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

My response is isolated just to Mr. Steedberg - whoes understanding of Roman Catholic dogmas involved - is quite imaginative.

Mr. Steenberg�s mistake is trying to mix Eastern theology with Latin theology.

Eastern theology is based within the older Greek terminology and word meaning and the society and culture of the East - a theology that has adopted much of the early images of cosmogony.

Latin theology is based within some Greek terminology - and a lot of Latin terminology and the culture and society of the West - a theology which has adopted much of the terms of philosophy - so that it can do its assigned task of speaking the gospel to its people. Note that at Pentecost each heard the good news in his own language. A sure sign of the diversity and universal nature of the church to come.

He is trying to make Lain theology - make perfectly sense in the words and terms of Eastern theology. He is interpreting Latin theology according to his own Eastern theology. Let us see what Vladimir Lossky (a respected Orthodox author) says about that - later.

His second major mistake is overlook the autonomous nature of the particular churches that comprise the entire Catholic church - which has lead him to his third major mistake - which is for a scholar and theologian to consider that he has any capability at all to judge the autonomous nature of a Patriarchal chair. (which judgment he passes when he makes his negative pronouncements of what dogma any Patriarch has approved for his own church and people).

As Saint Paul said about just this very thing� �Who are you to judge another man�s servant?� for Peter is Jesus� servant. Not Steenberg�s servant. I do not mean to insult Mr. Steenberg but I do mean to say it bluntly. He is - placing himself in an honored chair� and that chair already belongs to Peter. Steenmen assumes the role of a teacher when he is still a student.

Within the RC theologians have no authority whatsoever. The church may ask for their advise - it may consider their opinions if it cares to do that - but the church need not listen to them at all. Within the Eastern church there is not even a position of �theologian� unless the Eastern Church herself bestow that title (I think she has only done that twice). But no matter at all - the Roman Catholic Church is not now - and never was - dependent upon theologians - or scholars - of any kind or type - for anything.

Certainly Eastern theology makes use of words as a likeness. For example - uncreated energies - if they are uncreated then they are not energies - but a wise man knows that the term uncreated energies is used as a likeness� and these uncreated energies have no real physical existence. What is being drawn is an image for which there are no proper words� and so words taken from our experience of created nature - have to do. For one to understand Eastern theology one has to understand the apophatic and catophatic nature of it. How many times and how many warnings are given by the Eastern Church as to the likeness of the words and terms used of its own theology. So why deny Latin theology of the same use of words as likeness?? (Original Sin - a congenital defect� not in Catholic doctrine).

Sometimes I wonder at theologians and scholars� how far they can talk themselves into something. Sometimes they get into an intellectual labyrinth. Thank God getting into heaven does not depend upon how intelligent we are - nor how well we can discuss the details or words used in theology - but it rather depends upon how well we listen and act by what God reveals to us in each his own conscience. Pure of heart! Not - best of intellect.
And his last major mistake is to call his own mistaken understanding of Roman Catholic theology (a construction of his own imagination) as if it were actually the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. Since these doctrines are the approved doctrines of the autonomous Roman Catholic Patriarch - only that Patriarch and his appointments are have the God given authority to say what they mean. God can allow an infallible pronouncement - but he does not guarantee that any human trying to understand it will infallibly understand it.

Mr. Steenberg - has none - and yet assumes - more authority than the Patriarch of Rome. While it is God who appoints Peter - who is it that appoints Steenberg? What apostolic office has God given him? None? Therefore let him sit down an be a student rather than a teacher of a Patriarch.

Shall the autonomous nature of the churches be granted to only one church, or some churches? Or all? Shall one church say to the other �I am autonomous so I need not listen to you - but you must listen to me as I judge you and meet my demands or we shall not be brothers.�

Foolishness. Division and bickering Paul specifically spoke against.

What Paul speaks against in his letter to the Corinthians is - for them to cease arguing over words - because it is causing division. Paul planted and Apollos watered - so Paul and Apollos are of like mind and judgment. How is it then that the Corinthians have come to arguing over - words?

�What do you have that you have not received?� Has someone there received divine enlightenment? Or was it Paul who received it? (Paul received it) If no one there has received divine enlightenment - then how is it that they who are the students - now think that they are teachers? How is it that there are now factions which argue over the words of theology ??

