uphold the Truth.
Please understand that on the issue of the Schism, the Orthodox do not stand in condemnation of the Papists, the Pope or any other heretic. In fact it is with great love and humility that the Orthodox Church prays for union and the salvation of mankind on a daily basis. The Orthodox are not waiting for the Papists to say “sorry” to them!! The point is reconcilling with GOD and living the Truth as expounded by the holy fathers. Communion in Christ cannot bear differences. Faith and belief in the Church is ONE, and it is with ONE mind and heart that we expound the same truth as revealed by God. Therefore we cannot have Union by merely accepting heretical ideals for the sake of fraternity and humanity. Jesus came to divide people for the TRUTH. Half truth is not truth at all.
The Orthodox do not want to transform the Papist in to Orthodox in terms of liturgics and to be cookie cutter copies. What the Orthodox pray is for the Papists to lay down their heretical beliefs and return to the Truth.
George,
I would define a Papist as one who supplants faith in Christ with faith in the Pope. Such belief is quite properly labeled heresy and blasphemy. Certainly, there are true Papist’s in the Roman Catholic communion, but not as many as one might think. For many in the Roman Catholic communion that I have known over the years a true and genuine faith in Jesus Christ is present. The Pope is looked upon as an authoritative guide to life in Christ.
The Filioque is not even thought about by most Catholic laity. Since it is not in their minds they are free to seek and experience Christ as He is.
I have had many Catholic friends over the years say to me words to the effect that the Catholic teaching is thus and so, but no one really does that any more because it doesn?t really work. They have set aside Catholic doctrine and practice for a more fulfilling, genuine experience of Jesus Christ (I am not talking about the folks who apostatize while retaining the title of Catholic). In my 18 years in the saving embrace of the Orthodox Church, I have never encountered a like opinion on our doctrine as that frequently expressed to me by Roman Catholics on theirs. I have encountered frustration, disbelief, anger, joy, wonder, and more, but never, “Oh, you don’t really have to do it the way the Church teaches.” But having so many of my Catholic friends express similar sentiments over the years led to the formulation of my statement in note #7 that IMO Roman Catholics achieve salvation despite their doctrine not because of it. That comparatively mild criticism set off quite an exchange on the relative merits of Orthodoxy, Catholicism and union. I will be interesting to see what happens here now.
George, I strongly disagree with your assertion in #113 “To be Orthodox is not merely to maintain the faith as handed down to us by our Holy Fathers, but it is to fully place yourself (via “Orthopraxia”) in the hands of the Lord and supplant your own will with His. In this manner, we walk within the Truth as revealed by the Lord to us.”
St. Seraphim of Sarov told us that the aim of the Christian life is to acquire the Holy Spirit. Humility is required, but it is not a humility that diminishes personal identity or will. In fact the 6th Ecumenical Council clearly stated that in the Incarnation God’s will and man’s will were not mixed or diminished in any way–“We glorify two natural operations indivisibly, immutably, unconfusedly, inseparably in the same our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, that is to say a divine operation and a human operation, according to the divine preacher Leo, who most distinctly asserts as follows: “For each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely, doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh” will is not supplanted; it is transformed and transfigured to be in harmony with the Divine Will. The antinomy of God’s Will and Man’s will is always maintained. Your formulation verges on the Augustinian/Protestant idea and is not IMO an accurate statement of Orthodox spirituality. I would further contend that it is just such a misunderstanding of the nature of Man’s inter-relationship with God that led to the idea of Papal authority in the first place.
Orthodox spiritual life cannot be divided into theory and practice. Our life in the Church is the growing participation in the life of the Holy Trinity. To attempt to make a division is a classic western (dare I say Papist) mistake. I am not sure by your post if you are trying to make that separation or if you are merely using a device to point out that we must always act on what we believe. If you are under the illusion that there is a separation, then I further suggest that you do not have a proper understanding of Orthodox spirituality and thought.
