Greetings!

Can someone explain what "First Among Equals" mean?

I have a hard time grasping that concept, which I think is of Eastern orgin.

Please explain in brief and in "LAYMAN'S" term. I've tried reading some materials about it, it still goes over my head.

Thank you.

spdundas

The phase "First Among Equals" is generally used by the East to describe the role of Peter within the Church. As an apostle, Peter is first and holds primacy because of Christ's words: "You are rock (Peter) and upon this rock (Peter) I shall build my Church" (Matthew 16:18). But this primacy is one of honor and authority and not one of power. It is important to make the distinction between power and authority. As a bishop, the pope has no more power than any other bishop since all bishops are equal in power. As the successor of Peter he enjoys more authority than the other bishops of the Church.

The East sees Peter as the elder brother who presides in love. The Latin West tends to develop this in a way that appears to make (but really doesn't) Peter the prime bishop of the Church; reducing all other bishops in the world to mere auxiliaries.

"First Among Equals" can be applied at different levels (although mostly it is reserved for the pope). If you live in a state with lots of Roman Catholics, chances are you will probably have an archdiocese and several dioceses. The archbishop holds no additional power than the other bishops because they are all equally bishops. By virtue of his position of archbishop, however, he commands more authority in the Church.

All bishops are of equal rank. But Peter is the eldest and the first.

Moose,

Thank you for your easy explanation! I understand more clearly now, but not completely because you said:

"As the successor of Peter he enjoys more authority than the other bishops of the Church."

Can you explain more on that? What you mean? I thought you said that the bishops are equal in authority?

What is the difference between authority and power?

Also I was taught that Bishop of Rome and Pope of Universal Church are different things, so why is there a problem in the Orthodox on Papacy? Please explain.

I read the book that Pope John wrote, he was saying that the bishops are equal with him (pope) in power. But of course, you're right, he holds honor and authority, since he's like an elder brother.

Thank you for your kind explanation.

God bless,
spdundas

P.S. On my reply on the other forum, "Silly Questions," don't take it personally, I'm only defensive.

I really hate to use ol' Webster for such definitions but here goes:

Authority: the power or right to command.

Power: the ability to do or act.

Every bishop has the same power as any other bishop. Both Pope John Paul II and the bishop of your local diocese have equal power to celebrate the Sacramental Mysteries and govern their local diocese. Pope John Paul II does not have more power as a bishop than any other bishop. They are of equal rank in that they are both bishops.

Pope John Paul, as successor of Peter, does have more authority than other bishops. Christ gave him an authority that he did not give to the other apostles. This authority makes him the "first among equals". He is first because he is the successor of Peter (Rock) and holds the keys. He is equal because is of the same rank in power than the other apostles.

The writings of Pope John (XXIII?) you refer to are the perfect choice to explain this. [Can you post the title and source, I'd be interested in reading it?] The bishops of the Church are like brothers with Peter being the eldest brother, and therefore first. This is the nature of the current disagreement between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Both Catholics and Orthodox acknowledge that the successor of Peter is of equal rank to all other bishops within the Church. It is the nature and extent of the authority of Peter that poses the current problem.

[This message has been edited by Moose (edited 08-23-1999).]

Moose,

WOW! Thanks for all your answers and explanations.

I am very sorry, the pope I was referring to was Pope John Paul II, not Pope John, pardon my typo.

The book is called "Crossing the Threshold of Hope."

Now, I didn't read the whole book because the book is high level, with so many words I've never seen in my life! So it kind of became a little too hard to read and went above my head a little. I can read it, but I just gotta have a dictionary with me and look it up at almost every sentence. Ha ha.

Okay now, my point is that the pope was saying that each bishop is a pontiff in his own diocese. And he was saying that both the bishops and the pope enjoy the same equal power in governing their dioceses as bishops. Which was very interesting. I learned a lot.

Now, I totally agree with what you explained above (not agreement as in opinion, but as logic). Okay, now what is the Orthodox Church's problem with papacy? Because what you've explained to me is basically what I've been taught in the Roman Church, and is in no way contradicts to what the Eastern Church see. Or am I mistaken again?

Perhaps it all comes down to language and cultural barrier that caused the drift between Orthodox and Catholic Church on the view of papacy? Perhaps both the Catholic and Orthodox Church view the same way all along? And barriers just stood in the way?

Again, thank you for your clear and precise explanation.

spdundas

spdundas,

Okay. My understanding is that the "problem" that the Orthodox have with the Papacy principally relates to the developments of the Papacy in the early middle ages.

The special "authority" of the Bishop of Rome as the successor to Peter is attested to in the Gospels and the Church Fathers. However, the Bishop of Rome did not always exercise this power in the way that it is exercised today, or, more pointedly, in the way that some of the Popes in the early middle ages tried to exercise it. In fact, in the first millenium of the Church, before the separation, it is quite hard to state unequivocally that the Bishop of Rome held jurisdictional power over each and every See in Christendom, or that his doctrinal pronouncements were taken to be infallible by virtue of his office, for example. Certain cases and examples can, and are, cited by Catholic authors to "prove" tangible papal power and authority during this period, but the fact remains that the way that this was exercised was substantially different than after the separation between East and West occurred. However, it is also clear that among all of the Bishops, the Bishop of Rome enjoyed the single most high honor, prestige, respect and authority.

In any case, the Orthodox don't accept that the exercise of a more "direct" form of jurisdiction by the Papacy is legitimate, since he didn't always operate that way. In other words, the Orthodox approach is that the role of the Pope should, in tangible and concrete terms, be the same as it was before the separation.

While this may sound attractive to some, in fact it has a critical weakness -- namely that, during most of the First Millenium when the Papacy was arguably not exercising this kind of authority, in jurisdictional terms, in the Eastern Sees, the Byzantine Roman Emperor was. It was the Emperor who convened councils; who interfered with their decisions when they were getting bogged down, even providing his own theological formulations; who promulgated and enforced the conciliar decrees; who nudged this or that See to appoint this or that Bishop. In other words, the authority was exercised, as a practical matter, by the Emperor in the service of unity. When the Empire collapsed, this source of unity was severed from the Church, and no one see in the East has been able to serve as the anchor of unity since that time -- something that has resulted in grave and significant disputes and disunity within the Orthodox world -- something that doesn't rise to the level of differences in faith, to be sure, but the kind of disputing that definitely interferes with the message and mission of the Church.

Following the separation, the Roman Church developed an elaborate theology of the Papacy -- something which has evolved over time and which is still in the process of development. The Orthodox did not participate in this development, and they are extremely skeptical about it. They are particularly skeptical of the formulations of Vatican I, which probably represent the high-water-mark of papal power (but which cannot be understood properly unless one takes them in the context of the Italian risorgimento that was taking place at the time, largely at the papacy's temporal expense). Vatican II considerably modified these ideas, and the present Pope has specifically called for further study and dialogue regarding the potential role of the Papacy in a future reunified Church. It remains to be seen what fruit this will bear, but I am cautiously optimistic.

I am cautiously optimistic because while there are a significant number of Orthodox who are still very wedded to the traditional model, there are many Orthodox writers and Bishops, even, who are expressing an openness to try something new. Meyendorff, for example, wrote explicitly that the Orthodox Church needs a "center" in order to be unified and fulfill its mission in the world. Alexander Schmemann wrote in a similar vein, saying that primacy could have a positive role to play in the Orthodox context, provided it is modified to suit the needs of the Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Philip (Saliba) of the Antiochian Archdiocese has openly called for the Ecumenical Patriarchate to move away from Istanbul, where it is virtually impossible for it to perform any real function, to another location (perhaps even here in the Americas) from which it could exercise a mission of unity among Orthodox Christians. Bishop Vsevolod of the Ukranian Orthodox Diocese in the USA has written quite a bit about the need for unity, the role that the Pope could play in this, what approaches may be workable for Orthodox, etc. There are many with much goodwill among the Orthodox, and there is much goo grey matter being given to these issues by both Catholics and Orthodox these days -- so I am cautiously optimistic.

The real issue here is what is more important: historical models of church governance (which is what the "traditionalists" would say), or the contemporary needs of the Church in fulfilling its mission in the present day (which is what many of the above Orthodox writers and Bishops would say). If we were to stick to the historical models strictly, we would have the Orthodox model BUT we would need also an world-wide emperor capable of preserving unity amongst the various sees, and making sure that disputes don't become divisive -- that is the full historical model -- the Orthodox don't have it in full, they only have a part of it since there is no more Emperor. It therefore seems to me to be much more fruitful for Catholics and Orthodox together to try, with all humility and love, to discern what the model of the Church should be in order to fulfill its mission in the world under the current circumstances. This is tentatively beginning to occur, and we should all pray for it to bear fruit and be successful ultimately in healing this wound in the Body of Christ.

Orientale

The following news report is interesting in light of the discussion here:

CASTELGANDOLFO, AUG 22 (ZENIT)- "The Pope's role is to serve the Church and humanity," John Paul II said to the pilgrims who congregated at noon today in the courtyard of Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. His words echoed those of Christ's in today's liturgy: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church." After reminding the faithful that Jesus spoke these words at Peter's confession: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," which are "the heart of Christianity itself," the Holy Father said that the role of service explains the definition that from earliest times has described the Bishop of Rome: "Servant of the servants of God."

In light of this idea of the Church's "power," the Holy Father spoke about today's feast -- the Queenship of Mary. "We must not forget that it is the Christian meaning of royalty, which is profoundly different from earthly ideas of power. It is a royalty of service and love, which passes through the cross, before shining in the Resurrection," the Pontiff concluded.

Orientale,

Your explanations are very interesting. I have always thought that the Church Fathers ruled the Church, more specifically the Pope and not the Emperers.

Yes, I noticed the disunity within the Orthodox Church. I see that the Orthodox desire for more unity.

Now, I am curious. Can you (or anyone) give me an example of how the authority of the pope was used BEFORE the Schism and AFTER the Schism. Also please give me an example of how the pope runs it during the Middle Ages. I would like to visualize the differences so I can compare them, hopefully coming closer to more understanding on the Orthodox's position on papacy.

If you don't know the details on specific history on the excercising the authority, which might take too long to look it up, that's fine. Can you just give me an easy example. You can kind of make something up and apply it to my question.

Thank you.
spdundas

hello spdundas,

It is truly amazing to see so many who dont really know what exactly is the authority in Orthodoxy.

There is so much to say, without alot of time. I will answer your question on giving an example of the popes before and after they left the New Testament Church.

