Orthodox communion with Rome

[Justin]

It was said on another thread that:


Soloviev argued that Orthodoxy had to get over it's insularity and it's pride and submit to the Bishop of Rome. I think that can and should be done without betraying anything. Rome will submit on the issue of filioque.

I would be interested in this being expanded upon. I pray and want very much communion with other Christians now seperated from Holy Orthodoxy, and I think that many apologists/epologists (not to mention entire cultures) go way too far in their anti-communion polemics. Having said that, I don't think it'd be as easy as the above statement makes it sound either. Even if economy were used regarding issues like the canon of Scripture, birth control, the concept of created grace, and so forth (there are dozens more), there would still be a number of dogmatic/doctrinal problems that would prevent division. Many would say that the Filioque is no longer a problem, even if that were true (and I don't concede that it is), there are still the issues of Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, the Immaculate Conception, and Purgatory, among others. If the bishop of Rome were orthodox I would bow before him, kiss his hand, and even kiss his feet if he wished to have that practiced once again as a sign of obedience. If he's not orthodox, though, it is not pride that keeps one from being in communion with him, it is wishing to keep ahold firmly of the traditions handed to us by the Fathers.

I did not become Orthodox because they had a "cool liturgy" or "exotic flavor," I saw (I believe by God's guidance) that there were major doctrinal differences between the two Churches. I pray for communion, and in fact am friends with a number of Catholics who I talk theology with on a regular basis, I do not want to remain divided. Yet, I think it only harms the cause of communion if we ignore that there are real differences that must be overcome by submission to the truth, and not by an anglicanized "let's all get along" version of love and unity.

[Owen Jones]

I don't think it has to be an all or nothing unity. But some overture might be worthy of us. We shouldn't still be resentful of the fourth crusade or the papal bull of excommunication. It wouldn't--shouldn't--require any liberalization of doctrine or custom. Just some acknowledgment in the beginning of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Afterall, it's the words of Christ Himself. We could have a salutory effect on Roman Catholic doctrine and practice and bring about some necessary reform of Western theology. It wouldn't demand liberalization of eucharistic discipline. That would be a local rule.

[Richard Domina]

Orthodox speak of Catholics and Catholics speak of Orthodox as being 'outside the church'. If a husband and wife disagree on who's the head of the house and divorce which one is outside the marriage? Both. Christ is unity in diversity. We're half way there. If this church which claims to be the body of Christ can not unite without losing their separate identities and differances than it's proof of our incorrect doctrine. We're kids from a broken home. How pathetic. God bless you.

[Randall Atherton]

Owen and all,

On this important topic of communion with Rome, a statement was made that I have some questions about:

Statement:
"Just some acknowledgment in the beginning of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Afterall, it's the words of Christ Himself".

This statement does not agree, or fit with the Orthodox teaching (at least I have had) on the episcopal office relationship, (All Brother Bps. are equals). Although I understand the Bp. of Rome has hereditary (Pares inter Pares) First Among Equals, much as we recognize the EP of Constantinople today.

Where does the notion that the Roman Bp. is supreme or that the words of our Lord Christ suggested this come from?

Please explain - I too would like to see unity in Orthodoxy in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church with Rome.

PAX,

Randy Atherton

[Owen Jones]

Dear Randy,

I think some Orthodox overture to the Bishop of Rome is in order. I don't presume to know what form that would take. But I do think that the Bishop of Rome has primacy in some sense -- I'm not an expert here historically -- that is Biblical, not historical. As for communion, surely eucharistic unity is the number one sign of unity in the catholic faith, but on a practical level it seems to me that throughout Orthodoxy the actual discipline is a local matter. I typically do not presume to take communion in an Orthodox Church I am visiting. It puts the priest in a very difficult spot to go up for communion when he does not know you, knows nothing about the condition of your soul. Being "white," I will typically be asked first if I am Orthodox. In some churches, such as the Serbian Church, the communion discipline is so strict that very few people receive communion on a regular basis. When they do, they receive applause from the congregation!!! So such practices have evolved as local rules, as I think they should be. For an RC to receive communion, he preferably would have to meet with the priest first who would have to be reassured on certain doctrinal and personal moral matters. Today, we do such things with Copts who want communion.

One benefit might be that we could once and for all be assured that Rome would not proselytise and build churches in historically Orthodox lands, whereas we would be given an opportunity to expand in the West where there has been no historical exposure to Orthodoxy. Also, the Uniate issue might be resolved in our favor. But I think some act of submission, even just symbolic, is important to overcome theological error on our part, and to overcome centuries of resentment and suspicion.

[Stephen Keeler]

Let's face it, this sort of discussion is mostly an intra-Orthodox one. It seems to me that Roman Orthodox take the whole papal gig much more seriously than Roman Catholics do. RC's I know are quick to become arch-papists when initially interacting with Orthodox, but then back away from admitting that they themselves actually believe what Vatican I and II actually state.

And, officially, RCs have always wanted to have it both ways with the "filioque". You never really had to believe it, or in other words if you didn't say it, you wouldn't be excommunicated. They never added it when the Creed was said in Greek in Old Rome. It was just a nice way of saying "I submit to the Pope of Old Rome".

And on the RO side, we are papists ourselves if we don't accept that, in fact, there is no "there" there in the Patriarchate of Constantinople anymore. If we truly accept the concilliar model of authority, then Constantinople must be demoted, as it has waned to almost nothing, even as it was promoted to the number 2 spot over Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem during its waxing; otherwise, we have no credibility to state that the Papal Claims of Universal Jurisdiction are false.

Let the RC's clean up themselves internally on what exactly they believe, and let the RO's clean up ourselves on our external structure. Then, we can talk.

[Richard Domina]

Dear Richard and Justin, Forgive me, I addressed a response to Justin's post#58 to Richard. (I had a short break at work and was rushing.) Richard, thank you for clearing that up. Again, sorry for the confusion. Rick

[Justin]

I apologize for my posting falling through the cracks somehow (it seemed to be a server glitch or soemthing), I would repost what I had said if I could. Anyway, God Bless you all http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Joseph Suaiden]

Why the talk of Union with Rome?

I think we are being extremely quick to favor union with Rome. It's depressing. Rome has failed in so many ways in its duty to preserve the Orthodox Faith. We are looking at jurisdictional matters and this is, ultimately a mistake. We are Orthodox because we believe in *right faith*-- does Rome have that faith? One could argue that these are simply local expressions of the same faith. I think the evidence betrays otherwise. Do I believe we should eventually unite with Rome? A better question is: has Rome adopted Orthodoxy?

Owen, why *on earth* should we submit to Rome if we, historically, never had to? None of the Orthodox Popes of Rome demanded some sort of 'submission' to them of the sort of an 'overture of submission' (and the few times where something of the sort was attempted were decried by the Orthodox Church, such as in the miserable affair of the 'the Libellus of Hormisdas'. When Rome is doctrinally in order, and *living* that doctrine most importantly, then we can discuss restoring them to the first place-- and giving them nothing more. I do not reward my beloved children when they behave badly. How could we reward a community which has abandoned the Orthodox Faith for a thousand years with our 'submission'? --JS

[Owen Jones]

Dear Joseph,

I'm only suggesting that some overture be made regarding the see of St. Peter and its primacy, that goes a little bit beyond not having an Orthodox bishop in Rome. But you are right. We do not want to submit to apostacy or heresy. I jsut don't think we ought to hold thousand year old grudges. And we do not want to squander an opportunity to save Rome.

The situation is, of course, quite hopeless, so my comments on this issue are to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Joseph Suaiden]

I don't believe it's a totally hopeless scenario, so long as we stand our ground. 100 years ago, the expansion of the Orthodox Church as it has expanded today would have been unthinkable. There is, as opposed to just the occasional embassy Church, established Orthodox Churches in almost every land-- and a growing affection for Western Orthodox saints, liturgy. Even some of our "Eastern" Saints have brought back Western devotion (such as St John Maximovitch). I think Rome sees this, and is trying very hard to ignore it. We don't need "Uniatism" from our side. We need to organically restore Orthodoxy in the West, and I think that the day will come (if the end doesn't come first-- God willing) where Orthodox in the West will eventually elect a Bishop of Rome.

To boot, Rome, as I am sure you know, is not the only see of St Peter-- there are three. And as the Apostolic canon goes, 'let a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops'. What a Holy sight that would be-- the Roman Papacy re-established in Orthodoxy by the hands of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch!

Now *that's* hopeless dreaming ;)

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

We'd better get a move on, then Joseph; I think that Nostradamus has prophesied that there will be only 2 more Popes (before what? The end of time, perhaps, or the reconciliation of all divisions?).

the seeker

[Joseph Suaiden]

Or perhaps just before he runs out of prophecies?

the skeptic

[sinjin smithe]

I will post this article here as it pertains to the topic.

LET'S KEEP OUR DISTANCE

For Orthodox leaders to engage in dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church is both futile and dangerous


Frank Schaeffer

Until the Orthodox get good answers to two questions we have no reason to even consider reunion with Rome. These questions are: What authority will the pope have within a newly "unified" church? And what would our worship be like after reunion? Our Orthodox day-to-day relationship with the Roman Catholic community should be the same as it is with all other people of goodwill, one of love and shared common human aspirations. But this love and these shared goals must be rooted in an honest recognition of the very real differences we have. I do not believe Christian love needs to be expressed by formal declarations of reunion. We have the right to ask, reunion with what?

Roman Catholic identity is bound up with papal authority. Talk of the church having "two lungs" (East and West) aside, the truth is that at no time in the foreseeable future is Rome about to relinquish its claim to headship of the Universal Church. (For a complete study see "Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition" by Michael Whelton.)

Speaking of union without addressing the issue of papal authority is like two governments trying to negotiate union when one is a democracy and the other a dictatorship. Rome is not about to renounce the bishop of Rome's authority to pronounce "infallibly" on matters of faith and life, a dogma not adopted till 1870. Indeed, as the pope uses his authority to call for unity between Catholics and Orthodox, he handily illustrates our biggest difference: papal-monarchy vs. collegial tradition. What Orthodox bishop could presume to speak for all the bishops, or be in a position to impose "unity" on the whole Orthodox community? We make decisions as a collegial body, in council; no single leader holds exclusive power.

"Reunion" is a misleading word to use anyway, because it implies we Orthodox would be "coming back" to something we left. But the Roman church today is not the one that separated from us in 1054, over this very issue of papal monarchism, as well as the pope's authority to add a new doctrine to the Nicene Creed. Even Western Christians of 1054 would not recognize their church today. Ironically, they would feel more at home in the Orthodox Church than their own, particularly when it comes to worship. This is because Orthodoxy, despite its diverse jurisdictions, has done a far better job of maintaining liturgical integrity and historic practice than have the Roman Catholics within their centralized papal monarchy.

Worship is the one area that should matter most to us. If the Orthodox were drawn into the liturgical chaos of the modernized Roman Church, it would be tragic.

The Roman liturgical tradition has disintegrated aesthetically, and as the beauty of worship disappears, so does awe. Prayer is a teacher, and minimized, modernized prayer fails to teach very much. It is our rich, historic, and theologically packed liturgical tradition that is the treasure of Orthodoxy. How might that change if we blended with a church that has rejected so many ancient traditions of Christian worship--fasts, rites, mystery, and poetry?

Eastern-Rite Catholics may be secure behind the doors of their buildings, but how does it impact them when their sister Roman Rite church down the street has jettisoned ancient tradition? What kind of theological or spiritual "bleed through" occurs? Could we Orthodox retain our fasts, vigils, and liturgies in communion with a body that for decades now has been thoroughly Protestantized and that has replaced a sense of the sacred with trivial entertainment values? Will we Orthodox be merely tolerated in an "I'm OK, you're OK" climate of liturgical relativism? Is there no right way to worship? If there is not, then why do we bother now to fast and pray as did our forefathers?

Drop in on your local Roman Rite parish and witness hand-waving "praise" masses, cookies for children during the Eucharist, interpretive dancers fluttering down the aisles, lame "Peter, Paul and Mary"-style folk music, and all similar trappings of post-Vatican II worship. It's not something we Orthodox want to go near. Nor do some Catholic churches' New Age-flavored classes in Zen meditation and enneagram spirituality have much appeal to people who call themselves "Orthodox" for a reason.

Disneyland exists, but do we all want to move there? Unity with what? That's what we need to ask.

The Orthodox liturgical tradition is too precious to be squandered to satisfy the ecumenist ambitions of any pope, Orthodox bishop, or committee of theologians. Years of fruitless "dialogue" won't be redeemed by a disastrous reunion. As traditional Roman Catholics openly say, modern innovation has destroyed the sense of the sacred in contemporary Roman worship. Traditional Catholics often drive many miles to find one of the few remaining Roman churches that worship in a way that they think can even be called Catholic.

Let us Orthodox count our blessings! Why squander our great treasure of liturgical worship and betray our collegial tradition? Why join ourselves to Rome, when Rome herself can hardly tell us what her worship is or should be, and when it will clearly not renounce the authority it wrongly claimed at the beginning of the second millennium? Orthodoxy has preserved crucial elements of worship without a papal monarchy. And if church is not about worship, what is it about?

[Owen Jones]

While I agree with everything Frank says, he is also good at setting up straw man arguments. What if the goal is not ecumenism, but to set Rome straight? To get it back on course. Let the modernists then leave and become part of their own protestant denomination, which is more or less what the American RC Church is already.

Also, while I agree that Orthodoxy has retained its traditions in the form of worship, and we should not under any circumstances water that down, (although I must tell you that my personal worship experience in the U.S. is that it has been seriously watered down) worship is more than just what we do in Church. There is certainly a problem with lirtugical worship becoming the end instead of the means.

