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

Although... I wouldn't compare the schism that separates Catholics from Orthodox to the great chasm that separates Mormons from the Orthodox Church.

Friendships with Mormons are good becuase it is good to be humane. friendships are also important with Catholics not only for that reason becuase I think whether we Orthodox admit it or not, working towards reconciliation (even if for some of us that means no concession on anything at all on our part) is a duty. Although I do not feel that the "that they may all be one" prayer of Christ refers to our schism (but rather those who bicker within the One True Church) there us much that we have in common (even with Western Catholics) and these things are no small issues (importance of the sacraments, respect for heierarchy, embracing of a physical worship that use all the senses, our respect for the saints, the respect for worship that is ingrained in true RCism, our love and honor for the Theotokos and most of all our hope that we hold in Christ as our God and Savior... we can't say any of that about Mormons).

Xpy

Friendship is a good thing, but my point remains unaddressed so far in this thread, because it appears as if some of the posters are saying that doctrine is a hindrance to the restoration of communion between East and West, and that it should be ignored or deemphasized in favor of a vague sense of "love," which itself remains undefined. Christian love is a doctrinal issue too; in other words, the divine energy of love is not some vague ethereal feeling, but is instead a real participation in the uncreated life and glory of the tri-hypostatic God. That said, it is important to remember that doctrine is the expression of truth as it has been handed down to us from the Holy Fathers under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, and as such it cannot be ignored. Ultimately, the restoration of communion between the whole of the East and the Western Church can only be brought about by ecumenical dialogue that addresses the hard questions surrounding the doctrinal differences that have arisen over the course of the second millennium, because that type of honest dialogue alone allows for the construction of a foundation firmly planted upon the truth revealed in Christ Jesus; while ecumenical dialogue that involves theological indifferentism lacks the ability to create a valid foundation upon which to restore ecclesial unity between the Latin West and the Byzantine East, because it is not based upon objective truth. In fact, theological indifferentism risks merely causing new divisions within the two communities, separating Orthodox from Orthodox and Catholic from Catholic, and delaying the day when all of Christ�s disciples can be united in a real communion in the uncreated love of the Holy Trinity.

Finally, as an Eastern Catholic I want the Orthodox to stand firm in defense of the doctrines of Holy Orthodoxy, because � as I see it � the only hope for the successful de-latinization of my own Church (i.e., the Ruthenian Church) is for the Orthodox to force the Roman Church (both its hierarchy and laity) into a recognition of the fact that being Catholic does not mean that a man must be Latin, or that he must subscribe to Latin theological constructs and Scholastic metaphysics.

This was beauty ... Marian. Just beauty!

You have not offended me (I am Roman Catholic) ... unlike most Roman Catholics who accept what they are told and only look at the proof offered by Catholic sources ... I have independently reasearcg both Primacy and Infallibility and found them .. mistaken. May God forgive us.

Peace to all churches.
-ray

No. Not at all.

At one time (a few years ago) I did. But no more. I am now well away of the mistake of Primacy and Infallibility. I would not want any type of official unity (ecclesiastical) in which either Primacy of Infallibility was operative in any way.

Also note that I am Roman Catholic and if I took the same solid stance on doctrine that you are taking ... what that would do to me regarding Pharmacy and Infallibility.

So forget doctrine for now.

What I am proposing for church unity is much like is already been taking place among the laity. Friendship. Despite differences in doctrine.

The days are gone in which each church was ethnically isolated and the barbarians live - way way over there. As laity we now live down the street from each other and next door. And we know that these differences divide us in doctrine ... but not in real friendship. Yet hierarchy clings to the old ways of not speaking to each other - doing nothing in common - and hoping the other side will change.

Unity between the churches is taking place - under - them (under hierarchy) between us - between our sons and daughters. This unity is coming in through the 'back door' so to speak. Without ecclesiastical posturing.

We do not need (and I do not want) ecclesiastical unity (forged by rules and agreements and paper) - I think all we here want is true friendship between the churches - on all levels. Just plain old no-binding, non-legal, voluntary, human friendship.

