www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church

It always pains and insults me to no end to read such a biased statement as the one above (apparently made with complete lack of honest integrity regarding the actual truth and facts surrounding the schism) toward the Holy Roman Apostolic and Catholic Church. Where is the spirit of Unity desired by Christ?

KatholikosMercy:

I think it is good to read and hear from another a point of view that is not our own. We all bear responsibility for the schism and all need to repent our hard hearts.

A poetic line that was the theme for my senior yearbook in high school translates: "O would that some Power would give us the gift to see ourselves as others see us."

That is what this thread calls us to do. If it hurts, please understand that Rome's recent restatement of her position hurts the other way for people who did not directly cause the schism of 1054, that of the Oriental Orthodox separation, or the Protestant separation. Nothing new was stated taht was not part of official documents coming out of Vatican II. though many have thought that the ecumenical relationships built up since that time had softened or mitigated that stance.

We need to pray more and react less. A few real, sincere tears on all our parts is the only way the Lord will be able to accomplish what He prayed for--"that all may be one. . ."

In Christ,

BOB

Easy now ...

The posted was giving an informative quote. It does not necessarily follow that the poster agreed 100% with its wording. Maybe he does maybe he does not. He posted it so we can know what some portions of the churches of the East are thinking.

Such things are good for open minded debate.

For example - I believe the creed thing is a long term misunderstanding. There was no conspiracy. The trouble here � is semantics. But that will not get straightened out under the shadow of the type of Primacy claimed by Rome.

On the other hand - he is right about the dogma of Infallibility and the Primacy of the Pope - Peter was not a judicial primacy in the early church. It only developed into a judicial Primacy as a necessity when Europe went through the bloody wars of the Reformation � when the Catholic church was fighting for its very survival and Kings were declaring themselves as heads of national churches.

Can you imaging ?? a 30 year war in which Protestants and Catholics agreed (!!!) that Germany would be the - killing grounds? 30 years! You could be born during the war - grow up - and march off to fight in Germany - and die - your entire life shaped by killing - in the name of God.

England had ripped away from the Pope - King Philip of France was threatening to do the same - Spain had gone overboard with the Inquisition. Judicial Primacy became an absolute must if the RC was to survive.

On the horizon was the French Revolution and Napoleon who would declare himself Emperor of the Church and the entire world.

I am a Roman Catholic.

Everyone here at this forums is trying to forge unity - if they were not - they would not be here. That takes some hard honesty. The laity (we) did not create the schism - hierarchy did. We are doing our best to sort out what we can. Human management failed. But the divine still unites us.

If full unity is reestablished - it will be us - who bring it about. A ground swell from the bottom up. Tolerance and patience are needed� a charity which means the willingness to try and understand our brothers � and to refrain from assuming conspiracy theories and bad intentions. This is not easy. It is trying to break - years (centuries!) of propaganda put out by both sides. It is a work of humility, tolerance, and charity. Not really a work of who is �right� and who is �wrong�.

I say this stuff - mostly to remind - myself.

Peace to you and to your holy church.
-ray

I am sorry that Katholikos Mercy took Father Miltiades' comments so negatively. I noted in my comments that it looked like Rome and Constantinople were using the same play book except one text was in Latin, the other in Greek. By this statement, I meant several things: 1), to use Apotheoun's words, "The Latins and the Orthodox sincerely disagree with each other on a lot of issues, and the disagreements are enough to prevent the restoration of communion, "(Apotheoun's comments are a lot more diplomatic than those of Father Miltiades), and 2) that the Eastern Orthodox Church, like the Roman Catholic Church, makes the claim that it is the true Catholic Church and that its errant sister was at fault for the schism. There are many on each side of the divide that sincerely believe this and I also feel there is enough blame be shared by both sides.

Father Miltiades' comments leave something to be desired because they are too simplistic as are those who argue that papal primacy was always the case despite the fact that infallibility was only proclaimed by Vatican I. A very good introduction to the whole topic of the divide in the Church which many Catholics might find to be eye opening is the fine book entitled "Why I am Catholic" by Professor Gary Wills of Northwestern University. Any reader of either faith would do well to read the book. It recounts in a clear fashion how the papacy gradually acquired the position in the western church that it now occupies.

