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