CWNews Feb. 27
Pope Benedict XVI (bio – news) told a visiting Greek Orthodox delegation that Catholic and Orthodox believers should work together to restore the Christian heritage of Europe.
The Holy Father met on February 27 with 30 students and teacher from the Apostoliki Diakonia theological school, administered by the Orthodox archdiocese of Athens. The Pope said that East and West should unite against “the challenges that threaten the faith.”
The Pope observed that after centuries of division, the years since the close of Vatican II have “caused us to see a new dawn,” and raised hopes for renewed unity among Christians.
He pointed particularly to the meeting between Pope John Paul II (bio – news) and Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens in 2001, and the exchanges that followed, “to start down new paths.” Since 2004 the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches have pursued a series of cultural exchanges, under the aegis of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity.
Last year Pope Benedict issued an invitation for Archbishop Christodoulos to visit the Vatican. The Greek Orthodox primate indicated that he hoped to make such a visit sometime in 2006. In the past Archbishop Christodoulos– who had received a similar invitation from Pope John Paul II– had faced opposition to such a visit from within the Greek Orthodox
On the surface of this visit all seems very polite and congenial. But what was the “ecclesiological stance” of the visiting Bishop, archimandrite and students? (See the http://www.zenit.org story for more.)
I was told by one student who refused to go that he was required to kiss the Pope’s and Cardinal’s hands, recognize them as legitimate bishops, the Vatican as a church – a “sister” church” – and in all respects embrace the ecumenistic ecclesiology which amounts to the branch theory in another set of clothing. So, we see that these seemingly innocent visits are inculcating the heresy of the branch theory into the minds and souls of our future priests and bishops.
The question remains: is the Vatican, the Papacy, a church? Is it a local church like all the local Orthodox Churches? If so, then what of Orthodox ecclesiology? If we accept this we have entered the new “era of ecumenism” and its ecclesiology and left behind the teaching of the Saints of the last thousand years, such as Saint Mark of Ephesus who called the Papacy “heresy” and Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite who called its version of baptism “graceless”. A church cannot exist when overcome by heresy and void of the grace of God. If we accept these Fathers’ teachings we must reject the ecclesiological stance held during this visit. There is no middle ground here.
Fr. Peter, what happens if Rome redefines the papacy in non-juridical terms? Would this remove the current objections? (Not challenging your thesis here. Just trying to focus in on the substance of the complaint — some of which I share, BTW.)
I’m afraid I must agree with Father Peter on this issue. Perhaps I am burdened by a cynical attitude as it concerns Rome, but I have little confidence that the “Supreme Pontiff” has any intention of redefining the papacy in such a way that would make unity with Orthodox possible. It isn’t just about redefining it in a “non-juridical” fashion, but about respecting traditional, orthodox ecclesiology – rooted in Holy Scripture and Patristics – that holds no room for an infallible and supreme hierarch.
And it sounds very nice and ecumenical to say that we should work together to restore Europe’s Christian heritage, but for a thousand years Europe’s Christian culture has developed along two distinct lines — one Orthodox and one Roman Catholic. Which heritage should we work to restore? I am of the opinion that too many wounds exist within the body of the Orthodox Church for us to make an effective ecumenical stand. Instead, we need to heal those wounds and bring back into the fold those who have separated themselves from the Church and stand together in dialogue with others.
In the end, mine is the position of Patriarch Nicholas III, Archbishop of Constantinople, “When the Pope of Rome professes the Orthodox faith, there will be unity.” Unless and until that happens, they remain mired in the papal heresies and separated from the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.
Steven, I’m trying to focus in on the ideas a bit. Wouldn’t a redefinition of papal supremacy from a juridical to pastoral emphasis signal a shift towards Orthodox ecclesiology? Put aside for the moment present practice.
In my Opinion the only thing both of these traditions have going for them is their old age which is respected but leaves much,much more to be wished for.Also in my opinion neither of them are the true church, though I wish they were because then we would have a true help and Christianity would still spread abundantly. If both would humble themselves and repent of errors and stop relying on the supposed merit of antiquity then True Christianity would be so glorious the world could hardly resist it but as it is in these churches it is buried.
