www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox - in union with Rome?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Robert K.:
[QB]Personally, I do not understand why so many Eastern Catholics consider the term Uniate offensive?

Originally, the term was applied by those Orthodox bishops who supported the terms of the Union of Florence, and it was adopted by the Ukrainian bishops who signed the Treaty of Brest. The term became perjorative through the meaning applied to it as a result of the failure of Rome to abide by the terms of the Treaty, so that the Uniates became nothing more than ritual appendages of the Church of Rome, without a distinct ecclesial identity, and with their authentic patrimony corrupted by the forced or ill-considered syncretistic adoption of elements of Latin theology, liturgy and spirituality that did not conform well to the Eastern Traditions. It also came to characterize a deliberate policy on the part of the Church of Rome to attempt to seduce individual Orthodox believers from their legitimate ecclesial affiliation through the establishment of parallel hierachies and ecclesial structures. In most cases, these deliberate attempts to disaffect individual Orthodox Christians failed miserably, but it did create tremendous ill will. Hence the Catholic Church itself has repudiated Uniatism as a model for reconciliation, and as a policy of evangelization. With Uniatism considered illegitimate, the use of the term "Uniates" likewise should be repudiated. And with it, of course, the sense of ecclesial inferiority that the policy of uniatism was intended to instill in Eastern Christians. Those who wish to learn more about uniatism as a policy and a mindset should read Fr. Cyril Korolevsky's seminal essay "Uniatism", which is available in English through Eastern Christian Publications.


>>>After all, were we not brought back to the Catholic Church through the unia, should we be ashamed of the unia as something bad (Which, in turn, would actually mean that we are ashamed of being Greek Catholics).<<<

We were not brought "back" into the Catholic Church by the Unia, for the Orthodox Churches have always been part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and to say otherwise is to insinuate either that the Orthodox Churches are not true Churches, or that somehow there can be more than one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Churches are true Churches, possessing the fullness of the Apostolic faith, fully sufficient for the salvation of their adherents, so that no conversion from one Church to the other is required as a prerequisite for salvation. Therefore, true Churches they are, and since the Church of Christ is One, as Christ is One, they are part of the Church and always have been. Hence, there can be no question of "return", for they never left. And you would do well to remember that.

As to the mechanism by which union was established between certain elements of the Orthodox Churches and the Church of Rome, we should start by recognizing that the bishops who entered into these agreements did not consider them to be "submissions", nor did they consider them to be "returns". For better or for worse, they saw these unions as attempts at restoring communion between two Churches, each equal in grace and dignity to the other. It is not their fault that Rome, due to the ecclesiology it adopted in response to the Protestant Reformation, could not conceive of the idea of the Church as a communion of Churches, and so reneged on its solemn agreements and instead absorbed the Uniates into the Church of Rome as a mere "rite", without an ecclesial identity, and with its Tradition permitted as a dispensation, to be altered or abrogated according to the whims of the Church of Rome. If Muslims did this to a Christian Church, it would be considered "dhimmitude". And so we were--dhimmis of the Church of Rome. The Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches marked therefore a fundamental change in our relationship with the Church of Rome, and a return to an older ecclesiology of communion among Churches. Unfortunately, old habits of mind die hard, and many Latins still treat us as dhimmis. Worse still, many Greek Catholics act like dhimmis--or uniates, as the case may be. Those Greek Catholics who choose to do so should remember that they, who swear their allegience to the Bishop of Rome and declare their undying fidelity to him, are acting in a manner distinctly contrary to his consistently stated desires--and those of every other Pope for the last century.

