www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West apostol;ic succession & the eucharist

Dear Professor Mether,

I don't think anyone here would argue that there are theological points of disagreement that prevent the full communion between East and West. I don't think that was the intention of Dr. John either. Dr. John is a learned theological scholar with a wide social scientific background and so I think anyone should give him the benefit of the doubt here.

Your list of theological points of divergence between East and West is far from complete, as you know.

In addition, there has been much ecumenical discussion between East and West on a number of them that shows that the differences are not insurmountable and that there is, in fact, some convergence.

For example, Roman Catholic theologians today have no problem with the removal of the Filioque and His Holiness the Pope himself appears to be tending toward its ultimate suppression in the RC Church (Archbishop Vsevolod).

The Immaculate Conception and the nature of Original Sin from which it springs are also points on which the RC Church is flexible, never having proclaimed the Augustinian view of Original Sin as a doctrine.

As for the Uniates, like me, I think both RC and Orthodox Churches have little use for them, as much as some Orthodox would like to think the uniatism is still the RC model for unity.

Again, following from your original point to Dr. John, I am a Uniate and you are not. I know what my community experiences in terms of Rome's attitude and therefore I am better qualified to say what that is.

As for looking to the EP as the spokesman for Orthodoxy, I think this would be a natural tendency not only at Rome but anywhere.

Who does speak for true Orthodoxy? Whose voice is the consistent and representative voice of Orthodoxy? It seems that whenever a forward-looking Orthodox thinker arises, he engenders much anger and even division. I am not Orthodox, to be sure. But even I would like to know whose positions within Orthodoxy are representative or authoritative. If it is not those of the EP, then whose? The Moscow Patriarchate? Whose?

Alex

Dear Professor,

Perhaps there was a problem in the way I phrased my response.

Certainly, to 'know what it is like to be a "uniate"'(we prefer Eastern Catholic), only one who lives and worships in an Eastern Catholic Church is truly qualified to say, and likewise for any other group. This, however, is not what I was referring to.

My point was that anyone (given enough education and reading) can arrive at what the Orthodox position on a given matter is, if this is something unchanging. This applies to any group or Church. In that sense, Dr. John seems to be quite qualified to speak about what is or is not Orthodox (and Catholic). You may not know what 'it is like' to be an Eastern Catholic, or a Roman Catholic, but you can (fairly easily, I imagine) arrive at what the Eastern or Roman Catholic position is on a certain issue.

As to the rest of my post, I'll admit it was late and I was venting.

Alex raises a very good point though, as to who does indeed speak for Orthodoxy? This is a question I have wondered at quite a bit myself.

As you say, Orthodoxy is a federation of multiple centres of apostolic authority and one centre cannot decide for all. But would it not be the role of a 'first among equals (ie. Constantinople) to speak for all of these centres were there any sort of agreement existing between them? As well, if each centre has the same authority, but each says something different, then who is to be listened to as authoritative?

In Christ,
Mike

[This message has been edited by Mike Nicholas (edited 06-19-2001).]

Dear Mike,

Thanks for your post.

I don't believe, however, that you "rambled" in your previous post.

As a former academic myself, I can tell you that the term "rambling" is often used to describe the writing of people we don't agree with.

Would that we all accept the probabilistic nature of our personal discourse!

Alex

>>As a former academic myself, I can tell you that the term "rambling" is often used to describe the writing of people we don't agree with.<<

What an incredibly succinct and well thought out statement

However, according to David Schindler (editor of the journal "Communio"), "We should assume intellectuals are imbeciles until they prove the contrary."

He's quoting Bernanos. Would that I could argue with either man.

Dear Ignatius,

My favourite saying is, "'Tis better to keep one's mouth shut and let everyone THINK that one is a fool than to open it and to remove all doubt thereby."



Alex

Dear Edward,

You mention the MP's attitude toward Rome. Time for some dirty laundry about divisions within Orthodoxy.

>>Alexei in Moscow!

