www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox-Catholic Relations

I would like it if you all, when you have time, read this rather lengthy (for a college student :p ) article on Orthodox-Catholic Relations: An Orthodox Perspective [praiseofglory.com] , and let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

Dear Catholicos,

Fr. Chrysostom Frank's article is truly breathtaking and amazing! Thank you for sharing it with us.

I think a number of his own Orthodox colleagues might find him "heretical" on certain points, or else in his entire ecumenical attitude.

I would disagree with Fr. Frank on his assessment of the canonization of St Alexis Toth.

There is no way that either the Roman or Orthodox Churches will give up their own sense of identity as bearers of the fullness of Apostolic Catholicty as Churches.

The day they do that is that day . . .they will be one Church!

Alex

He is not Orthodox. When he wrote that piece he was Orthodox, but obviously was leaning rather heavily towards Catholicism. He has since become an Eastern Catholic. I think that the article represents the view of an Orthodox who was leaning toward Catholicism at the time -- more than it represents "Orthodox opinion".

Brendan

[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: Brendan ]

Dear Brendan,

Yes, I have since found out about his background, thank you for pointing it out!

As I said, I didn't agree with his assessment of Toth and of the Orthodox ecclesiology.

I take it you agree with me in this!

The purpose of true ecumenism is not to "water down" our respective theologies, but to ensure their complete integrity as we work out how we can be perfectly one, according to Christ's Will, while still remaining "ourselves."

God bless you, Pillar of Orthodoxy!!

Alex

When he wrote that piece he was no more Orthodox than Pope Nicholas I.

Orthodoxy is not a club, it is a belief.

It is impossible for one, such as Frank's, to have a different faith than St. Photius, a monk of the Holy Mountain, or St. Nicholas and be Orthodox. That mentality is Latin.

[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Dear OOD,

"Orthodoxy is not a club . . ."

But you seem to wield one, my friend!

Also, is not Orthodoxy more than a belief, but a way of living in accordance with faith?

Alex

Alex,

"Wield one"? You obviously missed the point. If I beleived that Ra was the sun God, kept quiet about it, and remained in my Church, I would not be Orthodox.

And yes, it is more than just true faith, but for my point, "faith" was the relative aspect.

I am in a rather solemn mood this morning Alex, so no 's for you today.

[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Observations on Article by Fr. Chrysostom Frank

1. Overall, Fr. C's article dramatically overemphasizes the importance of the Balamand statement. The Balamand statement was, in reality, an attempt to reach a pastoral solution to the problem of rising tensions between Catholics and Orthodox in Eastern Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Balamand statement was not, in any sense, a deep, reflective, ecclesiological document, nor was it intended to be so. Fr. C uses Balamand as a type of ecclesiological breakthrough is therefore misplaced and, frankly, Balamand can't hold the weight of that burden. The terminology of “sister churches” has not been broadly accepted within Orthodoxy, and even Catholics have felt the need to clarify the meaning of that phrase when used by the Catholic Church – all in the wake of Balamand and the ecclesiological confusion caused in at least some circles by the language adopted in that pastoral document. The full implications of an ecclesiology of “sister churches” have not been fleshed out in either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, and the concept of a “wall within the Church” is likewise a concept that has not been the subject of adequate reflection, refinement or acceptance broadly by theologians of both communions.

2. Fr. C places a curious emphasis on events in North America that represent only 6m of a worldwide Orthodox communion of perhaps 300-400m. It is unlikely that events in North America have a significant impact on the relationship between Orthodoxy and Catholicism as a whole, because the vast majority of Orthodox do not live in North America, and the hierarchies that are discussing issues with the Vatican are largely also not North American. In this context, Fr. C's comments regarding the canonization by the OCA of St. Alexis Toth, and the recent popularity of Orthodoxy among converts from evangelical Protestant communities are curious in an article concerning overal Catholic-Orthodox relations. Perhaps these comments would be more appropriate in an article focused on our relations in North America … but it seems unlikely that these relations – which are generally warmer, closer and more cooperative than in Europe, at least, where the vast majority of Orthodox live – are very significant to the overall Orthodox-Catholic relationship.

