www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West First Among Equals

Wendy,

I have to agree with John P's comments. No one has put forth that authority in the Church is bad. The discussion is about the nature of authority within the Church. Orthodox certainly give Peter primacy and most give him a certain amount of authority. But they are correct in presenting for discussion that the nature and extent of Peter's authority as exercised in the Church today is much different than it was in the early Church. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges a growth in the power of Peter, especially after the decline of the Western Roman Empire and Vatican I. It is the nature of this authority and the method of exercise in the current Church and future reunited Church that is under discussion.

Your example of a marriage is excellent and well chosen. A husband is certainly given authority over his wife. For a husband to use such authority over his wife in dictatorial manner is wrong. In day to day life all decisions affecting the family (which is the domestic Church) should be done will full knowledge, consent and cooperation of both spouses and, to a certain extent, their children. It is only when there is a dispute that cannot be resolved that a wife must submit to her husband. This, of course, assumes that the event is pressing and that the husband is advocating a morally acceptable action. If the husband and wife are living a life of prayer and the Holy Spirit truly does call Joe to pick up and move to Egypt then the Holy Spirit will also let Joe's wife know that Joe is acting at His prompting. If the wife is convinced that Joe's actions are not of the Holy Spirit and will do irreparable harm to her family then she should seek advice from her spiritual director. A wife has no obligation to accept a decision made by her husband that is morally wrong.

Just as the Church puts forth the relationship of the Trinity as the model for a relationship within the Church, so, too, can this model be applied to marriage. Peter is the earthly head of the Church but should never act without the Church; the husband is the head of the domestic Church but never acts without his wife; the Father is the source of the Trinity but never acts without the Son and Holy Spirit.

Hello all,

1. The primacy of Peter has its roots in the Gospels. Most notably Matt 16, but also the end of the Gospel of John. It is certainly true that this ministry was not always exercised in the same way � or in the way that it is exercised today. The ministry has been exercised differently at different periods in the history of the Church as the needs of the Church have changed � and it will continue to be exercised differently in the future. It cannot be tied exclusively to the needs of any one era, but is flexible and adjusts to the needs of each patrticular era of the Church.

2. It is disingenuous and simply incorrect to claim that the Orthodox Church follows, or, in fact, that the Church of the Seven Councils followed, the �model� set forth in Acts. During that period, the �one who was number one and running the show� was the Emperor � he called the councils, intervened in their sessions, injected his own solutions to theological issues and promulgated the decrees of the councils, excommunicating and/or exiling when needed. Where is this in the New Testament?? What bunk! Can�t you see how the fundamental assumption of your argument against the Papacy is equally applicable to the model that the Eastern Church followed then? And, of course, after 1453 this was no longer a functional model at all because the Emperor fell � even though the theoretical ecclesiology of the Eastern Sees was preserved intact following the Fall of Constantinople (because it had always been in theoretical denial of the very factual role played by the Emperor), the system ceased functioning as a practical matter because the lynchpin of the Emperor was gone. What needs to happen for it to function again? Bring back a worldwide Christian Emperor?? You simply can�t have a conciliar Church unless someone can call a council � and noone in the Orthodox Church can do that now that the Emperor is gone, leading to a dysfunctional ecclesiology. In this context, it is clear that a primacy is needed to complement the conciliar ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church.

3. The mission of the Church, its raison d�etre, is to bring as many to the light of Christ, and the eternal life of the Blessed Trinity, as is possible. This mission is impossible to achieve when the Church is divided against each other. It has been pointed out in other threads on this forum myriad ways that the Orthodox fight with themselves � thereby diluting their message. At times, it seems as if �protecting our own� is a higher value among Orthodox than evangelizing � I don�t mean to offend, but it certainly seems that way sometimes. The reason for this is the raging disunity, jursidictionalism, pettiness and in-fighting brought about by the fact that the Orthodox communion is a federation of Churches without any unifying force other than the Holy Spirit � something which requires cooperation with that Spirit � regrettably not always the case due to very human weaknesses. True evangelization and mission requires a coordinated effort of the Church acting together � impossible today in the Orthodox Church. The model is broken. You can sit there in your local parish and say �it doesn�t really effect me� (except perhaps for the fact that there are 4 Orthodox Bishops in my city) � but it definitely impedes the wordlwide mission of the Church, without question.