Please consider,I wish the leaders would consider examine themselves yes and some vain traditions and pride that will help no one in the last day,neither the leaders or the followers. For they worship not God purely giving honor to Christ as the one and only mediator between man and God,whose love is deeper and more compassionate than Marys for she is just a redeemed human subject to like passions as we ourselves; and no redeemed saint in heaven or on earth can match the overflowing mercy and willingness of Christ himself to hear our prayers but these churches have allowed such vain errors to creep in and deceive many and lead many to worship the creature rather than God.
I think it is time to repent of these errors and get right and then what hope is there for a revival of glorious Christianity flowing from the spirit of God for he the holy spirit came to speak of CHrist not Mary. I am not a wanton critic either,I wish these churches could repent then they would truly be admired by good men and many would be happy to return to such a church but as it is now it cannot be done.
Michael Servetus,*
I allowed this post to go through only to give you this message: On this blog, I’m not really interested in private sermonizing. Contradicting views are allowed, as long as they are responsibly presented, engage the contributions of other writers, and subject to the critique of others. Nothing you present here does this. Instead, we are offered a three paragraph opinion that engages no ideas except your own. You are welcome to contribute, but the focus of the blog is discussion, not monologue.
* Historical note: Michael Servetus is the Catholic apologist killed in Calvin’s Geneva.
I believe the historian Roland Bainton is credited with the quote about Servetus, “Calvin did what Rome could only do in effigy.”
Jacobse, I suppose it all depends on the redefinition. The papal heresy includes two components: supremacy and infallability. Orthodoxy can accept neither. We are certainly willing, as is in keeping with the Ecumenical Councils, to grant Rome its due place of primacy — i.e., first among equals. But any definition that holds out any possibility of the Roman Pope having ecclesial authority over another bishop is flatly unacceptable. Likewise, any definition that includes the dogma of infallability is unacceptable. The Church does not need, and has NEVER had, an infallible “Vicar of Christ.”
If Rome wants to move substantively, not just rhetorically, toward traditional Orthodox ecclesiology, it will return its understanding of the papacy to one of elder brother; first among equals; the animator of Christian unity, not the autocrat.
Note 8. Yes, a substantive move by Rome away from a juridical understanding of primacy would be a return to Orthodox ecclesiology, and one that they have indicated in several places they are willing to make.
How Rome will deal with the doctrine of papal infallibility is another question entirely since the cultural conditions that gave the doctrine shape and meaning have changed. Papal infallibility is the Roman counterpart of the Protestant idea of the infallibility of scripture (both arose at the same time). This too needs to be addressed.
Jacobse,thank you for responding so kindly.I will try to do better.
Sirs,I guess I would appreciate an engagement of the ideas I have presented.
Servetus I have two questions:
1. How do you define the “true church”
2. Why do you identify yourself with a known heretic’s name (or maybe more accurately an apostate) that was condenmed by both by Rome and the Protestants?
JBL, The true Church is the one which is made and set apart by the Spirit of Jesus,that circumcises the heart. It is not outward or limited to a locale,its whoever the Lord enlightens and sets his spirit on as in the case of Cornelius in the book of Acts.The scripture shows that the spirit of God is something that can be given and taken away so one cannot assume it is a possession.
In answer to your second question,I don’t think labels are always accurate.I believe I have freedom In Christ to think for myself,that my reasoning is just as good as anyone else.I am also perfectly willing that my reasoning be cross examined,investigated, and scrutinized.Michael Servetus searched and thought for himself,in my opinion both the Catholic Church and Protestant Church were the real heretics at this time for they followed not the spirit but behaved as carnal men.
JBL,what I have said is a very general truth and so you may feel I have not answered the question or perhaps I am a person who thinks it is all about openess and acceptance without limiting borders and definitions.That is not the case.I do believe in tradition and precedent and uniformity all examined in the light of scripture,faithfulness and primacy.
Servetus are you a Jehovah Witness?