Paul does not care if they say the same exact words or not - he wants them to realize that Paul and Apollos were saying the same thing (in mind and meaning) even as they may have used different words. Apollos spoke in Greek to the Greeks while in Cortinh - and Paul spoke Hebrew to the Jews at Corinth (Aramaic - whatever). At Pentecost each was spoken to in his own language. But some at Corinth had broken into factions - criticizing each others understanding - arguing that Paul�s words meant one thing and Apollos words meant another thing. Paul is telling them �NO! forget the differences of language and culture between Apollos and Paul - we are saying the same thing! I planted - Apollos watered - but it is God who gives the growth!� You don�t have to be of the same language and words and customs - all you have to be is of the same mind and judgment.

What is important is the meaning - not the shell - not the language.. Not the words. Cease the critisim of each other� as if Jesus was �more in this church� than �in that church�. What is the BIG sin at Corinth ?? Division!! Caused by what? Those who argue semantics and words!

Mr. Steenman imagines his own meaning to the Catholic doctrines - because he insists that he be the one who supplies meaning to the words - and as such - he attributes his own meaning to the Roman Catholic Patriarch. What can be done with that? Nothing. Not a thing. A spreading of rumors.

Many scholars of the of the Orthodox church and the Eastern churches - DO understand the Roman Catholic doctrine of Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception correctly and have no problems with it. Some Catholic theologians do not understand Catholic doctrines� so what does that tell us? No more than it is at face value� there is no inherent competence of theology attached to the title of - scholar or theologian.

I am not aware that the authority of the Orthodox church has ever held synod nor council which results were the condemnation of either of these Catholic doctrines. So I must assume that anyone speaking �for� the Orthodox church - is actually speaking his own opinion while he may also be leading us to assume that he is speaking in the name of the church. If there is something authorities and official that I am unaware of please point me there with a URL if possible.

In closing my arguments for this portion of the discussion I present Vladimir Lossky�.

How RIGHT he is!!! So it must also be right to say� It is wrong to place oneself on Eastern dogmatic ground and to attempt to examine western traditions across that of the East - that is, by way of criticism. It is better to present the Latin-Western tradition in the light of the dogmatic attitude of the Western-Latin Church. And that should be the only course for anyone.

I dare say that heaven - is heaven - simply because there will be no theologians there to argue if it is or is not heaven.

-ray

Dear Ray,

Pardon my involvement here, but in reference to your post elative to Matthew Steenberg's remarks, you understand that in totality and in the mind of the Orthodox Church we do not accept the RC understanding of original sin as well as other divisive issues.

When an Orthodox Council is called we can be confident that the Orthodox Church will remain consistent. We can further assume that these divisive issues are studied word for word and in full context by Orthodox theologians who are members of the Orthodox Church. Here is an Orthodox document that mentions the Immaculate Conception, which is consistent with Matthew Steenberg's competent understanding and commentary relative to the matter.

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/ency1895.html

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Ray,

I'm rather reluctant to write, but I have had a chance to think about much of what you have written in your last post. It is quite overwhelming to me because I can't quite make very much sense out the claims and statements that you have made. Having said that be patient with me a bit here maybe I'm misunderstanding you greatly. I have many questions, and I'm hoping to understand the meaning of your words, or perhaps you would be willing to explain some simple things to me that I'm finding very difficult to comprehend.

You have stated "the Roman Catholic Church is not now - and never was - dependent upon theologians or scholars - of any kind or type - for anything"

I don't want to get into a debate over the meaning of the word you have used "dependent" but I think that it is reasonable to say that there have been many scholars and theologians whose understandings have been and continue to this day to be relied upon and are quite prominently seen and referenced in Roman Catholic thought and doctrine. Even the Popes have read, relied on them and quoted them and even insisted upon using their understanding as Rome understands them in the formulation of RC doctrine. The Vatican library is large.