>>>Or should we rejoice in the fact that we are in union with the Pope and Rome through this very unia?<<<

Our communion with the Bishop of Rome is indeed important, but only to the extent that we are able to live authentically the fullness of the liturgical, spiritual, theological, doctrinal and disciplinary patrimony that comprises our unique Traditions. As Fr. Robert Taft has said, an Eastern Catholic Church that is not fully and authentically Eastern is of no use to anybody. And that means that we must be true to ourselves at all times, and not merely when it is convenient for the Church of Rome. Our vocation to unity requires us to demonstrate to our Orthodox bretheren that we can indeed be fully Orthodox and in communion with the Church of Rome. Any Eastern Catholic who cannot bring himself to do that ought to consider why he belongs to an Eastern Catholic Church.

>>>Let us also remember that the term "Christian" was originally developed as a derogitory slander towards followers of Christ in the first century.<<<

The Christians had done nothing of which to be ashamed, and so could wear the badge of Christian with pride. Uniatism, however, was a grave sin against Christian unity, for one does not heal schism by creating further schisms, nor does one Christian Church attempt to seduce the members of another Christian Church away from their affiliation. Sister Churches do not treat themselves in such a manner. And they do not cease to be sisters because they are not on speaking terms.

>>>Yes, I admit that I am a Uniate and proud f it<<<

It is nothing of which to be proud, I do assure you. To insist that it is can only be regarded either as a misunderstanding of the term, or a rejection of the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council. So which is it?

>>>regardless of the fact that Orthodox deem to use it in a degrading manner.<<<

So do many Eastern Catholics. You may be an "Oreo Cookie", or worse, a Roman Catholic with a cabaret license, but I for one stand with Metropolitan Andrij Sheptytsky, Patriarch Josef Slipyji, Patriarch Maximos IV, Patriarch Maximos V, and Patriarch Gregory III. As the latter said only a few weeks ago, "I am an Orthodox Christian, with a plus: I am in communion with the Church of Rome.

>>>I know that such pride in the Unia will cause the revisionist historians and ecumaniacs of our age to cringe in both disgust and anger.<<<

Pride goeth before a fall, and is usually a result of ignorance. And it is not a matter of "revisionist history", but of a cutting through the polemical smog that has enveloped both sides, to see the truth in an unvarnished manner. Some of the unions were indigenous movements; others were the result of factinalism within certain Orthodox jurisdictions, but a significant number were conceived by Latin missionary orders for the express purpose of converting the Orthodox one at a time by establishing parallel hierarchies and exploiting Orthodox weakness under Turkish or Ottoman rule. The situation has been written about at length not only by Korolevsky, but by Boris Gudziak, Joseph Raya, Elias Zoghby, and Maximos V--all of whom are or were Greek Catholics. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts before you boast of your uniatism.

>>>But<<<

No buts about it.


>>>This name, I feel, should be born proudly as it was by our ancestors in faith who proclaimed themselves as Greco-Uniates.<<<

Sure thing, Step-N-Fetchit.

>>>AS to the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" being decieving, so what I ask?<<<

It is only deceiving if it is not true. It cannot be true if you insist on being a uniate.

>>>That is what we Uniates consider ourselves to be and it is our buisness as to what we choose to define ourselves as.<<<

The privilege of calling one's self an Orthodox Christian should be earned by living as an Orthodox Christian. Ask yourself if you qualify.

>>>Besides, I think the Orthodox have topped us in the past with such names as that belonging to the OCA before 1979, "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church".<<<

Every last word in that title is true.

>>>Talk about a deceptive name, How can a person be both Russian Orthodox as well as Greek Catholic?<<<

Ask the thousands of Greek Catholics who are presently the backbone of the OCA.

>>>Could this name have just been used to make former Uniates feel more comfortable in Orthodoxy by making them think that they were still somehow Greek Catholics?<<<

They felt entirely comfortable in Orthodoxy already, because they always felt themselves to be Orthodox. You seem not to comprehend how thoroughly intermixed Orthodox and Greek Catholics were in other parts of the world prior to 1948 (and still are in the Middle East). Nobody at the level of the common people really cared much about the schism, and people went indifferently from one jurisdiction to the other as marriage or other exigencies dictated. The important thing for them was the reality of the lived faith, not the name of the bishop celebrated in the Diptyches, or the name board on the parish door.

