To all:

There are four distinct 'communions' in the Church: (1) the Catholic Communion, (2) the Orthodox Communion, (3) the Oriental Orthodox Communion, and (4) the Churches of the East. We are all in schism from one another in jurisdiction and attitude. Yet we all recognize each other's sacraments as being valid (except for the extreme conservatives on both sides of the schism who only think they are going to heaven!).

There is obviously two 'planes' of communion: on one hand we are united by Eucharist, and on the other hand we are separated by our schisms. It is wonderful that Our Lord - in the Eucharist - still binds us as one church. We often forget this obvious commonality. It is sad that our administration of that church is poor. What would St. Paul think of our schisms? What would our Lord say to us in our desire to be the greatest and sit closest to him? Roman Catholic apologists 'believe in the Pope' and that is all there is. Orthodox scoff at Peter's successor trying to justify their side of the story. The little people suffer (in marriage and in community) when the bishops and priest theologians fight over processions, spirations, and emanations. Does the Muslim have a reason to find humor in all of this? Can we really look in the mirror and see this clearly?

Eucharistic communion. The forgotten communion which Christ still maintains in the Holy Spirit. We can't screw this type of communion up like we did our charge to administer and serve the church. We are all schismatics. Our we proud of our legacy? Our we proud of our heritage of hate, pride, and self-righteousness. Oh, how we forget the story of the Publican and the Pharisee.

Elias

Let us see what our holy Confessor Maximus had to say concerning this:

The patrician Epiphanius, breathing fury turned angrily to the Saint: "Tell us, you malicious old man, possessed of an evil spirit! WHy do you make such speaches? DO you consider us all heretics, as well as our city and our Emperor? Know that we are more Christian than you are, and more Orthodox.

Then:

"Then you alone will be saved, "When all the people in Babylon were worshipping the golden idol, the Three Holy Children did not condemn anyone to perdition. They did not concern themselves with the doings of others, but took care only for themselve, lest they should fall away from true piety. In precisely the same way, when Daniel was cast into the lion's den, he did not condemn any of those who,fulfilling the law of Darius, did not wish to pray to God, but he kept in mind his own duty, and desired rather to die than to sin against his conscience by transgressing the Law of God. God forbid that I should condemn anyone or say that I ALONE AM BEING SAVED! However, I shall sooner agree to die that to apostatize in any way from the true Faith and thereby suffer torments of conscience."

And you know what? It was the holy Confessor who was right, and all others in his "world orthodoxy" were wrong.

You teach an interesting new gospel, of course we are to reject such a gospel as commanded by the holy Apostle. Where in all of Holy Tradition is it spoken of many 'Communions' in the One Church??? Let me answer for you. NO WHERE!!! So you see why an Orthodox Christian cannot admit that those outside of her have saving-grace. We are saved through the Church. Which Saint was it that preached the 'branch-theory'??? Let me answer for you. NONE!!!

So your charge against us who do not accept this deviation from the Holy and blameless Faith, reminds me very much of the time of Saint Maximus. They called him schismatic and outside the church because he did not commune with them. He was right not to commune with those who had compromised the Orthodox Faith. Why do ask others to do that ?
Timothy, reader

And which church did Maximus the Confessor run to for protection? If all others 'outside' of your communion are heretics, then why do you bother dealing with those who post messages on this board?

Are you enjoying the schism?

Elias


[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 11-15-1999).]

When the heresy arose in Constantinople, he fled to the outlying Chrysopolis Monastery to escape it, and finally he fled to the West. In the begining, he simply wanted to be allowed to live quietly with people who were Orthodox. Because of his holy life, he was appointed abbot of the Chrysopolis Monastery.

The saint was seized by the Byzantine authorities in Rome, and sent back to Constantinople in chains. So, was he really protected? YEs, by his holy Orthodox Faith. Glory to God in His saints!!!

Schism is nothing to be proud about. St. Paul says that their must be divisions among you, so that those who are in the Truth may be made manifest. So, we know they exist. But we are to remain faithful to the teachings of the holy Fathers and saints of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Timothy, reader

Reader Timothy:

In reference to Maximus the Confessor you write: This does not agree with the information I have. You are correct that he left Constantinople, but he was "escorted" to Thrace by the emissaries of the Patriarch, Paul, and Emperor Constance. From there he was taken to Caucasus where he died.

Fr. Deacon Edward

I stand by my statement.

When the soldiers arrived to take him into captivity, the clergymen lifted the Saint in their arms and sat him on his horse. Then they embraced him with tears, said farewell to him, and returned to their town. And the Saint was led away to Perveris, and there confined to prison. (The account of Anastasius the apocrisiarius ends here. Any other text is based on primary sources which are also to be found in Migne, PG 90, 91.)