JBL, No I am not a Jehovah Witness. JBL I think it is a true church whereever the spirit of God is,Whatevevr He is pleased with, not mans opinion of himself but Gods.As it is written “the Lord knows those that are His”,and in another place “if you have not the Spirit of Christ then you are none of His”.Just as Peter was surprised when the Lord sent down his Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles in the person of Cornelius and did as He pleased so it is yesterday,today ,and forever.The Lord gives and takes away,He chooses and adds,He builds and destroys,he rebukes and rejects setting His seal of approval on those who were formerly nobody, raising them up to be His sons.Consequently a true church can be wherever the spirit of God is, it can be a no name store front church,it can be in China underground,it can be in Africa,it can be in the Amazon jungles, and can the Roman Catholic Church or The Orthodox Church claim jurisdiction over any of them? I think not.At any given time they may be more right and pleasing in Gods sight.It is not a matter of physical continuation or of mans opinion.In the Gospel of John The Beloved Disciple it is recorded that Lord Jesus said ‘the time is coming and now is when you shall not worship in this mount or in Jerusalem …but the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth for the Father seeketh such’ John 4:19-24.The word seeketh is very strong and I in fact just noticed it ,The Father seeketh , can anything stronger be said?The Father who lacks nothing but is Love seeketh,and it follows that if He find it not in one place He shall look for it in another, as is evidenced not only by logic but in scripture as when the Gentiles were given eternal life.Thank God for the gift of life,for the wages of sin is death.I hope and think you will be able to see how this ties into the subject,which is what is the true church and where should our eyes look.All who dare to call themselves Gods church, all,are in need of examination to see wether they be in the faith or not and to be ready to cry out in repentance if need be.
In order to attempt to more fully satisfy Jacobse I shall say I like Fr.Peters stance and coming from neither of these traditions but speaking as an interested Christian I think the reform or repentance needs to be more radical than renouncing papacy but should also include icons and Mary worship which touches both.I realize this will seem extravagant but I think it is possible,we no longer have the justification of illiterate masses.The benefit would be a gaining of many more brethren and christian unity.Maybe I’m a dreamer but all it takes is one Luther in the right place,for he was in the church and a part of it and yet freely recognized and was honest enough to see the truth,in my opinion.
Michael, two choices: 1) Focus your ideas and discuss them coherently, or 2) start your own blog. If you choose the first, take one idea, define it, and then make your case. If you choose the second, Google offers free blogs I think.
We have here 2 subjects: 1 Co-operation between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church against “the challenges that threaten the faith.”. 2 The unity between both churches.
In the first place, I think it is very good to co-operate and to think and communicate together about our Christian faith today, in this world.
It is necessary, that we each other recognize as CHRISTIANS.[at least!!!]
We must be aware: we are not dealing with the Vatican as church, but with the Roman-catholic church, a community of Christian believers!
So, there is nothing against it.
Secondly: the point of the unity between the two churches. This is not a easy point.
There has to be some redefinitions, witch must be affirm by both churches.
The point of recognising is obliged from both sites.
The doubt about the acknowledgement, by some orthodox, who hold only on to juridical aspects, be disgustingly making.
Their behaviour is no testimony of their faith and hospitality.
There are differences in the Creed and in some views, like papacy etc. and it it divides the churches.
Yes, we can say they are heretics, our attitude must be: like the father of the prodigal son, instead of each other to execrate, for many be in the past died on the stake. We live no longer in the middle ages!
But if we don’t recognise each other, than there is no dialog.
We make no progress and listen not to the Word of the Lord, where he prays: “That all shall be one!”
It is our responsibility.!!!
And what are saints saying?
Saint Mark of Ephesus who called the Papacy “heresy” and Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite who called its version of baptism “graceless”.
We have to realize that these saints, also are children of their time, and we have not read their texts in their context! , and we are living NOW and we have to deal with opportunities and possibilities: NOW.
Also we must note that the pronunciations of saints not infallible are!!.
That the baptism in the Roman catholic Church is “graceless” is first-class nonsense, because it is recognized by the whole Orthodox Churches, but not by the fundamentalists: old Calendrists and the monastery of mount Athos “Orthodoxia I thanathos” [The Orthodoxy or death] Horrible!
In short, we must be open for each other, because of the Holy Gospel and obeye at the will of God and each other not condemn and refuse on forehand.
“Let we love eachother, that we so may [come to ] acknowledge/confess: Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the Consubstantial and undivided Trinity.”
Forgive me, if Iam rude, about the saints, with all due respect, if the practize of baptism by lay-man/women [ in case of a difficult birth etc.] is recognized and legal [ and filled with grace], so is at least the baptism in the Roman Catholic Church, legal and recognized and filled with grace.
That the Papacy is a heresy, is very strong pronounced, but we have look further and look to the re-definitions and value them.
Grace is where the Holy Spirit is. Is the Holy Spirit at work within the Roman Catholic Church–yes, so there is Grace and therefore salvation.
