www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ukranian Orthodox and Catholic joining?

It�s not the different �rites�. It�s the different theological traditions within the Church. Each local Church is alive. Each brings to the entire Church a unique and wonderful witness of Christ. The wonderful theologians of Russia did not speak with the identical words of the earlier Council Fathers. Yet they said the same thing.

The differences between the ways the local Churches (East and West) speak about doctrine are like the differences between a husband who begins the sentence and the wife who finishes it. That they each use different words does not make them less than one flesh.

I respect that OrthoMan does not believe that East and West speak the same things about Christ, just in different voices. It appears that, to him, East and West hold little or nothing in common. Yet, if he believes this, I disagree with him and will continue to disagree. East and West hold almost everything in common, despite the fact that they speak different theological languages. The only thing that they do not hold in common is an understanding of the authority and role of the Successor of Peter. This is what keeps our respective Churches from sharing the same Chalice.

OrthoMan:

But does not one's ritual practice stem from one's doctrinal views? These are not two separate issues that can be divorced from each other. It all creates a synergy that makes up the whole. The Admin said it much better that my humble self ever could, so I won't even try.

hal

I respect that OrthoMan does not believe that [East and West speak the same things about Christ, just in different voices. It appears that, to him, East and West hold little or nothing in common. Yet, if he believes this, I disagree with him and will continue to disagree. East and West hold almost everything in common, despite the fact that they speak different theological languages. The only thing that they do not hold in common is an understanding of the authority and role of the Successor of Peter. This is what keeps our respective Churches from sharing the same Chalice.]

Couldn't disagree more!

I submitted this thread to one of my God children who I sponsored when he converted to Holy Orthodoxy from the RCC after some 50+ years. I was interested how he saw the issue as an ex RC. Here is his reply which I agree 100% with -

Just off the top of my head it would seem to me that if you are to belong to and believe in any one group that it would be disingenuous for that person to NOT believe in what the group stands for. In the case of the Unia, what would be the point of joining the Union with Rome if you did not believe or want to beleive in her dogmas and doctrines? This just dosen't make sense to me at all. Either you believe or the union that you are in is a false union. How can both believe in two different doctrines and call yourself one church? I know why Rome did it. It was to gain populations and prestige and to increase its power in world Christianity. And I personally think Rome destroyed the Eastern Catholic Church by doing so. Yes, they have their externals but the theology has long since gone. I just don't know why the Ukrainians joined up with Rome at all. And this is coming from an former Roman Catholic. Personally, I think they did to split the MP. Its perplexing as to how one can say A and believe B and say they are both the same except expresssed differently. This is just playing with words and a contradiction. How can they justify living a contradiction all these centuries? Its like hammering a odd jigsaw piece into place even though it dosen't fit.

==========

AMEN! OrthoMan

[never mind!]

Dear Brother Orthoman,

If you cannot look past the theological terminology of the West and East, and insist that such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception, and Purgatory are incompatible, I must wonder what you think of the common Christological accords between the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholic Churches. In that instance, our theologians and hierarchs were able to look beyond (or underneath) the theological terminology and discover that we were all really saying the same thing. The key to understanding was in NOT imposing definitions on the other party.

It seems to me to be the same situation with the Immaculate Conception, the Filioque and Purgatory. In the former, there is a difference in the understanding of Original Sin. Should we try to impose the Eastern definition of Original Sin on the West? I pray that is not the solution of unity that the EO have in mind, for such triumphalism will certainly not lead to any type on unity. For the second case (Filioque), there seems to be a scholarly consensus that terminology, and not theology, is also the cause of division for that matter. In the final case, one can go beyond the terminology of Purgatory and arrive at agreement on a state after death of further cleansing or theosis. The final obstacle seems to be the issue of the papacy, and even that seems to me to be primarily of a canonical nature, and not a theological one.

If we cannot get past terminology, then we are simply disobeying St. Paul who exhorts us not to argue over words.

Blessings,
Marduk

Bravo Marduk! Bravissimo!

Yours,

hal

[Should we try to impose the Eastern definition of Original Sin on the West? I pray that is not the solution of unity that the EO have in mind, for such triumphalism will certainly not lead to any type on unity.]

And what type of unity is it when we have two different concepts of Original Sin that affect many of our other doctrines like the Immaculate Concept? You call that unity of faith? I certainly don't.

If we are all to get to pick and choose what we are to believe then we all might as well unite with the Protestants. Their whole religious system is based on that premise.