4. In light of the present situation, Orthodox have become increasingly skillful at providing arguments to support their otherwise untenable position as defenders of an ecclesiology that does not function any longer. You can argue that you are blue in the face, for example, that there is no authority other than the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ or something along these lines � but your own history is a witness to the fact that there have, in fact, been other practical, day-to-day models of authority at work in the Eastern Sees, none of which were rejected at the time, and each of which was accepted as a part and parcel of the functioning of the Church. The Orthodox Church has never rejected this � what has happened is that in the last 200 years or so the Orthodox position has hardened on this issue � in a curious yet outright denial of their own ecclesiastical history, which is now very, very selectively interpreted. It is saddening.

5. In spite of the efforts by many zealous Orthodox, many of whom are converts, these issues are not viewed as black-and-white by many Orthodox Bishops, and do not, in fact, impact the very real communion that exists between our Churches today. Robert � have you ever been to the Middle East? If you have, then you are surely aware that it is rather normal and accepted for Greek Catholics and Greek Orthodox to receive the sacraments in each other�s churches, to share facilities � all of this in spite of the fact that the Catholic Church is clearly heretical, headed by Antichrist, wrong-headed, schismatic and just plain yucky! Sure, there is no concelebration, but the de facto intercommunion among the laity is well-known and well-tolerated by both the Orthodox and the Catholic side. Similarly, a Roman Catholic travelling in Russia will not generally have a problem receiving communion in a Russian Orthodox Church � it is a simple fact. The same applies in many places in Greece. Even here in the USA, I am personally aware of several instances where Catholics have been allowed to communicate in Orthodox Churches. When you look at the big picture, you can easily see that it is in fact the case that there is communion, however imperfect and incomplete, between the Catholic and Orthodox even today. The zealots greatly overstate the differences, and are often considerably more hardlined than the cradle Orthodox are � who have a sense from their growing up in the Orthodox Church that, in fact, they are not very far apart from Catholics. In fact, I think one of the tidal waves that will come crashing in the coming years in the American Orthodox Churches is the latent conflict between cradles and converts, but that�s a story for another thread.

Orientale


[This message has been edited by orientale (edited 08-31-1999).]

hello again,

The authority in Orthodoxy does not reside in a Pope, Patriarch or bishop. The authority in Orthodoxy is nothing other than Holy Tradition. Any changes that take place within the Church must not in anyway contradict Holy Tradition. Tradition does grow, but it must not and cannot contradict Holy Tradition.

All Orthodox bishops have Apostolic succession from the Apostles, with full-grace. The moment that Orthodox bishop begins to "preach heresy with bare head", he loses that grace that he had when he was in the fullness of the Truth. We dont believe in the 'created grace of God' as do the Latins. The fact is, God's grace is not created! That is why the Latins have no grace, because they are heretics!

Also, St. Basil the Great says: "those who seceded from the CHurch no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them, from the impartation thereof ceased when the continuity was interrupted. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became common men and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain, nor could they impart the grace of the Holy Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it." There you go, the Papacy is not even a Church because of the heresy they are in! Departing so far from Orthodoxy (The NEw Testament Church) , and yet because of their ignorance and pride, continue to lead many astray. But, the papacy is not alone. The Patriarchs and bishops are in the same boat with the pope. Because they deny Christ, sending representatives to worship with pagans. They also preach the "Branch Theory" which is an Anglican invention, thus negating the phrase in the Nicene Creed; "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".

Jesus asked us, when He comes again will he "find THE FAITH", yes He will but only a few will have it..... It is my prayer that those who are being led astray in this modern-day apostasy, be led back into the fold.

RT

Thank you, Tim, for bringing to light graphically the kind of disunity we have been speaking about in this and other threads for some time.

