www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The scandal of Archimandrite Zenon (Teodor)

Dear Servants of God, Monk Elias and Hadji Kyrill

Christ is among us!

I don't think I have to tell you how I feel about this whole schism thing. This happens to be one of my "hot buttons and when it gets pushed, I light up like a supernova.

I am sick and tired of hearing about this schism. I refuse to accept it. I will not be victimized by the sins of my ancestors. There is no sin greater than God's Love. I have an equal amount of love for my brothers and sisters in the Eastern Orthodox Churches as I have for my brothers and sisters in the Catholic Churches.

Did not Jesus take His Gospel to the Samaritans? Who was Mother Theresa in schism with when she cared for aids stricken Hindus? We speak of an Indwelling Trinity but then we put boundaries around the Trinity. When we encapsulate the Spirit of the Living God in our hearts are we living the Gospel? I am unawhere that the Love of Christ in our hearts is restricted to jurisdictional boundaries.

I thought the Incarnation brought done heaven to earth. There are no schisms in heaven. And for this child of God, there are none on earth. And for those who disagree with me, go ahead and stone me.

Joe Prokopchak

I'm not done yet! And one more thing, before you approach the judgement seat of Christ, you better make sure you're not in schism with anyone.

Joe Prokopchak

Dear Joe,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I am delighted to read your post on this subject, and I agree.

I find the very idea of schism hard to grasp in my mind. If I communicate by Christ's very body and blood, and if my brother (divided by divisions I do not recognize or accept) communicates by Christ's very body and blood, are we not one in Christ? There is only one Eucharistic presence, one Lord, one Mystical Body, and if I communicate I am at one with all those who also partake. Does not Christ accomplish unity and union in all those who communicate of the One Body? Does confessing schism suggest that the sacrament has not accomplished what I know it has?

Whether it is at the same 'local' celebration, or at different 'local' celebration, I find it hard to grasp the distinction in 'communions', knowing that there is no distinction in God. We either communicate or we do not. We share the Body, or we do not.

Hadji Kyrill speaks of the lonliness of the podvig to foolishness. It is scary. But to those really called by God to this vocation, it wouldn't be, would it? Even martyrs (the scariest podvig?) marched to the arena with radiant faces singing hymns. Is not God's burden meant to be light, and the yoke easy? Shouldn't following God's will bring a lightness of soul and an inner peace, which is stronger than human fear?

Union is God's will, and will bring unspeakable joy to God's Church, and gladden his people. By our union the devil will be confounded and exposed in his lies. By our conformity to his image, by our surrender to love, by our acceptance of the Holy Spirit, a new and joyful witness will be given to our world. The Gospel will be proclaimed with new power, undiminished by our sad disputations. Let us sing hymns, and march into the arena! Some things are worth giving one's life for!

Elias, monk

Dear Servant of God, Monk Elias

Glory to Jesus Christ !

I agree. I refuse to accept a schism between my brothers and sisters in Christ. My parish is across the street from a Russian Orthodox Church. My cousins belong there. Everybody from my parish knows everyone from their parish. The parishoners from both parishes work in the same mills and factories, send their kids to the same schools, boy scouts, girl scouts, softball, etc., etc., etc. We live every aspect of our lives together. We can't see any schism. The only times we are separated is on Sunday mornings when we attend Divine Liturgy at churches with a different jurisdictional nameplate on the door. What's wrong with this picture?

I can't see a schism. Maybe I'm blinded by the Love of Christ or intoxicated by the Spirit of the Living God and unable to come to my senses. I know that some day somebody up the heirarchal ladder is going to wake up and smell the incense and say "What happened to the schism".

Joe Prokopchak

Dear Joe,
I know you are an Eastern Catholic. The reality of the word schism is in existence not because I desire it but Catholicism is the cause of it. We do not have to become uptight about it. However we must strive towards the Truth. The Truth is that God is not divided nor is the teachings of the Orthodox Church. This is my biased statement based upon my experience of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. God forbid the Orthodox Churches from believing that they are missing a lung. That is a heretical if not an unusual confession by the Pope. Where Rome is failing Orthodoxy truimphs. You are an intelligent person and I would go as far as to say spiritual. However, as long as Rome continues with a mindset that is foreign to Holy Tradition within Orthodoxy she will remain schismatic. Not because I desire the destruction of that Church or despise Catholics or deemphasize unity between the two Churches. The truth of the matter is that Rome does not possess full and complete Apostolic authority. She continues not to come forth in truth and love by admitting Papal errors throughout her history on the teachings of Christ and His Church. I do not have to be specific on the doctrinal errors because you know what they are. The Ecumenical Patriarch has no authority also to proclaim teachings that are not in agreement with the rest of the Churches of Orthodoxy. The same standards apply to every Orthodox Church as well. Rome should know better but it doesn't. I pray for the return of Rome to Orthodoxy after it repents and confesses the historical errors of the Papacy and the misunderstood application of the Primacy of St. Peter.

