www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Moscow's rhetoric versus a global christian message

I have often wondered at the Russian Orthodox Church's claim that the Roman Catholic Church should have no right to minister in areas where they claim to have sole jurisdiction. Oh, they SAY it's a matter of Catholic prosyletism's being offensive, not a matter of ministering to the Faithful. I'm not so sure many people believe that, even in Russia. The truth seems to be more a matter of trying to control people, and to restore a church that was virtually destroyed by communism and constant KGB infiltration by having minimal competition. It is easier to administer a flock when there is no difference of opinion allowed. Positions coming out of Moscow still give the impression that party-like rhetoric takes precedent over the True Faith from time to time. Would it not be charitable to allow Catholic clergy to minister to their flocks unhindered? And isn't it really Moscow's responsibility to be so effective at ministering to its faithful that their people stay with them because they believe what they have been taught? What seems to be missing is a generally held belief that self-determination works as is commonly believed and practiced in the west.

Sadly, Orthodoxy still does not speak with one voice, but fortunately, it is not uncommon to find jurisdictions rejecting or accepting various ideas without disrupting their formal recognition of each other. Ironically, in America there are overlapping orthodox jurisdictions, and no one claims prosyletism is offensive. The Orthodox here expect their people to stay with them because they believe what they have been taught. Oh, they still won't go so far as to have inter-communion with Roman Catholics, but in a nation with less than 1 million Orthodox total versus over 60 million Roman Catholics, you don't see the Roman Catholic Church protesting new Orthodox churches, etc., do you?

Hopefully, the rhetoric from Moscow will eventually be replaced by a global message of Christian love and tolerance instead of strident accusations. It may take a generation or so to get away from the communist influences there, but I hope it will happen sooner, for the sake of all Christians.

As far as I'm concerned, both the MP and the Vatican are arrogant when it comes to this issue. They should both be spanked.

anastasios

And if not sent to bed without supper, at the very least denied dessert! Don

We have "ways" of dealing with this in India...

Fasting is good for the soul.

"they still won't go so far as to have inter-communion with Roman Catholics"

No need to speak out against anything as long as as inter-communion is NYET! Fear that what happened to Eastern Catholics would also happen to their own Churches?

Does Inter-marriage = number drain?

Or is Orthodoxy so safe in its numbers and allegiance that open inter-communion would hardly affect them?

An Orthodox priest once wrote - and I wish I kept the article - that inter-communion is the best thing they have going for them. Otherwise, Orthodox boys would do what Eastern Catholic boys do, marry Latin Catholic girls and not other Eastern Catholic girls. Allegiance would weaken and solidarity in the Church community would fracture and then crumble.

A study was once done on the actual numbers of Orthodox Christians in the USA, and most jurisdictions inflated their total membership greatly. Is that implosion already happening? On my mother's side of the family, there are a number of former Orthodox who now either attend a Latin parish or an Eastern Catholic one. A number of parishioners in my own parish speak about making that big move to inter-communion, thereby self-excommunicating them from their former Orthodox parishes. Will the Orthodox defend 'Nyet to inter-communion' while their youth inter-marry and leave? This policy surely limits the pool of potential spouses.

Personally, there is absolutely nobody in my extensive cousin/sibling pool who married another Eastern Catholic. Nobody.

How true is this?

IMO

I think you are referring to jurisdictions and not the Orthodox Faith. Yes, Catholics have one �official� voice that is the Vatican but many in this day in age argue over the vague statements made by the Pope. Jerry Mattics and Scott Hahn for instance disagree extremely on documents coming out of the Vatican and the problem remains. Conservatives (my vote is for them) vs. the Liberals. It�s getting worse not better, so to speak of Orthodox not having one voice you are mistaken. The early Fathers are witnesses to the Faith that is Orthodox, there are no new dogmas declared as in the Latin Church, no under current of change. I�ve heard many Catholics say that if you were to take a Catholic from the 1950's and drop him/her into a post-vat 2 parish they wouldn�t know it was Catholic at all. Catholics have one voice that is drowned out by the current of change and the changes being made are replacing the Church with a more protestant church a more ecumenical church. It�s the Orthodox and the ulta Orthodox. Speaking one voice to different degrees that are all found within the Fathers and the Traditional Orthodox Church. :p

It's difficult for me to see equivalent arrogance in the actions of the MP versus the Vatican. Perhaps there is some predominantly Catholic country in which Orthodox are being harrassed in the way that Catholics are in Russia. Perhaps those leveling such a charge would provide some evidence to support it.

Specifically on the issue of inter-communion, Father Romanides made some interesting comments on the Balamand statement, in which he criticizes the Orthodox signatories for their acceptance of the validity of Catholic Mysteries.

He expresses concern that "refusing communion to and con-celebration with clergy whose mysteries they fully recognize" would nuture a picture of "the Orthodox as indeed bigots". "The impression will be certainly created that only lack of love could be the reason why the Orthodox may continue to refuse inter-communion and con-celebration with the Vatican."