I'll conclude by noting that Fr. Miltiades' views are not unique. I like to describe the relationship of Constantinople to Rome is like that of a person looking into a mirror ans seeing his or her own image. In my judgment, it is impossible to say which church is the image in the mirror and which is the source of the image. I personally think each of us would decide which church is the original and which is the reflection, sadly, based on one's own personal biases.

I'm pretty certain I'm in a small minority here, but I actually don't share the enthusiasm others on this forum have for reunification between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. In theory it's a noble objective, but in practice I see it as something (as it's advocated) that would weaken and de-centralize the Papacy. All the corrections, re-wordings and re-evaluations are supposed to happen on the Roman side. At the same time people freak out over comments made by Pope Benedict XVI, while tending to ignore much stronger statements by various Orthodox Churches regarding the Roman Catholic Church.

Personally as a Catholic, I feel that a restoration of the Church as it was 50 or more years ago is far more important than reunification with the Orthodox Churches, though at the same time I can empathise with an Orthodox who tells me that my Church needs to deal with rampant liberalism and various other scandals before we can get down to attempting to bring about reunification.

Obviously, such demands will have to cease.

The prime sin of the hierarchy of both �sides� (yes, I call it sin) is their stance of exclusiveness to the exclusion of other churches. Again, I say, the laity did not cause the split - hierarchy did. While both speak of charity and fidelity to Christ - both - have failed in that - and failed in fact where is should have been the easiest! Church unity. Freindship with others who claim friendship with Christ!

(talk about repentance being needed!!)

Both have forgotten �No one was ever saved by the law.� (Paul) and no one ever will be. When the law is placed above charity - what Jesus said to the scribes (experts in the law) comes into play ...

�Experts in the law (scriptures) that you are ... you do not enter in (into the living spisirt of the scriptures) - and in doing that you prevent others from entering - because YOU were commissioned to be thier guide. You are the blind and you make others blind and lead them into a pit of drakness.� (paraphrased)

A massive human failure in charity - if you ask me.

Should I not say this? Should I ignore the obvious out of some misplaced feelings of false humility or some need to ignore the fact that heairchy is also human and in need of personal sanctification? Might I offend them? No .. they have offended themselves. Thank God they are all dead (those who initiated the seperation). Now we must repair the damage they did.

Charity means friendship. Simple human friendship. Children know how to do it.

We can not love God directly because we can not see or hear, touch or even know God directly. Therefore proof of our love for God is found in our love (friendship) for each other.

I think God did this - in a smart way. Imagine if we COULD love him directly - and thereby ignore other humans. By passing them so to speak. But instead .. God forces us to love Him within other humans - thereby tricking us into being like himself. He WANTS us to love him - through the means to loving other humans. Oh he is a tricky one for sure. He knows we would take the short cut if we could.

Friendship does not make demands upon the other - it does not set condition that must be followed as a criteria. Friendship (charity) depends entirely upon the being of the person giving it - it is not contingent upon the person receiving it.

If friendship fails - it is not the target of friendship that has faulted - it is the source.

Let me put it this way.

If I say to my wife �Cathy, I love you because you have nice hair, you are polite, you say the things I want to hear, and you are easy to get along with.� - IS THAT LOVE?

NO. It is not. Love is not contingent upon the receiver. It is contingent upon the ability of the giver.

Jesus himself said that �If you love those who love you - what good is that? Do not your enemies do the same?� (paraphrased).

Love � friendship � charity (keep in mind that the definition of charity is the exercise of our love for God - whom we can not love directly - completed by being aimed at the same target that God loves - other humans.

Look at it this way�.

�Let us make man in our image� does not mean two arms, two legs, flesh, two eyes� no .. God has none of these and we can have no image of God. And so the likeness that God wishes to create in us - is a likeness of will. We are to do the same thing that God does.

Q: And what is that? What does God do?
A: God brings people to himself.
Q: How does God do that?
A: Through his providence of - love.

God - LOVES - us humans. And if we are to be like God - THAT is the likeness he wants to find within us. He wants us to do as he does - love other humans.

Period.

To this end he gave us conscience � and an innate ability to know what love is. It is there within conscience. It is not rules to follow - nor is it theology - it is moment by moment checking conscience.