3. Fr. C. minimizes the problems of the approach he advocates. For example, he does not adequately address the real ecclesiological issues that arise based on a more simplistic understanding of the concept of “sister churches” – namely the “one-ness” of the church. This is a legitimate and real problem in eccesiological terms. Catholic clarifications of the matter – such as Dominus Iesus – indicate that for Catholicism the fulness of unity is only found within the full communion with Rome, within which the Catholic Church subsists, and that the churches outside that communion may be particular churches to the extent that they share in “elementa ecclesiae” sourced in the Catholic Church that subsists in the Roman communion. Formulated another way, Dominus Iesus says that the Roman communion is the Catholic Church and other non-Catholic churches are “churches” because they share a lot of the same elements that the Roman communion does, but they are less than full, or deficient, or lacking in fulness, because they do not share all of these elements due to the fact that they are not under papal authority. In effect, Dominus Iesus expresses the Catholic view that the Orthodox are very similar to Catholics, and if the Papacy were simply glued on to Orthodoxy there would be no more problem. The ecclesiology of Dominus Iesus is built, therefore, on the foundation of the Roman Catholic perception of largely insignificant differences between Rome and Orthodoxy. The Orthodox ecclesiology is, by contrast, based on the Orthodox perception of rather more significant differences between Rome and Orthodoxy. The underlying difference, however, remains in that Rome and Orthodoxy percceive of their separation from the other in very different terms – Dominus Iesus is the fruit of the Catholic view, whereas the Orthodox understanding is the fruit of the Orthodox view. I think that is a more balanced way of looking at the matter than simply contrasting the rough ecclesiological implications of Balamand (a pastoral, and not an ecclesiological, statement) with a traditional formulation of Orthodox ecclesiology. The Catholic viewpoint has also identified weaknesses with a rough “sister churches” ecclesiology based, again, on the need to maintain the “oneness” of the church.

4. This tendency – that of rhetorically impressive but substantively deficient comparisons -- repeats itself at various places in the article. One ominous instance of this is the comparison of the uniate movement with the Western Rite of Orthodoxy. Fr. C's comparison ignores the most obvious differences – namely that (1) these communities are NOT coming from the Roman Catholic Church (a critical distinction from Uniatism), and (2) these communities do not represent ecclesial dioceses, but isolated communities without a Bishop. These two distinctions are critical – Uniatism, on the one hand, involved the detachment of entire dioceses from the Orthodox Church, whereas the Western Rite involves the incorporation of isolated non-Catholic communities into the Orthodox Church, but not from the Catholic Church. Uniatism was poaching of the Orthodox Church in a way that the Western Rite is not poaching of the Catholic Church, and that is a critical difference that is not even stated in Fr. C's misplaced comparison of these two different phenomena.
5. Finally, the most surprising element of Fr. C's analysis relates to the papal dogmas proclaimed by Roman Catholicism in the 19th century. Here, again, the significance of these is dramatically understated. They are described as “ a specific western attempt” and “whether this attempt, in all of its aspects, represents the faith of the universal Church is still to be seen”. This is tantamount to denying the dogmatic authority of the statements made under penalty of anathema at the First Vatican Council. One must suppose that Fr. C., prior to his conversion to Catholicism, has recanted from his view that these statements may not represent the faith of the Church … but as the matter currently stands, these issues are dogmatic truth, per Catholicism. That is a substantial, substantive obstacle to communion between Rome and Orthodoxy on the level of theological dogma – not a trifling matter at all, and quite dramatically understated here.


In all, Fr. C's convictions expressed here are very heavily leaning towards Catholicism. Perhaps it was only the final point regarding the binding dogmatic authority of Vatican I that remained to be resolved in his mind before deciding to convert – we don't know. But in any case, while his article contains some interesting ideas, the basic thrust is an ecclesiology that is not mature, and is not accepted by either Catholicism or Orthodoxy at this point in time.

Brendan

Brendan--

And you're not a priest or professor of religion BECAUSE? :-)

In Christ,

anastasios

Alex--that applies to you, too, my friend.

Dear OOD,

And you missed my point which was simply .

So one can't express one's sincerely held convictions without wielding a club?

Sorry you are so sombre today.

You should read Brendan's exegesis. That'll make you light-hearted for sure!!

Alex

Dear Anastasius the Academician,

I guess it's because we look to you to set the example in this regard as our University Professor "in spe."

I'm a sociologist by training, which, from the religious point of view, probably means I am in need of redemption . . .

Professor Brendan's point about Fr. Frank's position being "immature" is Orthodox, but it does show how one can be intellectually captive by one's religious predilections.

I can see him being immature in that he doesn't take either Roman or Orthodox ecclesiological a prioris seriously in a disordered quest for a nondescript vision of ecumenical unity.

But then again I don't think the article was meant to be a serious stab at scholarly erudition in this respect.

I would agree with Professor Brendan that the article is a kind of "thinking out loud" by Fr. Frank as he talks himself into a Catholic corner.

I would also agree with Professor Brendan with respect to what Professor had said long ago about relativism in this respect. Fr. Frank's positions are relativistic by both Catholic and Orthodox standards.

Perhaps I am too - Professor Brendan might insist that I am and I don't know.

What I would say is that I see that both Catholic and Orthodox positions are exclusivist in that they both say they are true.

That doesn't prevent me from respecting and honouring someone like St Alexis Toth or even St Athanasius of Brest for that matter.

But the New Skete's icon of Michael Ramsey is where I draw the line .

God bless, Academician, we expect great things from you, and we know we'll get them!

Alex

I'm not a professor nor am I called to be one. FWIW, I avoided using the term "relativistic" on purpose in this case.

Well you should write a book then, Brendan, because you are good at sorting things out!

In Christ,

anastasios

PS--Maybe a deacon then?? :-)