www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why not just become Orthodox?

Dr. John,

Have you explored the Oriental (Orthodox and Catholic) Churches? They seem to me to be the most 'untouched' by imperialism and the closest to both early Church praxis and Liturgy.

I know of them and have studied them. I know the most about the Coptic Orthodox and have had the honor of meeting Pope Shenouda III and attending several services presided over by him when he was here in the US a decade ago. If all the churches were headed by men like him, the Great schism would be ended and the East and West would be reunited!

I especially liked their attitude when initially approached by the Eastern power block (Greek based) and the Western power block (Latin based) whom both wanted the Copts to pick a side in the inevitable shism to come.

The Greeks were pressuring them to put Coptic theology into Greek and accept Greek traditions .. and the Latins were pressuring them to put their theology into Latin and accept Latin traditions . .. and the Copts .. did neither, kept their theology in Coptic and kept own thier traditions... and were excommunicated as heretics for it.

Now ... you have got to admire that

-ray

Ray,
You speak the truth! Although the Oriental Churches would never refer to the Greek as "Eastern", for us, both the Greeks and Latins are "Westerners" - it's between the Imperial West and the Imperial further-West!

And they maintain more of the semetic flavor of the Church too, wouldn't you say Michael?

I very much appreciate your presence on this forum, and like to hear more about the Oriental Churches.

Certainly the Ethiopians I have had contact with through my farm (the Ethiopian Orthodox buy all of my lamb except what we keep for the family) have retained a great deal of Semitic practices. They have the Taboat (the Ark) and the more orthodox even follow the Kosher dietary laws while being Christian. And their food is exceptional as well... misir watt and quanta ferfer with lots of berbere...

I don't want to seem to put up my flag in the pro-John +Ireland camp here, but as expedient as it may be to just cite that sad episode so simplisticly and rail against Cum data ferrit and Ea semper, that can be overly simplistic and not very good historical scholarship if we fail to consider the trumoil of the age.

I am not the least bit happy or pleased by the early Greek Catholic experience in America, but it bears considering how the unia agreements addressed the issues of "new world expansion"... Very simply, they didn't. What wasn't exactly provided for, couldn't be said to be violated.

It is also worth considering that not all Latins faired terribly well themselves in that confusing and tumultuous time - enter +Hodur and the Polish National Catholics.

+Ireland had a specifically pro-Americanist/assimilationist agenda. He was far more pro-assimilation than anti-Rusyn/anti-Byzantine.

We do well to consider that "nativist" sentiment (a la the Know Nothings) and even KKK growth in the North was still ungoing and hostile threats in the US. Dealing with discrimination on all sides... With all due love and respect for the hiearchs of the Latin and Greek Catholics from the old world at that time, they did NOT have a fantastic track record of sending their "best and brightest" over to America. (Without reference to Toth!) more than one European bishop jumped on the opportunity to send his trouble makers accross an ocean. (Would you send your protoges & rising stars off?) A New World bishop dealing with all this? That I don't envy.

Conversly pan-Orthodox initiatives early on were stymied and then tabled in favor ethnic jurisdictionalism. Today in this city I live in every Orthodox drives pass another jurisdiction's parish to go to their own. I'm no different - I wave to the Melkites as I go to my parish!

If we could tone down some of the "see how badly we have been treated!" rhetoric (without dening wrongs were committed!) and focus on how we could grow and evangelize, we would do far better. We have spent 100 years+ in the past. That has served us well to get us to where we are today - a whole lot of small and struggling parishes (Orthodox & Catholic) with grandkids and kids who are MIA.

We can do better.

I agree ! Thank you, Michael_Thoma !

Also, and this came up on another thread too, is the term "non-Chalcedonian" appropriate for . . . whom ? anyone ?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

-- John

And that in itself is a very interesting point. The more I examine the basis of the schisms, the more I realize that there was a strong political dimension to them.

They weren't only political, of course; there was (and remains) religious controversies at their roots.

But the political side of these disputes seems to be not only important but also decisive. 1204, anyone ? And long before that, there was persecution of the Copts by the Catholic-Orthodox (under Justinian?), and there was later persecutiuon of anyone who did not accept "monotheletism" by Heraclius. And, much later in Russia, there was the dispute between possessors and non-possessors. Etc.

So many of these religious disputes had been tolerated . . . till money and secular power became involved. Then the disputes became schisms, and blood was spilled. Lord have mercy !

But I wish I knew more about the actual history of this process . . . to try to understand and prevent further such conflicts, and to try to heal what is left. But maybe only Christ can heal, and we can only step out of His way.

-- John

Yes .. well...

at one time I heard the rumor that the Church was actually .. catholic ... and not just Roman .. and I believed it! In the Roman Catholic world we do believe the Church is Catholic ... but only in so much as it is Roman

It is funny how a man can profess a belief ... but not really believe it at the same time.

My eyes have been opened.

Peace to your church.
-ray

Ray,

In a nutshell, you have summarized a lot of what was behind the disputes and schisms in the Church. At one time, the Church was both universal and correct, in other words: catholic and orthodox. But then, different groups came to believe that only their views were universal or correct. And when such a group gained the backing of the state . . . there were usually bloody problems for the others.

-- John

Amen to ALL of the above! (I will be dining on Ethiopian next week...I cannot wait!)

The Syrian and Alexandrian streams were largely preserved from the illness of Imperial (Eusebian) Ecclesiology and retained a far purer apostolic expression of ecclesiology in many respects, something which the great saint, Theodore the Studite, sought to restore to Constantinople in the later iconoclast period.

God bless,

Gordo

A Simple Sinner,

A simply excellent post. We never move forward by always looking back at past resentments. The fields are white and ready for harvest!

Gordo

Believe me, I understand the Catholic position of the times -- we gotta band together to fight all these crazy Protestants! It doesn't excuse the Latins from being racist or churchist or whatever the appropriate term might be. However, we need to learn from the past, not ignore it.

So what does the future hold, then? Getting back to the original questions, why not just become Orthodox and struggle for reunion the PROPER way, not through Medieval bargains and political treaties. Equal footing for all parties involved. Of course, then you have to find a way to get the Orthodox heirarchs to act of one accord... and SCOBA isn't the best unifying body...

domilsean,

The problem here is that the assumption is that the current state of Orthodox Church polity is the apostolic model, and I just do not fully accept the idea that it is. Nor do I see current Roman praxis as reflective of the apostolic model in all respects either, even though I accept as orthodox the theological principles articulated by Vatican II (which affirms Vatican I).

For myself, I affirm all that Orthodoxy affirms, but reject its denials about the nature of the primacy. But the CEO-esque curial model of a centralized Roman Church is to be rejected as well (except as it pertains to the functioning of the Latin Church). All parties and structures need to be stretched, and some practices need to wither and die, and die quickly I hope.

The problem is that our Eastern Catholic hierarchs need to unify in their effort to assert their proper independence from the foreign Roman system, all the while affirming in principle the primacy as taught by Vatican I and II. In the Ukrainian Patriarchate, Kyiv just needs to affirm what it is and organize and function accordingly. Let Rome catch up to the idea in its own time. And to paraphrase Father Robert Taft, the protests of Moscow (and the Kasperian School of Ecumenism) can burn.

At that point, the two great Byzantine patriarchates of Antioch and Kyiv can function universally, handling most of the Greek-Catholic jurisdictions that have Greek and Slavic orientations.

So for myself, I choose to be Orthodox and pursue unity while already in communion with Rome.

God bless,

Gordo