www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology St. Alexis: a dilemma

I ask again:

Neil,

I am very dismayed that you have chosen to characterize me in this way and even PUBLICLY. It is presumptuous of you to do so and you are wrong. Consequently, I must ask for a public retraction at the least -- an apology would be quite in order. "Bob's post" is what I have quoted retaining the context. Furthermore, I gave him the courtesy of putting my response in the general form of questions such that he could clarify what he wrote if he chose. I still have not received an answer; instead, I am maligned.

As a matter of integrity, please do not edit or delete this post.

Deacon Tony

I do not miss your point and if I understand correctly I am a significant part of what you characterize as "the problem." I say that because, as I've stated before, I actually believe in one Church as in one body of Christ, "one, holy, catholic and apostolic." That one is not somewhere between Catholic and Orthodox; it is one or the other. In saying that I am stating the same basic Catholic and Orthodox theological position: it is both Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology. Since I am Catholic I see it from the Catholic perspective. "We are all schismatics" is a position that the Catholic Church does not accept nor do any of the Orthodox Churches as far as I know. How do you see it then?

To paraphrase Patty Crowley, I don't think God concerns Himself with our definitions of "one or the other" though you are certainly free to do so.

That we may deny each other communion (under many but not all circumstances) for a whole history of reasons does not determine the mind of God in this matter, nor does it mine.

Patty Crowley of all people.

Not my definition but the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches definitions for which, I would think, God would be concerned.

Sure, we do not "determine the mind of God" but the Church/Churches are expected to be in accord with the "mind of God" are they not? Are they? So what then is your "mind" that is not determined as stated?

And I add, it's not just me. From the post immediately preceding yours:

I understand and respect your point of view, albeit I disagree with you.

As to Pope St. Pius X, it is difficult for me to understand how the promulgator of 'ea semper' can be viewed as having 'genuine love' for the Rusyn Greek Catholic peoples. Do not actions speak louder than do words?

Since in recent years, the theologians and major prelates of both the Church of Rome and the Orthodox have expressed that the Unia is not the 'model' of ultimate unity (should God so will unity to take place) and Rome no longers speaks of the model of Eastern Churches in union with Rome as a being a 'bridge' between the 'two lungs' of the Faith, I can not understand how one can honestly view the Eastern Churchs as being a living example (therefore in Eastern terms an 'Icon' if you will) of the ultimate 'desired unity.'

The honest and progressive Orthodox do respect the right of the Eastern Church to exist and prosper while rejecting its path as the one to ultimate union. I admit that both Rome and the Orthodox are full of loud voices who proclaim each other as heretics etc...but should we allow them to determine the agenda of the future? (It should be noted that the loudest opponents to the Eastern Catholic churches are those Orthodox who have no real contact or interaction with them - such as those living in say, Athens or Moscow or Orthodox converts in the American South or West!)

An interesting debate and one that I am sure we shall continue.

A blessed Nativity to you and yours.

s'bohom!

I didn't claim it was yours alone. I said that I don't think God's Truth (and His Church) are determined by the definitions of men on Earth. I can't imagine God holding the Catholic or Orthodox Church in higher regard than the other, and to debate such things is not what He intends of us, I believe.


They certainly are expected to be, which is why one church calling the other schismatic is scandalous and counterproductive to the charge He has given us on Earth. In an historical context, referencing the schism makes sense of course. But I truly believe that it is not what is expected of us today in referencing our brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Catholic Church that you and I both belong to recognizes the apostolic integrity of the Orthodox Church and the validity of its sacraments. In my "mind" it is good to keep that in mind.

And yes, it should go without saying that the same applies to them.

Depends on which "men" and circumstances. What I'm talking about is, how does that troparion go,

The preaching of the Apostles
and the decisions of the Fathers
have established the true faith of the Church
which she wears as the garment of truth
fashioned from the theology on high.
She justly governs and glorifies the great mystery of worship.

The mandate is that we are to be one and they both can't be The One Church? And they both believe they are.

Again, the mandate is that we are to be one and they both can't be The One Church? And they both believe they are. There is no scandal if the label "schismatic" is true. Its not used today for good reasons -- "counterproductive" as you say. And I agree, there is no need in most circumstances. But I do believe the footnote of the Ravenna Statement is accurate and it is my reference point here (note the difference too):

Right as the case of Fr. Alexis from the Catholic perspective, as would the Unions (Brest, Užhorod) be considered schisms from the Orthodox perspective.

I'd say that is the Catholic protocol.

I learned that pre-VCII -- never forgot it. There isn't always reciprocity unfortunately. That's why there's the difference in the Ravenna Statement footnote.

As the footnote says, both claim to be "the one."

As I noted, however, there's a difference -- a big theological difference as seen for instance in the reception of converts (as discussed at length in other threads). Which is something not noted so far: I presume Fr. Alexis was received by vesting and others by ...???

Okay, go ahead and call people schismatic and point to the Ravenna Statement when anyone objects. I'm sure you'll make lots of Orthodox friends.

Your replies didn't address my points, which is the tone of the use of the word. My original objection wasn't even to your post, but if it's this important to you to call others schismatics, I can't stop you.

I understand Catholics and Orthodox both claim to be the One True Church. I think they're both half right.

I think they are both entirely right.

And no doubt can also "square the circle."

I think we're saying the same thing, I say half right when they claim it to be theirs exclusively.

Thanks for the "go ahead" but I don't find it necessary nor have I done so that I recall. But let's not be afraid of the word for what it means. I'm a Uniate and Fr. Alexis is to me a schismatic, though it is best to avoid the terms as the intention in using them is so often misread.

Yes, I do, for what it says.

I'm glad to have Orthodox friends, but if making friends were my intention for posting here then I realize I've been a failure.

It's not important to me but I'm really not bothered much by the word -- being called a schismatic. Being called a heretic is more problematic but, you know, "sticks and stone..." Take some of our Protestant brethren who may be labeled such: Yet most significantly I still see them as a brother in Christ in their baptism, "the brother for whom Christ died" (1Cor8:11). That's who they really are and that recognition means something beyond words and labels. That is why I take such great exception to the baptismal practices of some Orthodox churches in baptizing the baptized. That speaks volumes and is an insult to the person and the Church. And what then of the Orthodox who disavow the practice themselves but are in communion with those who do such a thing? To me they have de facto given an acceptance that preserves Orthodox unity but turns communion on its head. The filioque and IC and purgatory and indulgences even Pastor Aeternus; certainly mandatory celibacy, and deeds to churches and personal insults -- all those pale in significance to the affront and heterodoxy of a theology, a policy, that would baptize a Christian. Yet that is so readily overlooked.

If you are right then Christ was wrong, for then the gates of Hades have prevailed. Two half-rights to me do not add up to the One Body of Christ.

Sounds to me like some unusual math and logic: both entirely right says the same as each half right when...

Thanks for your thought-provoking comments; I do want to comment more on specific points. (I would only have hoped there'd be some point where you could agree.) s'bohom! and a blessed Nativity to you and yours also. Thanks.

Deacon Anthony