"A long time passed, five years to be precise, and the Emperor again sent to fetch Saint Maximus and both his disciples from prison to Constantinople. When they reached the city by ship, as the sun was setting, two captains of the guard appeared with ten soldiers. They removed them from the ship half naked and unshod, and locked up each one separately."

653 St. Maximus is seized and brought to Constantinople in chains, then sent in exile to Bizya of Thrace.

654 St. Maximus is brought back to Constantinople for a second interrogation adn is exiled again, this time to Perveris.

659 St. Maximus is brought again to Constantinople where he is interrogated and tortured. After a public flogging, his tongue is uprooted and his right hand is cut off. He is sent again into exile and imprisonment to the Fortress of Schemarum on the Black Sea.

659 Schemarum,where the saint reposed, was located in Alania in the western Caucasus(Jan.21,662)

Timothy, reader

P.S. Thank you for allowing me to be more thourough!

Noble Reader Timothy is essentially correct in his accounting of the arrest of Maximos the Confessor. He was seized in Rome by troops of the Byzantine Exarch of Ravenna and transported to Constantinople, then exiled to a monastary (it was not a rigorous imprisonment). He remained there for some years, then was taken back to Constantinople, tried for treason, convicted, and had his hand and tongue cut off. He died shortly thereafter, probably of complications from his ordeal. Hence, Maxiomos is a "confessor" in the sense of having borne witness to the faith under torture.

However, it should be noted that Pope Martin was also arrested at the same time, and while not subject to torture (he was, after all, a bishop, while Mazimos was a mere layman), he, too was abused in an attempt to have him recant the Chalcedonian faith.

Reader Timothy,

Thanks for the additional information. I will make a note of it in my sources so that I do not make the same mistake again!

Fr. Deacon Edward

Some will take my next comments as a "poke"; I intend them only as a balance.

There have been some on this board who gloat about the modernist problems we are experiencing in the Roman Catholic communion. To be sure, the problems are serious enough and we all wish that RC bishops would do more to stop various abuses. But let us keep these things in historical perspective. It used to be that you could have your hand and tongue cut off, be thrown into a disease-ridden and rat-infested dungeon, or be thrust into a sack and thrown into the river, all for being a Chaldeconian Christian or for venerating icons. And your bishop, like as not, would look the other way. The bad liturgy and New Age foolishness of today are child's play by comparison.

To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton, the enemies of the Roman Catholic Church have predicted a dozen times that she was going to the dogs. But each time the dogs died and the Church emerged stronger than ever.

Vincent,

In some places an Eastern Catholic can have his churches taken away, dismantled, and/or burned while a whole people physically removed from their homeland while supposedly Chalcedonian Catholics looked the other way - or better yet - use the vacant Greek Catholic temples to house their pastor's sheep.

Elias

Elias,

I don't actually follow the intent of your post, but I certainly did not intend to start a litany of abuses. I'll delete my post if that is what it spawns. There's been too much of that here already.

Dear Vincent,

I do not intend to diminish the suffering of martyrs past, but bad liturgy and new-age-isms are perhaps even more destructive than outright persecutions. Hot conflicts bring out heroes and martyrs and expose the conflicts. The current atmosphere of PCness and conflict avoidence lets these damaging influences linger at eat away like acid. One need only look at what has happened to the Episcopal church over the past 30 odd years. People aren't being hacked to death, but people's faith is being destroyed from the inside because clergy can't be trusted to speak the truth anymore. The Catholic Church in the western, industrialized countries in North America and Europe are in danger of destroying themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the next two popes were to come from "below the equator" as a result.

Bill Mo,

You're right, of course. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is not the first time in the history of the East or the West when terrible things have happened to the laity and the shepherds of the Church failed in their duty to protect the flock.

[This message has been edited by Vincent (edited 11-16-1999).]

>>>I don't actually follow the intent of your post, but I certainly did not intend to start a litany of abuses. I'll delete my post if that is what it
spawns. There's been too much of that here already.<<<

I believe that Elias is referring to a number of unfortunate incidents in which the Roman Catholic Church has failed to honor its agreements with the Eastern Christians in communion with them, to the point of seizing and desecrating clerical property. This happened most recently in Poland, after World War II, when Greek Catholics were forcibly "latinized", their churches closed, and the property either given over to the Roman Catholic Church or allowed to rot. Granted, it was the Communist government that took the action, but in this case, the Latin clergy, like the Orthodox clergy in Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, merely looked on in silence, and reaped the "benefits" of that silence.