The Latins, who deep down are conscious of the lie in which they live, have felt of old the necessity to teach that their differences from the Orthodox Church are insignificant. This is but a means of quieting the struggling conscience of their faithful who continually uncover in Orthodox Tradition and life new magnitude and depths which they lack.

They teach, therefore, that our only difference is insubordination, and that the dogmatic differences are only misunderstandings because of incomplete formulations. They fashioned the Unia, in which, without asking for any other immediate change in their faith and life, they accept Easterners if only they submit to the Pope. They believe that this peaceful assault is the best means of paralyzing our every resistance.

The Church of Christ does not hang from the letter of the law. If those ordained did not have the correct faith, their ordination is invalid, and we can speak neither of Apostolic succession nor of priesthood, as is the case with the Latins and those who are with them. Does the Holy Spirit abide in falsehood? Where heresy is ?

Here is what the Great Basil says, writing to Nikopolitas: "I will never number with the true priests of Christ him who was ordained and received the oversight of a flock from the profane hands of heretics, unto the overthrow of the Orthodox Faith."

What value, then, does a merely ritualistic Apostolic succession have from whence the Holy Spirit has departed?

Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) announced that "all worldly things must belong to the Church and its pope."

Not surprisingly, Pope Boniface VIII proclaimed, in his Bull, Unam Sanctam (1302): "It is necessary to salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

The concept of universal authority being vested in one man was alien to the early Church of Christ and to the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The dogma of Papal infallibility, which was not proclaimed util the nineteenth century, was only an extension of this false teaching about universal authority.

Among Romans today, it is a little known fact that as late as the nineteenth century many Roman Catholic bishops still understood the jurisdiction of the Pope in the same way as did the early Church. When Pope Pius IX sought the mantle of infallible supremacy at the First vatican Council in 1870, Bishop Joseph Georg Strossmayer of Diakovar, in Croatia, rose and spoke these words:

I do not find one single chapter , or one little verse [of scripture] in which Jesus Christ gives to Saint Peter the mastery over the Apostles, his fellow-workers.....The Apostle Paul makes no mention of the primacy of Peter in any of his letters directed to the various churches...What has surprised me most, and what moreover is capable of demonstration, is the silence of Saint Peter himself!" and "The Councils of the first four centuries, while they recognized the high position which the Bishop of Rome occupied in the Church on account of Rome being the capitol of the Empire, only accorded to him a preeminence of honor, never of power or jurisdiction. In the passage, Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build My Church, the Holy Fathers never understood that the Church was built on Peter (super Petrum), but on the rock (super petram) of the Apostle's confession of faith" in the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Well, I must go for now. I have to cook dinner for my family. As I said before, there is so much to be said......

God bless!!!

Reader Timothy

The Reader Timothy wrote:

Here is what the Great Basil says, writing to Nikopolitas: "I will never number with the true priests of Christ him who was ordained and received the oversight of a flock from the profane hands of heretics, unto the overthrow of the Orthodox Faith."

It is excellent that you quote Basil because St. Basil made clear that it is only those who hold a different understanding of God who are heretics. See his First Canonical Epistle (Ep. 188, dated 374).


"I do not find one single chapter , or one little verse [of scripture] in which Jesus Christ gives to Saint Peter the mastery over the Apostles, his fellow-workers.....The Apostle Paul makes no mention of the primacy of Peter in any of his letters directed to the various churches...What has surprised me most, and what moreover is capable of demonstration, is the silence of Saint Peter himself!"

Matthew 16:18 comes to mind in its proper context as clearly making Peter the elder brother. I won't repeat earlier posts summarizing how Peter settled the dispute at the Council of Jerusalem (see the Acts of the Apostles) or touch on the early history of the Church. I will note that lack of evidence in Paul's epistles is not relevant. Any good Scripture scholar knows that Paul wrote mostly to correct problems within the Church. Issues which were always believed, like Peter's primacy of the Dormition and Assumption of Mary, were not always put in writing.

"Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build My Church, the Holy Fathers never understood that the Church was built on Peter (super Petrum), but on the rock (super petram) of the Apostle's confession of faith" in the Divinity of Jesus Christ."

Not quite. Literally, one could translate it as "You are rock and upon this rock I will build my Church". In Greek the term for rock (petras) has female attributes. The proper name Peter (petros) naturally has a masculine ending. In Aramaic, the same word is used for both. While there is the sense that the Church is built on Peter's confession of faith, it is quite clear that it is Peter who was chosen to make this confession and not one of the other disciples. Jesus gives the keys to all the disciples. But he gives them first to Peter.

[This message has been edited by Moose (edited 08-30-1999).]

Greetings,
The title of Primacy attributed to St. Peter was of honor and respect amongst the rest of the Apostles. Permit me to say what it does not imply: subjugation or being condescending towards the Apostles. Why is it the Roman Catholic mindset to belittle the significance of the rest of the Apostles by creating St. Peter into something he was not such as infallible or supreme? According to Acts 15 , St. Peter did not convene the Council of Jerusalem. James, the brother of the Lord, presided over this council since he was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and further declared in his judgement that the gentiles should not be troubled provided with some exceptions. St. James made the final decision in unity and agreement with all the Apostles. St. Peter did not make the final judgement but however agreed with St. James' verdict. Where is the role of St. Peter if Catholics believe he is number one and runs the show? Unfortunately, there is a very strong myth amongst Catholics that believe St. Peter was a supreme and infallible pontiff and was responsible for all the Churches then. St. Peter was not able to do anything without the communion of the Apostles. His authority was the same authority of all the Apostles granted by Christ. Catholic apologetics are the least futile when the truth of St. Peter is revealed historically as well as spiritually. St. Peter was one of the greatest Saints not the only greatest Saint. Much of Orthodox Christianity is attributed to St. Paul. St Paul had corrected St. Peter as recorded in Galatians 2:11 because Peter erred. Orthodoxy could herald St. Paul over St.Peter and belittle Peter as well but this would be wrong as well as misleading. Orthodoxy does not agree with Rome's mindset which exagerates the historic Christian truth of St. Peter in order to substantiate its claim of supreme jurisdiction and infallibility over the rest of the other Apostolic Sees. This nonsense must cease. The title, "First Amongst Equals", is all that it is- a title of equality. Not of supremacy or infallibility. The Catholic apologetics,the word games and the rhetoric on this meaning of this title ignores its original historic setting during the Apostolic era.
Yours in Christ,
Robert

One more word of thought.
Why do Catholic apologetics waste their time arguing against the teachings of Sola Scriptura when they employ the same tactics? For example, according to St. Matthew 16:19
the keys of the Kingdom were given to St. Peter. The word "key" is understood to mean one who authorizes. The word "key" is not literally shown or given to any other Apostles except St. Peter in the New Testament. Therefore according to Catholic apologetics the keys are ONLY given to St. Peter and this proves Rome's superior position. Furthermore,there is no mention of the word "keys" given to any other Apostle in the New Testament proves Rome's divine claim of supreme jurisdiction. Now for the record I dare challenge this inconsistent truth because all the Apostles were granted the "keys" even though the word "keys" is not made literally manifest to each of the Apostles in the New Testament texts. How is it possible that the New Testament speaks of the authority of the Apostles to bind and loosen on earth and heaven which are the "keys" given by Christ? Catholic apologetics create a false impression that we must submit to Rome because the keys are only with St. Peter according to Mat.16:19. If the word keys is not revealed to others in the literal sense then therefore St. Peter possesses the keys ALONE. Is this not the same tactic Protestantism argues in defense of the Bible ALONE? Rome is to entangled being ALONE with itself which in turn created Protestantism ALONE. In the Latin Rite, BREAD ALONE is used in its service. Rome has done everything ALONE especially by creating its own very ecumenical councils after the Seventh Council. I sincerely believe that Rome is crying out for help. The Orthodox Church will not grant Rome the title of Primacy until she has recanted from doing things ALONE. Let us pray to the Lord. Lord have mercy.
In Christ,
Robert

James presided over the Council in Jerusalem because he was then bishop of Jerusalem (Peter had already left to preach to the Gentiles). The whole issue, however, was resolved by Peter's words: "And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them, ‘Men and brethren, you know that...God makes no distinction between them [Gentiles] and us...'" (see Acts 15:6-1). It was Peter who spoke and resolved the issue and it is this account that Holy Scripture records. This is a scriptural account of Peter stepping in to resolve a dispute. James repeats the account to give it even more emphasis.

This is where I disagree with some of my Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) brethren. A study of the Church fathers makes clear that they understood and acknowledged the primacy of Peter. It is also clear that primacy was exercised in a much different manner than it is today. Robert was correct in noting that Peter did not make the final judgement but his words indicated the final judgement. In his primacy of love, Peter should be the one to settle disputes within the Church and must be a strong leader yet must always act with the entire Church. This is where the Western model, codified especially in Vatican I, is lacking.

Briefing touching on the keys issue, Robert is also correct in noting that he keys were given to all the disciples. But our Lord was talking specifically to Peter and he holds the keys in a special way that the other apostles do not. One cannot deny the primacy given to Peter in Scripture. Nor can one exaggerate it. But we've discussed this at length on other threads.

When did “authority” become a bad word. I thought authority was a good thing; and the following of authority the greatest test of Faith. Last I heard, “All authority is of God.” If it is not of God, it is not authority.

Catholics believe the Pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit, Orthodox seem not to believe this. If I find out on Judgment Day that the Pope WAS NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, I made a mistake, but my intention was to follow the Holy Spirit. But if the Pope IS inspired by the Holy Spirit, have not the Orthodox denied the Holy Spirit? And if the Pope IS NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, have not the Orthodox still denied Him by not giving authority to SOMEONE? Does not AUTHORITY presuppose ONE AUTHORITY?

As a Catholic, I am told that my marriage is a sign of Christ’s relationship to His Bride the Church. Does anyone deny that Christ has AUTHORITY over His Church? Of course not! Yet there are Catholics who insist that the husband has NO authority over his wife; that they are equal partners. So when Joe comes home and tells Mae that the Holy Spirit has inspired him to move the family to Egypt, she throws a hussey-fit and demands a divorce. Or else Joe ignores the prompting of the Spirit in order to please his wife. What kind of a MAN, let alone CHRISTIAN-SENT-TO-EVANGELIZE-THE-WORLD-MAN wants to live this life?! To deny my husband’s authority over me is to silence the Holy Spirit within our marriage. Hopefully, he will lovingly discuss all the decisions he must make and wait for my approval. But HELLOOO!!! Welcome to real life in the fallen world! Men are notorius for NOT knowing how to express their convictions, and wives can be as prideful and ignorant as husbands. So we must trust that the Holy Spirit guides us through the man of the house, and in faith follow the path along which we are led, even when the wife feels like Isaac on the altar with the knife coming down. Otherwise, why are we alive? What does it mean to have FAITH?