I guess the main concern I have is what I perceive to be a kind of defensiveness among Orthodox people I know toward the Roman Catholic Church. A kind of inferiority complex. As if we almost wish that we had what they had in terms of power and influence.

Why not turn the tables and approach the Pope from the spiritually "superior" position of weakness and poverty and say that this is what you must become in order for there to be unity.

[sinjin smithe]

Owen I think it depends on where you are. I have seen some churches that are watered down in their worship(particularly GOA) while some are not watered down at all. What do you mean by worship is more than just what we do in Church? Do you mean living the faith, being a a beacon of Christ in the world in all of our actions? I agree with you if you mean this.

[Joseph Suaiden]

To those on the Julian Calendar: Merry Christmas! Christos Razhdajetsja!

Owen,

I guess I just don't see eye to eye with you on this, and perhaps that's just my experience with RC Apologists. Most really don't care about very much besides converting us. I really do not believe that most of the RC-umenists engaging in 'theological dialogue' have any goal except to go back to who they came from and say 'they let us have this and this today'. I see it, and I see it constantly in my experience. I once remember an apologist bragging about converting a small monastery 'back' to Roman Catholicism. A call on my part to the abbot realized the truth: there was a schism, and families were torn in half, and the property was fought over. To me it was a tragedy. To the apologist in question, it was a trophy.

I think what appears to be a sort of inferiority complex comes from a lack of developed Patristic apologetical resources. Too often I have seen people say "Orthodox don't do that sort of scholastic argument", get caught up in a discussion with a Roman Catholic Apol on a theological issue, and either (a) cave in or (b) walk away grumbling about the Crusades because he just didn't know what to say. I don't find anything missing in my Church because I know what is out there. I don't have any particular animus towards Rome (or at least I hope not) that isn't shared by feelings about, say, a Jehovah's Witness, because in terms of their *actual* relation to the Church I don't see a great distinction between the two (the crypto-Arians have a good view on sanctification, as compared to the comparative sacramental structure of the RC's, but both are still outside the communion of the Church, and therefore lack necessary elements of ecclesiological grace).

In other words, I don't think the defensiveness comes from a desire for power so much as a desire to determine what to say. We do not spend enough time understanding the roots of our faith, and if we do not know the root, it is easy for another to strike at it, and cut the sapling before it is a tree. In other words, I think one of our fundamental problems is a problem of self-identity. We have gone on way too long (and in my opinion I mean 50, NOT 2,000 years) saying that we don't 'think out our faith', calling it rationalism, et cetera.

Fr John Romanides was not only one of the most well-schooled Orthodox writers of our time, but could speak the truth before the leaders of the Ecumenical movement, and boldly. Certainly, the Spirit plays a great role in this. But so did the fact that Fr John knew what he was talking about. And I think that's a great deal of our problem today. We need to, and many times, we don't.

[Adam]

The article that Sinjin has quoted shows the pure truth about liturgical chaos in the RCC. I know it all from my experience, being the Roman -Catholic myself. The Orthodoxy can`t go this way, I think so. Nobody knows in our churches how the Liturgy on the next Sunday will be. It`s all up to minister and his cooperators and the faithful are still unkindly surprised by the "liturgical dancing" or something strange like that. The church which changes it`s ancient Liturgy , looses its identity. And this has happened with the RCC of now.

[Richard Domina]

Dear all, I find it interesting after all these years of reading both Orthodox and Catholic websites and apologetics about their possible (or Impossible, as Owen rightly states,) union that ,aside from the content of what is being said (absolutely 'orthodox' or not) ,the Orthodox veiwpoint always has a bitter spirit behind every response. They seem to have an unsharpenable ax to grind. I am Catholic but truly say this as objectively as I can. I read these Orthodox writings because I am interested in them -not to criticize. Our Lord said 'You will know them by their fruit'. I do not see this bitter spirit in Catholic veiws. Where are we coming from? Peace , Rick

[John Wehling]

Thank you, Richard, for your words, to which I did not take offense. As a convert to Orthodoxy, the thing that has saddened me more than any other is the apparently constant need to attack the RCC. I am no proponent of union, nor do I think that we should just overlook our differences so that we can all just "get along." But it seems to me that all this poison that spews forth from Orthodox Christians day after day, from the laity on up to the clergy--although not all of either, certainly--says, sadly to me, more about the spirit of these people than it does about the RCC.

Even more disturbing to me is the fact that so often the people one hears these sorts of things from are not the Orthodox of the old world, but converts who have come to Orthodoxy recently. When I see and hear people new to the faith bashing Rome with such vehemence I can only assume that something is terribly wrong in catechism classes where they have come into the Church. Shouldn't we be making Christians out of people by teaching them to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves"? It is not the other way around, although I know myself how much easier it is to be wicked as a serpent or naive (read dumb)as a dove. In other words, how can we claim to be forming people into Christians ("little Christs") when we pump them full of such hatred, animosity, and venom? Or maybe they enter the Church with these suspicions, conspiracy theories, and prejudices already in place and we encourage them? God help us if this is the case. God help us...

I am a sinner more than the rest, so I have no place to speak. But may God heal us of this sickness. It will not--HAS NOT, as we can clearly see in all of the jurisdictional problems and calendar wars--stop with a war of words with the RCC. This sort of suspicion and hatred spreads until we are each alone with the few who will submit to us (a fearful thing) as the "true Orthodox Church." God help us.

Peace to all,
John

[Owen Jones]

Dear Joseph,

Before we criticize the RC's too much, perhaps we should look at our own marred tradition. I get a regular magazine that highlights modern saints, many of them persecuted by the communists. But the communist revolution succeeded many barbarities committed by Russian Orthodox peoples. The worst progrom against the Jews was in Russia.

So rather than letting it be a personal war, perhaps we ought to ask God for knowledge of His will and the power to carry it out.

[Moses Anthony]

For some reason MSN8 and my PC are not getting along very well. I've had problems trying to post several times with that particular browser. this is Netscape Communicator. To the topic in thought, union.
Consider the question of terms; do we mean the same things, when we say the same things in our dialogues about union. The split Empire under Constantine was the beginning of the schism, as it forced different alliances to maintain border security in the Eastern kingdom and Western kingdom. Those alliances gradually began to appear in the mentality of the Roman Bishop who began advocating the concept of supremacy, based both upon his interpretation of Christ's words to Peter, "..upon this rock I will build my church", and the importance he played in preserving the faith when invaders battled for the land.
I have no problem with the Orthodox concept of "first among equals", either then, now, or in the event of union. I do however have a problem with terms such as co-mediatrix.

t.u.s.

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

Nor should it be forgotten that there has been in the RC church a persistent collegial movement and in consequence a resurgent debate about the papal office construed simply as primus inter pares. This expressed itself most strongly in the early 15th century, under Pope Eugenius IV, when there was an ill-fated attempt to reunite with the Orthodox communion, and of course more recently in the second Vatican Council under John XXIII.

There has always been a tension between this collegial view of governance of the RC church and the contrary position of defending a papal monarchy, which was expressed most strongly by Boniface VIII in the 14th century and by Pius IX in the 19th, and was reinforced by the concordat (of 1926?) with the Italian state that gives independent status to Vatican City. Pius XII certainly acted like an old-fashioned autocratic ruler. The pendulum may swing again in the next pontiff's reign. The point is that in the West history seems to go in cycles, and neither view has achieved unchallenged supremacy.

Happy Christmas to all Julians from this Gregorian.

[sinjin smithe]

Richard and John,
Both of you spoken how it saddens you that many conversts spew venom against the RCC. It is not necessarily that the Orthodox church teaches it in its catechism classes but rather some converts come from Protestant traditions that are hostile to the RCC and the Pope. They convert to Orthodoxy but the animosity in their hearts still remains. I think that sometimes converts are way to overzealous and need to temper their fervor. I am a cradle born Orthodox and I don't have any hatred for the RCs. They are a lot closer to the Orthodox than many Protestant traditions. I posted the article because I don't believe in rushing to unity just for the sake of unity. I am not an ecumenist at all and I don't believe that the Orthodox should be in the WCC.

[John Wilson]

Dear Richard, I have not read much in the way of RC apologetics so I can't comment but I have come across Catholic individuals who express this same bitter spirit you describe. Perhaps you are confusing the individuals with the church as a whole. I also wanted to adress your previous post:


Orthodox speak of Catholics and Catholics speak of Orthodox as being 'outside the church'. If a husband and wife disagree on who's the head of the house and divorce which one is outside the marriage? Both. Christ is unity in diversity. We're half way there. If this church which claims to be the body of Christ can not unite without losing their separate identities and differances than it's proof of our incorrect doctrine. We're kids from a broken home.

The basic flaw with your analogy is that Christ is the husband in this marriage, it is not a marriage between churches. That the church is a body made up of many both in heaven (the church triumphant) and on earth (the church militant) is a profound mystery yet it is still only one body. This body cannot be broken into parts.

[Joseph Suaiden]

My experience with many RC apologists is that they are as "hate-filled" as thy make us out to be. Our apologetics, no matter how factual, is always 'anti-Catholic hate' material.

I've been working on apologetics for five years. I have found after coming back to canonical Orthodoxy from extremist groups (it was attempting to be more moderate that brought me back) that much of my "angry" writing really wasn't apologetics or even polemic.

Here's my challenge. I redesigned my website after my return. I work on it every other day. I had a public and formal debate on the Primacy of the Pope with a Roman Catholic Apologist on it. I challenge both the Orthodox and RCs who claim that Orthodox apologetics is "hate-filled" to look at my site and find me something I wrote that actually is hate-filled.

http://www.gbronline.com/suaidenhouse

And I'd like the passages shared on the list for public chastising for my being so smug. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

If one asks "why are only RCs and Protestants dealt with" I am answering in advance:

A) Haven't had to time to go much further with the overhaul of the site

B) There is a site that handles cults and sects but not mainstream apologetics so I don't reinvent the wheel.

[John Wilson]

Joseph, you needed a slash on the end of that URL
Try this instead (http://www.gbronline.com/suaidenhouse/)

[John Wilson]

Oh, and you messed up the link to the first response to James Likoudis on your apolagetics page (it links to your hard disk and not the web address)

[Joseph Suaiden]

ok I fixed em http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif That should do it. If there is any hate-filled vitriol on the page, please let me know and I will get rid of it.

[John Wehling]

Joseph wrote:

"I challenge both the Orthodox and RCs who claim that Orthodox apologetics is "hate-filled" to look at my site and find me something I wrote that actually is hate-filled."

Joseph, I am unclear as to who has made this claim about Orthodox apologetics being "hate-filled."

Peace,
John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I've read this thread with interest. Communion with the Roman Church has always been an issue of engagement among Orthodox and Roman Catholics alike, largely because, as different as these two churches are, there is an historical connection that flickers between them in a way that cannot be said of their relationships with almost any other church of a Christian confession. In discussions with Roman Catholics, Orthodox can speak of 'the Fathers' in a way that they cannot with most Protestants; or 'Tradition' in a way that they cannot with most Evangelicals. This breeds a certain sense of closeness, of familiarity -- a sort of 'familial fraternity' that makes the idea of union and unity seem more immediate, more realistic and possible than it might seem with most other groups. This is reinforced by the history of union, of the 'pre-Schism', and by certain elements of strong similarity that have persisted despite a long period of separation.

I cannot confess to be too moved by articles such as Let's Keep our Distance (posted above), primarily because I sense in them a spirit of hostility and anger, certainly of undue harshness, that is not necessary in proclaiming the Truth in the face of error or opposition. This spirit is understandable, for it is easy to become passionate when the truth to which one clings seems, to our human minds, to be threatened by trends or cultural tendencies; but it is all too easy to let this passion destroy the spirit of love that is so important. This was Fr Seraphim Rose's comment against the prevailing spirit of 'Augustine-bashing' in Orthodoxy: proclaiming the truth is essential to the mission of every Christian; but Christ does not teach that we are simply to proclaim the truth... we are to proclaim the truth in love. Without the spirit of love as the centre in which all our proclamations are grounded, then, as St Paul says, we are nothing. We are certainly not Christians.

This is not, emphatically not, to suggest that we are not to disclose errors in both ourselves and others, and to hold up the truth in opposition to every falsity. To be loving does not mean to conform to, to agree with, or to succumb to the beliefs of any other. Adam's giving in to Eve's wish for him to partake of the fruit with her was not loving. It was the opposite of love. Love always lives in the Truth. But it is possible to correct and to admonish without falling into vehemence and invective. Proclaiming the truth in hate is a dangerous game: one's "foe" is made to hear the truth, but in the same breath driven to despise it. God have mercy on us for the souls that are lost from such a sin.

All that said, I would relate this back to the question of communion between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches by suggesting that a genuine proclamation of the truth in love is the only way that these two entities may ever again come to be one in a healthy, holy way. The modern spirit of ecumenism will never succeed in doing this, for the simple fact that it is driven by the belief that one must proclaim love as truth. This is true in its most ultimate sense, for St John the Theologian teaches clearly that God is love, and thus genuine love is genuine truth. But this is not the kind of love proclaimed by most of the modern day ecumenical movement. 'Love' there is an emotion, a sense of fraternity, a lack of despisal for another. It is not possible genuinely and authentically to equate this to the kind of love of which St John speaks. It is more a sense of 'friendliness', of 'peacefulness' -- neither of which things is bad of itself, but horrifically dangerous if it is believed to be the pinnacle of truth and the heart of Christian unity.

