Dear Vincent,
Your remarks are based on your ignorance of the Church. I pray that you recant the evil that lurks in your mind. I have done my reading and continue to read. Unfortunately for people of your caliber they remain in the dungeon of their ignorance. Perhaps you need to do your own research to see if St. Peter ever established the Sees of Rome and Antioch. The Church historian Eusubius never said that the Saint did. Find for me in the history of the Church that St. Peter established the See of Rome or Antioch without being biased. Let's speak the truth. I am an Orthodox and I know you are a Catholic. Why don't we honestly discuss this issue in sincerity and perhaps also the unecumenical doctrines of the filioque,infallibility of the papacy, and the missing lung of the Roman Catholic Church which has difficulties breathing?
There certainly cannot be union with Orthodoxy until Rome recants and admits its faults. Rome needs to come clean of its original guilt against Orthodoxy. I am sort of curious does the Pope have Confession or is he above the Church?

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

<< I am sort of curious does the Pope have Confession or is he above the Church? >>

Uh, ahem, speaking of ignorance....

Mr. Sweiss, our Holy Father John Paul II confesses his sins to his confessor at least weekly. Not that it's really any of your or my business.

Does the Pope confess his sins indeed! This sort of ignorance, coupled with your off-the-cuff comments about inquisitions and Holocausts, suggests that I am not dealing with a teachable individual.

It is rather curious that you would use the supposedly significant silence of Eusebius against the testimony of the entire ancient Church, which believed as a matter of course that St. Peter held the bishopric of both Antioch and Rome. Before now I have only heard fundamentalist Protestants and modernist historians question it.

Anyway, I'm supposed to be here to learn, not to teach. I'm trying my best to hold my tongue (fingers), really, but some accusations are too outrageous to be left alone.

The attitude of Mr.Sweiss is not at all typical of the many Orthodox clergy and laity with whom I work in the Society of St. John Chrysostom, particularly in regard to the matter of Sister Churches. Does, for instance, Mr. Sweiss consider to be in error such Orthodox bishops as Vsevolod of Scopelos, Kallistos of Diocleia, Isaiah of Denver, or His Beatitude the late Patriarch Athenegoras? Does he realize that the term "two lungs" originated not with the current pope, or even with one of his predecessors, but with an Orthodox bishop?

Mr. Sweiss is scathing in his denunciation of supposed Catholic errors and heresies, but he demonstrates little familiarity with the intricacies of Latin doctrine, and little understanding of the position of the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome with regard to both the Orthodox Chruch and the Roman Church.

In his zeal to uphold what he sees as the fundamentals of "true Orthodoxy" (redundant, since Orthodoxy by definition is true), one can detect perhaps the misplaced fervor of the recent convert, who carries with him much baggage of his previous affiliations. I find it interesting that some of the most vehemently anti-ecumenical, and particularly anti-Catholic Orthodox I have met were not born to Orthodoxy, but had converted from either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. Perhaps their militancy has something to do with apologia pro vita sua, and not so much to do with what Orthodoxy actually teaches.

I myself, as a relatively new member of the Byzantine Catholic Church, know a little bit about "convert zeal", and I do not underestimate the value it brings, particularly to the Eastern Churches which for too long have been too complacent and introspective. But it can be something of a mixed blessing, particularly when people are converting "from" rather than "to" something, and when they continue to superimpose the categories and attitudes they assimilated in their previous affiliation. There has to be a willingness to listen, and to comprehend, but too often their is a great desire to go forth unto all nations with an apologetic armamentarium that consists mainly of simplistic attitudes and stock phrases. Time sometimes (but not always) cures this problem.

Glory be to God for all things!

This is a good subject, which alot could be said.

My first point is that no where in the first nine centuries of the Church the teaching that the Bishop of Rome has supreme authority over the WHOLE Church. It is true that Rome was an Apostolic Church, which used to hold the True Faith. There are many instances when the bishops of Rome and the East did not teach what was always believed. When asked by our Savior, Peter answered thus: "Thou art the Christ, the SOn of the living God." Jesus answered him and said, "Blessed art thou, SImon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church," etc.

These words mean nothing but this: "I say unto thee, whom I haave surnamed Peter because of the firmness of thy faith, I say to thee that this truth that thou hast professed is the foundation-stone of the Church, and that Error shall never prevail against it."

Point Two: The two lungs theory did come from the Patriarchates of the East. And was officially adopted at the signing of the Balamand Agreed Statement. Which was signed by both the Roman Catholic reps. and the Orthodox. Which basically states the neither church can say they are the SOLE Apostolic Church. That toghether they make up the Church. Also included, is the acknowledgment of Sacraments in both churches.

This and so many other reasons is why so many Traditional Orthodox are not in communion with the Patriarchates, by the fact of their new ecclesiology.

Timothy, reader

The other thing, before I sign off.

It is the official teaching of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, that it is okay to give communion to Roman Catholics, Monophysites and Anglicans. I have the document which has the blessings of the E.P.of Constantinople.

To Vincent,
If the Pope practices confession then the doctrine of the infallibility is false and heretical. The Late Patriarch Athenegoras has no right to speak on behalf of all Orthodoxy but his own church. The anethema remains as is and cannot be lifted until Rome recants serious heretical teachings.

For Stuart,
The union of Eastern churches under Rome's jurisdiction is nothing but false. I was baptized under the Patriarchate of Jerusalem as a child, attended American Roman Catholic schools for a short period, became agnostic in college, and thank God Almighty for my renewal into Orthodoxy. My parents married in a Greek Catholic Church in the Middle East. However, both my parents were originally baptized Orthodox. The only baggage I carried was during my college years was the false teachings of Western Christianity. Once I left college I threw everything I learned about Catholicism and Protestantism into the waste site. The Eastern Rite of Catholicism is deceiving because it appears Orthodox internally however Latin-controlled externally. I have no desire to be in communion with an entity that does not admit its faults. Many Orthodox people of the Middle East left for Catholicism because of the material wealth it supplied by means of missionary works. Rome came after Orthodoxy rather than Islam for converts. This is not first nor the last Roman incidence. Once I hear an apology for what Rome's conversion policies did in the Middle East and the malpractice of American Catholicsim in the U.S. I may entertain the thought of unity. However, for now I don't think so. Furthermore, the Balamand Statement is not binding upon me or for the rest of Orthodoxy. I don't know how many times these heretical statements will keep coming up. I will be the first to say that unfortunately we have had Patriarchs and bishops of the past who were heretical but in no way was Rome immune from heresy.

