www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Is Eastern Orthodoxy a Part of the True Church?

Clearly he is referring to the energies of the topic, because essence is utterly transcendent and unknowable.

I'll settle for the five major Patriarchs as a starting point . . .

[/quote]
An interesting point, though. I wonder if they could use the same procedure used for Papal conclaves: get them all together, bolt the door, seal with wax, and tell them it's either an agreement or their permanent home. Then what happened in one conclave in history could be applied--when somewhere around two years had passed, the people tore the roof off in winter to force their hand.
[/quote]

That's exactly the one I want; the source of the name "conclave" (with key). I'll also repeat the diet of bread, wine, and water, and bring my hammers & power tools to help with the roof . . .


*sigh* Then establish communion for their own metropolia . . . I suspect that the others would find it more than slightly awkward to not stay in communion with their pentarch once the five were in communion with each other

I wonder how to interpret the following paragraph appearing immediately prior to communion, in red font on p. 81 of the RDL of the BCC.

"All Catholics who are properly disposed are welcome to receive the Divine Eucharist. Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not permitted to receive the Divine Eucharist."

I believe that Orthodox are welcome to receive the Eucharist in BC churches. I find the wording confusing, especially the word "ordinarily" and the lack of specificity as far as which churches "we are not yet fully united [with]" since that pretty much could mean all of those not under Rome.

What meaning do you understand from this? It seems to me that the previous red book did not have anything like this in it, and probably, that was better.

A student

Yes. Of course.

And so doctrines (energies) have their limits. They can point to the essence of truth but can not contain it.

This is not to say doctrines are worthless. But it is to say that they are not what we eventually rest in. They express our religion but are not the source of our religion (a person is that source and logos).

A man who is united to God (united to Providence) does what is good naturally. He is above moral laws (now listen closely before you judge what I am saying). He is at the source of moral law and being at the source he fulfills moral law perfectly and without effort.

When one is in contemplation he should not go back to meditative (thinking) prayer but should rather rest in that obscure contemplation.

God also reveals himself 'in the things he has created'. In the cycles of nature, in the flowering of a bud, in the rising of the sun, etc..

My point being that doctrines are tools. They are a means with limits - and not an end unto themselves.

As tools .. they (doctrines) can be used for unity or division.

Let me give examples ... a doctrine which describes the Trinity can be a unifying force between churches. An expression (representation) of a shared belief. On the other hand a doctrine may be created (scholastically) which is intended to make a separation between churches. This doctrine may be true in its logic ... but it the other church has not risen to that 'logic' itself .. the doctrine is not shared. It is divisive. Perhaps not wrong is one has the logos (key) to understanding it.

This is why I favor the Orthodox way of collegiately. That is: that the mind of Christ exists through out the body of the universal church. And doctrines should be arrived at ecumenically. And I do mean with the entire church present and involved.

Science used to believe that the mind was 'located' in the head. But science has changed its idea and now believes that the mind of the human body exists throughout the body and the brain is more like a Grand Central station.

I do not want to get confusing here because I have really been talking about two aspects ... doctrine in the spiritual life of the individual and doctrine in the spiritual life of the church-visible. But in either case ... love (charity) is the source (logos) of all doctrine. If I understand all doctrine and can discuss any doctrines with perfection .. if I have not love I am nothing but a clanging bell.

Back to the fact that it is not doctrine that has divided us .. that is a symptom of the disease. The real disease has been the lack of plin old human friendship and understanding.

At times - the churches have replaced friendship with doctrines. And these doctrines now stand in the way if we let them be conditions for our love.

As always .. Papal Primacy and Infallibility are an inequality which by their nature exclude friendship (voluntary) by by their definition as a judiciary 'must'.

That which is mandatory can not be voluntary. That which is conditional can not be friendship or even love.

And so any full unity among all the churches must be a friendship - outside of Papal Primacy and Infallibility. Which can be done. A non-binding ecumenical council to which all churches are invited. Only those items which are unanimously accepted (yet still non-binding) become the results of the council. These items (as few as they might be) now become the base and foundation to work from for any future unity... which .. if it is to be a real unity - must be voluntary in friendship.

It had crossed my mind recently ... that the laity might move the churches to such a council .. if we initiate a signature petition - and petition our churches to such a thing. This is the day of the internet and instant communication. Just imagine - such a well worded petition online - gathering millions of signatures - letting our churches know that we want our churches to be involved in such a thing.

At the council - not every subject need be tackled. The goal being to only find and agree on - what can be agreed upon. Each church retains its own beliefs and doctrines (and Primacy retained for those who adhere to it) ... but between all churches this other non-=binding understanding that we actually do share some things.

Wouldn't it be nice to begin to break down the walls of separation ... not through judiciary means nor by judgments upon the doctrines of another church - but rather by finding out and stating what each share in friendship. At least this could be the beginning of a friendship which which is outside of, or despite, the past.


Just some thoughts.
-ray

I was simply joking in the post that you have quoted, ergo the grin smiley.

The energies of God are not doctrines; instead, they are God Himself as He exists outside of His ineffable essence (cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, Sixth Homily on the Beatitudes).

The incarnation is a doctrine, i.e., a revealed truth, which is perpetually lived and experienced in the life and worship of the Church.

Sigh... Orthodox are not permitted to commune outside of the Orthodox church. Although the Catholic church permits Orthodox to commune in their churches, the Orthodox position is that you are cutting yourself off from the Orthodox communion when you do so.

And I was using metaphor. I know what the Eastern concept of uncreated energies is .. it was orginally a concept of virtures (what deifies us). An explianation of how God can be united to us humans. But let us not drop into semantics. It is .. what you say it is.