The first result of true humility is repentance, the next forgiveness. Only these traits allow us to be obediant to the Word of the Lord and remove the log from our own eye before we take the mote from our brother’s eye. There has been and continues to be an abudance of arrogance on both sides. While it is my belief that the Orthodox Church has the fullness of the Truth, such belief does not allow me to say there is no Truth in the Roman Catholic communion. It is too easy to engage in old formulaic condemnations that throw the Truth from our own heart. I have been guilty of such in the past; I pray that I will be no longer. To the extent that they partake of the Truth, they are in the Church. Our job is to recognize the Truth wherever He is for He is known and loved with the heart.
In conclusion, while I share with you the determination to avoid any false union, I do not share your reasoning at all. Just remember what the poet said, “To do the right deed for the wrong reason is surely the greatest treason.” I would caution you to look to your reasons.
George,
…yes, I meant, your term “egoism”, not sickness…
I have to wonder about the similarities between the Pope and the emperor. You mentioned that the emperor was understood as the protector of the Church, but I think it was usually impossible to really make distinctions between Church and State before the collapse of the empire. The emperor was also the head of the Church, and there were perhaps good ones and bad ones, but even a bad emperor was considered as taking the role of Christ on Earth. His was a position of supremacy, a position which was protected by the Church. Perhaps the Church was even more tolerant of bad emperors than of bad bishops. Peter the Great comes to mind as an emperor who sought to make drastic changes in the Church. The Church suffered under his rule, but thankfully his reforms didn’t keep. Yet the notion, or to some the dogma, exists that the Orthodox Church is lacking and in need of an emperor. To me, this sounds almost similar to papal dogma.
Michael,
Firstly when I speak of Orthopraxia, there is a synergy between the theory of what we believe in the mind and the practice of how we live our lives there after and how the body follows. There is no separation for any Orthodox living an Orthodox life. It is either complete or not at all, much like the Truth. A “bit” of Truth in one place does not make it THE Truth. The Truth is either whole and complete or it becomes an untruth.
If there are Catholics that belong to Rome ecclesiatically but believe differently then they are lost. For the Eucharist they celebrate and so-called communion they receive is a communion with false-believers. Once again, the Truth is either Whole or not at all.
Michael, at no time did I talk about losing identity. To do the will of God and to supplant your own will with his does NOT mean you lose identity, rather it means that you make a concious decision with follow God’s will with all your heart, mind and body so as to acquire the Holy Spirit. Thereafter you have synergy. I think you may have read more in to my statements than what was really there.
George:
You did not speak of losing identity, however Michael is saying that to replace the will of man with the will of God is to lose all identity. Therefore to lose our will is to lose everything that makes us human in the first place. You also lose any hope of being saved if you lose that identity. God gave man free will and to say that man must give up free will to do God’s will is wrong. If, to follow God’s will, meant that the power to choose was not there then God would not have given us free will in the first place. George said “follow God’s will with all your heart, mind and body.” I do not know where you got that, but the translation of the Bible I have says: “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.”
1. That quote says no where to ‘supplant’ our will to do God’s will
2. It does not even say anything about ‘will’
3. It says nothing about the body
4. It is saying to LOVE God…
To make a ‘conscious’ decision to do anything in relationship to God requires the use of our own will which you say we must give up. Please explain.
“Papist” is an offensive term. Yes, the Orthodox have some serious disagreements with Roman Catholics, but “Papist” characterizes RC Christians as mind-numbed zombies — people of good will perhaps but little intelligence or common sense and blindly following the dictates of the Pope.
But we know this not true of RC laity and the leadership of Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul before him.
Does not the idea of “following” connote the ideal of free-will?
Did i say that you have to give up free-will?
What I said is that you have to replace your will with that of the will of God in order to attain synergy. How to we replace our will with the will of God’s? IMO, you consciously take out the egoism in your will. You make the decision to take out all disobedience. In other words, you take out those aspects of your will which are a barrier to becomming synergised with God’s will.
When you willfully obey God’s will, you retain your identity and your free-will. (Actually, this is perhaps the paramount act of free-will). We haven’t acted to follow the will of God ONCE and go on autopilot for the rest of our lives! There is always an element of choice. We do not at any time lose that power to choose. We enact free will every second of the day when we pray unceassingly to God and seek in love to love him with all our heart, mind and soul. We do it (or at least try to) on a daily basis when we drive out of ourselves wicked thoughts and evil deeds. These are all choices which we make.