The Church, East and West, is utterly sinful in its members, and we do well to remember that. We also do well to remember when it is time to turn the other cheek, and forgive those who trespass against us.

Tim,

I am not trying to teach a new Gospel. The validity of Eucharistic communion is recognized on both sides of the schism even though our schism maintains an unhealthy brokeness in ecclesial life. Schism does not invalidate the Eucharist. How can our sins nullify Christ's presence? Is our sin mightier than the Holy Spirit?

Should we smile because of this tragedy? It is a mockery of Christ's love for us. The Muslim has reason to point the finger at us and say "See how they hate one another! They must be Christians!" Polemics and abuses in all quarters are unwelcomed. I wrote of four Communions because of OUR sins.

The East cannot deny its wholeness with its previous unity with Rome. The West cannot forget its past and inheritance from the other patriarchal churches. Hmmmmmm? I wrote 'churches,' a term which the Orthodox (and most recently the Uniates) use to describe themselves organically. Did Christ come to establish many churches? Did He not found ONE church? Yet we refer to our individual ecclesial commun(ion)ities as Churches. Where does this fit into your staunch defense of one-ness, Tim?

Does the nature of schism establish two churches where there was originally one? Is not schism a fracture and not a complete break? When the heirarchs admit the validity of each other's eucharist and sacraments - this tells me a lot. Does it not register? Will UNITY ever be founded on mere ecclesial grounds (a history of baphoons and lampoons, heretics and other things) - or will UNITY be founded and kept on Christ's presence ("I will be with you always.")?

Elias

I will not make a comment on what you just said. It is not my intention to offend you or others. I will take a different approach than what I used to, for the benefit of everyone.

So, I will pass this one up, even though it is most difficult to do so.

Peace!

Timothy, reader

Stuart,

All in all, I think the Poles have been less than helpful to Greek Catholics. But I do think in the particular item you cite, the Latin Church was inno position to do anything else. It was a very bad time for Catholics of all sorts. The Communists were determined to destroy the Greek Catholic Church, the only option was to latinize or adopt atheism.

Well said, Reader Timothy! You and I both struggle when we "let things slide." But it's good for our souls.

I'll pray for you; please pray for me.

>>>All in all, I think the Poles have been less than helpful to Greek

Catholics. But I do think in the particular item you cite, the Latin

Church was inno position to do anything else. It was a very bad time for

Catholics of all sorts. The Communists were determined to destroy the

Greek Catholic Church, the only option was to latinize or adopt atheism.<<<



Precisely. So if the Roman Catholic Church was in no position to do otherwise, then neither was the Orthodox Church in any position to do other than it did in regard to the Greek Catholics. The behavior of both left much to be desired, and just as the Orthodox Church (with few exceptions) has not atoned for its behavior, neither has the Roman Catholic Church atoned for what it did (or didn't) do to the Greek Catholics. To this day there are still Greek Catholic churches in Eastern Poland which have not been returned to their rightful owners. In many cases, the property is in the hands of the local Latin dioceses, some of which uses them for their own services, others of which are simply abandoned and decrepit.



Since both sides have sinned equally, it is time to put the argument away for good.

Tim,

You wrote: "I will not make a comment on what you just said. It is not my intention to offend you or others. I will take a different approach than what I used to, for the benefit of everyone. So, I will pass this one up, even though it is most difficult to do so."

I would really like to know what you have to say. Will you deny the validity of eucharistic communion? Are Roman Catholics just cookie worshippers? Come on! Who REALLY holds us together in Communion? Is it US in our ecclesial brokeness?


Vincent,

You wrote: "Well said, Reader Timothy! You and I both struggle when we "let things slide." But it's good for our souls."

We can't let our schism slide. We are all schismatics. Everyone of us who cannot LOVE are schismatics. Anyone who looks the other way from the validity of eucharist in both Catholic and Orthodox 'churches' (there I go again using that term again) and says in his/her heart "My eucharist has Christ's presence in it more than yours" is a plain fool, not a fool for Christ. The heretic Sethians thought their baptismal water was more 'special' than the Orthodox Christians. It was Living Water, not just plain ordinary water they would tell us. Yet they were plain Gnostics. The sacramental presence that makes eucharist is from the power of God, in the Holy Spirit - not in the formula of any special bread. The same goes for baptismal water. The same goes for Church communion.

Elias

I am not a schismatic or a heretic, but I am a sinner.

I think you know my views concerning the "mysteries" of others.

I will let others speak on this particular subject.

Tell you what, you go ahead and read what St. Basil has to say regarding this subject. I share the views of St. Basil and the other Church Fathers.

