www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Very Interesting Statements

The West (and Byzantine Catholics) exaggerate---what is in their minds---the "jurisdictional anarchy" of Orthodoxy. I have traveled through most Orthodox countries overseas and I have never been refused communion or confession, etc. And I don't have to carry a placard over my head that reads, "Me G-r-e-e-k!" The essence of Orthodox ecclesiology is eucharistic union.


Also, it must be remembered that the jurisdictional situation in North America is the exception to the rule. Thank God! And the only major Orthodox Church in America that remains outside of SCOBA--ROCOR--does so at its own volition. Certainly, SCOBA communions can't be faulted for the unilateral rejection by ROCOR of her Orthodox "confreres."

Our difficulty with Rome is their solipsistic assumption---which they just can't seem to shake--- that their way is the best way. But we are not Bavarians or Italians, etc. Therefore, why should we conform to cultural norms that are not ours?

This truly is a matter of justice, and it has nothing to do with personal or ethnic animosities.

We believe that Rome has no more business interfering in our internal affairs than we would have in interfering in the internal affairs of Rome.

Sorry to say, but Rome just cannot shed her cultural hegemonic "ways." At the parish level---across the worldwide Greek Orthodox communion--this hegemonic ideology is absolutely resented, and our hierarchs are well aware of that resentment.


Can you imagine Greeks---with our long memories and our not- that- distant- in- the-past memories of German and Italian occupation---blithely acquiescing to the Italo-Germanic
ideology of ecclesiastical "order?"
It will never happen.

You can't force love and fraternity---the Latin mindset evidently cannot fathom this truth, as the history of the Latin Church and her "relationships" with both Orthodoxy and Protestanism would indicate.


The bottom line is: both sides have their own views of what is or is not "good order" within the Church. Let us leave it at that and work diligently to discover a re-union model that will protect our respective church and ethnic cultures from unilateralism.

ER

[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Ephraim Reynolds ]

I am disturbed by this attitude of sniping concerning Cardinal Kasper's comments. This is NOT to say they are beyond criticism, but most people on this board have used the comments as a launching pad for general blasts at the Vatican. And losing sight of the bigger and more crucial issue -- Christian unity.


I am reading the book
Eastern Christendom by Nicolas Zernov. He poses the perplexing question of why Islam replaced Christianity in large parts of the East. His comments:


Both Western and Eastern Christians face a common enemy in the secular mindset -- and common opportunities to transform the good aspects of modernity.

The majority of Orthodox Christians no longer are helots of the Muslim world. Those issues no longer affect the life of the average Orthodox Christian. (Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for our Arab Orthodox brethren.) Obviously, the Catholic Church has been far more destructively influenced by modernity and the secular mindset than Orthodoxy. If that is not true, why the civil war within your ranks? That issue raises red flags--to the issue of re-union-- for the Orthodox, as it should. Do we want to inherit your many internal difficulties: rampant heresy and apostasy among your theologian,etc.? The answer is obvious.
As your own conservative theologians admit, the Orthodox have been spared the theological civil wars of the Catholic Church of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.


And certainly Rome has a far worse record than the East in treating dissent uncharitably. In fact Rome's treatment of dissent has been absolutely horrific and homicidal.

The equations have changed, but the Orthodox must (and do) reject the old models of re-union as well as papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction.

Certainly, all of us long for re-union. But our Bishops, inc

"I am disturbed by this attitude of sniping concerning Cardinal Kasper's comments. This is NOT to say they are beyond criticism, but most people on this board have used the comments as a launching pad for general blasts at the Vatican."

WADR, Cardinal Kasper's comments were quite disturbing and insulting to Orthodox Christians -- our "Church" "doesn't exist". Really, now! How would you expect Orthodox to react to that? And I don't think it's inappropriate to generalize the reaction to include the Vatican as the good Cardinal is one of the senior members of the Vatican's ecumenical operation.

"And losing sight of the bigger and more crucial issue -- Christian unity."