I take your point regarding the issue of “heart, mind soul”. You have correctly pointed out the scriptural passage. However, have not our Orthodox saints and fathers also mortified their own passions and bodies for the love of God? Have they not fought against and made their bodies, temples of the Holy Spirit as an obvious and important example to us? One wonders why the Lord would have said that his followers would fast after the bridegroom has left (loose paraphrase here.I don’t have a bible with me) if not to show that we need to love God in all aspects both in heart, soul and mind—and also the body. The body is important otherwise the Lord would not have become man.
My understanding of “following” connotes love. You do not follow if you do not love. Ofcourse in all things love must be present, especially in matters pertaining to the God.
I must concede that my own words are clumsy and that such discussions are always better stated when said in the flesh. I haven’t come to stir the pot, I have merely come here to add to the discussion.
Note to 113
George, you wrote:
“As an Orthodox Christian I am quite ambivelent about the whole idea of Union with the Papists. (I refrain from using the word “Church” in relation to the Papists and any non-Orthodox group, simply on the basis that they cannot be considered to be part of the Church/body of Crist due to their heretical and false teachings).”
With all due respect – I’m a Catholic posting on an Orthodox blog – that’s uncharitable and offensive language. The Pope clearly considers true Orthodoxy to live in the One Catholic Church, but that doesn’t prevent him from calling your church by the name you are known.
We all know that, there’s no such a thing as a Catholic or an Orthodox church. There is only one Church that must be Catholic and Orthodox, and can’t be one without the other. But both sides considers themselves to be both Catholic and Orthodox, but we use those names as conventions.
And now, I ask of you, what is the Orthodox Church?
I know what the Catholic Church is. There is a clear and definite thing called the Roman Catholic Communion.
I know of no such thing on the Orthodox Communion. What is it? Churches in communion with Constantinople?
An Orthodox Church in schism with another is Orthodox? If the ROCOR are Orthodox, all Orthodox in communion with Russia and Constantinope are false orthodox? Can the ROCOR be in communion with a Church in communion with a Russia?
Truth be told, if we try hard enough, we’ll find positions within the Orthodox Church from the last 1000 years both in favor and against Rome. Some holds the Catholics as excommunicated heretics. On other times, they have services together with a Bizantine Rite Catholic.
If a Patriarch Orthodox holds a Pope as the successor of Peter, then it means there’s apostolic succession on the Catholic Church. But an excommunicated and heretical church can have no apostolic succession.
The majoritary believes union with Rome is unlikely, but possible. Others claim it’s impossible. But it can’t be both things. One of those must be wrong. And, most importantly to the topic, one must be Orthodox position.
All my research led me to believe there is not such a thing as an official and homogeneous position of the Orthodox Church towards Rome. It’s really easy to know our position. Yours is not. Clarity is part of Christianity. I admire my Orthodox brothers a lot, but I have failed to see any clarity here. If you can prove me wrong, please, do so.
Thanks, and I apologize for any potential offense here, for it was not meant.
George,
I agree with what you say regarding the need to stand for the truth.
We should never sacrifice the truth in order to attain a false union.
I also agree that Roman Christians need not look or act like us to be in communion with us.
So I guess my problem with your post, as I said, is with its tone. As posted in 112, this term papist is offensive. It’s rude. You shouldn’t use it. You should apologize for having used it already.
If you don’t want to call them Church, then you could call them ‘Roman Catholics’ or if you prefer not to call them ‘Catholic’ then you could just call them ‘Roman’
If you want to express a little goodwill, you could even add ‘Brothers’, ‘Christians’ or even ‘Friends’.
The word papist has a long history and it’s not as a term of endearment.
Just be nice. I’m not asking you to sacrifice any principles or forsake your Orthodoxy. Our Orthodoxy does not include mean or rude behavior. There’s no excuse for it.
George, you present the spiritual divide between East and West as all truth vs. no truth. Fortunately for all of us your idea is not tenable. Let me give you specific examples:
1. As a participant in a new age Christian mystery cult many years ago, I was seemingly as far away from the truth of Christianity as one can get, yet Jesus Christ was there despite the horrendous errors about Him that we taught.