Sorry for this mishmash. I am just trying to understand. If I seem a little on edge it is because my return to the Church after my radical-feminist stage was by way of my understanding the necessity of authority within marriage. Without it, I see us doomed to a world of abortion, divorce, and euthanasia. And without Peter, I see any church doomed to a world of apostasy, schism, and excommunication.

[This message has been edited by Wendy (edited 08-31-1999).]

Wendy wrote: "Catholics believe the Pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit, Orthodox seem not to believe
this. If I find out on Judgment Day that the Pope WAS NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, I
made a mistake, but my intention was to follow the Holy Spirit. But if the Pope IS
inspired by the Holy Spirit, have not the Orthodox denied the Holy Spirit? And if the
Pope IS NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, have not the Orthodox still denied Him by not
giving authority to SOMEONE? Does not AUTHORITY presuppose ONE AUTHORITY?"

Like Catholics, we Orthodox believe that the "gates of hell shall not prevail", so despite the inherent weakness of our universal governance (ie; the lack of a Byzantine Emperor to prod our bishops) - the Church is governed, and found inviolate, and lived by the faithful Orthodox. The Orthodox Church does not satisfy the requirements of this world for "visibility, power and sound-bites" that they may find in the Catholic Church perhaps. So be it, this is hard to fathom, but God has His reasons why and how His Church will be perceived and treated by this world.
Now to suggest that your "intentions" are good and fulfill your obligation to seek the truth, whereas for the Orthodox to do the same but be found guilty of "denying the Holy Spirit" - seems hubristic to say the least. We believe that Christ himself is the head of the Church, this Church is the Orthodox Church and nothing found in our faith, the faith of the Apostles, has in essence changed since Christ founded His Church. Each Orthodox Bishop is an Apostle, each is an icon of Christ - we have authority in the Church.
In any case, I did like your thoughts on marriage and obedience, but they do not expand analogically to the Church and the Pope for me. If anything, I have found in Orthodoxy even more of an imperative to be obedient (to the Gospels,to what the Church teaches, to Tradition, to my Spiritual Father) than I did before. Nothing in my life as an Orthodox Christian would compel me to seek authority above that which God has given to me.
Please forgive me if I offend.

In Christ,
John

Wendy,

I have to agree with John P's comments. No one has put forth that authority in the Church is bad. The discussion is about the nature of authority within the Church. Orthodox certainly give Peter primacy and most give him a certain amount of authority. But they are correct in presenting for discussion that the nature and extent of Peter's authority as exercised in the Church today is much different than it was in the early Church. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges a growth in the power of Peter, especially after the decline of the Western Roman Empire and Vatican I. It is the nature of this authority and the method of exercise in the current Church and future reunited Church that is under discussion.

Your example of a marriage is excellent and well chosen. A husband is certainly given authority over his wife. For a husband to use such authority over his wife in dictatorial manner is wrong. In day to day life all decisions affecting the family (which is the domestic Church) should be done will full knowledge, consent and cooperation of both spouses and, to a certain extent, their children. It is only when there is a dispute that cannot be resolved that a wife must submit to her husband. This, of course, assumes that the event is pressing and that the husband is advocating a morally acceptable action. If the husband and wife are living a life of prayer and the Holy Spirit truly does call Joe to pick up and move to Egypt then the Holy Spirit will also let Joe's wife know that Joe is acting at His prompting. If the wife is convinced that Joe's actions are not of the Holy Spirit and will do irreparable harm to her family then she should seek advice from her spiritual director. A wife has no obligation to accept a decision made by her husband that is morally wrong.

Just as the Church puts forth the relationship of the Trinity as the model for a relationship within the Church, so, too, can this model be applied to marriage. Peter is the earthly head of the Church but should never act without the Church; the husband is the head of the domestic Church but never acts without his wife; the Father is the source of the Trinity but never acts without the Son and Holy Spirit.

Hello all,

1. The primacy of Peter has its roots in the Gospels. Most notably Matt 16, but also the end of the Gospel of John. It is certainly true that this ministry was not always exercised in the same way – or in the way that it is exercised today. The ministry has been exercised differently at different periods in the history of the Church as the needs of the Church have changed – and it will continue to be exercised differently in the future. It cannot be tied exclusively to the needs of any one era, but is flexible and adjusts to the needs of each patrticular era of the Church.

2. It is disingenuous and simply incorrect to claim that the Orthodox Church follows, or, in fact, that the Church of the Seven Councils followed, the ‘model’ set forth in Acts. During that period, the “one who was number one and running the show” was the Emperor – he called the councils, intervened in their sessions, injected his own solutions to theological issues and promulgated the decrees of the councils, excommunicating and/or exiling when needed. Where is this in the New Testament?? What bunk! Can’t you see how the fundamental assumption of your argument against the Papacy is equally applicable to the model that the Eastern Church followed then? And, of course, after 1453 this was no longer a functional model at all because the Emperor fell – even though the theoretical ecclesiology of the Eastern Sees was preserved intact following the Fall of Constantinople (because it had always been in theoretical denial of the very factual role played by the Emperor), the system ceased functioning as a practical matter because the lynchpin of the Emperor was gone. What needs to happen for it to function again? Bring back a worldwide Christian Emperor?? You simply can’t have a conciliar Church unless someone can call a council – and noone in the Orthodox Church can do that now that the Emperor is gone, leading to a dysfunctional ecclesiology. In this context, it is clear that a primacy is needed to complement the conciliar ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church.

3. The mission of the Church, its raison d’etre, is to bring as many to the light of Christ, and the eternal life of the Blessed Trinity, as is possible. This mission is impossible to achieve when the Church is divided against each other. It has been pointed out in other threads on this forum myriad ways that the Orthodox fight with themselves – thereby diluting their message. At times, it seems as if “protecting our own” is a higher value among Orthodox than evangelizing – I don’t mean to offend, but it certainly seems that way sometimes. The reason for this is the raging disunity, jursidictionalism, pettiness and in-fighting brought about by the fact that the Orthodox communion is a federation of Churches without any unifying force other than the Holy Spirit – something which requires cooperation with that Spirit – regrettably not always the case due to very human weaknesses. True evangelization and mission requires a coordinated effort of the Church acting together – impossible today in the Orthodox Church. The model is broken. You can sit there in your local parish and say “it doesn’t really effect me” (except perhaps for the fact that there are 4 Orthodox Bishops in my city) – but it definitely impedes the wordlwide mission of the Church, without question.

4. In light of the present situation, Orthodox have become increasingly skillful at providing arguments to support their otherwise untenable position as defenders of an ecclesiology that does not function any longer. You can argue that you are blue in the face, for example, that there is no authority other than the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ or something along these lines – but your own history is a witness to the fact that there have, in fact, been other practical, day-to-day models of authority at work in the Eastern Sees, none of which were rejected at the time, and each of which was accepted as a part and parcel of the functioning of the Church. The Orthodox Church has never rejected this – what has happened is that in the last 200 years or so the Orthodox position has hardened on this issue – in a curious yet outright denial of their own ecclesiastical history, which is now very, very selectively interpreted. It is saddening.

5. In spite of the efforts by many zealous Orthodox, many of whom are converts, these issues are not viewed as black-and-white by many Orthodox Bishops, and do not, in fact, impact the very real communion that exists between our Churches today. Robert – have you ever been to the Middle East? If you have, then you are surely aware that it is rather normal and accepted for Greek Catholics and Greek Orthodox to receive the sacraments in each other’s churches, to share facilities – all of this in spite of the fact that the Catholic Church is clearly heretical, headed by Antichrist, wrong-headed, schismatic and just plain yucky! Sure, there is no concelebration, but the de facto intercommunion among the laity is well-known and well-tolerated by both the Orthodox and the Catholic side. Similarly, a Roman Catholic travelling in Russia will not generally have a problem receiving communion in a Russian Orthodox Church – it is a simple fact. The same applies in many places in Greece. Even here in the USA, I am personally aware of several instances where Catholics have been allowed to communicate in Orthodox Churches. When you look at the big picture, you can easily see that it is in fact the case that there is communion, however imperfect and incomplete, between the Catholic and Orthodox even today. The zealots greatly overstate the differences, and are often considerably more hardlined than the cradle Orthodox are – who have a sense from their growing up in the Orthodox Church that, in fact, they are not very far apart from Catholics. In fact, I think one of the tidal waves that will come crashing in the coming years in the American Orthodox Churches is the latent conflict between cradles and converts, but that’s a story for another thread.

Orientale


[This message has been edited by orientale (edited 08-31-1999).]

hello again,

The authority in Orthodoxy does not reside in a Pope, Patriarch or bishop. The authority in Orthodoxy is nothing other than Holy Tradition. Any changes that take place within the Church must not in anyway contradict Holy Tradition. Tradition does grow, but it must not and cannot contradict Holy Tradition.

All Orthodox bishops have Apostolic succession from the Apostles, with full-grace. The moment that Orthodox bishop begins to "preach heresy with bare head", he loses that grace that he had when he was in the fullness of the Truth. We dont believe in the 'created grace of God' as do the Latins. The fact is, God's grace is not created! That is why the Latins have no grace, because they are heretics!

Also, St. Basil the Great says: "those who seceded from the CHurch no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them, from the impartation thereof ceased when the continuity was interrupted. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became common men and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain, nor could they impart the grace of the Holy Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it." There you go, the Papacy is not even a Church because of the heresy they are in! Departing so far from Orthodoxy (The NEw Testament Church) , and yet because of their ignorance and pride, continue to lead many astray. But, the papacy is not alone. The Patriarchs and bishops are in the same boat with the pope. Because they deny Christ, sending representatives to worship with pagans. They also preach the "Branch Theory" which is an Anglican invention, thus negating the phrase in the Nicene Creed; "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".

Jesus asked us, when He comes again will he "find THE FAITH", yes He will but only a few will have it..... It is my prayer that those who are being led astray in this modern-day apostasy, be led back into the fold.

RT

Thank you, Tim, for bringing to light graphically the kind of disunity we have been speaking about in this and other threads for some time.

