www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Schism and Heterodoxy

As the Roman Catholic Church no longer refers to the Orthodox as schismatics I think it might go a long way toward ecumenism if the Orthodox did not refer to the Latins as heterodox. Sometimes it seems to me Rome is making all the efforts at reuinion and the Orthodox are not reciprocating.

Dear AlexiusComnenus,

The Orthodox not reciprocating to the Roman Catholics in ecumenical dialogue . . .

And your point is?

Orthodoxy is dead serious about a number of theological issues with which it takes issue.

The problem then is not so much who is more willing to bend.

If Orthodoxy sees no movement from Rome on the issue of the Filioque, then, from the Orthodox point of view, it is Rome who refuses to bend at all, not Orthodoxy.

Orthodox representatives have told Rome that the Filioque could remain a theological opinion, but that it has no place in the universal Creed meant to express the faith of the Universal Church. Rome seems to agree to the principles of this, but the Filioque is still there and is still a sign of no meaningful movement by Rome to the Orthodox.

There are some other issues, but intransigence is in the eye of the beholder. But I agree that we should promise not to call each other "schismatics" or "heretics."

Alex

[This message has been edited by Orthodox Catholic (edited 08-13-2001).]

You make a good point. But, contrary to what many on this forum sincerely want to believe, at the deanery and parish level, reunion/union is not a very important issue for most Orthodox.

Institutional/jurisdictional unity is more of a Roman priority than a priority for the Orthodox who see union in a very different light i.e., it is essentially eucharistic and based on a common faith, not on union with a common pontiff. (Unless Catholics are willing to share with us that the only "pontiff and universal pastor" the Greeks will ever submit to is Christ our Lord.)

Herding Greeks is like herding cats...extremely frustrating since we are not like the Ukrainians and Rusyns, but have our own understanding of authority and authority figures and what type of obedience we owe ( or do not owe) to them. The lock-step mentality of a Roman legionnaire is completely foreign to the contemporary Greek Orthodox mindset.

So...be patient. You will probably never see union/reunion during your lifetime, but it will come in God's time..not ours.

Peace

Bill

[Sometimes it seems to me Rome is making all the efforts at reuinion and the Orthodox are not reciprocating.]

Reciprocate in what way? We have not changed the faith, we have not added to the faith, nor have we taken anything away from the faith. Nor have we left the original Holy Catholic & Apostolic faith identified in the Creed. Contrary to what some of you believe.

Bob

Bob

Robert writes: "We have not changed the faith, we have not added to the faith, nor have we taken anything away from the faith. Nor have we left the original Holy Catholic & Apostolic faith identified in the Creed. Contrary to what some of you believe."

Right, but....

Orthodoxy is not stagnant. Since 1054 or whatever magical date one might assume, Orthodoxy has developed a host of new theologies, added new devotions, amended its canon laws for specific disciplines, and developed unique 'pieties' (along national and ethnic lines). So, to espouse the view that Orthodoxy 'retains' only what is approved from the apostles without variation is just demonstrably not true. There are things that my family in Kollinis in Arcadia Province do that would cause the Russians to scratch their heads in confusion. (Do the Russians use the 'mati'?) And vice versa.

The proposition that Orthodoxy is pure and simple only the practices of the Apostles is just a pious dream. The Holy Spirit has worked His grace upon the Orthodox Churches since the beginning; God's people have evolved. So has Orthodoxy. So has Catholicism. Some folks are always going to be searching out 'ancient' and arcane practices that show that Orthodoxy is the most traditional and therefore the 'holiest' and that those who do not adhere to these practices are 'heterodox'. For them, there is always an axe to grind. And even if the hierarchs of the Orthodox Churches move towards rapprochement, their subjects seem to find fault with them for 'caving in', even when the caving in is mutual and apparently in concord with Christ's Gospel. Too bad Christ didn't have a copy of the Typikon and the Canons. He'd have known better and been more 'orthodox'.

Retreating to the idea that "we are the most traditional" proves nothing beyond membership in the Society of Christian Archaeology. And that ain't a passport to salvation. Love and kindness are.

Blessings!

Dr. John,
I think you are too quick to look for problems with Orthodoxy. You have to have the last word end with a "but".
Some of the things you wrote tend to have a revisionist flavor that I do not appreciate and are misrepresentative of Orthodoxy.
What are these host of new theologies that you claim Orthodoxy has developed? Is it anything near to Supremacy, Infallibility, Augustinian Original Sin, Indulgences, created grace? I think you have confused Catholicism for Orthodoxy. I also believe you have confused and commingled the minor traditions with The Traditions.

I do not believe Robert was referring to the minor traditions but rather The Traditions as mentioned in Scriptures(2 Thessalonians 2:15 & 3:6).