He is rightly concerned by what he sees as intrusions by both Rome and the EP. IMO, the three way circus in the Ukraine would be far less messy (is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church autonomous or under Moscow, and if so, which one) if the EP just kept out of it. As his real flock shrinks, he gets more involved in others. Progress towards an American church would be much further along if the GOA was not the Archdiocesan goose that laid the golden eggs for the Phanar. Discussions amongst the non-Greek bishops here have increasingly entertained the suggestion of leaving the GOA behind in forming an American church if the Greeks can't proceed.
Legally, this was Russian missionary territory and metropolia. Complicating the picture is two historical developments.
First, with the fall of Constantinople, the Moscow Patriarchate became the real leader of Orthodoxy outside of Muslim/Turkish controlled lands. Add to that the Muscovy myth of "third Rome," and you have a Russian mindset that is not explicit but believes that the MP is the successor to the EP. Meanwhile, the EP gained a prominence it did not have before the fall of Constantinople because the Turks made it solely in charge of all Orthodox Christians inside Muslim lands. The Arab Christians (under Antioch and Jerusalem) have had quite a difficult time re-claiming their own Sees. Antioch did it with the help of Moscow. Jerusalem is still not free from EP control. So, there is a lot of Orthodox resentment towards the EP too. Even the monastics, including Mt. Athos, and the Church of Greece are increasingly, ah, ahem, "not cordial" with the Phanar. So, politically, the weight of loyalties in Orthodoxy are shifting to the MP. I would claim, at least as things now stand, whatever the MP does, world Orthodoxy will follow (at a speed approaching continental drift, maybe) despite anything the EP does.
Meanwhile, relations with Rome will be a football between the EP and MP. If things warm up between Rome and the MP, they will chill with the EP (an EP with a decreasing amount of clout). If relations warm up between Rome and the EP, a Russian winter will set in. If protocol called for a first visit with the EP (a by your leave), practical politics called for a very quick call on the others and not the EP again even if such overtures were stonewalled by the others until the Russian ice melted. IMO, Rome's continued, on-going, and renewed contacts between the Vatican and Phanar has
placed it as a political football between two rival patriarchates. Rome did not do its homework in how to fulfill Orthodox protocol while making real progress within the Orthodox political landscape. This was what was in the back of my mind in that last paragraph.

To the other posts where the question was raised who speaks for Orthodoxy, while not a complete answer, my last post should address it to a degree.

Isn't it fair to say that the local bishop speaks for the Orthodox?

Greg

Dear Professor,

The "three way circus" as you so rudely call it is something that is the product of years of Russian Imperial politics with its arm, the Muscovite Church, guiding it.

The two (real) Ukrainian Orthodox Churches are on their way to union and will unite with their true Mother, Constantinople, no matter how many Greeks are left there.

The Russian Church that masquerades as the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate" is not "Ukrainian."

The real circus is the MP's collaboration with communism over the years.

Again, the situation in Ukraine is, with all due respect, very far removed from your academic and cultural experiences and your understanding of it is sadly coloured by religious bias.

With regrets,

Alex

As quoted above:

"First, with the fall of Constantinople, the Moscow Patriarchate became the real leader of Orthodoxy outside of Muslim/Turkish controlled lands. Add to that the Muscovy myth of "third Rome," and you have a Russian mindset that is not explicit but believes that the MP is the successor to the EP."

Moscow became the "armed enforcer" of Orthodoxy outside the subjugated territories. They also promoted the story of the "Third Rome", without ecclesiastical approbation, but rather through the caesaro-papist idea that the "Emperor" could do what he thought.

Though there may be some folks who race to the documents to claim this, that or the other thing, the fact remains that most Orthodox have an understanding that the traditional "Church" has its structure, that the Patriarchates have their privileges based upon their historical roles, and that the true Gospel demands love of God and love of neighbor as the true benchmark of Orthodoxy and of Christianity in general.

History aside, the religion of Christianity demands adherence -- in the first place -- to the Gospel teaching of 'Love of God; love of neighbor'. When Orthodox approach Mother Teresa of Calcutta, for example, they stand in awe (as do other Christians) of her incredible love for the poor, the sick and the outcast. Do they worry that she was an Albanian, but of the Roman Community and not an Albanian Orthodox? No. Most Orthodox stand in awe and respect for this holy woman.

The 'legal' folks would say that all her efforts were for naught since she was blinded by her adherence to the Roman church and not a daughter of Orthodoxy.

Most Greeks I know would say that this is nuts. Though there might not be icons written to her honor in Orthodox churches (although maybe in Albania, there are!), no Orthodox Christian would condemn her to hell for her jurisdictional affiliation.

Although there are multiple 'ethnic' identities in Orthodoxy (as in Eastern Catholicism), our peoples aren't so petty as to dismiss patently holy people from one or another of our communities because of some legal stuff. Perhaps the 'newly arrived' have some sort of justification for making these decisions, but for the folks who have both lived and inherited the experience of traditional Constantinopolitan Christianity, we just can't dismiss a person's life because of an 'ecclesiastical identity card'.