Which can only come based on the truth. That is the crucial issue, and Cardinal Kasper's comments reflect, from the Orthodox perspective, a misperception of the truth, as has been pointed out here.

"Islam was like the sand of the desert, burying rich and varied vegitation. But at the same time it extinguished the flames of hate. It created a sense of solidarity and brotherhood which had been lost among the contending Christians."

In reality, it created an opportunity for people to become advanced in the new Arab Muslim state apparatus. Zernov is dated. More recent scholarship suggests that conversion to Islam throughout the Arab conquest territories was, for the most part, opportunistically driven.

"The Eastern Christians had displayed heroic virtue, but had been wilful and uncharitable towards their theological opponents, and this was their undoing."

Again, I think that Zernov has confused the issues here. The lack of unity between the Orthodox and pre-Chalcedonian certainly helped the Arabs advance as a political matter (the pre-Chalcedonians -- many of them, anyway -- preferred Arab Muslim rule to that of the Orthodox Empire), but there is no scholarly evidence to support that people converted to the new Mohammedan faith because of their dissatisfaction with the divisions within Eastern Christianity at the time.

"Both Western and Eastern Christians face a common enemy in the secular mindset -- and common opportunities to transform the good aspects of modernity."

This is interesting. I wonder, for example, what Catholics like James Carroll (author of "Constantine's Sword") would say about that? It seems to me at least that the Catholic Church, the contemporary Catholic Church, is deeply divided internally. As Alex has noted well, the highest levels of the hierarchy in Catholic officialdom appear quite united and certainly present themselves as such on paper ... but the further down one goes in the hierarechy and into the laity, the less united Catholicism really is, and, at that level, is substantially *less* united in matters of faith than is Orthodoxy. I see this as a real problem for the ecumenical dialogue. When Orthodox read a book like "Constantine's Sword", they are aghast -- how could we enter communion with such a church where such things are openly believed by the laity (and, less loudly in most cases, by many members of the clergy as well)? Reunion is not a reunion of hierarchies, but a reunion of churches, and on that level Orthodox have quite a lot of reasons to have substantial misgivings. I know that when I read that unfortunate tome, one of my main "take-aways" was "thank God I am not Catholic" -- not because I agree with Carroll's critiques of the RCC, but rather because of how the book exemplifies the attitudes of a significant slice of American Roman Catholicism, and that is *very* troubling indeed.

Brendan

Dear Friends,

I'm sorry if I "over-read" the Cardinal's statement.

But when it comes to Constantinople, I'm the "Fall" guy!

And I don't feel, as a Catholic with three priests and a Metropolitan in my family who suffered under the KGB for their loyalty to Rome, that I must rush to defend each and every action undertaken by every Cardinal nomatter what he says.

I am an EASTERN CATHOLIC, not "eastern CATHOLIC."

And, although I usually don't do this, today I received seven e-mails - all from Roman Catholics on this Forum - who wrote to say they agreed with me and those who took umbrage at the Cardinal's words.

But it is certain that the Cardinal was sending a message to the Orthodox in how he chose his (ill-advised) words.

That isn't "sniping" and sorry if some are so sensitive about this. I have yet to read that Cardinals share in the charism of infallibility enjoyed by the Pope.

Cardinal Suenens was a great man and I continue to revere his memory, even though he did get his head "bitten off" by the Pope for a number of his proposed initiatives (including married priesthood for the Latin Rite - don't you just love the fellow? )

What is more to the purpose, rather than link arms as in a Catholic football team in defence of this Cardinal, it is more to the point to see how the Orthodox feel about his comments.

And the Orthodox, any Orthodox would feel offended, as our Orthodox posters on this thread have already said.

It makes no difference if Catholics aren't offended by one of their own Cardinals comments. Of course, they won't be! (I'm an exception . . .).

But I see that not one Orthodox poster has responded to my question whether they would be happy to receive me should I be excommunicated for my comments here.

Well? Brendan? Orthoman? Ephraim? What say Ye?

Have a great day, Guys, and remember, don't sweat the small stuff . . .