Tim, is your colleague John also a heretic? I guess since he is a member of ROCOR he may be okay, but maybe they are, after all, too close to reconciling with Moscow, at least in the eyes of the Greek Old Calendrists. And what of Robert? Also a heretic? May as well have stayed a Catholic? And what of our OCA layman Dave Brown? Also a heretic? After all he is in a godforsaken apostate ecumenicist/modernist neo-pagan jurisdiction, isn't he? And what do you, John, think of Dave, being a member of the OCA -- clearly communist-dominated, overly ecumenical borderline apostate Church?

And, Robert and John, what do you make of Tim here? Is *he* simply a schismatic for separating himself from the "true" Orthodox (which you may define as "ROCOR" or as "world Orthodoxy, depending on where you sit)? Is he a heretic for claiming that your Bishops are heretics?

Can't you unified Orthodox all get along, guided as you are by the infallible unchanging rock of Holy Tradition and illumined by the Holy Spirit??

Orientale

John P.,

The point I was trying to make is that it seems to me that schisms are often the result of someone saying “NO” to one half of something the Church teaches. For instance, I believe the Lord Jesus Christ is God AND Man. Some say only Man. I believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father AND Son. Some say only the Father. I believe that Jesus Christ is head of the Church AND Peter is head as His viceregent. Some say only Jesus. I believe both Scripture AND Tradition are pillars of the Faith. Some say only Scripture; some say only Tradition. So many seem to base their religions on saying “NO” to something we say “YES” to. They search for their identity in how they differ from the Catholic Church in a negative sense. Maybe I am seeing this one-sidedly. Can you give me one POSITIVE belief of your Church which I say “NO” to?


Moose,

“Peter...should never act without the Church.”

I have a good question for you now! (Maybe it will bring this discussion down to earth.

WHO IS THE CHURCH AS REGARDS THE POSSIBLE PROCLAMATION OF THE FIFTH MARIAN DOGMA?

The Pope has received millions of petitions from the faithful asking him to declare as dogma, the doctrine of Holy Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate. He has brought together theologians in an attempt to unveil this belief, with limited success. If we were a holy people with many saints among us, we would be worthy to understand what we believe, just as a holy wife understands why her husband must, say, quit his six-figure job and become a missionary. But a proud people, like a proud wife, is unworthy to understand the mysterious ways of the Lord, and sometimes must be dragged kicking and screaming, like Lot’s wife, out of heresy. So, it is possible that this Pope will be forced (because he must follow the time-frame of the Holy Spirit and not his own) to proclaim this dogma before the faithful understand it, and whether or not most of the bishops agree with him. The way I see it, if even one of the faithful agree with him, he has acted with the Church. ???

Wendy

I haven't spent much time on this thread...just caught up.

Orientale,

What's the purpose in the rhetoric about Orthodox "disunity"? It is patently unfair to lump Greek Old Calendrists and ROCOR and those ancient Orthodox Churches which maintain communion together. The Catholic Church doesn't even do that in the ecumenical dialogue. Of course, the Greek Old Calendrists and ROCOR wouldn't come if invited...but the point is, they wouldn't be invited. Rome would have better sense than to invite those Churches to the ecumenical dialogue since there is no communion between those Churches and us (although some communion is maintained with ROCOR through its' communion with the Churches of Serbia and Jerusalem).

I would suggest that the lurker here who wants to know more about world Orthodoxy start with Timothy (now Bishop KALLISTOS) Ware's book _The Orthodox Church_.

Yes, we've got "hawks" and "doves" in mainline Orthodoxy. But, let's get things straight here. There is no claimed "unity" between ROCOR and the Greek Old Calendrists and the mainline Orthodox. These are separate communions. Orientale's rhetoric is comparable to lambasting the Catholic Church as disunited with SSPX'ers and Novus Ordo's and independent Traditionalist Latin Mass types.

Who are the real Orthodox? The Catholic Church's position is clear. As for myself, I don't see a reconciling of mainline Orthodox with ROCOR in the near future but I'd be unwilling to put them outside the Church (although I know some mainline Orthodox--a minority, I think, who would.)

I hope we'll hear the end of Orientale's trashing of Orthodox here. The ancient Orthodox Churches which maintain communion have differing views on how far to go in ecumenical dialogue. We've got some tensions, to be sure, but we do share communion.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
First, I would like to thank those of you who have posted their comments. Second, I would like to reply to those comments. From the beginning of the early Church, Orthodoxy has sincerely acknowledged the Primacy of Peter. St. Peter's role has never been under-stated within Orthodoxy or overstated as Catholic apologetics continually do in support of the Papacy. There is no true reconciliation between the Primacy of Peter and that of the Papacy. The govermental nature of the Papacy is in no way the same as that during the Apostolic era. To say there is is to deny the historical evolution of the Church of Rome and historical events. St. Peter had always good intentions in obeidance to Christ but at times he was fallible. True, St. Peter helped in settling disputes. But did not St. Paul withstood him to his face as recorded in Galatians 2:11? St. Peter became entangled in a dispute and needed to be corrected by St. Paul. Therefore, St. Peter was never alone in or made decisions alone without the Apostolic Church. Of course our Lord spoke specifically to St. Peter about the keys to the Kingdom. However, this does not imply St. Peter was a leader over the Apostles, but a leader amongst them because they all received the keys as well. St. Peter's primacy was demonstrated when he attended the Council of Jerusalem and spoke. No emperor convened or presided over this Council. The one person who did preside or convene was St. James. St. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Mother Church, who in the final analysis pronounced the final verdict which was in agreement with all those present. St. Peter was amongst his equals and St. James lead the Council to a conclusion. I have witnessed many unfair remarks and exagerations attributed to St. Peter's role of Primacy linked with the Papacy. Apologetics goes as far as to say that St. Peter and Rome convened over the Seven Ecumenical Councils when the truth is it was the emperors.

In regards to Orientale remarks on the impossibility of the Orthodox to perform a coordinated effort at true evangelization is unfounded and stems from his ignorance. I belong to the Antiochian jurisdiction and we are the fastest growing along with the OCA in the U.S. amongst the heterodox Christianities. We have organizations that unite the different jurisdictions such as SCOBA, Synergy, etc. They may not be perfect but they are true and a reality. Perhaps you should read what the Patriarchs have to say on this issue of jurisdictions. I have taken communion with many jurisdictions without ever feeling alienated. Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch and All the East calls for the establishment of a patriarchate in America. If I may counter your argument against American Catholicism it seems more or less opposed to the Vatican's statements from Rome. You think Orthodoxy has problems you should take a closer look in your back yard where Catholics cannot agree nowadays on ecclesiology and christology. Overall, Orthodoxy and Rome are not free from problems that need to be resolved in their own domains and amongst themselves. Orientales fourth comment should be applied on Roman Catholicism ecclesiology. His fifth comment asks if I have been to the Middle East. I am originally from the Middle East and learned much from my experiences there. In the Middle East, the Latin and the Greek Catholics and the Orthodox have agreed to celebrate Christmas on the Western Calander and Easter on the Julian Calander. HOWEVER, in no way are the Latins to share communion with the Orthodox and vice verse. The celebration of the religious holidays is a nice gesture for cooperation amongst each other in Islamic lands. Roman Catholicism in the Middle East has taken advantage of the chaos in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and taken much of the Orthodox flock. I know this because my families and I are witnesses who turned Catholic and then Orthodox again. Since Protestantism is originally a Catholic problem we have taken the liberty to evangelize them into the true faith. This is fair as it has been for Catholicism to come to take away the Orthodox flock when they should have been after the Muslims. If you cannot get the Muslims go after the Orthodox has been Rome's policy. Those in the Middle East who have accepted the Latin Rite have at times been condescending upon the Greek Catholics and the Orthodox. This I believe stems from the arrogancy of the Latins. Take for example the Latinization that was imposed upon the Eastern/Greek Catholics. Was this fair? Did any one hear about this epispocate uproar in the Middle East? Rome backed off and did not want to risk losing the flock back to the Orthodox. This Latinization was to further alienate the Greek Catholics from the Orthodox. This is a fact that you need to research for yourself. The Greek Catholics are dear to me and I pray for the return to Orthodoxy.

As for Tim, there is too much pride in what he believes is true Orthodoxy. He has gone as far as the Protestant's mindset as to claim that Holy Tradition is above Church and Bishop. The Protestant would say that the Bible is above the Church and Tim says it is Holy Tradition. I pray for Tim to return to Orthodoxy and stop with his rhetoric of "worldly Orthodoxy".
A Servant of Christ,
Robert

Wendy,

Fifth Marian Dogma? Millions of Petitions?
Last year the Pope very solemnly declared the titles coredemptrix and comediatrix were inappropriate, theologically dangerous, and in no way dogmas. He made it quite clear that these titles would not and could not be granted because they obscure the unique role of Christ. I apologize I cannot provide the publications this article appeared in, but I'm sure a search on the CIN would turn up something. From the tone of your posts it sounds like you may be affiliated with a fringe or schismatic group. If they said the Pope was preparing to "unveil" this fifth dogma they are lying. The Pope said the exact opposite. I encourage you to investigate this matter on your own so you may find the truth.

Lance Weakland

Several points:

1. Robert Sweiss' account of the role of Peter is that of mainline Orthodoxy and very close to what I have written as my understanding of the Orthodox position on this. Frs. John Meyendorff and Alexander Schmemann (Orthodox priests at St. Vlad's of blessed memory) both acknowledged the need for a more centralized authority within Orthodoxy. They admitted that there has been no individual authority to entrust the ‘bully pulpit' to since the last emperor of the Byzantine Empire. While neither supported nor would support the current model of the papacy both acknowledged that Orthodoxy could benefit from such an individual and that in a united Church this individual could be Peter (providing there was a new, workable definition of primacy). For the most part, the Church fathers would have supported a much strong Peter than the first apostle but not one with the power of Vatican I. For my part, I think that there is more to Pope John Paul II's request for the Orthodox to help him redefine the role of the papacy for a reunited Church in the next millennium looks beyond a hoped reunion of East and West. Neither Orthodoxy nor Roman Catholicism would reject the idea that the petrine role is primarily one of service to Christ and his Church and that this role should be dynamic, always seeking to use the primacy to serve the Church with love.