2. In an Hispanic Baptist Church I visited one night, the peace and the love of God were manifest as the congregation sang praises to El Senior (God).
3. In a Quaker Sunday gathering as the congregation sat silently in prayer, the Holy Spirit crept into my heart uniting me with the others there in a longing for Jesus Christ that was palpable. Unfortunately, they were not willing to take the next obvious step and commune with Him in His Body and Blood.
4. When the Pope has the courage to stand on the same podium with the President of the United States and say unequivocally that the killing of unborn children is a moral evil. When the Vatican instructs the priests in this country not to offer the cup to a Presidential candidate because his beliefs are not in concert with the teachings of the Church while so many of our bishops cravenly kow-tow to politicians who share the same beliefs-where is the truth?
5. When a leading Orthodox bishop is invited to give the invocation at both the Democratic and Republican National conventions and does not even invoke the Holy Trinity in his prayer, while Protestants in the past have prayed in the name of Jesus, where is the truth?
6. When prominent Jews stand up and point out the persecution of Christians around the world while most Christians in this country ignore the persecution, where is the truth?
7. When I came to the Orthodox Church, I recognized the same Jesus Christ I had met in many other places on my journey, He was just more accessible and I could understand Him more fully in the Orthodox Church than anywhere else I had been. Even within the loving embrace of the Church, Truth is gradually unfolded. Some people have a greater realization of the truth than others do. If we were to ever get the whole dose at once, we would be blown to bits. (I want to make it clear that I am not supporting the Roman belief in the “evolution of the truth” as the truth is unchanging).
Jesus says in the Scripture that He is out seeking his lost sheep wherever they are and in fact explicitly states that there are those who will be saved not of this fold. He does not abandon us just because we abandon Him. If He did, none of us should see salvation.
The Roman Catholics have some things right. Some Protestants have a few things right. What they have right comes from us and is given life by the Holy Spirit through the Church. To that extent, although it is only a grain of mustard seed, they are partaking of the Church. The whole history of Orthodox evangelism has been to recognize what different peoples and cultures have already received of the truth and tell the rest of the story.
George, you have taken what I consider to be a juridical approach to the Schism which is not consonant in anyway with the Orthodoxy I know. You can have mercy and forgiveness without giving in to the errors of the west so I beg you Christian, have mercy, for in the course of justice, none of us should see salvation (a slight paraphrase of Shakespeare).
Michael,
You have said it much better than I could have. That doesn’t really come as a surprise to me, however, given my experience with you earlier in the thread.
I get a little hot-headed sometimes.
Thanks for your example.
The book George recommended is available from abebooks: http://www.abebooks.com. Just put the Title in the search field and it will come up.
125. Michael, what is your definition of Church? Does it include people who may have their beliefs “right” but belong to a non-Orthodox group as well as members of the Orthodox Church?
To my mind Michael, the Truth stands irrespective of what people say or do. I never said that people in the East are infallible or do everything right! I said their belief is Orthodox (ie. True). As people we fall constantly and are exhorted to stand upright. This does not mean that due to our fallibilities as people that the truth in the Orthodox Faith (which is the WHOLE and COMPLETE Truth) is in anyway diminished. To say that others have elements of truth, is to say that they do not walk in the complete truth. If you do not walk in the WHOLE truth, then it is not truth at all. This is my simple argument.
Once again, I clearly state, that my words are not borne out of anger, or egoism or an absence of love for my fellow neighbour. In fact, I state these words with the utmost humility knowing full well my own sinful nature and my unworthiness to even speak the name of the Lord. I once again repeat, I (and no right believing Orthodox) stands in condemnation of any other person since they are acutely aware of their own sins. Nor do I stand from up high and pontificate(so to speak). I am merely pro-Truth and I do not believe that half a truth is as good as the whole truth. I just think that such thoughts concerning bits of truth here and there are a bit “wishy-washy”.
[Michael as an aside, I have avoided the more radical sayings of some of the saints of the Orthodox Church. If you wanted to get very radical you could also reflect on the words of St Maximus the Confessor who I believe said (I need to check this up) “Not even a matyr’s death will save a heretic on the Day of Judgement”. Moreover, we have this lovely gem from St Mark of Ephesus who exhorted the Orthodox to “…Avoid the Papists (“Papikous”), as you would avoid snakes”. I also quote St Kosmas of Aiotolia who said prophetically “Curse the name of the Pope, for he shall be the reason for destruction.”]