Tim, is your colleague John also a heretic? I guess since he is a member of ROCOR he may be okay, but maybe they are, after all, too close to reconciling with Moscow, at least in the eyes of the Greek Old Calendrists. And what of Robert? Also a heretic? May as well have stayed a Catholic? And what of our OCA layman Dave Brown? Also a heretic? After all he is in a godforsaken apostate ecumenicist/modernist neo-pagan jurisdiction, isn't he? And what do you, John, think of Dave, being a member of the OCA -- clearly communist-dominated, overly ecumenical borderline apostate Church?

And, Robert and John, what do you make of Tim here? Is *he* simply a schismatic for separating himself from the "true" Orthodox (which you may define as "ROCOR" or as "world Orthodoxy, depending on where you sit)? Is he a heretic for claiming that your Bishops are heretics?

Can't you unified Orthodox all get along, guided as you are by the infallible unchanging rock of Holy Tradition and illumined by the Holy Spirit??

Orientale

John P.,

The point I was trying to make is that it seems to me that schisms are often the result of someone saying �NO� to one half of something the Church teaches. For instance, I believe the Lord Jesus Christ is God AND Man. Some say only Man. I believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father AND Son. Some say only the Father. I believe that Jesus Christ is head of the Church AND Peter is head as His viceregent. Some say only Jesus. I believe both Scripture AND Tradition are pillars of the Faith. Some say only Scripture; some say only Tradition. So many seem to base their religions on saying �NO� to something we say �YES� to. They search for their identity in how they differ from the Catholic Church in a negative sense. Maybe I am seeing this one-sidedly. Can you give me one POSITIVE belief of your Church which I say �NO� to?


Moose,

�Peter...should never act without the Church.�

I have a good question for you now! (Maybe it will bring this discussion down to earth.

WHO IS THE CHURCH AS REGARDS THE POSSIBLE PROCLAMATION OF THE FIFTH MARIAN DOGMA?

The Pope has received millions of petitions from the faithful asking him to declare as dogma, the doctrine of Holy Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate. He has brought together theologians in an attempt to unveil this belief, with limited success. If we were a holy people with many saints among us, we would be worthy to understand what we believe, just as a holy wife understands why her husband must, say, quit his six-figure job and become a missionary. But a proud people, like a proud wife, is unworthy to understand the mysterious ways of the Lord, and sometimes must be dragged kicking and screaming, like Lot�s wife, out of heresy. So, it is possible that this Pope will be forced (because he must follow the time-frame of the Holy Spirit and not his own) to proclaim this dogma before the faithful understand it, and whether or not most of the bishops agree with him. The way I see it, if even one of the faithful agree with him, he has acted with the Church. ???

Wendy

I haven't spent much time on this thread...just caught up.

Orientale,

What's the purpose in the rhetoric about Orthodox "disunity"? It is patently unfair to lump Greek Old Calendrists and ROCOR and those ancient Orthodox Churches which maintain communion together. The Catholic Church doesn't even do that in the ecumenical dialogue. Of course, the Greek Old Calendrists and ROCOR wouldn't come if invited...but the point is, they wouldn't be invited. Rome would have better sense than to invite those Churches to the ecumenical dialogue since there is no communion between those Churches and us (although some communion is maintained with ROCOR through its' communion with the Churches of Serbia and Jerusalem).

I would suggest that the lurker here who wants to know more about world Orthodoxy start with Timothy (now Bishop KALLISTOS) Ware's book _The Orthodox Church_.

Yes, we've got "hawks" and "doves" in mainline Orthodoxy. But, let's get things straight here. There is no claimed "unity" between ROCOR and the Greek Old Calendrists and the mainline Orthodox. These are separate communions. Orientale's rhetoric is comparable to lambasting the Catholic Church as disunited with SSPX'ers and Novus Ordo's and independent Traditionalist Latin Mass types.

Who are the real Orthodox? The Catholic Church's position is clear. As for myself, I don't see a reconciling of mainline Orthodox with ROCOR in the near future but I'd be unwilling to put them outside the Church (although I know some mainline Orthodox--a minority, I think, who would.)