In the United States, Roman Catholic practice seems to becoming more and more Protestant, i.e., less and less reverance for the Euchrist and the Liturgy, more and more individualism in faith, etc. etc. Also, despite obvious growing pains in the Orthodox communion in the United States, we do seem to be growing, numerically and spiritually. Therefore even in the realm of day to day praxsis, Roman Cathollics and Orthodox are further and further apart.
Either the Orthodox ecclesiology, soteriology, and anthropology that has been expressed as the life and being of the Church since her inception is true or it is not. There is a vast gulf between what is taught, believed and practiced in these three areas between Roman Catholics and we Orthodox.
I just believe that spending the time and effort on our own house (we Orthodox) is far more important and beneficial to all than putting a lot of time and energy into unity with Rome. IMO, unity with Rome is not going to happen until Christ comes again anyway. We can work in accord where we have accord in a fraternal spirit, but the unity attempts will just as likely bring more discord as harmony.
We need to seek to more fully understand, live and articulate the vision and life that the Holy Spirit has shown us throughout the history of the Orthodox Church. Evangelize in the true Orthodox way (seeing the partial truths that exisit in other traditions and then adding the rest of the story, helping with the needs of people).
We can and should learn from both the Catholics and the Protestants in some areas, but should not give away the store simply to achieve a false unity.
In addition, while it is easy to negate specific statements by specific saints considering heresy, IMO it is far harder to simply ignore the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs. We are in a dangerous area when a bishop here and a bishop there participates in unity conferences giving a little more each time.
If we want unity let the bishops meet from all the self governing jurisdictions, pray and give thanks to God, seek His guidance and let us be unified first. If they did that, I’d listen and attend. Absent that, the quest for unity is nothing more than a human desire to be accepted. Wrong reason which will achieve a wrong result. Unity is not achieved by compromise and appeasment, it is achieved by submission to the Truth.
Forgive me Fr. Eleonor, but you seem a bit too anxious to just give up on the historic teaching of the Church blythly discarding as “fundamentalists” or “people of their time” anyone with which you don’t agree. That attitude is exactly my main problem with all the unity meetings in the first place. I must confess, without the foundation of a Synodal meeting of some sort with multi-jurisdictional participation and support, that I greatly distrust the willingness and ability of individual priests and bishops to resist the temptations to acquiese to unrighteous proposals for worldly reasons.
Jacobse ,thank you,again I appreciate your comments.I will try even harder .The truth is so beautiful , that even when it is against me, I consider myself blessed to hear it.
Dear Michael,
I agree with you, that there must be an agreement between all Orthodox Churches, I mean of our all jurisdictions, before we can talk about starting any proces for an eventual unity with the Church of Rome.
Indeed, the whole Orthodox Church must agree with it, and like you have said “I must confess, without the foundation of a Synodal meeting of some sort with multi-jurisdictional participation and support, that I greatly distrust the willingness and ability of individual priests and bishops to resist the temptations to acquiese to unrighteous proposals for worldly reasons. ”
you are totally right! This is also my vision too.
Such issue is not a matter of some individual priests and bishops, but concerns the whole Church.
Indeed, it surprised me, that the Pope only invited Archbishop Christodoulos and not Patriarch Bartholomeos, both issues should be dicussed first on highest level.[I think].
My opnion is, that we should be open, at first to listen to the first issue-proposal of the Pope.
The second question of the unity is very delicate question, if there is an agreement in our Church [Orthodox Church] then there has to be lot of study, of all things wich binds and not binds.
Of course it has to be done carefull and we are can learn from history, and what the saints are saying.
But we must not put the past above the possibilities and responsibilities, wich we now have in the present.
We have to look on the things wich us binds and what divides.
We must not remaining staring to blindness on the pronunciations of Saints, that pronunciations are often used to not to begin at the proces of the unification. Like an excuse, that is not Orthodox and either Christian!
It is a proces, we can God only pray for it and work on it and showing our willingness for it, in obedience of the Holy Gospel.
Yes, to Christ our God Himself
Fr. Eleonor, to be brutally honest, my fundamental resistance to any type of union with Rome comes from a lifetime of seeing my Roman Catholics friends spiritually raped by the Roman Catholic Church. In times of deep personal pain when they have needed the consolation and healing of the Church and of our Lord Jesus Christ, my friends were offered guilt, anger, and judgement instead. I have never seen any evidence that the Roman Catholic Church seeks the spiritual growth of her lay members, all that is wanted is to give money and follow orders.