How do you account for the tremendous influence of theologians and there are many, such as Saint Augustine of Hippo, a Church Father or Thomas Aquinas who latter during the 1900's Pope Leo XIII had declared that Roman Catholic theological students must study his work. There are to many such examples to list. And you do know that when Roman Catholic doctrines are written they are done in a way so that there is always wiggle room with and for words. This is all done so that a constant mode of changing definitions is available and in place. This is how document are written within the Vatican. That sort of a practice creates some problems in terms what words mean, because words are used to convey and express what we believe and think as human beings. I know of an Orthodox Hierarch who mentioned that he was at the Vatican for a while studying documents. He told me that after a while he plainly asked the participating authors; How do you write these things? The response was "We write them in a way so that there is always room for adjustment, by the Pope. At that point the Hierarch thought "Then what I'm I doing here and politley exused himself and left shortly thereafter." Since any questions regarding these doctrines are rendered as always an open ended, what is the point in asking any questions about them within the context of space and time, for the answers are always changeable and yes my not be yes and no may not be no. From what I can tell, this is the fundamental problem regarding Latin theology, which would pose a problem in understanding for those in the east, west, north, south or middle or above or below all points. As such it is not difficult to understand the basic principle of your quote from that Latin perspective. "these doctrines are the approved doctrines of the autonomous Roman Catholic Patriarch - only that Patriarch and his appointments are have the God given authority to say what they mean." The essence of this is that you can change something because it is rendered changeable by the use of words. As such the essence of the documents is changeability or development. It all seems rather scholastic and legalistic to me. I'm neither a scholar or lawyer but it seems to me that it is word manipulation.

I think that your identification of Matthew Steenbergs mistakes and your conclusion is erroneous.

Your quote; "Mr. Steinberg�s mistake is trying to mix Eastern theology with Latin theology." I don't see or can't understand how you could say that he is interpreting Latin theology according to his own Eastern theology. I'm quite perplexed by much of what you have written however in the aforementioned Encyclical of 1895 we can read;

(The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Synods teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).

The words that are used to describe the evaluation rendered in that document pertaining to the immaculate conception are "novel dogma" I understand the word novel to mean unusual or different.

Let me think about it a bit more I'm a bit busy now. I'll get back to you latter.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

I'm a bit puzzled o know what the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos has to do with the ecclesiastical relations among Ukrainians at the momment. However, that teaching cannot really be called "noval"; we find it expressed with admirable clarity in the writings of Saint Ephrem the Syrian, for example. And it would not be impossible to find contemporary Orthodox theologians who can get along with it.
The really fascinating question which this poses is just how the Eastern Orthodox Church would go about rejecting such a teaching. By an Ecumenical Council? But if there has been no such Ecumenical Council since the Eighth Century, and if the Orthodox are correct in claiming that the Immaculate Conception is a novel doctrine, then it is impossible for an Ecumenical Council to condemn it.
Incognitus

First of all I would like to thank everyone who posted prayers on my behalf. I am very touched and moved by such jesters. More than you can know.

I am undergoing a series of shots for pain bought on by six herniated discs in conjunction with what they call spinal stenosis caused by osteo arthritis. At times the pain can be excruiating.
Maybe thats why I can be so cantankerous at times!

Secondly, I am glad to see that this thread is back on track and religion is being discussed instead of Ukrainin politics and hatred none of which belongs in the Church.

Regarding the issues of Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception I was reluctant to get into it ONCE AGAIN. Over the years when you go over the same issues time and time again you get tired of it.

I must say that Matthew replies were excellent from my as well as an Orthodox viewpoint. i can't really add to anything that either he quoted or was said in the website he recommended. So I'm going to leave it at that.

OrthoMan

[But if there has been no such Ecumenical Council since the Eighth Century, and if the Orthodox are correct in claiming that the Immaculate Conception is a novel doctrine, then it is impossible for an Ecumenical Council to condemn it.]

it's not necessary for us to condemn it. If you read what we Orthodox have posted so far then let me condense into a few words what the Orthodox think about the Immaculate Conception -

Immaculate Conception = A poor solution to a non existent problem.

That's it in a nut shell!

OrthoMan

I just happened to watch "Light of the East" on EWTN yesterday, it was a repeat from last year, discussions were between 1 RC & 2 EC priests.

To get to the point, the RC priest stated what slows, bogs down & clouds discussions with the Orthodox is when ethnic & nationalism clouds the issues, and lets be blunt, its not the filioque or the IC the main issue, its Papal Primacy.

All past events happened over a long period of time and quite along time ago. Its not going to happen overnite, but will need religious centered dialog, without the nationalism/ethnic cloud.

What is to become of the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome will be resolved after the core issue.

Will try to locate exact program, but have a eye docs appointment.