I hope we'll hear the end of Orientale's trashing of Orthodox here. The ancient Orthodox Churches which maintain communion have differing views on how far to go in ecumenical dialogue. We've got some tensions, to be sure, but we do share communion.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
First, I would like to thank those of you who have posted their comments. Second, I would like to reply to those comments. From the beginning of the early Church, Orthodoxy has sincerely acknowledged the Primacy of Peter. St. Peter's role has never been under-stated within Orthodoxy or overstated as Catholic apologetics continually do in support of the Papacy. There is no true reconciliation between the Primacy of Peter and that of the Papacy. The govermental nature of the Papacy is in no way the same as that during the Apostolic era. To say there is is to deny the historical evolution of the Church of Rome and historical events. St. Peter had always good intentions in obeidance to Christ but at times he was fallible. True, St. Peter helped in settling disputes. But did not St. Paul withstood him to his face as recorded in Galatians 2:11? St. Peter became entangled in a dispute and needed to be corrected by St. Paul. Therefore, St. Peter was never alone in or made decisions alone without the Apostolic Church. Of course our Lord spoke specifically to St. Peter about the keys to the Kingdom. However, this does not imply St. Peter was a leader over the Apostles, but a leader amongst them because they all received the keys as well. St. Peter's primacy was demonstrated when he attended the Council of Jerusalem and spoke. No emperor convened or presided over this Council. The one person who did preside or convene was St. James. St. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Mother Church, who in the final analysis pronounced the final verdict which was in agreement with all those present. St. Peter was amongst his equals and St. James lead the Council to a conclusion. I have witnessed many unfair remarks and exagerations attributed to St. Peter's role of Primacy linked with the Papacy. Apologetics goes as far as to say that St. Peter and Rome convened over the Seven Ecumenical Councils when the truth is it was the emperors.

In regards to Orientale remarks on the impossibility of the Orthodox to perform a coordinated effort at true evangelization is unfounded and stems from his ignorance. I belong to the Antiochian jurisdiction and we are the fastest growing along with the OCA in the U.S. amongst the heterodox Christianities. We have organizations that unite the different jurisdictions such as SCOBA, Synergy, etc. They may not be perfect but they are true and a reality. Perhaps you should read what the Patriarchs have to say on this issue of jurisdictions. I have taken communion with many jurisdictions without ever feeling alienated. Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch and All the East calls for the establishment of a patriarchate in America. If I may counter your argument against American Catholicism it seems more or less opposed to the Vatican's statements from Rome. You think Orthodoxy has problems you should take a closer look in your back yard where Catholics cannot agree nowadays on ecclesiology and christology. Overall, Orthodoxy and Rome are not free from problems that need to be resolved in their own domains and amongst themselves. Orientales fourth comment should be applied on Roman Catholicism ecclesiology. His fifth comment asks if I have been to the Middle East. I am originally from the Middle East and learned much from my experiences there. In the Middle East, the Latin and the Greek Catholics and the Orthodox have agreed to celebrate Christmas on the Western Calander and Easter on the Julian Calander. HOWEVER, in no way are the Latins to share communion with the Orthodox and vice verse. The celebration of the religious holidays is a nice gesture for cooperation amongst each other in Islamic lands. Roman Catholicism in the Middle East has taken advantage of the chaos in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and taken much of the Orthodox flock. I know this because my families and I are witnesses who turned Catholic and then Orthodox again. Since Protestantism is originally a Catholic problem we have taken the liberty to evangelize them into the true faith. This is fair as it has been for Catholicism to come to take away the Orthodox flock when they should have been after the Muslims. If you cannot get the Muslims go after the Orthodox has been Rome's policy. Those in the Middle East who have accepted the Latin Rite have at times been condescending upon the Greek Catholics and the Orthodox. This I believe stems from the arrogancy of the Latins. Take for example the Latinization that was imposed upon the Eastern/Greek Catholics. Was this fair? Did any one hear about this epispocate uproar in the Middle East? Rome backed off and did not want to risk losing the flock back to the Orthodox. This Latinization was to further alienate the Greek Catholics from the Orthodox. This is a fact that you need to research for yourself. The Greek Catholics are dear to me and I pray for the return to Orthodoxy.