It was only when they came to this country that the Greek Catholics were made to feel uncomfortable--and then by their Latin Catholic confreres--of whom the less said the better. Let us just note that it was not Alexis Toth who was the father of the Orthodox Church in America, but rather Bishop John Ireland of Minneapolis.

You really need to consider, Robert, why you became Catholic, and what you are doing in an Eastern Catholic Church. There can be no "tertium quid", so you are bound to be disappointed.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]

>>>Orthodoxy is made up of both DOCTRINAL and Liturgical tradition. IN THAT ORDER.<<<

Sorry, but that's incorrect, and a very Latin notion to boot. it is interesting that the most vociferous of Orthodox "traditionalists" seem to know the least about the authentic Orthodox Tradition, and insist upon elevating recent innovations, usually Western, to salient places in their belief system.

None of the Greek Fathers, none of the great churchmen of Byzantium, not Basil the Great nor Gregory of Nyssa, nor Gregory the Theologian, nor Maximos Confessor nor John Damascene nor Nicholas Kabasilas, would ever accept your proposition. The Orthodox faith is grounded in the liturgy fo the Church, which serves both as source and touchstone for all theology. Authentic Byzantine Orthodox theology is always liturgically based, never reduced to a series of abstract propositions. That is why Orthodoxy survived 1400 years of Muslim oppression and seventy years of Communist enslavement, deprived of books, of schools, of monasteries and seminaries--deprived of everything except the liturgy, which nourishes and informs the faith.

>>>It is through our Liturgical traditions that we express out doctrinal traditions.>>>

Precisely backwards. It is through the liturgy that we know what doctrines are true and which are false. The Councils and the Fathers, the later synods, all of them relied upon the liturgical aspect of Tradition to test doctrinal propositions. Lex orandi est lex credendi, NOT the other way around (which is how the Latin Church treated theology for most of the second millennium. Alexander Schmemman would be appalled a the notion that liturgy serves as a vehicle for the expression of Orthodox doctrine. He would tell you, as I just have, that liturgy is the SOURCE of Orthodox doctrine. Once one understands this, it becomes clear that the restoration of the liturgy of the Eastern Catholic Churches to their authentic state is the essential prerequisite for the restoration of the rest of the Eastern patrimony. Conversely, one might comment on the lamentable state of liturgical understanding in many Orthodox jurisdictions as one reason why one can hear an ostensibly Orthodox Christian spouting such utter nonsense about his own Tradition.

>>>Your doctrinal tradition as a Greek Catholic is no longer purely Byzantine.<<<

That is an accident of history which is being reversed. Liturgically, most Eastern Catholic Churches, in accordance with the 1996 Liturgical Instruction, are well along in restoring their authentic liturgical practices. And that in turn is leading a restoration and renewal of authentic Byzantine spirituality, doctrine, theology and discipline. The fact that in Ukraine the Lviv Theological Academy trains candidates for the priesthood and diaconate from ALL jurisdictions, Greek Catholic and Orthodox alike, and that in this country many Greek Catholic seminarians are trained at St. Vladimir's, St. Tikhon's and Holy Cross, shows the progress made in that regard. I can safely say that in some places, Greek Catholic liturgical practices and doctrinal teachings are more purely Orthodox than one finds at most Orthodox churches today.

>>>It is now a mixture of Byzantine and Latin Roman Catholicism.<<<

Actually, you are a day late and a dollar short in that regard. Had you said this, say, thirty years ago, one would have no choice but to agree. Today, your assertion is incorrect. Your Liturgical traditions are some what similiar to ours but have been modified some what. You are now the off spring of a mixed union. You are no longer one nor the other. You are a mixture of both. Example: Having more than one Liturgy a day on the same Altar. Being able to eat up to an hour before receiving Communion, etc. But you still recognize the Pope as your earthly father. But, for some reason, refuse to accept the identity (last name) he is known by.