124. Dave, I do not consider the term “papist” as rude on the basis that I do not intend the words as demeaning. If however, you all prefer I can use any other word you wish.
“The question of whether I was raised as Orthodox or a convert to Orthodoxy is immaterial.” How is the question immaterial? Telling us if you were raised Orthodox or a convert would give the rest of us a better idea of where you are coming from; that is all.
“Does not the idea of ‘following’ connote the ideal of free-will?”
To follow someone does not mean that you have free will. In fact some synonyms of follow are to go after to pursue, trail; so following can mean different things than love and usually does not involve love. However, it certainly can involve love.
“Did I say that you have to give up free-will?”
No, you did not say that, however the way that you are stating your points requires one to give up free will in order to serve God’s will.
“What I said is that you have to replace your will with that of the will of God in order to attain synergy.”
To replace one’s will with something else is to give up one’s will. Without our will to choose we would fall into the passions and after that into Darkness. We cannot replace our will with anything.
I am not quite sure what you mean by egoism; would you explain this further please?
You are right in the fact that there is a synergy that exists between our will and God’s will but I do not believe that to gain that synergy we must replace our will. I believe that to gain that synergy we must seek rather to align our will with God. When that occurs, God’s will and our will are going to be running along the same path. To do that does not require that anyone replace anything. And I do take your point about the body.
George, Ultimately, the Church is Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.
The New Testament Greek word for Church means called out, set apart. By extension it is those who are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, partakers of His Body and Blood in communion with Him and one another through Him.
The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is the Orthodox Church.
I did not state that Catholics and Protestants are in the Church, they are not.
However, I do believe that at times they can and do partake of the truth of the Church. Does that divide the Truth or parcel it out in packets? No, it does not.
We know God and can commune with Him through His Divine and uncreated energies. Those same energies give Life to His Church on earth and radiate throughout His creation. There is no question that the primary means for the transmission of His energies in earth is through the Orthodox Church, but as a fire heats all around it, others can also partake of the Grace.
The primary criterion for salvation in the New Testament is how we treat others, not what we believe. If people like Mother Theresa and Damian, the Leper offer their lives in kenotic suffering for others because they love Jesus Christ, I believe that they are partakers of the Divine Grace of the Church. Unfortunately, for those in the West all that they can hope for is to touch the hem of His garment while calling His name. We can partake of the full Divine Feast any time we want.
We who have been given much are responsible for much. Sadly, we mostly fail or our friends and neighbors who struggle to know Jesus Christ would find Him in us and follow Him to the nearest Orthodox Temple because of our example. At this point in history, if Catholics and Protestants are condemned to death, we bear much of the responsibility for not living our faith.
George, the last post was not be Garrison Bauman, but by me, Michael Bauman
Note to 113
George, you wrote;
“As an Orthodox Christian I am quite ambivelent about the whole idea of Union with the Papists. (I refrain from using the word “Church” in relation to the Papists and any non-Orthodox group, simply on the basis that they cannot be considered to be part of the Church/body of Crist due to their heretical and false teachings).”
With all due respect – I’m a Catholic posting on an Orthodox blog – that’s an uncharitable and offensive language. The Pope clearly considers true Orthodoxy to live in the One Catholic Church, but that doesn’t prevent him from calling your church by the name you are known.
Both sides claim to be Catholic and Orthodox at the same time, and can’t be one without the other. We all know that.
And now, I ask of you, what is the Orthodox Church?
I know what the Catholic Church is. There is a clear and definite thing called the Roman Catholic Communion.
I know of no such thing on the Orthodox Communion. What is it? Churches in communion with Constantinople?
An Orthodox Church in schism with another is Orthodox? If the ROCOR are Orthodox, all Orthodox in communion with Russia and Constantinope are false orthodox? Can the ROCOR be in communion with a Church in communion with a Russia?
Truth be told, if we try hard enough, we’ll find positions within the Orthodox Church from the last 1000 years both in favor and against Rome. Some think Peter is the legitimate successor of Peter. Other says he isn’t.