To proclaim the truth in love is to acknowledge that it is the truth that is to be proclaimed, and that love is the conduit by which that truth shall be made known. I would agree with Frank Schaeffer only in the sense that I believe a 'walking together' of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches for the sake of a longed-for union is unhealthy and unholy. In Orthodox belief, there is One Truth and one alone. Deviations are not 'other ways of looking at things' -- they are un-truths. Union comes from a common proclamation of the One Truth and nothing less. As long as Roman Catholics and Orthodox do not proclaim the same things as the One Truth, neither side has any business trying to bring them together as one. Far better, far more in accordance with the divine will, that they remain as two.

But one day union may be possible. May. All things are at the will of God. Our part in that will is, and must remain, 'to proclaim the truth in love'. If we could truly focus on this, truly work towards this, then perhaps union might one day be more immanent.

INXC, Matthew

[Joseph Suaiden]

I was referring to the fact that after mentioning that Orthodox need to learn apologetics, I read about Orthodox defenders against the RCC having an "unsharpenable ax to grind" as well as referring to (I assume) polemic as 'poision'. If it's not referring to directly proclaiming the truth to the heterodox, what is the poison of which we speak? Is it simply ignorant anger that is to be called poision? Then we agree. Or is it the uncategorical refusal to discuss 'unity' unless there is an agreement in faith that is considered the 'ax to grind'? Then I cannot agree, and never will.

On another post, I felt that Matthew's post was incredibly balanced. In many ways, that post made me think a lot. I desperately try to speak the truth in love. And I fail. I fail miserably. I spend a lot of time on what the Fathers said-- but what I shame I do not have those Fathers' lives on my site to show the truest manifestation of Orthodoxy- Orthodox life. I believe everything we do can lead to growth. Maybe there *is* a way I can be more charitable, and even manifest that in my writing. I don't know. But I still have a lot to learn indeed about love. Until then it is my hope that the love of my brethren will compensate for the cold, dry facts I collect, a cold world in which to live, a world I only escape in the the Church's prayer, the truest world, life in Christ.

Sorrowfully,
Joseph

[Justin]

John Wehling


Joseph, I am unclear as to who has made this claim about Orthodox apologetics being "hate-filled."

I saw this claim routinely at Steve Ray's Catholic Convert Message Board when I was lurking there. It was interesting that Catholics there could use a certain tone, and go to a certain extent in language, but if an Orthodox even came close to what the Catholics did the alarm would be sounded: "See! We knew many Orthodox were just anti-Catholic hate mongers". Some even went so far as to use this supposed hate-mongering on the Orthodox side as evidence--and even proof--that Orthodoxy was false, and that love-filled Catholicism was the true Church. Coming out of my lurking, I tried to point out that it wasn't too awful long ago (a few generations) that extremely harsh language had been used on both sides. And so, using their argument, neither Church could be the true Church (I had no inclination to try to show that Orthodoxy wasn't in fact hate-filled, that was a point I knew I wouldn't be able to convince them of). They ignored my comment. *shrugs* Maybe it wasn't as insightful as I, in my pride, thought it had been.

[Hermit]

Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the true Church, even though both are mistaken in some minor matters. Really, the differences seem so minor to me ... little theological squabbles. I've even found tremendous blessings in Protestant teachings and churches, as wrong as their theology might be ... a Protestant book brought me back to belief in Jesus.

The parable of the Good Samaritan (I'll post the NIV version) would have deeply shocked Christ's audience. Samaritans were reviled ... they had beliefs parallel to Judaism, but had adopted some outside, untruthful beliefs. Nonetheless, the Samaritan who showed mercy was the good neighbor ... rather than the theologically correct priest and Levite.

luke 10:25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[3] ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[4] "
28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
30In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins[5] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
36"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
37The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

___________________________

Yes, of course we should work toward re-union, with the retention of minor differences of opinion, differences of liturgy. Jesus founded one Church. What matters is what He wanted, not what we want.

Of course it won't happen soon, but we should all strive for it, just as we strive to be sinless even though it never seems to happen.

[Joseph Suaiden]

I'll gladly reunite with Rome when Rome becomes Orthodox.

I realize I will sound like a bigot, but I am sorry. I believe you are wrong. These are not 'minor squabbles'. They affect the very nature of our salvation. So no. The Lord used those examples because both the priest and the Levite did not live by the Law of God. It's not simply "who helps people on the street" (which both Christians and Jews are supposed to do; why then should we not all return to Judaism?)

I will gladly work towards re-union-- but not false union.

I am sorry if I seem harsh, friend. Please do not take offense. But I can't agree with you.

[Hermit]

"They affect the very nature of our salvation. "

Hardly. Whichever way you believe on that filioque matter (most of us Catholics don't even know what that is, I only learned recently), has absolutely no bearing on anyone's salvation. Jesus didn't expound in any way on the trinity, he taught us compassion and gave us some new priorities in obeying God's laws, taught us how to talk to God with our new relationship.

"The Lord used those examples because both the priest and the Levite did not live by the Law of God." Certainly they obeyed Mosaic law more fully than the half-pagan Samaritan. Jesus was contrasting small-minded righteousness with a more important new principle, that love of our neighbor transcended most of the other 612 laws of the Torah.

"My experience with many RC apologists is that they are as "hate-filled" as thy make us out to be. Our apologetics, no matter how factual, is always 'anti-Catholic hate' material."

Joseph, I haven't read your website or (shamefully) the archived parts of this thread. I don't know what other Catholics were upset about in your debates, I've never come across an Orthodox apologist. I HAVE debated on occasion with Protestant fundamentalists.

When I've accused them of hate-filled rhetoric and hypocrisy, it's usually because their arguments focus on Catholic priests or popes who have sinned in the past. It's hypocritical because there is no branch of Christianity free from homosexuality, pedophilia, starting of wars, corruption, murder, or sin and evil in general. I don't care to delve into details in order to sling mud back at anyone, but simple honesty should admit that fact.

If a person won't admit that Protestant pastors have been convicted of pedophilia or that Orthodox Christians have launched pogroms, or insists the Catholic version of those things was more evil because we are truly the harlot of Revelation, then it's clearly hate speech rather than apologetics.

If on the other hand you were expound calmly and rationally on the filioque thing or the Pope thing, without dwelling on some individual's sins, that would be apologetics. I certainly wouldn't call that hateful, if another Catholic does it might be because of excessive sensitivity.

[M.C. Steenberg]

"They affect the very nature of our salvation. "

Hardly. Whichever way you believe on that filioque matter (most of us Catholics don't even know what that is, I only learned recently), has absolutely no bearing on anyone's salvation.

Dear Hermit, Joseph and others,

Here we have the crux of any discussion such as this: do such theological disagreements as those over the filioque actually have a real bearing upon the spiritual life, the salvation, of the Christian believer? Or are they just the quibbles of academic theologians, harping over largely philosophical distinctions that do not enter into the actual life of the faithful?

With a doctrine such as the procession of the Holy Spirit (and thus the rejection/acceptance of the filioque), it is easy to suggest that there is no connection between this 'theological quibble' (as once I heard it classified) and the actual Christian life. But the Orthodox Church has made such a point of rejecting the filioque, with its notion of a 'double procession' of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son, precisely because it believes that a correct understanding of this doctrine does effect the state of one's own spiritual (and thus, by connection, physical - for these cannot be separated) life. The notion of 'double procession', as encapsulated in the insertion of the filioque into the Creed, is, according to the analysis of Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, 'theologically inexact and spiritually harmful' (The Orthodox Way, p. 32; emphasis mine).

Why might this be so? In what sense could an acceptance of the filioque be 'spiritually harmful'? If one approaches theology as primarily a discursive exercise in the academic definition and 'explanation' of divine characteristics, then there is no grounding to such a claim as this. Our 'academic understanding' is flawed in many ways; surely one more flaw isn't going to sour the whole batch of wine. But this is not the manner in which Orthodoxy understands theology itself. Theology, according to the Orthodox Church, is the matter of the individual's appropriation to the divine life - of his or her proper relationship to the Holy Trinity. Theology is dynamic expression of the relationship between the personhood of the individual Christian, and the divine Personhood (or more acurately, tri-Personhood) of God. Theology is, at its most essential level, the living relationship of humanity and the Persons of the Trinity.

It is from within the context of this understanding of theology that Orthodoxy makes such a dramatic critique of the filioque. As an academic distinction, the 'double-procession' versus the 'single-procession' of the Spirit is scholastic and removed from the realm of 'real life'. It simply does not matter. But in the realm of the human individual's dynamic relationship to the Persons of the Holy Trinity, this distinction has heavy sway indeed. If I may quote once again from Bishop Kallistos' very accessible work:


'One of the chief reasons why the Orthodox Church rejects the Latin addition of the filioque to the Creed [...], as also the Western teaching about the "double-procession" of the Spirit which lies behind this addition, is precisely our fear that such a teaching might lead men to [I]depersonalizesubordinate the Holy Spirit' (The Orthodox Way, p. 92; italics in original).

If theology is indeed the active and intensely personal relationship of the human person with the three divine Persons of the Trinity, then a proper understanding (as much as this is possible for man) of the nature of those Persons has a direct effect on the manner of our relationship with them. Our relationship to the Father and the Son is based, to a great degree, on how we know them - through what has been revealed, through what we have ourselves experienced. This is true, also, of the Spirit; and the Orthodox Church teaches that an acceptance of the 'double-procession' of this third Person of the Trinity, distorts our view of - and thus our relationship with - this same Spirit. To accept the filioque may not mean that with one great burst our whole picture and relational experience of the Spirit is overturned; but it opens up the doorway into subordinationism and --more dangerous still-- a confusion or fusion of divine Personhood, that presents the real risk of damaging our relationship to the Personhood of God.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Leigh]

Hi,

Let me put this perspective in as an outsider looking on. I am a Lutheran with a great deal of respect for both RC'sim and Odxy.

From what I can gather, it would appear that Odxy says her theology is true experience of God, that she knows what she's talking about because of being led, at least, by those who have reached past illunination, even into union with God. It is out of her experience that she has fashioned the language she uses in describing growth into theosis.

All this, it appears to me, is lost on RCism who I believe willingly admits her theological refinemetn is conjectural.

I would like to point out to everybody that Augustine knew what he had to say on the Trinity was conjectural, and I believe he requested thathis theories (in the western use of THAT term) not be taken as dogma -- yet various western councils did that very thing.

So, it looks to me as though we of the West need to re-examine our basis in Augustine's thought, and try desparately to hear what the other Fathers meant by what they said.

I would like to see a commentary on Augustine's "On the Trinity" by a sympathetic though thoroughly patristic Odx. I myself have been engaging in a study of the correspondence between the Lutheran Scholars at Tubingen and Joachim II of Consantinople in light of what I've been learning about Odxy from the likes of Vlacos and Romanides.

We none of us can have communion with each other's churches until we're really in communion with them. We shouldn't settle for less, I wouldn't think.

Richard L.

[Joseph Suaiden]

Dear "Hermit":

You write: "Hardly. Whichever way you believe on that filioque matter (most of us Catholics don't even know what that is, I only learned recently), has absolutely no bearing on anyone's salvation. Jesus didn't expound in any way on the trinity, he taught us compassion and gave us some new priorities in obeying God's laws, taught us how to talk to God with our new relationship."

Jesus gave the authority to expound on the Trinity to the Church, the gate of salvation. I do not agree that the "filioque" doctrine "hardly" affects the nature of salvation. On the contrary, the Jews, and after them the Orthodox Church held to the understanding of a God they know. This is a fundamental difference in Orthodox and Western thinking.

Orthodoxy theology is based first on the *experience* of God; in other words, direct presence. One can say that the Western churches do so as well. However, that would be the road to syncretism. God cannot essentially differ in His Nature to different people. Thus, it is in the consistent handing down of the true experience of God that we find tradition (gk. paradosis).

Reduction of divergences in teaching, therefore, is tantamount to believing that Christ is only one "way, truth, and life" among many. The Church has *never* taught that.

You say that "Certainly they obeyed Mosaic law more fully than the half-pagan Samaritan. Jesus was contrasting small-minded righteousness with a more important new principle, that love of our neighbor transcended most of the other 612 laws of the Torah." So then you are saying that your interpretation of Christ's love is more important than the teaching of His Church for 2,000 years? Certainly you can't be serious.

The first thing to remember is that this is a dialogue of questions between Christ and a lawyer.

In the Gospel, (as I remember the teaching on it) Christ is confronted. The lawyer searches to trap Jesus by asking Him the way to Heaven, perhaps in hopes that Christ will give an answer in contradiction to the Law. But knowing all things, The Lord asks if he is familiar with the Law. The young man says yes. Thus the Lord returns the question: How do you read the Law? The lawyer gives an answer not unlike that of the Lord: Love God and love your neighbor. Perhaps this is because the Lord teaches such a thing, and the lawyer hopes to entrap the Judge of all.Thus he asks a qualifer: who is my neighbor? And the Judge shows rightly that the New law is for all men, and that by it all men shall be judged.

All those who love noetic prayer and life in the mysteries are the true Orthodox apologists. And then there are those who study, but lack a true heart, and need to repent. I am in the latter group. I am not a true apologist, because I am a failure as a Christian, and must try again daily. But I do not waste my time on things like the Inquisition; on the contrary, where the Roman church is to be commended I commend. The truth, in the end, is universal, it is God's property, and I love Orthodoxy because I love truth.

I ask you to visit my website. It is my hope that it proves helpful.