So, we don't have a problem with our Ethiopian brethren, or with the Thomas Christians, or the Armenians, or whomever -- and with their holy ones.

It's not a matter of 'law', or 'legal status' or 'jurisdiction'. It's just our sense of being part of the Eastern family-- and we're real liberal on that. We're happy to be with our own.

Blessings!

I just went over the preceding posts again and was struck by the following:

"And with all the behind the scenes conferences, meetings, and discussions, it appears that in practice both sides have already discovered that communion won't occur without a lot of theological discussion and examination. So, Dr. John's objection to my statement that such was needed and that such was not Orthodoxy or real Catholicism seemed either profoundly naive or the opinion one would here from someone in ECUSA (communion at any cost). So I objected back."

Here's the problem: In the standard Western approach, it's the hierarchy and the "leaders" who guide what the Church is all about. So, if they say: "OOOOH! We've got serious problems", then of course, we've got serious problems.

For us Easterns, traditionally we say: Yeah, sure. And then examine the situation and make our own decisions, parish by parish, diocese by diocese, patriarchate by patriarchate. Publish the treatises; write the papers; promulgate the decrees. But when God's Eastern peoples spend time with each other, we just focus on more important things. Why? Because those whose memories are strong with persecutions and memories of subjugation, there is little room for petty jurisdictional differences as against those who oppress the Christian communities. Greeks, whose homeland is far from Armenia, will fight like hell for their Armenian Christian brethren, as well for their Palestinian brethren, and the Ethiopians, and the Copts, and the..........

While the 'scholarship' may mitigate and ordain otherwise, we just keep on "keepin' on". It may be hard for the Western mind to contemplate, but it's just us sick puppies hanging with our own.

Blessings!

I think some took offense when there was none given. Guys, reread my post on the political obstacles to communion on the Orthodox-side. I started it off by saying it was the Orthodox dirty laundry. In summary, I
said,

1. For a variety of historical reasons,
there has developed a rivalry between the
MP and EP.

2. As the EP declines in political importance, he meddles more in the
affairs outside his sphere of
authority (one I did not mention,
he is busy in Australia, too, which
even he concedes, belongs to Antioch).
This is true in the US and abroad (such
as Ukraine, Jerusalem, Australia since
I mentioned it).

3. Given this situation, Rome's overtures are a political football. Warm up to the EP chills relations with MP and vice versa.

Now what is so offensive about those
three points unless one is a huge
supporter of either the EP or MP?

Greg,

The answer to your question in most cases is yes. But the local bishop is under the authority of the entire episcopacy. If communion between east and west is to be established, a single bishop can't do it -
whether a local bishop or patriarch. That is
why I've been saying all along that it will probably take a council (the 8th Ecumenical Council?).

>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr John:
>[B]I just went over the preceding posts >again and was struck by the following:

>"And with all the behind the scenes >conferences, meetings, and discussions, it >appears that in practice both sides have >already discovered that communion won't >occur without a lot of theological >discussion and examination.

>Here's the problem: In the standard >Western approach, it's the hierarchy and >the "leaders" who guide what the Church is >all about. So, if they say: "OOOOH! We've >got serious problems", then of course, >we've got serious problems.

[snip] with easterners way of proceeding contrasted with the above.

Here is the problem with Dr. John's problem.
First, the divisions were real and there before the academics and hierarchs, that Dr. John seems to scorn in his apparently ECUSA group-hug approach, began to discuss them. Second, contrary to the contrast between east and west being made, it was those Orthodox easterners that initiated the kind of ecumenical and theological discussions with other churches that aggravates Dr. John so much. Before JP II, there was the Orthodox originated WCC (before it became what it is today). I have a photo of Fr. Georges Florovsky next to Karl Barth after a rough but productive in day of progress. A rough but working consensus was formed on the nature of the Church that would later become, according to Ratzinger, the paradigm for JP IIs approach to Orthodox churches. I guess Dr. John also scorns the Oriental Lumen conferences at Catholic University too. Its just more academics and hierarchs creating problems for everyone. Guess we could have had a big group-hug instead of having those problem-creating Nicene Councils. They would be original bad example of hierarchs and intellectuals mucking things up if we apply Dr. John's logic.

Dear Professor,

O.K., O.K. you are right. I shouldn't have taken offense.

When is your book on Buddhism and Christianity going to be published?

And would you autograph a copy for me?

Alex