Some holds the Catholics as excommunicated heretics. On other times, they have services together with a Bizantine Rite Catholic.
If a Patriarch Orthodox holds a Pope as the successor of Peter, then it means there’s apostolic succession on the Catholic Church. But an excommunicated heretical church can have no apostolic succession.
The majoritary believes union with Rome is unlikely, but possible. Others claim it’s impossible. But it can’t be both things.
All my research led me to believe there is not such a thing as an official and homogeneous position of the Orthodox Church towards Rome. It’s really easy to know our position. Yours is not. Clarity is part of Christianity. I admire my Orthodox brothers a lot, but I have failed to see any clarity here. If you can prove me wrong, please, do so.
Thanks, and, everyone I apologize in advance for any potential offense here, for I mean no disrespect.
George,
Thanks for agreeing to can the word ‘papist’. I can believe that you did not intend it to be demeaning. Words mean things, however, beyond what we intend sometimes, and that word is not a friendly way to refer to Roman Catholics. You can choose whichever term you like, as long as it’s accurate and the use of it will create good will instead of ill.
Two definitions from Dictionary.com
Papist: Offensive. Used as a disparaging term for a Roman Catholic.
Papist
adj : of or relating to or supporting Romanism; “the Roman Catholic Church” [syn: Roman, r.c., Romanist, romish, Roman Catholic, popish, papistic, papistical] n : a Roman Catholic who is a strong advocate of the papacy.
As I said earlier, not all Roman Catholics are papists, even if one chooses to use that term. I would consider those as papists who whole heartedly put the Pope and the Papal office ahead of Jesus Christ. Then the saints George quoted would be accurate, for the “papists” have become apostate idol worshippers and without repentence, cannot be saved. To put all Roman Catholics in that category, however, is false.
From #135: “I would consider those as papists who whole heartedly put the Pope and the Papal office ahead of Jesus Christ.”
What is this? I never heard of any Catholic putting the Pope before Jesus Christ. Who actually believes this? I can’t think of anyone who even holds this distortion.
Also, “papist” is a derogative term. No doubt about it. However, I’ll give those some leniency who say it innocently not understanding the reprocussions of the term, but that person needs correction. The word comes straight out of Reformation-era biogtry. Give Catholics their diginity and call them “Catholics” – for an excellent treatment on this term, see the blog of Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong who dialoges with those who use anti-Catholic titles.
Delance,
I, for one, am prepared to admit that on many issues there is not a single, clear voice to speak for Orthodoxy. If you’re Orthodox, it’s something that you have to live with. No clear answer on big issues like Petrine Primacy, and no unified answer on important moral questions like birth control, either.
I guess we could try to say that that’s alright, that we’re better off this way. In some ways, I suppose, we might be. If everything moves slow, and you don’t say very much, then you won’t be likely to say much that is wrong or inadvisable, right?
I can’t completely buy that, though. I think Orthodoxy needs a clear voice, a ready spokesman, if you will, who can speak with authority to the world. I personally think that a revised and reconciled Chair of Peter would be just the thing. I think we’ve needed it from the beginning, we benefited from it in first centuries of the Church and we’ve been missing it since things went sour.
I pray that we will be able to figure out how primacy is supposed to work in our Churches. I pray that Benedict XVI and his successors will be able to figure out how to refine their undersanding (and practice) of primacy in ways that will make it clear to all that reconciliation between East and West would be the best solution to problems on both sides.
And of course I agree with Fr. Patrick that this would be miraculous. Anyone interested in praying for a miracle? Is it so wrong to pray for a miracle and believe it will come to pass when Our Lord so clearly indicated that it is His will?
I’m encouraged by talk from Rome, Constantinople, and even Moscow of embarking on the long, painful road of repentance and reconciliation. Our job at this level is to love one another and pray for the miracle.
Michael,
I think Paul asks a good question. I can’t think of anyone who would fit your definition of one who “whole heartedly put(s) the Pope and the Papal office ahead of Jesus Christ.”
Rome has never taught that. You say that it would be false to say that all Catholics fit in this category. Are there any at all? I don’t know who it would be. Do you have any particular teaching, document, council, group in mind?