[Richard McBride]

“Jesus didn't expound in any way on the trinity…”

These types of statements are doubly painful to me, for not only do they reinforce the wide belief that Roman Catholic theology lies closer to Protestantism than to Orthodoxy, but it reminds me of my own stupidities – totally thoughtless ejaculations, which I seem bound to blather from time to time.

In this case, the statement broadcasts a complete lack of understanding of the Epiphany of our Divine Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Still, I should be surprised to find very many Catholics making such a claim.

richard

[Hermit]

Wasn't there a joke once which started like this, "There was a Catholic, an Orthodox, and a Lutheran poster ... "? I forget the punch line. Thank you all for your astute theological commentaries. I particularly enjoyed the quote from St. Dionysius the Areopagite.

[Rev. Hieromonk Averky]

I have been an Orthodox Christian for 34 years, more than half of my life. I was born and raised a Roman Catholic, and studied to be a priest of that Church. Sad to say, it was while seeing the real workings of that Church that I lost my faith completely, and Orthodoxy not only restored my belief in God, but brought me to the True Church. In my junior year in the seminary, as a member of the choir, I attended the service of the Blessing of Chrism at the local RC cathedral. There were some 150 priests present, and perhaps ten of them were Uniates. I was shocked and ashamed to see with what disrespect the Uniate priests were treated by their Latin bretheren; they were either pointedly ignored, or slighted in some subtle way, especially at the luncheon following the service. The Eastern Catholics were treated like foreigners and lesser beings. The bishop was haughty and rude when one of the Uniate priests very meekly asked him a question. In the seminary we were told that the Orthodox Church was stagnant, its clergy ill-educated, its monastic filthy, ignorant. and quite mad, and the faithul backward and superstitious. On the other hand, the priests who taught us were cynical and openly mocked the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church; the saints, the Mother of God, even casting doubt on the "True Presence," and this was in 1964! Over the years, I came more and more to realize that despite "Ecumenical" efforts, Rome views :union" with the Orthodox as absorbtion. Just recently, Cadinal Ratzinger, with the full knowledge of the Pope of Rome, issued a letter which, while acknowledging other Christian confessions, still says that they are not in the fullness of the Church. Fr. Alexey Young, in his book "The Rush to Embrace," warns Orthodox Christians not to be fooled by the overtures of the Latins, for since they are dying, they need a new "host body" to take over, and Orthodoxy is attactive by virtue of its Traditions and theological stability. It is for we Orthodox Christians to preserve our "pearl of great price," preservng the integrity of our Church. There is no need to compromise the Faith for the lies of the Latins, or for we who have "put on the armor of light."to enter into their darkness. There are millions and millions of Catholics who are sincere and who love God, let us not condemn the simple in heart, let us pray that they find the Truth, Who is Christ, and find the True Ark of Salvation

[Arsenios]

I found this on the OCA website - And don'tknow just where to post it - Someone had been asking about converting from Byz-Cath to Orthodoxy so as to become a priest... [He obviously doesn't know the pay scale of Orthodox priests! :-)] Perhaps someone in touch with him might direct him to this article, for the people at that monastery should be really good folks for him to contact with his interests...

_____________________________________

The rest of the article is at:
http://www.oca.org/pages/news/news.asp?ID=426

Former Byzantine Catholic Monastery received into Orthodox Faith

MIAMI, FL [OCA Communications] – His Beatitude, Metropolitan Herman, received two monastic priests and three novices from the former Eastern Rite Catholic Monastery of the Holy Cross here into the Orthodox Faith during a visit October 27 and 28, 2003.

With the acceptance of the monastery and its brotherhood into the Orthodox Faith, the monastery was rededicated in honor of the Protection of the Virgin Mary.

In March 2003, Metropolitan Herman received a letter from Archimandrite Gregory [Wendt], the monastery’s abbot, requesting that the brotherhood be received into the Orthodox Church and that the monastery be accepted as a monastery of the Orthodox Church in America...
______

[Donald Wescott]

George,
Thanks for posting this, you beat me to the punch. I was very glad to see this article and to realize that it held such relevance for those of us within both this discussion community and the Church at large. This certainly seems to me to be a very positive step. Obviously we shouldn't rush to communion merely to display an "ecumenical" spirit, but we should it seems, as the OCA has, to be willing to receive those anxiously seeking communion on Orthodox terms, back into the fold. Perhaps some will question the veracity of these folks commitment, time , I suppose shall tell, but for the time, I will joyfully accept and pray for our new Brothers in Christ.

[Arsenios]

Good news! [well, for the Orthodox anyway - maybe not so good for the Byz-Cath's]...

I think most of us are aware of the report of an "Orthodox Metropolitan" marching in the procession at the ordination of the actively practicing homosexual Anglican Bishop in this country - Created quite a stir among Orthodox - [Who would this guy be?]

And the good news is, relative to this thread about how the Roman Catholics have Orthodox in communion with them, is that this person was [apparently at least] not Orthodox, but a Byzantine Catholic ['Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church'], who simply looked like an Orthodox Metropolitan because of his attire...

Here's the quote from another board:

__________________________________

From a response by monk FrJSilver:

Dear Friends:

The sentence: from the article...

"A metropolitan from the Greek Orthodox Church was seen in the procession, as was a young man wearing a Jewish Yarmulke, and a visible Black Episcopalian swinging a thurifer."

...actually, I've been told, refers....to someone from the 'Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church'.

I've also been informed that Mr Virtue [the reporter who wrote the article] will correct his comments.

I don't think that the Orthodox churches have been compromised, merely embarrassed by the 'dress up and play church' types.

Peace and blessings to all.

Monk James
_________________________________

So it would seem that the 'Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church' at least sees itself as Orthodox, and claims to be Orthodox, and that it's metropolitan sees himself fit, as its head under the Pope, to bless active and practicing homosexuals into the Episcopalian priesthood...

Lord have mercy!

But maybe he was just a local priest dressed up in a mitre, and not the Metropolitan... I hope so...

But at least we Orthodox can put the tar and feathers and the rail and the runners back into the town shed and go back to our more normal [repentive and sinful] lives! :-)

Arsenios

[Fr John Wehling]

Arsenios et al,

This "Metropolitan" who participated in the consecration is not Byzantine Catholic, but a self-styled prelate of a non-canonical group.

Fr John

[Fr Averky]

Dear brother in Christ,
Fr. John,

Is the "metropolitan" in question by any chance from Dallas, TX? There is a small group of men there calling themselves part of the "Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church," and they have a rather undesirable reputation. Sad to say, there are hundreds of groups who call themselves "Orthodox," much to the shame of rightful bishops and clergy.

F. A.

[Arsenios]

I did manage to find a website of the Ukranian Autocephalous Orthodox Church:

http://www.uaoc.org/

This page has a very large picture of a very young man who is presented as Metropolitan Michael: Metropolitan-Archbishop of Cleveland
Eparch of the Americas
Coadjutor to the Primate

But the links of this site all seem to go to Eastern Catholic sites [Ruthenian Catholic, Greek Catholic, etc.] so that this perhaps is not the same Church as that of which the "Metropolitan" who marched in the ordination belongs.

This Metropolitan Michael is VERY young...

[geo] Arsenios

[Fr John Wehling]

My brother in Christ Fr Averky and others,

There was some confusion at first because David Virtue had repored that an Orthodox primate was present at the consecration of Robinson. Shocked by this and certain that it was not true, a few OCA priests did some quick research and discovered that, in fact, it was not true. They reported their findings to Virtue who swiftly corrected his statement. Here is his correction:

>>I MENTIONED IN MY LAST DIGEST ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF A representative of the Orthodox Church. Virtuosity can now confirm that the prelate was the Auxiliary Bishop of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, Paul Peter Jesep. A little sleuthing by an orthodox person turned up that this "prelate" and discovered he is a member of an American outfit, non-canonical, recognized by no Orthodox Church in communion with Constantinople, or Moscow. The Episcopal Church is also checking what ecumenical relationship, if any, it has with this church. Virtuosity apologizes for any inference that it was either a Greek or Russian Orthodox Church representative. Both churches eschew homosexuality.<<

Fr John

[Arsenios]

Bishop Paul Peter Jesep is indeed a bishop in the uaoc.org website's Church, with the very young bishop.

His bio is at:

http://www.uaoc.org/jesepelection.html

And the links at this site are all Roman Catholic links... And he carries impressive intellectual credentials, and is a legislative analyst for a congress-woman from Maine...

So the leanings of this church seem to be toward Rome, even though they claim autocephaly, and do not seem to indicate with whom they are in communion...

[geo] Arsenios

[Voronca Stefan]

I am fron Romania, previously i was a romano-catholic, i have translated into romanian Father Serafim Rose works and some other books, Ilike him most of all, he is a real prophet of our times. i work in a publishing House now.
Can anyone tell if what i partook in the romano-catholic Liturgy is reallY Jesus Christ (at that time i felt He was) or i was cheated by the devil, i mean where is Jesus Christ present? Can we relativise these orthodox truths?

[Marie-Duquette]

Christ is Risen! Voronca,
You have been blessed by the honorable work of translating into Romanian Father Serafim Rose's books. The Grace of God seems to have led you in most loving, merciful ways. All Praise to Him!

If I were you I wouldn't worry about the Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist of the Roman Catholic Church. How could you have been "cheated by the devil"??? since you have been led to the Orthodox Church.

All my life I had been RC, too; and totally believed in the Presence of Christ Jesus in the Liturgy, which I attended every day, from the age of 13, receiving with Faith and Love, the Body and Blood of Christ! And, I do believe that It is the Body and Blood of Christ, fully present.
If a person sincerely and in Faith and Love strives to follow Christ, he/she is led to an ever growing understanding and knowledge into the fullness of Truth.

As to relativising Orthodox Truths, I do not know how to answer you. Hope that more knowlegable persons will do so. Because for me the Word of Truth in Gospel fills my heart and mind and soul with Its Truth. As Jesus Himself said, We are called to "adore the Father in Spirit and Truth." and, the Liturgy is an ultimate action of worship in Spirit and in Truth. And, that is the ACTION of God-Trinity, into which we are to participate and co-operate in "attentiveness" as the People of God!

May you continue to be blessed,
marie_duquette

p.s. pray for me a sinner.

[Mark Harrison]

Dear Randy,

I think some Orthodox overture to the Bishop of Rome is in order. I don't presume to know what form that would take. But I do think that the Bishop of Rome has primacy in some sense -- I'm not an expert here historically -- that is Biblical, not historical. As for communion, surely eucharistic unity is the number one sign of unity in the catholic faith, but on a practical level it seems to me that throughout Orthodoxy the actual discipline is a local matter. I typically do not presume to take communion in an Orthodox Church I am visiting. It puts the priest in a very difficult spot to go up for communion when he does not know you, knows nothing about the condition of your soul. Being "white," I will typically be asked first if I am Orthodox. In some churches, such as the Serbian Church, the communion discipline is so strict that very few people receive communion on a regular basis. When they do, they receive applause from the congregation!!! So such practices have evolved as local rules, as I think they should be. For an RC to receive communion, he preferably would have to meet with the priest first who would have to be reassured on certain doctrinal and personal moral matters. Today, we do such things with Copts who want communion.

One benefit might be that we could once and for all be assured that Rome would not proselytise and build churches in historically Orthodox lands, whereas we would be given an opportunity to expand in the West where there has been no historical exposure to Orthodoxy. Also, the Uniate issue might be resolved in our favor. But I think some act of submission, even just symbolic, is important to overcome theological error on our part, and to overcome centuries of resentment and suspicion.

It is a fundamental principle in Orthodox and Roman Catholic eucharistic doctrine (not just discipline) that eucharistic communion is not a path toward unity, but a manifestation of full unity in the faith. I have seen this very nicely stated at the doors to St Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, as well as in Orthodox churches. In those places where Coptic laity are communed it is because, while there has been no formal act of reunion, it is perceived that indeed there is that unity of faith.

When Pope Benedict attended the Divine Liturgy in Constantinople on the feast of St Andrew, some reporters mistakenly spoke of 'concelebration' and that kind of thing. To their credit, the Vatican Internet broadcast reporters corrected that error immediately. One said in effect 'we are not there yet.' The Pope and the Patriarch shared a kiss of peace. The Pope was allowed to recite the Our Father (not the Creed). Those struck me as realistic gestures.

It is quite true that Orthodox would do well to lay aside the sad memory of historical wrongs. They serve no real purpose, but to foment bitterness for the sake of bitterness. At the same time, 'submission' is not in order either. Due recognition of the ancient place of the Bishop of Old Rome as primus inter pares is well in order, but that must be in the clear context of stating that as long as doctrinal issues separate us - including issues about the nature of the Papacy itself, Orthodox cannot accord Rome those historic honours. If those differences are overcome - genuinely, not just politically, of course, the ancient kanon will again apply.

Pope John Paul II made an historic gesture in returning the relics of SS John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian. It was not, in my impression, anything false, but a true and sincere act stemming from a sincere desire to overcome and heal the wounds of the Fourth Crusade. I acknowledge that and praise him. Pope Benedict, in my impression from reading about him, is also a very sincere, and practical man. Given the fact that the Patriarchate of Moscow wouldn't deal with the Vatican under John Paul II, but is working with Rome on a "Give a Soul to Europe" endeavour, I take it that they (the Russian Church) have the same impression. Such mutual cooperation helps to heal those ancient wounds. Certainly the elimination of the Unia problem will go even further.