2. The problems of Orthodox disunity are front and center here in America and those exhibited here are not the same as within the rest of Orthodoxy. The problems here are those caused (for the most part) by jurisdictionalism. As Brian noted, while the ROCOR and Old Calendarist groups contain many honorable Orthodox Christians, they are not in full communion with the rest of Orthodoxy and each have their own challenges to deal with. I have no doubt that there someday will be an a single, united Orthodox Church in America containing all of the canonical groups (Antiochian, Greek, Russian/OCA, Jerusalem and etc.). Splinter groups will always exist just as Roman Catholic splinter groups will always exist.

The problems of world Orthodoxy are not the same as here in America. Life pretty much goes on as it has since the Empire fell. But there is no authority to bring together the Orthodox in a Council. Among other things, this means that there is no one to turn to appeal to settle disagreements like Peter did in the early Church. It also severely limits the Orthodox Witness since there is not a united front to proclaim Christ to the world.

3. The Antiochian Orthodox Church is by far the leader among Byzantine Christians in evangelization in the United States. I've worshiped at SS Peter & Paul in Ben Lomand (the center of the Evangelical Orthodox Mission) several years ago and found it to be a vibrant parish. The only sour spot was that a number of the converts from Protestantism brought with them much baggage - especially anti-Roman baggage that cradle Orthodox don't hold or sympathize with. All in all, they are doing great work in building up the Church.

It should be noted that even though Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox are beginning to evangelize the unchurched, the Roman Catholic Church has the greatest outreach and therefore the greatest number of converts from the unchurched. It should also be noted that more people move from the East (Byzantine Catholicism and Orthodoxy) to the West (Roman Catholicism) than from the West to the East. Those moving West are doing so mostly because of marriage to a Roman Catholic. [The Roman Catholic Church is seen as the mainstream, American Church.]

4. Oritentale's posts were not ‘trashing the Orthodox'. His words were strong but did display the inherent confusion that many have about who speaks for Orthodoxy. One cannot dismiss groups like the Old Calendarists and ROCOR outright because they have many good and honorable Orthodox Christians among them. But it is troubling that some within these groups pretend to speak for all of Orthodoxy. That their opinions are often so different than those of canonical Orthodoxy greatly dilutes the Orthodox Christian witness here in America. The parallel among Roman Catholics and SSPX that Dave Ignatius noted is an excellent one, with the exceptions that Roman Catholics vastly outnumber these groups and that the Latin splinter groups are not as nearly as vocal as the Orthodox splinter groups.

Dave, Robert,

I am glad to see that you were both angered by my purposely provocative post. That was what I intended to solicit from you. My point was simply that there is no criterion you can use to say who is "in" and who is "out" of the Orthodox Church -- it totally depends on whom you are speaking with. And, for the record, Dave, while I agree that perhaps the Greek Old Calendrists are comparable to the SSPX, it is a gross, gross miscomparison, in my opinion, to place the ROCOR in that same category, especially after the falling out between the ROCOR and the Greek O-C's. The ROCOR is a real problem, I think. But, in any case, I wrote what I did to illustrate that there is, in fact, much disunity -- unless you draw the circle close enough so that you exclude those who are barking about it. I did not mean to "trash" Orthodoxy in general, and it is unfortunate that you read that into my post. I was trying to illustrate the scope of the problem, that is all.

Some more specific responses to Robert:

1. Intercommunion between Greek Catholics and Greek Orthodox in the middle east (the point of my prior post and the one point in your long missive that you did *not* address) is a reality, is tolerated, is well-known to exist and will apparently continue going forward. What happens with the Latins is a separate matter -- but I wasn't speaking of the Latins. Did you read the word "latins" in my earlier post? Why then do you focus almost exclusively on "latins: in your reply? It's not a pettty criticism either, as the main thrust of my earlier point is that if Catholics are so bad why is it that Greek Catholics are regularly allowed to communicate in the Greek Orthodox Churches in the Middle East? That question remains comlpetely unanswered in your post, I'm afraid.

2. When I read your post, I sense a lot of anger towards the "Latins". This is very unrpoductive, and it reminds me of the anger that some Eastern Catholics have against the 'pravoslavny' for similar reasons due to what happened in Eastern Europe. When we let ourselves be dominated by these emotions, I think, the Evil One is the only one who wins.

3. I sincerely, deeply, fervently hope and pray for unity among Orthodox and Catholics. This unity will only come through love, fostered by humility: the humility of understanding by each that the approach taken by each is incomplete, imperfect, and marred by sin. My sense is that the Catholic Church is a little bit ahead of the game here in comparison to the Orthodox -- but not very much. Much more humility is needed on the part of the Catholics, particularly the rank and file ones. But I must also honestly say that I see little humility among Orthodox in this regard, and this will be, in my opinion, the single-biggest stumbling block on the path to reconciliation. For while Professors like Meyendorff and Schmemann were smart enough to see that the Orthodox model is not functional and needs to be fixed, there are many in the Orthodox Church who are being taught, and who believe, that the present model is perfect, virtually flawless and simply needs minor tinkering and tweaking -- and I think at present these outnumber those who hold the views of Meyendorff and Schmemann, and perhaps are even growing in strength in the West due to the large number of converts, many of whom are mind-numbingly uncritical of the Orthodox Church's structures (as are, to be fair, a fair number of Catholic converts .. but they are a much, much smaller force in the Catholic Church based on simple numbers). What we need is prayer and humility here.

Orientale

>>>HOWEVER, in no way are the Latins to share communion with the Orthodox

and vice verse.<<<



This is not entirely true. There is a considerable degree of Eucharistic sharing that involves not only the Antiocheans and the Melkites, but also latins and the Orthodox, a consequence of the civil laws governing religion in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. The clergy most certainly do not intercommune, but the laity do so far more frequently than officials in either Church are willing to concede. Yet they all know about it, and for pastoral reasons, tolerate it.

Lance,

I am sorry, I could not find the source of your information. There have been many conferences, for and against this possible dogma. Last I heard, "Coredemptrix" is already an accepted doctrine of the Church. Our Holy Father has used this term for Our Lady five times during his papacy. Check out http://www.voxpopuli.org/insidv1.html

At any rate, whether you believe this doctrine or not is unimportant. I want to know if anyone here denies the power of the Pope to declare it as a dogma, say, tomorrow morning at 11:00 AM, if he so desires.

Wendy

Thank you robert,

You my pray for me, but not with me! LOL!!!

First of all, If "true Orthodoxy" is with the Patriarchate of Antioch, than I reject it!!! Being that the Patriarchate of Antioch is in full-communion with the Monophysite Patriarchate of Syria (who by the way still does not accept the last 4 Ecumenical Councils, and commemorates Severus as a Saint, even though he has been condemned as a heretic by the Orthodox Church). Is the Patriarch,who is only one bishop, given more authority than an Ecumenical Council? Of course not!! But Robert would love to think so.... Exactly were is the heresy in what I believe? There are a number of Canons and Holy Fathers who openly confessed the "true" Faith, which you obviously reject. Is Saint Cosmas a fanatic? How about Saint Mark of Ephesus? How about all of those Pan-Orthodox Councils that condemned the New Calendar and Papism? Well, if you followed them, which is a part of Holy Tradition, you would be truly Orthodox. But you are truly worthy of tears, not knowing the Faith. Remember the words of our Holy Father Saint Photius the Great? "Is the shepherd a heretic? Then he is a wolf! Flee from him; do not be deceived by him even if he appears gentle and tame. Avoid communion with him even as you would flee from a poisonous snake."

I guess we are right not to be in communion with the heretical bishops of "world Orthodoxy"!, since they have a new ecclesiology.

As goes for the ROCA, they unfortunately fell under their own anathema of 1983 under our holy Metropolitan Philaret of blessed memory. After his repose the stance their bishops changed dramatically. Being that they are in communion with the Patriarchates of Serbia and Jerusalem, who in turn are in communion with Constantinople and Antioch and full members of the WCC, they have fallen under their own anathema putting themselves outside of the CHurch. Anathema meaning a total separation from God and the Church.

When I was a new calendarist, I went to the Holy Virgin Cathedral with my two children to venerate St. John of SF. They gave communion to my children even though we were under Constantinople at that time... Ecumenists???? You bet!!!!

These are reasons why we have had many converts, including clergy from these jurisdictions. Most recently, Fr. Steven Smith(OCA), and Abbot Adrian (ROCA). God is truly moving among his chosen ones, Amen!!!

RT http://www.churchsurf.net/users/ca/sposf_cc/

Orientale wrote:

"Thank you, Tim, for bringing to light graphically the kind of disunity we have been speaking about in this and other threads for some time."

Then Orientale contrasted the Old Calendrist Greek jurisdiction (which is acknowledged to be in schism from almost everyone else) with ROCOR (which has limited communion with the rest of world Orthodoxy through its communion with the Church of Serbia and Jerusalem) and the mainline Orthodox Churches. He followed up with:

"Can't you unified Orthodox all get along, guided as you are by the infallible unchanging rock of Holy Tradition and illumined by the Holy Spirit??"

His comment today:

"I am glad to see that you were both angered by my purposely provocative post. That was what I intended to solicit from you."

I intend to bow out of discussions here if that is the intent of posters here. I do not want to participate in a forum where the goal is to create anger in others.

"My point was simply that there is no criterion you can use to sa who is "in" and who is "out" of the Orthodox Church -- it totally depends on whom you are speaking with. And, for the record, Dave, while I agree that perhaps the Greek Old Calendrists are comparable to the SSPX,"

If that is the case then why did Orientale make the original comparison? If the Greek Old Calendrists are comparable to the SSPX then it was vastly unfair for him to lambaste Orthodox "disunity" using them as an example.

"it is a gross, gross miscomparison, in my opinion, to place the ROCOR in that same category, especially after the falling out between the ROCOR and the Greek O-C's. The ROCOR is a real problem, I think."

I agree. And, I didn't place ROCOR in the same category. The situation with ROCOR and the rest of world Orthodoxy is not resolved. There are elements in ROCOR which appear to be heading for a total break. Some (hopefully not too many) would doubt there is any grace in the mainline Orthodox Churches.

"But, in any case, I wrote what I did to illustrate that there is, in fact, much disunity -- unless you draw the circle close enough so that you exclude those who are barking about it. I did not mean to "trash" Orthodoxy in general, and it is unfortunate that you read that into my post. I was trying to illustrate the scope of the problem, that is all."

Well, if both Orientale and I are agreed that the Greek Old Calendrists are not really applicable (and that's what started this exchange in the first place) then we're left with the mainline Orthodox and ROCOR. The problem is not near as big as he started with.