This friendship is already happening at our level. We respect each other - we have joy in what we have in common. We discuss what we have differences in but these discussions do not end our friendships nor do we demand that others be as we are. We accept the differences - and remain friends open to understanding each other if we can.

And so it came to my mind that a petition of millions of catholics (small c = all of us) letting our hierarchy know that we want true charity (human freindship) between the churches. We want the criticisms of other churches to cease. We laity - are not looking for a united church structure and do not want one. We simple want just good old human friendships between the hierarchy of churches.

Not just words - actions.

Now that would be something any supposed Primacy would not have any jurisdiction over

I wounder what Rome would do it it knew that 6 billion of its 8 billion members - wanted Rome to changes its ways of dealing with other churches? Let us be realistic - they would give the matter some real concern just as any other church hierarchy would

-ray

Ok, Todd; I'll answer you.




Yes, I do say that. Doctrine can be a huge hindrance to living the Gospel at times. We get so caught up in defining and describing the Gospel that we can forget to actually live it.

But, I also say that doctrine can be a hindrance because different groups of Christians believe different things. Hence, we define ourselves, so often, as us versus them on the basis of religious philosophy.

I agree with you: Underemphasizing our doctrinal differences means, eventually, that nobody believes in anything except being "nice."

Emphasizing our doctrinal differences to a proper extent is good to a point. It helps to remind each group who they are and why.

But overemphasizing doctrinal differences can and often does drive people apart from each other, seeding hearts and minds with fear and distrust.




Different people experience the Mystery of Christ's love differently because people have different individual psychologies. (We have different wetware.) More devotionally inclined people feel it, and they express it in devotions and emotions. People who are more inclined to work experience it and express it in service. Intellects, such as yourself, experience it and express it in the language and thought of intellection. Mystics describe it and experience it in the techniques they use to alter their consciousness in order to encounter the ineffable. Etc.

These are not exclusive ways of encountering the Mystery of Christ. They are all potentially valid. The problem arises when people from one type of encounter try to assert that is the main, best or only way to encounter Christ. No. These different ways of encountering Christ are simply the products of different kinds of minds. People have different psychologies; they have different ways of experiencing and conceiving of reality and expressing that. Yet, we're all people --a social species that needs to get along with each in order to survive and prosper. Hence, our different psychologies and our different ways of encountering Christ can be and should be mutually supportive.

Otherwise, there occurs in the Church the domination of one type of psychology over the others -- which doesn't help the others get closer to Christ.

For example, I usually encounter this in devotionally inclined people who just insist that I pray the rosary, or pray with icons, or pray with scriptures, etc., and hold hands, and smile, Smile, SMILE at JESUS while I do it. And when I demur at being a smiler, they often become baffled or offended and say "What's wrong with that?"

But, there are also folks who want to express the Mystery in primarily intellectual terms. OK; that's not a problem for me -- until it seems that everyone has to sign up for the program in exactly the same way. For example, you wrote

"Christian love is a doctrinal issue too;"

I can agree with that statement because of the word "too." It recognizes that intellection is one of several ways to encounter and express the Mystery of Christ's love.

Here is where I have a problem. You wrote:

"In other words, the divine energy of love is not some vague ethereal feeling, but is instead a real participation in the uncreated life and glory of the tri-hypostatic God."

Not for some folks. Indeed, most people wouldn't have any idea of what you are talking about. Instead, a lot of Christians encounter the Mystery of God's love precisely as a "vague ethereal feeling" -- at times. At other times, they feel something else. At other times, they feel nothing at all. A lot of people get through life and religion on the basis of feeling alone or mostly. But, there are others who get by mostly on intellection. And there are others who get by mostly on service. And there others who get by primarily with a mystical mindset. And most get by from a mixture of these. Etc.

I'm not trying to dismiss intellection.