One last point, Orthodoxy is pure to those who believe and practice with a sincerity of heart. To the heterodox outside the Church it may be just a pious dream. Remarks like yours are not uncommon. May God have mercy on those who think they know what is Orthodoxy and continue to be outside the Church. God's people do not evolve. They undergo theosis not some darwinstic, socialistic theory.

Your post sounds belittling and condescending if not outright slanderous on what you think is Orthodoxy. I don't believe anyone here was promoting fundamentalism until you came in the attack mode to fend it off. There was no need for many of the things you said. All Robert was saying is what all Orthodox say and believe in regards to our Tradition and Faith. I grant you credit on that Orthodoxy is dynamic. However, being dynamic as it may be does not alter 2 Thessalonians 2:15, the Apostolic teachings, and the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The reason that Orthodoxy is dynamic is due to the role of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the Spirit of truth in our lives. Transfiguring and restoring us in communion with Christ our God. Leading us from glory to glory. Amen.

Dear Friends,

I have to go with our Orthodox Christian friends on this one.

Frankly, I have always found the Vatican II and subsequent RC developments on ecumenism to be very confusing.

It is as if Catholics pretend there is somehow already a union of sorts achieved while playing down obvious differences of faith and practice.

What I have always admired about the Orthodox is precisely their unwillingness to compromise on their Faith.

"Unity" is not, cannot be the most sublime goal if the Faith is compromised.

Let us remember what St Maximos the Confessor did.

The Monothelite (do I have that right?) heresy actually brought into union not only the Roman and Constantinopolitan Patriarchates, but the Assyrian and others as well. The entire Church was united!

But Maximos opposed this, saying that if an Angel were to come down from Heaven to teach a different faith, we are not to receive it.

Dr. John means well. It is not that his arguments are liberal, but that they reflect modern Roman Catholic ecumenical viewpoints.

I am myself not convinced of them either.

But Dr. John is a very good man and his was never the intention to give offense to Orthodoxy or to Orthodox Christians.

It is just that we love you so much .

Alex

[Orthodoxy is not stagnant. Since 1054 or whatever magical date one might assume, Orthodoxy has developed a host of new theologies, added new devotions, amended its canon laws for specific disciplines, and developed unique 'pieties' (along national and ethnic lines).]

And how many of these have been proclaimed as infallible doctrines of Orthodoxy? Necessary to be believed in order for one's salvation or to be a member in good standing of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church!

You are mixing apples and oranges. Tradition with doctrine.

Bob

Dear Bob,

Friend, friend, take it easy!

Orthodoxy NEVER proclaims infallible statements like the RC Church does. The Ecumenical Council is a separate issue.

The fact is that Orthodoxy has developed its own theologies etc. as Dr. John has said.

The fact is that Roman Catholicism does the same.

The Filioque has never been infallibly defined. It can be dropped from the Creed by the West and I believe it will be one day.

The only things that have been "infallibly" defined are points about the Mother of God that Orthodoxy, by and large, has always shared i.e. Her total holiness and Her being taken into Heaven body and soul.

Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism operate from within different theological and ecclesial perspectives. To compare their doctrines and theologies in the way you have done is to also compare apples to oranges.

Just trying to be helpful, although something tells me you don't agree . . .

Have a great day and I won't say another word about this.

Alex

"The only things that have been "infallibly" defined are points about the Mother of God"

And Vatican I, because it was a council united with the Pope, also spoke "infallibly" regarding the Papal claims made there -- according to the Catholic understanding.

Brendan

And THAT precisely is the rub.

With regard to the understanding of the Mother of God -- is there really any significant difference between mainstream East and mainstream West? With basic systematic theology including potential interpretations of credal statements -- is there any substantial misunderstanding? (Theologians have been able to reconcile the 'mystical' interpretations of the hypostasis.) With the understanding of the sacraments and their efficacy? I just don't see any REAL distinctions in the ways that people actually practice and live their faith that are substantial enough to maintain the 'chasm' concept.

I spoke about the dynamic of the Holy Spirit allowing the church to evolve in the environment of existence. The response from Brother Sweiss is: "However, being dynamic as it may be does not alter 2 Thessalonians 2:15, the Apostolic teachings, and the Seven Ecumenical Councils." The question is: Don't Catholics have this too?

It seems to me to come back to the argument (from both East and West) "You can't be in communion with us because you aren't in communion with us. And you aren't in communion with us because you can't be who you are and in communion with us. So, give up your existence and then you can become us because only we have the key to salvation."

Yet, isn't it confounding that the Catholic/Orthodox Commission is able to come up with documents of common understanding; isn't that a sign that the theological cobwebs are being disbursed? Isn't that a sign that the mindset (from West or East) "we have it; you don't" is going away?

