www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why Can't We Proselytize the Schismatic Orthodox?

Hi, Admin. I agree here--the language was certainly quite inflammatory. But since (as Dunstan points out) PT is a mere callow 19-year-old youth, I vote for going easy on the kid.

Blessings,

ZT

Dunstan wrote:

Beautifully put indeed. Sensitive, realistic, fair, and thoughtful. Thanks!

ZT

I've got to agree with Dunstan. I'am not an Easterner, but like alot of Latins I'am supportive of the Eastern Rite, and would much prefer a Divine Liturgy to most Catholic Masses. What puzzles me though is the attitude I sometimes encounter among certain Eastern Rite Catholics concerning relations with the Latin Church. This feeling closer to the Orthodox (who you are not in full communion with) then to the Latins (who you are in full communion with) is as confusing as it is discouraging. Latin Rite priests (the Resurrectionists and others) have learned the Divine Liturgies in order to provide adequately for there Eastern brethren, yet we still hear suspicious references to "Latinizations" as if something sinister was actively being promoted. Suffice it to say, that I know not a single Latin who wishes to Latinize the Eastern Rite, and on the contrary those Latins who post on this forum seem to be unanimously fond of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church.

It is difficult to understand family dynamics of another family not directly your own.

We are not Latin Catholics. While we are in communion with Rome, the Latins must understand that our liturgy, our spirituality, our theological heritage is that of Constantinople, not Rome. It will never be that of Rome. That is simply our historical development.

We were evangelized by those of the Constantinopolitan tradition. The politics and climate at the time of the various Unions (Brest and Uzhorod) are also very complicated indeed.

It is difficult to understand our position looking at the situation from the usual majority Latin position of structure, hierarchy, ecclesiology and legalism as is present in comments like the last post: Why is it discouraging? While it has been stated numerous times on this thread to give the Latins a chance to understand, please also take a step back and understand where we come from. If it is discouraging to work for unity then I am sorry that is your response.

While it is true that the communion is not perfect between us and the Orthodox, we share much more in common spiritually, theologically, and liturgically with the Orthodox than the Latins. We keep the vision of dual communion alive and in sight as it was for our ancestors who entered into the Unions with Rome while not disparaging Constantinople.

Our mother Church is Constantinople. We will never forget that, nor cease to regain our full communion with her while not rejecting the place of the Petrine Ministry as the one presiding in love.

The position of the Church in such documents as Unitatis Redintegratio, Orientale Lumen, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, etc. makes it clear that the Catholic Church considers the Orthodox as part of the "catholic and apostolic nature of the Church" to use the exact language from Unitatis Redintegratio. This doesn't sound like language used to describe those completely and materially in "schism".

Pope John Paul II has vigorously not only been reaching out for forgiveness and dialogue with the Orthodox, but also strongly encouraging the Greek Catholics to do all possible to regain their complete and unique identity, Orthodox in communion with Rome. His addresses on the Feasts of Sts. Peter and Paul, Orientale Lumen, Slavorum Apostoli, his addresses in Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and Ukraine all speak for themselves.

In 1965 Pope Paul VI and Athenogoras, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, mutually removed the excommunications of 1054. While full communion is not yet realized, it is being discussed and schism is in fact too strong of a term. It is a much different situation as, say Archbishop Lefebvre and his SSPX whose bishops encurred ipso facto excommunication in 1988 and formally entered into schism.

Granted, this is historically, theologically, and ecclesialogically a complex issue looking at it purely from the Latin perspective. From the Greek Catholic perspective we simply have a different ecclesiological approach.

Could I ask some specifics with regard to this allegation?

Not even five years ago a bishop in Poland wrote directly to the Holy Father asking all of the married Ukrainian Catholic priests in his diocese be removed because they caused "scandal and confusion" to the people. Problem was, all of these priests were Polish citizens and didn't have to leave nor did they as the Latin bishop had absolutely no "jurisdiction" over them, either civilly or ecclesially.

This is NOT to deny that we have received trememdous support and love from our Roman brethren. I believe you are referring to the Redemptorists, not the Resurrectionists. Metropolitan St. Andrey Sheptytsky approached the Belgian Redemptorists early in the 20th century who supplied us with holy, devout and often martyred priests.

Many of our Bishops were Eastern Redemptorists, some of these like St. Vasyl Velychkovsky, Nikolai Charnetsky, some of the most Easternized as well, who never ceased to work to remove latinizations from our Rite.

Over the years since the Union many of our clergy had to be instructed in Latin seminaries, either by necessity or decree of Rome, which we faithfully obeyed. Unfortunately many of these priests introduced aspects both liturgical and spiritual that were not those of our Byzantine heritage.

Since Leo XIII, Metropolitan Sheptytsky and even to the present Pope, we have been encouraged to regain our heritage. But when a person like Bishop Ireland attempts to suspend one of our priests duly, validly and licitly ordained simply because he was a married priest who in turn created one of the largest splits from the Greek Catholic Church to Orthodoxy (Fr. Alexis Toth), hopefully you will understand our seeming reticence or suspicion.

Families were torn apart, church properties locked up in lawsuits. Entire Orthodox dioceses are present because of these difficulties. This was unfortunately to a great extent precipitated by Latin bishops who were unwilling to accept legitimate ecclesial and liturgical traditions outside of their own. Literally, one week the parish was Greek Catholic and the next Orthodox. So it is much more than just a legal definition of "schism" at work here. These were part of our people, our families, etc.

Please try to understand our complex and often painful history which influences our perspectives and approach. We must do everything in our power to regain our Byzantine heritage fully, spiritually, liturgically, etc. trying to regain communion with our Mother of Constantinople while walking the tightrope of communion with the elder Rome.

Dear Zoe Theodora,

Thankyou for your charitable post.

BTW, I LOVE your name..it is so 'Byzantine Empire!'

What would make me believe contrary to all that you have said, is that the current Pope, His Holiness, John Paul II, on two occasions, atleast, which I am positively aware of, he asked the Orthodox, "What do you want the Papacy to be?"

One time he suggested that the Orthodox gather their theologians on this one. To date, sad to say, I don't believe the Orthodox have grouped on this matter, (I am sure that this isn't meant offensively, we can't even get our act together about our own matters! )

The other request was made to the head Bishop at St. Katherine's Orthodox Monastery in Mt.Sinai, where the Holy Father also venerated St. Katherine's relics.

Are these mixed messages, or a different point of view, more akin to mine? The Seat of the Apostle Peter, the first among equals in the Church of the first millenium, is incomplete without the other Patriarchs, just as they (Orthodox) are definitely incomplete without him.

From other resources I have read that His Holiness is pursuing the spirit of the first millenium Church, where Papal universal jurisdiction was not even heard of yet. In a united Church, I believe that the Patriarchal jurisdiction over the West that the Pope has now will always be, and the Patriarchal jurisdictions that the Orthodox have will also be.

In Christ,
Alice

First off, I don't see why anyone should see the official Orthodox view as insulting. I'm sure it can come off that way, but when you look at it with more than just a passing glance, it makes sense from that perspective.

As for the Catholic view of the Orthodox, I don't know how many people think it is "mushy-indifferentist". The Orthodox I know don't think it is. Either they have the same view of Catholics that Catholics have of Orthodox, or they know that the Catholics consider themselves alone to have the fullness of truth and they don't pay it any heed. I don't know any Orthodox who are upset at Catholics for believing as they do; they disagree, but they are not upset.

Pray? Certainly; we pray for you to come back too.

Work? I guess this depends on what the work in question is; you may be right about there being no binding admonition against "working" towards bringing Orthodox into the Catholic Church, but I would like to know what "work" entails. If Catholicism believes that the "little that is lacking" in Orthodoxy puts Orthodox Christians in danger of not being saved, then it is consistent for them to want to bring Orthodox Christians into the Catholic Church and to work actively to bring in as many as possible. But if the "little that is lacking" does not put them in danger of not being saved, because they have valid sacraments and what not, but instead, they have in Orthodoxy everything they need in order to be saved, then why? That would be an implicit recognition, in my opinion, that on the level of essentials (and what is more essential than salvation?), Catholicism and Orthodoxy are viewed as the same thing by Rome, even if not in communion, even if not accepting certain things which Rome says are part of the faith. Does Catholicism view Orthodoxy as having everything that is necessary for salvation, or does the "little that is lacking" form a deficiency that puts the salvation of the Orthodox in jeopardy? This is a question that, to date, I personally have not seen anything authoritative from Rome addressing. I think if we can find an answer to this, perhaps the rest of this conversation will be easier to deal with.

Thank you for thinking my posts are charitable. Sad to say, you may be the only person on planet earth who holds this opinion. (I say this as someone who recently emerged from a brutal e-mail altercation with a member of another board, whom I also know in Real Life...and the whole thing was just a terrible mess, and I've been alternately repenting and licking my wounds ever since. )

Thanks for liking my name! I borrowed it from Zoe and Theodora, the nieces of Basil II, who was emperor when Byzantium was at its zenith of power and cultural achievement. My dh wrote his doctoral dissertation on good ole Basil.

Re JPII's invitation: The Holy Father has indeed invited the EO leaders to help him redefine the ways in which papal primacy might be exercised in a reunited Church, particularly with regard to jurisdiction over the East. (Sorry, can't think of a better preposition than "over." Too brain-dead!) However, as Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope himself have made clear, any such redefinition couls not alter the essence of the papacy or change any of the dogmatic truths authoritatively proclaimed about the papacy (e.g., re the charism of infallibility). There's some flexibility there, but it goes only so far.

Personally I think reunion will come about by a sovereign act of Almighty God through the powerful intercession of the Theotokos, but that's a whole 'nuther story.

Love,

ZT

When I tried to make connections in my mind on the discussions around this topic it does become confusing.

If one belives the the Orthodox believes that the Orthodox are schismatic and need conversion to Roman Catholicism, then in y mind that would mean that all that the Orthodox Church teaches and has held to for the last two thousand years is not sufficient to save one's soul. It would follow then that papal infallability, the immmaculate conception, and all the dogma's that arose out of the Medieval Papacy is required for salvation.

On the other hand, if one looks at from the other side, then, the Orthodox Church does contain the necessary elements to save one's soul, then the items that separate the two churches are more a manner of how the churches are stuctured and interpreted and not salvation related.

For me personnaly, I find it far from the Grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that belief in papal infalability and his universal juridiction over the Church and the more recent dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary are necessary for salvation. These things are just not found prior to 1054 when the Church was unified.

I admire the current Pope for many, many reasons, and his openness towards the Christian East is one of them. Frankly, I think an invitation to the Orthodox to help redefine the Papacy is unprecedented, and important. But I have to question what use it is in light of the above. I understand the Pope is bound by what the Catholic Church teaches, but to invite the Orthodox to help redefine the Papacy, but then to "make clear" that such a redefinition could not touch the dogmas of papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc. is like saying "We will bend over backwards to redefine how the Papal ministry is exercised; the only thing we will not do is the one thing you want us to do", because the Orthodox answer to such an invitation, even before it was given, has always been the same as far as I know.

This sounds right.

This is true, but it is not merely a matter of how the Churches are structured, because the one thing that I know of that could be called ecclesiastical administration (the papal dogmas) are a part of the theology of the Catholic Church. So it's not merely a matter of reorganising things so that everyone's happy. There are matters of faith involved, and so the efforts toward unity are that much more complicated.

I agree.

Alice,

Of course, it can be countered that it is you who are plunged into self love, by placing your own sentiments on this subject above the canons and the teachings of the Church (Fathers, Holy Scripture, Concilliar definitions and anathemas, etc.)

Same sacraments?

Canon XLVI.

We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?

Canon XLVII.

Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize again one who has rightly received baptism, or who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the ungodly, be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not making a distinction between the true priests and the false.

Those are some very strong words (from the Apostolic Canons, which the Orthodox Church accepts), and the import of these canons is that the Holy Mysteries cannot genuinely exist without the Church - the forms of them can exist (as various schisms and heresies have demonstrated), but the Grace of these Mysteries can only be found in the Church of Christ, which is the Orthodox Church. Your argument here is not with me, but with the above canons.

Seraphim

Most certainly not. Complete unity of Christ's Church is what every Christian should pray for.

As far as work toward, the Holy Father has set specific guidelines as to how we are to work toward that end.

Namely, since each Church involved maintains a valid Holy Orders, we should trust in the Holy Spirit working through our Holy Orders resident in our bishops.

Actively seeking individual conversions has proven to be problematic in that it promotes hardened hearts, to the detriment of the Spirit's work.

Therefore, the Holy Father has advised us NOT to seek individual conversions of, or to proselytize to, the East; but to offer such assistance as we might to the work of our bishops in this matter.

LatinTrad

I agree, there is a double standard - I've noticed the Latins get the short end of the stick here.

I don't know where to begin. I suppose I'll start by saying that Orthodox ecclessiology is much different than what you're probably familiar with. In short, it isn't simply "RC ecclessiology, without the Pope." You'll find some unfortunates saying this, more or less; these are also the same types (if they're so persuaded) who'll portray the Ecumenical Patriarch as if he were the Byzantine equivelent of the Pope (an image he seems intent on promoting, or at least his handlers are), and who often speak of "canonical Orthodoxy", but without the slightest clue of the fact that the term "canonical" refers to just that - observance of the canons (alongside a given Synod having a canonical foundation for existing.)

You've just thrown a bunch of different groups in together. VERY different groups, in fact.

Suffice it to say, ROCOR has a canonical foundation for existing. The KP are self consecrators as far as I'm aware, and the Macedonians have no canonical foundation for existing as a seperate Church that I'm aware of.

I'm not confused at all, regarding "validity" vs. liceity. You're mistaking your RC paradigm for an Orthodox one. The Mysteries are activities of the Church, the "theandric Body of Christ" as Bl.Justin of Serbia referred to Her. It makes no sense to say that a schism can do these "Churchly" things, such as graft people into the Body of Christ, when they themselves are not members of Her. A Priest, who receives his authority to minister and act as Priest from his Bishop (and thus, from the Church) can hardly feed the flock Christ's precious Body and Blood, or offer the Oblation in Christ's Name, if he is severed from His very Body.

Without getting into the seperate controversy of "graceless heretics", it should be sufficient to say that Orthodox Christianity does not allow for a "branch theory" style ecclessiology.

Just to give you some common examples even the "mainstream, ecumenical" Orthodox here will readily acknowledge to be true...

- As far as Orthodoxy is concerned, if a priest is defrocked, he can no longer "confect" valid sacraments at all.

- Baptism is considered a Priestly sacrament - only in the most dire of circumstances could a layman baptize someone, and even then, this could only be done by an Orthodox Christian and be recognized as a true Baptism.

These two examples show show quite clearly, a key difference in Orthodox teaching on the sacraments from that of the RCC.

I forget the name of the Saint involved (it was a female Latin Saint, from the time of the Arian crisis), but if I remember correctly it took place at the time when the Vandals (who were Arians) raided Rome. The Vandals got a hold of this woman, and forcibly baptized her. When she came out of the font, she had her servant give the Arian "priest" some coins, and thanked him for the bath. (I really wish I remember which Saint this was - after her bold words, she became a martyr.)

This story, illustrates an Orthodox view of baptism - that being, that non-Orthodox bodies cannot baptize; they cannot dispense what they do not have.

Seraphim

I'm going to close this thread, but wanted to say something to all the participants here. Religion and how one lives it out is a deeply personal experience. If one truly believes what one professes, then it is incumbant upon such a person to bring others to that faith tradition.

In the instant case, it is obvious that there are three groups: Latin Catholics, Eastern Catholics (primarily Byzantine Rite) and Orthodox who are participating. Each brings baggage to the discussion. That baggage is neither good nor bad, but its weight can affect how we see things.

In general, polemics do nothing to further a discussion, they only divide and polarize. In order to grow one must first acknowledge that there is a lacuna, a lack, in what one knows. As proverbs tells us, "Get Wisdom! Get Understanding!" Let us seek wisdom so that we will understand. We begin by learning about the other so that we will be able to discuss things on a level playing field. Let us also remember that sometimes we can be using the same words to mean different things -- so let's not assume that because we use the same words we understand their meanings.

Finally, it is always better to seek understanding rather than to condemn; to seek knowledge rather than to persist in ignorance. We can do these things without rancor and without causing others to feel like they are under attack.

Edward, deacon and sinner