In Christ,
Robert sweiss

Dear Robert,

Are you telling all of us here that you are not in communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, who in turn is in communion with all other Eastern Patriarchates?

What jurisdiction are you in?

God Bless!

Timothy, reader

Dear Tim,
Please understand one thing I do not have control of who is Orthodox and who is not. What do we say of our past heretical Patriarchs and what did the Orthodox think then at the time of the Councils of Florence and Lyons? I dont expect you to answer this because I have anticipated your response. All I have to say is thank God that Orthodoxy does not subscribe to the doctrine of infallibility to any of our Patriarchs or bishops. Rome thinks otherwise until they rescind that heretical belief. We as Orthodox people are the most shameful people for not truly practicing Orthodoxy. I am not perfect and neither is mankind and we tend to err in our Orthodox practice both voluntary and unvoluntary and at times by words and deeds and knowledge and of ignorance. We live in sin and require Holy Confession and guidance by Christ our God. There are many who call themselves Orthodox but are they what they preach? There are wolves amongst us the sheeps and their follies we be revealed by their fruits. Remember that Christ is not of this world and neither should we be attached to it.

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

Dear Robert,

Most of what you have said is true, about are sinfulness. We all fall short of the glory of God, no doubt! We are to struggle. A person once asked a great elder about what one should do if he should backslide and become more of a sinner than what he had been before. The elder said, "get up! Just as if you fall as you are walking, you are to get up!" We know this, right?

As you know, it is one thing to sin, and another thing to be in heresy. Sin is breaking of Gods commandments and heresy is the changing of Gods laws. We are all sinners and need to repent everyday, but we dont have to be in heresy or follow bishops who are in heresy. Where in all of holy tradition does it say one must stick with a bishop in heresy? No where! In fact just the contrary, Canon 15 of the First and Second Council tells us what one must do, along with the holy fathers and Saints of the Orthodox Church. We can be faithful to Orthodoxy. Just follow those who were before us, those approved of, the Saints. It is a hard path to follow Christ. No one said it would be easy.

I will ask agian, which Patriarchate are you under?

God bless!

Timothy, reader

>>>The union of Eastern churches under Rome's jurisdiction is nothing but false. I was baptized under the Patriarchate of Jerusalem as a child, attended American Roman Catholic schools for a short period, became agnostic in college, and thank God Almighty for my renewal into Orthodoxy.<<<

If I may be permitted a Latinism, "Quod erat demonstrandum". Your brief summation of your personal pilgrimmage confirms much of what I wrote concerning people who convert "from" something, rather than "to" something.

>>>Once I left college I threw everything I learned about Catholicism and Protestantism into the waste site.<<<<

That was indeed foolish, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Undoubtedly there is much in Latin Christianity that is different from Byzantine Christianity, and many things with which we as Byzantine Christians would disagree. But they are not necessarily "heretical" or erroneous; indeed, many of the Fathers of the Western Church, contemporary with our Fathers in the East, held widely divergent views on many issues, but did not find these to be suficient reason to disrupt the unity of the Church. They recognized the limitations of human essays into theology, and the impossibility of circumscribing the infinite. If you read the Fathers, you will find it was their belief that the Holy Spirit passes where it will, and that, while we may know where the Church is, we cannot know where it is not. Ergo, to disregard all that has been written in the East is to condemn the good along with the bad, and to limit yourself to one particular perspective, to the elimination of all others. Byzantine Christianity has much to learn from other Traditions, not merely that of the West, but that of the Oriental Orthodox and the Orthodox Church of the East as well. It is to be hoped that as we know each other better, we will be drawn closer to Christ, and by converging on Christ, we will be drawn to each other as well.

>>>>The Eastern Rite of Catholicism is deceiving because it appears Orthodox internally however Latin-controlled externally. I have no desire to be in communion with an entity that does not admit its faults.<<<

The pot calls the kettle black. I have often remarked that the unofficial motto of the Catholic Church seems to be "We may not always be right, but we are NEVER wrong". On the other hand, Bishop Kallistos is quite fond of noting that the unoffical Orthodox motto is "Never explain and never apologize". You may not have been paying attention lately, but the Catholic Church has been in the midst of a prolonged mea culpa with regard to its attitude and behavior towards the Eastern Churches, beginning with the Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redingtegratio (it may be in that wastebasket of yours, take a look), and continuing with Pope John Paul II's two letters, Orientale Lumen and Ut Unam Sint. The Balamand Statement is, on the part of the Catholic Church, an extended apology for and repudiation of uniatism as a method of reunion, and an avowal to avoid proselytism or the appearance of it, with regard to the Orthodox Church.

With regard to the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Vatican II Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum set the foundation for the recovery of the fullness of the Eastern Tradition among these Churches, and together with the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium created the basis for the ecclesial independence within a communion of Churches, as opposed to the older view of the uniates as belonging to a "rite" of the Roman Catholic Church. Further support for this effort was given in the Liturgical Instruction drafted by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, which instructs the Eastern Catholic Churches to reclaim the fullness of their heritage in liturgy, theology, spirituality and discipline; i.e., to become Orthodox, turning towards their Orthodox mother Churches as examplars. How far has this process gone? Not far enough. Will it continue? Yes, towards the end of demonstrating that we may be fully Orthodox AND in communion with the Church of Rome. In the process, we will probably end up redefining precisely what that communion means. The vocation of the Eastern Catholic Churches is to disappear; i.e., to return to the Mother Churches from which we sinfully separated. But we will not do this at the cost of sacrificing our communion with the Western Church. Ergo, we can only fulfill our destiny by making possible the reconcilliation of East and West, thus the ecumenical dialogue, in which we are so often the subject of discussion, is our own particular apostolate.

>>>Many Orthodox people of the Middle East left for Catholicism because of the material wealth it supplied by means of missionary works. Rome came after Orthodoxy rather than Islam for converts. This is not first nor the last Roman incidence. Once I hear an apology for what Rome's conversion policies did in the Middle East and the malpractice of American Catholicsim in the U.S. I may entertain the thought of unity. However, for now I don't think so.<<<

I believe you will find that apology in the Balamand Declaration, as well as in the pastoral letter Orientale Luman and the encyclical Ut Unam Sint. You will also find it in the writings of many Eastern Catholic theologians and pastors, most notably Kyr Elias Zoghby and John Michael Botean. And you will hear it from many individual Eastern Catholics, including myself.

>>>Furthermore, the Balamand Statement is not binding upon me or for the rest of Orthodoxy.<<<

Certainly not, but it is very clear from your comments that you haven't read it, and therefore you are not in any position to pass judgement against it. Certainly the Orthodox members of the Joint International Theological Commission felt that it provided a useful basis for resolution of the "Uniate Problem", a problem of which large numbers of Orthodox, including yourself, are woefully ignorant, regardless of familial history.