Is Fr. Romanides right in this assessment?

djs

Moscow's claims about the canonical territory and his defensive actitude toward Rome, and several orthodox Churches (Romania and Constantinople) seem to be a result of so many years of Communism and oppression. It is a passing stage of "Papal Patriarchalism", but it will not be eternal. Sooner or later they'll understand that the other countries are not part of Russia anymore and the dialogue will retart.

About the problems of the "conversions", I agree with you. The respect of the traditional primacy of Orthodoxy in the East, cannot imply that the Catholic Church is obligated to close the doors to those (no matter if they were Orthodox or not) who want to become Catholics by their own free decision. At the same time it cannot imply that the Orthodox Churches must withdraw their dioceses from the West or that westerners who want to be Orthodox must be forced to worship in the Latin Church.
Religious freedom is an inalienable right.

When I think about this I realize that we're not prepared to be in full communion. Both Apostolic Churches would have to "clean the house" first.
The Orthodox Churches are facing the problem of jurisdictionalism and the frequent schisms. As you said there's not a united voice of the Orthodox Church and this will be worse if the proccess of the "Americanization" of the Church continues (the term, used by Bishops of the Synod of Georgia, expressing that the USA is becoming the center of the Orthodox Church and that tides with the traditional patriarchates are now in danger).
The Catholic Church, in spite of the administrative unity under the figure of the Pope, is divided in issues of personal morality because it is settled in western developped countries where the influence of the modern socities is very strong (liberalism, modernism, etc).

About intercommunion, I hope this changes. There are hundreds of Orthodox people living in Western countries who are not able to attend an Orthodox Liturgy and to receive communion there. Patriarch Bartolomew would support this idea (in this case, Greek orthodox faithful who are in serious danger, can receive the sacraments in the Catholic Church), but a total intercommunion (sharing the Eucharist) is not possible without the approval of all the Churches and this is very difficult.

Please be careful about regarding Patriarch Bartholomew as a barometer of Orthodoxy. He is not a worthy defender of True Faith and falls under the anethemas of his own Church. Men like him have already split Orthodoxy and will continue to do so as long as they flout the canons and Holy Tradition.

With love in Christ -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Reverend Father Mark,

Believe me, reverend father, if I tell you that I respect very much your believes, and, obviously,I respect all Orthodox Christians, no matter to wich jurisdiction they belong (Orthodox Christians in communion with Constantinople Patriarchate, Orthodox Christians not in communion with Constantinople). But please allow me a sinner to tell you -with all the respect I fell for an Orthodox monk - that your words could be found extremely offensive by both the Christian Orthodox faithfuls under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and all the Orthodox Christians who belongs to Orthodox Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches in communion with the Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and OEcumenical Patriarch Bartholomew II. Could you, reverend father, tell us why you do not consider patriarch Bartholomew II "a barometer of Orthodoxy" and why do you say that he is not a "worthy defender of True Faith and falls under the anethemas of his own Church"?

Yours in Christ,

Francisco

P.S. Please notice that the author of this masage does not belong to the Greek Orthodox Church.

Dearest brother in Christ Francisco,

The last century was not a good one for the Orthodox Church. It was a century of division, of infighting and persecution of Orthodox by Orthodox. Within Orthodoxy we have not only filth but blood on our own hands! We all have very much to pray about.

Beginning in the 1920's there was a growing division between the liberal and Traditionalist schools of thought. As the more liberal schools of thought gained the ascendancy the Traditionalists were very often marginalised and labelled heretics and schismatics.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate has often been at the forefront of this and has done many things which have not always met the approval of sister-Orthodox Churches, and have in fact created schisms which last to this day in Greece, the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.

The present Ecumenical Patriarchate has not only concelebrated with non-Orthodox Christians - something which may be acceptable to the non-Orthodox, but which is against Orthodox canons - but he has also participated in non-Christian worship: something which should scandalise all Christians. One of the saddest signs from Constantinople has been the willingness to recognise the Holy Mysteries of the non-Orthodox, whilst denying the grace of the sacraments of Orthodox Chritians who are not in communion with the Phanar.

Patriarch Bartholomeus has used dirty and underhand ways to persecute Greek Old Calendarist questions. Only last year the Patriarchate pressurised the Greek government into freezing assets and refusing payment of reparations to one of the non-comemorating monasteries of Mount Athos. This was in direct contravention of human rites and international law.

The sister Churches of Constantinople have been growing increasingly scandalised by the Patriarch's policies. The problem is that the faithful are either unaware of what is going on, feel unable to challenge the direction of their patriarchate or concentrate on preserving their own Orthodoxy, ignoring the outlandish things going on in the Levant.

We cannot escape from the fact that the Orthodox faith is preserved and protected by the Holy Canons and that the Patriarch of Constantinople flouts them. This is a fact. Orthodox Christians should be offended by what the Patriarch does, not by the ORTHODOX teachings of the Orthodox Church.