As for Tim, there is too much pride in what he believes is true Orthodoxy. He has gone as far as the Protestant's mindset as to claim that Holy Tradition is above Church and Bishop. The Protestant would say that the Bible is above the Church and Tim says it is Holy Tradition. I pray for Tim to return to Orthodoxy and stop with his rhetoric of "worldly Orthodoxy".
A Servant of Christ,
Robert

Wendy,

Fifth Marian Dogma? Millions of Petitions?
Last year the Pope very solemnly declared the titles coredemptrix and comediatrix were inappropriate, theologically dangerous, and in no way dogmas. He made it quite clear that these titles would not and could not be granted because they obscure the unique role of Christ. I apologize I cannot provide the publications this article appeared in, but I'm sure a search on the CIN would turn up something. From the tone of your posts it sounds like you may be affiliated with a fringe or schismatic group. If they said the Pope was preparing to "unveil" this fifth dogma they are lying. The Pope said the exact opposite. I encourage you to investigate this matter on your own so you may find the truth.

Lance Weakland

Several points:

1. Robert Sweiss' account of the role of Peter is that of mainline Orthodoxy and very close to what I have written as my understanding of the Orthodox position on this. Frs. John Meyendorff and Alexander Schmemann (Orthodox priests at St. Vlad's of blessed memory) both acknowledged the need for a more centralized authority within Orthodoxy. They admitted that there has been no individual authority to entrust the �bully pulpit' to since the last emperor of the Byzantine Empire. While neither supported nor would support the current model of the papacy both acknowledged that Orthodoxy could benefit from such an individual and that in a united Church this individual could be Peter (providing there was a new, workable definition of primacy). For the most part, the Church fathers would have supported a much strong Peter than the first apostle but not one with the power of Vatican I. For my part, I think that there is more to Pope John Paul II's request for the Orthodox to help him redefine the role of the papacy for a reunited Church in the next millennium looks beyond a hoped reunion of East and West. Neither Orthodoxy nor Roman Catholicism would reject the idea that the petrine role is primarily one of service to Christ and his Church and that this role should be dynamic, always seeking to use the primacy to serve the Church with love.

2. The problems of Orthodox disunity are front and center here in America and those exhibited here are not the same as within the rest of Orthodoxy. The problems here are those caused (for the most part) by jurisdictionalism. As Brian noted, while the ROCOR and Old Calendarist groups contain many honorable Orthodox Christians, they are not in full communion with the rest of Orthodoxy and each have their own challenges to deal with. I have no doubt that there someday will be an a single, united Orthodox Church in America containing all of the canonical groups (Antiochian, Greek, Russian/OCA, Jerusalem and etc.). Splinter groups will always exist just as Roman Catholic splinter groups will always exist.

The problems of world Orthodoxy are not the same as here in America. Life pretty much goes on as it has since the Empire fell. But there is no authority to bring together the Orthodox in a Council. Among other things, this means that there is no one to turn to appeal to settle disagreements like Peter did in the early Church. It also severely limits the Orthodox Witness since there is not a united front to proclaim Christ to the world.

3. The Antiochian Orthodox Church is by far the leader among Byzantine Christians in evangelization in the United States. I've worshiped at SS Peter & Paul in Ben Lomand (the center of the Evangelical Orthodox Mission) several years ago and found it to be a vibrant parish. The only sour spot was that a number of the converts from Protestantism brought with them much baggage - especially anti-Roman baggage that cradle Orthodox don't hold or sympathize with. All in all, they are doing great work in building up the Church.

It should be noted that even though Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox are beginning to evangelize the unchurched, the Roman Catholic Church has the greatest outreach and therefore the greatest number of converts from the unchurched. It should also be noted that more people move from the East (Byzantine Catholicism and Orthodoxy) to the West (Roman Catholicism) than from the West to the East. Those moving West are doing so mostly because of marriage to a Roman Catholic. [The Roman Catholic Church is seen as the mainstream, American Church.]

4. Oritentale's posts were not �trashing the Orthodox'. His words were strong but did display the inherent confusion that many have about who speaks for Orthodoxy. One cannot dismiss groups like the Old Calendarists and ROCOR outright because they have many good and honorable Orthodox Christians among them. But it is troubling that some within these groups pretend to speak for all of Orthodoxy. That their opinions are often so different than those of canonical Orthodoxy greatly dilutes the Orthodox Christian witness here in America. The parallel among Roman Catholics and SSPX that Dave Ignatius noted is an excellent one, with the exceptions that Roman Catholics vastly outnumber these groups and that the Latin splinter groups are not as nearly as vocal as the Orthodox splinter groups.