Be brotherly,
james

[To get to the point, the RC priest stated what slows, bogs down & clouds discussions with the Orthodox is when ethnic & nationalism clouds the issues,]

Gee, he must be reading some of the posts in here!

OrthoMan

Ray, that was very well said. Patriarch Bartolomeos recently jointly with Pope John Paul II confirmed the removal of the mutual anathemas by Athenogoras and Paul VI.

Bartolomeos even used the phrase "that blessed day" to describe the day Athenogoras and Paul VI removed the anathemas of 1054.

There is certainly still hope, and with enough mutual charity and love we will continue to move in that direction.

But I do have to make one point about your post regarding Eastern and Western Christian approaches to theology. It is interesting in the history of contact between St. Gregory Palamas and Barlaam of Calabria (we should remember that Barlaam was also Orthodox at the time of the debates) one of St. Gregory's early criticisms of Barlaam was Barlaam's ruthless attacks against Thomism.

Barlaam in one even letter accused Thomas and all his adherents guilty of "demoniacal and evil pride" for which St. Gregory Palamas remonstrated him.

Dear Ray,

I'm free to write a bit more now. You have well mentioned and I quote;

"Sometimes I wonder at theologians and scholars� how far they can talk themselves into something. Sometimes they get into an intellectual labyrinth. Thank God getting into heaven does not depend upon how intelligent we are - nor how well we can discuss the details or words used in theology - but it rather depends upon how well we listen and act by what God reveals to us in each his own conscience. Pure of heart! Not - best of intellect."

This is why sound Orthodox reasoning is necessary, after all God made man in His image and His likeness.

Most people who have studied Latin theology come to the conclusion that it is very scholastic. I would mention that even by Rome that scholastic mindset is not denied. Mistaken theologians can talk themselves and others into all sorts of ideas that are accepted in the west and rejected in the east. I have mentioned this before and it seems fitting to me to mention it again for the sake of making a simple point.

You are correct to mention that "Thank God getting into heaven does not depend upon how intelligent we are - nor how well we can discuss the details or words used in theology -"

In the Latin rite we know that children are denied the Eucharist until they have reached the age of reason of 7 years old or so. This is not a theological expression that is accepted or practiced in the Orthodox Church. I ask you Ray, what sort of emphasis is the Latin practice conveying theologically and liturgically when children are denied the Eucharist until they have reached the age of reason. You are correct getting into heaven does not depend upon how intelligent we are however in the Latin rite a child is denied the Eucharist until they have a more developed intellect. Theological words do matter and so do theological and liturgical actions. For in the liturgy, we can see theology.

Matthew 26-27

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

A body of people or one human being can produce all sorts of documents with words that claim the heart of the matter is not being changed when in reality it is irrespective of the intellectual pursuit.

Apparently you are correct, there is more to being a theologian than just having a title.

But the truth matters and so do the words that are used to express it and our conscience.

I'm aware that children in the west are placed in a "Eucharistic fast" until they have reached the age of reason.

I must go now, I'll check in latter, for there is much I would like to talk with you about.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Pope John Paul II, May 2 1995 Apostolic Letter
"On the Light of the East"

For anyone who cares to re-read or has not read it
here is the link;

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2LIGHT.HTM

james

Edit for mis-spelling library

The Immaculate Conception may or may not be a poor solution to a non-existent problem. That would not, however, make it heretical.
Incognitus

Dear Matthew...

Firist - let me thank you for the civil ways of your discussion. After all this is just a discussion and heaven and hell do not hinge on it.


Please do not take offence - it took me hours - to put my finger on what knowledge you were missing - that might lead you to assume that the Latin church operates as you say.

If you already know the following then my appologies.

You seem to be missing catechumen regarding the functions and operations of the church. It could be that this was never explained to you by those who should have (parents or others). So I can see how you are imagining that the church functions in the ways that you are assuming.

There is a hierarchical structure which was put into place by Jesus and the apostles. It is called the Apostolic succession and it is done by appointment and ordination. This hierarchy is called the ecclesia. It is written about in even the earliest of Church history as well as the book of Acts and is well exampled in very early writings such as Psuedo-Dionisys. Its first Council was held at Jerusalem (The Book of Acts).