Alex

[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

In the case of Bosnia, the Bogomils--originally Catholics--were driven into the arms of the Turks and Islam by the actions of the Inquisition and the not-so-subtle threats of a pope or two to exterminate the Bogomils.

And yes, opportunism was also a factor for many conversions.

Should the Catholic Church--in general--be blamed for the apostasy of these Bosnian Catholics, first to Bogomilism, and then to Islam?

Is the Catholic Church responsible for the apostasy of Croatian Catholics and their conversion to Islam?

I certainly do not believe so.

ER

[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: Ephraim Reynolds ]

I am completely in favor of re-union. At least twice a week, I pray and meditate in a Roman Catholic Church and I feel very much at home there.

But re-union must be based on charity and justice.

Too often the Orthodox have been treated by the Roman Catholic Church like second-class citizens of the Kingdom of God.

God is also our King and Regent and we demand we be treated as equal citizens in God's Kingdom.

Union? Certainly. Submission to the institution of the papacy? Never!


We have struggled for hundreds of years against multifarious forces to merely survive. Now that we have achieved our freedom no reasonable person can expect us to forfeit that freedom to Rome and for the sake of Rome.

Both sides must work diligently to find a re-union model that respects the church cultures of our respective communities.

To me it is only rational that such a union would be based on a common faith and a common eucharist, since it is in faith and the eucharist that the Spirit is present.

The Orthodox would ask: "What else is necessary to achieve salvation?"

There is much that I admire within Roman Catholicism, but that does not include the heavy hand of the Vatican and Latin hegemony and cultural imperialism.

However, I remain loyal to my hierarchs and their attempts to heal the divisions within the Body of Christ.
ER

[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: Ephraim Reynolds ]

Dear Ephraim,

You've presented a very thoughtful and fair-minded post. I would also say that your thinking is truly ecumenical as it is theologically Orthodox and I appreciate the irenical spirit in which it was conveyed.

There isn't anything that you've said, furthermore, that I as a Byzantine Catholic would disagree with.

We too have experienced Latin hegemony and oppression.

We still do.

Alex

As an Orthodox Catholic, I have been reading this thread with interest. I found it interesting enough to share it with with both my own priest and another Orthodox priest friend. I thought I would share with you the reply email I received from my Orthodox priest friend who has a dry sense of humor. I hope you will all take it in the sense of humor it is presented. It gave me my morning laugh. And its a perfect example that the truth can be both funny and sad at the same time.

Bob

--------

The Pope can kiss the Koran, the Pope can clear a venerable monastery of
Christian symbols so pagan idols can be set up on the altars, the Pope
can do all sorts of non-Catholic things, as can the Cardinals. The RCs of both the Latin Rite and Byzantine Rite can all get excited and shocked and hurt, but not one of
them leaves the RC Church or disavows the Pope. But you just go to an
Orthodox church and change the recipe for stuffed cabbage, and you'll
have mass exodus to another parish, another jurisdiction, or another religion!

Fr -------

Dear Orthoman,

And neither will I leave the Catholic Church over this . . .

Go in peace . . .

Alex

OrthoMan,


“The Pope can kiss the Koran,”