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

Dear in Christ, my brother Robert,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I am one of those 'uptight' about the existence of schism. I am not at all comfortable with our failure to be of one mind and heart. I plead for the reconciliation of the Churches.

The separation is too painful to be considered a triumph for Orthodoxy. But your points are familiar, and I accept your criticsm with sadness.

I am reminded of the now 'old' principle, that is unfair to compare the 'theory' of all that is best about my Church, with the 'reality' of all that is worst about yours. That another Church does not live up to my 'Theology' of Church is not surprising, and may not be a valid expectation.

The idea that the Orthodox Church, either historically or currently is altogether free from error in discipline or teaching suggests a view of history which I have not heard put forth by any Orthodox historian with a knowledge of their Church. Of course the Catholic Church has been wrong, often stubbornly and willfully. But error (either Orthodox or Catholic) did not cause the schism.

The separation was caused by politics, the desire for power, greed, violence, ignorance, hurtful words, anger ...in a word ... sin.

Sin is the triumph of the evil one in the world, not the triumph of Orthodoxy or Catholicism. The separation is a sin, and not entirely absolved by placing the guilt of it entirely on one side or the other. For 'all have sinned, and fallen short of glory...'

Error, where it exists, is corrected best in the loving embrace of brothers who care deeply for the well-being and salvation of the other. It is hardly ever corrected by exclusion and exile.

The failure to love is a greater sin than error. The failure to welcome a repentent brother is not Christian. The fear and indignation of the elder brother is altogether understandable, but the Father's embrace is for the sinner who asks forgiveness in humility.

Let us love one another, so that with one mind we may profess...

Elias, monk

I'm not sure if it is possible to not "recognize" schism. I believe it is important in our daily lives to extend charity on a personal and corporate level between Catholic and Orthodox peoples so in the practicum of our daily lives we may act as if it doesn't exist, but Rome insists on exerting authority beyond that which the Orthodox are willing to grant and Catholics have a whole dogmatic catalogue which is at the minimum foreign and at most false to the Orthodox, some of which relates to claims of Papal authority. Each side can point at the other as the villian, but the bottom line is Rome must recant some or all post-1054 dogma or the Orthodox must accept it. Period. Dogma is dogma. It's a hard thing to get around, when the Pope, by definition, is infallible.

We should live our lives as though there is no schism, but sadly we must recognize it and pray fervently against it.

[This message has been edited by Bill Mo (edited 10-20-1999).]

>>>Each side can point at the other as the villian, but the bottom line is Rome must recant some or all post-1054 dogma or the Orthodox must accept it. Period. Dogma is dogma. It's a hard thing to get around, when the Pope, by definition, is infallible.<<<

Utter rubbish which only reflects a lack of exposure to Church history. In the first place, while dogma is dogma, the meaning of the word itself is open to differing definitions, with the Latin Church at times using a much more broad definition that encompassed almost all elements of Roman Catholic belief; this is understandable in light of the challenge posed by the Protestant Reformation, but it does not have any real meaning within theological circles. The Christian East has tended to define dogma explicitly as those beliefs which are absolutely essential for membership in the Body of Christ and for personal salvation. By that standard, even Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy share pretty much the same body of dogma, particularly in light of the ecclesiology espoused by the Catholic Church in Lumen Gentium, and the relationship between the Eastern and Western Churches outlined in Unitatis Redintegratio. For it seems pretty clear that the Catholic Church explicitly recognizes the Orthodox Church as a "Sister Church", whose sacraments, orders and worship reflect the fullness of the Christian faith. Since the Catholic Church has renounced proselytism of the Orthodox, one must conclude that Orthodox beliefs in and of themselves are sufficient for the salvation of the Orthodox faithful (the Balamand Declaration says this explicitly); ergo, whatever doctrinal differences exist between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches are not "dogmatic" in nature, otherwise such statements would be either impossible, or evidence of the most heinous sacriledge.