What did Jesus ask Peter three times? �Do you love me Peter? (in a sacrificial way) and what answer did Jesus not accept - �in a sacrificial way�. What answer was he looking for? Peter finally gave it �Lord - you know I had wanted to love you in a divine and sacrificial way - I tried SO HARD! But I failed. I failed miserably. No Lord - all I was ever capable of doing was loving you in a human way of friendship.�

BINGO!!!
Doesn�t it seem so odd - that the entire being of the world depends upon simple human love? And not upon semantics of words - and philosophical formula - and defiantly out is love produced by contingency of demands made upon the other person.

Would not it be simpler - is we could - read a book of rules and follow them to the letter? Would not it be simpler if we could just learn a set of theology and repeat it verbatim? Would it not seem better and more ;sure� if we could graduate from something - somewhere - and have a certificate �This person has passed all requirements and is presented with an irrevocable ticket into heaven.�

No.

It wouldn�t.

Perhaps God - made a mistake? Perhaps God did it wrong. It seems so silly and so un-intelligent - to make heaven and all of creation dependent upon something so human as - friendship.

Yet - he (Jesus) said there are only two types of people in the world. A servant (who does the masters will but it mechanical and follows rules and commands) and friends. �I tell you that you are friends� - friends of God - because friends are of similar mind and heart and get to talk things over together. Not so with the servants. We are either servants (that means we do God�s will but we do not know it nor have a part in it) or we are friends of God.

And so in the very least - each church must cease accusations on the other - and cease demands upon the others. There are NO conditions that must be fulfilled and make our charity contingent upon anything else other than our own personal will and ability to give - friendship.

The hierarchy of the churches have failed at this - where it had counted the most - each other.

No justification is valid. God sees through them all as empty.

Friendship. The hierarchy of the churches should know how to do that. Yes?? Is that not the constant drum beat they give US? Charity � charity � charity? Love of God through loving others.

Yes - it is. Most definitely it is.

They should try it. Real action and not just words.

Jesus will not accept the excusue "Oh... I did not love others simply because - they were not lovable. IF they HAD been lovable - I would have loved them! And so you see dear Lord - it is not my fault. So few of them were worth and object of my love. Too bad they could not change so that I COULD love them."


Peace to you and to your church.
-ray

Imagine the Church existing in union for centuries. Imagine that over time, one Bishop begins to claim power and authority over the other bishops. Imagine one Church decided unilaterally to change the Creed of the Church and its bishop begins to demand that all other bishops be subordinate to it. The other bishops refuse and go on worshiping according to the ancient creed and faith. Eventually a schism ensues because the one bishop will not return to his place as one bishop among all bishops. How can the other bishops be said to be at fault? Isn't the one bishop who sought supremacy and who thought he had the right to change the creed at fault?

Joe

There is no "official" position from Orthodoxy on the Roman Church. It is all theologumen. That said there is a consensus that is very near to unanimous among Orthodox that the Roman Catholic Church is heretical. Of course there are differing degrees of heresy and what the implications are will depend on who you ask.

But the simple answer to your question is yes. If a particular dogma of the RCC were definitively ruled to be heresy then it would have to be repudiated as a condition for restoring communion. IMO most of the dogmatic differences can probably be overcome with a lot of discussion and maybe some creative "doctrinal development" on Rome's part. I think the one area that is likely to be the deal breaker is the decrees of Vatican I. Papal Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction as defined at Vatican I are nonstarters on this side of the fence. And the language of the decrees are so crystal clear that they simply do not admit to any fudging in interpretation by the RCC.

If we Orthodox ever actually got our act together long enough to have a 9th (or 10th depending on who you talk to) Ecumenical Council and the subject of Papal Infallibility were debated, I have zero doubt that the decrees of Vatican I would be anathematized as heresy.

I've tried to flip through the past postings to determine who is thanking me for what, and have not (yet) succeeded.

The decisions of an Ecumenical Council which has not met and is not likely to meet really cannot bind anyone!

Would a fully ecumenical council anathematize Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, and so on? I may be permitted to doubt it. One needs to read that document (and all documents, for that matter) in context - and in the original, not in translation.