The situation with ROCOR and world Orthodoxy can not adequately be covered in just a few paragraphs. And I'm not so sure it's of interest to folks here. I will agree the ecclesial unity between ROCOR and the rest of world Orthodoxy is strained (though there is communion shared between some of our Churches and theirs). However, if we are to discuss unity of faith there is much more there. We have some notable differences to be sure. Ecumenical dialogue and how to apply Orthodoxy to our generation today are among those. But as to what we actually believe in our faith there is tremendous unity. We haven't had the same problem so far that the Catholic Church has had in this century with radical theologians. I think all of us know that, especially here in the US, there are some parishes in the Roman Church which are theologically liberal. I went through the RCIA in a Roman parish where I had to disregard about 1/4 of its lessons. I still vividly remember a retreat we took the Saturday before Holy Week where the pastor of the RC Cathedral parish made fun of those who believe there really was burning bush that Moses saw or that Christ multiplied the loaves and fishes. What bothered me the most was that everyone else was nodding in agreement and raved about how great his lecture was. I kept my silence. I was enduring RCIA to enter the Catholic Church. But, it's stuff like this (and I think everyone here can relate to similar such problems) that comes to mind when I hear antagonistic rhetoric from people like Orientale about Orthodox "disunity." To such I say: take out the beam that is in your eye.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dave:

The Catholic Church tolerates, and always had tolerated, different schools of theology within its boundaries – even solely within the confines of its Western, Latin, variant. While it may be true that some Catholics sometimes go a bit far in one direction or the other, the basic tenets of faith are held in common. This is the same in Orthodoxy – albeit in Orthodoxy the folks who go a bit far tend to be more on the ‘conservative’ side than on the ‘liberal’ side, that is all. And the fact that most converts from Catholicism to Orthodoxy tend to hate so-called ‘liberal’ theology with a passion tends to lead to a focus on the ‘liberals’ in the Roman Church and not the ‘conservatives’ in some Orthodox jursidiction or other.

Your experiences in RCIA are not that important, Dave – no more important than my anecdotal experiences with Orthodox clergy have been (i.e., folks advising Catholic would-be converts to divorce their non-Orthodox wives – I kid you not). What deserves discussion is what the Catholic Church teaches – not what one’s own limited experiences have been with one or the other local parish on either side.

But, more importantly, your post brings up another central point: namely that at least some Orthodox, particularly among the convert ranks, are in search of a level of truth and uniformity of belief which never existed in the Church. What, precisely, is the problem with theological diversity within the Church? Does the Byzantine school of theology have the monopoly on “Truth”? Do the Latins need to become Byzantinized in order for communion to be restored? Sometimes I get the sense from some Orthodox that Roman Catholics ought to become Byzantine in theology – and then they can keep their “Mass”, like some comic imitation, in reverse, of what happened to Greek Catholics in earlier centuries, when Roman Catholics insisted on Roman theology, whilst retaining Eastern ritual (something which is not workable, as the ritual grows out of and is nourished by the theology, as you well know).

What does unity of faith really mean? Does it mean that everyone follows the same theological school – i.e., the Byzantine? Or that one’s own theological school, on points of difference, must be altered so as to conform to the Byzantine school? The real problem here is that often in the minds of at least some Orthodox the word “byzantine” is synonomous with “orthodox”.

We have full and complete unity of faith with our Latin Catholic brothers and sisters. They simply express things differently than we do – as they always have and always will. We have effectively different theological schools functioning within the Catholic Church – as it has always been the case. I think, to be frank, that there are many Orthodox that are pretty uncomfortable with that concept, and who seem to think that the Roman Church needs to become Byzantine, or at least scrub itself of its non-Byzantine elements, in order to be “orthodox”. That is, again in my personal opinion, a grievous error.

orientale

Wendy,

Yes, I do deny it. The Pope is the spokesman of the collegial body of Bishops, not the dictator of dogma for the Church. Fortunately, Pope John Paul recognizes this and I wont have to break communion with him. Here's the document I was mentioning.

>From p. 12 of the weekly edition of L'Osservatore Romano, 4 June 1997:


Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical
International Marian Academy


Request for the definition of the dogma of Mary as Mediatrix,
Coredemptrix and Advocate


.....The Commission arrived at a twofold conclusion:


1. The titles, as proposed, are ambiguous, as they can be understood
in very different ways. Furthermore, the theological direction
taken by the Second Vatican Council, which did not wish to define
any of these titles, should not be abandoned. The Second Vatican
Council did not use the title "Coredemptrix," and uses "Mediatrix"
and "Advocate" in a very moderate way (cf. _Lumen gentium_, n. 62).
In fact, from the time of Pope Pius XII, the term "Coredemptrix" has
not been used by the papal Magisterium in its significant documents.
There is evidence that Pope Pius XII himself intentionally avoided
using it. With respect to the title "Mediatrix," the history of the
question should not be forgotten: in the first decades of this century
the Holy See entrusted the study of the possibility of its definition
to three different commissions, the result of which was that the Holy
See decided to set the question aside.


2. Even if the titles were assiged a content which could be accepted
as belonging to the deposit of the faith, the definition of these
titles, however, in the present situation would be lacking in
theological clarity, as such titles and the doctrines inherent in
them still require further study in a renewed Trinitarian,
ecclesiological and anthropological perspective. Finally, the
theologians, especially the non-Catholics, were sensitive to the
ecumenical difficulties which would be involved in such a
definition.

I am familiar with the organization you refered me to. My grandmother was one of those collecting signatures. Despite the above, they still hope for a change of mind that is not going to come from Pope John Paul and continue to act like the decision to not use the titles was not made. Again, I urge caution. Some groups are fringe and others schismatic pretending to be in communion with the Pope.

Lance Weakland


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings in the Truth,
Orientale- I have not become anger at your remarks in fact I have welcomed them with sincere humility. As Orthodox we know where the Church is and where it is not. We know what it is and what it is not. There is no fear in speaking of our shortcomings or achievements. We can talk day and night about this. I may use the same tactics on you to discuss disunity with Catholic splinter groups, or the large number of protestantized Catholics or the history of conflicting ethnic Catholics in America but I do not have the desire to do so. The Church has been around since 33AD and will continue to be led by the Holy Spirit. The problems we have in both of our Churches is the same problem Christ came to conquer---sin. Let us not continue speaking of the sins of fallen humanity in both of our Churches. I truly believe true belief is a practiced belief. Orthodoxy is Orthopraxy. The teachings of the Holy Apostles and Fathers need to be our standard of living not the sins of those who call themselves Orthodox or Catholics. What they teach must be seriously accepted. We live in a society that makes up lies, excuses,promotes violence, etc which are the fruits of the Devil. Let us not fall off the straight path. We need to pray and fast together and live a virtous life. When we see something wrong we need to say it is wrong. If we do not understand something we need to ask for clarification and not pretend we have the answers. I certainly do not claim to know the solutions to the problems with the Papacy or with Orthodox jurisdictionalism. Your remark regarding intercommunion between the various churches in the Middle East is true more or less. Communion is even given to the Syriac and Coptic Orthodox Christians in our Churches on the unofficial level. However, in the near future this 1500 year breach will be healed on the official level. For people like Tim, they will continue to walk the earth with a plank in their eye. Tim is the type of person that will walk away from a pit that you have fallen in and tell you that you deserved it. Let's assume that my Patriarch and I are heretics how do you react to us? Do you continue to bad mouth us? Or do you come to save us from the pit? Or do you bury us alive because we are not worthy of salvation? Is this what Christ would do, Tim? Tim, I may view you as a heretic but I will not refrain as some will from an open and sincere discussion with you or any heretic. Because we are commissioned by Christ to preach the Gospel even though you have judged my Patriarch and I as heretical. I urge you to take the plank out of your eye hypocrite before you can even suggest one in my eye or anyones eye for that matter. I as an Orthodox have a duty to God and to humanity to do what is right and to deny Satan. There will always be issues that need to be settled once and for all. The Apostolic teachings are very clear to those who try to manipulate the Church and Her teachings about Christ that it is satanic.
In Christ,
Robert

Robert,

You wrote:

"Let us not continue speaking of the sins of fallen humanity in both of our Churches. I truly believe true belief is a practiced belief. Orthodoxy is Orthopraxy."

AMEN!

I regret going around the mulberry bush on this one, but you have stated the point succinctly and well. True belief is what one lives in practice. There are many Eastern Catholics who are Orthoprax, and these certainly are therefore also Orthodox, spiritually if not 'canonically'.

Indeed, let us pray and fast together that we may grow in Christ!

Orientale

Lance,

I do not understand your definition of “dogma” that you imply a Pope could be a “dictator of dogma.” The content of a dogma is truth revealed by God. I consider these dogmas tremendous gifts, protecting us from wasting our lives on specious speculation that may lead us into heresy (like guard rails keep my car from going over a cliff); and directing the kingdom of God in transforming the world. (I do not think it was a coincidence that the dignity of women became world policy after the dogma of the Assumption of Mary was proclaimed.)

Does anyone on this forum ever consider the huge responsibility of an infallible papacy on the poor sinner who sits on the Chair of Peter? If he fails to proclaim dogmas within their window of opportunity, he risks chaos in the Church and in the world. Yet, he must die before proclaiming a false doctrine as dogma. I have no doubt that if my Pope decided tomorrow to pronounce ex cathedra a false teaching, he would die in his sleep tonight (as did John Paul I).

Wendy

Dear Wendy,

Dogma is an expression of eternal truth so I'm unsure about your reference to windows of opportunity. The Assumption of Mary has been around as a feast day almost since Mary's dormition, commemorated with great dedication in the Orthodox world without it being dogma. A pope can declare dogma at any time. I'm sure he has access to the notes of his predecessors. Some time may be better than others times, but it shouldn't reflect on the ultimate truth of a matter.

Technically the Pope can be a "dictator" of dogma. In modern parlance we do associate "dictator" with "despot," but this is not necessarily the case. A dictator is simply one who dictates laws, judgements, etc. It is a much more efficient form of government than a republic, but the quality of government depends on the quality of the individual doing the "dictating" since it lacks any checks and balances.

What "untruth" did JP I pronounce (or almost pronounce) that caused his demise?

Dear Robert,

You have said that you are not a heretic, yet you trample upon Holy Tradition set forth by the Holy Fathers, Saints, Martyrs and Councils. You talk about a plank in my eye? Yes, I have personal short comings and commit sin. We all do. Why dont you follow your own words and not condemn those of personal sins! I have not judged you or your Patriarch for personal sins, so therefore how can I be a hypocrite? Are all of the Holy Martyrs hypocrites because they died for the faith? My friend, they died for standing up for the truth, just as I. You really can see who is Orthodox and who is not. There are many examples of how and why you are not Orthodox.

