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

I thank Bill Tomoka for his thoughtful perspective. As a Greek-American, although of the American-Catholic persuasion, I understand fully what you say -- and I think it is very reflective of the reality.

Certainly, many Greeks have a divided perspective on the Church(es) of the West. Most Greeks think that the 'macaronades" of Italy are OK culturally -- they're kind of like us -- but otherwise not to be trusted. This includes the Bishop of Rome.

But the Polish Pope casts a real strangeness to the whole equation! He aint one of those "'taliani" who worked with Mussolini to invade Greece. So, what the hell is this guy?

When the Pope apologized for the sins of the Roman Catholic Church and its people, the Greeks appeared to accept it at face value.

The question is: what do we need to do to overcome the psychological aspects of the division?

Help!

Blessings!

My dear brother Dr. John in Christ,
You know I love you. As much as I love you it does not bring us to the fullness of the unity of the Faith preserved within the Orthodox Church. Uniatism needs to cease to exist. I really do not want Rome to unite with Holy Orthodoxy. I desire Rome to return to Orthodoxy. There are big differences in these two statements. I hope I am not causing you unneccessary distress. The issue of unity with the Latins is not a Orthodox priority until there are significant and proufound changes within the Latin house.
The only apology that came from Rome is regarding the Crusades PERIOD! There were no apologies offered for the filioque, creating Ecumenical Councils on its own desires(8-21), supremacy, infallibility, jurisdication invasions, uniatism, etc. Don't worry, my brother, I have accepted the Popes apology on behalf of the sons and daughters of the Latin rite. I like him. He's a nice and sincere person. What I would like to see the sincere Pope, before he expires to the heavenly abode, is point out to the theological errors that separate our two Churches and agree to the Unity of the Faith . Is that asking too much? For me this will be sufficient. I will promise you that I will not remind you and others of these problems that have plagued us for centuries. Is that a deal my dear brother Dr. John?

Dear Robert,

One problem with your approach is your inability to think objectively beyond the confines of your own theological system.

There is nothing wrong with believing that one's faith is the true faith, true Church true everything.

But where you are wrong is in assuming that the "true faith" is so obvious to everyone else and that they only need admit their own errors and submit to the "truth."

God has allowed the Roman Catholic Church to exist, for the Uniate Churches that you love so well to exist. God has a holy intention for them.

And this was told to me by a Patriarchal Russian Orthodox priest. He told me not to be so critical of "Uniatism" or of the Greek Catholic Churches since so much good has come from them.

Sorry if THAT causes you some distress . . .

But I'm only telling you the Truth as I heard it from that priest.

He also told me that the schism between East and West has hurt BOTH Churches, that they are BOTH not what they used to be, are lacking in what God wants them to have as a result of the breakup.

Orthodoxy has much great truth. But its weaknesses and problems derive from the imbalances caused by the breakup of 1054. It matters little who was at fault or whether Orthodoxy maintained the Apostolic Faith better than RCism.

In the final analysis, what the Church must answer for is how faithful it was to its Master's injunction regarding being one, even as He and the Father are one.

This perspective is what changed me years ago from being a person who would normally call someone like you a "schismatic in invincible ignorance" to one who believes that all Truth comes from the Holy Spirit.

Alex

Brother Sweiss writes:

"You know I love you. As much as I love you it does not bring us to the fullness of the unity of the Faith preserved within the Orthodox Church. Uniatism needs to cease to exist."

Fine. I have no problem with Byzantine Catholics, especially those of the Kievan Church, being in communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople from which Eastern Christianity came to Slavonia.

"I really do not want Rome to unite with Holy Orthodoxy. I desire Rome to return to Orthodoxy. There are big differences in these two statements. I hope I am not causing you unneccessary distress. The issue of unity with the Latins is not a Orthodox priority until there are significant and proufound changes within the Latin house."

What does this mean? Are we not a Church? Do we not celebrate the 7 Councils? Do we not celebrate the sacraments? Do we not preach the Scriptures? Do we not hold to the legitimate customs of fasting and feasting according to the 12 feasts of the Church? Do we not baptize our babies? Do we not solemnize marriage and require faithfulness of the conjugates? Is your concern about how the Bishop of Rome exercises his canonical ministry? The current Holy Father has asked specifically for help in determining how the role of the Petrine Ministry is to be understood and exercised. This request was also made to the Orthodox Churches. What more would you demand of this holy and venerable man?