>>>In most cultures you take your fathers last name even though you may be the off spring of a multinational union.<<<

Poor analogy. Rome is not our Father.

>>>My background is of Lemko, Polish, and Croation grandparents. Since I am a mixture I identify my nationality thru the ruling authority I recognize and uphold. Which is the American government and its highest authority...the president. That makes me an American.<<<

Poor analogy, again.

>>>As far as religion is concerned I have already, on many occassions explained why I classify myself as an Orthodox Catholic.<<<

I have no problem with that label. I do have a problem with your understanding of Orthodoxy, and of Eastern Catholicism, which I find to be a mix of ignorance and misinformation.

>>>That is why I have a hard time understanding how you can recognize the Pope as your religious father and highest authority in your church and then refuse to take his last name or the identity he is most known by.<<<

An increasing number of Orthodox theologians are beinning to realize that the current ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church, centered on the concept of the "autocephalous Church", is both uncanonical and unsustainable, incapable of holding the Orthodox commonwealth together in the face of centrifugal forces such as nationalism and modernity. They recognize the need for primacy, at all levels, including the universal. And there is a consensus that this universal primacy historically and canonically to the Church of Rome and to its bishop. All attempts to erect a substitute have failed. Ultimately, primacy is needed for the survival of Orthodoxy and Catholicism alike. But it most certainly is not going to be the kind of primacy described in Pastor Aeternus. The Pope himself recognizes that his person is the greatest obstacle to Christian unity, which is why he has asked all Christians, and the Orthodox Churches in particular, to assist him in defining new understandings and modalities for the Petrine ministry that will be acceptable to all. I find it sad and more than a little pathetic that Orthodoxy is intellectually amd emotionally incapable at this point of participating in this dialogue. After all, Orthodoxy has been demanding for a thousand years that primacy be placed on the table for discussion, and now that it is, nobody on the Orthodox side wants to touch it. The reason is quite simple--Orthodoxy is too comfortable with its own narrow, ecclesiological status quo, blithely pretending that it has not proven disasterous to the Orthodox Church, particularly since the fall of the Soviet empire.

Eastern Catholics have been participating in this dialogue for years. In fact, Eastern Catholics, in the form of the Melkite Synod, initiated this dialogue at the Second Vatican Council, where Patriarch Maximos V was the "voice of the missing bretheren". Not for nothing did all the Orthodox observers to the council stand and uncover their heads whenever Patriarch Maximos spoke. Not for nothing did Patriarch Athenegoras later say to him, "You spoke for us". Our job, as Eastern Catholics, is to insist on a primacy that is consistent with the historical understanding of the Petrine ministry as it was understood and practiced in the first millennium. It is incumbent upon us to become Orthodox Christians in every respect, AND to be in communion with the Church of Rome. This requires us to have the courage to be our Eastern selves, not some ungainly hybrid; and to insist upon our right to practice our own Tradition at all times, and not just at the convenience of Rome. If we live that way, then we will be the catalyst for a new modality of primacy, and thus lay the groundwork for the restoration of full communion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. At which point, having fulfilled our telos, and being utterly redundant, we shall gladly merge ourselves back into the Mother Churches whence we originally came.

As I said, I am back.

[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr John:
[QB]OrthoMan writes above: "In my book, if you acknowledge the Pope of Rome as the head of the Christian Church, are in communion with him, and accept and profess the doctrine he upholds and protects, you are a Roman Catholic. It as plain as that."

>>>I've got a problem with that because it presupposes that the Church is a top-down entity. Where did this come from? Christ always talked about feeding His sheep, and he was always working with the ordinary folks and not the mucky-mucks. I always start with the people, the simple ordinary good folks who ARE the Church.<<<

Well, I noted elsewhere that much of OrthoMan's understanding of Orthodoxy is very Western in its orientation. In some ways, the latinization of the Orthodox mind was far more insidious than that of the Eastern Catholic mind.