God bless,

Timothy, reader

Tim,

WE ARE ALL SCHISMATICS. What do you say in your heart? Do Roman Catholics worship cookies?

Elias

Let us not use our own interpretation as to what a schismatic is. We should listen to what the Canons tell us what a schismatic is. That is my criteria, Holy Tradition, not my own opinion.

Why do you persist? Why can you not accept my silence?

Timothy, reader

Tim,

What do the canons say about schism?

My other questions still stand: (1) Do Roman Catholics worship cookies? (2) Are the sacred mysteries in the Catholic Church - Eastern and Western - valid? Are they real?

The Latin treatment of the East during the Crusades is a hurt that runs deep. I can understand. Enthroning a prostitute on the altar of the Cathedral Church of Constantinople is a reflection of what they thought of the sacraments in the East. Should we, in turn, enthrone the prostitutes of our mind on the altars of the West by considering their eucharist invalid and illicit on the plane of Protestant communion services? Where is there forgiveness, man?

Why don't you answer in your own words instead of hiding behind silence? Do you ever think the East and West should re-unite. I write 're-unite' because they were both ONE communion. Both the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch nullified the mutual excommunications from 1054. Was this only symbolism over substance?

If you wish not to answer me then I will consider you in agreement with what I write based on the argument from silence. Thank you for your support. The fact that you still answered me with a post shows you are not silent yet.

Let's pray for forgiveness. I love the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. As a uniate (and proud of it!) I consider the ecclesial divorce as an insult to God's will if not a problem that arises with men personally. To date, I know of only male heretics - and most of them were ecclesiastics. Hmmmmm?

Elias

[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 11-17-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 11-17-1999).]

Hello,

I would love to answer you, and will. Just give me your e-mail and I will do as you wish.

Okay? Great! I cant wait!

Timothy, reader

Tim,

You can reach me here on this message board. Why the need for a side-board meeting? Is what you believe in private and what you profess publicly two different things? Please answer my previous questions.

Elias

Have you ever attended services at St. Nectarios American Orthodox Church in Seattle, WA?

If so, ask Fr. Neketas. He will be glad to help you.LOL

Timothy, reader

Tim,

Quit running behind Council statements and other people. Since you participate on this message board, I take it that you are quite competent to answer questions. I asked you several questions which you have yet to answer.

As a 'Reader' in the Church, you would respect my questions if you knew who I am. Yet, I ask you as a friend in Christ and considering you as a man. Can you not answer my questions regarding the eucharist and communion in general and the 'validity' of Roman Catholic eucharist in particular? It's time to fess up. Time to grow up, Mr. Reader.

Elias,
An Orthodox Christian in Communion with Rome

concerning the content of the myteries of Rome: one word; 'graceless'!

Timothy, the Orthodox reader

P.S. That is the teaching of the Orthodox Church and our Orthodox Bishops. This is not meant to be mean-hearted, but to be loving and truthful.

Without fanning the flames, I think I understand a bit of what Tim is saying.

The core issue is, I believe, what model of ecclesiology one adopts. The traditional (and I use that term loosely) ecclesiology of the Eastern Churches has been one of union based on the sharing of a common faith and sacraments. The Western Church (i.e., Roman Catholic) has a model of ecclesiology which is authority-centric.

Both, I think, have their flaws, and extremists on both sides serve only to demonstrate the respective weaknesses.

On the side of the Eastern extreme, one finds the 'protestantizing' tendency of defining 'Church' as those who accept a specific formulation of doctrine and who, essentially, live in the past, unable and unwilling to see doctrine and practice as an organic entity which grows and evolves. The 'True Church', in their view, consists only of those who reject the imaginary heresies of the Conspiracy Theorists and who cling to an 8th century weltanschauung.

On the extreme Western side, one finds the same tendency - to define the 'true church' as those who accept an ultramonatist definition. They, like the Lefevbre-ists, find themselves in the awkward position of having an ultramonatist church without a head. Very strange indeed! Just to the left of these strange birds are those who see 'heresy' around every corner, and who define themselves as being the Remnant within the body politic of the church.

Those in the middle, too, have their weaknesses. The Western model of ecclesiology has evolved into one in which the authority issue is paramount - legal authority to administer the Sacraments, legal authority to define doctine, legal authority to exercise, well, authority. The Eastern model of ecclesiology, without 'authority' as being a defining charastistic, has evolved into one in which things are done by consensus, and in which there is a centrality of 'charism', but one in which administrative squabbles abound.

From where I sit, I see each side suffering from the absence of the other. The West could use a strong infusion of collegiality and charism, and less of an emphasis on legalism, while the East could use a stronger central authority.

Perhaps we Byzantine Catholics have the best of both worlds, at least until the Schism is healed.