This hierarchical structure is one of authority - top down. When Jesus ascended into heaven - the apostles were the head of the Church. The apostles in turn appointed and ordained priests. From among these priest they further appointed �elders; or �presbyters� (in English that is - bishops) to have authority over regular clergy (priests). And so on� a hierarchal structure� put into place by Jesus and his apostles.

There are several churches which comprise the whole Catholic Church. Each church within the whole Church, has within it - this hierarchal structure - independently. That is whay they are called autonomous churches (independent) because they are governed by a similar - yet complete in itself - hierarchical structure.

Theologians and scholars - are not - inherently part of this hierarchical structure nor is there any ordination involved to become a theologian or scholar. A priest may become a theologian - but the fact that he is also a theologian or scholar carries with it no enhancement to his priesthood.

This is one reason why the Eastern Churches do not use the term theologian for anyone except to bestow it upon a saint. In the eyes of Eastern theology - only the hierarchy of the church itself - is the �theologian� . An enlightenment and grace which Jesus supplies to the Church - by which light its bishops and hierarchy define doctrine. A grace guaranteed to the church.

Within the Latin church the title of theologian (by education of learning) has no inherent authority.

Among the individual churches that comprise the whole - the top guy - may be called a Patriarch - or Metropolitan - or Pope (there are several Popes and not just Peter) and so on. All authority in that particular church flows down from the Patriarch - or Metropolitan - or what have you. Some one else will have to explain these positions because there are some details I am leaving out for brevity.

In the early days of the Church the members of the hierarchy of the several churches that comprise the whole church (or representatives of these hierarchy) hammered out the cannons (Laws) but which the church will function - which included who and how - doctrine and dogma shall be defined and pronounced. These cannons are essentially the same in all the individual churches.

The result was that all authority within the church - rest with and originates from - the hierarchal structure put into place by Jesus and his apostles. That authority is passed on through proper ordination. And it is passed on through the existing hierarchy (in other words they appoint their replacements) by several methods.

As I said, this heretical structure exists with each of the particular churches - that comprise the whole church. It exists within the Coptic church, the Armenian church, the Melkite church, the Russian Orthodox church, The Greek Orthodox church, etc.. etc� I do not know how many individual churches there are that comprise the entire Catholic church. But each has this hierarchy of authority as put into place by the apostles.

The Orthodox church is also comprised of several individual churches. There is no one - �Orthodox Church� as an individual church - just as there is no one �Catholic� church as an individual church. The Orthodox church is a community of individual churches. The Latin church is a community of individual churches. I believe there is an Oriental Church too - someone else will have to fill you in on this.

The explanation of the entire hierarchical structure of the entire, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church - is beyond my ability to outline..

But in each and every individual church (of which the Roman Catholic is just one) this authoritive hierarchy exists - and governs - and it is that alone which has the authority to make decisions as to dogmas and doctrines for that particular church. Each church is autonomous (entirely independent). But yet they may join in community of several independent churches.

These decisions on doctrine, dogmas, and cannons (laws governing the operation of the church) are decided within Councils or Synods - held within each church. The Councils and Synods are comprised of the ordained hierarchy of that church. The Patriarch or Metropolitan, or Pope (whatever the top bishop is titled) has the supreme authority - and that includes rejection or acceptance of the results of any council or synod. He also has the choice of automatically accepting any results of a synod or council - it is up to him how he wants to do it.

At times - all (or most) individual church have been involved in a Church wide Council (comprise of hierarchy or representatives of the hierarch from all independent churches). All may be invited - but it may not be that all attend. When such a Council is called and it meets the criteria of cannon law - the Council is said to be Ecumenical (results applicable to all churches).

In the Roman Catholic Church (the church under the bishop of Rome - which is a seat of apostolic succession) the top hierarchy is often called the �magistrium� and the bishops who comprise this are �Cardinals�. Each individual church has its own names and titles for these positions of hierarchy.

The Patriarch or head of each independent church has the authority to call for a Council or Synod to discuss, consider, draft, workout - whatever is needed. They do this by debate. It may take weeks or even longer. Eventually they come to some form of decisions on matters. An we Orthodox and Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides them. During the debate they may chose to consider the opinions of others (theologians, scholars, others) but it is by invitation only. The council members often hammer out the final forms by voting. And that result (the positions and documents created) are then presented to the head of that church (Patirach - Pope - whatever) and are either accepted - adjusted as he desires - or rejected - or rejected to be worked on more by the council. I believe it is the case in some of the independent churches that it has been put into cannon law a long time ago- that the Patriarch (or whatever) must accept the results. If that is the case (that it is cannon law that the head of the church must accept the results of the council) then at some earlier council the head of that church must have had to authorized this method - meaning - it is the authority of the authority of the Patriarch himself - that gives that cannon law its authority.