To honestly say that we are all saying the same thing but in a different context or using different words is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. We will not share the same faith until we are all saying the same thing and understanding it the same way. Only then will we have a unity in faith. Only then will be honoring the commandment of St Paul found in I Corinthians 1:10 [Caps are mine for emphasis]-

Now I plead with you brethern, by the name of our Lord Jesus, THAT YOU ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be no divisions among you, BUT THAT YOU BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND THE SAME JUDGEMENT.

OrthoMan

Dear Brother Orthoman,

Am I interpreting you correctly, then, that since the Oriental Orthodox do not use the terminology of the EO and CC in their Christology, that there is in fact no agreement on the issue?

If you say "correct," then you are definitely opposed to all the heirarchs of all the Churches. If you say, "incorrect," then there might yet be a chance for unity even according to your standards. Since you seem to be focused on the issue of the Immaculate Conception via the doctrine of Original Sin, let me propose the following to you:

Orthodox have objected to the Immaculate Conception because the dogma states that Mary was free from Original Sin. You look upon this and state, "well, Original Sin is defined by the onset of physical death, therefore the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception must be false." That is all fine and well,IF the CC defined Original Sin in the same way WE DO. But is that the case? Do the Catholics actually deny that Mary died the physical death? The answer is "NO" in both cases. Thus, we as Orthodox need to try to understand what the Catholics mean when they say that Mary was free from Original Sin. It turns out that what Catholics are saying by that statement is not the same thing that WE as Orthodox would be saying if WE said that same statement. Is it possible that what the Catholics are actually saying by that statement is Orthodox?

It turns out that all the Catholics are saying is that Mary was free from the SPIRITUAL effects of Original Sin - that she did not feel the desire to sin, nor did she in fact sin. The dogma does not touch upon the PHYSICAL effect of death, nor was it intended to do so. Though a very few Fathers seem to imply otherwise, the VAST MAJORITY of the Fathers would definitely admit that this statement from the Catholic Church is in fact orthodox and Orthodox.

I, for one, do not see this issue as a divisive factor.

Blessings,
Marduk

Bless you.

Well - I guess that has already been done by someone much higher than me.

-ray

It is a fact that there are diffrent languages and diffrent cultures. And it is a fact that Jesus wanted these diffrences included in his church. Inclusive instead of exclusive.

Well - I do not want to get into the discussion. That would take more charity and patience than I have lately.

Peace be with you Othoman.
-ray

Dear Marduk,

I don't agree with your conclusions in your last post. There are Orthodox Patristic scholars that are much more learned than me that would flat out disagree with what you have mentioned in your last post. Some of these scholars spend many years studying and understanding such theological matters. It is important to look at things in a complete manner when drawing theological conclusions, for the aforementioned notion is an essential part of Orthodox thought. In order for the Orthodox Church to reject something first they learn what it is that in this case the RC Church is saying from the people that wrote the doctrine. Below is the commentary of Mr. Steenberg who has a different understanding. He has given me his permission to reference his thoughts below.

"Regarding the Immaculate Conception: I think perhaps it would do us some good not to be quite so swift in simply stating flat-out, end-of-statement, that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the 'Immaculate Conception' and the Orthodox understanding of the conception of the Mother of God are entirely and in every way opposed. As with so many other statements and issues, what we find here is that there are deeply important aspects behind the RC doctrine with which we Orthodox cannot agree; yet there are also many with which we do.

Let me try to indicate a few on each side. First we may discuss those points against: (1) The RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception presupposes a view of 'original sin' as centred in imputed sinfulness and guilt which, as it is stated in RC dogma, the Orthodox reject. It is because all human persons are born with this 'congenital defect' that the Virgin's lifelong purity must, according to RC doctrine, be effected by a conception which frees her from this defect. This is the chief and fundamental point of doctrinal divergence between Orthodox and RC on the matter. (2) The immaculate birth of the Mother of God, as proclaimed by the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception, poses for the Orthodox an unacceptable change and contradistinction between her nature and that of the rest of humanity. She is no longer 'like me' in the sense that Orthodox theology has always proclaimed and required, and the alteration of such a view cannot be meshed with the larger doctrines of soteriology and christology which are built upon the nature of the birth of Christ and His mother. (3) The belief that sinlessness and absolute purity of life require a fundamental change in the nature of the human person, such as is represented in Mary's person according to the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception, is to some degree at odds with the Orthodox ascetical proclamation of transformation and divinisation. The nature which one day shall be perfect and the nature which this day wallows in sin are, for Orthodox, one and the same. It is purification, not alteration, that is the focus of Christian salvation, and the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception presents, if only nascently, a conflict with this understanding.