"The only apology that came from Rome is regarding the Crusades PERIOD! There were no apologies offered for the filioque, creating Ecumenical Councils on its own desires(8-21), supremacy, infallibility, jurisdication invasions, uniatism, etc. Don't worry, my brother, I have accepted the Popes apology on behalf of the sons and daughters of the Latin rite. I like him. He's a nice and sincere person. What I would like to see the sincere Pope, before he expires to the heavenly abode, is point out to the theological errors that separate our two Churches and agree to the Unity of the Faith . Is that asking too much? For me this will be sufficient. I will promise you that I will not remind you and others of these problems that have plagued us for centuries. Is that a deal my dear brother Dr. John?"

I understand. According to the texts of the apology, it went beyond the Crusades. But the Crusades were a MAJOR element in the minds of my Greek patriotes. And had to be expressed specifically.

You ask:

"filioque,"

Going out in the next 2 years.

"creating Ecumenical Councils on its own desires(8-21)"

Ecclesiastical writings (from the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger) state that these "ecumenical councils" were indeed ecumenical from the point of view of the West, but would not necessarily be considered 'ecumenical' in the sense of ALL Christendom.

"supremacy" The current Pope of Rome has specifically asked that the Church (including Orthodoxy) help re-define the role of the "universal pastor" or the "Petrine Ministry" in the current world.

"infallibility" there is serious theological discussion about exactly what this means. Most contemporary Catholic theologians interpret this to mean that in 'emergency' situations, where a Council is not available (although with the Internet and e-mail, this should be obviated -- unless of course Orthodoxy decides that electronic participation is NOT really REAL) the Pope, as senior Bishop has the ability to speak for the entire Church in time of crisis.

"jurisdication invasions" This is a governance and administrative issue. If one follows the 'rules', and were the Churches to reunite, would this mean that Orthodoxy has no place in the Americas since the Spaniards and Portuguese were here first? That would apparently be stupid. The same applies for Eastern Asia -- Roman Catholics were there first, same for Australia and New Zealand. Could there be no Eastern Orthodox present if we followed the Council rules? [I've always been intruigued about the Moon and the space station. Catholics first means no Russian Orthodoxy in space.]

"uniatism, etc." Hard issue. The peoples of the northern Slavic areas were christianized by missionaries from Constantinople. But when the Ottoman T-people raced up the Balkan peninsula and headed for Vienna, the Orthodox people of the Carpathian regions tried to ensure their survivial by appealing to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, i.e., Maria Theresa of Austria, to help them. They entered into both political and ecclesiastical alliance with the RCs, but INSISTED (read the documents) on being able to retain their heritage.

So, is "Orthodoxy" going to insist that these peoples abjure their history and state that they were 'in error' to save their people? I submit to you that if a question were asked of independent-thinking, Orthodox mountain folks about what they would do to preserve their people, they'd tell you: "by whatever means, at whatever costs". (My family are Arkadian Greeks, mountain dwellers who fought the Ottoman T-people to the death -- mainly theirs. There is a Greek folk-song that narrates the story of a mountain village that was being besieged by the T-people. As the troops approached the village, the women clasped their infants to their breasts and danced off a cliff to avoid capture and slavery. Would my Carpathian Mountain brothers and sisters do the same? You bet they would; no question. But they had the option to ask for help from the nearby RC Empire of Austro-Hungary. And they took it. And God bless them for their cunning and wisdom to save their people. So what if they 'changed jurisdictions'. This response to the Ottoman invasion is 'conveniently' left out of the dialogue.)

So, in terms of 'uniatism', the reality is that political circumstances drove people to do what they could to save themselves. Is this a sin? I'll let God decide if they're going to hell because of it.

So, what's left? Not much.

So, since Paul VI and Athenagoras have lifted their patriarchal excommunications, and John Paul II of Rome has publicly apologized for the sins of his predecessors and for the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church against Orthodoxy, I guess the ball is in the Orthodox court.

What now must the West do to be able to 'reunite' itself with Orthodoxy? To whom must the 'certified mail, return receipt requested' go? What else must this frail man do to satisfy Orthodoxy on behalf of his church? And, as a side issue, who - on behalf of Orthodoxy - is empowered to respond legitimately? Some Ukrainian Orthodox have been most gracious in their response, as have the Romanians. And even the Greeks.