I have oftentimes been distressed to read Brother Sweiss' postings because they always seem to end up saying: nothing else is really possible because Rome has to unite itself with Holy Orthodoxy. Like the old "Johnny One-Note" song, it is a constant theme. Yet, there is no sign from Orthodoxy on what has to be done to "reunite Rome with Orthodoxy". There seems to be no agreement from within Orthodoxy on how rapprochement is to take place. It seems that most autocephalous Orthodox churches are afraid to make the first move for fear of affronting some other autocephalous church. And there is no 'pan-Orthodox' synod to address these questions.

Pope John Paul II apologized publicly in Athens for the sins of the Roman Catholic Church and its members for sins against Orthodoxy. The Archbishop of Athens accepted this apology I presume in the name of the Greek Orthodox Church. (Did he accept it on behalf of "world" Orthodoxy? Could he have done so without a Council?).

And what has been the response of the Orthodox Church to this apology? I've heard of none.

So, I ask Brother Sweiss and the others: what is the Pope of Rome supposed to do next?

And can we expect ANY response from "Orthodoxy" as a Church rather than from one or other autocephalous churches?

Blessings!

Most European Orthodox do not have the luxury of doing what we do on this forum, including giving much thought to issues such as Church re-union.

Our European Orthodox brethren are forced to concentrate on immediate and concrete problems that often involve the 24/7/365 welfare of their families, friends, and neighbors. In other words, they spend most of their time (by necessity) on the hand-to-mouth and bread and butter issues. To them, abstract and futuristic speculations about Church union are very low-priority issues since they cannot see how union would have any concrete impact on their practical or spiritual lifestyles.

After all, most Christians of whatever church or denomination are, first and foremost, pragmatists. Orthodox hierarchs, as well as the lower clergy understand the priorities their people are forced to deal with on a daily basis. Most Orthodox bishops, monastics, and lower clergy are not passionate enough about the issue of Church union to force the issue on their flocks. They also realize that without the full participation and cooperation of the laity (especially in those churches of the Greek tradition), union is a dead issue.

At this time, union/reunion is truly a passion of the Catholics that is not shared by the Orthodox in general.

But who knows what the future might hold.........?

So, in essence, the proposition is: because European Orthodox churches have other issues, the status of the Church Universal is in 'limbo' (pardon the term) until the churchmen have the time to focus on it.

I just can't buy this. It is the responsiblity of the clergy and hierarchy to do what is necessary for the well-being of the Church. I understand very well the economic (and political) situations in the Eastern European countries (joblessness, hunger, rampant disease, etc.), but if there is time to have a synod, then the questions have got to be addressed. Does it take much to say: "we accept the apology of the Bishop of Rome, and we too express our sorrow at the unfortunate events that have divided us. Let us pray for each other and work together for the Kingdom." The excommunications have been lifted; a sincere apology has been given on the Pope's personal behalf and on behalf of all Roman Catholics.

I reiterate: in response to John Paul II's apology to Orthodoxy, what more does Orthodoxy demand of the Western Church for reconciliation?

Blessings!

Dr John --

Orthodoxy as a whole will require full unity of faith.

Brendan

Dr.John,

First things first.

Many Orthodox leaders and laity do not even have a vision of or concept of the "universal church." Therefore, the strong passion that you have as a Byzantine Catholic for the unity of the "universal church" can't be a priority for them until they have had the opportunity....which might take generations....to broaden their ecclesiological horizons.

Centuries and generations of relating to the church as a national or ethnic institution pretty well prohibits the vast majority of Orthodox hierarchs, lower clergy, and laity of even thinking of the church in universal terms. It could very well take generations before the majority of Orthodox are able to relate to "church" outside of national or ethnic conceptual boxes.

I am not saying that this vision of the church is adequate, but I am just reporting the facts.

We might have to just reconcile ourselves to the fact that many generations might come and go before we...hah!...not "we", but certainly others.... see the changes that many of us sincerely long for.

(BTW: The reason why the pope's visit to Greece was so anti-climatic was for the very reason that the Greeks do not see him as a universal leader of a universal church, but of his own "regional" or even "ethnic" church that has no relevance to the "national" church or spiritual life of Greeks. In other words, the attitude is: " He is a good man and we respect him, but what does he have to do with us? We are Greeks and he is Latin." That is their sincere perspective and, since they do not see him as being of any relevance to Greece, they have pretty well put the issues that motivated his pilgrimage to Greece out of sight and out of mind. Yet, it is true that many Greeks were taught that the Latin Church and the Latin West did try to exterminate Greek culture and Orthodoxy. This is part of the
Greek mindset and it could very well take generations to purge this attitude and look at the West in a modern light.)

Patience and faith that all good things come in God's good time.



[This message has been edited by bill tomoka (edited 08-14-2001).]