With warmest regards and love in Christ.
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Father Mark,

Thank you very much for your answer. I would like to make just some remarks.

1) You say "have in fact created schisms which last to this day in Greece, the Balkans and the former Soviet Union". As far as I know, and believe me I do not know very much about Greek Old-Calendasits, the Old-Calendarists "schism" (schism form the point of view of the "Standar" Orthodox Church of course) was with the Church of Greece rather than with the OEcumenical Patriarchate, since I think ( I am not sure) that the Church of Greece was the first to introduce the revised Julian Calendar. The history of the Old Calendarist is Greece (Gnisioi Orthodoxoi Khristianoi) is, unfortunately, a story of "schims" (among the members of the Old-Calendar movement I mean, now there are in Greece at least four Old-Calendar synods)and persecutions by the Church of Greece and the Greek Goverment. As far as I know the OEcumenical Patriarcte did not take part in this persecution.

2) As far as I know, patriarch Bartholomew and other Orthodox patriarchs have taken place in "ecumenical celebrations" with non-Orthodox and non Christians, but, as far as I know, he has never con-celebrated the Divine Liturgy with non-Orthodox, or given holy communion to non Orthodox or conmemorated a non Orthodox patriarch.

3) About the Holy Mountain Monasteries, according to the Greek Constitution and the "Katastatikos Hartis" the Ecclesiastical Statutes of the Holy Mountain the Holy Mountain is a self-governated part of the Greek nation under the ecclesiatical jurisdiction of the OEcumenical Patriarchate which form the political point of view depends on the Greek Goverment. So, from the legal point of view no monastery can be out of the jurisdiction of the OEcumenical Patriarchate. Well I suppose that if someone consider the patriarch an "heretic" he can do two things:1) to leave the Holy Mountain and 2) to start a legal ecclesiastical process agains the patriarch so that he may be destitued or excomunicated (Is that possible? Well I think so). I have never been in one of these monasteries (Filotheou is or was one of them, Docheiariou has got problems with Constantinople as well) but some people have told me that those who were in Filotheou were not "proper monks" but people form outside the Holy Mountain (I do not know, I was not there). But I agree with you that human rights and international law must be respected everywhere.

4) About holy canons. Well, Canon Law in the Orthodox Church is a very difficult matter. While the ancient canons (Chuch Councils) say that a married bishop can not be separated form his wife, Justinian legislation (Civil Law) says that no married priest can be elected bishop. Ancient canons say that a bishop can not be translated from one see to another (Saint Gregory the Theologian resigned from the throne of Constantinople because of it)but the common practice of all the "Standar" Orthodox Churches is to translate bishop from one see to another. The Ordination of women to the deaconate is another example of the evolution of Orthodox Canon Law.

Tank you very much, Reverend Father, I found this dialogue with you very interesting. I hope that we will continue discussing this and other interesting matters in the future.

Yours in Christ,

Francisco

Dearest brother Francisco,

May the all merciful Lord bless you.

We need to remember that it was the Patriarchate of Constantinople which introduced the concept of the Gregorian calendar into Orthodoxy. This was in the tenure of Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis. Sadly, the issue was influenced by a large financial gift from the Anglican Church. I know that this sounds unbelievable, but it is an historic fact - as is Meletios' Masonic funeral!

The calendar change, which caused Meletios to flee Constantinople in fear of his life because of the rioting Greeks, was quickly emraced by the Church of Greece, though many people thought that it would not or could not last. The persecutions of those who rejected the change - one anathemetised in the past were very cruel, including the desecration of Churches and the holy gifts of the Traditionalists.

As for the Holy Mountain, the zealot fathers take the attitude that they belong to Constantinople as long as the Patriarch is Orthodox. After, the communing of non-Orthodox in Ravenna there may be many far more moderate fathers joining their ranks.

With love in Christ -
Mark, monk and sinner.

When I say Orthodoxy does not speak with one voice, I don't mean acknowledgment of canon laws and the seven ecumenical councils. Within Orthodoxy the use of economia differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, even from bishop to bishop within a jurisdiction. For example, the OCA Diocese of the West does not have weddings on Saturday afternoons, but the Roumanian archdiocese within the OCA does. The former will not permit a wedding in a facility other than an OCA church; the latter permits garden ceremonies at resorts as long as all the usual liturgical requirements are met. Both bishops involved have their own reasons for allowing or disallowing within their diocese. I suppose there is an appeal mechanism, but most people arranging a wedding will either try a different jurisdiction if they can't get what they want, or live with the limitation. There are many more examples, such as how to deal with Thanksgiving during the Nativity Fast. The former says tough- go by the old calendar if you want to feast on Thanksgiving without violating the typikon. But the Greek Metropolitan of San Francisco permits the feast observance in his area. In light of such examples, is it any wonder Rome is unable to reach a lasting, inclusive agreement with Orthodox jurisdictions? On a day to day basis, their dioceses often appear to operate more like fiefdoms, and less like a part of a whole. It is very hard to reach any sort of lasting understanding that way.