While "Orthodoxy" presents itself as a "Church", the fact seems to be that Rome must respond to each of the "Orthodox Churches" as individual groups. So, what does this say about "Orthodoxy" as a "Church" and not a federation of independent ecclesiastical entities? In some ways, it makes the Orthodox Churches like Baptists -- each is independent and self-governing and does what it wants. There is no "Orthodox Church" but rather "Orthodox Churches" in federation.

Where is the truth?

Blessings!

Federation?

That probably is the answer to our problem. The truth is, for centuries we Orthodox have been a federation of churches; we have been a federation of national/ethnic churches because we obviously must like it that way. (One must learn to discriminate between what hierarchs, theologians, and seminary professors say at ecumenical conferences and what they actually live and practice "back home.") For good or ill, the facts speak for themselves. Fact: The Orthodox, contrary to what is said as opposed to what is practiced, are in no hurry to part with our "federation" or surrender our autonomy-independence. As our Orthodox scholar in residence Brenden, has confirmed, the blue collar, rank and file, grass-roots Orthodox are just not---I repeat:Not!- --in a big hurry to be reunited with Rome; there are just too many unresolved issues that must be...well...resolved. Which brings me back to "federation."

Maybe this is an issue some of us could give some thought to. Is it possible for the Catholics and Orthodox to enter into a type of federation that would guarantee the freedom and independence of the Orthodox while at the same time allowing us to become communities united in the Holy Eucharist? The Orthodox would say: "Yes! Let Rome reunite herself with the ancient Pentarchy and return from her self-imposed exile." Actually, we have been beseeching Rome to return to "la familia" for centuries.

What do the Catholics think of this model for "union?"

Bill

Let me just add the following for those who are not familiar with Greek Orthodox culture:

The seed of the spirit of independence is part of the Greek Orthodox ethos---it has been for centuries and is probably so deeply embedded in our collective psyche (move over Jung ) that I doubt if we will ever cease to be--at heart--wild and independent "mountaineers" zealous to protect our liberty.


(I will never forget watching my elderly uncle grab his bird-hunting shotgun and run out the front door, ready to do war with the Turks, when they invaded Cyprus! And he...a "Greek" of Albanian Muslim descent. Actually, his DNA could have been overflowing with Turkish blood, but the Hellenic spirit is strong...strong...strong. It overcomes all other "obstacles" with a fervor and fanaticism that must be observed to understand. Sorry for getting personal, but perhaps that little vignette is instructional).


I will wager you that there is not a cradle Greek Orthodox Christian in our audience who, even though he or she might disagree with the current state of ecclesiology within Hellenic Orthodoxy, does not agree with my analysis since it is rooted in the factual evidence that one discovers, not through books, but by the long experience of living within a community of Orthodox believers, both domestically and within the local parish. This certainly is the experience of Greeks.

About Johm Paul II

Many Orthodox have a deep respect, even love for His Holiness. Our problem is not with him. But what of the next pope, and the next? This is the fly in the honey of the papacy that sours our taste for the institution. History echos and re-echos the fact that Greeks cannot trust the papacy. We are not about to commit cultural or ethnic genocide by entrusting what we hold to be sacred (and for what we have always been willing to sacrifice our lives and fortunes for), to an institution as hegemonic as the papacy.

To ask us to do that is beyond unreasonable....it is insane.




[This message has been edited by bill tomoka (edited 08-17-2001).]

I am a firm believer in the search to overcome our differences, the search for common understandings beyond the differences that presently exist. I am, however, not a supporter of a minimizer view that seeks to understate the nature of our differences, or the importance of them.

Yesterday when looking into the issue of Anglican ordination, I came across two 1998 Vatican documents which, unwittingly, shed light of the nature of the differences between our churches. These documents are the papal letter "Ad Tuendam Fidem" and the related commentary by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), headed by Joseph Card. Ratzinger. I think a study of these documents highlights why our churches remain separated from each other. Contrary to the minimizer view, the "official" Catholic view is much stronger relating to these matters, which is to be expected. Let's have a look.

According to these documents, there are three hierarchies of doctrine within the Catholic view: (1) those which are divinely revealed, (2) those which have been definitively proposed by the Church (either by the Pope, or by a council, or by the universal magisterium of the Church), and (3) those teachings of the Pope or the college of Bishops which are proposed as true, even if not by a definitive act.