>>>I don't know how many times these heretical statements will keep coming up. I will be the first to say that unfortunately we have had Patriarchs and bishops of the past who were heretical but in no way was Rome immune from heresy.<<<

And you are qualified to determine that these statements are heretical? Once again, we come face to face with the semi-educated Orthodox convert who considers himself to be a greater authority on true doctrine than the shepherds selected by the Church for the teaching and guidance of the faithful. Perhaps you missed the part in my last post about "listening"?

I have to say that I am not impressed by the understanding of Orthodoxy that you have demonstrated so far. It is much more a caricature of the Eastern Christian faith than the real thing, and as I said, more a reaction to and rejection of your past beliefs than a positive affirmation of your new faith. But wisdom comes with age and experience to those who are open to the voice of the Spirit, and I pray that you open your ears and your heart, and in the meanwhile hold your tongue (cf. St. Ephrem of Syria).

Robert,

You write: I believe you are confusing impeccability with infallibilty. The Church has never claimed the pope is impeccable (unable to sin), but She does teach that the pope cannot err in matters of faith and morals which we call infallibilty.

Fr. Deacon Ed

[This message has been edited by FrDeaconEd (edited 10-21-1999).]

Everyone knows that popes in the past taught heretical doctrines. So much for infallibility regarding the faith!

I used to be a Roman Catholic, and I know all of the arguments. Unfortunately I dont follow the CHurch history that has been re-written!

One priest was teaching that we know where the Holy Spirit is, but we dont know where it is not. Of course that is a wrong teaching. We know were the Holy Spirit is not. He is not present where heresy abideth.

Timothy, reader

>>>Everyone knows that popes in the past taught heretical doctrines. So much for infallibility regarding the faith!<<<

That depends, of course, on how infallibility is defined and exercised. Since, in such cases as those of Popes Liberius, Honorius, and Vigilius (all excommunicated), their teachings did not reflect the consensual mind of the Church, or the unbroken Apostolic Tradition, it could be argued that they were not making ex cathedra statements at all. In any case, the matter is moot, since at the end of the day infallibility will be redefined in a manner acceptable to East as well as West.

>>>I used to be a Roman Catholic<<<

Why am I not surprised?

>>>and I know all of the arguments<<<

More accurate to say you THINK you know all the arguments. If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, you, Tim, are a perambulating catastrophe.

>>>Unfortunately I dont follow the CHurch history that has been re-written!<<<

Or any that was written in the past, either.

>>>One priest was teaching that we know where the Holy Spirit is, but we dont know where it is not. Of course that is a wrong teaching.<<<

You quote Kyr Kallistos of Deiocleia, and he in his turn was paraphrasing St. Gregory Palamas. But we know what a modernist and innovator he was, don't we?

>>>We know were the Holy Spirit is not. He is not present where heresy abideth.<<<

Indeed. And while we are on the subject of magesterial authority, when did you become one, that you can tell us what is heretical and what is not, when the Church itself has not spoken?

Keep it up, Tim. I enjoy shooting fish in a barrel.

LOL!

This is truly comical!

I like coming here, because it really makes me laugh to see someone who says they are Orthodox but is other. Who says who is Orthodox? Is it one man, the bishop of Rome? Hardly.

If their is some part of history or a quote from one of the fathers of the Church that will support the infallibility of the Pope, just let me know. I would like to hear what you have to say on the subject.

And as goes for me being wise. I am not wise at all, in fact I am very uneducated. Can you tell? Remember the wisdom of the world is made to be foolishness. I follow the wisdom of the Church and the Saints whom the world says are foolish. That is me! A fool for Christ. I must be a fool for Chirst since I wont let my children participate in the pagan holiday of Halloween, right? I thought so. It sounds fanatic of me doesnt it? I agree. The path to freedom is slavery. I chose slavery so that I may be free.

Peace!

Timothy, reader

Dear Tim,
The cause of heresy is sin. Heresy is one's choice over God's choice. Therefore one's choice over God's is sin. Every bishop I know of is human and therefore have sinned, do sin, and continue to sin till the day they die. They always pray for God to lead them to the straight path. If they are mislead they can certainly be lead again to Christ by the Holy Spirit who dwells in the Church. The Church is us and it would be unfortunate for someone to play the role of God and tell me that I do not belong in Orthodoxy. I certainly belong to Orthodoxy and everyone else needs to belong as well. To belong we must not speak of God's mystery to thine enemies or give the kiss of Judas but like the thief we must confess Him. At times in our history our leaders have failed us because of sin or as you may call it heresy. However, we have a duty to rescue those in sin,not participate in their sin, or to abandon them because they may not see clearly as a blind man. We have to approach sinners,as ourselves, and journey the Orthodox path to its fullest completion and keeping in mind that we are unworthy servants.

Dear StuartK,
I am not an Orthodox convert but a reconverted Orthodox. Orthodoxy was just awaiting for me to discover Her. Furthermore, I never claimed to be in authority in the Church but I am entitled to say what is true and what is not. Of course many of the Church Fathers had divergent views, opinions, and experiences. However this is not an excuse to tamper with Ecumenical Council teachings. Whether you or I like it or not is irrelevant. The Church of the Latins was Orthodox until the 4th Crusade. Many of Latin Church Fathers were and are Orthodox. However, once Rome was separated over time from Orthodoxy all the Papal teachings from thereon could not be bound upon Orthodoxy. The Roman Catholic Councils from 8 to 21 are not Ecumenical and are committed outside of Holy Tradition. For Rome to become Orthodox it must rescind these pseudo-Councils. Equaly so must the Church of the Orientals accept the 7 Ecumenical Councils whether they like it or not. They say they were not invited but now they are invited. Rome cannot do likewise because everyone should know by now that the understanding of the papacy is not true to the Primacy of St. Peter. Therefore no union between East and West until "Rome has spoken" been recanted. One final word of advice to keep in mind, the Balamand Statement is but a statement of good will. Do not confuse it on the level of authority of an Ecumenical Council. It is not and shall not be the sole basis for reunification. The Balamand Statement is on the same ground level as the Filioque and the Papacy---unecumenical. It is insulting and misleading to hear from an Eastern Catholic to affirm Orthodoxy but tie it down to Catholicsim. Who do you think you are? I will reiterate once again I pray for the union of all men to be within Orthodoxy. Nothing more, nothing less as catholicsim.