The disciples asked the Lord to tell them what will be the sign of His coming and the end of the world; and Christ, answering, begins with the words; "Take heed that no man deceive you." The danger of deception, then, shall be frightening in the last days; and that because "many shall come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and shall deceive many." Many will come saying that they are Christ, or that they are His representatives or have been sent by Him, or are teachers of Christianity, people who will claim to be Christians without really being so. And they will not remain without evoking a response in men's hearts, but they will lead many into deception.

Christ, then, is not speaking of God's obvious enemies; He is not speaking of the materialists, of the communists, or the atheists, but of those who appear as friends of God, as Orthodox without really being so in truth. It is from them that Christ wishes to save the faithful, because they are His great enemies, the hypocrites, "those able to deceive."

It is really amazing that you could call me a heretic without even proving it! Please show me were I am in heresy, so that I may repent and proclaim the True Faith! That is how anyone should be, willing to repent and be in the True Faith, instead of knowingly being in heresy ( which I have shown that your bishops are) and trying to pull the wool over the sheeps eyes. Unfortunately for the evil-one, Orthodoxy has Holy Tradition to follow, which includes the Holy Scriptures, oral teachings, writings of the holy fathers, saints and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, which by the way can never be overturned and thrown into the trash.

The saints and Ecumenical Councils say we must never be in communion with heretics, and yet you admitt this is being done. How can you have communion with someone with a different faith? What is communion anyways? Why is it so important to remember the Holy Apostles words: "One faith, One Lord, One baptism"?

It is my prayer that all come to the knowledge of the truth and are united to the Body of Christ. I have many neighbors and friends who are not Orthodox, I love them as I love myself. If we love Jesus, we must follow His commandments, as He tells us in the Gospels. I will and do help my fellow humans in anyway possible to fulfill the Godly commandment. But when it comes to the Faith there can be no compromise, as St. Mark of Ephesus says. IF you loved your neighbor wouldnt you lead him to the One True Faith, instead of misleading him and telling him 'as long as you are a good person that is enough'? How is that true love? To assist the evil-one in destroying his soul?

I also hope that the Monophysites and Latins will accept Orthodoxy without compromise. How can one be in communion with Monophyites and claim to love the saints? What about Saint Maximus the Confessor? surely you would think he was a fanatic. Well it turns out that he was not in heresy or schism, even though that is what the Patriarchate of Constantinople called him. It was just the opposite, wasnt it? I think you get my point here. If it is no big deal to be in communion with those with a differing faith than I guess St. Maximus lost his tongue and right hand in vain. Of course, I dont believe that! Did the martyrs die in vain? Not even close.

Well there is so much more that could be said, but this will suffice for now.

God bless!

Timothy, reader

Dear Tim,
You have more than once insulted me and labeled my patriarch as heretic. Is it because we tend to listen more than we talk? How much talking do you do versus listening? You do not appreciate the idea of dialogue because you think it leads to compromising the Faith. This is false, Tim. Christ always was in dialogue with those that needed to be saved without compromising His mission. As to having communion with those who still label the Coptics, Armenians, Syrian as monophysites are in the wrong. That means you and the like. The problems between us and them have been mainly a lack of communication in particularly semantics. I wonder how fluent you are with this issue. Once the 1500 year breach is healed on the official level you will not take any credit for being the peacemaker. This communion is happening now as we speak and no thanks to your ignorance on this sensitive matter. If you only knew the issues that truly separated us from them you would have a deeper sense of appreciation for them. But because you do not know,it is easier for you to continue bad mouthing them and enforcing the categorization of heresy upon them. Do you think they would even begin listening to a person of your caliber who consistently bombards them as heretics? In the final analysis, you will be corrected and know what is Orthodoxy. At the present time you suffer from a social ill called TRADITION ALONE. And alone you will be. I pray for your return.
In Christ,
Robert

Bill Mo,

I guess what I mean by “window of opportunity” is the appropriate time for a doctrine of the Church to be introduced to the world. All dogma is already believed by the faithful, but at certain points in history, disbelief enters the ranks of the Church, which begins to be passed down to the faithful. At this time, the Pope must infallible declare the dogma, to silence the false teachers and protect his flock. It has the added advantage of proclaiming to the spiritually-disadvantaged of the world that there is truth beyond their mundane physical existence. It is Our Lord Jesus saying, “Come and see!” Being of a mystic nature (when I am not making a nuisance of myself on this forum), I also see the proclaimation of dogmas as a “making incarnate” of Christ in the world; part of the mystery of the recreation of the Earth.

I mentioned John Paul I, because his death after only 33 days had a profound effect on me. It was like the explosion of the Challenger. It brought home to me the truth that the Church is the living Bride of Jesus Christ, and He will defend Her at any cost. He chose Peter and continues to choose his successors and protect them from error for love of His Bride. Only God and His Saints know why He allowed a Pope to rule only 33 days, but I sometimes wonder why dogmatic pronouncements are so rare in the present papacy, when heresy is running rampart in the pews.

Wendy

SMILE EVERYONE! GOD LOVES US MISERABLE SINNERS!

Hello Robert,

You know nothing of me personally. You dont know that one of my closest friends is a Coptic priest! Fr. Mathais is a really nice person and has good intentions. If it were up to him, he would embrace all of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, not just 3 of them. But the fact is, the Coptic pope of Alexandria has no intention of accepting those 7 ecumenical councils, neither do the Patriarchates of "world orthodoxy" expect them to do so.

It is true that in the early 90's the coptic church has now agreed that Jesus has 'two natures', human and divine. All that needs to be done is that they must agree and accept the authority of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. We all pray that the Monophysites will embrace the orthodoxy of the holy martyrs and saints.

In Brookline, Mass. there is a small community of Coptic Monophysites who visit one of our Monasteries. They come to us so that they may see an "Orthodox" monastery, since they have no monastic establishments in the area. Our bishops have opened their arms with love towards them, and allow them to visit at anytime. Our clergy know many Monophysite clergy as well, and they do talk. So before you accuse me of not being nice to monophysites , you should get to know me first. You talk alot about personal sins and shortcomings of others. I never talked about or judged anyones personal sins or shortcomings, me being the worst!!! But I will continue to speak out about "doctrinal" transgressions! Dont expect anything less from me!

I know more of the issue than you wished I did. Let me just quote a few lines of the agreed statements reached by the Patriarchates of Antioch and the Monophysites in Syria (of course it includes all of the so-called monophysites and Patriarchates). I will not quote the documents concerning intercommunion, since it is not a issue here, you and I both know there is intercommunion:

Second Agreed Statements , 28, September 1990

8) Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage. In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 are the teachings also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church.

10) Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of anathemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and Fathers previously anathemized or condemned are not heretical.

Steps to be taken:

A. The Orthodox should lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Oriental Orthodox COuncils and fathers whom they have anathematized or condemned in the past.

B. The Oriental Orthodox should at the same time lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Orthodox Councils and fathers, whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

C. The manner in which the anathemas are to be lifted should be decided by the Churches individually.


Just a few comments.

1) in section 8 they call the last four Ecumenical Councils "the four later councils". The reason? Because the Monophysites will never accept the authority of all 7 Ecumenical Councils. So what they did was choose certain things out of those "four later councils" and say that they agree with it!

2) in section 10 they tell us that in order to have full and official communion ( which in reality they enjoy such commuion now) all of those who were condemned at the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils will need to be overturned! How can that be? Do we know more than our holy saints and martyrs? Truly the wisdom of this world is foolishness!!! In otherwords, they can keep their saints and we can keep our saints. Even though their saints were proven heretical by their teachings. The True Orthodox Church has always believed that the Holy Spirit had guided ALL SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS.. Are we now more truthful and more knowing than our ALL-KNOWING GOD!!!??? The spirit of the anti-christ is alive and well in 'world orthodoxy', and its aim is to unite all religions.... against the One True Faith. Have you read your Bible or the fathers of the Church lately?

I think this is enough for now.

May God bless and guide you!

Timothy, reader

To Tim whom I beg God's mercy upon,
I am not moved by your remarks and I am going to be a bit harsh on you. I hope on this thread to be the last of my replys to you. I am aware of your kind. You are an outcast because of the way you speak of those, "worldly Orthodox",in a condecending manner. You speak as if you had authority which you do not. God might goes as far to test you by turning your bishop to a "worldly Orthodox" one day. What do you do? Do you leave him and go start a new church as Protestants do? Or obey him with full obeidence even when he is wrong? You probably would flee him as you have advocated earlier. Are you sure you are not a Protestant in Orthodox clothing? Think about it.Your conspiracy theory of the "worldly Orthodox uniting all religions against the One True Faith" is a figment of your imagination. Get REAL! Your mindset is way off. Only a heretic would accuse me and place words into mouth by stating I have trampled on Holy Traditions. Do you even know me? I know that you do not. Satan has possessed you. Satan thinks he is clever and witty by using you as his spokesman. You are correct when you stated that you have not judged me or my Patriarch for personal sins because you are not God Almighty.However, deep down in your darkened soul you have told me that I was a heretic because I am in communion with my Patriarch whom you reject. Denying this brings no credibility to you. I urge you to repent and confess your sins. Hypocrite, you have already judged me and the "worldly Orthodox" as heretics. But you cannot be one of us because you live in some utopian world where truth is exclusively yours. Fundamentalism is your domain. If you ever desire to be saved we will be there to pull you out of the deep, dark pit you have fallen into. You did also state"it is really amazing that you could call me a heretic without proving it".When you label "world Orthodoxy" as heretical what do you think they are going to call you, faithful? Your fundamentalism is the plank in your eye. Shame on you, Tim. You have much talent that is being wasted into a heretical mindset. This conversation has become a contest for you because you think you know the Truth. You have become well known for preaching your fundamentalism through your conversations on this thread and in Catholic chat rooms. You are right when you say that I know nothing personally of you. But I do challenge you to tell your Coptic priest friend that he is a Monophysite, heretic and that his faith in Christ is in vain because you are right. I would love to see the reaction he would give to you. You will not have one single friend. He would have every right to label you a heretic and an ignoramous. How on earth are you so certain that the Coptics " will never accept the authority of all 7 Ecumenical Councils?" Are you God the Holy Spirit? God will turn your wisdom into foolishness. The time is coming and no one will know the time or the hour but you,Tim, think you do. May God lead you to the One ,Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and away from Satan.
In Christ,
Robert

Dear Robert,

Did you know you did not quote one source of holy tradition to support your un-orthodox pronouncements? In fact, you spoke against holy tradition when you said that one is not to flee his bishop if he be in heresy!! Really???? Where did you get that teaching from? Certainly not from the whole of Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church. Have you ever heard of the the 15th canon of the First and Second Council of Constantinople? Perhaps you should read before you speak against the saints and Holy Spirit whom inspired that council.