I am trying to say that intellection is only part of what's going on in the encounter with Christ, which varies by individual make up of human psychology. And that leads me to your next point. Namely:





I disagree. Your view assumes that Christianity is mostly or essentially doctrine, and that ecclesial union is just working out an intellectual understanding among different groups.

Yet, that has clearly failed to happen. Reunion has failed to happen in the several attempts, so far, between Catholics and Orthodox over the centuries. Reunion has also failed in the relatively recent attempts between Copts and Orthodox. On paper, these groups have worked out their differences intellectually. In reality, they just don't want to reunite.

Psychologically, people are different; and they like being different. People like being members of groups that define themselves in part by how they are different from other groups. It's not reason and logic, but it is real human psychology. And it's not going away.

I know I'm the odd man out at this forum because I don't support an ecumenism of reuniting the Churches. (And please, everyone, don't quote me Jesus' prayer in John 17 --because I think that is more of a prayer for hope than a reality, except in the most mystical sense.)

Instead, I favor the ecumenism of being good neighbors. We (the different churches) should keep our specific beliefs and practices distinct. But, we should also agree to disagree, to get along with each other, and to help each when necessary.

Which leads me to your last point that I will address, namely:




My friend, de-Latinization of the Eastern Church means rejecting the claims of the papacy. Specifically, it means rejecting the papal claims to supreme authority and universal jurisdiction in the Church. Otherwise, one pope can order Eastern praxis, and another pope can order Western praxis; and both contradictory orders must be obeyed. But, if you want the fullness of Eastern praxis, you must believe in preserving that praxis -- above and beyond obeying a given bishop. In other words, if you want the fullness of Eastern praxis, you must believe that everyone in the Church is bound by that praxis -- including all the bishops too. Papacy or praxis: in the end, they are package deals.

But, that's just my $1.50 worth of opinion.

Peace.

-- John

>But, that's just my $1.50 worth of opinion.

And it is always worth much more you wrote a long one! (I thought I wrote long ones!) I will read the whole thing today.

I did want to mention (regarding what I have been writing on lay unity) that I had a thought in my head this morning.


IF the RC and the Orthodox ever did drop the division and we could receive the sacraments in either church ... due to the ratio of churches here in the west ... and due to good old lazy human nature ... what would happen is that Orthodox members would just find it easier to pop into the local RC church for sacraments instead of going the longer distance to the Orthodox church. And over time .. actually membership in the OC would drop.

Sooo... there is a real and piratical reason why Orthodoxy does not allow its members to receive RC sacraments.

So I guess I can stop wishing for that kind of unity.

-ray

Please read John ..... (just kidding).

You are not the only odd man out. My knowing that Primacy and Infallibility are mistaken ... I would not want the Orthodox to compromise in any way which would further or tend to legitimate these two mistakes. (Orthodox: hold your ground!!).

As to the rest of your post ... I often fall into the hole of "my way to Christ is best!" ... thank you for expanding my mind. I am sure that next week I will fall into the same hole yet again.

-ray

I agree with you that the papal claims to supremacy must be rejected, because they do not reflect divine revelation or the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the first millennium.

But as far as the nature of doctrine is concerned, we will never agree, because for me doctrine is an objective reality, i.e., it is God Himself entering into the world in order to reveal Himself and give man a real participation in His nature; while � in my opinion � your views on doctrine reduce religious faith to utter subjectivism.

In the teaching of the Fathers it is a matter of divine faith that the experience of God given today in the liturgy is objectively the same as that given by God to the Apostles, because it is an objective gift of God in which He shares His energies with us (i.e., His very being), and so it cannot be reduced to a mere psychological experience. The most that can be said about individual subjective perception of the mystery of God is that a person can � by an act of will � either be open to this divine experience, which as an objective encounter with God transcends the natural world, or he can close himself to it, but in neither case is individual the source of this experience; instead, God Himself, i.e., God alone, is the source, and that is why it is absolutely gratuitous, a gift of divine grace.

Doctrine ultimately tells us who Christ is, and gives us a living experience of Him, and so one can say that ignorance of doctrine is � to paraphrase St. Jerome � ignorance of Christ.