One other obstacle I have perceived is that the reality in Roman Catholic parishes in the United States (and perhaps in other countries too), is far from the official teaching and discipline of Rome itself. RC priests give communion without discrimination in many places, and the entire ethos of liturgical worship is Protestant, something alien to the historic Latin liturgical tradition. This is NOT what was intended by those who proposed the liturgical reforms, especially in the area of translation. Fortunately, this problem (translations) is being addressed under Pope Benedict. I happen to have a licence for translation (Spanish-English), and am familiar with the issues. I have read the new standards promulgated by the Vatican and they are TOP-OF-THE-LINE. I was extremely impressed. They carefully balance the reality of differences in structures among languages with the need for fidelity. Following those standards will produce a translation that is truly faithful to the original text and to the target language's internal grammtical and syntactic structures, and will employ a good liturgical vocabulary. In fact, I'd be one to recommend that the same standards be adopted by Orthodox for translating the divine services.

There can be no question that there are likewise areas in which we too need to clean house a bit; not to appease Rome, but for our own sake. The reconciliation between Moscow and ROCOR is a good example of something that needed to be done, and is certainly not being done for ecumenical reasons!

In the end, I think the greatest example Orthodox and Roman Catholics can give the world together is to work on rapprochment seriously, but honestly, even if it takes decades or centuries. If both sides are working from a solid patristic foundation, and discussing issues frankly, it will put the WCC to shame. Personally, I'd favour total withdrawl from the WCC. Give it up as a bad job. If others see Orthodox and Roman Catholics getting along personally, cooperating in areas where cooperation is legitimate, discussing issues that still divide us, that will be a powerful witness to Christ, and also to genuine tolerance.

To summarise: we cannot jump the gun. We cannot have eucharistic communion without full doctrinal unity. We cannot pretend such unity exists where it does not. Just the same, we must not promote the sad memories of the past where they no longer have any real meaning, and we must admit, and joyfully accept every opporunity to heal those wounds and to work together - on a realistic foundation.

MAH

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

One other obstacle I have perceived is that the reality in Roman Catholic parishes in the United States (and perhaps in other countries too), is far from the official teaching and discipline of Rome itself. RC priests give communion without discrimination in many places, and the entire ethos of liturgical worship is Protestant, something alien to the historic Latin liturgical tradition. This is NOT what was intended by those who proposed the liturgical reforms, especially in the area of translation. Fortunately, this problem (translations) is being addressed under Pope Benedict. I happen to have a licence for translation (Spanish-English), and am familiar with the issues. I have read the new standards promulgated by the Vatican and they are TOP-OF-THE-LINE. I was extremely impressed. They carefully balance the reality of differences in structures among languages with the need for fidelity. Following those standards will produce a translation that is truly faithful to the original text and to the target language's internal grammtical and syntactic structures, and will employ a good liturgical vocabulary. In fact, I'd be one to recommend that the same standards be adopted by Orthodox for translating the divine services.

There can be no question that there are likewise areas in which we too need to clean house a bit; not to appease Rome, but for our own sake. The reconciliation between Moscow and ROCOR is a good example of something that needed to be done, and is certainly not being done for ecumenical reasons!

In the end, I think the greatest example Orthodox and Roman Catholics can give the world together is to work on rapprochment seriously, but honestly, even if it takes decades or centuries. If both sides are working from a solid patristic foundation, and discussing issues frankly, it will put the WCC to shame. Personally, I'd favour total withdrawl from the WCC. Give it up as a bad job. If others see Orthodox and Roman Catholics getting along personally, cooperating in areas where cooperation is legitimate, discussing issues that still divide us, that will be a powerful witness to Christ, and also to genuine tolerance.

To summarise: we cannot jump the gun. We cannot have eucharistic communion without full doctrinal unity. We cannot pretend such unity exists where it does not. Just the same, we must not promote the sad memories of the past where they no longer have any real meaning, and we must admit, and joyfully accept every opporunity to heal those wounds and to work together - on a realistic foundation.

MAH

I think these insights are very important. For us praxis is 90% or more of how we perceive where the Church is. So for the overwhelming majority of our faithful what they see in parishes of other denominations and how they would react to this makes up 90% of what would contribute to or deny any unity.

For example the normal state of RC parishes in Quebec where I grew up and spent my first 13 years being Orthodox was nothing short of absolutely scandalous by any Orthodox standards. Here I'm not talking about the widespread immorality among the clergy which was already an open secret by the 1970s. Beyond this within the parishes the lack of sobriety of worship and in the services was at times breath-taking. To this day despite advances in ecumenical understanding I'm not sure there is any comprehension of how our every day baba would react to a clown mass or doggy mass.

The more sober version of this which I witnessed first hand many times in the local Catholic mission to the poor where I worked was a mass with the priest and people gathered around a kitchen table. The priest would then take a slice of white bread along with a cup of wine; go through the standard 'prayers of the mass' punctuated by hymns sung to guitar; consecrate the gifts in conventional style; then each of us partaking of the bread & wine regardless of whether we were RC or even Christian. This was taken as being completely normal and I myself never questioned its propriety until I became Orthodox.

It serves little purpose to simply recount the actual encounters many of us have had with this kind of extremely troubled sense of spirituality and piety seen throughout modern Christianity. Is there really the worship of any denomination even at its most sober that most of us who have been attending an Orthodox parish for 10 or 20 years would not find deeply troubling? The main point here is that for us these things are only illustrative of a much deeper problem which will continue to manifest itself until there is a conscious and wide-spread return among other Christians to Patristic standards. Personally I would say the kind of change needed would amount to a spiritual revolution equal in effect to the Protestant reformation or Vatican I or II. And once undertaken it would probably take a good century or so to really affect how the faithful live.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

ANNOUNCEMENT
BY THE SACRED COMMUNITY
OF THE HOLY MOUNTAIN ATHOS
17/30 December 2006


Karyae, 30 December 2006.

The recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the occasion of the feast-day of Saint Andrew (30th November 2006) and thereafter the visit by His Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens Christodoulos (14th December 2006) gave rise to a multitude of impressions, evaluations and reactions. We shall bypass those things that the secular Press had evaluated as positive or negative, to focus on those things that pertain to our salvation, for the sake of which we abandoned the world to live in the barrenness of the Holy Mountain.

As Monks of the Holy Mountain, we respect the Ecumenical Patriarchate, under whose jurisdiction we fall. We honor and venerate the Most Holy Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and we rejoice in all that he has achieved and so diligently labored for, in his love of God, for the Church. We particularly commemorate the stolid and untiring defence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, amid the many unfavorable conditions that exist, as well as the impoverished local Orthodox Churches and the care that is taken to project the message of the Orthodox Church throughout the world. Furthermore, we the Monks of the Holy Mountain honor the Most Holy Church of Greece, from which most of us originate, and we respect His Beatitude the Primate.

However, the events that took place during the recent visits of the Pope to Fanarion and of His Beatitude the Archbishop to the Vatican brought immense sorrow to our hearts.

We desire and we struggle all of our life to safeguard the trust of the Holy Fathers, which was bequeathed to us by the holy Founders of our sacred Monasteries and the blessed reposed fathers before us. We strive to the best of our ability to live the sacrament of the Church and the unblemished Orthodox Faith, according to what we are daily taught by the divine Services, the sacred readings, and the teachings in general of the Holy Fathers which are set out in their writings and in the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods. We guard our dogmatic awareness “like the pupil of our eye”, and we reinforce it, by applying ourselves to God-pleasing labours and the meticulous study of the achievements of the holy Confessor Fathers when they confronted the miscellaneous heresies, and especially of our father among the saints, Gregory of Palamas, the Holy Martyrs of the Holy Mountain and the Holy Martyr Kosmas the First, whose sacred relics we venerate with every honor and whose sacred memory we incessantly celebrate. We are afraid to remain silent, whenever issues arise that pertain to the trust that our Fathers left us. Our responsibility, towards the most venerable fathers and brothers of the overall brotherhood of the Holy Mountain and towards the pious faithful of the Church who regard Athonite Monasticism as their non-negotiable guardian of sacred Tradition, weighs heavily upon our conscience,

The visits of the Pope at Fanarion and the Archbishop’s visit at the Vatican may have secured certain benefits of a secular nature, however, during those visits, various other events took place which were not according to the customs of Orthodox Ecclesiology, or commitments were made that would neither benefit the Orthodox Church, nor any other heterodox Christians.

First of all, the Pope was received as though he were a canonical (proper) bishop of Rome. During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron; he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” as though it were Christ the Lord; he blessed the congregation and he was commemorated as “most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”. Furthermore, all of the Pope’s officiating clergy wore an omophoron during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy; also, the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer, his liturgical embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer. And all of this, when the papist institution has not budged at all from its heretical teachings and its policy; on the contrary, the Pope is in fact visibly promoting and trying to reinforce Unia along with the Papist dogmas on primacy and infallibility, and is going even further, with inter-faith common prayers and the pan-religious hegemony of the Pope of Rome that is discerned therein.

As for the reception of the Pope in Fanarion, we are especially grieved by the fact that all of the Media kept repeating the same, incorrect information, that the psalms that were (unduly) sung at the time had been composed by Monks of the Holy Mountain. We take this opportunity to responsibly inform all pious Christians that their composer was not, and could never be, a monk of the Holy Mountain.

Then there is the matter of the attempt by His Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens to commence relations with the Vatican on social, cultural and bio-ethical issues, as well as the objective to mutually defend the Christian roots of Europe (positions which are also found in the Common Declaration of the Pope and the Patriarch in Fanarion), both of which may seem innocuous or even positive, given that their aim is to cultivate peaceful human relations. Nevertheless, it is important that all these do not give the impression that the West and Orthodoxy continue to have the same bases, or lead one into forgetting the distance that separates the Orthodox Tradition from that which is usually presented as the “European spirit”. (Western) Europe is burdened with a series of anti-Christian institutions and acts, such as the Crusades, the “Holy” Inquisition, slave trading and colonization. It is burdened with the tragic division which took on the form of the schism of Protestantism; the devastating world wars, also the man-centered humanism and its atheist view. All of these are the consequence of Rome’s theological deviations from Orthodoxy. One after the other, the Papist and the Protestant heresies gradually removed the humble Christ of Orthodoxy and in His place, they enthroned haughty Man. The holy bishop Nicholas of Ochrid and Zitsa wrote the following from Dahau: «What, then, is Europe? The Pope and Luther.... This is what Europe is, at its core, ontologically and historically». The blessed Elder Justin Popovitch supplements the above: «The 2nd Vatican Synod comprises the rebirth of every kind of European humanism.... because the Synod persistently adhered to the dogma on the Pope’s infallibility» and he surmises: «Undoubtedly, the authorities and the powers of (western) European culture and civilization are Christ-expellers». This is why it is so important to project the humble morality of Orthodoxy and to support the truly Christian roots of the united Europe; the roots that Europe had during the first Christian centuries, during the time of the catacombs and of the seven holy Ecumenical Synods. It is advisable for Orthodoxy to not tax itself with foreign sins, and furthermore, the impression should not be given to those who became de-Christianized in reaction to the sidetracking of Western-style Christianity, that Orthodoxy is related to it, thus ceasing to testify that it is the only authentic Faith in Christ, and the only hope of the peoples of Europe.

The Roman Catholics’ inability to disentangle themselves from the decisions of their pursuant (and according to them, Ecumenical) Synods, which had legitimized the Filioque, the Primacy, the Infallibility, the secular authority of the Roman Pontiff, ‘created Grace’, the immaculate conception of the Holy Mother, Unia. Despite all these, we Orthodox continue the so-called traditional exchanges of visits, bestowing honors befitting an Orthodox Bishop on the Pope and totally disregarding a series of Sacred Canons which forbid common prayers, while the theological dialogue repeatedly flounders, and, after being dredged from the depths, it again sinks down.

All indications lead to the conclusion that the Vatican is not orienting itself to discard its heretical teachings, but only to “re-interpret” them – in other words, to veil them.

Roman Catholic ecclesiology varies, from one circular to the other; from the so-called “open” ecclesiology of the Encyclical «Ut Unum Sint», to the ecclesiological exclusivity of the Encyclical «Dominus Jesus». It should be noted that both of the aforementioned views are contrary to Orthodox Ecclesiology. The self-awareness of the holy Orthodox Church as the only One, Holy, Catholic (=overall) and Apostolic Church does not allow for the recognition of other, heterodox churches and confessions as “sister churches”. “Sister Churches” are only the local Orthodox Churches of the same faith. No other homonymous reference to “sister churches” other than the Orthodox one is theologically permissible.

The “Filioque” is promoted by the roman catholic side as yet another legal expression of the teaching regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, and theologically equivalent to the Orthodox teaching that procession is “only from the Father” – a view that is unfortunately supported by some of our own theologians.

Besides, the Pontiff is maintaining the Primacy as an inalienable privilege, as one can tell from the recent erasure of the title “Patriarch of the West” by the current Pope Benedict XVI; also from his reference to the worldwide mission of the Apostle Peter and his successors during his homily in the Patriarchal Temple, as well as from his also recent speech, which included the following: «...within the society, with the Successors of the Apostles, whose visible unity is guaranteed by the Successor of the Apostle Peter, the Ukrainian Catholic Community managed to preserve the Sacred Tradition alive, in its integrity» (Catholic Newspaper, No.3046/18-4-2006).

Unia is being reinforced and reassured in many and various ways, despite the proclamations by the Pope to the contrary. This dishonest stance is witnessed, apart from other instances, by the provocative intervention of the previous Pope, John-Paul II, which led the Orthodox-roman catholic dialogue in Baltimore into a disaster, as well as by the letter sent by the current Pope to the Cardinal Ljubomir Husar, the Uniate Archbishop of Ukraine. In this letter dated 22/2/2006, the following is emphatically stressed: «It is imperative to secure the presence of the two great carriers of the only Tradition (the Latin and the Eastern).... The mission that the Greek Catholic Church has undertaken, being in full communion with the Successor of the Apostle Peter, is two-fold: on one side, it must visibly preserve the eastern Tradition inside the Catholic Church; on the other, it must favour the merging of the two traditions, testifying that they not only can coordinate between themselves, but that they also constitute a profound union amid their variety».