Moreover, if we look at the history of the development of doctrine (and here I would recommend Jaroslav Pelikan's magesterial work), one can see that even during the period of the unity of the Church in the first millenium, there was never absolute agreement on many issues which continue to be subjects of disagreement to this day--the nature of man, the nature of sin, the path of salvation, marriage, clerical celibacy, etc. etc. ad nauseum--yet these for the most part did not interfere with the unity of the Church. Disunity occured only when one particular Church attempted to impose its own particular Tradition and its interpretations and formulae, upon Churches outside of that Tradition.

Finally, we need to look at how the Orthodox Church itself has viewed erstwhile "dogmatic" differences, particularly in regard to the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. Once known as the Monophysite and Nestorian heretics, respectively, in recent years Eastern Orthodoxy has opened a very fruitful dialogue with these Churches, resulting in a joint recognition that the Christological disagreements between them, which had kept them separated from each other for more than 1500 years, were more apparent than real, terminalogical rather than substantive. It is to be hoped that following this recognition there will be a reestablishment of canonical communion, thus ending the longest, and in some ways most tragic of divsions in the Body of Christ.

Likewise, many of the issues which divide the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are terminological in nature, and more apparent than real. I would go so far as to venture that there are no real "theological" issues separating us, and that we are divided mainly by matters best described as "ecclesiastical" and "political".

One should, in this matter, follow the lead of Pope John Paul II, who has repeatedly made the distinction between the unwavering content of Christian doctrine, and the historically and culturally variable expression of that doctrine. Remember that in theology, one is using the highly limited faculty of human language and reason to circumscribe the indescribable. ANY and ALL theological definitions are inherently imperfect, incomplete, and analogical in nature. YOU CANNOT APPLY THEM LIKE MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS!!! No matter how comforting such credal certitude may be, we must remember that we will never know God as He knows himself, and that our attempts to explain His mysteries must to him resemble the attempts of children to explain why the sky is blue, or why the sun rises in the East.

Thus, it is entirely possible for the Churches of the East and the West to have different, even apparently divergent, ways of explaining the mysteries of God, and yet still be within the boundaries of the Great Tradition, part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is as if God were a mutlifaceted diamond, and the Traditions of the two Churches were beams of light falling on it from different directions. One light illuminates a particular side of the gem, causes refractions from certain facets, while leaving others dark. Neither light by itself can illimine the entire gem, but both together may be able to do so. Something like this is reiterated by John Paul II in Orientale Lumen, and this is the real meaning of the "two lungs" analogy: that no Church which is exclusively Latin or exclusively Byzantine has any claim to ecumenicity, nor can any such Church claim to be the exclusive representative of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Zealots on both sides would do well to remember the extent to which such exclusivist claims have, over the centuries, caused untold havoc with the faith, while not enhancing in any way the Churches fidelity to Truth.

To Monk Elias,
I am disturbed at Rome's separation from Orthodoxy not vice verse. My argument against Catholicism is plenty which are based upon the teachings of Holy Tradition and coupled with my view of Church history. My dear fellow Monk if Rome would admit its faults and apologize for its misinterpretation and misapplication of the meaning of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church then it may enter the fold as being Orthodox. Until then let us pray for one another and all our lives unto Christ our God.

To Stuartk,
The issue of dogma is the central point of conflict that separates Rome from Orthodoxy. Roman Catholic dogma is an evolving menace which strays from Holy Tradition. For example, the Primacy of St. Peter and the Papacy are two extremes of the opposite. Catholic doctrines and Papal pronoucements have in essence distanced many God-fearing people from Catholicism especially within its own domain. Catholicism teaches no divorce but call it anullment. When will the coverups stop along with the exagerations? You are a byproduct of this mindset. You mentioned Jaroslav Pelikan whom you know accepted Orthodoxy. Why did not the man become Roman Catholic? He is well-known in many circles as an expert in Eastern and Western Church history and traditions. The only untold havoc is Rome's lack of confession of propaganda, exagerations, lies and worst yet heresy. I am anti-Catholicism but not anti-Catholic as you and many may judge me. I would like to know from you what is missing in the truth of Orthodoxy when Rome is crying for a lung transplant? I know it is not the Pope of Rome but please continue to elaborate your points to me as you have been doing eloquently.