>>>It is my contention that if the members of the various Catholic, Byzantine and Orthodox (and Oriental) parishes spent time with each other, engaging in the so-called corporal and spiritual works of mercy, all the hierarchical stuff would fade into obscurity.<<<

As it does in those parts of the world where Orthodox and Greek Catholics live side-by-side. In Ukraine, in the Carpathians, in the Middle East, relations between Orthodox and Greek Catholics at the parish level are extremely good, almost back to the point they had reached before World War II. The squabbles of Archbishops and Patriarchs who live far away is of little consequence to them. With intercommunion as common as dirt (something freely admitted by most Orthodox and Greek Catholic clergy) as a result of intermarriage and comingling of peoples, the schism is noticeable only by the failure of the clergy to engage in sacramental sharing. And the greatest ire against uniatism comes precisely in those countries that have no significant uniate populations--specifically, in Greece and in Russia.

>>>Is this not what we oftentimes hear from Orthodoxy: it is the local parishes and their bishops that are the essence of Orthodoxy?<<<

In this country, bishops take a second seat to parish councils, which treat priests like employees. Or as one Russian Orthodox bishop put it, "In America, every priest acts like a bishop, and every parish council acts like a patriarch".

[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Axios:
[qb]We Orthodox are neither papal nor congregational. We are an episcopal church -- a church lead by bishops. And we are of the Byzantine/Greek patrimony. Right? Hence Byzantine Episcopal.<<<

Nice theory, but in this country it would be more correct to say that most Orthodox parishes use a neo-congregationalist model, which is to say they are run by parish councils which take little heed of the local bishop and which treat the priest as an employee of the parish. Extending the metaphor, the center of Orthodox life in America is the parish, and because of low densities, each parish has subsumed to itself roles which canonically belong to dioceses or eparchies. So, on both the adminstrative and ecclesiological levels, Orthodoxy in America is quite uncanonical and closer in many regards to Protestant congregationalism than it is to Orthodox sobornicity. This was pointed out by Alexander Schmemman and John Meyendorff in a number of essays, but hey, what did they know? "Paris School" innovators, the lot of them.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]

StuartK,

You mentioned that Patriarch Gregory III made a statement a few weeks ago, about being an Orthodox Christian in Communion with Rome.

Could you please give me more information on where and when that statement was made? I assume it was during his recent visit here to the States. If it was a speech or public address, might there be a searchable transcript? Any info for documentation would be appreciated. Thanks.

The statement was made on Tuesday, 4 June 2002, at about 8:00 PM in the Crypt Church of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, where His Beatitude was delivering an address to the Sixth Orientale Lumen Conference. The Proceedings of the Conference will be published as soon as the last of the papers come in. The Patriarch's speech is probably on the Melkite Eparchy web site, and it will also be published in a future issue of Eastern Churches Journal.

Thanks StuartK. I didn't see it on the Eparchy web site yet, but will keep looking.

GLORY BE TO JESUS CHRIST!

Dear Stuart,

Who did tell you that the LTA trained candidates
to the priesthood and/or diaconate from "all
jurisdictions", including Orthodox? What
would be, in your opinion, the purpose of Orthodox
seminaries (of all jurisdictions ) existing
there?

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

Yes, Stuart, but as you brillently point out, this is a deviation from Orthodox practice. Therefore, in principle, we might rightly be called "Byzantine Episcopalian", right?

Axios

StuartK,

You are obviously well read but certainly an intellectual product of your selection of books. History is nothing more than a collection of biased opinions and overlooked facts.

For truth, one can only look to the Orthodox Church and for knowledge, one must taste, smell, and live Orthodoxy before he can speak of it.

Orthoman is quite right in the statement you pointed out above. It is not enough for you to label him as having a "westernized" opinion to discredit him.