The first category requires "the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful" such that "whoever places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy".

The second category requires "firm and definitive assent to these truths based on faith in the Holy Spirit�s assistance to the Church�s magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the magisterium in these matters" such that "whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church". CDF cautions that there really is no distinction in the level of assent required, however, as between category one and category two: "With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasise that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit�s assistance to the magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda)."

The third category requires "religious submission of will and intellect" such that "a proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore tuto doceri non potest".

Now, when we look at what is considered to be in which category, we begin to see why our churches remain separated.

The first category includes: "the various christological dogmas and marian dogmas" -- which would probably include the I.C. dogma and "the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman pontiff". Therefore, while born Orthodox may be forgiven for not accepting these (per Catholic theology I think the term is "invincibly ignorant"), any Catholic who rejects them finds himself in heresy, per this 1998 Vatican document.

The second category includes the development of the papal doctrines prior to Vatican I (Vatican I elevated them to the first category, according to CDF), the restriction of the priesthood to men, canonizations of saints, papal elections, the Anglican priesthood, moral teachings on fornication, and the like. A Catholic who dissents from these teachings finds himself out of communion with the Catholic Church.

Regarding the third category, "one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary magisteriurn in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression."

My point is simply this -- the doctrinal aspects of the papacy and so forth are viewed as divinely revealed by Catholicism. That is a real problem for Orthodox, who don't know these as divinely revealed statements. Therefore before we can have unity we need to try to find common doctrinal ground on these issues -- we can't simply address the exercise of authority in the church, in a practical way, because the doctrinal aspects, which Catholicism considers to be divinely revealed, are not accepted by Orthodoxy as divine statements.

Brendan



[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited 08-17-2001).]

Hmmm...this thread is like the Twilight Zone...

I find myself AGREEING with Dr. John, and DISAGREEING with Alex!

(sounds of band playing "The World Turned Upside Down" in the background)

As far as I am concerned, whatever the problems the Catholic Church has, it is at least trying to approach all the Apostolic Churches - Eastern Orthodox included - in a spirit of charity. The Eastern Orthodox hierarchs reciprocate with intrasigence and disdain - hardly a charitable position (the exceptions are hereby noted).

I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. John that the Orthodox suffer from the delusion that they haven't instigated one innovation in the Church since the Last Supper. ("We are as pure as the driven snow...now go back to your outhouse!")

I'm on my way to becoming Byzantine Catholic. I have found a spiritual treasure I *NEVER* dreamt of finding in the Latin Church. I won't have that taken away from me without a fight! Some Orthodox will undoubtedly say I should join them, but I won't put myself out of communion with the Successor of St. Peter.

And as far as "jurisdictional invasions" - I have no problem WHATSOEVER with parallel hierarchies. The idea of "one bishop per territory" was fine in the days when mass migrations didn't take place - but the United States is a nation of immigrants. I experience not the slightest intellectual or spiritual dissonance in having two or more bishops in a territory, because mere turf isn't what counts.

[This message has been edited by NDHoosier (edited 08-17-2001).]

There is no Orthodox federation. When was the last time that the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Patriarch of Moscow, the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch conducted a Pan-Orthodox Council? In the 19th century?

There are a myriad of Orthodox churches who do not really get along with each other.

I doubt that the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow send Christmas cards to each other. This is because the EP and the MP have been fighting over who has jurisdiction over parishes in Eastern Europe {Estonia and Ukraine come to mind, to quote just two examples}.

In theory, the EP is supposed to be first among equals among the Orthodox Patriarchs, which infuriates the MP (even though the MP was formed much later than the EP). This is because the MP wants to be top dog.


As I remember, this is supposed to be a Byzantine Catholic forum which is supposed to help strengthen the Byzantine Catholics and those of us Latin Catholic [horrors, Mr. Sweiss(!?!)] who are interested in Byzantine Catholicism. This is not, I believe, supposed to be a forum where certain members of Orthodox churches come in to slam Byzantine Catholicism, the Pope, the Roman Catholic Church, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum, which is what I have seen happen on many numerous occasions. If Mr. Sweiss and others want to knock Catholicism and say that Orthodoxy is the only true church, there are plenty of Orthodox websites where they can do this, I am sure.