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

Dear Fr.DeaconEd,
Please stop playing semantics and scholasticsim. These semantic schemes only further hide the historical truth and meaning of what Rome meant in 1870. These polemic coverups are truly embarassing of Rome. There is always a legalist in the Roman Church puting words at odd against each other when they basically mean the same thing(infallibility vs impeccability, anullment vs divorce, papal monarchy vs universal jurisdiction, etc.) I don't buy it and that's why Protestantism won't neither.
God bless

Robert Sweiss

Robert wrote:

<< There is always a legalist in the Roman Church puting words at odd against each other when they basically mean the same thing(infallibility vs impeccability, anullment vs divorce, papal monarchy vs universal jurisdiction, etc.) >>

homoousios, homoiousios. There go those Greeks again, always putting words at odds when they mean basically the same thing ;-D.

Tim wrote:

<< If their is some part of history or a quote from one of the fathers of the Church that will support the infallibility of the Pope, just let me know. I would like to hear what you have to say on the subject. >>

St. Theodore the Studite, writing to Pope Paschal:

"Listen to us, O Apostolic Leader, set over by God to be the guide of the sheep of Christ, Doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, Rock of the Faith on which has been built the Catholic Church. For you are Peter, you are the Successor of Peter, whose See you occupy with honour. Cruel wolves have broken into the fold of the Lord and Hell as before has risen up against it. . . . Come to our assistance, arise and do not repulse us to the end. To you Christ our God said, 'When thou art once converted, strengthen thy brethren.' Now is the time and the place. Help us you who have been set by God for that purpose" (PG 99:1152; cited in S. Herbert Scott, "The Eastern Churches and the Papacy" London: Sheed and Ward, 1928, 305)

"From the height of heaven the glittering sun of the morning has sent us its rays, Christ our God has established Your Blessedness in the West on the first Apostolic See as a divine torch for the illumination of the Church which is under heaven. Yes, we beheld your spiritual light, who were surrounded with the shadows and mortal darkness of a perverse heresy. But we scattered the mist of our sadness, we opened our hearts to radiant hopes, when we learnt from our brethren sent to you all the great things said and done by your Holy Primacy. You did not admit into your sacred presence the heretical deputies, but you sent them back when they were yet far off. On the other hand, you sympathised with our misfortunes as with the misfortunes of your own sheep; our letters being read and our messengers heard immediately. And, indeed, we humble monks recognise as evident Successor of the Prince of the Apostles the Bishop who presides over the Church of Rome, and we are certain that God has not abandoned the Church of our country, because Divine Providence has reserved for it since the beginning, in the present conjunctures, His assistance which He gives by you and by you alone. For you are truly the Source always pure from the beginning and always clear, of Orthodoxy; you are the tranquil port where the whole Church finds sure shelter against all the tempests of heresy, you are the Citadel chosen by God to be the assured refuge of salvation" (PG 99:1156; cited in ibid., 306).

A modern, semi-critical Greek text of St. Theodore's letters may be found in: Fatouros, G. ed. Theodori Studitae Epistulae, 2 vols. (Berlin: de Guyer, 1992). The epistles cited above are numbers 207 and 208 in this edition, if memory serves.

Thank you for that quote. Lets believe that it is even a correct translation, nowhere does it say that the pope is supreme,infallible pontiff who has AUTHORITY OF THE WHOLE CHURCH. It was a nice try though!

Peace!

Timothy, reader

Stephen, bishop of Dor in Palestine, to Pope St. Martin:

"And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for ‘Peter,’ saith He, ‘lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’ And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority" (Mansi 10:893).

That was an excellent quote from Stephen. Exactly which date was he bishop in that particular See?

Thank you in advance.

Peace!

Timothy, reader

Is there anything in the ancient Church that says Peter was the supreme, infallible pope with ALL THE AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH?

Thanks

>>>I am not an Orthodox convert but a reconverted Orthodox. Orthodoxy was just awaiting for me to discover Her.<<<

So what we have here is an excess of zeal to compensate for a lapse in fidelity?

>>>Furthermore, I never claimed to be in authority in the Church but I am entitled to say what is true and what is not. Of course many of the Church Fathers had divergent views, opinions, and experiences. However this is not an excuse to tamper with Ecumenical Council teachings.<<<

To which specific teachings of which ecumenical councils do you refer? To the best of my knowledge, not one of the Seven Councils ever dealt with the matter of primacy or papal perogatives, nor has any council actually condemned the current definition; ergo, the matter is open, and should be revisited by both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. As a great many Orthodox theologians have pointed out, the Eastern Churches have yet to develop a coherent understanding of primacy, and therefore spend most of their time telling others what is unacceptable, and very little concerning what is acceptable. The Bishop of Rome has asked for the assistance of ALL Christians in helping him to arrive at a new understanding of how the Petrine office is to be defined and exercised. This is something which Orthodoxy has demanded of Rome for nearly 1000 years. Now Rome concedes what was, only a century ago, considered unattainable, and you sniff and turn up your nose at it.

Regarding other issues, such as the Filioque, you would be well advised to review what it is that the Catholic Church believes, and not merely rely on what you believe it believes, or heard third-hand from somebody who may or may not have gotten it right. In the case of every potential theological issue that divides us, the Church of Rome has either conceded the Eastern belief (e.g., the Filioque), or has determined that the differences between East and West are terminilogical and linguistic, rather than substantive. Do you not consider it tragic that Christianity was rent apart after the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, not because there were substantive Christological differences between the Orthodox Catholic Church on the one hand, and the so-called Nestorians and Monophysites on the other, but because each side insisted that its own particular formulations and definitions were the only acceptable ones--even though both sides were professing EXACTLY the same faith in the natures of Christ? It took the Orthodox and Catholic Churches 1500 years to realize this (I suppose you disagree with that initiative, also); how long will it take us to realize that the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are likewise ones of emphasis and terminology? How long until both sides recognize that in each other are the two halves of the undivided Church of the Fathers?

>>>Whether you or I like it or not is irrelevant. The Church of the Latins was Orthodox until the 4th Crusade.<<<

Ah, yes, 1204 was only yesterday. How long will you pick at old scabs? And didn't your mother ever tell you that if you do, they will fester on you? The past is past, the ones who sinned are dead and remanded to the judgement of God. We live, and it is our duty to heal the wounds that they opened. To do this requires metanoia and charity on the part of ALL.

>>>Many of Latin Church Fathers were and are Orthodox. However, once Rome was separated over time from Orthodoxy all the Papal teachings from thereon could not be bound upon Orthodoxy.<<<

It is more proper to say that each Church separated from the other. There were men on both sides who were responsible for the schism, but undoubtedly they have come to a more complete understanding in the bosom of the Lord.