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

>"Archbishop Yevsevi said of the
sacraments of the Catholic Church that if an Orthodox Christian -
physically unable to take communion at an Orthodox liturgy - takes
the Holy Gifts from the hands of a Catholic priest he is indeed
partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. But if he goes to
communion at a Catholic Mass without being compelled by necessity (
for example here in Russia, where there are many Orthodox churches)
he does not receive grace as in that case the Holy Gifts do not
constitute the Body and Blood of Christ."<

WHAT??????!!! This sounds more like a Lutheran than an Orthodox bishop! Will one of our Orthodox friends PLEASE tell me that this is not the Orthodox position: that the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ for some, and remains bread for others.

Anthony

If one reads the postings here, one can see that all of the 'squabbles' devolve around administrative/jurisdictional issues, primarily of historical nature.

I'm with Joe on this one. I just refuse to accept the administrative doo-dah. The 'anathemas' between the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople were mutually lifted by Pope Paul and Patriarch Athenagoras; this ought to let the canon-law Nazis sleep at night.

For us working folk, who are trying to take care of our families, keep a roof over our heads and try to find ways to love our neighbors as Christ told us to, we have more concrete things to do than worry about documents politically conceived in dark chambers. If enough of God's people went to each others' communities for fund-raisers and festivals, and cooperated in 'food for the hungry' programs, then the administrative stuff would have less and less validity--and with God's grace, it will just disappear. We have to remember that we, the baptized and chrismated (=filled with the Holy Spirit) ARE the Church. And as we live the Gospel, we'll see fewer and fewer distinctions among the good people who pray and live as Christ commands. And with good bishops like Metropolitan Judson (and others) providing us with a model of how we should respect each other, then we can continue on the right track.

Dear Anthony,

Let us turn to one of our newest saints, and see what he had to say about the sacraments of the heterodox.

Metropolitan Philaret (ROCOR)wouldnt even take communion from an OCA priest if even he lay on his death bed. Just a small quote:

"To such a degree do I not believe in the grace of the schismatics' "manipulations," that in the event that I were dying and it was necessary to give me Communion, I would receive it neither from the "Parisians" nor from the American False-Autocephalites (OCA), lest in place of the Holy Mysteries I should swallow a piece of bread and some wine."

If the schismatic "Orthodox", including the Patriarchates, are void of Mysteries, how much more are we to reject those who have been in heresy for a thousand years?

Timothy, reader

>>>Let us turn to one of our newest saints, and see what he had to say about the sacraments of the heterodox.

Metropolitan Philaret (ROCOR)wouldnt even take communion from an OCA priest if even he lay on his death bed. Just a small quote:

"To such a degree do I not believe in the grace of the schismatics' "manipulations," that in the event that I were dying and it was necessary to give me Communion, I would receive it neither from the "Parisians" nor from the American False-Autocephalites (OCA), lest in place of the Holy Mysteries I should swallow a piece of bread and some wine."

If the schismatic "Orthodox", including the Patriarchates, are void of Mysteries, how much more are we to reject those who have been in heresy for a thousand years?<<<

It is nice to know that we have people like Tim standing guard over the heavenly gates to keep out the riff-raff. Don't want the property values being pushed down before we get there, do we?

But let us give Tim's statement far more dignity than it is worth. What can one say about the Blessed Philaret's outburst against the the Orthodox Church in America? Only that while Philaret may have been a holy man in his personal life, and a faithful guardian of his flock, his particular word is not authoritative, any more than the words of any one of the Fathers alone can be so considered. In the East, we look to a consensus patrum; moreover, we work within a concillium of Churches. Few if any other Churchesa concur with the perspective of the late Metropolitan; even those who do not recognize the manner in which OCA was granted its autocephalous status by the Moscow Patriarchate deny that it is heretical in any way. The disagreement is strictly administrative.

And who are these "Parisians" who are so corrupting the Apostolic Tradition? Only the most significant lights of Orthodox theology in this century: Meyendorff, Florevsky, Afanasiev, Schmemann--the men responsible for the rediscovery and renewal of the Byzantine patristic tradition and theology. The men who have moved Orthodoxy beyond the ethnic ghetto to which it had been confined for three centuries. The men who, against great odds, blew away the intellectual cobwebs of the Western capitivity of Orthodox theology.