Nonetheless, there are points of similarity: (1) Many Fathers of the undivided Church proclaim without equivocation the view that the Mother of God was 'protected from sin' from 'before her birth', specifically so that she might be pure in her life and thus purely bear the Pure One. We might give reference to Jacob of Serug, Germanos of Constantinople, Ephrem of Syria, among others. These are not simply proclamations that the holy Virgin lived a pure life free from sin, but that God protected and prevented her from sin from the moment of her own birth. (2) Some Orthodox Fathers also proclaim that it was impossible for the Mother of God to sin, for this was not in her nature. Again, these are not suggestions that she simply didn't sin, but that she couldn't sin. Jacob and Germanos stand out particularly in this regard.

The above is not meant to suggest that our two churches in the end teach one and the same thing. I am unequivocally of the view that the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception destroys something of fundamental value in the person of the holy Virgin, and simply cannot be squared with Orthodox thought. But we ought also to understand that the pure life of Mary which the RC doctrine is an attempt to safeguard, is one which has been the object of considerable Orthodox reflection as well -- often to the employment of strikingly similar language. There are aspects of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception which are and should be held by Orthodox. But, as with so much else in Orthodox thought, it is the question of wholeness, completeness and fullness that warrants its rejection. The doctrine of Immaculate Conception presents some truths regarding the person of Mary, but not the full truth. In fact, we would say, it distorts that which it does not rightly proclaim in such a manner that even its right proclamations become challenged and suspect.

But when such individuals as Bishop Kallistos (Ware) suggest that some Orthodox hold to the view of the Immaculate Conception, perhaps we should consider that he does not mean an adherence to the Roman Catholic doctrine, but to the more fundamental issue of Mary's holy birth and sinless life -- which the Orthodox feasts of the Nativity of the Mother of God and the Presentation at the Temple clearly proclaim. I have not discussed this matter personally with him, but I have a suspicion that his remarks might be meant as a balance to overstatements to the opposite extreme. It is a situation akin to the rampant proclamations that Orthodoxy 'has no doctrine of original sin'. This is of course a nonsensical statement. The Orthodox Church has a very definite and pronounced understanding of original sin, it is simply not the same understanding as that held by Roman Catholics. So with the Mother of God, the Orthodox Church has a very pronounced belief in the sinlesness and purity of her person, even in the holiness and sanctity of her conception (which marks one of our great feasts), but we do not hold the same understanding as the RCC."

Mardukn:

You have given me some food for thought. Due to some health problems I am going through a series of epidural injections for pain. I'm scheduled for another one today which usually knocks me for a loop for the rest of the day. And the rest of the week is full of doctor appointments. So I may or may not get back to you immediately. Besides, some of what you say is very confusing for me. And I need time to ponder it before replying.

Especially where you insinuate that unity can come about if we stop defining terminology! If we don't define what we mean when we make a statement or doctrine how are we going to understand or comprehend exactly what that statement or doctrine means?

You state that St Paul says not to get caught up in words. But as I pointed out already St Paul also says -

"Now I plead with you brethern, by the name of our Lord Jesus, THAT YOU ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be no divisions among you, BUT THAT YOU BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND THE SAME JUDGEMENT."

How can we be speaking the same thing if we fail to define what we are stating?

Are you aware that the above quote is from I Corinthians which was a series of letters written by him to address Church disunity and doctrinal speculations that were wide spread in the Church of Corinth?

Gotta run and get ready for what lives ahead today.

OrthoMan

P.S. I just read what Matthew wrote and can't say there is anything in it that I, as another Orthodox Christian can disagree with.

Orthoman,

Perhaps you could interact with me on original sin here: Dialogue on Augustine, Original Sin, and Concupiscence .

I'm quite confident that Chrysostom and Augustine were teaching the same doctrine, albeit with different nuances and terminology. But the conclusions are utterly the same: Adam by his transgression condemened the entire human race, and that man as a child of Adam is helpless in this state.

Daniel

Dear Matthew,
Perhaps you could get your friend to enter into dialogue here. What he has written as RC dogma - then objects to - seems to miss the mark, widely.