Dunedain,

Thank you for your response. You seem to have hit bullseye on some key issues. We can't live without each other. We are like children of divorced parents - no one parent is the 'truer' parent. It is hard to continue justifying brokeness and failure to love. Schism, with its weighted baggage of polemics and historical re-interpretation, is just like divorce. Poor model for 'church.' Maybe someday East and West will renew their Crowning in Marriage? Hopefully this will be something we can celebrate here in this life before the Eternal Banquet.

Elias

One last point.

I see one of the problems of the Eastern Orthodox communion of churches as not really knowing what's doctrine and what not doctrine. Not to sound trite, but the assertion that the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church are 'graceless' is something which is absolutely NOT agreed upon by the body politic of the EO communion.

Timothy's assertion of the 'gracelessness' of the Mysteries of the RC Church sounds suspiciously like the RC assertion that the Mysteries of the Anglican Communion of Churches are 'graceless' as well. Both approach the validity of the sacramental system from a highly legalistic point of view. In the EO view taken by Timothy, validity of the Mysteries is contingent upon the profession of a specific formulation of faith, which includes a de-facto rejection of the position of Peter as the unique titular head of the Church and universal pastor, as well as a host of other relatively unique formulations of docrine such as Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility, and so on.

In the RC view which is 'official policy' (as in the tome of Pope Leo XII), the Anglican Mysteries are deemed 'invalid' due to a legal viewpoint as to validity of intent of ordination to the Episcopacy. That point of view rests on the understanding of the sacrificial role of the Presbyter, one standing as 'alter Christus' in the Celebration of the Sacraments.

I find it seriously difficult to believe that the Saviour would see things from such a legalistic point of view, either from the RC or the EO perspective.

The fact of inter-communion and recognition of the 'validity' of a Sacramental life are things that have been highly fluid throughout Christian history. At various times, the Russian church has been in Communion with Rome, the Eastern Orthodox with the Anglican, the Anglican with the Lutheran, the Lutheran with the Old Catholics, and so on. It isn't nearly as cut and dried as many would have us believe.

IMHO, and strictly a personal one, I believe that God calls Christians to vocations within the entire body of Christian belief. Who am I to doubt that a person is called to understand and worship God as an Orthodox Christian, as an Anglican Christian, as a Byzantine Christian, or as any other flavor of 'Christian' that exists? It is certainly not up to me to judge for others - only to see if I am being authentic to the Christian vocation to which I am called. 'Judge not, lest ye be judged...' or something like that.

It is my opinion that the schisms that exist within the Body of Christ are due to sins against Charity. I was reading M. Scott Peck's 'Further along the road less travelled' the other day and found a very valid point - there has ALWAYS been diversity within the Church - including a diversity of churches.

My personal model of ecclesiology allows for seeing the Roman Catholic (including all the sui iuris churches which comprise it) as being the Fullness of Truth, and all other Christians attached to it by virtue of their baptism, some in less perfect communion than others. I think this was the model of ecclesiology put forth by the fathers of Vatican II. Makes sense to me, and allows for a more charitible understanding of the vocations of other Christians.

In my personal journey, I have at various times adopted different suits of clothes which all have bourne the label of 'Christian'. I was sincerely following God, and I find it incomprehensible to think that He would have rejected me or the Christian family I was a part of as being 'invalid'. The core of my spiritual life as a Christian has always been to have faith in Jesus Christ as my Saviour and to strive to do good works. I am reminded that

"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world." James 1:27

And this, regardless of what creed we profess as Christians.

Peace,

Dunedain

Dunedain,

You wrote: "...there has ALWAYS been diversity within the Church - including a diversity of churches."


In reading the scriptures, I can't ignore the sometimes totally diverse forms of Christianity are presented; I perceive this as the diverse Christian Continuum:

1. Radical Hellenistic Christianity - as represented by Stephen.
2. Moderate Hellenistic Christianity - as represented by Paul.
3. Moderate Jewish Christianity - as represented by Peter.
4. Radical Jewish Christianity - as represented by James.

Stephen went head-first into accepting Gentiles and rejecting Judaism. He got stoned. Bad tactic.

Paul became the hallmark of what would become typical Christianity. He was not one of the original Twelve, but his writings make up the bulk of the New Testament canon of scriptures!

I can't get over the feelings of fear in Peter when Jame's boys come down from Jerusalem for a visit. Peter is willing to eat with the Gentiles, then he absents himself because of Jame's elders. Paul reprimands Peter for his waffling - a characteristic of the 'rock.'

James, a bishop, got killed. Ersheim has some challenging things to say about him.

Elias