Seen in this light, polite exchanges such as the visits of the Pope to Fanarion and the Archbishop of Athens to the Vatican, without the prerequisite of a unity in the Faith, may on the one hand create false impressions of unity and thus turn away the heterodox who could have looked towards Orthodoxy as being the true Church, and on the other hand, blunt the dogmatic sensor of many Orthodox. Even more, they may push some of the faithful and pious Orthodox, who are deeply concerned over what is taking place inopportunely and against the Sacred Canons, to detach themselves from the corpus of the Church and create new schisms.

Thus, out of love for our Orthodoxy, but with pain as regards the unity of the Church, and with a view to preserve the Orthodox Faith free of all innovations, we proclaim in every direction that which was proclaimed by the Extraordinary, Double, Holy Assembly of our Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain on the 9th / 22nd of April 1980:

«We believe that our Holy Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, having the fullness of Grace and the Truth, and for this reason, an uninterrupted Apostolic Succession. On the contrary, the “churches” and the “confessions” of the West, having distorted the faith of the Gospel, the Apostles and the Fathers on many points, are deprived of the hallowing Grace, the true Sacraments and the Apostolic Succession...

Dialogues with the heterodox - if they are intended to inform them about the Orthodox Faith so that when they become receptive of divine enlightenment and their eyes are opened they might return to the Orthodox Faith – are not condemned.

In no way should a theological dialogue be accompanied by common prayers, participation in liturgical assemblies and worship by either side and any other activities that might give the impression that our Orthodox Church acknowledges the Roman Catholics as a complete Church and the Pope as a canonical (proper) Bishop of Rome. Such acts mislead the Orthodox as well as the Roman Catholic faithful, who are given a false impression of what Orthodoxy thinks of them....

With the Grace of God, the Holy Mountain remains faithful - as do the Orthodox people of the Lord - to the Faith of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, and also out of love for the heterodox, who are essentially helped, when the Orthodox with their steadfast Orthodox stance point out the extent of their spiritual ailment and the way they can be cured.

The failed attempts for union during the past teach us that for a permanent union, according to the will of God, within the Truth of the Church, the prerequisite is a different kind of preparation and course, than those which were followed in the past and appear to be followed to this day.».



By all of the Representatives and Superiors of the common Assembly of the twenty Sacred Monasteries of the Holy Mountain Athos.



(The Greek text can be found at the following address: www.agioros.com)

Monk Prodromos Gregoriates – Secretariat of the Sacred Community.
Translation by: A. N.

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

Many thanks for posting this.


Seen in this light, polite exchanges such as the visits of the Pope to Fanarion and the Archbishop of Athens to the Vatican, without the prerequisite of a unity in the Faith, may on the one hand create false impressions of unity and thus turn away the heterodox who could have looked towards Orthodoxy as being the true Church,


At least in the case of this heterodox sinner looking towards Orthodoxy, it would not be the statements coming out of Constantinople that would have the effect of turning him away.

It is interesting to note that, as in Anglicanism, the duty of obedience to one's ecclesiastical superiors yields to the economia of conscience.


In Christ,

John

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear John,

Christ is Born!

We know that as a result of speaking with those that we are not in communion with that very often our beloved hierarchs suffer while wearing both the cross and an Icon of the Theotokas. Both monks and bishops bear crosses which may often seem much different but really they are not entirely different. Having been baptized into Christ and putting on Christ all of us are to be in the world but not of the world. We can see this as both our hierarchs and monastics adorn the Angelic habit.

Father Raphael called our attention to a Kondak in another thread a while ago from the Sunday of the Cross during Great "the fiery sword no longer guards the gate of Eden", but rather through the Cross we hear Christ inviting us to, "return again to Paradise."

This is a great struggle for all of us, to fight sin.

From what I have seen and heard all Orthodox monks and all Orthodox Bishops desire that all men are saved and embrace the Orthodox faith and struggle in the Church.

I'm not sure I would call it economia of conscience though.

Please accept my sincere apology if I have offended you with any of my posts.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[John Charmley]

Please accept my sincere apology if I have offended you with any of my posts.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

There was no offence taken from anything you have said; your staunchness in what you believe is admirable, and it is characteristic of your good nature to be swift to offer an apology, which, had there been offence, I should immediately have accepted.

What puzzled me, but I begin to comprehend, was the possible conflict between the oft-expressed necessity for obedience to one's hierarch, and the public criticism of HH the Ecumenical Patriarch. Anglicans are forever criticising Archbishop Williams for deviating from their conception of what the Church teaches, or should teach; I was just a little surprised to see the same thing in Orthodoxy after all the stress on obedience.

What I am used to in Anglicanism is that who are very traditionalist are keen advocates of obedience to the Church hierarchy, until it does something they don't approve of, and then they criticise the Archbishop, saying that their consciences won't let them be quiet. However, when those Anglicans they condemn as 'liberal' criticise the Archbishop for taking a 'traditional' line, the traditionalists get very upset and talk about the need for obedience, especially when it means scarifying one's pride.

For those of us on neither 'side' in the Anglican communion, it looks at times like having your cake and eating it. When the Archbishop does what the traditionalists want, he's a good egg and guided by the Holy Spirit and should be obeyed; and if that is hard, well, that is how obedience goes. When he takes a liberal line, he's a misguided and muddled old thing, and one's conscience has to resist such wrong teaching. Of course, because the liberals aren't keen on stressing obedience, they never quite get round to pointing out the potential hypocrisy in this.

I am sure it isn't like that in the Orthodox Church - but the statement, coming as it did after the malarky with sledgehammers just before Christmas on Mt. Athos, did bring the Anglican situation irresistibly to mind. But, as I say, I am sure that it is different.

In Christ,

John

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear John,

On personal note I'm often slow to accept the things that are reported in the media particularly when they certainly are sensationalized with sledgehammers and such. Getting older it seems...

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[William Swabey]

John, an internet community may not be a perfect one, but
I have been fascinated by how fired with faith it is.

The solution to the eastern/western problem I don't realistically
think can happen, though I would love it to. The mindsets are too
different, for obvious historical reasons - we had different histories.

My Byzantine studies would suggest a synergy, as they say. Perhaps that's the best we can do, with our mutual imperfections.

The earliest Christian texts were in the east, but lost, and found by
westerners and easterners alike.

The original messages matter more.

William

[John Charmley]

John, an internet community may not be a perfect one, but
I have been fascinated by how fired with faith it is.

The solution to the eastern/western problem I don't realistically
think can happen, though I would love it to. The mindsets are too
different, for obvious historical reasons - we had different histories.

My Byzantine studies would suggest a synergy, as they say. Perhaps that's the best we can do, with our mutual imperfections.



The original messages matter more.

William

Dear William,

Yes, I think you are correct, especially about the 'original message' - and, of course, one of the reasons for taking an interest in Patristics at all lies down that road.

I would be interested in exploring this thought:

The earliest Christian texts were in the east, but lost, and found by
westerners and easterners alike.

I think I see what you are getting at, but it is such a good topic for discussion that I wouldn't mind going further with it.

One of the things I have been delighted with in my contacts with the Copts is the extent to which they have never 'lost' their contact with the early texts; the same is true also of the Syriac Orthodox.

I do wonder at times whether in our pride, and our insecurities, we do not miss what insights other Christians bring to the Faith? This is not to subscribe to some form of syncretism, but perhaps to that 'synergy' which you mention. To hold that the Copts, the Syriac Church, and the great Roman Catholic Church (not to mention all the others) have nothing to teach us seems close to prideful arrogance.

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

It occurs to me that we are dealing with two points: behaviours and issues. They have little, if anything to do with each other, and often behaviours contradict issues. Personally, I am saddened and even horrified about what happened at Esphigmenou. Whatever legitimate issues there are, they were completely eclipsed by the behaviour of those involved, and there was no witness to the Gopsel at all.

MAH

[Antonios]

One of the greatest tricks of satan is to distract us, which is why he is called the diavalos, or, deceiver. The events at the monastery in Athos are part of his ploy to focus attention away from how important the Holy Mountain is to all of the Church, in fact, to the whole world. I don't think most of us understand what truly goes on there. It saddens tremendously to remember this particular incident, and every time people bring it up, I'm sure the devil smiles.

[Andrew]

One of the greatest tricks of satan is to distract us, which is why he is called the diavalos, or, deceiver. The events at the monastery in Athos are part of his ploy to focus attention away from how important the Holy Mountain is to all of the Church, in fact, to the whole world. I don't think most of us understand what truly goes on there. It saddens tremendously to remember this particular incident, and every time people bring it up, I'm sure the devil smiles.

Some men there are the reason this world has not sunken into total destruction... righteous intercessors for all of creation live there unnoticed, breathing the Spirit of Life and emptying themselves so that the work of Christ may go on, and for the salvation of the cosmos. And to think, what the outside world focuses upon is "angry monks" and "no women allowed."

[Peter Farrington]

But to those to whom much is given much is expected.

It is always shameful when monks engage in violence, in any communion, and I can point to the example of scuffles between Oriental Orthodox monks in Jerusalem.

If the world looks at these events then surely we should make sure there are none.

How can the world believe


Some men there are the reason this world has not sunken into total destruction... righteous intercessors for all of creation live there unnoticed, breathing the Spirit of Life and emptying themselves so that the work of Christ may go on

if these same men are attacking each other?

Peter

[Nicolaj]

Brethren!

During the visit of the pope of Rome in Turkey there was a whole lot of medial coverage here in Europe and especially the German TV brought very many things. I remember seeing a discussion about this visit where a RC professor told the spectators that the pope was the leader of the winning church and visiting the leader of the dying church! Nor that this statement bears any ground it is significant about how RC is looking upon Orthodoxy!

The whole thing about Papism is that the Dogmen they are bound to, are sometimes so heretic and faraway of the Gospel that they can't see what it is really about. Don't think the pope has anything to do with Peter! And in the Bible it is stated that Paul himself put Peter ashamed for his behaviour.
No the truth is always find in the church and the Church has always kept the truth. Sure, the walls that separate us now won't reach up to heaven but I don't think the time is now to reunite.

In Christ-Nicolaj

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

You make an important point. The very oldest defence in any book is the 'ah, well, we don't know all the details, and the media always distorts things'; usually the preserve of our dear political class, it is sad to see it used by Christians. I can imagine no one who does not wish to be convinced by it, being convinced, and to most others it looks like we are making excuses.

It is the culture of some medical scientists to wish to abort babies and do genetic experiments with embyros, and the media does distort it so; it is the secular culture in the west to encourage women to have abortions; it is in the nature of modern western culture that women should have equal opportunities, so open the priesthood to them. I suspect many of us would feel these were sophistical arguments, so let us not defend the indefensible, no more than we leap to judgement.

On Nicolaj's point, rather than look at the secular media attempting to whip up a story about living and dying Churches, might we not turn to what the Roman Catholic Church actually teaches? One of the occasional frustrations on this, and other sites, is the ease with which pronouncements are made about the core beliefs of others - based on what we have been taught about them. So, going to Rome and to what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote, under the hand of the present Pope in 2000 (not, I think, a bad or unauthoritative source), we read in 'Dominus Iesus':


17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”. “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.


Now this seems not far from the ecclesiology which allows the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria to permit his congregation to commune with the Copts. Please correct me if mistaken (and the ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox seems to make even the complexities of Anglican practice seem simple, but then the latter have only been about for a few hundred years), but this cannot, surely, be an 'economia' when the Patriarch does this. He appears to be acting on the same ecclesiological principles laid down by the Roman Catholics in this encyclical.

I am aware that ROCOR has a different ecclesiology, but then, having at one stage been regarded by some from the MP with less than brotherly love, there could be complex reasons for this; at any rate, in the absence of a central authority to rule on such matters, it does appear as though the Alexandrian practice, approved locally, is in tune with what the Roman Catholics teach.

So, before coming from our historically entrenched positions about Rome, we might ponder such matters, read what it has to say, and see that it is not so different from the practice in parts of the Orthodox Church.

From the very beginning, Christianity has been (literally, I suspect) bedevilled by those who exclaim that to them, and only to them, has the true faith descended. The current Roman explanation for where we are now and how we might proceed seems at least to contain more seeds of hope than the rather tiresome (and rather triumphalist in tone) mantra that 'when they confess their past sins, make repentance and apply to rejoin us, we'll think about it before deciding'. This last is just not going to happen - in which case, as someone once commented, Christian unity will be an eschatological event. It would be more in tune with what Our Lord said to make the attempt a little earlier - if we could bend our stiff necks even so far as to hear what it is others are saying.

As the Roman Catholic document cited above shows(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html) there need be no compromise on essentials to develop an ecclesiology which might lead towards the sunlit uplands. If the Greek Patriarch in Alexandria can commune Copts and still be part of the same Church as ROCOR, why the miracles of Our Lord may already be present among us at this season of joy and hope!

(Or not, if the verbal sledgehammers are on their way?)

Awaiting correction, if not expulsion,

In Christ,


John

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren, dear John,

It is really a shame in how many directions things developed between people believing in Jesus. Partly we can apologise this, as it is within our sinful nature. We see the same between the Buddhist, the Islamic and also between the Jews.