It is the holy canons that tell us who the heretics are, not those who themselves are guilty of doctrinal transgressions. I teach nothing new, I just abide the best I can to what has already been proclaimed as the Truth. I follow what the saints and holy fathers have to say about the faith, not those who have changed the faith.

Father Mattias' son visited MT.Athos in 1992, to see the historical sites. When the monks at one of the monasteries found out he was a Copt, they yelled; 'heretic, a monophysite heretic is here!!!!', and they ran him of of Mt. Athos. Now those are the monks you are in communion with. Even after their bishops signed agreements with the Monophysites they still called them heretics. Isnt that strange? We dont have to call them heretics to their faces, they know we have differences. After all it is Holy Tradition that defines what is heretical, not me. Who am I? I am no one! All we can do is not only to teach the truth but live it. What good is it to say that I must repent when you are full of worms? You should not judge others of personal shortcomings and sins, for the judgement you use, so should you be judged. As I said. I dont judge others for sins. I have my own struggles to worry about without having to judge others. I always say that everyone should have a spiritual father to guide them. After all we are supposed to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow our Savior. That is what it takes to be a real disciple of Christ.

IF you could, please let me know which teaching of the Orthodox Church I reject, so that I may correct myself and proclaim the True Faith. Oh, and while you are at it, check and see which heresy I am in, and which doctrinal transgressions my bishops teach, so that I may tell them. My bishops do not want to be in heresy for 1 minute. So please, let me know.. For love of God and neighbor are primary.

God bless!

Timothy, reader http://www.churchsurf.net/users/ca/sposf_cc/

Robert,

I do forgive you, Amen!

Timothy, reader

Tim,
I am correct about you. You are what we call a Protestant Orthodox. In regards to heresy, you say run. We say fight. Fight by helping those to see Christ. However, the only thing you are good at is heresy. I have made many examples for you to learn what I have been saying. Unfortunately, you want to hear what you to hear. If I fell in a pit(heresy), you would abandon me rather than save me. I would trust a samaritan over you. You live in a pit of heresy which only you can pull yourself out of. I pray for you but you would tell me not with me.
In Christ,
Robert

Tim wrote: When I was a new calendarist, I went to the Holy Virgin Cathedral with my two children
to venerate St. John of SF. They gave communion to my children even though we were
under Constantinople at that time... Ecumenists???? You bet!!!!"

Do Byzantine Catholics have a lunatic fringe too?
ROCOR ecumenical? Communing children? Please get a grip on your sectarianism, it's not what faith is about.

John

Dear John,

Yes, ROCOR are ecumenists. Whats wrong with that? Well, nothing if that is what they always practiced and believed. But it was not!

Today my friends in the GOA still take communion at the Holy Virgin Catheral in SF. I dont have a problem with that, I am not in communion with either one.

John, is it for a priest or bishop in the ROCOR to give communion to a monophysite? That is what did happen in Houston, Texas, with the bishops permission.. All of these and many other doctrinal transgressions are will documented.

Is it possible that an Episcopalian minister could concelebrate with an ROCOR priest in a marriage ceremony in an ROCOR church? IF that Episcopalian minister is allowed to concelebrate in that rite, does that mean his sacraments are valid? I am sure you already know that such a thing happened in Washington D.C. in an ROCOR church! We have the video!!!

Why did almost half of the clergy and people in the US and France leave the ROCOR in the late 1980's? Why did Abbot Adrian of the ROCOR just leave his jurisdicition this year if nothing is going on. Why have monastics recently left that church in New York?

The saints have been called worse names and endured more tortures than I have so far. I am awaiting the time when shedding my blood for my faith will be required. Where is your love John?

I forgive you for everything you said and feel against me.

God bless!

Timothy, reader

HELP!

Can we all get along here? We're all Orthodox Christians of one sort or other -- we need to love one another, not approach one another.

I'd like to share a wonderful quote in this regard from Fr. Alexander Men, of blessed memory:

"The first Christians managed to find balance without becoming a sect: without isolation from others they found a unique way. Of course there was always the danger of becoming a sect, some sort of club. Why is the Church not a sect? Because it is open to the whole world. The sectarian mindset closes itself from people, and a kind of distortion and collapse ensue: the whole world is considered either immersed in sin, or insufficiently worthy of these chosen ones, or already predestined by God for destruction, or a host of other things. We find this mindset even among those who consider themselves Orthodox, Baptist or whatever. 'Let the world out there go up in blue flame, that doesn't concern us!' This is the sectarian mindset. 'Here we remain, the chosen ones, the saved ones.'" From "About Christ and the Church", Fr. Alexander Men.

I think Fr. Alexander has a great point -- namely that when we begin to see even our fellow Christians in a sectarian manner, we lose the spirit of Christianity. Instead we must constantly encounter one another, in openness and charity, without any preconditions, other than the love of Christ which binds us together as brothers in spite of our sinful divisions.

Orientale

Dear Wendy,

I do sympathize with the general rot affecting western Christendom in particular, but I don't think it neccessitates the Pope pronouncing more dogma. The problems are even more fundamental than that. It requires defense of basic tenets of the faith, the nature of the sacraments, etc. Alot of individuals "house of faith" are built on unsolid foundations. New dogmas now are like trying to do algebra if you don't understand addition. Clergy and laity groups that don't "get it" need to be disciplined or re-educated as to the basics of the faith. The last thing the RC church needs is to become more like the Episcopal church. The lack of will to correct the errant for the good of their souls, although it may hurt their "feelings" has long been and continues to be the downfall of the Anglican world in the west.

I wouldn't be too suspicious about JP I and his theological inclinations. Maybe the poor fellow just had a bad ticker. As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." The most curious rumors I heard was that he was assasinated because he was going to reform the Vatican bank. As a pseudo-political office as well, there's always a certain amount of intrigue surrounding positions of power. Maybe it simply served as a reminder to all of us that even the most outwardly favored by God can be "called home" at any time. Fame is fleeting after all.

Pray for me a poor sinner.

Bill

Stay and fight?

Does a Doctor treat a burn victim by turning a blow torch on himself? How than can you stay and fight when you know not what you fight? What exactly is there for you to fight that you must stay?

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."

Dear in Christ,

My Brothers Timothy and Robert,

Please you wish to continue your vis-a vis discussion accusing one another of heresy, and the like; please take it "off-list". If you continue with the vitriol, on this list to which we Orthodox are guests (!!) I shall close this thread, and any subsequent thread which may cause such personal reaction.
I felt this was a worthwhile thread until all these personal attacks began. Please either control your exuberance, or find another venue which relishes such things.

Father Kyrill
Moderator

Dear Father Kyrill,
Thank you very much for your interference in the above discussion.God Bless!

Forgive me Fr. Kyrill.
I should know better than to be goaded and then arguing in here - a forum to learn about and share with Byzantine Catholics.
From the intelligent and objective messsages I have read in here, in seems many participants can distinquish between the various orthodox jurisdictions quite nicely while still maintaining their Byzantine Catholic understanding of things. I find that refreshing, since we Orthodox oftimes become the prey of our own hunting! And I do think the thing to do would be to "take it outside" to private e-mail or another forum (and there are others where folks can hurl anathemas to their hearts content). So forgive my "fringe" remark to the Reader Timothy - though I will only add that fringe plays an important role in Byzantine vestments and altar clothes, no?
To all who will go to your pilgrimage in Uniontown, many blessings!

In Christ,
John

Dear Fr. Kyrill,
Forgive me.

Yours in Christ,
Robert

Thank you for your comments.

I am sorry for not sticking to the subject matter "First among equals". I will try to stick to the subject at hand, as I am sure everyone else will.

This forum, East-N-West, is a nice one. Because it is not just a Roman or Eastern Catholic opinion, but of all the different Faiths and/or denominations. If someone doesnt like the point of view of another they should try and be silent about it, right? That would be hard indeed.

Thank you for the 'warning'! And your idea of taking any disagreements outside of this forum was good, I had recieve already one not so nice e-mail by John. But that is okay because I explained myself in detail to him by e-mail aswell.

Have a blessed weekend!

Timothy, reader

John P.,

Thanks for your participation in this forum and for your comments. Although there are currently issues that keep the members of the various Byzantine jurisdictions (Catholic and Orthodox) from full eucharistic communion, we all hope and pray that they will be soon resolved and that we may once again partake of the same chalice.

Until then, please know that whenever we are in a Byzantine Church of any jurisdiction and see the Gospel Book raised on high and hear the priest proclaim "Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", we know that we are among family.

My Gosh Folks!

I do not intend for anyone to fight here. I only wanted to learn about "First Among Equals."

Please do not call each other a heretic! Only Protestants are heretics. Orthodox and Catholic believe the same thing, basically. Because we share the same Seven Mysteries (Sacraments), same Tradition, same First Seven Councils, etc.

I dare ask you folks this question:

Do the Orthodox believe that the Catholic is also a True Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 A.D.???

If you don't, then I am so very very sadden and sorry. I pity so.

I ask this because I'm a Catholic and I believe that the Orthodox is also a True Church. Actually, I believe that the Catholic and Orthodox are ONE Church. We are just barely broken apart, but not completely. I know that we have full communion between two churches but it's all *imperfect* and *incomplete*.

When I go to the Orthodox Church, I make the sign of the Cross and touch the Floor to express my belief in the Presence of Our Lord in the Tabernacle. (Touching the Floor is like genuflection in the Roman Church).

I fully believe the Orthodox priesthood is valid, so are all the other Mysteries.

In return, I expect some respect from the Orthodox towards the Catholic!!! I'm not asking, I'm expecting! I am sadden by the hatred by Orthodox towards Catholic. Why are we stabbing each other when we are actually on each other's side? We should be together and stab out heresy amoung Protestants, Muslims and other religions.

It's no wonder why Our Lord Jesus prayed so that "All may be one..." Perhaps He knew ahead of time what His Church would have become to.

Hey, let's chant together now...

"We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen."

Thank you.
spdundas