I am sure someone will correct or add detail to this short overview.

But in any case - the authority of the priesthood comes from Jesus Christ (top down) - and is not invested into the priesthood by the members of the church (bottom up) as in most other religions. We are sacramental churches - meaning that the sacraments flow from Jesus Christ - through the apostolic hierarchy - to the members of the church.

In all autonomous churches which comprise the entire Church - it is the hierarchy of the priesthood which has the only legitimate authority to form doctrine and dogma. But of course this can be done in several ways.

In no church - of the entire Eastern or Latin or (whatever more there are) is there any inherent authority given to theologians or scholars. The hierarchy of each church may consider their opinions, might ask their advise, may ask them to research something - but the hierarchy is in no way bound to listen to them at all. At all - at all.

Now - as regards this incident you speak of at the Vatican.

�How do you write these things� - and from your quote we must take it that he was asking �How do you write these doctrines?� He was studying some documents which contained doctrines.. Yes? We also would assume from the answer that these were minor doctrines and did not necessitate a Council or Synod.

Now - let us get our feet down into reality here - and not automatically assume - corruption.

How are minor Catholic doctrines written?

Well - not too different from other important documents in the normal world. They are written in similar steps as any other of the apostolic churches.

First - the Pope authorizes others to research all aspects of the proposed doctrine. Just as the President of the United States would ask his secretaries and departments heads - to research all aspects of something he was considering to make into an Executive Order. You must not think that either the Pope or the President does much of anything without legions of secretaries and advisors and such.

Dozens of people then research all past aspects down through church history - research recent documents - they might or might not consult respected theologians - they examine similar doctrines in other autonomous churches - they may ask for the opinions of different Pontifical Institutes - and dozens more things� � and if things look right - they would then prepare a draft of the proposed doctrine for the Pope to review.

A draft. Doesn�t that make sense to you? What is a draft - but it is something prepared in such a way as that the person who will be approving and signing that document into law - can review it and ask for adjustments to be made to it. You and I might sign our mortgage without reading every word - but these world leaders do not affix their name and authority to anything that has not been hammered out in every aspect.

Once the draft is received - the Pope confers and discusses the matter with the representatives of the several offices of the magistrium. Depending on what type of doctrine it is and what it concerns - there can be several steps involved. For example - if it is a doctrine which only has application with the American Bishops - and not the entire Roman Catholic Church - then a council of the American Bishops may be called and the doctrine is discussed - or it may simply be sent to them for their comments - and then send back to the Vatican - and maybe further research asked for - etc..

There is no doubt - that - like in the real world - those who initially author (write) the drafts - write it in draft form - and then it is sent back to them (maybe several times) for changes and adjustments - before the hierarchy is satisfied that it fully reflects the mind of the hierarchy and magisterial of the Roman Catholic church.

The hierarchy of the church does not trust the contents and meaning of its doctrine - to secretaries, researchers, and theologians, an scholars. For none of these have been given the authority - nor grace - to lead the church. That type of church world be like several Protestant churches who ordain Ministers through the authority of its members and the education level of its potential ministers.

Can you imagine any document of any world wide institution which is written just once? by researchers - and then signed with the authority of a world leader - on the spot - no adjustments!!?? It is just not done. So much research and consultation and such goes into them. Well - yes - Saddam - wrote and signed his own on the spot. Dictators do that.

Your Orthodox Hiearch asked the question - got the right answer - but made automatic negative assumptions as to why. I assume from this that he was never involved in the formation of doctrine in the Orthodox church� otherwise � he might have known the comparable steps the formation of that doctrine takes. Tell me - if you know - does the Orthodox church still do councils and synods? Anyway�

My friend. If your friend was indeed an Orthodox Hiearch - then he himself would know that such is the course and way in which the Orthodox church itself - has done these doctrines.