Again, I suspect the number is going to be very close to zero.
Anyone up for offending Orthodox Tsarists?
Paul & David: I really think that several of the medieval Popes could readily fit in papist category, like some of the ones St. Mark and the others had to deal with. My real point is just as you stated, the reality today is that the number is probably zero. That being the case, the use of the term is not only derogatory, but foolishly incorrect and useless.
Of course the Romans have never taught that the Pope and the Papacy is ahead of Christ. That alone does not stop it from happening. Just like the Orthodox specifically prohibit worship of icons, yet it happens nonetheless.
Stephen, I’d be glad to offend Orthodox Tsarists–they need offending. Right now there are actually more of them than there are papists. In my boat they are flat out wrong headed at least on that point. I include St. John of Kronstadt, and Fr. Seraphim Rose who I greatly admire in many other ways.
That being said, it is just as easy to enthrone democracy instead of Christ and many of our conservative Protestant brethren come perilously close to that error.
Anybody else we need to offend?
Michael,
>>I really think that several of the medieval Popes could readily fit in papist category
As for your personal opinion that some of the Popes could readily fit in the “papist” category (wait, isn’t this a derogatory term?)…. do you have evidence to back this up? Your personal hunch doesn’t cut it here. Unless there is some hard documented evidence that ANY pope felt he was above Jesus, you’re just throwing trash around. Let’s leave the trash on the floor and the evidence on the table.
I want to know which popes said they were above the Lord. This is a legitimate request since you claimed there were such in history.
Yes, when it comes to the Tsar, I think of the Tevye’s joke from Fiddler on the roof:
(Mendel)
“Rabbi, may I ask you a question?”
(Rabbi)
“Certainly, my son.”
(Mendel)
“Is there a proper blessing for the Tsar?”
(Rabbi)
“A blessing for the tsar? Of course. May God bless and keep the Tsar… far away from us!”
Ramadi. I don’t have a list of the popes handy, but I could easily pick out a few that were interested in the papacy only for their own polictical gain and power and had zero concern for the acutal work of the Church. Or do you really believe that all of the popes were highly dedicated Christians? I certainly don’t believe that about all of our bishops–some of them acutally were caesaropapist which is the anolgous slam against us. And did you miss my “real point” that even if the pejortive label was in anyway accurate in the past, it is worthless today.
It is interesting that of all of my posts in this thread, none of which support the interpretation that the Roman Catholic Church is neo-pagan institution which is beyond salvation as George spoke of, all of which say emphatically that Roman Catholics are Christian and can be saved, that you pick that one reference to be offended by-the one reference which is probably the easiest to prove of all of the criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church I have voiced in this thread.
I was actually trying to support the validity of the Roman Catholic Church as a valid Christian institution contra George. I am sorry you were upset by my artless remarks.
Re note 137:
David Lewis writes:
“I pray that we will be able to figure out how primacy is supposed to work in our Churches. I pray that Benedict XVI and his successors will be able to figure out how to refine their understanding (and practice) of primacy in ways that will make it clear to all that reconciliation between East and West would be the best solution to problems on both sides. Anyone interested in praying for a miracle? Is it so wrong to pray for a miracle and believe it will come to pass when Our Lord so clearly indicated that it is His will?”
You are right: we need to pray for a miracle. However, to try to deal with primacy or any other issue, right now, is only going to lead to mud-slinging. What I believe needs to happen right now is to pray for the unity of the Faith which does not require immediate problem solving. It does require individuals from both Catholic and Orthodox backgrounds to get together and use whatever prayer form that can be agreed on, which goes beyond loving each other. (IMO, the psalms are a very good place to start.) If prayer is done properly, especially in this kind of situation, the entire mess will be given up to God. Once that happens, Catholics and Orthodox will be able to talk about issues like primacy, or anything else for that matter, without hiding behind arguments that people on both sides have been recycling ever since the schism happened.
Garrison, I believe your heart is in the right place here, but what you are proposing sounds like a stripped-down prayer service using only the psalms. This could take place at a Unitarian Church and conceivably involve people of all different faiths: Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Hare-Krishna, etc. There’s a lot of different faith groups which acknowledge the psalms as sacred scripture on some level or another (though they would interpret it differently).