Dave, Robert,

I am glad to see that you were both angered by my purposely provocative post. That was what I intended to solicit from you. My point was simply that there is no criterion you can use to say who is "in" and who is "out" of the Orthodox Church -- it totally depends on whom you are speaking with. And, for the record, Dave, while I agree that perhaps the Greek Old Calendrists are comparable to the SSPX, it is a gross, gross miscomparison, in my opinion, to place the ROCOR in that same category, especially after the falling out between the ROCOR and the Greek O-C's. The ROCOR is a real problem, I think. But, in any case, I wrote what I did to illustrate that there is, in fact, much disunity -- unless you draw the circle close enough so that you exclude those who are barking about it. I did not mean to "trash" Orthodoxy in general, and it is unfortunate that you read that into my post. I was trying to illustrate the scope of the problem, that is all.

Some more specific responses to Robert:

1. Intercommunion between Greek Catholics and Greek Orthodox in the middle east (the point of my prior post and the one point in your long missive that you did *not* address) is a reality, is tolerated, is well-known to exist and will apparently continue going forward. What happens with the Latins is a separate matter -- but I wasn't speaking of the Latins. Did you read the word "latins" in my earlier post? Why then do you focus almost exclusively on "latins: in your reply? It's not a pettty criticism either, as the main thrust of my earlier point is that if Catholics are so bad why is it that Greek Catholics are regularly allowed to communicate in the Greek Orthodox Churches in the Middle East? That question remains comlpetely unanswered in your post, I'm afraid.

2. When I read your post, I sense a lot of anger towards the "Latins". This is very unrpoductive, and it reminds me of the anger that some Eastern Catholics have against the 'pravoslavny' for similar reasons due to what happened in Eastern Europe. When we let ourselves be dominated by these emotions, I think, the Evil One is the only one who wins.

3. I sincerely, deeply, fervently hope and pray for unity among Orthodox and Catholics. This unity will only come through love, fostered by humility: the humility of understanding by each that the approach taken by each is incomplete, imperfect, and marred by sin. My sense is that the Catholic Church is a little bit ahead of the game here in comparison to the Orthodox -- but not very much. Much more humility is needed on the part of the Catholics, particularly the rank and file ones. But I must also honestly say that I see little humility among Orthodox in this regard, and this will be, in my opinion, the single-biggest stumbling block on the path to reconciliation. For while Professors like Meyendorff and Schmemann were smart enough to see that the Orthodox model is not functional and needs to be fixed, there are many in the Orthodox Church who are being taught, and who believe, that the present model is perfect, virtually flawless and simply needs minor tinkering and tweaking -- and I think at present these outnumber those who hold the views of Meyendorff and Schmemann, and perhaps are even growing in strength in the West due to the large number of converts, many of whom are mind-numbingly uncritical of the Orthodox Church's structures (as are, to be fair, a fair number of Catholic converts .. but they are a much, much smaller force in the Catholic Church based on simple numbers). What we need is prayer and humility here.

Orientale

>>>HOWEVER, in no way are the Latins to share communion with the Orthodox

and vice verse.<<<



This is not entirely true. There is a considerable degree of Eucharistic sharing that involves not only the Antiocheans and the Melkites, but also latins and the Orthodox, a consequence of the civil laws governing religion in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. The clergy most certainly do not intercommune, but the laity do so far more frequently than officials in either Church are willing to concede. Yet they all know about it, and for pastoral reasons, tolerate it.

Lance,

I am sorry, I could not find the source of your information. There have been many conferences, for and against this possible dogma. Last I heard, "Coredemptrix" is already an accepted doctrine of the Church. Our Holy Father has used this term for Our Lady five times during his papacy. Check out http://www.voxpopuli.org/insidv1.html

At any rate, whether you believe this doctrine or not is unimportant. I want to know if anyone here denies the power of the Pope to declare it as a dogma, say, tomorrow morning at 11:00 AM, if he so desires.