So what? The Pope also kisses (when he was able too) the ground of every country he has visited; now dirt is lifted to his face to kiss. Does this imply that the Pope is wrong simply because he kisses the ground that God made or that he accepts the laws of that country by doing so? Take a close look at the Pope's stern words aimed at the many dictators around the world and ask yourself whether that act should be interpreted differently. The Pope also kissed American soil several times even though the laws on the books permit abortion, something the Pope has condemned in his encyclical, “The Gospel of Life.” Tell me that an act like kissing the Koran meshes well with the same Pope's writings and the teachings of Vatican II? Many Orthodox get upset when certain Christians accuse them of idolatry when they venerate icons. The response is “they just don't understand what is really going on here; we aren't worshipping the icon or the wood or the paint.” Yet when the Pope simply kisses a nation's turf, embraces a nation's leader, kisses an Orthodox patriarch, kisses a dying Hindu child at a hospital or kisses a religious text of another religion, one can interpret it many ways. But sometimes a kiss is just a kiss. Kissing, unlike offering incense, is not always the same outside liturgy as it is inside. But those who wish to paint his actions as idolatry will interpret it the best way they can – for their own self-justification. Didn't the Pharisees, who should have known better, interpret Jesus' miracles of healing as being from someone evil? They were always more interested in tripping Jesus than listening to what he was trying to say and seeing if that was reflected in his actions. Sorry, OrthoMan, I will stay on the side of the people and not the side of the Pharisees. The Pope is a kissing Pope - so Slavic! Everyone of Slavic descent knows that at family gatherings kisses are exchanged between everyone ... even those we don't like. But we kiss just the same because we are family. The Pope can see the Image (icon) of God in anyone, even a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Native American. This is a special gift and a blessing to be able to see the image in others. He tells us to love one another. This is the message that you should return to your priest friend. It's good news.

“the Pope can clear a venerable monastery of Christian symbols so pagan idols can be set up on the altars,”

Many also mention Assisi where various religions prayed together SIMULTANEOUSLY and not together. Remember Oprah's ecumenical service with Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. in New York City? Even the ORTHODOX were there to pray simultaneously as they did with the Pope in Assisi. In fact, protocol was kept by having the New York Cardinal read the Gospel and not an epistle. His office was respected as the Pope respected other people's faiths at other ecumenical services.


“The RCs of both the Latin Rite and Byzantine Rite can all get excited and shocked and hurt,”

Your priest friend is either ignorant or contemptuous. Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholics (“RCs&#8221) nor are they defined as such in the Canons. This is a commonly used twist in words to belittle another group of Christians and most people who use it know quite well what they are doing. At least the Pope respects others for who they are. Such is Christian charity. I am surprised that your priest friend subscribes to a highly Latinized and defunct way of thinking.


“but not one of them leaves the RC Church or disavows the Pope.”

Maybe there is more trust present, which may be lacking in other bodies of faith?


“But you just go to an Orthodox church and change the recipe for stuffed cabbage, and you'll have mass exodus to another parish, another jurisdiction, or another religion!”

I do agree on this one. We all know there is a special place in Hell for those who change stuffed cabbage recipes. These things are, indeed, sacred and Anathema(!) to those who innovate.

Joe

[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Cantor and Mentor Joe Thur,

To quote the Scriptures:

"Teacher, you have spoken well!"

Alex

Brendan's psot has me fairly baffled. Cardinal Kaspar comments in context seem very clear that he is making the point Orthodoxy is better described as a Communion of Churches than as a Church. I seem to recall Eastern Orthodox persons themselves making this observation.

I also find it difficult to believe that his statement is objectively "disturbing and insulting to Orthodox Christians"

Brendan asks "How would you expect Orthodox to react to that?" I would ask the same question. Where is the negative response from Eastern Orthodox leaders? I have heard no negative respones from Nikki nor Constantinople.

But the James Carroll reference truly puzzles me. Carroll for years described himself as an ex-Catholic, though with the publication of his book now says he is Catholic with some criticism of the Church. I would not want to judge someone's faith, but many find his newfound line of "I only blast the Church because I love her" a little much. I would hope Brendan would not take me seriously if I cited some lifelong anti-clerical Greek Socialist who issued a broadside against the Church of Greece while suddenly claiming he is now a beleiver as an Orthodox authority.

Kurt --

For Orthodoxy, as you know, "Church = communion of churches". Kasper was saying that this "communion of churches" can't be "Church", but only "churches". That's quite offensive to Orthodoxy, any way it is sliced.

Brendan

Many Greeks would

There are more than just a handful of Greek clerics, monks, and laity who are both Greek socialists---Christianiki
Democratia--- and devout Orthodox Christians, as well as authorities on the Orthodox faith.

I know this is true, partially because my deceased brother-in-law was one of them.

Interesting comment on your part, though.

Regards,

ER

Golden Dawn