I suppose we might say that Catholics and Orthodox have a closer understanding of the psalms than the rest. We might then write another Creed to the effect of “We believe in the Psalms…” and form the Catholic-Orthodox Brotherhood of the Psalms. Probably at some point though, some of our fellow Catholic and Orthodox friends would become frustrated and stop talking to us. A desire for unity can easily result in creating further divisions.
My belief is that a unity between Catholics and Orthodox would have to be both supremely Catholic and supremely Orthodox. It couldn’t be something negotiated, because the negotiations would come under dispute. It would have to be an undeniable and natural unity.
When Christ returns in Glory, there will be no dispute. Until then, we all must pray with fear and trembling. The perceived division of Christianity probably keeps many Christians humble and from becoming too big-headed. Perhaps this is really a blessing in disguise.
Stephen:
Muslims teach that God reached out to the ancient Hebrews but that they disobeyed God and that the Hebrew Scriptures are false. Muslims also teach that the New Testament is false.
You should inform yourself about the inflexible hostiality of Islam to Judaism and Christianity.
Stephen,
I fear you dismiss Garrison’s proposal rather too quickly. I have the benefit of hearing him actually talk about his vision. There is a power to it than cannot be communicated in electronic media. He has certainly had a positive effect on me and the way I look at the Schism. He has helped me to realize that I held unrighteous anger in my heart against Catholicism that needed to go.
I also feel you are still thinking too large. There is a place for large in the dialog, but large alone won’t do it. Small might just work better right now. That is part of the genius of Garrison’s idea–founded on the biblical principal, “Wherever two or more are gathered in my Name, there am I in the midst of them.” Garrison’s idea is not liturgical at all, it is simply two or more friends who share the same hope offering a sacrifice of praise for the unity of the faith and the purification of their own hearts. IMO, it is a form of unseen warfare and genuine Christian peacemaking at work. The friends don’t even have to be on opposite sides of the Orthodox/Catholic Schism and they don’t have to be physically together.
The Schism is multi-dimensional: Political/Cultural; Theological; Spiritual. There are macro approaches to healing and there are micro approaches. Garrison’s idea addresses the spiritual part of the rift in a micro way where there is the least tension to begin with. To me it is in concord with the suggestion of the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitan Daniel Ciobotea: “Although we have to be faithful to our own traditions, we also have a chance of moving forward in fellowship if we’re more spiritual and less diplomatic.” Or as Garrison likes to say, we need to get God involved.
Missourian, Muslims do hold, I believe, that King David was given the psalms as divine revelation. My guess is that they would see their version of the psalms as the correct one.
Michael,
I agree that Orthodox and Catholics could work on just getting along with each other as people. Everybody could use some of that, across the spectrum. Being polite, kind, respectful, and a good neighbor – I think these are things that Catholics and Orthodox can work on, as well as myself and everybody else (and especially among Orthodox!). As far as I can tell, that is being spiritual. Trying to bring the differing Catholic / Orthodox view of God into the picture is rather an attempt at diplomacy which is likely to fail.
Note 148 Stephen: Choice of Terms: Version vs. Heresy
Be “as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.” We are not instructed to be less than CLEAR MINDED (“wise as serpents”) about the truth of life in this world. Naivete is not a Christian virture. We are directed to love our enemy but there is not sin in clearly recognizing that he is our enemy.
We are directed to love our enemy but there is no sin in clearly recognizing that he is our enemy. We can love Muslims and fight Islam, the heresy which draws people away from Jesus to their spiritual doom.
I think it is a mistake to play in to the Muslim obfuscation game. If the Muslims “version” of the life of Jesus excludes his crucifixation does it deserve the description term “version” as opposed to “heresy.” Refering to the Muslim “version” gives it a standing it doesn’t deserve.
Please remember that Muslims avoid touching a Christian Bible or the Jewish Talmud of sacred writings. They consider our Scriptures “unclean.” I would appreciate it if you would recognize these facts.
Be “as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.” We are not instructed to be less than CLEAR MINDED (“wise as serpents”) about the truth of life in this world. Naivete is not a Christian virture. We are directed to love our enemy but there is not sin in clearly recognizing that he is our enemy.