Wendy

Thank you robert,

You my pray for me, but not with me! LOL!!!

First of all, If "true Orthodoxy" is with the Patriarchate of Antioch, than I reject it!!! Being that the Patriarchate of Antioch is in full-communion with the Monophysite Patriarchate of Syria (who by the way still does not accept the last 4 Ecumenical Councils, and commemorates Severus as a Saint, even though he has been condemned as a heretic by the Orthodox Church). Is the Patriarch,who is only one bishop, given more authority than an Ecumenical Council? Of course not!! But Robert would love to think so.... Exactly were is the heresy in what I believe? There are a number of Canons and Holy Fathers who openly confessed the "true" Faith, which you obviously reject. Is Saint Cosmas a fanatic? How about Saint Mark of Ephesus? How about all of those Pan-Orthodox Councils that condemned the New Calendar and Papism? Well, if you followed them, which is a part of Holy Tradition, you would be truly Orthodox. But you are truly worthy of tears, not knowing the Faith. Remember the words of our Holy Father Saint Photius the Great? "Is the shepherd a heretic? Then he is a wolf! Flee from him; do not be deceived by him even if he appears gentle and tame. Avoid communion with him even as you would flee from a poisonous snake."

I guess we are right not to be in communion with the heretical bishops of "world Orthodoxy"!, since they have a new ecclesiology.

As goes for the ROCA, they unfortunately fell under their own anathema of 1983 under our holy Metropolitan Philaret of blessed memory. After his repose the stance their bishops changed dramatically. Being that they are in communion with the Patriarchates of Serbia and Jerusalem, who in turn are in communion with Constantinople and Antioch and full members of the WCC, they have fallen under their own anathema putting themselves outside of the CHurch. Anathema meaning a total separation from God and the Church.

When I was a new calendarist, I went to the Holy Virgin Cathedral with my two children to venerate St. John of SF. They gave communion to my children even though we were under Constantinople at that time... Ecumenists???? You bet!!!!

These are reasons why we have had many converts, including clergy from these jurisdictions. Most recently, Fr. Steven Smith(OCA), and Abbot Adrian (ROCA). God is truly moving among his chosen ones, Amen!!!

RT http://www.churchsurf.net/users/ca/sposf_cc/

Orientale wrote:

"Thank you, Tim, for bringing to light graphically the kind of disunity we have been speaking about in this and other threads for some time."

Then Orientale contrasted the Old Calendrist Greek jurisdiction (which is acknowledged to be in schism from almost everyone else) with ROCOR (which has limited communion with the rest of world Orthodoxy through its communion with the Church of Serbia and Jerusalem) and the mainline Orthodox Churches. He followed up with:

"Can't you unified Orthodox all get along, guided as you are by the infallible unchanging rock of Holy Tradition and illumined by the Holy Spirit??"

His comment today:

"I am glad to see that you were both angered by my purposely provocative post. That was what I intended to solicit from you."

I intend to bow out of discussions here if that is the intent of posters here. I do not want to participate in a forum where the goal is to create anger in others.

"My point was simply that there is no criterion you can use to sa who is "in" and who is "out" of the Orthodox Church -- it totally depends on whom you are speaking with. And, for the record, Dave, while I agree that perhaps the Greek Old Calendrists are comparable to the SSPX,"

If that is the case then why did Orientale make the original comparison? If the Greek Old Calendrists are comparable to the SSPX then it was vastly unfair for him to lambaste Orthodox "disunity" using them as an example.

"it is a gross, gross miscomparison, in my opinion, to place the ROCOR in that same category, especially after the falling out between the ROCOR and the Greek O-C's. The ROCOR is a real problem, I think."

I agree. And, I didn't place ROCOR in the same category. The situation with ROCOR and the rest of world Orthodoxy is not resolved. There are elements in ROCOR which appear to be heading for a total break. Some (hopefully not too many) would doubt there is any grace in the mainline Orthodox Churches.