But always there are people who desire for the unity! I think this is desire for the state of the Paradise, a good thing for true! Eden was the place created by the Lord for us to be, and we spoiled it! Jesus came to reunited creation, what did we do with this gift....

So I think it is good to pray for unity, for the churches to come together and engage another with dignity. God will always distinguishes between the faithfull and those disturbing the faith, for the sake to have their power here on earth.

In Christ-Nicolaj

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

As they say, sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Peter,

You make an important point. The very oldest defence in any book is the 'ah, well, we don't know all the details, and the media always distorts things'; usually the preserve of our dear political class, it is sad to see it used by Christians. I can imagine no one who does not wish to be convinced by it, being convinced, and to most others it looks like we are making excuses.

It is the culture of some medical scientists to wish to abort babies and do genetic experiments with embyros, and the media does distort it so; it is the secular culture in the west to encourage women to have abortions; it is in the nature of modern western culture that women should have equal opportunities, so open the priesthood to them. I suspect many of us would feel these were sophistical arguments, so let us not defend the indefensible, no more than we leap to judgement.

On Nicolaj's point, rather than look at the secular media attempting to whip up a story about living and dying Churches, might we not turn to what the Roman Catholic Church actually teaches? One of the occasional frustrations on this, and other sites, is the ease with which pronouncements are made about the core beliefs of others - based on what we have been taught about them. So, going to Rome and to what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote, under the hand of the present Pope in 2000 (not, I think, a bad or unauthoritative source), we read in 'Dominus Iesus':


Now this seems not far from the ecclesiology which allows the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria to permit his congregation to commune with the Copts. Please correct me if mistaken (and the ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox seems to make even the complexities of Anglican practice seem simple, but then the latter have only been about for a few hundred years), but this cannot, surely, be an 'economia' when the Patriarch does this. He appears to be acting on the same ecclesiological principles laid down by the Roman Catholics in this encyclical.

I am aware that ROCOR has a different ecclesiology, but then, having at one stage been regarded by some from the MP with less than brotherly love, there could be complex reasons for this; at any rate, in the absence of a central authority to rule on such matters, it does appear as though the Alexandrian practice, approved locally, is in tune with what the Roman Catholics teach.

So, before coming from our historically entrenched positions about Rome, we might ponder such matters, read what it has to say, and see that it is not so different from the practice in parts of the Orthodox Church.

From the very beginning, Christianity has been (literally, I suspect) bedevilled by those who exclaim that to them, and only to them, has the true faith descended. The current Roman explanation for where we are now and how we might proceed seems at least to contain more seeds of hope than the rather tiresome (and rather triumphalist in tone) mantra that 'when they confess their past sins, make repentance and apply to rejoin us, we'll think about it before deciding'. This last is just not going to happen - in which case, as someone once commented, Christian unity will be an eschatological event. It would be more in tune with what Our Lord said to make the attempt a little earlier - if we could bend our stiff necks even so far as to hear what it is others are saying.

As the Roman Catholic document cited above shows(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html) there need be no compromise on essentials to develop an ecclesiology which might lead towards the sunlit uplands. If the Greek Patriarch in Alexandria can commune Copts and still be part of the same Church as ROCOR, why the miracles of Our Lord may already be present among us at this season of joy and hope!

(Or not, if the verbal sledgehammers are on their way?)

Awaiting correction, if not expulsion,

In Christ,


John

The question of Orthodox interaction with other Christians & even religions has been ongoing almost from the moment the Church came into being. Indeed a certain attitude towards that which is outside of the Church is given by Christ & His Apostles. In turn the Church is faithful to this same tradition.

Basically we do (in a positive sense; the negative was never ruled out by the Holy Frs and often referred to) learn from other Christians and those of other religions.

But we do not learn from Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics nor Protestants as Protestants. Rather any good found within them is defined in terms of Orthodoxy. This is because the main perspective for seeing things outside of the Church must be ecclesiological and not moralistic.

Fundamentally then our interaction with the non-Orthodox world is based on an Orthodox ecclesiological sense.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Antonios]

But to those to whom much is given much is expected.


Quite true. It must be very difficult to be a monk. I would hardly know.

[John Charmley]

But we do not learn from Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics nor Protestants as Protestants. Rather any good found within them is defined in terms of Orthodoxy. This is because the main perspective for seeing things outside of the Church must be ecclesiological and not moralistic.

Fundamentally then our interaction with the non-Orthodox world is based on an Orthodox ecclesiological sense.

In Christ- Fr Raphael


Dear Fr. Raphael,

Thank you for the clarification.

I must say I warm to the ecclesiological sense. Where it allows (as local practice approves) Greek and Coptic Orthodox to commune together, in abolishing, if only in that space for that moment, the need for the adjective, maybe much that is good happens.

For the rest, as you say, we agree to disagree, in love and Christian charity towards each other. One of the things that struck home in the Roman Catholic Encyclical was an ecclesiology which was orthodox, catholic - and humble in its willingness to say what it said about others.

One reason for citing it is that it was very unlike the caricature which some have of the position of the Vatican - just as what you say, Father, is so unlike the caricature some have of Orthodoxy. Truly, through such contacts, do we get to know more about each other.

Who knows (but Him), perhaps Christian unity will not be an eschatological event after all, especially if we follow St. Paul's precept in 1 Corinthians 16:14
Let all that you do be done with love.


In the Coptic Synaxarium, today commemorates the departure of St. John the Evangelist and Theologian, and this passage from the synaxarium seems relevant here:

This saint lived 90 years, and they used to carry him to the gatherings of the believers. Because of his old age, he only gave them very short sermons saying, "My children, love one another."

What more needs saying?


In Christ,

John

[Manuilo]

Dear Fathers,

Bless!

Dear orthodox brothers and sisters,

Dear all,



...
In the Coptic Synaxarium, today commemorates the departure of St. John the Evangelist and Theologian, and this passage from the synaxarium seems relevant here:
Quotation:
Let all that you do be done with love.
...

If I was sick of a disease while not knowing it, I'd consider love if one had told me about my disease, so I could cure it, not if one had got the same disease from me out of love, making two of us sick.

[John Charmley]

Dear Manuilo,

Indeed, that would be an act of love, but as we have noted in another thread here, the Orthodox Church is not as notable for its missionary activity as your comment would imply; what you say is true, but it seems to imply the need for mission so that love might be spread.

There will be a reason why, in the Lord's mercy the Roman Catholic Church has brought so many souls to a knowledge of the crucified and risen Christ, and it is not for us to question His ways - nor, I think, to impute sickness to it.

I always feel uneasy with such comments about other denominations, lest in making them we fall into the trap of spiritual pride He warns us of in Luke 6:41-42

41 And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? 42 Or how can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye.

Humility is a better posture - especially during Lent. If we have, as we believe, the fullness of the Faith, much is expected of us; do we deliver?

In Christ,

John

[Kieran P.]

It's interesting for me as a Catholic to read Orthodox church views on us. I've read Kallistos Ware's books on the Orthodox Way, and the History of the Orthodox Church, and I read Lossky's Mystical Theology. I'm in the process of reading a book I bought recently in London by an Orthodox monk about your spirituality.

I also read large parts of the Philokalia and the Little Russian Philokalia's, which included the blessed Saint Seraphim of Sarov.

I have to say, I prefer Bishop Ware's approach - he sees common ground, and not at the expense of truth. He understands what we mean by the Filioque and Papal succession etc, and finds how they're not at odds with the identity and life of the eastern Church, though some clarificatrions would be necessary.

Often it seems that Orthodox books written for the Orthodox faithful mention Catholic saints such as Thomas Aquinas only to criticise. I even saw one website discussing whether St Augustine was a saint - let alone a Church Father. It makes me think that we figure more on your minds than you figure on ours. I don't mean this as a slight: what I mean is that Catholics seem less likely to have to define themselves by what others believe.

This is just an impression, and I'm sure I'm wrong. The Orthodox monk I'm reading now states quite clearly that there is ONE Christian spirituality and between east and west there are no big differences on the fundamentals.

And Nikolai Berdaev made me glad when he described us as complementary churches, with you concentrating spiritually more in some areas, and us in others. The stigmata being a feature of our saints, and transfiguration being a feature of yours.

As for dogma, Kallistos Ware was quite clear in describing how they can be reconciled, so long as we're clear on what we're saying - and we listen to each other!

God bless us all

[John Charmley]

Dear Kieran,

Thank you for your eirenic approach. As you, and +Kallistos both write, there is no need to sacrifice Truth, just a need to listen, to curb our tendency to pridefulness, and to pray for His will to be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

If one can think of nothing positive to say on such matters, perhaps, one should stay silent? A Lenten sacrifice for some, perhaps, but productive of spiritual benefit?

In Christ,

John

[Manuilo]

Forgive me, but I didn't mean to imply anything.

And, although I was sinning during the fast, and do sin every single day, I can't see anything sinful in my post. Yet, it is my priest to whom I confess my sins.

In fact, it would be a sin if I would remain silent.

Concerning how many souls Roman Catholics brought to knowledge, it depends on where do we start counting. If it was about figures, was conversion of Slavs to be counted in joint mission, or to the mission of the Orthodox Church? Not to mention different methods and consequences of conversion - comparision between Alaska and Latin America comes to mind.

Concerning bishop Ware and Berdjajev, there are various opinions about some of their positions, while I can remember at least one voice claiming Berdjajev got out of the boundaries of Orthodoxy. I'm not sure, but it seems to me he was proclaimed heretic by MP.

What I said was completely legitimate and in lines with Orthodoxy. It was not meant to disturb anyone. I wish happy fast to Orthodox Christians and happy holydays to everybody else.

[John Charmley]

Dear Manuilo,

The Internet is a very imperfect medium in which, sometimes, we have to strive very hard to avoid saying what might give offence to others.

In a world in which Christianity is everywhere on the defensive (not least in your beautiful part of it) it behoves us to do and say nothing which might offend; and on these things, people can be, and are, very, very sensitive.

From those to whom much is given, much is expected, and no one, for a moment, imputes to you anything but great and commendable zeal for the Faith. What you say is, indeed, entirely Orthodox; what one might be taken by someone who is a Catholic to be implying, might be quite different; that was the only point being made - I hope gently and without offending such a zealous soul as your own; you and your people are in the front line, and our prayers are with you all.

In Christ,

John

[Manuilo]

Dear John,

I agree with what you said.

Once again, forgive me.

[John Charmley]

Dear Manuilo,

You are very kind, and were there anything to forgive, and were it mine to forgive, I would do so with all my heart; you are in the front line of the greatest struggle of our age, and my prayers are with you and your brave countrymen and women.

Bless you,

In Christ,

John

[Paul Cowan]

Dear John:
It was driving me batty until I looked it up.

i·ren·ic (ī-rĕn'ĭk, ī-rē'nĭk) also i·ren·i·cal (-ĭ-kəl, -nĭ-kəl)
adj.
Promoting peace; conciliatory.

[Greek eirēnikos, from eirēnē, peace.]

irenically i·ren'i·cal·ly adv.

I think I might start a thread on the meaning of words commonly used here on Monachos for those of us without a Thessauras handy. :)

Paul

[John Charmley]

Dear John:
It was driving me batty until I looked it up.

i·ren·ic (ī-rĕn'ĭk, ī-rē'nĭk) also i·ren·i·cal (-ĭ-kəl, -nĭ-kəl)
adj.
Promoting peace; conciliatory.

[Greek eirēnikos, from eirēnē, peace.]

irenically i·ren'i·cal·ly adv.

I think I might start a thread on the meaning of words commonly used here on Monachos for those of us without a Thessauras handy. :)

Paul

Dear Paul,

In an entirely eirenic spirit, I suspect that might well be an excellent idea; and thank you for putting both spellings: many now prefer to write 'irenic', but I was always brought up to use 'eirenic'.

As far as internet fora go, it is a handy words, and an even handier concept to keep in mind.

I try not to be a tiresome pedant, but it may be that some think I fail - or am simply trying in another sense of the word!

In Christ,

John

[Paul Cowan]

I try not to be a tiresome pedant, but it may be that some think I fail - or am simply trying in another sense of the word!


Or word of the day?? :)

pedant
Pronunciation: 'pe-d&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Italian pedante
1 obsolete : a male schoolteacher
2 a : one who makes a show of knowledge b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge c : a formalist or precisionist in teaching

John:
I will start later today to compose a Monachos dictionary and will invite others to participate. Perhaps it will help us all to really Know a word rather than a general sence of what a word means. It may take a few days to compile what I hope to be somewhat exhaustive dictionary.

This will be fun.

Paul

[Arsenios]

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”. “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

Yes, agreeing to disagree on this matter is doubtless the best that can be done during the Lenten fast...

Orthodox understanding utterly disagrees with the above quotation...

We see the catholicity of the Faith in each local Church, without division... Where we do not see it, as, for instance, when heresies are being preached, or other canonical errings are in evidence, we withold Communion until the catholicity is restored... Or not...

We do not see the Body of Christ as restricted to the subsistence if only one, single, local Church, as the first line does in regards to Rome. If, say, Antioch, or Russia, or Serbia, were to claim that it was their Church alone that one had to be in communion with in order to be the "single Church of Christ", they would lose their Communion with the rest of Orthodoxy until they recovered [repented] from their error...

Arsenios

[Jose Lauro Strapasson]

This is my very first message in this topic, and I don't want to say too much because we are in the great lent. Well, I was a Roman Catholic and now I am Estern Orthodox, thanks God!

What (Eastern) Orthodox Church teaches is that She is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

There is no comunion, no apostolic sucession, no sacrament, above all, no grace, outside our Church. If an Orthodox don't know this he (or she) is not a real Orthodox, just this.