The more history I have studied, the longer I am in the Orthodox communion, the less I care to have any unity with Rome unless there is a full and sincere repentence for their errors and the effects those errors have created. The Papacy is all about power, nothing else. With a German Pope, the juridical approach to Christianity will only get worse, not better.
IMO, our bishops should simply not be discussing unity at all on any level. Working out ways in which we can cooperate, yes. Leave the rest alone. If the Pope or his subordinate bishops want to discuss unity, hand them a copy of the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Bishops and let them respond.
Dear Michael,
I can very good imagine, that you have hard feelings unto the Roman Catholic Church, after these painfull experiences.
But Michael you have to realize that it are people, also the priests in the Roman Catholic church.
You have bad and good priests.
Please understand me well, I want nothing relativate ! Because I consider it as a big failure wat they did.
Giving pastoral guidence is very precious -I did this too- you have to build people up on the spiritual way, and pray with them and pray for them.
Power and misbehaviour are in all of the churches, my bishop has done very awfull things and this not a testimony for the Orthodox Church and spiritual concernment. Yes, very beyond that! He closed a monastery, and send the last monk away, without any moral and financial help. I can you tell more about it.
Helas, there are persons in the church, who are only seeking power, and to make a carriere. I hate this, they are not looking for progress in the spiritual life .
There are persons of this kind in the Roman Church and in the Orthodox Church.
We must not generalize.
It is now time to pray the complines an de the canon of St.Andrew.
I have to stop.
God bless
Fr. Eleonor,
I have to point out that when you use concepts and methodology such as
“That the Papacy is a heresy, is very strong pronounced, but we have look further and look to the re-definitions and value them.”
and
“Secondly: the point of the unity between the two churches. This is not a easy point. There has to be some redefinitions, witch must be affirm by both churches.”
and
“we are living NOW and we have to deal with opportunities and possibilities: NOW.”
I do not believe you are furthering the “cause” of re-unification. This methodology of redefining terms simply is meant to suit the spirit of these modern times – not the Truth of God. This idea that “NOW” is somehow different in quality than “Then” comes to us from modern materialistic/social view of man, not the Church. This methodology is a glaring failure of the modern ecumenical movement, and has been adequately criticized by so many I don’t know where to start. I did not come to the Faith, to the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” to be confused, or to affirm only a part of the Truth of God. The Church is One, and this Church is the Orthodox Church. I affirm this every day when I read the Creed. If the Pope and the Roman church want to be part of the Church, then let them repent of their errors. The Church (i.e. The Orthodox Church) does not need to “redefine” anything. The methodology you are proposing here is nothing less than a “redefining” of the Creed and the Faith – I categorically reject it. My only question is why you seem so uncritical of this methodology/idea?
The faith which historically developed in Rome and Constantinople should be celebrated. There are too many people who do not unity for the churches and it has to do with power. Pope John Paul2 said it was his greatest goal to reunite the once holy faith of Christendom. The Orthodox should not look to what happened in 1204 and blame Rome, they committed serious crimes before that on Latin christians. It is time to move past that. The pope of Rome has already been recognized as first among equals by Anglican and Eastern Orthodox leaders. The new effort should be dealing with the growing seculariztion of Europe and the loss of Christendom’s faithful to Islam. The only way this will stop is unity between east and west. The Orthodox tradition will be respected under the see of St. Peter. They can work together toward the future of revival in the entire catholic faith.
Connor: While the unity of the Roman Catholic and Othodox Churches is a worthy objective, we can do it a disservice by over-simplifying what the process of unification entails.
Certainly, many Orthodox Christian would like to move closer to the Catholic church on doctrinal and theological issues. Orthodox Christians also want to join Roman Catholics in speaking with one voice on issues of morality and spirituality that affect the world today.
It is the more detailed, practical and administrative apects of unification that Orthodox Christians find problematic. What authority would the Pope seek to exercise over Orthodox Churches? What authority would Orthodox Patriarchs retain? Could Orthodox Priests be reassigned to Roman Catholic churches and visa-versa? Could Orthodox Priests still marry? Which calendar would we use for Easter? Who would control church funds?
A wise manager once told me that when an attempt to reach a milestone seems too intimidating and daunting, you should set a series of small milestones in between instead. That is the strategy that the Orthodox and Catholic churches should follow as they attempt to work for greater unity.