Western Fathers who are venerated by the Eastern Churches had fundamentally different views on some very basic issues. We could start with the entire matter of original sin, and the nature of man, and soteriology. They also used very different terms to define doctrine. Yet this was never considered sufficient cause to break communion. The Eastern Churches only broke their ties with the West when the latter attempted to impose its own particular views upon Churches holding to other Traditions. Since the Catholic Church has foresworn such efforts, it is time to look anew at the entire issue of reconcilliation.

>>>The Roman Catholic Councils from 8 to 21 are not Ecumenical and are committed outside of Holy Tradition. For Rome to become Orthodox it must rescind these pseudo-Councils.<<<

You would probably be surprised to learn that among Roman Catholic theologians there is considerable disagreement about the status of the second millenium councils held in the West. The emerging consensus is that these should only be considered as "General Synods of the Western Church" (a formulation used by Pope Paul VI), and that their status is secondary to those of the Seven Great Councils, their decrees really only binding upon the Latin Church. As Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has steadfastly maintained for more than 30 years, "Rome can demand no more of the Orthodox Church than that which was accepted by them in the first millenium, before the separation". Likewise, Pope John Paul II has indicated that ecclesial relations between East and West as they existed in the first millenium should be considered normative.

This means that the second millenium councils are not a priori binding upon the Orthodox Church, nor even upon the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, except to the extent that they receive these councils internally. This places them on the same footing as the various Pan-Orthodox synods held since 1054; i.e., local councils whose decisions are binding only on those Churches that accept them as such.

>>>Equaly so must the Church of the Orientals accept the 7 Ecumenical Councils whether they like it or not.<<<

This will come as a surprise to the majority of Orthodox Churches that have been working on reconcilliation with the Oriental Orthodox Churches. As Professor John Erickson of St. Vladimir's Seminary put it, councils do not define the faith, they profess and bear witness to it. Therefore, if the Oriental Orthodox profess the same Christology as is professed in the Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the third and fourth Councils of Constantinople, then there is no need to insist upon the explicit use of the terminology contained in those councils, nor is explicit acceptance of those councils essential for the reestablishment of of communion.

>>>They say they were not invited but now they are invited.<<<

Your meaning here is a bit obscure. Perhaps you would like to clarify?

>>>Rome cannot do likewise because everyone should know by now that the understanding of the papacy is not true to the Primacy of St. Peter.<<<

There is little doubt that, left to its own devices after the schism, both the Roman Church and the Orthodox Churches proceeded down their own separate paths, in the process exacerbating both their good and bad tendancies. In the case of the Church of Rome, this included an excessive degree of centralization, and the emergence of an imperial papacy. The movement was historically conditioned by Rome's position as the only unifying force in the West during the Dark Ages, and the Pope's position as both a spiritual and temporal leader. The definitions of Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I had much more to do with the collapse of the Papal States than they did with a patristic understanding of the role of the papacy. This is widely recognized in the Catholic Church, even by the pope himself. Why else do you think he calls for assistance in redefining the office and its exercise in Ut Unam Sint? But Orthodoxy seems singularly reluctant to take up this offer, this challenge. All we seem to hear is the constant harping of "Repent, sinner". All right, we have repented. Now, what shall we put in the place of the present understanding? Or are you, like the YIPPIES of the 1960s, only anxious to tear things down and "grove on the rubble"? The fact is, Orthodoxy has no consensus either on the meaning of primacy, or on what its normative exercise should be, or even on what the Patristic Tradition has to say on the matter. All that aside, an increasing number of Orthodox theologians and bishops have come to recognize that the current autocephalous model is fatally flawed, that it has no center of unity, and that it is unable to cope with the centrifugal forces of nationalism and phyletism which are pulling Orthodoxy into smaller and eternally squabbling jurisdictions (not just here, but globally).


>>>Therefore no union between East and West until "Rome has spoken" been recanted.<<<

I would not have it any other way. Better no union than a false one. And the Catholic Church's approach to the matter, as defined by the present pope, is that we seek reconcilliation and a unity that entails neither subordination nor assimilation, but a true communion in the Holy Spirit. This is workable, but only if both sides are willing to concede the legitimate Traditions of the other. Once upon a time, the Catholic Church believed that the Latin Tradition was the only Tradition. In reaction, it would appear that some Orthodox have come to conclude that the Byzantine Tradition is the only Tradition (witness their hostility to the Western Rite Vicariate within the Antiochean Orthodox Church). But the Church of the Fathers had both a Latin and a Greek dimension, and a Church that is exclusively Latin or exclusively Byzantine has no real claims to ecumenicity. Hence I say to both Orthodox and Latin supremacists, "A pox on both your houses", for by erecting false distinctions between the Churches you are prolonging the separation which is contrary to Christ's explicit command, and which has done untold harm to the Body of Christ.

>>>One final word of advice to keep in mind, the Balamand Statement is but a statement of good will.<<<

A good will I see singularly absent among some here.

>>>Do not confuse it on the level of authority of an Ecumenical Council. It is not and shall not be the sole basis for reunification.<<<

Nobosy said that Balamand is the sole basis for reunification (though I prefer the term reconcilliation), and most certainly it does not carry the weight of an ecumenical council (while we are at it, which ecumenical council codified the schism, or declared the Church of Rome heretical?). But ecumenical councils are not the sole source of Tradition: there is also Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, the content of the Liturgy, the canons, and the constant movement of the Holy Spirit through the Church of God, as witnessed by lesser meetings, such as those of the Joint International Theological Commission.

>>>The Balamand Statement is on the same ground level as the Filioque and the Papacy---unecumenical.<<<

Ecumenicity does not reside on any particular juridical criteria. Were that the case, then certainly the Photian Council of 879-880 would be ecumenical, since it met all the criteria laid out at Nicaea II. No, the way in which any council, any teaching, for that matter, becomes "ecumenical" is when it is received by the entire Body of Christ, a process that can take years, even decades (the Second Ecumenical Council was not accepted in the West until the Council of Ephesus, a lapse of fifty years during which, I suppose someone might say there was a formal schism between Rome and the other Patriarchates). Depending upon whether the discerning mind of the Church sees in it the inspiration of the Holy Spirt, the Balamand Agreement may or may not be considered ecumenical at some point in the future.

