www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology In Communion

...and that is why the Greek Orthodox Church is happy to have one such as you amongst our ranks. Let us pray for unity each time we say the Creed and pray: In one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In Christ,
Alice

Acknowledging the truth in the claims of what ones church teaches is not pride, though how one reacts or proclaims this could be done in a prideful way. One could make the case in reality that re-interpreting the idea of the church along one's own personal convictions, and not by what the church says about itself, is in fact a matter of pride. The pride argument is really a trap, and like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I think that I know Shane, a new Orthodox convert, pretty well by now, and that he is simply saying that there is often alot of pride which hampers people from understanding or wanting to understand, and working and wanting to work towards the knowledge of how much we have in our common faith in Jesus Christ.

Bishop Kallistos Ware said that we should appreciate and honor the traditions of other Christian faiths. In doing so, I believe that the pride which predominates other feelings and logic in many (let's be honest) on *both* sides of the Christian divide would be negated.

Alice, Moderator

That's fine, all I'm saying is that there are still essential differences even after acknowledging what is shared; between Orthodox and Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, etc. To acknowledge that these differences exist, and that ones own church has the correct interpretation of disputed ideas is not a matter of pride.

I have seen the pride card unfortunately played as a way to write of the differences, or to ascribe negative motivations to those who acknowledge they exist. That's not a criticism of SPdundas. I just don't like the pride argument.

Hello AMM,

Essential differences between Catholics and Orthodox?

What about Byzantine Catholicism and Orthodox? Are there any differences?

What about Western Rite Orthodoxy and Roman Catholics? Are there any differences?

I still don't think it's a good excuse to say that Orthodox & Catholic have differences when these respective churches have their own counterparts. Sure...the East & the West have differences...just the same difference. Just as the glass half empty and glass half full is the same difference.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

You said it so well Alice.
Just because we love our own church and traditions so much, should prevent us from respecting and honouring the traditions of other churches. We all have to be people of "good will" and be open to dialogue and discussion.
I for one am especially tired of rehashing old battles.

Well, on a forum such as this, won't it be inevitable that we will hash out old battles now and then? I agree that not much is usually accomplished, except perhaps that we might gain more insight into exactly what the contemporary situation is. I think that Andrew made a good point. Claiming to be the true Church and requiring membership for communion is not disrespectful to other churches and faiths. I can respect deeply much about the Roman Catholic Church while believing that the Orthodox Church is the true Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church is not.

Joe

Dear Orest,

I couldn't agree with you more. The important thing is to empty ourselves of pride and ego, and approach unity of all Christian faiths, as something that Christ Himself would want of us...and that requires a deep understanding of the other's position. Of course, that understanding could only be achieved when we open our hearts to our Lord, so that it may be through His Love, and His understanding.

God made us different. We are different in language, and consequently the reasoning that is formed through that language. Also, we have different circumstances, and how each Church reacts to those circumstances is different according to what they themselves are.

As an Orthodox, I use as an example the circumstances that brought about the Filioque. It came about to combat the Arian heresy within a cultural and linguistic expression used by a Latin Church. The same might also be said as to the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope. That too might have been to combat the Protestant errors that were entering the RCC at that time.

One cannot state that they are the 'only' Church, without looking at the fruits the other Church's bears. Certainly one cannot deny that both Churches have an abundance of saint, and for that matter, we can also look at all the godly people among the Protestants.

As an Orthodox, for me not to understand why the Catholics did this or that, is to have denied the RCC the use of these methods to combat errors. That might have given them the same consequences that we Orthodox have had to suffer...millions upon millions of souls, lost to Islam. A fate that might be repeated, unless we begin to understand one another and the why and how's of the position each Church has taken.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Sure, they have been and will be discussed many times. I am quite confident in saying that!!! If there weren't, our respective churches would in essence be lying to us.


The counterpart churches exist because of the differences though, they're not just historical accidents (or at least I hope not). Why don't all Byzantine Catholics who are annoyed with the liturgical revisions just go to an Orthodox church? I would assume they believe there is some essential difference between the two. I respect and like many things about Catholicism, but I'm not Catholic nor do I desire to be, because I disagree with them on some important things. I don't have pride that I think my church is "better", I just think it's right.

Since you are a reasoned, decent man, I am comfortable asking you...What happens if our respective hierarchs find a way to see our "differences" as 1)some not being quite so different as we might have thought over the centuries, and 2) the rest of the differences are not so much differences as they are distinctions and are not signs of an entirely different faith, but signs of emphasis and matters of degree?

What do we do when our hierarchs agree to resume communion without much change at all, if any, in our respective ways of being and doing?

Mary

We would each have to evaluate what we made of this if the theoretical became reality. Hierarchs as we know are capable of making mistakes. Recent history certainly provides an ample supply of examples.

I would say that restoration happening with no real changes, is in itself actually a major change. Whatever happens, it will be a major change.

I feel confident in saying that if the Orthodox hierarchs agreed to restoration under such terms it would touch off a significant internal schism. Much worse than what happened over the calendar.

You'll have to excuse me, I was getting a bit poetic and not intending to make a theological statement.

I agree that there are essential differences, but I would contend that exactly which differences are essential and which are not can only be discerned with the help of the Holy Spirit, and that will require much prayer and humble submission on the part of all parties concerned. In the end, I think we will all be surprised.

Clearly, there is a difference between restoration being declared and restoration happening. Unity cannot be imposed, it must be sought after and worked towards. The declarations of unity at Florence and Brest are examples of why this is so.

In other words, the work of reunion has to take place on all levels, so that people can see and feel for themselves that something is happening and it is from God.


Peace,
Deacon Richard