If you agree with papal doctrines and submit to the pope you are certainly a Roman Catholic (Latin) as your faith is the same, and faith is an irreconcilable measure of communion, not how you portray yourself externally.

Just a comment on the former name of the OCA - the "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia" known often simply as the "Mitropolia."

According to how it has often been explained to me by those who were in the jurisdiction at that time, the choice of the name had much to do with legal purposes. Since many parishes were coming over to the Russian Church from the Greek Catholic Exarchates, there were naturally legalities involved as to the legitimate ownership of the property. By keeping the name "Greek Catholic" in the title of the jurisdiction, the leadership hoped to circumvent possible complications and losses, in an attempt to show that these congregations continued to be as they had been before - "Greek Catholics."

That the people themselves often placed little importance on jurisdictional realities, but rather, were most concerned to worship God according to their heritage and continue parochial life as they best saw fit (with married clergy and parish councils) is also a given fact in many communities.

Where the Russian Metropolia (OCA) allowed parishes to continue with their Ruthenian Greek Catholic customs - mainly in chant and recension of liturgy, they were successful. In those places where there was pressure to adopt Russian Muscovite practices, things were not always complacent. Some parishes did make this adaptation, especially when services were switched to English. Others, not willing to be yet again forced to adopt foreign styles and customs, either returned to the Catholic Church or, after 1938, found a more suitable jurisdiction in the "American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese of the USA."

An interesting example of the outcome of movements of Russification is in the parish of St. John the Baptist in Minneapolis, MN. This church was founded in 1907, after attempts by the then archbishop and later patriarch Tikhon, to enforce the "obikhod" or Russian chant at St. Mary Church (the parish of Fr. Alexis Toth). Most will remember that at the turn of the 20th. century, St. Mary Church and Fr. Toth joined the Russian jurisdiction after the hostile reception they received from the Latin Archbishop Ireland. They continued more or less as before, with the Ruthenian style of worship. With the new demands of the Russian bishop regarding chant and custom, some of the Carpatho-Rusyn people, wishing to be faithful to their authentic traditions, as once guaranteed them when joining the Russian Church under Fr. Toth, decided to return to the Greek Catholic Church from which they originally came. It can historically be said that the founder of St. John Church in Minneapolis was not Bishop Ortynskyj or the Pope, but rather, Patriarch Tikhon. An irony, to be sure.

It is telling that many of the controversies, break-ups of parishes and eparchies, and even the continual jurisdictional changes that characterized the last century, centered around the importance of preserving one's particular historical traditions. It shows that the Ruthenian recension (both Ukrainian and Subcarpathian) is a legitimate, vital and living expression of the Byzantine liturgy. It also identifies the great attachment that our people have had for their beautiful heritage, music, custom and tradition. Were our practices seen by others for the rich historical and aesetical value that they have, for their legitimate canonical and spiritual place in the universal church that they deserve, and not been placed in a "second best" position in relation to either the Muscovite or even the Latin styles, or worse, looked on with contempt by those with a pejorative outlook for their own traditions, much of the disunity that we are the inheritants of today could have been avoided.

We can only imagine what things would have turned out to be like, were our churches been allowed to develop organically on their own, not employing any changes in practice or tradition, maintaining all of our rights as guaranteed by the original "unias" and with a strong evangelical zeal to grow and prosper. Very possibly, if the above had been the case, we would not be looking out on an Byzantine Slavonic Christian America with a variety of jurisdictions all striving to survive on their own and maintain the "status quo" in a sense of competition with each other. Quite likely, there would be no OCA as we know it today (because without the conversion of the Galician and Rusyn Greek Catholics, the Russian Metropolia would have been limited to ethnic Russians and whatever American converts the church had gained), no Johnstown, maybe not even the parallel Metropolias of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and even not many of the ROCOR parishes that owe their existence to the unia. What a different church we would be speaking about had our own been seen for what it is.