>>>It is insulting and misleading to hear from an Eastern Catholic to affirm Orthodoxy but tie it down to Catholicsim<<<

What precisely do you mean by this? Are you insinuating that we are nothing by Roman Catholics with a cabaret license? Maybe once upon a time, but not today. Lex orandi est lex credendi, and we worship God according to Byzantine liturgy and spirituality. We are not Latins, but we believe that it is essential that the Church of God have some focus of unity, and historically that focus has been the Church of Rome. We do not consider ourselves to be "under" Rome, or "in submission" to Rome; our proper relationship is one of communion among Sister Churches. Is that relationship perfect yet? Hardly. Does Rome overstep its boundaries and its legitimate authority? Occasionally, and on those occasions we are Eastern Catholics are quick to remind Rome of the proper nature of our relationship. Does not the Orthodox Church have similar problems with overwheening Patriarchs in Moscow and Constantinople? Do you sever your ties with them, just because they try to exceed the authority rightfully vested in their office by the Canons and Ecumenical Councils? You remind me of a person unwilling to commit to a marriage unless given assurances in advance that the relationship will ALWAYS be harmonious. The vows are "for better or for worse", not, "for better or I'm outta here". It takes guts to stick it out when the going gets rough, both in marriage and in ecclesial communion. Do you think there was EVER a time when the relationship among the patriarchical Churches was entirely free of discord or controversy? If so, why did we have Seven Ecumenical Councils? Why did we have to make dogmatic definitions--because theologians were underemployed? These were difficult and imperfect solutions to difficult problems, and through them the Church was able to preserve its unity for more than a millenium. But remember, the Church of the first millenium NEVER knew true unity, but rather bore witness to it. What was beyond the Fathers is likely to be beyond us, but we can at least try to emulate them in placing unity on a higher pedestal than narrow parochial interests.

>>>Who do you think you are?<<<

I am an Orthodox Christian in communion with the Church of Rome. Nothing more, and most certainly nothing less.

>>>I will reiterate once again I pray for the union of all men to be within Orthodoxy.<<<

What, precisely, do you mean by "Orthodoxy"? If you mean the faith professed by the Fathers of the Church, I agree with you. If you mean that all must worship God according to the Byzantine rite, and the Byzantine understanding of God, then you are no better than your ultramontanist counterparts.

>>>Nothing more, nothing less as catholicsim.<<<

We could be there tomorrow. All it requires is for both sides to put aside their pride and pretensions, and focus only on Christ. And that requires more than prayer, it also requires some practical actions, for faith without deeds is as useless as deeds without faith.

<< That was an excellent quote from Stephen. Exactly which date was he bishop in that particular See? >>

Without doing further research I can only tell you that he wrote that letter to Pope Martin I for the Lateran Council of A.D. 619.

<< Is there anything in the ancient Church that says Peter was the supreme, infallible pope with ALL THE AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH? >>

Absolutely not. That would be heresy and contrary to the teachings of Vatican Councils I and II on the papacy.

For Robert:

The Catholic dogma of papal infallibility (first defined at Vatican I) has nothing to do with the pope needing confession. Basically, it puts binding papal pronouncements on faith and morals (which have to meet a certain criteria to be viewed as such) on a level to the authority Orthodox Christians acknowledge that an ecumenical council possesses (or what most conservative Christians would attribute to one of the writers of the New Testament.) Just as we Orthodox would believe that the individual Bishops at Nicea (or the writers of the New Testament) had need of confession so the Catholics believe that the pope does also. Catholics do not believe that very many papal pronouncements fit the definition of Vatican I on infallibility.

For Vincent:

I am reminded of your namesake...certainly there are a stream of Church Fathers who have a "high" view of Petrine authority. But, how high is it? Yes, the Fathers at Chalcedon would shout "Peter speaks through Leo!" (If memory serves, the Tome of Leo was a doctrinal dissertation but was not issued as a solemn binding declaration that would fit the requirements of Vatican I's definition.) But, can it be said that papal infallibility is part of the deposit of faith that has been believed everywhere and by all? The Bishops at Chalcedon accepted the Tome of Leo because it was orthodox not just because it was issued by Leo.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dave Ignatius wrote:

<< I am reminded of your namesake... But, can it be said that papal infallibility is part of the deposit of faith that has been believed everywhere and by all? >>

I chose my namesake for this forum carefully, Dave. You are certainly correct that St. Vincent of Lerins teaches that we must believe as Catholic everything that has received universal acclimation. But read his exact statement carefully:

"Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense 'Catholic,' which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally" (Commoitory, 2:6)

Let me say right off that I affirm this principle wholeheartedly. That which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all must be held as inviolate.

But this Vincentian canon [VC] has frequently been taken as a kind of absolute rule with which to measure one's beliefs. And yet I think this is problematic for at least two reasons. First, because certain dogmas do not lend themselves at all well to Vincent's rule. The canon of the New Testament is a prime example. Or what of the Assumption of our Blessed Mother. While it might be argued that the VC holds for this dogma it would be darned hard to prove from extant sources.

But the second reason that, IMO, it's not right to absolutize the VC is that it would contradict what the saint says further on in this very work. I quote him here at length:

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

CHAPTER XXIII. On Development in Religious Knowledge.

[54.] But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real 148 progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning. [55.] The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide diference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled. [56.] In like manner, it behoves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.

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

So while St. Vincent urges us always to hold what has been universally acclaimed, he does not limit our beliefs as Catholics to that. Rather, he urges too that there is such a thing as legitimate development of doctrine, whereby the understanding of the Church grows and expands as she, like the Blessed Mother, "ponders these things in her heart."

<<...certainly there are a stream of Church Fathers who have a "high" view of Petrine authority. But, how high is it? Yes, the Fathers at Chalcedon would shout "Peter speaks through Leo!" (If memory serves, the Tome of Leo was a doctrinal dissertation but was not issued as a solemn binding declaration that would fit the requirements of Vatican I's definition.) The Bishops at Chalcedon accepted the Tome of Leo because it was orthodox not just because it was issued by Leo. >>

I'm going to leave aside the specifics of the Tome of Leo for now. My central point is that the Roman argument has always been that papal infallibility, while not explicit in the patristic era, is very definitely there in principle. As I mentioned to you in private correspondence, I am working on this angle as a proposal that I'd like to run by interested Eastern Christians. I'm really only just starting to compile the sources for it, but here it is in outline:

Let me draw on two analogous examples. The first is the inerrancy of Scripture. When it was pressed on the Fathers that there were errors in Scripture, they always replied that this was impossible, since the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit and God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, cannot admit error into His very Word. If there appear to be errors then it was the weakness of the reader, not due to some flaw in the Sacred Text. We take it on faith that the Scriptures cannot err, even if we do not always see how alleged discrepancies can be reconciled.

