www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox Church in America

I think the Orthodox Church is more ecumenical than it often given credit for. Remember, we belong to the National Council of Churches (in fact, LEAD it) and the World Council of Churches. Many parishes have very active ecumencial programs.

As for "Traditional Orthodox", like in Catholicism, a certain element of partisans have hijacked this term. I would not give self-described "Traditionalist Orthodox" much credit. Thoise who find a need to put an adjective before their name prove they are sectarians.

Axios

Tony wrote:

I don't think I said that the issue was "validity." If I gave that impression, I apologize. I realize that many Orthodox do believe that Catholic mysteries have grace.

I would be interested in hearing more about "ekonomia" being exercised giving Orthodox permission to receive Catholic mysteries. I've known of situations where the opposite was true. (A former parishioner and his family of the Ruthenian parish I belonged to in Arizona was permitted to receive the Eucharist at an Antiochian parish in Iowa when they moved there.)Have there been similar situations in this country in reverse?

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

what amazes me is how traditionalist Orthodox groups waste so much time criticizing the dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, which shares a lot with Orthodoxy, and the figures of JPII and Patriarch Bartholomew; but does not make enough enphasis against the participation of the the Orthodox Churches in that "World Council of Churches" with all those Protestant sects. What kind of dialogue can Orthodox and Protestants have? there's almost nothing in common with Protestantism.

What kind of unity can appear with people who do not understand the word "Church" in the way Orthodoxy (and Catholicism) does, do not have true priesthood and apostolic succession, do not believe in the Eucharist, deny the miracullous character of the incarnation by refusing to acknowledge the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God, accepts abortion and euthanasia, and so on?

In "stricto sensu", ekonomia cannot be applied by any priest by his own name. I think that in both cases Bishops must be in full agreement, and as Orthodox Bishops do not allow official intercommunion with the Roman Catholic Church (even if the sacraments are true sacraments and posess grace, they are believed to be outside the Church).

However, it is true that there are exceptions. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, soon after the lifting of the anathemas, issued documents stating that in case of necessity, Orthodox believers can receive the mysteries in the Roman Church. Although the documents were never enforced, they have not been abrogated.

Russian Orthodoxy, before 1986 allowed Orthodox christians to receive the sacraments of the Roman Church and viceversa (ironically, one of the most important promoters of that clause was the future Patriarch, Alexis II). In this case there was a good example of how this worked. When Metropolitan Nikodim mysteriously died in Rome while visiting Pope John Paul I (and this happened some days before John Paul I, also had an unexplainable death!), he received the unction from the Pope.

Although it is not officially permitted, there are cases when Orthodox take the Eucharist in Roman parishes and viceversa. Many Orthodox who live in non-orthodox countries where there are no churches, eventually become Roman Catholics, or take the Eucharist there.
In some situations Catholics are also allowed to take communion in Orthodox parishes, in Barcelona there's a Serb Orthodox community which also takes spiritual care of a group of "tridentinist" refugees. I know a person who has met the priest, and the priest has told me that most of them have a reason of consience that does not allow them to attend mass in the Roman parishes. However most of them, evebtually become Orthodox.

But all these situations are very sibjective. I don't think a person who was baptized in the Roman Church, but is clearly out of that community, and then places himself in Orthodox services, and gradually becomes Orthodox, then the person would in essence not be a Catholic, de facto, in the first place, relying exclusively on the Orthodox Church for the sacraments, for community worship, etc. the same thing would happen to Orthodox who attend the Roman Mass because there is not Orthodox parish.

Axios - I certainly would describe myself as Traditionalist Orthodox and find your glib generalisation about partisans and hijacking to be rude, highly offensive and insulting. You do not speak for the whole of Orthodoxy!

The national Orthodox Churches have started to show a changinging attitude to the World Council of Churches. The actions of the likes of the Georgians have often been passed off as a manifestation of sectarianism and nationalism. However, we only need to look at the radical shifts in ecclesiology and Christology within the world Council of Churches to see why people react to the Orthodoxy that keeps its mouth shut as radical protestantism hijacks this organisation. Is it any surprise that people feel the need to call themselves Traditionalist Orthodox?

S Bogom -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Remie made some excellent points which I think are valid for Andy, the one who posted the original question.

Communing in both Churches is not the teaching of either Catholic Church (the one centered in Rome or the one not in communion with Rome). Both view themselves as the one and only true Church, all the while seeing validity and grace outside the boundaries of their communion.

If communion is the "greatest" sacrament, if one were forced to rank them, then we see that this is the most important determiner of which Church one is in. In seminaries, during all of that idle talk, the question is usually posed, "if someone had been communing for a year in a parish and then discovered that they had never been baptized, would one insist upon baptizing this person ex post facto?" I hope that we here on this site would all have the same answer.

For this reason, many have opposed quiet advice from certain bishops in the OCA encouraging the communing of the Oriental Orthodox in Eastern Orthodox parishes out of pastoral concern. Should intercommunion be affirmed quietly amongst the (largely) unschooled at the local level while (well-schoolled) bishops cannot agree on intercommunion at their level? It's not enough that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox believe exactly the same thing. It needs to be affirmed by the heads of the church, the bishops. They may fail to do so out of legitimate concerns or out of sinful weakness, but this is the Church nonetheless. It is far from perfect.

Likewise regarding the Orthodox Catholics (in communion with Rome) and the Orthodox Catholics (not in communion with Rome). Even in dialogue on this site we are hardpressed to find differences in faith (although we should not shy away from attempts to test this). Some would say that the primary difference is ecclesiological (i.e. the issues around the role of synodalism/concilliarity). Still we remain apart.

More and more, as I ponder this issue through exchanges on this site and through other conversations, I come back to something attributed to Archbishop Dimitrios, currently head of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America. While a professor at Holy Cross Seminary in Brrokline, Mass., he supposedly said (I apologize if this paraphrase is wrong) words to the following effect:

'The role of the Church is not to bring heaven on earth. The role of the Church is to prevent the earth from becoming hell.'

So even if we fail to define everything and solve every schism, there is still a "heck" of a lot of work to do around here.

With love in Christ.

Dear Andrew Rubis,

I like your definition of the Catholic Church "centred in Rome and the other not centred in Rome" words to that effect.

A very balanced view, if I may say so.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thanks. You know that I use, and should use, such terminology on this site because it is sponsored by Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome. If you were on one of "our" sites (Orthodox not in communion with Rome), you would make a similar adjustment.

You and Yucannon described well how it is that the Catholic Church (Rome-centered) sees herself as a "communion of Churches." Again, in the strictest sense there can be only one "Church," but I know what you mean. Should we deny parishes the right to put the word "Church" in their title? No.

Snow down here. Almost one foot, ah, that's 30.48 centimeters to you.

In Christ.

Dear Andrew,

Actually, I've learned from experience to just stay away from Orthodox forums - sooner or later I just wind up upsetting everyone by my very presence or one of my points of view.

But yours is a brilliant ecumenical perspective and I hope you pursue what I perceive to be your calling to be a professor of Orthodox theology.

Yes, I hear it is even colder than usual in Florida.

It ALMOST makes me feel O.K. that we're not going down to the Sunny State this year . . . sniff . ..

Alex

modernist priests? well here once, Vassula Ryden was invited to speak in the parish and to present herself in TV programmes as Greek Orthodox

and

Long life Patriarch Bartholomew!