Doctrine and theology must not be confused with "religious philosophy." In fact, the Synodikon of Orthodoxy condemns philosophy, because it sees it as an attempt to rationalize the faith, i.e., to bring doctrine down into the sphere of created reality.

Interestingly, the original meaning of the word nice is "ignorance." It is far better to know Christ, than to be nice (i.e., to be ignorant of Him).

I am absolutely opposed to reducing the doctrines of the faith to intellectual concepts. So, when I talk about knowledge of Christ � a knowledge that only comes through the doctrinal tradition of the Church � I am not talking about intellectual or discursive knowledge; instead, I am talking about experiential knowledge, i.e., participation in the very mystery of God revealed in Christ, which comes primarily to man through the Church's liturgical worship.

Now clearly it is important that the doctrines of the faith not be confused with the linguistic formulas or constructs that have been approved by the Holy Fathers in order to safeguard them from erroneous interpretations. For example: the doctrine of the incarnation is a kairotic event, an eruption of divinity into the created world, but the doctrine cannot be reduced to the words approved by the Church Fathers in order to protect it from heresy, because it transcends those words (cf. St. Hilary, On the Trinity, book II). Ultimately, doctrinal formulas are important in protecting the Church's experience of God (i.e., the immutable doctrine itself), while also preventing religious experience from falling into absolute subjectivism (e.g., by confusing theology with psychology), which is nothing more than a form of idolatrous self-worship.

Ray,

I think we need to distinguish here between doctrine as revealed truth and the expression of that truth--better still our understanding of the expression of that truth.

Apotheoun,

I'm not sure what you mean here by "traditional expression" of the mystery. While I will certainly accept that the scriptural expression is inextricably bound to the mystery, you seem to be giving the Church's declarations the same authority as Scripture--is that what Palamas is saying? Please clarify.

It has often been said that "doctrines divide us but Christ unites us," or something to that effect. However, it is quite true that Christ cannot be separated from His teaching, nor can He be separated from His Church.

Sometimes, however, we stop at the doctrinal formulas themselves and fail to perceive the mystery they point to. This is where words become a stumbling block.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I agree with this 100%. I think that much of the in-fighting among Christians that led to the divisions we have today can be traced to this reducing the doctrines of the Faith to intellectual concepts.


I think you've answered my previous question here. Thanks.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

TODD:

I think some of the Popes of the last 50 years have made this point, though it has not sunk deeply into Latin consciousness in general. There are still large numbers of people who have never heard of the Eastern Churches and who have not moved from the Counter Reformation fortress mentality. But, then, many have had no catechesis since they were confirmed so it's little wonder that nothing new has ever entered their minds or religious experience either.

Well put. May I suggest that Eastern Catholics take the lead in doing just this. It's one thing for people outside to do this and provoke the "circle the wagons" mentality, but it's quite another to have people inside doing this same sort of expansion of what it means to be Catholic: "here comes everyone."

In Christ,

BOB

Dear Deacon Richard ...

You are like a swashbuckler ... thrust with the sword in your left hand, shoot the pistol in your right hand, defect a dagger with your boot ... you engage all


These are differences that are hard to keep in mind. And I see your point that if we do not - we miscommunicate.

I am noticing the way in which Todd identifies doctrine as the reality itself. This is very Eastern Orthodox view. And so I am trying to wrap my head around that. It seems to be the sense that an ikon is not only an image of something but in some way contains the thing itself.

A kind of thing where a doctrine is itself - an ikon.

Would that be about right Todd? that a doctrine is very much like an ikon?

Peace to your holy church.
-ray

How?

I am not doubting it - I am merely asking you to explain it so that I might learn your 'language'.

Is this transcendence - do you mean that the meaning of the words transcends the words? or do you lift it higher and say that the existential (as it is) experience transcends both the meaning (in the mind) and the words (of the senses)?



Do you reject all philosophy and all psychology? to the extent that the truth exists only within the church-visible?

Just asking. No judgment will follow.

-ray