The second is the infallibility of the Church. The Fathers were very clear that the Church, in her formal declarations, could not err. This is so because She is the Body of Christ, and Christ will not allow the gates of Hell to prevail against His Church.

What of papal infallibility? There is copious evidence from patristic times, from the East and West, that the bishop of Rome was not only held to be the successor of Peter par excellence but that he was in some sense Peter. I have literally dozens of citations to illustrate this. Here's one that captures this notion perfectly. St. Peter Chrysologus was an Eastern Christian by birth but eventually held an Italian see as bishop. The heretic Eutyches wrote to him pleading his case. Here is his reply:

"We exhort you, honourable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from the consent of the Bishop of Rome" (Ad. Eutychem., Sermon 25:2)

This notion that in some sense St. Peter continues to live and preside in his own See at Rome occurs so many times, so universally across the traditions that I have a hard time chalking it up exclusively to mere hyperbole or metaphor with no underlying substance.

Now we know that St. Peter was not a perfect man; in fact, he could be quite sinful in his actions. We also know of St. Peter that he was not always perfectly stable in his private opinions, as for example he could be swayed into hypocrisy (e.g. in excluding table fellowship with Gentiles). But we also know that he was recipient of very specific promises of Christ. I think it is, aside from an entrenched and unreasonable minority, universally agreed that St. Peter was given a primacy by Christ. Christ promises to pray for Peter that his faith will not fail and so that he can confirm his brethren. When Peter teaches the whole Church, he does not--cannot--lead the Church into error for our Lord's prayer is never thwarted or rendered vain. And this is all the definition of papal infallibility says. Peter can sin, Peter can even waffle in his private deliberations, but Peter cannot lead the universal Church astray by his formal teaching.

This is the basis of my grounding papal infallibility in the patristic tradition of the East and West. I think it harmonizes full well with Vincent of Lerins, as long as one factors in his ready acceptance of doctrinal development. Alas, I am not in a position to argue the case in sufficient detail because I have a wife, small kids, a full time job, farm chores, etc. etc. etc. But let me know what you think.

Dear Stuart,
I do know what the Catholic Church teaches about the Filioque. There are tons of polemics on this issue. However, the one thing that the ROMAN church will not confess is that it made a booboo and it defied the Ecumenical Council on adding or subtracting to it after the Creed was finalized in 381AD. All the polemics in the world can not fortify you from dishonoring the Creed by adding to it. Name for me the Ecumenical Council that approved such an interpolation? The Filioque has had its time and history in a pagan and barbaric Europe where the German feudal system was powerful under Charlemagne. The Roman Church conceded to the insertion of the Filioque and broke its very own cannon and without calling for an Ecumenical Council. Amazing. The Roman apologists mindset is bent on preserving this insertion at all costs because of the fear of historical embarassment to the world. How can Rome be wrong! The polemics do not make it legitmate nor the play on semantics. This word game only furthers confussion about the role of the Divine Persons and the Essence.

The remark on the Catholic and Orthodox Church being two halves is true for you who has abandoned Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church never taught that it was dysfunctionally missing a lung because She contains the fullness and completion of Apostolic authority unlike Rome. Perhaps Rome is missing something that crys out because it abandoned Orthodoxy and/or is perhaps uncatholic. It is more proper to admit that Rome did indeed separate from Orthodoxy. This is not an argument about Latin or Byzantine Traditions or which is better. It would be far better and proper to confess the erroneous papal teachings rather than providing polemical Roman services which agitates false hopes of communion.
In regards to the Catholic mindset, the 8 to 21 Councils are known to most Catholics as Ecumencical rather than Synods. We will eventually see more concealing techniques or cover ups by way of semantics.
In regards to the Oriental Orthodox, the hierarchs must accept the 7 Councils by default. It is true that there is intercommunion amongst the laity however the 7 Councils must be accepted and ingrained as spiritual truths on the hierarchial level. I wonder ,are you a polemical consultant to the Vatican promoting a false union on weak premises? Granted that much of what you stated is true but let's be honest---Orthodoxy is not missing a lung regardless of what few Orthodox may say. It really is Rome that has coughed her lungs out in fear of losing many of her adherents. I do not take pleasure in seeing pain and suffering of a person or an entity such as the Church of Rome. It pains me when the truth is not explicit about Papal claims or when it is obscured through Catholic polemics based on the tradition of men. The Orthodox Church has its shortcomings with jurisdictional problems but the Papacy is not the solution to it. It is a blessing that Orthodoxy has kept in tact the Apostolic Traditions without deviation.

To DTBrown,
The doctrine of papal infallibility of 1870 is sin or for lack of a better word, heresy. It should and must be denied if Rome is to enter the Orthodox fold. Pope Pius IX once said, "My mind is so made up that if need be I shall take the definition upon myself and dismiss the council if it wishes to keep silence". Rome(Pope) has spoken! The cure for this sin must be Holy Confession. Holy Confession will relieve this error and set Rome on the path to Orthodoxy. I don't believe this to be happening any time soon just as a father awaits for his prodigal son to come home without knowing when. Let us pray for one another according to the great rich mercy of God.
In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

>>>I do know what the Catholic Church teaches about the Filioque. There are

tons of polemics on this issue. However, the one thing that the ROMAN

church will not confess is that it made a booboo and it defied the

Ecumenical Council on adding or subtracting to it after the Creed was

finalized in 381AD.<<<



I would forget most of the polemics that governed the debate in the psst, for the simple reason that they were informed by the passions of the time, and largely motivated by issues outside the theological. With regard to acknowledgement that the Catholic Church erred in the Filioque matter, I refer you to the "Clarification" issued by the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christin Unity, which states explicitly that the original, uninterpolated Greek text of the Creed of Constininople is the only ecumenical liturgical symbol of faith. It also goes on to explain what the Latin Church means by the words per Filioque", and if you read there you find that there is no divergence in the meaning between the Latin and Byzantine understanding of the procession of the Holy SPirit. In the past, other explanations have been less satisfactory, and St. Phoitos was mostly on the mark in his critique of the Filioque AS IT WAS EXPLAINED IN HIS TIME. The Latin Church has over the years employed discernment to refine its understanding and bring it into line with that which was believed by the Fathers.



Why then continue to retain the offending phrase? It is mainly a matter of pastorla prudence: having been brought up to recite the Creed in one way, it would be shocking, indeed scandalous to impose any change without proper prearation and instruction of the laity. Moreover, the use of the Filioque is optional, at the discretion of the local ordinary. In some jusridictions it has already been eliminated. It has been dropped almost universally by the Byzantine Cathooic Churches, and no longer appears en the current liturgical texts.