Church records of even the earliest councils record how long they may take. How many people debate the issues pro and con - how many times everyone thought �we are done!� and then back they went for even more changes and adjustments to the work at hand. Certainly you will find that the church has never signed the first draft of any doctrine or dogma. Councils and arguments and proposals and compromises took - days if not weeks.

I can not imagine within any church of the entire Church - of any Patriarch or Pope or what have you - who would sit in a room alone and emerge with a hand written doctrine! (end of story!) There is much research, discussion, debates - consultations - prayer - history - that goes into these things. They are drafted and re-written several times before final acceptance or rejection - by the hierarchy.

But in the end - it all goes back to the very basic. Either someone believes that Jesus Christ is God and has established his apostolic succession and given that succession something of his own authority - - - or not. Either one believes that Jesus is fully capable of preserving his churches (that comprise the entire Church) from the attacks of hell -- - or not. If one believes both to be true - then one should assume and expect to find it as actually true - rather than expect it to be otherwise. If one expects and assumes that any one of his churches that comprises the entire Church - has been compromised by Satan - than one must come to the inescapable conclusion that Jesus Christ - was a fake - or in the least a weak god who was not capable to live up fully to the fact which he pronounced �The gates of hell shall not prevail against my church.�

Who is it that would dare to stand at the gates of heaven and say to Jesus �Well - you were almost - right� did you know that Satan DID prevail against your Roman Catholic church?? And some say he prevailed against the Coptic and Ethiopian churches too!! For a number a years the Armenian church taken over by Satan� and so we all gave you a score of - 8 - out of a possible high score of - 10.�

Thank you for the discussion. I am not here to change your mind. I am not a theologian nor do I have any authority. You are free to consider my words and think about them anything that you will. No penalty involved.

-ray

Dear Christiansteve, out here in the rural areas of the Midwest and West, it is common for Orthodox to attend Greek Catholic services, and vice versa if they do not have access to their own priest or parish.

In my former Ukrainian Catholic parish we had Orthodox attend regularly, usually newer immigrants, and some of those would approach and receive the Mysteries.

I believe it was Archbishop Vsevelod who used the term "informal intercommunion" to describe these sorts of situations, actually somewhat common between Ukrainian Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox in the US.

I know of Greek Catholics in Eastern Ukraine who are likewise not refused the Mysteries by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate [UOC-KP] as they have no parish of their own, and are very warmly welcomed in their UOC-KP parish.


Matthew, interestingly enough the Holy Father himself has greatly praised the Eastern approach to infant communion, and in one address to the UGCC bishops called our approach of uniting the three sacraments of initiation "the perfect initiation" and one which the West should look to for its theological and mystagogical beauty.

Dear Diak,

It is good to hear your infant communion comments. I further understand that the dogma of infallibility is being looked at in terms of adjustment or development insofar as it is a divisive issue with the Orthodox Church and the beloved Bishop of Rome considers it a terrible sin for the see of Rome to not be in communion with the Orthodox Church. It is good to know that the Bishop of Rome has a great appreciation for the Eastern Orthodox Church.

(Dei Verbum 8) Vatican II "The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her"

Dear Ray,

You quote; "My friend. If your friend was indeed an Orthodox Hierarch - then he himself would know that such is the course and way in which the Orthodox church itself - has done these doctrines."

First I'm glad I'm still your friend. The Orthodox Hierarch I mentioned perhaps I shouldn't have in retrospect, is an authentic Orthodox Hierarch, he wasn't just dressing up as one I'm sure he knows full well how things are done.

I must say Ray, I do believe that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Surely we can agree that after communism assaulted the Churches she is still there. We have seen the assaults on the 35 or 38 Serbian Churches in the recent years as well. There are so very many examples, I don't like thinking about it to be blunt. We have also seen a few weeks ago I think the assault in Iraq on beloved Catholic Churches. Certainly Rome too has suffered much in recent years.

I'm going to try to withdraw from this forum and subject matter for a while as I often get a bit troubled by it. I believe that the fullness of
truth is in the Orthodox Church and I'm not comfortable when it seems to be some sort of intellectual play thing, I hope I'm not doing that I don't I think you are, just a thought.

Lesson learned Ray, forgive me I'm often very proud. I sure hope you are not just a friend but my brother in Christ. Sometimes brothers disagree even exiled over Church related discussions, however they remain brothers who pray for each other.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin