Should the Orthodox church be in dialogue with the Roman Catholic one? Yes. Will we reunite? It would take a miracle.
By Fr. Patrick Reardon
Were I to list the thousand reasons why Rome is my favorite place in all the world, most of them would have to do the Eternal City’s long association with Christian history. On those all too rare occasions when I am able to get back to Rome, most of my time is spent visiting the catacombs, the tombs of Saints Peter and Paul, the Circus Maximus, the Colosseum, and other sites precious to Christian memory. My personal sentiments about Rome were well summarized by St. Abercius, the second-century Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, who had made a pilgrimage to the Eternal City. Later, in the inscription that he crafted for his own tomb, he referred to the church at Rome as “the queen with the golden robe and golden shoes.” Starting with the blood of the Neronic martyrs, there is no city on earth, I think, more deeply saturated in Christian memory.
Surely, then, any Orthodox heart must be saddened when remembering the long and deep estrangement between ourselves and that venerable institution described by St. Irenaeus of Lyons as “the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.”
Should the Orthodox Church be dialoguing with the ancient See of Rome with a view to our eventual reconciliation and reunion? Yes, most emphatically. Such a dialogue, for such a purpose, constitutes a most strict moral imperative, imposed by the will and mandate of Christ for the unity of His church and, for that reason, neglected at the absolute peril of our souls. The reunion of believers in Christ is not a concern that the Orthodox conscience can simply “write off.”
I suggest that the proper model for such an Orthodox dialogue with Rome was provided by St. Mark of Ephesus, the most unforgettable of the Eastern delegates to the Council of Florence back in the 15th century. St. Mark is best remembered because of his casting the sole dissenting vote against the reunion of the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church. At the end, he became convinced that the effort for reunion at Florence would be successful only by an infidelity to the ancient tradition, so he conscientiously voted against it.
Still, St. Mark did not refuse to dialogue and discuss the matter. His fidelity to the true faith did not prevent his taking part in serious theological dialogue with those with whom he disagreed. Even though the Roman Catholic Church was at that time in circumstances indicating great spiritual and moral decline, a decline that would soon lead to its massive dismembering during the Protestant Reformation, St. Mark did not despise Rome or refuse to join his voice to a dialogue summoned to make real that prayer of Christ that we all might be one. Those Orthodox who, like myself, believe that continued dialogue with Rome is a moral imperative, would do well to take St. Mark of Ephesus as their model.
At the same time, we should be under no illusions about the difficulties of such dialogue. Because Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have followed progressively divergent paths for nearly a thousand years, arguably we are right now further apart than we have ever been. For example, it should be obvious that the Roman papacy is the major obstacle to our reunion. Make no mistake–we Orthodox do not miss the papacy, not in the least, because we never had it. Not for a minute did the pope of Rome ever exercise over the church of the East the level of centralized authority he has grown, over the past thousand years, to exercise over the Roman Catholic Church.
In the East, the pope of Rome was simply the senior among his brother bishops, all of whom taught, pastored, and governed the church through local synods and other exercises of consensual adherence, most of them without the slightest reference or attention to Rome except in extraordinary circumstances, and never outside of Rome’s relationship to the Eastern patriarchates.
The current Roman teaching that all doctrinal questions can be definitively answered and settled by an appeal to Rome is not, the Orthodox insist, the ancient and traditional teaching and practice of the apostolic and patristic church. If the ancient Catholic Church really did believe in any doctrine even faintly resembling the current doctrine of papal infallibility, there would never have been any need for those early ecumenical councils, all of them held in the East, which laboriously hammered out the creedal formulations, canons, and policies of the church.
The current papal claims, standard doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church since the defining of papal infallibility in 1870 and repeated most recently by Cardinal Ratzinger’s official Vatican declaration “Dominus Iesus” (released on September 5, 2000), represent an ecclesiastical development radically at odds with the Orthodox understanding of the very nature of the Christian Church as manifest in her ancient life.
The Orthodox “solution” to this problem would be, of course, simply for the pope of Rome to foreswear these recent claims and go back to the humbler status that he enjoyed for the first thousand years of Christian history. Namely, the “first among equals,” the chief and foremost of his brother bishops, within a church taught and governed by the broad consensual understanding of an authoritative tradition.
That is to say, the Orthodox would be delighted for His Holiness of Rome, repudiating what we regard as the errors attendant on his recent understanding of his ministry, to take once again his rightful place as the ranking spiritual leader of the Orthodox Church (a position that the patriarch of Constantinople has held since the separation of Rome from Orthodoxy in the 11th century).
To Orthodox Christians, such a “solution” to the problem would seem very attractive. In fact, however, one fears that it would be no solution at all. Such a weakening of the papacy would be an utter disaster for the Roman Catholic Church as it is currently constituted. To many of us outside that institution, it appears that the single entity holding the Roman Catholic Church together right now is probably the strong and centralized office of the pope.
The Roman Catholic Church for nearly a thousand years has moved toward ever greater centralized authority, and it is no longer clear that she would thrive, or even survive intact, without that authority maintained at full strength. If Rome did not occasionally censure the heretics in that church, just who in the world would do it? Can anyone really remember the last time a Roman Catholic bishop in the United States called to account a pro-gay activist priest, or a pro-abortion nun, or a professor in a Catholic college who denied the resurrection? No, take away the centralized doctrinal authority of Rome, and the Roman Catholic Church today would be without rudder or sail in a raging sea.
If an Orthodox Christian, then, loves his Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, he will not wish for a diminished papacy. Indeed, he will devoutly pray for a very strong papacy. Otherwise he may be failing in proper Christian love for those whose spiritual well-being requires this strong papacy. It is a singular irony that our prayers for an effective and vibrant papacy, though motivated by a loving concern for our Roman Catholic brethren, would hardly seem, on the face of it, to further the healing of our ecclesiastical division. However we got into this mess, only God can get us out.
So, let us Orthodox, by all means, engage in dialogue with Holy Rome. But let us also not deceive ourselves respecting the enormous difficulties of the task. The reunion of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism seems so utterly impossible right now that it will require a great and stupendous miracle, something at least on the scale of water transformed into wine. Then again, you know, the example itself may give us hope.
Note 150 Wise as Serpents Department
Kittman and Taquiyya are Islamic doctrines which state that is it permissible for a Muslim to lie to a non-Muslim if it strengthens Islam or strengthens the Ummah (brotherhood of Muslims).
Mohammed said “war is deception.” Mohammed also said “Islam shall dominate, Islam shall not be dominated.”
Missourian, yes of course, from an Orthodox POV, the Muslim “version” and understanding of the psalms is heresy. No doubt about that. But, that is my point. Even if Orthodox and Muslims could find a psalm whose wording they agreed on, it would be a pointless exercise. The same with Mormons and Jehovah witnesses.
Note 152. Thanks Stephen, Duly Noted.
Garrison,
Count me in. I think your idea is exactly the way to proceed. I don’t know where you’re located, but as your Dad seems to think it’s not necessary to be in the same place, let me know when it’s time to start praying psalms for reconciliation. I’ve got plenty of RC friends who would be interested too. I can be reached at dmortonl@yahoo.com
David,
… I’ll call Bob Geldof. 😉
Stephen, its amazing that a simple proposal to pray for God’s mercy is greated with such cynicism and sarcasm.
Michael, David, Garrison, my comments come across as sarcastic. I apologize for this.
Garrison, I like Patriarch Bartholomew’s suggestion (printed on this blog) that if we can’t stand together in unity of the faith, then perhaps we can kneel together in repentance. Perhaps this is what you’re suggesting.
I have sat back for a couple of days to see how this thread has evolved, and to tell you the truth I am utterly amazed. Both excited about the prospect of people reaching to hear eachother but also by what people are willing to turn a blind eye to in order to be tolerant.
When various posters on this board have said in defence of the Catholics, that “no one believes that papal infallibility thing”, I would like to remind you that it was only in 1870 that the doctrine of papal infallibility was enshrined in Vatican One. I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY POPE OF THE THE LAST CENTURY OR OF THIS CENTURY CATEGORICALLY DENY THE CONCEPT AND REMOVE IT FROM CATHOLIC DOCTRINE!
In the mind of every Orthodox person, ONLY God is infallible. No priest or bishop of the Orthodox Church has deigned to say that they are the “head of the Church”. In fact, they are merely equals amongst equals. If anything, the concept of primacy amongst the Orthodox is that it gives the bishop so wielding the title, the right merely to sit at the head of the Synod as moderator.
Why is infallibility heretical? Because it usurps the role of the Holy Spirit!
Why is saying that you are head of the Church heretical? Because according to scripture Jesus Christ is the head of the Church!
Why is being the “supreme pontif of the VATICAN STATE” a heresy? Well I’m sure that the clever cookies amongst you can work that one out fairly easily.
To say that the ordinary Catholic person doesn’t believe such things is a cop out. IF you don’t believe it, either search for the Truth and change the false doctrine or leave your institution and be brave enough to embrace the the vessel of the Truth, which is the Orthodox Church. Otherwise, unfortunately, your heart is in the right place but you are still praying with a group that holds heretical beliefs.
As far as the primacy of Peter doctrine goes, i believe that the doctrine is false on the basis that no Apostle was above any other. They each received the Holy SPirit equally. St Peter did not receive an extra measure just to show he was more beloved or above any of the other Apostles. If we were to engage in the arguments of honorifics, then we could say that St Andrew who was the “first called” should have primacy or that St John the “beloved of God” should have primacy. But the Orthodox do not engage in such discussions because it is untenable to the Orthodox mind that one human exists in primacy over any other.
To say that the Orthodox accept that Rome is the Holy See of St Peter is correct. But then again so is saying that Alexandria is the Holy See of St Mark and Constantinople is the Holy See of St Andrew is also correct. It is merely a name and an association with tradition.
143 .Michael my brother you stated:
“It is interesting that of all of my posts in this thread, none of which support the interpretation that the Roman Catholic Church is neo-pagan institution which is beyond salvation as George spoke of”.
I do not believe that I have EVER said that the RC’s were neo-pagan and never did I say that they were beyond salvation! I dare you to look at my posts and repeat those same words. Perhaps your interpretation has been slightly liberal. To deny the saving Grace of the Lord is to surely cast yourself in to Hell. No, I didnot at any time say that the RC’s cannot be saved or that anyone cannot be saved.
I merely came out in defence of the Truth. If a group does not have the whole truth it cannot be part of the CHURCH OF CHRIST, because the God does not do things in half-measures. I said that the RC have cut themselves off from the Church and salvation by believing in heresy. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY CANNOT BE SAVED! I said that they cannot be saved via the doctrine that they believe in.
That they believe in Christ is true. That they show a fundamental respect for Christ is true. They desire to be closer to God is true. BUT, the major hurdle are certain false teachings, which when believed lead you AWAY from God.
Grace and Salvation can only be found through the Orthodox Faith! This is the Faith of the Fathers and the Divine Revelation of God! I repeat (once again), knowing full well my own sins and in complete humility that I do not utter these words in condemnation of my fellow man, but in order for them to be saved.
I agree with you Micahel on almost all that you have said, perhaps I should have made myself clearer from the start. Michael, we as Orthodox shall be ultimately judged by the fact that we did not live a purely Orthodox life so that we became a beacon to others to be attracted to the Light.
As this is my last post, I pray that the Lord strengthens you and keeps you on the right path.
George.
God Bless you George, forgive me if I have judged you or offended you in any way. I do appreciate your steadfastness. Many times the medium we are using obscures the reality of what we believe and are attempting to communicate.
Everyone,
Forgive me if I’m in the most polite mood, after hearing, yet again, a series of straw-man attacks and gross and misinterpretations about the Catholic Church. I’ll do my best to respond them on a civil and charitable manner. Since I’m very imperfect, the result will surely be lacking, and for that I apologize in advance.
I do this in the interest of dialogue with my Orthodox brothers. I understand and accept the Orthodox have issues with the Catholic Church, but to allow them be based on misconceptions is a disservice.
“As far as the primacy of Peter doctrine goes, i believe that the doctrine is false on the basis that no Apostle was above any other.”
The Primacy is part of the Tradition of the Church, and the Eastern Churches did fully accept it until the schisms. The disagreement was over what the primacy means, not its existence. The Patriarch of Constantinople took over the role of primacy. So until that time it was an Orthodox belief as well, and if it’s false, the Orthodox are as much in error as the Catholics.
Once the Patriarchs of the Byzante sphere of influence began following the schism, the Patriarch took the role of first amongst equals. Other Churches never reversed position and remained in full communion with Rome.
“No priest or bishop of the Orthodox Church has deigned to say that they are the “head of the Church”.”
That’s not exactly what the Catholic Church says. Christ is the head of the Church. The Pope is the visible head of the Church, the visible leader, a position of honor based on Tradition. Your omission might lead people to think, in error, that the Church doesn’t has Christ as it leader. I can only hope it was not on purpose.
“In the mind of every Orthodox person, ONLY God is infallible.”
“Why is infallibility heretical? Because it usurps the role of the Holy Spirit!”
If you think that infallibility has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit you don’t know what it is. The Church is infallible because it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic considers the Church of Christ to be infallible. I was unaware that the Orthodox considers this to be an heretical belief, so I would ask for others to please elucidate the issue.
The Catholic Church never said that the Pope is personally infallible, that’s not that Papal Infallibility is. It just means that, in matters of Faith, after great debate, there is a last instance, where the Pope has the power to make a pronouncement ex cathedra as leader of Christianity.
“Why is saying that you are head of the Church heretical? Because according to scripture Jesus Christ is the head of the Church!”
The Catholic Church never made such a claim. Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. The scripture say that, and the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, believes in it. The Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Pope, is the visible head of the Church, because he is the successor of Saint Peter, who Christ made leader of the apostles, what is part of Tradition that the Orthodox never repudiated, or at least had no until 1054.
The dispute was over what the leadership meant, not about its existence. So the Catholic Church is not heretical for following Tradition. To deny Tradition is a different matter, but, thankfully, it was never the position of the Orthodox Churches.
On a side-note, the Orthodox had a leader before the Schism. They had a leader after the Schism. What about know? If not having a leader is good, was having a leader wrong?
“To say that the Orthodox accept that Rome is the Holy See of St Peter is correct.”
That doesn’t answer the question. Is the Bishop of Rome the successor of St. Peter? This means a valid apostolic succession Catholic Church, which is something the Orthodox can’t seem to agree on. So I would ask of you to answer this on a more precise and clear way if you can.
George states: “I said that they cannot be saved via the doctrine that they believe in.”
George, do you really believe this? You seem to be saying that to enter Heaven, not only must I have faith in Christ and believe that He exists, died for my sins and rose, but that I must believe a whole host of other assorted things about the Pope and have a very lofty and visual comprehension of the Triune God. I feel as if I’m being confronted with a massive Chinese menu of tenets where a wrong choice will not get me a bad case of salmonella but eternal damnation.
Of course the Catholics will say that I also cannot sin, but if I do, I’d better have the good sense of timing to confess to a priest before I die.
I think this is why people become Protestants.
I’m really not trying to sound sarcastic, but it seems that Christ’s sacrifice has been rendered insignificant due to what I call the “baggage” that has been heaped onto the traditions within organized religion.
Note 160. Delance, you are missing the point. The dispute here is what “primacy” actually means. You argue it means a jurisdictional primacy. The Orthodox argue it means a primacy of honor. History/Tradition is on the side of the Orthodox here. The only place the claim for jurisdictional primacy is made is in the Roman Patriachate.*
“Jurisdictional primacy” means the authority to administrate other patriarchates.
*BTW, your own Patriarch has recognized the need to define primacy in terms other than jurisdictional.
The notion of “infalibility” is a modern one (for both Catholics and Protestants). More on this some other time.
>>The Orthodox argue it means a primacy of honor. History/Tradition is on the side of the Orthodox here.
Oh really? So why are the Orthodox partaking in a joint theological commision to discuss the primacy of Rome? Is it just to show that they are right? I don’t think so…. The last time Catholic and Orthodox theologians met were in a four day talk (May 2003) about the primacy of Rome. Both sides gave presentations and papers on the subject. Now, this is a great quote we should ask ourselves it:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=36128
The fact is, Catholic and Orthodox are not engaging in dialogue for the sake of pride or futility. I think both sides have alot of wiggle room in their doctrine, and they know it too. Why else dialogue? Certainly, not for the sake of dialogue but to resolve our differences where liberty is granted.
I don’t see where my point contradicts anything here. I’m not arguing against the concept of primacy. I am arguing that the Roman defintion that primacy implies a jurisdictional authority over the other patriarchates cannot be substantiated by historical practice (tradition). This is not the same thing as saying that Rome does not have a history where the concept of primacy grew into its present jurisdictional claims. Rather, I argue that the Roman concept in its present form is held only by Rome, nowhere else.
JamesK, What George and I are both saying, if I may presume to speak for him, is that the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church posits a false soteriology and therefore cannot be salvific. Salvation for Orthodox is founded upon the fact that, in the Church, we are “partakers of the divine nature” as Peter phrases it. The official soteriology of the West, Roman Catholic or Protestant, is not founded upon actually communing with the Living God through His UNCREATED ENERGIES, but upon the idea of partaking of His CREATED grace. One of the other significant differences is the idea prevalent in the west that we are saved from God’s wrath, which is totally wrong from an Orthodox understanding. We are not saved from God’s wrath, we are saved from sin and death, that is why we sing with such joy on Pascha (Easter), Christ is Risen from the Dead, Trampling down Death by Death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.
Is belief in Jesus Christ as Lord, God and Savior enough? Absolutely! Western Christians experience the unwarranted miracle of salvation on a daily basis because they believe in Jesus so fervently and Jesus desires even more fervently to save them, that the official doctrine is transcended.
Unfortunately, the more I study and experience the Orthodox reality and look at the theological precepts of the West, the more saddened I am for western Christians. The worst part of the western approach is that the picture of God created by their theology is so unattractive to many people that those people turn away entirely not only from organized Christianity, but from Christ Himself.
I stress once again, Orthodox Theology and Praxis is based on the actual experience of communion with the Living God. It is not just a set of philosophical ideas created to solve a logical problem which is what a lot of western theology has devolved into. The experience of the Living God is not only available to all Orthodox, it is our goal. As the Divine reality penetrates our soul and body, we are transformed and transfigured by the uncreated energy of God in a manner similar to Christ Himself on Mt. Tabor. Vladimir Lossky states it thus: “to know the mystery of the Trinity in its fullness is to enter into perfect union with God and to attain to the deification of the human creature: in other words, to enter into the divine life, the very life of the Holy Trinity, and to become, in St. Peter’s words, ‘partakers of the divine nature’. Trinitarian theology is thus a theology of union, a mystical theology which appeals to experience and which presupposes a continuous and progressive series of changes in created nature, a more and more intimate communion of the human person with the Holy Trinity.?
God should not be comprehensible. If He were comprehensible, He would not be God. IMO, much of the official theology of the west, Catholic or Protestant has as it’s goal making God comprehensible to our rational mind, in doing so the actual experience of God, the sense of mystery surrounding His inter-relationship with us and the sense of the sacred are often sacrificed. Reductionism and rationalism are dangerous in manners pertaining to God.
For an adult to enter into the Orthodox Church they must 1) want to; 2) confess their sins; 3) renounce Satan and all his works; 4) renounce all heresies ancient and modern; 5) Make a public profession of faith by saying the original Nicene Creed. At that point the person is sacramentally received into the saving embrace of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Past sins are forgiven and the Seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit is conferred. The life of an Orthodox Christian should then be focused on living in a repentant, sacramental way. There is no guarantee than Orthodox Christians will attain salvation, but the doctrine and the practice are designed to allow one to come to salvation as easily as possible.
The theological experience that you refer to as “baggage” is a revealed part of living as the Church teaches. It is not a set of precepts that one is required to believe or adhere to. As the experience of God grows in us, we are set free from sin and death and become more conscious of the communion God offers to us through the Holy Spirit and His Incarnate Son–at least that is the testimony of those who have trod that path deeply into the mystery of God, the saints. Unfortunately, disobedient and sinful person that I am, I have not progressed far at all along that path.
St. Maximus, the Confessor put it this way: “God has created us in order that we may enter into eternity and that we may appear like unto him, being deified by that grace out of which all things that exist have come, and which brings into existence everything that before had no existence.”
Salvation through Jesus Christ from an Orthodox perspective is a wondrous and beauty filled inter-communion with the Holy Trinity. Remember, the Truth is not an idea perceived by the rational mind, He is a Person sought and known with the heart, Jesus Christ. That same God/Man pours out Himself for us and reveals a Divine reality far beyond any beauty, glory, and grace we can imagine in the vain conjurings of our minds. You may find our poor effable words overly complicated in explanation of a supremely ineffable experience, but are we to deny the revealed truth we have been entrusted with merely to avoid what appear to be complications? Are we to say to others that they are not worthy to partake of the same salvation we experience?
Note 165 Beautifully expressed Michael
Michael,
I am glad you are not leading our church’s ecumenical discussions. . .
That is exactly the same kind of prideful rhetoric that damages so much of the church’s unity. The West isn’t asking the East to conform to Western understanding, and the East isn’t asking the West to conform to Eastern understanding. Who cares if you think how great Eastern theology is? It’s your personal opinion, it proves nothing, and it has zero weight in public discussion.
When it comes down to real ecumenical discussions, you have to leave your personal preference, emotions, spirituality, and politics behind and talk about the cold facts of doctrine and history. Your personal spiritual experiences isn’t relevant to the path of unity, and disparging Western soteriology won’t gain anything either.
Ramadi, are you objecting to tone or content? The reason I ask is that my read is that a good portion of what Michael wrote can’t be separated from the “cold facts of doctrine.” There is a divide between East and West, not in experience with the risen Christ necessarily, but certainly in the understanding of how that encounter is comprehended and articulated — doctrine, IOW.
One example Michael mentioned was the notion of a wrathful God (juridical soteriology in theological terminology) and its corollary that God consigns people to hell (God actually chooses who goes to hell or heaven if you believe Calvin). This notion is foreign to the Orthodox understanding (hell is existential separation from God, the fire of hell is the love of God that burns instead of purifies — a resounding affirmation of free will and a repudiation of Calvin’s theory of predestination in the strongest possible terms). This division is an important one.
I don’t share Michael’s movement into mystical theology. I think salvation is a practical and concrete enterprise that is appropriated through love of the neighbor — through obedience to the commandment of God to love God and neighbor. Matthew 25 which outlines the criteria of the final judgment affirms this in my view. Where this is practiced, God can be found. Nevertheless, how this is practiced is also informed by what we believe about God and man, ie: the value we place on human life, our obligations toward the poor (and how we fulfill them), etc., making an examination of doctrine necessary. For that reason Michael’s post, even as expressed in heartfelt terms, can be profitable.
Jacobse,
I did a search for the word “Calvin” in this current blog entry, and you have the only mention of the word. Michael was not talking about Calvinism. He was targeting Catholicism with his statement: “the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church posits a false soteriology and therefore cannot be salvific.” Ironically, he sounds like some of the Calvinists who say the same thing about the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox for that matter).
Catholicism has condmened Calvin’s double pre-destination theory. But again, Michael wasn’t talking about Calvinism. His post was extremely boastful about the greatness of Eastern theology in comparison to Roman formulation. It’s not charitable. Formulations aren’t good or bad, as long as they are true. He may have a personal preference for one, but that’s no need to be “saddened … for western Christians” as if Catholics are somehow disadvantaged for not being Easterned.
There are tons of really insulting inferences I can draw from his post.
I found nothing particularly offensive about Michael’s post, even as an RC. However, I would think that item 4 (to renounce all heresies) would remain an intrisically impossible task. If I am to understand the term correctly, heresy denotes a belief in a corrupt (or at least an incorrect) dogma. I would humbly suggest that while most Christians have some degree of a realization of their own tendency towards darkness and the ability of Christ to help them transcend that, most of us seem to maintain some notions of God that are “off”, for lack of a better word.
If you’re talking about comprehending the nature of a triune God, for example, I’d also suggest that such understanding is irrelevant to one’s relationship with God, despite the fact that this issue has raised some ire here. Maybe it matters, I don’t know. But just because someone may have the “correct” anthropomorphic image of an old man with rays emitting from him that also produce a white dove doesn’t mean they’re necessarily charitable or otherwise virtuous. It’s a non-issue, IMO, just as many other philosophical and theological points seem to be within these denominational arguments.
JamesK,
I think you’re right in saying that its common, and even especially among Orthodox Christians, to have a wrong view of God. I believe your example of 19th century iconology sometimes seen in Orthodox Churches of an “anthropomorphic image of an old man with rays emitting from him that also produce a white dove” is a very good example of this. Some will say that such an image is of Christ from the Book of Daniel “the Ancient of Days” but many Orthodox seem to find this imagery confusing and a departure from Orthodox tradition. I’m not a theologian, so when I go to Churches that have this icon, I just shrug my shoulders. Just like anyone else, Orthodox Christians can be prone to whimsy. But, I would suggest, that’s why we need Orthodoxy.
Jesus said “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”. The Church believes Her saints have direct experience with God. The dogma of the trinity is based on that actual experience and the witness of the saints of the Church who have spiritual vision.
The dogma is not God, and it is not a substitute for actual spiritual vision and a relationship with God. Rather, it seems meant to lead us to God, and away from spiritual dellusion. It could be seen as analagous to a doctor’s tool. When everyone is talking about “God”, which is often the case, then this can be a helpful thing. The Jew’s talk about worshipping “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”. I would suggest that this is similar to a creed, but the Christians needed a new creed that also incorporated Christ.
Note 169. Ramadi,
I just don’t see what is offensive here. It’s really no different that other posters telling the Orthodox that they should really be under the Pope. Well, that just is not going to happen. No offense meant, no offense taken.
Ramadi, forgive me for provoking you to anger.
Fr. Hans, I agree with what you say. The mystical approach without caring for our fellow creatures as God commands us is without profit. Prayer, fasting, and almsgiving are three important spiritual disciplins within the Orthodox Church. Prayer encompasses the mystical communion with God in all forms, fasting the unseen warfare with the temptation of Satan and the world, and almsgiving the charity toward our fellow creatures. The Church holds all three before us a equally important. I think that all Christians universally agree on #3, almsgiving. There is greater or less agreement on the other two.
I want to point out one important conversation in the Terri Schiavo thread recently in which I approached the case from a pretty standard Orthodox understanding of humanity in relation to God that is derived from the mystical aspect of Orthodox Christian life. Dean had to admit that after reading what I and some others had written, he finally understood more clearly why his Church was against the action taken against Terri.
The mystical theology does not tell us so much about who God is. The mystical theology tells us about who we really are, who God wants us to be and why and gives a way, through His grace to become that way here and now.
Michael,
I think that if you are going to criticize Roman Catholic doctrine, you should make a better attempt to understand it first. You state, “The official soteriology of the West, Roman Catholic or Protestant, is not founded upon actually communing with the Living God through His UNCREATED ENERGIES, but upon the idea of partaking of His CREATED grace.” I believe that this statement fabricates a teaching for the Roman Catholic Church that it does not itself profess. For instance, see the following item from the Catechism:
1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:
Now if the Roman Catholic Church teaches that grace is a gift of God’s own life, how can that be reconciled with your statement of grace as a created energy?
Your expression of salvation as being primarily a protection from God’s wrath is very closely associated with much Protestant theology but has very little connection with Catholic theology.
I would also point out that everything you have said about the sacramental life of the Orthodox Church applies equally to the Roman Catholic Church.
Now I would certainly not suggest that there are no differences between Orthodox teaching and Roman Catholic teaching. However, creating differences by claiming that a different Church has teachings that it does not profess is certainly not helpful.
Ramadi wrote, “When it comes down to real ecumenical discussions, you have to leave your personal preference, emotions, spirituality, and politics behind and talk about the cold facts of doctrine and history. Your personal spiritual experiences isn?t relevant to the path of unity, and disparging Western soteriology won?t gain anything either.”
That is completely false. The hierarchs of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church agreed to an official reunion at the Council of Florence in 1439. The deal was still born, because the common people of the East hated the agreement and refused to submit. The Russians promptly attempted to kill their returning bishop upon hearing the news, and then proceeded into schism with Constantinople over the whole affair. The Church eventually declared autocephaly.
The point? No laity – no union. The hierarchs can talk and talk and talk. They can sign decrees, formalize statements, and none of it will matter as long as the people in the pews do not feel that they are actually part of the same church.
That is the most important point. Delance and others can argue history, doctrine, and dogma until the Second Coming of Christ. Such things are important, of course, but they are not the critical problems. Such things can be overcome, and if they were the primary problem I am sure that they would have been before now.
Even if a union were signed, Orthodox Christians would not worship, with some exceptions, in Roman Catholic parishes. The distance between us is simply to great on the ground in the things that matter to the common people. To truly be one church would mean that a person would be just as willing to worship in a Roman Catholic parish as in an ‘Orthodox’ parish. To be one is to be united in common worship.
This is not possible under current conditions. For it to be possible, the Orthodox would demand, among other things:
1) Full communion for our children.
2) Baptism, chrismation, and communion all at the same time.
3) Traditional chant only. No rock ‘n’ roll music or charismatic masses.
4) Traditionally decorated churches. No barebones buildings.
5) Bread AND WINE at communion. We wouldn’t accept only one kind. If you want us to take communion at the hands of a Roman Catholic priest, then both bread and wine are required. Otherwise, we won’t show up.
6) Restore the dignity and majesty of the mass. Turn the altar back around. Restore the prayers as they were meant to be said.
Even a fool can see, upon visiting both a Roman Catholic Church and an Orthodox Church, that we are simply not the same. ‘Show me how you worship, and I’ll show you what you believe.’ The bishops may focus on the ‘big picture’ items such as papal primacy and the like, but that is simply not what is going to doom any future union and render it null and void.
Rather, the items I mentioned above are exactly what would keep Orthodox Christians out of Roman Churches, and would continue the wall of separation between us.
You want the union of the two churches? Then solve the above list and you will find yourself on the very edge of full communion, regardless of what is decided about papal primacy or purgatory.
In Lebanon and Syria, it is quite common for Maronite Christians, Syriac Christians, and Orthodox Christians to intercommune on the ground. Even though their churches are officially separated, clergy often serve together, and people take communion freely while visiting each other’s churches. This is possible because, on the ground, the common people don’t SEE, FEEL, or EXPERIENCE a difference in worship. The bishops may want to keep them apart, but the people are already united on the ground. The bishops will someday follow.
When we are that way as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, then the same thing will occur, and someday the bishops will follow.
Until then, we’re just wasting our time discussing this and so are those engaged in various ‘dialogs.’
Glen,
Union is a big step. I was not even arguing history and doctrine. I was correcting misleading facts about the Catholic Church.
Most importantly, there is something that disturbed be very much. Some Orthodox friends I have told me that they didn’t recognize valid apostolic succession on the Catholic Church. The Pope wouldn’t be a Bishop. Union was impossible. This made me very sad.
And confused. Fr. Patrick Reardon, the author of this text, disagrees. Most others appear to hold this position.
What I can’t possibly understand is how Orthodoxy can not be sure if the Pope is a Bishop or not. If he is, union is possible, however difficult. If he isn’t, then no union would be possible.
It was pointed out to me that this would be an internal dispute between “Traditionalists” and “Ecumenicals”. It seems to me that the Catholic Church certainly is not the same as other Non-Orthodox Christians. Unfortunately, they told me there is no such differentiation.
What strike me about most odd is that, before, the Orthodox considered that union was possible, for ex:
1. Previous schisms were resolved. So, schismatic Churches were able to join full communion, what makes it possible
2. Communion was officially attempted before. It failed, but it proves it is possible.
3. Document in question:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
“[2] Agreeably, therefore, to this sacred longing, our orthodox Church of Christ is always ready to accept any proposal of union, if only the Bishop of Rome would shake off once for all the whole series of the many and divers anti-evangelical novelties that have been ‘privily brought in’ to his Church, and have provoked the sad division of the Churches of the East and West”
This at least establishes that Union is possible. And it does consider the Pope to be the Bishop of Rome. The site is a Traiditonalsit one.
Glen,
I have to fully disagree with you here. Let me point out two things:
1) “No layity – no union” I am sorry, but this is false. The layity do not make the church, the bishops do. This is a common modern error; too many layity actually think it is “their church” apart from the teaching authority of the bishop. Do you remember St. Ignatius of Antioch’s saying from the first century? “Wherever is the bishop, there is the catholic church.” That’s why Catholic and Orthodox Christians are members of true churches, while Protestant Christians are just Christian communities — they have no bishop and thus are not part of real churches.
So, the layity need to be docile and follow their bishop. If, in the future, we have Orthodox bishops reunite with Rome and vice-versa, but some layity refuse to join, then guess what? Those stubborn few have no church! You definitely want the layity to join the reunion, but if they are stubborn and refuse to join, they place themselves out of the church. They become like the Protestants, without bishops and without a church.
2) The Orthodox will not be able to demand these things on condition of reunion:
Why? Because they don’t run the Roman church!!! Patriarchs can choose what disciplines they allow, what abuses to tolerate, and how to pasture their flock. I agree with you that some of these abuses should be halted, but it is not an impedement to reunion. To ask for these things is to place additional and unneeded stumbling blocks between us.
Shall Rome tell the Eastern churches to throw away their icons and use statues instead? Heck no! It’s none of the business to Rome (or of any patriarch or bishop) to lecture to another how to run their church. Let’s be realistic.
Ramadi,
It is impossible that a reunion with Rome would be accepted by all the Orthodox bishops in the short run, even if a majority did so. If some of the bishops refuse to join the union, like Mark of Ephesus after the council of Florence, and the laity back them – then it will be the bishops in favor of union that will be cut off, not the laity. Unless the laity can be brought on board, any union will be destroyed as soon as a few recalcitrant bishops emerge that condemn it, and rally the laity to their sides.
That, my friend, already happened. Read the history in the East following the Council. The Church is not the exclusive province of the Bishops, not in the Eastern tradition. In many occasions, it was a combination of monastics and laity that saved the Church from error when bishops had gone in the wrong direction, such as during the iconoclast heresy.
As for the things I stated as demands, I am under no illusions that us Orthodox could force anything on the Latin communion. You didn’t read what I wrote. Is English your second language, perhaps?
Read closely. Without those things I mentioned, then most Orthodox will not worship in Roman Catholic Churches. We will not accept half of a Eucharist, or permit our children to be denied communion, or accept rock ‘n’ roll songs in place of chanted prayers. If the Orthodox will not worship with you and partake of the holy gifts from your priests – then would we really be united?
No, of course we wouldn’t be united. Truly united would mean that we would be willing to worship together as one church, wholly and without reservation. If the Latin Church (which once had communion under both kinds, a beautiful Tridentine mass, child communion, beautiful churches, etc.) does not want to recover those things, then certainly the Orthodox can not force them too. But, without them, we will never be one.
If some majority of Orthodox bishops concluded an agreement with Rome, there would be dissenters. The laity, recognizing the vast differences in worship (which is the place where man meets God), would in large part rally to the dissenting bishops and we would see a repeat of the 15th Century. Eventually, we would return to the current status quo – schism between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. Over time, it would be the pro-union bishops that would die out, not the anti-union ones.
Until the laity can worship in each other’s churches and feel at home, there will never be one church. The Orthodox Church has never had such things as eucharistic ministers, restrictions on childhood communion, communion under only one kind, etc. Either the Roman Catholic Church recovers the earlier traditions preserved in the Orthodox Church, or we simple laity will never agree to any kind of union. Even if we did, what practical use would it be if it were meaningless?
We would follow dissenting bishops with both our time, talent, and treasure and the whole thing would end as more farce than trajedy.
Glen writes: “Without those things I mentioned, then most Orthodox will not worship in Roman Catholic Churches. We will not accept half of a Eucharist, or permit our children to be denied communion, or accept rock-n-roll songs in place of chanted prayers….”
And this is a problem? Glen, I don’t know why this is important to you. The whole point of unity is not for us to act identicial (unicity), but to be agreed on essential doctrine and allow our diversity to flourish.
Does it really matter if Eastern Chrsitians won’t worship in Latin churches? Does it really matter if Wastern Chrsitians won’t worship in Eastern churches? I don’t think so. Your argument is one of complete style, look, and feel; it is a personal preference and that it is. If you want to go throughout your entire life never worshipping in a Western church, there’s no sin! 🙂 Some Latin Catholics never step foot within an Eastern Catholic church and never care to.
As Ramadi said, the Orthodox won’t demand these conditions to be fulfilled (as they are not essential to unity), and I *highly doubt* all Orthodox will take this hard stance of yours. If there are sticking points on Latin discipline that you can’t swallow, let it be. Maybe you’ll have a change of preference, or not, but whatever you think, there is no loss by Christians exclusively sticking to their rite.
Dear Glen,
You are correct in stating most Orthodox Christians would not follow a few Orthodox bishops into false union with Rome. Most of the hard core Orthodox Christians in the world live in the former communist countries and just by the pure force of their numbers any union with Rome would fail. For our Roman Catholic friends please read the excerpt below to understand the nature of Orthodox ecclesiology.
Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware
Part II: Faith and Worship
Bishops, Laity, Councils
The authority of the bishop is fundamentally the authority of the Church. However great the prerogatives of the bishop may be, he is not someone set up over the Church, but the holder of an office in the Church. Bishop and people are joined in an organic unity, and neither can properly be thought of apart from the other. Without bishops there can be no Orthodox people, but without Orthodox people there can be no true bishop. �The Church,� said Cyprian, �is the people united to the bishop, the flock clinging to its shepherd. The bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop� (Letter 66, 8).
The relation between the bishop and his flock is a mutual one. The bishop is the divinely appointed teacher of the faith, but the guardian of the faith is not the episcopate alone, but the whole people of God, bishops, clergy, and laity together. The proclamation of the truth is not the same as the possession of the truth: all the people possess the truth, but it is the bishop�s particular office to proclaim it. Infallibility belongs to the whole Church, not just to the episcopate in isolation. As the Orthodox Patriarchs said in their Letter of 1848 to Pope Pius the Ninth: �Among us, neither Patriarchs nor Councils could ever introduce new teaching, for the guardian of religion is the very body of the Church, that is, the people (laos) itself.�
Commenting on this statement, Khomiakov wrote: �The Pope is greatly mistaken in supposing that we consider the ecclesiastical hierarchy to be the guardian of dogma. The case is quite different. The unvarying constancy and the unerring truth of Christian dogma does not depend upon any hierarchical order; it is guarded by the totality, by the whole people of the Church, which is the Body of Christ� (Letter in W. J. Birkbeck, Russia and the English Church, p. 94).
Paul, if you really think that what Glen is saying is just a matter of style and personal preference, you have absolutly no idea what we Orthodox are about. You just don’t get it at all despite the fact that the attemtpt has been made more than once in one way or another by most every Orthodox who has posted in this thread. Your total lack of comprehension illustrates and confirms everything I have said in my posts. If your attitutde and belief are dominant, there is no foundation at all for union, not even the smallest.
note 180, 182 Paul
I am not Orthodox and I agree with Michael that you, Paul, are missing the point. People are leaving Mainline Protestantism for a variety of reasons. Probably the foremost reason right now is the inability of the Mainline Protestant Churches to defend orthodoxy and repress and expel heresy. HOWEVER, many are leaving because the worship services have been stripped of holy reverence. Much of what is attractive about Orthodoxy to non-Orthodox is the liturgy. To describe the compelling attraction of the Orthodox liturgy as one of style of mere personal preference is to miss the point badly.
I would note that I have been reading some of writings of Benedict XVI. He is a brilliant thinker and he has the gift of communicating complex and subtle concepts in language that the average person can understand. Contrast, Rowan Williamson, Archibishop of Canterbury (the “ABC”). The ABC’s wife is a trained theologian and I have read that even she can’t understand him sometimes. (weak joke). I think Benedict’s leadership will be a great boon to the Roman Catholic Church.
Michael, I am not saying disciplines and preferences are not important. I think rock-and-roll masses are abusive, I really want the priest’s back facing the congregation, I want a return to reverence everywhere, and I like Communion in two forms.
With that said, the sum of the last 20 Orthodox posts have all appealed to emotions and personal experience to support why the Orthodox are so great. These explanations are wholly meaningless and have zero-weight in a public forum. The explanations has nothing to do with reason, and everything to do with one’s interior vision. Here is a comical tongue-and-cheek summary:
“Eastern theology is the greatest…” We won’t go here. We already have an apology.
“Look at how great the Eastern liturgy it is compared to the run-down Roman liturgy. It is obvious we are not the same church.” This is bunk and arrogance. I bet you could step into an Orthodox church, and then go find an ancient Near-Eastern church in schism, and not find any difference in liturgy. Shall we conclude they are the same church? Also you could step into an Eastern Catholic church and then see the Roman liturgy celebrated, and wonder if they are different churches. These outer distinctions can draw no conclusions.
“I won’t bring my son to worship in the Roman church because they don’t do chrisming at baptism.” This is a horrible misunderstanding of the differences between the Rites of churches. Unity is not about worshiping in the same external matter, but about worshiping in unity of faith, hope, and love. If the Roman church will not allow you to get chrismed at baptism, then find another Rite; no one forces you to choose your form of worship, disciplines, and prayer life. That’s why there are many Rites among the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
So, if anyone *hasn’t* noticed, the majority of Catholics in the last 20 posts have been complaints. I mean, come on, do Orthodox believers need to blow horns and bring out the pomp every time we criticize the Catholic Church? *My* complaint is that I am not getting any real arguments from Orthodox believers, except the frequent appeal of the superb liturgical disciplines and joy of Eastern formulations, as a reason for your truth. I don’t think I am going to post here anymore. I am worn down by these kind of appeals. I’ll find ecumenical dialog with Orthodox believers elsewhere.
Before I get slammed, let me repeat:
1) Liturgical disciplines are important and are supremely important.
2) I find common abuses in the celebration of the Roman liturgy.
These things ARE important to me. Thank God for Benedict XVI.
By beef is with those who use current problems in the Roman church as an appeal to prop up the greatness of the Orthodox. It is one thing to love the Orthodox Church and state reasons why it is the truth, it is a complete different thing to pick on the problems of other churches and state that as reasons for the truth. The former is acceptable, the latter is not. Maybe people aren’t realizing it, but there is alot of the latter happening here. That’s why I am quitting this blog.
My conscience compells me to apologize. I apologize if anyone takes my words as mean-spirited or worse. I just don’t think I, as a Roman Catholic, am cut out for ecumenical discussion here, as I feel some things were not kindly said about my church. Maybe I am over-reacting, but I’ll find out when my emotions settle. Anyway, Michael was a great example of how to offer a public apology, and so I follow in my Orthodox brother’s footsteps. I wish everyone well. May God bless both our churches and may we grow closer together. Thanks.
Note 177: Delance, there are similar accusations made about Orthodox apostolic succesion (made by other Orthodox believers). For example, it has been claimed that much of the Hierarchy in the former Soviet Union was infiltrated by KGB agents. This might be the case, but I don’t buy that it actually affects apostolic succesion. Even if a bishop is secretly an athiest, I don’t believe this is necessarily an interference, as long as the bishop is more or less doing their administrative duties. As Tamara posted from Bishop Kallistos Ware, “the guardian of the faith is not the episcopate alone, but the whole people of God, bishops, clergy, and laity together.” So, apostolic succesion is also preserved through the laity, but rather, it is administered through the Bishop.
I have heard that in medieval times after the fall of Rome, Latin bishoprics were bought and sold amongst pagans. However, I don’t believe that this neccesarily interfered with apostolic succession. The laity preserved the Roman Catholic Church through that time as well. I guess I am curious, though, if the Roman Catholic Church agrees with this understanding of apostolic succesion. I would assume the answer is yes.
Paul, I don’t quite know how to respond to you. Let me try this. The Divine Liturgy for we Orthodox is the center and core of the being of the Church and therefore for every believing Orthodox. The Bishop’s office is primarily and most importantly a liturgical, sacramental office. When we say “Where the bishop, there is the Church, our understanding is that since the bishop has the authority to both teach and celebrate the sacraments, without him there is no Church, however as the post from Tamara pointed out, without congregants there is no need for the sacraments.
Also the theology of the west is rationalistically based while the theology of the east is based on the direct experience of God within the sacramental communion of the Church. By making rationalism the center of their theological method, rather than seeking union with God the tendency has been to create a greater gulf between God and man. Conclusions have been reached within the western approach to theology that Orthodox find not only disturbing but at times close to blasphemy. Likewise, at the height of Scholastic theology, the same feeling was voiced about St. Gregory Palamas by those who opposed him.
If one studies the history of theological thought, it can be pretty easily demonstrated that the eastern approach has a longer history and a significant continuity with the early Church that the western approach does not. Thus the eastern appoach enjoys an advantage as to which is the more authentic. Many scholars of high repute have also made a direct link between the tendencies in Roman Catholic theology and the errors we both find in Protestant theology.
When the two approaches reach drastically different understandings of the nature of the Holy Trinity, the nature of salvation, and the nature of mankind, one has to choose. Since theology does affect both the structure and the practice of the Church, the difference must be understood and appreciated. Some of the difference may well be of nuance and emphasis and easily coordinated, many difference are not that way. It really is a matter of not which is better, but which most closely approximates the truth. The theological approach one chooses also affects the manner in which one expresses one’s thoughts and experience of God. Thus the difference in the nature of the posts you mention. I don’t know how to bridge the conceptual gap. Many far more holy, educated, and gifted have tried in the past and failed. I can only testify to what I know, to my own faith and to what I consider to be the overwhelming evidence of history.
The experience of which we Orthodox speak, is not just a personal experience, nor is it primarily and emotional one although there are elements of both. The experience is one that is documented throughout much of the history of the Church which is how we know it to be valid and not just a personal feeling. The experience we point to is the actual communion with the Living God. Such communion becomes the foundation for the work of the Church, to bear witness to Christ and His healing in a fallen world, to care for the weak, the sick, and the dispossessed; to be an avenue for partaking of the salvation from sin and death that Christ won for us on the Cross and sealed for us with His Resurrection from the dead.
I’ll give you one more personal story as, I hope, an illustration of what I mean. My son was reading Glen’s last post #178. When he got to the part of item #6 that mentions turning the altar back around, he asked me what that meant (he was not aware of the Roman Catholic practice). I explained, and he said, “You mean the priest faces the people?” When I said, yes, he exclaimed: “That takes the Holy of Holies out of the Church.” That is indeed an insight that is quite in line with the Orthodox understanding. He did not know this from being taught it, for he had not been. He did not know it from a rational deduction from what he been taught in the past, he knew if from his 11 years of faithful and frequent service in the altar during the Divine Liturgy and other services.
The historical and scholarly evidence seems to point to a conclusion that the liturgical changes which really began with the removal of the epiclesis from the Mass in the 12th century result from the difference in theological methods and the resulting differences in outcome.
However spirituality is expressed, for we Orthodox it is inseparable from theology, from our lives as everyday Christians, and from the Church herself. That spirituality is not founded in rationalism, nor is it founded in emotionalism like much of the charismatic and Pentecostal experience is. If you or anyone else rejects that spirituality as irrelevant or immaterial, you are just plain wrong. Until you understand the nature and importance of Orthodox spirituality, you will forever be frustrated in really communicating with us.
I have evidently overstated my own personal experience, for that I ask your forgiveness and hope that such a failing does not stand in your way to understanding.
Michael, you have hit the nail on the head with your last post! You have put in to words what I have grappled to say for such a long time.
At the crux of the matter is the fact that Orthodoxy is experienced, not analysed and dissected in accordance with rationalisation. The Fathers of the Church have often stated that the whole theology of the Orthodox Faith can be found in the Divine Liturgy. It is because every word and symbol and action taken during the Divine Liturgy for the Orthodox has meaning and symbology.
For example, the Orthodox believe (and please correct me if I am wrong Michael), that each time the Divine Liturgy occurs and the Holy Sacraments are consecrated, that we are experiencing the last supper as if it were the first time. There is a deep divide between how the Orthodox view the sacrament of Communion and how the West views it. For the Orthodox it is not a matter of it being done in “memory of me”, denoting that it was mystical once and is now celebrated as a rememberance. The Orthodox Faith is one of transcendancy. When you walk in to an Orthodox Church you are transported to heaven and you MYSTICALLY partake in the Divine Gifts. (One of the reasons that the chanters chant the “Cherubic Hymn”). That is why the Church is decorated with Icons of the saints, since in the Church you in the “Horos ton Agion” meaning the “Place of the Saints” before the Throne of God.
When we talk about the revelation (“apokalypsis”) of God, the Orthodox tend to talk about it in a very personal way. Why is that? Basically because we are all individual and as God’s children he knows what each and everyone of us require in order to be saved. Often times, the Orthodox liken themselves to the sick in need of healing. When two patients are presented before a doctor, the doctor considers the remedy for each patient individually according to their healing and their needs. So to is the relationship that the Orthodox have with God.
Orthodox Praxis, Faith and Theology are intimately intertwinned and cannot be separated. Consider this: The Orthodox Church has no centralised “primate” or supreme pontif and yet their belief and worship has maintained continuity. Why is this so? It is because, instead of having faith in an administration and a single human leader, our faith is in God and most importantly the Holy Spirit which ultimately unifies us. During our liturgy, we pray that “en omonoia omologisomen” meaning that in “unity we confess our faith”. This unity of faith occurs via the Holy Spirit (“koinonia”) and this is how the Orthodox Church, (whilst being an association of various individual churches) has mantained a unified position.
For all who feel that what either Michael (if i presume to talk on his behalf) or I are saying is slightly impossible to deal with or slightly “too irrational”, then I suggest that you take some time out and head to a local Orthodox Monastery and stay for a retreat. Experience Orthodoxy first hand and speak to some of the spiritual fathers who live the monastic life. I am sure that you will come back with quite a different view as to how Christianity is to be practiced and experienced.
George.
To chime in, after much lurking, I’d say that Michael’s issues are of vital importance to me also. It was said that the west would not force anything on the east and vice versa in the event of a union, but how would this work? Are we suggesting that the Roman Church would merely be another jurisdiction alongside all the others in the uncanonical mess that is the west? If so, then we shouldn’t be happy with that either, as it’s about time that we had only one jurisdiction in each territory. If not, however, surely we would see the Roman See becoming the one valid jurisdiction in western Europe (and possibly America) as this was their traditional territory? I have to say that if that were to happen and my Romanian parish came under the Roman See with all that entailed (positing the sort of ‘each to their own’ false union as previously described above) then I would feel as though my family had been cut out of the Church. I simply could not, for instance, accept that my baptised, chrismated infant son should be denied the Eucharist and nor could I accept a wafer alone as constituting the Eucharist at all. This is an awful lot more than external style over substance. If there were to be a real reunion with the Roman Church making the sorts of changes Michael suggested but retaining their western liturgy then I’d happily go to the church 5 minutes walk from my house rather than traveling for nearly an hour to get to the Liturgy. Michael is correct, the laiety would not stand for such a union and they would rally around any dissident bishops, making the union a sham a la Florence.
“The Divine Liturgy for we Orthodox is the center and core of the being of the Church and therefore for every believing Orthodox.”
I have never heard this before. I think in the RC mind, the Mass is a form of prayer. An important one, but it does not make up the theology or ethics of what it means to be a Catholic. Rather, it’s simply one forum for a collective group of believers to commune with God and and to participate in Communion. I think since Vatican II, there has been an effort to allow those with a less lofty and complex understanding of God to feel as if they may too participate in a dialogue with Him. If this means that they find God through their own subjective sense of the divine as found in a “praise and worship” song, so be it. (Again, as a classical pianist I’m more of a traditionalist myself and can’t really put up with too much guitar music unless Parkening or Segovia is playing.)
Most can’t understand Latin, so it likewise stands to reason that while Latin may be “prettier”, believers can participate in the service to a greater degree when can actually understand what the heck is going on.
It seems that the view is that the Orthodox feel the Liturgy should be the “idealized” worship while RC’s feel the Liturgy should be accessible to everyone, regardless of education, ethnicity or culture. I’m not saying that the Orthodox perspective is wrong in any way, I’d just warn that many may find this approach somewhat elitist from the implicit Orthodox suggestion that their experience of God is somehow less real.
JamesK,
There are many ways one could worship God, but the point of corporate worship is to be in communion as much as possible with the entire Church, to be in fellowship with the saints both on earth and in heaven. This is not just a spritualized reality. The Divine Liturgy celebrated today would be little different from 1,500 years ago. For the Orthodox, clinging to Holy Tradition keeps that experience a present reality and provides to keep that experience for the future.
To James K.,
James, I think that the Roman Catholic Church has a much higher view of the Eucharist and it’s place in the life of the Church, and even in it’s understanding of itself as church, than you make it sound.
George,
You said in your last post:
“I suggest that you take some time out and head to a local Orthodox Monastery and stay for a retreat. Experience Orthodoxy first hand and speak to some of the spiritual fathers who live the monastic life. I am sure that you will come back with quite a different view as to how Christianity is to be practiced and experienced.”
George, I really wish you could understand how arrogant and presumptuous this reads.
Even if its true, it comes across as terribly prideful to tell our Roman Catholic friends, who have a long and venerable history of monasticism, that they need to come to one of our monasteries to see how Christianity is to be practiced and experienced.
You know, George, what we have here is a case of dueling fallacies. I’m about to engage in a little old fashioned ad hominem. You seem to be fixated on a straw man.
You said in your most recent post:
“There is a deep divide between how the Orthodox view the sacrament of Communion and how the West views it. For the Orthodox it is not a matter of it being done in ?memory of me”, denoting that it was mystical once and is now celebrated as a rememberance.”
Now, if you had said the same thing but substituted ‘Low Church Protestants’ for ‘the West’, I don’t think anyone could argue. But the West is not one giant monolith. The West includes loads of folks who believe the meal is purely symbolic, which is tragic, but the Catholics aint part of that crowd! Why do you think that the gents who wrote the Heidelberg Catechism were so worked up that they called the Roman doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass a “damnable idolatry”? Because the Roman Catholic Church insisted that Christ’s Sacrifice was made present again and again! Sound familiar? Your problem shouldn’t be with the RCC for teaching the truth, but with the reformers who rejected the truth when all they needed to reject was corruption and abuse of power.
This brings me to my ad hominem. You need to learn more about Roman Catholics before you presume to criticize and judge them. It would really surprise me if you told me that you had converted to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism. Don’t attribute the errors of protestants to the RCC.
Indulge me for a second with a little cutting and pasting from someone much more qualified to instruct us about the Roman Catholic Church’s position on the Eucharist and it’s place in the Church. It’s just two quick paragraphs. Please, read the following and ask yourself if it sounds anything like Fr. Alexander Schmemman’s classic, For the Life of the World.
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA
OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
PRIESTS AND DEACONS
MEN AND WOMEN
IN THE CONSECRATED LIFE
AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON THE EUCHARIST
IN ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHURCH
INTRODUCTION
1. The Church draws her life from the Eucharist. This truth does not simply express a daily experience of faith, but recapitulates the heart of the mystery of the Church. In a variety of ways she joyfully experiences the constant fulfilment of the promise: ?Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age? (Mt 28:20), but in the Holy Eucharist, through the changing of bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord, she rejoices in this presence with unique intensity. Ever since Pentecost, when the Church, the People of the New Covenant, began her pilgrim journey towards her heavenly homeland, the Divine Sacrament has continued to mark the passing of her days, filling them with confident hope.
The Second Vatican Council rightly proclaimed that the Eucharistic sacrifice is ?the source and summit of the Christian life?.1 ?For the most holy Eucharist contains the Church’s entire spiritual wealth: Christ himself, our passover and living bread. Through his own flesh, now made living and life-giving by the Holy Spirit, he offers life to men?.2 Consequently the gaze of the Church is constantly turned to her Lord, present in the Sacrament of the Altar, in which she discovers the full manifestation of his boundless love.
They’re not far off from us, folks! Rejoice!
Now, it’s worth pointing out that this encyclical may not have been written if the Pope had not recognized a pastoral need for it, i.e. if he didn’t think that his flock needed to hear it. Maybe you don’t encounter this mentality as often as you would like in RC circles, but that’s still what their Church will teach them if you will listen.
As for the log in our own eye, the Liturgical life of the Church looks considerably more impressive in the pages of His Grace Kallistos Ware than it does in a lot of parishes where the masses show up just before communion and leave just after, if they show up at all…
Enough Judgment! Let’s pray some psalms for repentence, healing, reconciliation and a REAL union.
David,
All this focus on the importance of the Holy Eucharist makes me wonder if the Roman Catholic masses are too long. Perhaps it would be a better service to the laity if the services were shortened?
George,
In post 189, you suggested that the Orthodox understanding that the Liturgy is a participation in the Last Supper is different from the Roman Catholic understanding. This is simply not the case. The Roman Catholic understanding is that the Last Supper, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ is an eternal sacrifice and that the Mass is a direct participation in this sacrifice.
“All of our liturgical hymns are instructive, profound and sublime.
They contain the whole of our theology and moral teaching,
give us Christian consolation and instill in us a fear of the Judgment.
He who listens to them attentively has no need of other books on the Faith.”
St Theophan the Recluse
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: Orthodox Worship as a School of Theology
Lecture delivered at the Kiev Theological Academy on September 20, 2002
[here are a few excerpts from the bishop’s article]
“The school of Orthodox theology that formed my theological thinking was not so much a theological seminary, academy or university but the Liturgy and other services. The liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church penetrated my mind and heart so deeply that they became, along with the Gospel and the writings of the church Fathers, the main criteria of theological truth, an inexhaustible source of knowledge about God, Christ, the world, Church and salvation.”
“Orthodox divine services are a priceless treasure that we must carefully guard. ”
“Orthodox divine services, whether it be the Liturgy, vespers, matins, hours, nocturnes or compline, are a totally different matter. From the priest�s exclamation at the very beginning of the service we are immersed in an atmosphere of uninterrupted prayer, in which psalms, litanies, stichera, troparia, prayers and the celebrating priest�s invocations follow one another in a continuous stream. The entire service is conducted as if in one breath, in one rhythm, like an ever unfolding mystery in which nothing distracts from prayer. Byzantine liturgical texts filled with profound theological and mystical content, alternate with the prayerful incantation of the psalms, whose every word resonates in the hearts of the faithful. Even the elements of �choreography� characteristic of Orthodox services, such as solemn entries and exits, prostrations and censing, are not intended to distract from prayer but, on the contrary, to put the faithful in a prayerful disposition and draw them into the theourgia in which, according to the teaching of the Fathers, not only the Church on earth, but also the heavenly Church and even te angels participate.”
“Liturgical texts as a school of theology
May I now turn to the theological and dogmatic significance of liturgical texts. In my view, liturgical texts are for Orthodox Christians an incontestable doctrinal authority, whose theological irreproachability is second only to Scripture. Liturgical texts are not simply the works of outstanding theologians and poets, but also the fruits of the prayerful experience of those who have attained sanctity and theosis. The theological authority of liturgical texts is, in my opinion, even higher than that of the works of the Fathers of the Church, for not everything in the works of the latter is of equal theological value and not everything has been accepted by the fullness of the Church. Liturgical texts, on the other hand, have been accepted by the whole Church as a �rule of faith� (kanon pisteos), for they have been read and sung everywhere in Orthodox churches over many centuries. Throughout this time, any erroneous ideas foreign to Orthodoxy that might have crept in either through misunderstanding or oversight were eliminated by Church Tradition itself, leaving only pure and authoritative doctrine clothed by the poetic forms of the Church�s hymns.”
go to this link to read entire article: http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/12/1.aspx
Paul,
I think you have a valid point, from a certain point of view. What difference would it make if a grandmother in Rostov is unwilling to attend Roman Catholic Mass? The answer is – not much. In Russia, both before and after any re-establishment of communion with Rome, there will be only one bishop in each city, one rule of faith, one rule of prayer, and only one Church. If the border between the ‘Latin Rite’ and the ‘Eastern Rite’ was still an international boundary, then the laity would not necessarily figure into the equation. The hierarchs could talk about all the ‘big-picture’ things (Papal primacy, the Filioque, etc.), hammer all that out, and we could all move on with our lives.
Unfortunately, the situation on the ground is now mixed up. Millions of Orthodox Christians now live outside of traditionally Orthodox lands. We now live, as one poster said, five minutes walk from Roman Catholic parishes.
After a union with Rome, what would we expect to happen? Will we have multiple bishops in each city – one ‘Latin’ and one ‘Eastern?’ Will we have multiple seminaries? Some ‘Latin’ and some ‘Eastern?’ No matter how well-intentioned, such a false union just isn’t going to work out. The formerly Orthodox Christians will never feel like they are part of the Roman Catholic Church. In the end, it will require only a small spark to ignite a crisis.
Why do such a thing? Why have two churches and pretend that they are one? If we are going to be one church, then let’s be one church. There should be one Rite in the United States, not two or more.
In the United States, the Roman Catholic Church is much larger than all the Eastern Churches combined. I would expect, following a union, that the Eastern Dioceses would be folded into the Roman Catholic structure under the Patriarch of Rome. (I certainly don’t expect, and I don’t think most Orthodox would expect either, to continue our links directly to Eastern Patriarchs.) As a condition of this union, I would expect changes would occur in the Liturgical life of both Roman Catholic and Orthodox parishes. In effect, I would expect that an entirely new Rite would probably emerge that would be found in the United States and possibly Western Europe.
This Rite does not have to be based around the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The Roman Catholic Church has a perfectly valid liturgical history from which to draw.
However, this Rite would have to be compatible with Orthodox practice in at least the ways I mentioned in my previous post, or else the Orthodox in the United States and elsewhere in ‘mixed’ areas will never accept a union.
I’m not trying to stick my finger in the eye of the Roman Catholic Church by bringing up these matters. This thread really got bogged down in discussion of Papal Primacy and other ‘big picture’ issues. Those things are important, but for the laity, some equally important issues are those directly related to our experience of God in the Liturgy.
The practical issues of how one worships God directly informs the character of one’s faith. The Roman Catholic concept of ‘lex credendi, lex orandi’ is completely valid. “The Rule of Prayer is the Rule of Faith.”
As to the actual points I raised, according to the Catholic Catechism, “It may be stated as a general fact, that down to the twelfth century, in the West as well as in the East, public Communion in the churches was ordinarily administered and received under both kinds.” The Roman Church to this day recognizes the validity of communion under both kinds, why could not a unified Church in the United States practice communion under both kinds?
According the Roman Catholic Catechism, “It is now well established that in the early days of Christianity it was not uncommon for infants to receive Communion immediately after they were baptized. That infants and children not yet come to the use of reason may not only validly but even fruitfully receive the Blessed Eucharist is now the universally received opinion, but it is opposed to Catholic teaching to hold that this sacrament is necessary for their salvation.”
The point is not that most of us Orthodox are trying to play, “Gotcha!” with our Roman Catholic friends and neighbors. The Roman Catholic Church is close in so many regards to our Orthodox faith. Certainly throughout the first 1,000 years of the Church, both East and West were the same church.
This changed, however, over time to the point where now we aren’t. I’d like us to be again, and I’d like to be just another member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in the United States under the Bishop of Rome. I won’t accept that, however, until we can have a truly united church with one bishop in one city, one rule of faith, and one rule of prayer. And this rule of faith must be practiced in accord with Orthodox teaching. What is required, at this level, is for the Roman Catholic Church to recapture a rule of practice which she, herself, acknowledges was universal during the first Christian millenium.
If that is too hard, or impossible, then we will simply stay as we are. Just because we are in schism doesn’t mean we can’t work together, or that we must be at each other’s throats. It just means we can’t fully worship together, which is a sad state that a meaningless union would do nothing to redress in any case.
Stephen,
Well, I don’t think the Novus Ordo, which has been the standard liturgy since Vatican II is really very long. If anything, it is often very brief. I think that a more pressing problem for Roman Catholics is a host of liturgical abuses that have been carried off “in the spirit of Vatican II” by which the liturgy has been watered down and stripped of much of it’s reverence. Notice that it’s not the liturgy as promulgated by the Council which has caused the problems, but a lack of faithfulness to that liturgy, which is actually quite faithful to ancient western liturgical tradition, and very orthodox. Some of the problem is poor translation (The mass is required to be in the vernacular, which in the tradition of Sts. Cyril and Methodius we Orthodox should all appreciate) and some of it is just wrong headed “let’s be culturally relevant” tactics that backfired. Conservative Catholics that I know are completely on board with the Vatican’s attempts at liturgical renewal. There’s a parish down here in Texas that is growing by leaps and bounds, built a beautiful, traditional building with a dome and a bell tower, full of icons and statues and stained glass. Their worship is reverent and solemn. And they can’t keep up with demand. When the priest is asked to explain the success, he tells people “Well, we sing Ave Maria instead of Kum Ba Ya. My point is that good things are happening in Roman Catholicism in America. Vocations are on the rise, the youth of the Church is rejecting the liberal excesses of the Post Vatican II era and getting back to the heart of that Council, which was actually very constuctive and faithful. We should encourage our Roman Brethren and learn from them. They are dealing with and have been dealing with issues that we Orthodox are just coming to grips with. All this talk of fighting relativism and the culture of death is exactly to the point. They are allies, not targets.