>>>Orthodoxy as a whole will require full unity of faith.<<<

Again I ask, in all seriousness, "When in the history of the undivided Church did it manifest the kind of unity of faith that the Orthodox Church seems to think is a prerequisite for ecclesial communion today?"

>>>There is no Orthodox federation. When was the last time that the Ecumenical
Patriarch, the Patriarch of Moscow, the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, the
Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch
conducted a Pan-Orthodox Council? In the 19th century?<<<

While a disagree that a secular term like "federation" can be applied to the Church, I am wondering what you are trying to prove here. Between the Council of Florence in 1439 and the Council of Trent in 1565, the Latin Church went for 126 years without a general council. From Trent in 1565 to Vatican I in 1870, the Latin Church went for 305 years without a general council. That makes the 95 years between Vatican I and Vatican II look like the blink of an eye. And it puts the 120-odd years since the last Pan-Orthodox Synod into perspective, particulaly if you consider that for 70 of those years, the largest particular Church in the Orthodox communion was under the domination of a hostile atheist regime.

Stuart,

Even in apostolic times, there was never a unity of faith. Saint Paul in his Epistles, talks about others claiming to proclaim the Gospel that are not true apostles.

There have been all sorts of divisions and schisms even in the early Catholic Church [Arianism, the fight over whether icons should be allowed, the role of the Theotokos, whether Jesus Christ was human and divine, et cetera]. People left the Church because they did not believe what the Church taught on all sorts of matters of faith.

"Again I ask, in all seriousness, "When in the history of the undivided Church did it manifest the kind of unity of faith that the Orthodox Church seems to think is a prerequisite for ecclesial communion today?"

Stuart,

Catholicism agrees that a unity of faith is required as well to establish general full communion. If the Orthodox and Catholics were to enter into full communion tomorrow, and Orthodoxy didn't accept Vatican I, CDF would consider that to be heresy.

Brendan

Michael,

It would have been impossible for the Orthodox to hold any kind of synod, regional or pan-jurisdictional, in the last century, considering the majority of Orthodox countries were
under the heel of communist dictators.

I will make no excuses for Constantinople, Moscow, and their stubborness and internecine warfare, which is unfraternal and humiliating. However, in general the hierarchs of our various Churches are on very good terms.
In fact, our Patriarchs or their representatives just met a few months ago in Turkey with the Ecumenical Patriarch. Unfortunately, the MP chose not to attend.

And I haven't even mentioned our Oriental Orthodox brethren who are our true brothers and sisters in Christ.

I am sorry the Orthodox upset you so. But the great consolation is that we will never be part of the same monolithic church under the primacy of one hierarch. So, by the grace of God, we can just avoid one another.

Bill


[This message has been edited by bill tomoka (edited 08-17-2001).]

>>>Catholicism agrees that a unity of faith is required as well to establish general full communion. If the Orthodox and Catholics were to enter
into full communion tomorrow, and Orthodoxy didn't accept Vatican I, CDF would consider that to be heresy.<<<

I seriously doubt that, knowing how the Catholic Church has made an art form of weaseling out of its own past declarations. So I would put the same question to the Catholic Church: How can one demand a higher standard of unity in faith than that which was accepted by the Fathers of the Church throughout the first millennium?

Stuart --

You know I admire that perspective. And I agree that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy need a somewhat broader view on the boundaries of "right belief", as was the case before the separation.

However, my personal opinion is that while we ought to strive for that, we also need to realize that the second millenium declarations and definitions actually happened and actually have meaning. We Orthodox can't seriously expect the Catholics to abandon Vatican I as a dogmatic matter, and surely the Catholics can't expect us to accept Vatican I as a dogmatic matter. ISTM, then, that the best way to proceed is to try, with an open mind and without needless narrowness of thought, to find a common understanding of these things that have been defined by each of us since the separation. The reunion council, together with the prep before that, are the proper context for that.

IOW, I think that the atmosphere of broadness is what needs to be recovered from the first millenium. In terms of the actual doctrine, we can't really do that because things have been defined in the interim. So, with that first millenium spirit, we need to work to find a common understanding of those items that have been defined in the interim, so that we can reach a joint definition for the whole church (and I think that the OOs need to be involved in this effort as well).

Brendan