On the second subject .. do you have any thoughts on petioning the churches to some sort of vuoluntary apostolic confrence? Non-binding, freindly, working out what they do have in common and can agree on ...? ... and totally outside what might be considered any forum where Primacy could apply.

I would like to hear any thoughts you might have on something that might do the trick.

Are we not all very tired of hundreds of years of mistrust, misunderstanding, lack of even human freindship, between churches that were apostolicaly founded. Yes.. there are diffrences and some are insurmountable .. diffrences which exclude real eclesasical union ... but that does not mean we can not fulfill the command to love one another in human freindship which has no right to condem nor demand of the other.

Shall we all just continue along talking about love - but not actually doing it. Brothers of the same family, born in the same house, but barely speaking to each other except to critisize each other and display how 'right' we are.

Is that frindly human love - I think not. The proof is that both the East and West have failed on that score.

Do you not think it is time to make a fresh start outside of the old way? The old ways can stay. That is why I propose the apostolic conmfrence be outside of the usual ecclesatical modes.

-ray

YOu do not admit a diffrence between the existential reality that we call 'the incarnation' and the doctrine which we use to discribe it? Certainly you do.

Living the doctrine is not the same as living in the reality itself. It is less ... if the reality (existential) is not also present. Even someone who is a Muslim can understand the doctrine of the incarnation ... but not have the real thing it pints to. Where is mystical union in all this - is our mysical union with doctrines or with un-created energies?

Doctines are good and nessesary - but they are not the goal and the end nor can they be the reality they points to that we rest in them as if they were God.

Apophatic - is the final step into God ... So say the Eastern theology.

-ray

LOL !!!

-- John

I have no probem with the idea of making a distinction between the doctrine itself (i.e., the revealed mystery), which is the immutable encounter with God, and its expression both in word and sacrament. Nevertheless, I do not accept the idea that the mystery can be separated from its expression, because these things (i.e., both the mystery and its traditional expression) form a single complexus. To put it another way, theology is not dialectical, which means that one can make a real distinction (pragmatika diakrisis) without causing a real division (pragmatike diaresis) either in God (cf. St. Gregory Palamas, Capita Physica, no 75), or in the mystery revealed by Him (i.e., the immutable encounter and its expression).

There are already existing avenues for dialogue between East and West, and one of those dialogues recently produced the Ravenna Document [geocities.com]. Dialogue is a good thing, but dialogue is not about papering over differences; instead, it is about examining existing differences in order to see if they are complimentary or whether they involve a substantive disagreement.

I must admit that the direction this thread is presently taking reminds me of the dispute recounted in an article written by Dorothy Sayers, entitled "Creed or Chaos," in which she spoke of those who sought to bring about Christian unity by making doctrine irrelevant. Such a union would itself be irrelevant, because it would not be real.

I do not understand.

Is this something that you think someone here has suggested (perhaps I missed that post) ... or perhaps is a direction in which someone here is heading?

I would assume ... that you thought that the friendship between Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew .. was a wrong. They should not have been friends because the doctrines of their churches are different. Would that be you position? I believe that would be Moscow's stance.

Peace to your Holy Orthodox church.
-ray

Dear Apotheoun...

I sense you feel very strongly that friendships between churches should only be based upon total doctrinal agreement ... and any friendship otherwise would be to make doctrine irrelevant.

I do not agree with that assessment. But I am aware that for some Orthodox this is very important.

Peace be to your Holy Orthodox church.
-ray

Friendship is fine, in fact I am all for friendship, but I thought that you were interested in the restoration of communion between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Churches, and that you saw doctrine as a hindrance to that goal.

I have Mormon friends, but I do not foresee a day when I will be in communion with them, that is, unless they convert from Mormonism to Christianity.

A high mountain. Somewhere in the highest of this mountain there is a spring. The air is very strong. Somewhere to the base of this mountain there is a forest. A little further there is the valley in which the men abide in their temporary huts.

From the highest of the mountain, from that well/spring cool and refreshing water comes out. The water goes with much force to the base of the mountain. It becomes a little river, then, when it reaches the forest, it is already a powerful river.

The river does not flow very straight. A hidden mathematical law tell the river to flow in curves. In the river, in the cold and powerful water there are rocks.

These rocks guide the river to the valley of the men. The rocks are little or bigger, every rock with its reason.

The river and its cool and alive waters come finally to the valley where the men abide. The waters give them life, prosperity. The waters help for abundant crops. It is a gift from the highest of the mountain.

In this scene very important are the rocks, many are small, other are bigger or very large, guiding the wild waters. From threshold to another threshold. Beautiful rapids can be seen by the men who strive to climb a wee bit the mountain, from their valley.

These rocks are so beautiful, then it is clear that they have hidden laws engraved in them. They do not dam the alive river, just guide it, so that the river's waters arrive in order to the valley of men.

Every rock touches a wee bit the waters, the guidance is perfect. Around the forest is thriving, every tree is at its place. Nothing is at hazard.

The rocks are of different sizes, even the humble sand grains have their reason for guiding the waters.

Yes, strong rocks. But after all, the river flows freely. So it is the hidden law of this river. Freedom is its first attribute. But the rocks are important as well. This communion river-rocks means life.

My brethren, these rocks are the holy dogmata (dogmas), given us by the Holy Fathers, in the first 7 Ecumenical Synods.

We must return to the principles and humble ourselves. Yes, Roma has presbeia, it is needed humbleness. Returning to a theology beyond the past history and politics.

Forgive me, if I offended someone.

m+