Fr. Joe

Your take on history is a simple dismissal of everything but your own opinion. You are your own measure.

If you agree with papal doctrines and submit to the pope you are certainly a Roman Catholic (Latin) as your faith is the same

Many of us pray that the faith in all the particular churches of Christ, and under all the bishops around the world, would be the same. We join Christ himself in that prayer. It seems very simple to me that those who speak division are for division and maintain the human division of the one church.

If we speak �Them� and �Us� in the way of �I am not like them and you are not like us.� don�t we get very close to what Paul warned us not to do? �I am of Orthodoxy and - you are of Roman Catholic� sounds very much to me like �I am of Paul and -you are of Cephas�. Did Orthodox baptize you? Or did Christ baptize you? Is Christ�s body divided in Christ�s mind or men�s minds?

Of the Orthodox, I am very familiar with the ROC here in America - I have nothing against the Orthodox Church and I admire and participate in her beauty, but just as there are Roman Catholic members that I do have something against - I dislike some Orthodox members also (what they preach to maintain the division). Among those who are in communion with Roman and confess that Jesus appointed the office of Peter to be the mouth by which the gospel is preached to us gentiles (we are not Jews) - among them there is practiced the Latin Rite and several Eastern rites. Can you tell me of one Orthodox church in which it is permissible to practice the Latin rite of Mass? In those of the communion with Rome it is permissible to grant the sacraments to an Orthodox - but it is never permissible for the Orthodox to grant any of the sacraments (not even confession) to anyone of the communion with Rome.

Then who is the divider?

It is easy for those who do not have something to lose - to see where the spirit of the divider shows itself. Just as it is easy for someone watching two people fighting to see that they fight because of foolishness and self pride injured. - yet the fighters can not see how foolish they look to everyone else.

The Orthodox churches have and maintain the riches of the Orthodox faith - and the western churches in communion with the Papacy share that faith. Should we call Christ a liar - that his Church is not One Holy Catholic Church? And that his priests in the particular churches do not have the same linage back to the apostles and originating with the hand of to Christ himself?

The division is purely human. It was human sin on both sides. Just as Paul equates any division within the early Church to human sin. Those sinners are dead - every one of them. And the division should have died with them because it is artificial. It exists only in the minds of men who have not yet risen to the mind of Christ. It seems to me that of all the people who profess to be disciples of Chirst it is those who seek unity and an end to division and seek the unity Christ prayed for - are those who are saying "Thy will be done Oh Christ Our Lord and God." and set themselves about to doing it!


and faith is an irreconcilable measure of communion, not how you portray yourself externally.


Re-read what you wrote. You said that faith is not a reconcilable measure of communion (faith is not a measure of communion) but yet before that you said that Stuart has the same faith as a Roman Catholic and therefore is a Roman Catholic. May God speed the day that the Roman Catholic can have the same faith as the Orthodox and say �I too - am an Orthodox� and the Orthodox say �I too - am a Roman Catholic� ! ! because on that day the unity of the church which does exists in Christ - shall exist in men�s hearts also. (And it seems to me that the Byzantines were there first).

We should all look at the real mission of Paul.

It is a Protestant belief that the mission of Paul was to go about making converts. And if we read the book of Acts it is worded that way several times that Paul went about converting. But if we read Paul�s own letters it is clear (and he says it several times) that Paul converted no one. That was not his mission. His mission was to unify the church. When the Judasissors almost had the church divided into �us and them - and they must be like us in look and speech and ritual� - Paul spoke up against this. At every turn - Paul healed divisions, united the church in the essentials that matters - spoke tolerance between groups - and in the midst of the diversity of culture and society of the differing gentiles - and Jews - Paul was a catalyst of unity dismissing the externals in order to concentrate upon a unity of faith between the separated and particular churches he came upon.

So it would seem to me.

Have I said anything in which you could agree?

-ray

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: RayK ]

Only if the Episcopalians agree to be called High Church Congregationalists.