www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Divisions in the Orthodox Church are holding up ecumenical dialog

This is fine in principle, if it was uniformly applied. Why are the Armenians not told the same thing, by the EO clearly and concisely? And as well, the other OO Churches that are accepted to limited Communion? Why weren't the Anglicans (and Old Catholics during union talks) held to this when come EO jurisdictions allowed limited Communion with them in the 20s and earlier?

Hello.

I'm not quite sure I understand your question. i went to the links you sent, by the way, but I did not understand the language.

I want to make it clear that I am saddened by this mess in the Roman Catholic Church. Its awful.

Concerning the Eastern Orthodox Churches - i do not see that the "Mother" Church , as you put it, is the Roman Catholic Church. Which mother would excommunicate her Children, throw them out of the house, and go around causing a lot of havoc against her "children" in the first place?

Christ is the Vine, and we are but branches in this vine. We are apostolic Churches and originated from the Apostles. Whether St Peter is the head of the Apostles or not is a matter of debate. We do not see that. If St Peter is the head of the Apostles, its not a question that the see of St Peter be the head, but the DOGMA of St Peter is the head. The FAITH of St Peter is the head. The Church is BUILT on this faith, not on a disciple or See of St Peter.

So let's say St Peter's faith was the source code to a program. When you compile it, works, it cures, it heals, it does wonders. Let's call this source code A.0001

Someone replaces St Peter as the custodian of this source code and adds code to it and modifies it. Let's call this version A.0002.

Let's say that A.0002 doesn't compile... or worse - it compiles but doesn't do what it was intended to do. Would you upgrade to A.0002 or would you remain with A.0001 release that actually worked? Are you interested in St Peter, or St Peter's faith?

Your Church, your dogmas, your soteriology has evolved so much that I'm not sure your spirituality actually works.

Do we keep on using a version that does nothing because it has St Peter's logo on it, or do we roll back to a release that actually worked, that wasn't broken for it to have been fixed??

The Orthodox Church is still at release A.0001.

In fact, it seems that the Orthodox Church, given this dancing escapade in the RC, is still more sincere to St Peter's recipe of success than the custodian of St Peter's source code.

I'm not sure where you are in the world, or where you come from, or where/what your life experiences are, but where I am, there is an AGGRESSIVE DE-Christianization of Europe.

Its strange this.. Atheism was being enforced and taught in Russia. When it collapsed, the Russian Orthodox Churches were full. Why? That's because the Russian Orthodox Church was a faithful mother to her children and her children didnt go and sell their faiths off. Their faiths were still being taught in the privacy of their homes.

Now in Europe, its different. We have secular countries. The countries are meant to be secular. The countries are meant to separate between Church and State - but i would NEVER have thought the people to go ahead and separate themselves from the Church also. What is this hatred against their Church, their mother?? Why so much hatred and carelessness to the one that baptised them?

Why?

I guess, like anything in life, you get what you put in. Your church cares more for numbers , not for anything else. Ours cares for your spiritual well-being, nothing else.

Its strange that the ONE Task St Peter was charged with, by Our Lord, was "If you love me FEED MY SHEEP".

That's all st Peter had to do.

Are these European Catholics being fed? What are they being fed??

What did Christ mean by "Feed my Sheep" ?? It seems the Roman Catholic Church had more a policy of feeding herself sheep.

Christ wanted the sheep NOURISHED. Are we living in countries were people are spiritually nourished? Are you priests even spiritually nourished?

I can answer your question about double speak. Both the Roman and Orthodox delegations to the world and the North American dialouge groups are sent with the blessings of their respective church's leaders. However, from what I have heard directly from members here, is that the papers they publish - while disseminated through both the USCCB and SCOBA - are never given any official standing.

In other words, into the circular file they seem to so - on both sides. They are neither rejected nor endorsed. They just exist, and the theologians keep on talking twice a year.

As Alex noted earlier, if it were up to the learned theologians of the west and the east, most of all of this could have been resolved long ago. But, both sides have created such a 'mythos of history' and engrained notions against each other, that they need deft church politicians and pracgmatic people from the faithful to solve it.

And church politicians, just like their secular counterparts are most adept at counting votes and recognizing that their power comes not from the masses, but from their base.

Dear DMD,

Well, you've put it so very well - this is precisely what I meant re: political issues versus theology.

My problem is when I finish reading an ecumenical document drawn up by theologians from two church families, I get all excited and actually think nothing further is to be done, they have settled their differences or else, it is just a matter of time etc.

But that's not all there is, is it?

Thank you for such a brilliant post that knits together theology with politics/culture.

Alex

Very well stated, Thanos!

Much food for thought.

Alex

And that is where you are wrong. The Church is not a democracy. To make it one would destroy it.

chadrook,

Who said anything about democracy?

Alex

chadrook,

Do you own any religious statues?

Alex

I most certainly did not say such a thing. But I will call anyone, Orthodox or Catholic, who believes that successful Bishops are not, generally speaking, skilled politicians (no, not in the secular sense, but in the classical sense) that you are either naive or that you have not been around them for more than liturgical functions.

Let me explain.

"As Alex noted earlier, if it were up to the learned theologians of the west and the east, most of all of this could have been resolved long ago."

As you agreed with Alex I believed that you were putting the theologians on the same level as the bishops. Implying that they should have a say in the process.

In the Orthodox church, the title,'Theologian' (or 'the Divine') is shared by an elite of only three saints: St John the Evangelist, St Gregory the Theologian and St Simeon the New Theologian. It is sobering to think that no saint has earned this title since the eleventh century.

I admit that the term theologian is thrown around in the east, but wrongly I might add. I digress. The laymen sent to these meetings, I am sure, had the blessings of their Bishops. But for what purpose? As the world Orthodox church loves to say about their involvement in the WCC, they are just observers. Or, were the representatives given the blessing to make changes to tradition?

I would believe it if it were said that the only democracy blessed by God is that of a Holy Synod. In the East, I don't think you have the votes.

I will bite. Not a one. Only Icons.

I do understand your statement. And I have spent a long time around Bishops. And wouldn't only being around bishops for liturgical functions imply naivety?

I am only addressing the concept of the bishops including self professed theologians in the process.

Dear chadrook,

Are you a reincarnation of St Mark of Ephesus, perchance?

Alex

Are you Hindu?

Culturally, I suppose in some ways I am. After all, my ancestral culture is from east of the Indus.