"But, in any case, I wrote what I did to illustrate that there is, in fact, much disunity -- unless you draw the circle close enough so that you exclude those who are barking about it. I did not mean to "trash" Orthodoxy in general, and it is unfortunate that you read that into my post. I was trying to illustrate the scope of the problem, that is all."

Well, if both Orientale and I are agreed that the Greek Old Calendrists are not really applicable (and that's what started this exchange in the first place) then we're left with the mainline Orthodox and ROCOR. The problem is not near as big as he started with.

The situation with ROCOR and world Orthodoxy can not adequately be covered in just a few paragraphs. And I'm not so sure it's of interest to folks here. I will agree the ecclesial unity between ROCOR and the rest of world Orthodoxy is strained (though there is communion shared between some of our Churches and theirs). However, if we are to discuss unity of faith there is much more there. We have some notable differences to be sure. Ecumenical dialogue and how to apply Orthodoxy to our generation today are among those. But as to what we actually believe in our faith there is tremendous unity. We haven't had the same problem so far that the Catholic Church has had in this century with radical theologians. I think all of us know that, especially here in the US, there are some parishes in the Roman Church which are theologically liberal. I went through the RCIA in a Roman parish where I had to disregard about 1/4 of its lessons. I still vividly remember a retreat we took the Saturday before Holy Week where the pastor of the RC Cathedral parish made fun of those who believe there really was burning bush that Moses saw or that Christ multiplied the loaves and fishes. What bothered me the most was that everyone else was nodding in agreement and raved about how great his lecture was. I kept my silence. I was enduring RCIA to enter the Catholic Church. But, it's stuff like this (and I think everyone here can relate to similar such problems) that comes to mind when I hear antagonistic rhetoric from people like Orientale about Orthodox "disunity." To such I say: take out the beam that is in your eye.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dave:

The Catholic Church tolerates, and always had tolerated, different schools of theology within its boundaries � even solely within the confines of its Western, Latin, variant. While it may be true that some Catholics sometimes go a bit far in one direction or the other, the basic tenets of faith are held in common. This is the same in Orthodoxy � albeit in Orthodoxy the folks who go a bit far tend to be more on the �conservative� side than on the �liberal� side, that is all. And the fact that most converts from Catholicism to Orthodoxy tend to hate so-called �liberal� theology with a passion tends to lead to a focus on the �liberals� in the Roman Church and not the �conservatives� in some Orthodox jursidiction or other.

Your experiences in RCIA are not that important, Dave � no more important than my anecdotal experiences with Orthodox clergy have been (i.e., folks advising Catholic would-be converts to divorce their non-Orthodox wives � I kid you not). What deserves discussion is what the Catholic Church teaches � not what one�s own limited experiences have been with one or the other local parish on either side.

But, more importantly, your post brings up another central point: namely that at least some Orthodox, particularly among the convert ranks, are in search of a level of truth and uniformity of belief which never existed in the Church. What, precisely, is the problem with theological diversity within the Church? Does the Byzantine school of theology have the monopoly on �Truth�? Do the Latins need to become Byzantinized in order for communion to be restored? Sometimes I get the sense from some Orthodox that Roman Catholics ought to become Byzantine in theology � and then they can keep their �Mass�, like some comic imitation, in reverse, of what happened to Greek Catholics in earlier centuries, when Roman Catholics insisted on Roman theology, whilst retaining Eastern ritual (something which is not workable, as the ritual grows out of and is nourished by the theology, as you well know).

What does unity of faith really mean? Does it mean that everyone follows the same theological school � i.e., the Byzantine? Or that one�s own theological school, on points of difference, must be altered so as to conform to the Byzantine school? The real problem here is that often in the minds of at least some Orthodox the word �byzantine� is synonomous with �orthodox�.

We have full and complete unity of faith with our Latin Catholic brothers and sisters. They simply express things differently than we do � as they always have and always will. We have effectively different theological schools functioning within the Catholic Church � as it has always been the case. I think, to be frank, that there are many Orthodox that are pretty uncomfortable with that concept, and who seem to think that the Roman Church needs to become Byzantine, or at least scrub itself of its non-Byzantine elements, in order to be �orthodox�. That is, again in my personal opinion, a grievous error.

orientale