The person who calls himself "pope" is not the pope, not even the bishop of Rome and it is impossible to have any kind of primazy because he is just does not belong to the Chuch of Christ.

The Roman Catholic has no eucaristic, so to have communion with them is to eat bread, just this.

The monstruos act of Atenagoras I was nothing, it is impossible to remove the anathema since the reasons for the anathema still exist and they had add much more.

About the Patriarch Bartholomew, please read this
http://www.oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/athos1.htm

Please read also Saint Photios, Saint Mark of Ephesus, Metropolitan Filaret of ROCOR and Saint Justin Popovich, etc. Even Timothy Ware's book will provide you with some basic teaching of the Orthodox Church.

We have too much problems because this thing of ecumenism, WCC, new calendar, many division among, etc.

Roman Catholic should ask themself if they like us or not, if they like us just to joing us, if they don't, please just leave us in peace!

The same for Patriarch Bartolomew and "ecumenist orthodox", if they believe our Church to be One, Holy Catholic Church of God, them they have to stop with the heresy of ecumenism, if they don't believe they have to leave it now and stop preteding to be Orthodox.

"As the Lord Jesus Christ cannot have several bodies, so there cannot be several churches... hence, ontologically, splitting the Church is essentially impossible. There never was and can never be any splitting of the Church; but there always has been and will always be falling away from the Church. There was the falling away of Gnostics, Arians, Dukhobors, Monophysites, Iconoclasts, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Uniates and all other renegades forming the heretical schismatic legion". -Saint Justin (Popovich) of Chelije

Best wishes and nice Holy Lent to all!!

[Jose Lauro Strapasson]

http://www.easternchristiansupply.biz/products.cgi/c120/c14/c10136

[John Charmley]

Dear JoseLauro,

Reading what you write, and what the Monks wrote, put me in mind of these words from even more authoritative sources:

Matthew 5:43

43 You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,

Matthew 22:37-39

37 Jesus said to him, `You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like it: `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'

John 15:10

10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.

On balance, I am happier with His words than with those you cite, which seem a little short of this spirit.

In Great Lent is it not better to concentrate upon the beam in our own eye rather than focus upon the motes in the eyes of others? I wonder whether wisdom might not suggest incorporating into one's fast abjuring the urge to criticise other Christians; it might be a good Lenten discipline.

In Christ,

John

[Kieran P.]

Well said, John.

We can all quote monks and theological books regarding the split between the churches. Everyone can appeal to their very entrenched and prejudicial positions. To my mind, if we grow vain and 'superior' in our dealings with other churches, then we're actually doing the devil's work for him.

I've read Catholics who say that Orthodox are doctrinally confused heretics and schismatics - and Orthodox who say the same of us. C'est la vie. There's blame on both sides.

But I reckon the saints of each church weep, when they pray in common for union.

God bless...

[Jose Lauro Strapasson]

Oh comom people! I just read now, Vatican is thinking about allowing condon to marriage people when one has AIDS! They excomungate people who is divorced, they deny what they belive to be the blood of Jesus to their faithful!

You know, Love is to testify the Orthodoxy to all! :)

P.S. How many of you were Roman Catholic for about 30 years before convert to orthodox?? I did! Now I discovered Orthodox Church and want to protect it, just this.;)

[Kieran P.]

Hiya Jose, :)

It would be helpful if you'd quote your source when you state what the Vatican is up to. The Church has so many enemies, you need to be sure you're getting the truth about us.

As for your jibes, they're theologically unsound. I understand you turned to the Orthodox Church in order to satisfy your spiritual appetites, but your knowledge of the Catholic Church makes me truly doubt that you'd been with us for "about 30 years".

30 minutes, more like! ;-)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

For both the Orthodox & Roman Catholics these are heart felt topics that deserve discussion.

But we really need to stay within ecclesiological or theological themes & away from the personal comments.

In Christ- Fr Raphael
PS: This is meant for all of us not just one person. I tried but was unable to fit this post in between the two above.

[Kieran P.]

Thanks for the reminder, Fr Raphael.

I think, in fairness, that attempts at levity can fall flat in the absence of an appropriate writing style...or smileys!

God bless ya!

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Jose

I'd have to concur with Kieran.

And it seems like you have a nasty case of convertitus.

We should never dismiss so easily the Christian path by which God has brought us to Orthodoxy. It dishonours the Holy Spirit.

And if you are already dissatisfied with the community into which the Holy Spirit has brought you, (and you have posted elsewhere that you are not happy with the Antiocheans), then you might well find yourself on a sad spiral into smaller and smaller groups who all claim to be the Really, Truly, One, Traditionalist, Orthodox Church.

Much better to give thanks to God for all things, including your time as a Roman Catholic, and now as an Orthodox among the Antioicheans, and settle down to learn what God would now teach you. The grass isn't always greener elsewhere, and we don't always know better than all our bishops, and there is something to be said for the monastic virtue of stability - and I am learning this myself.

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thanks for the reminder, Fr Raphael.

I think, in fairness, that attempts at levity can fall flat in the absence of an appropriate writing style...or smileys!

God bless ya!

Surely. That's why we all need to be careful in this area. This is one of those trans-confessional issues!

I should have stated clearly that I was speaking as a co-moderator of Monachos and not just as a poster.

In Christ- Fr Raphael
PS: the smileys seem to come and go on their own accord. :)

[Rebecca Gabl]

I must say I don't agree with all of what the Athonite monks wrote. They say that every evil of the West stems from the schism and fall of the Roman Church into heresy. They cite the Inquisition, Crusades, World Wars, etc. The thing is, we could dig up all kinds of evils committed by Orthodox societies as well. Can we blame the Orthodox Church for the Russian Revolution and the resultant persecution and oppression of Russia's citizens? Furthermore, the West still has elements of a Christian basis (North America more than Europe, I've heard), and you could always find non-Christian elements in the East (superstition, persecution of non-Christians, Communism, etc.), because no human society is perfect. The statement, in other words, didn't seem to be quite balanced.

And it doesn't seem quite fair to read too much into joint efforts on the moral/social front either. We need all the help we can get!

[John Charmley]

And it doesn't seem quite fair to read too much into joint efforts on the moral/social front either. We need all the help we can get!

Dear Rebecca,

Thank you. It is part of human nature to blame everyone except ourselves, but the path of true repentance is to admit our sin and to repent, and to amend our lives; it is hard to do this if someone else is to 'blame', and we are just 'victims'.

It is, perhaps, a little surprising that such an impeccably Orthodox source should manifest such signs of this western 'victim' mentality. Surely we are all sinners.

In Christ,

John

[Kieran P.]

Hi Rebecca and John, :)

I must say, I hadn't read what the monks of Mt Athos had read until now. Apart from Rebecca's points regarding the evils of the East, it's also noticeable that they make reference to certain theological and historical points of which I wouldn't be too confident on their understanding.

But it reminded me of Abbot Basil Pennington's wonderful diary of his visit to Mt Athos. He was glared at by 'holy' monks and shunned at every opportunity by traditionalists. I have to say - I understand this. There are monasteries in the west which would treat these monks of Mt Athos in exactly the same way. I think both of them would be wrong.

Perhaps it was a bad idea of a monk from the west to intrude for so long on Mt Athos, which is subject to monastic rules and the monks there shouldn't be so disturbed in their endeavours. But the reaction of some monks led me to wonder if they'd been infected with spiritual pride.

It's an interesting book:

http://www.amazon.com/Monks-Mount-Athos-Extraordinary-Spiritual/dp/1893361780/ref=sr_1_16/104-6407532-1418302?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1172912073&sr=8-16

As a Catholic, I came to this forum primarily to learn more about a Church I love also - the Orthodox. It's fascinating how many reactions are so similar to ones in the catholic Church to non-Catholics. I wonder if these reactions (and those of the monks in the article above) are inspired more by psychological appetites rather than a desire to understand what "the other side" are saying.

God bless

[Kosta]

Concelebrations between the romans and Orthodox violate the canons of both churches. Much of the ecumenism between rome and constantinople is racially motivated. In order to save Europeans and the "white man" from his sins and apostasy. Most agree that the west is now a post-christian society.
What amazes me is that the ecumenists have been seduced by the secular "white enlighteners" who have for years used their propaganda to make the word "dogma" into something evil. From hollywood movies to bumper stickers which read slogans like "my kharma ate your dogma".

Unity is no longer about christian doctrine but about uniting Europe (specifically against the turks). This falls under the heresy of phyletism. The church is no longer united by Orthodox principles but into a tribe simply to safeguard a remnant culture which used to be christian.

Instead of preaching faithfully the gospel to all nations and making disciples , the non-christian nations are no longer potential converts but threats to the west. After all its more likely that a westerner will be seduced by an oriental religion, or by pagans or by a new age spirituality than the other way around. Unless....
Unite not under the gospel but under a common roman/byzantine heritage to resist the "infidels".
Who for some strange reason will see this solidarity as the True faith!

On the other hand St. Paul teaches: But even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.'

Not only do ecumenists not fear this, they arrogantly believe that a false unity will have some sort of magical power to bring the west back from apostasy and even convert foreign lands!

Can you imagine if the Dalai Lama said if Tibetan buddhism and Theravada buddhism merged it would result in conversion of the east and communist China to Buddhism and magically the christians of the west would follow? Only a kook would make such a claim, but guess what??? The ecumenists make this precise claim! I guess the ecumenists have adopted another "new age" heresy- witchcraft.

[Kieran P.]

Hi again Kosta,

Great post - and I heartily agree! The great failing in ecumenism is the belief that there should be unity - even at the expense of truth. This is nonsense and makes a mockery of both Churches - and the Truth which we say we defend!


From hollywood movies to bumper stickers which read slogans like "my kharma ate your dogma".


We should counter with a sticker which reads : "And my grace ate your kharma!"

It takes great patience to explain to non-Christians the imperative of dogma. I spoke to one such chap recently. He hadn't seen that dogma is the formulation of the truth into words. It's a light you could steer your ship by!

God bless...

[John Charmley]

JoseLauro;42882

You know, Love is to testify the Orthodoxy to all! :)

Dear JoseLauro,

I think I prefer St. Paul's definitions of love [1 Corinthians 13:4-7]:

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Romans 13:10:

10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Romans 14:15:

15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.

I altogether prefer his way of coming at these things [1 Corinthians 4:21]

21 What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?

We can approach each other in this spirit, or in an other, where we seek to condemn before we understand, where we attribute motives rather than seek dialogue, and where we judge others unheard; can there be much doubt which path Our Lord walked, and are we not to follow His way rather than the way of our pride?

St. Isaac reminds us that in His creation of the world, and in the Incarnation, God had only one purpose 'to reveal His boundless love to the world':

In love did He bring the world into existence; in love is He going to bring it to that wondrous transformed state, and in love will the world be swallowed up in the great mystery of Him who has performed all these things; in love will the whole course of the governance of creation be finally comprised.[St. Isaac the Syrian, Part II/38, 1-2]

I get a trifle concerned when I hear people saying (often with relish) that in being harsh to others we are really showing them our love; that can sound awfully like an excuse for behaviour that comes only too naturally to prideful man.

No, when it comes to love, I am with St. Paul and St. Isaac.

In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

In the daily readings from the prayer book, our Daily Life, used by many British Orthodox Church members, and members of the British Orthodox Fellowship (an ecumenical fellowship open to all who are interested in discovering our Orthodox life) we had the reading today from Abba John the Dwarf who says:

A house is not built by beginning at the top and working down. You must begin with the foundations in order to reach the top. They said to him, 'What does this saying mean?' He said, 'The foundation is our neighbour, whom we must win, and that is the place to begin. For all the commandments of Christ depend on this one'.

I am trying, and struggling, and often failing, to live out this wisdom. But I know that I will not win my neighbour if I make of him an enemy, or if I dismiss him and all that he believes and holds dear. A gentle word turneth away wrath. I am not sure that anyone has been bludgeoned into Orthodoxy. Loved and charmed but not beaten and condemned.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,


I am not sure that anyone has been bludgeoned into Orthodoxy. Loved and charmed but not beaten and condemned.

Well said; and what a shame that there have been those who tried that route.

How strange the effects of sin upon us are, and how easily sometimes do we play into Satan's hands. That mankind has, on occasions, taken a Gospel of love and suffering and used it to inflict further suffering in the name of a compassionate God who desires not the death of sinners, but that they should turn to Him and be saved, is as clear an evidence as one could want of our need for His loving mercy.

How much of the distrust with which Christians are regarded in the world has come from this source? How often have we laid ourselves open to the charge 'See how they love each other?'

In John 15:12 we are told directly
12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you and so we have often managed to interpret it as meaning we should only love those who are Christians according to the lights of Our Church, which means that 'love' allows us to chastise others. How clearly do we deserve so often the words He used to chastise the Pharisees in Matthew 23:33:

33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?

Only through His love, His mercy, and His Grace, and our works done in His Grace and service; it may be rightly doubted whether this last involves our sinful selves standing in judgement on others.

We bear witness to the Saviour who died and rose from death to save all mankind - and just as He declined the temptations of Satan to assert His lordship in an earthly manner, so too are we charged with doing likewise. We come to Him in deep sorrow at our sins and in deepest repentance for them, and we beg His mercy - which, thankfully, is Infinite.

1 John 4:7-11

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.
10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

It does not mean we compromise the Truth that our Church teaches - but we compromise it utterly if we treat others with less than the love He shows to all mankind. If we disagree with one another, let us do it in charity and with respect and humility; that way, surely, we bear witness as to whose disciples we are?

In Christ,

John