[I've never quite recovered from a young man denouncing Vatican II and asserting the utterly Protestant nature of the Mass of Pope Paul VI. I flipped open the two Missals on the table and suggested that we compare them. My visitor answered "I'm sorry, Father; I can't read Latin!" Well, I'm sorry but he had just destroyed his claim to any semblance of expertise in the matter.]

For a starter, might I recommend Fr. J. Tillard's excellent book, The Bishop of Rome?

Fr. Serge

I found Lawrence's comments rather interesting. He notes,"I'm pretty certain I'm in a small minority here, but I actually don't share the enthusiasm others on this forum have for reunification between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. In theory it's a noble objective, but in practice I see it as something (as it's advocated) that would weaken and de-centralize the Papacy." What he fears about reunion with the East is the de-centralization of the papacy. The views of many of the members of the EOC is that it is precisely the centralization of power in the papacy which is to be feared and, for that reason, do not want reunification. They view the gradual centralization of power as strictly a historical move because of the power vacuum in the west after 476 when Romulus Augustulus abdicated as the last roman emperor in the west. Even Augustine of Hippo rejected the Pope's attempt to take over charge of the case of Apiarius in the late fourth, early fifth century, something which B.J. Kidd, that great ecclesiastical historian, called the last breath of conciliarism in the Latin west.

No Catholic will entertain this conspiracy theory. It implies an intentional subversion in order to assume world domination. Catholics know that not to be true. And so it offers nothing to talk about. It automatically and immediately closes all communication.

I am just letting you know how Catholics react to such theories.

The real cause of the dogma of Infallibility and Judicial Primacy are found within the situations that the Latin church faced during the Medieval Ages - when - it had to fight for its survival.

No comparison can be made between the situation of the Eastern churches - with the situation of the Latin church in Europe at the time of the Reformation. The Eastern churches did not get into a bloody war on two fronts (Protestants, Kings, and Muslims). Neither did it pass through a Newtonian world view. Rome was far too busy trying to save itself - rather than plot subversion to usurp the entire Church.

There is a problem with the dogma of Roman Infallibility and Judicial Primacy over the entire church and not just over its own Patriarchate - but - an intentional conspiracy to usurper all other churches - is not it.

The Roman church genuinely believes its definition of Infallibility and universal Judicial Primacy to be divinely true - this is a mistake - perhaps - but if it is a mistake it is a human mistake - but not an intentional evil. It is something that can be forgiven and repaired. But not under the accusation of intentional evil.

There is a gray area between the voluntarily given role of Chief apostle - and claming a right to the office of Chief apostle. But we will never understand how that line was crossed - and how to rectify it - if we call it an intentional act.

The situation and context which forged Latin Infallibility and Judicial Primacy are found in the circumstances that the Latin church was in during the years leading into the Reformation. This dogma saved the Latin church. The Eastern form of infallibility and judicial primacy (spread through out its several churches of confederation and not within one bishop) such a form (as developed in the East) would have been the kiss of death for the Latin church during the Middle Ages of Europe. It would have justified the fragmentation that threatened it. It would have justified the kings who wanted to rip the Latin church apart into national churches.

These are just my own thoughts.

Peace to you Joe and to your Holy church.

-ray

Ray,

I think that you might be reading a little too much into my comments. My point was simply to state that from the point of view of the Orthodox, the Church existed as a communion of Churches for centuries until a dispute arose over papal power and the filioque. Because the papacy evolved in such a way that popes began to assert authority over other Churches, the schism was perpetuated. In other words, the primary reason for the schism is the way the papacy has developed in the west.

Joe

Ray, although the situation is infinitely more complicated than Joe makes, the position he takes is essentially correct. Whether or not one wants to agree with the position depends on whose ox is being gored. If you are -- lets say Bendedict of Rome--, you won't agree with the analysis; if you are -- lets say Bartholomew of Constantinople, you will. John

Maybe we should say that extreme claims by any bishop to power should be traced back to the legalization and patronage of of Christianity by Constantine. Once Ceasar gave the Church recognition, money and (his own) authority, bishops were more likely to think and behave in terms of power than of grace . . .

just an idea

-- John

John, I fully concur.

Joe