How little Tim realizes that the model of Church for which ROCOR stands, the "Holy Synod" of the Russian Orthodox Church, is itself an uncanonical innovation, a creation of Tsar Peter the Great, copied from the "state churhes" established in the Protestant countries he so admired. That under this synodal system, the Orthodox Church became an appenage of the Russian state, a department of its civil service, headed by totally unqualified laymen. That during the time of this synodal system, Russian theological institutions copied both the methodology and content of Latin and Protestant seminary curricula, causing a far more insidious "latinization" of the Russian Church than the more overt type that afflicted the Eastern Catholic Churches. That in the 19th century, it was only by the efforts of Russian Orthodox laymen that the detritus of this awful system was finally peeled back, and the glory of Orthodoxy revealed once again--culminating in the Synods of 1905 and 1917, which would have reestablished the ecclesial independence of the Patriarchate, and initiated a spiritual and liturgical renewal within Russia. It was at the Synod of 1905 that the Russian Orthodox Church presented a roadmap for the future of its mission in North America, a roadmap that culminated in the grant of autocephaly in 1920. Only the disruption of the Revolution prevented this plan from being implemented. Only the delay incurred caused the jurisdictional fragmentation that distresses Orthodoxy in America today. Thus, when the Russian Patriarchate granted autocephaly to the Russian Orthodox Mission in America, creating the OCA, it was doing no more than fulfilling the plan which the Russian Church had laid out 65 years before.

The real argument of ROCOR with the OCA has to do with who is the real representative of the Russian Church. And here ROCOR is in serious danger of repeating the errors of the Donatists, for it seems to be their argument that clergy who serve the Patriarchate are corrupted by the association of the Church with the Soviet regime. Certainly a good many of the clergy will have something for which they must answer before the throne of judgement, but in no way does their personal failure affect in any way, shape or form the validity of the sacraments that they administer, or the faith that they taught and professed. While ROCOR was off pontificating from the safety of the West, thousands of priests, monks, nuns and bishops under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate were bearing witness to the faith through their sufferings, often to the point of giving up their lives for Christ. They sustained the Church through 70 years of unimaginable oppression, and I am appalled that anyone in ROCOR would have the audacity, the shear unmitigated gall to pass judgement upon them from the comfort of their ethnic social clubs, where they spend their days picking over old sores and arguing about political issues which now are only of academic interest.

The constant thread in all of Tim's missives is that Orthodoxy is the saving remnant of the Church, that it, and it alone, preserves the true faith. Yet Tim cites has his authorities men whose communion with the Orthodox Church is tenuous at best--extremists whose understanding of Orthodoxy is merely a mirror image of the ultramontanist extremism that plagues Roman Catholicism. These men claim to represent the fullness of the Orthodox Tradition, yet their Orthodoxy really only dates to the 18th and 19th centuries, and is corrupted by a variety of bad influences, from the explicit caeseropapism of the Holy Synod, to the intellectual westernization of synodalist theology. They do not stand for Tradition, but for Traditionalism. Their's is truly the dead faith of the living, rather than being the "living faith of the dead" that Tradition ought to be.

Dear Timothy,

I forgive you for your remark, although it offended me. I asked a sincere question, and it really saddened me that you responded with what I perceive to be nasty polemics.

Please tell me: if Byzantine Catholics are so bad, why do you continue to hang out on our message board? Or could it be that deep down inside, something inside of you has fond memories of your days as a Catholic. Perhaps Byzantine Catholicism is the answer that you secretely yearn for, deep within your soul.

I too was once a Roman Catholic. And like you, the horrific liturgical abuses shocked me, as well as the lack of solid teaching. But God has called me into the Byzantine Church, and I am slowly learning to let go of my resentment against Roman Catholicism.

For me resentment was a crippling, debilitating thing. I would keep playing past injustices over and over again in my head, always winning in the courtroom of my mind. There were few things that I resented as much as the Roman Catholic Church, and it is still the hardest institution for me to forgive. I pray to God that someday I will totally be able to purge myself of all resentment, and He is slowly granting my prayers.

It is obvious, Tim, that you were hurt by Roman Catholicism, as I was. Now is the time to let go of your resentment, and stop going after those "resentment hits," when you brood upon past injustices. You have a new life now: move on.

Feel free to email me if you want to talk.

Yours in Christ,
Anthony

Kurt, Dragani and Sharon, you folks have hit the nail right on the head. Once again, the fascists among us have turned Christ's loving commandment into a raging war of canonicity.

It is LOVE of God and LOVE of one's neigbor that Christ demands of us.

If I ever meet my sisters and brothers of good will, I'll buy us dinner, talk sweetly of how wonderful God's love is for us, and talk about how we can be the witnesses for Christ that the Gospel demands. And we'll pray for those who are so caught up in the canonical stuff. And hope that their lives will be both happy and grace filled.