Thus, there is no theological basis for disagreement on the procession of the Holy Spirit, and the only bone of contention is the manner in which it was adopted within the Latin Church. I think we should kiss that one up to historical accident, since Pope John VIII at the Photian Council condemend the addition, but his successors, ignorant of the history of the issue and unable to resist the pressures imposed by the Frankish emperors and clergy (who were even more ignorant of the issues) were forced to incorporate it. That is in the past, the matter is ad dead as a smelt, unless somebody wants, as I said, to pick over old scabs. The Orthodox have won this one; go have some ouzo, arak, retsina, or vodka, as the case may be.



>>>The remark on the Catholic and Orthodox Church being two halves is true

for you who has abandoned Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church never taught

that it was dysfunctionally missing a lung because She contains the

fullness and completion of Apostolic authority unlike Rome. <<<



That's nice, and it may be comforting to you, but it is objectively untrue. The Orthodox Churches have preserved MUCH of the Apostolic faith in its fullness, but not all. The Latin Church has preserved much of the apostolic fullness of the faith, but not all. Neither is complete without the other, because the Church is indeed universal, and neither the Byzantine nor the Latin Traditions by themselves reveal the full mystery of God. Orthodoxy needs the Latin Church, and the Latin Church needs Orthodoxy.



>>>In regards to the Catholic mindset, the 8 to 21 Councils are known to

most Catholics as Ecumencical rather than Synods. We will eventually see

more concealing techniques or cover ups by way of semantics. <<<



That is not so important as whether the Catholic Church itself sees those councils or synods as being universally applicable. In practical terms, it does not. They were not evern regarded as "ecumenical" until Robert Bellarmine called them so (and he had another agenda entirely). Even among those councils, the Catholic Church is not entirely certain regarding states. For instance, is Basle an ecumenical council? Is Constance? It is clear by its actions regarding the Eastern Catholci Churches that the Latin Church does not consider the decrees of the second millenium councils to be binding upon the Eastern Catholics when those decrees are either irrelevant or run contrary to the Eastern Tradition. For example, the Byzantien Catholic Churches do not use or accept the scholastic definition of transsubstantiation defined at Trent, and this is borne out liturgically Other supposedly "dogmatic" pronouncements are either ignored or left as theolgoumena for the individual conscience. In other words, more than 90 percent of the time, these councils were addressing the internal concerns of the Latin Church, and have nothing to do with the East, and no bearing upon Eastern theology. When once the Catholic Church conflated the Church of God and the Roman Catholic Church to be one in the same in an exclusive manner, it was only natural to take the next step and say that what was decided for the Latin Church applied to all Churches. Now, however, Lumen Gebntium defines the Catholic Church as a communion of particular Churches which are equal in dignitry, all of which contain the fullness of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. That requires a rethinking of the status of the later councils, since they did not involve ALL the apostolic Churches. And, if one wants to get juridical (you seem to have a rather Western, juridical bent), none of the later councils can be ecumenical because none of them meet the canonical criteria laid out at Nicaea II (burt remember, I said "reception", not form, is the key to ecumenicity).



>>>In regards to the Oriental Orthodox, the hierarchs must accept the 7

Councils by default. It is true that there is intercommunion amongst the

laity however the 7 Councils must be accepted and ingrained as spiritual

truths on the hierarchial level.<<<



Why do you demand what the Orthodox Church itself does not demand? Remember, I quoted ORTHODOX sources ont he matter.



>>>I wonder ,are you a polemical consultant to the Vatican promoting a

false union on weak premises?<<<



Since most Roman Catholics accuse me of being an Orthodox mole, I think I must be in just the right position. When both sides of an argument are mad at you, it usually means you are right and they are both wrong.



>>>I do not take pleasure in seeing pain and suffering of a person or an

entity such as the Church of Rome. It pains me when the truth is not

explicit about Papal claims or when it is obscured through Catholic

polemics based on the tradition of men. The Orthodox Church has its

shortcomings with jurisdictional problems but the Papacy is not the

solution to it. It is a blessing that Orthodoxy has kept in tact the

Apostolic Traditions without deviation.

<<<



We could go on for hours about how Orthodoxy, as well as Roman Catholicism, have both deviated from the Apostolic faith. No tradition is immune from such criticism. But it might be more fruitful if, rather than harping about the evils of papism (on which, believe it or not, we are generally in agreement), you might devote some positive energy on what steps must needs be taken to help restore Orthodoxy. I agree that submission to papal jurisdiction is not the answer, and I have never endorsed that. But I do believe in the understaning of primacy that pertained in the first millenium, and think that it is the basis for reconcillaition. You, apparently do not. Very well, what would you have in its place? What alternatives do you offer to cure the problems of nationalism, jurisdictionalism, synodalism, and pietism, all of which are sapping the vitality of the Orthodox Church and its ability to make its voice heard authoritatively in the world?

Just a note to Vincent:

Thanks for a peek at your research! I would agree that there is some growth (I hesitate to say development) in the Church's understanding of the faith. You mention two examples: the canon of the NT and the Assumption (Dormition) of the Theotokos. The canon of the NT is a discernment of the Apostolic era (I hold to a first century date for the composition of the NT books). It is not possible for new books to be added to the NT canon. The Dormition has some rather early evidence that is quite explicit (see the volume _On the Dormition of Mary_ by Brian Daley, SJ, published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press).

Some classical Orthodox apologetics (polemics?) would deny any growth in understanding in the Church's faith. I think one should be careful not to attempt to freeze the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Having said that I think we should also be wary of establishing dogmas that have no clear pedigree to the early Church.

Again, Vincent, I appreciate your initial explanation of your apologetic on papal infallibility. I'd like to hear more (perhaps others here would as well) and will reserve comment until I've studied it further.

In Christ,

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Robert,

You write: You must have a different dictionary than I do. Impeccabilty means that the inabilty to sin -- the pope, being human, is fully capable of sin. Infallibilty means the inability to err and applies to the pope only in terms of his teachings with regard to faith and morals when he teaches for all Christians as the Supreme Teacher. If using words correctly is "playing semantics" then we are all doomed since nobody will know what anybody else is talking about -- we'll all be inventing our own definitions. This has nothing to do with "hiding the historical truth" -- it has to do with your assertion that because the pope goes to confession the teaching of infallibility is heresy. That's like saying that because dolphins are mammals fish shouldn't be left in the water. Your statement was wrong because you used did not use the terms correctly.

BTW, I'm not selling anything except Christ crucified and raised from the dead.

Fr. Deacon Ed

[This message has been edited by FrDeaconEd (edited 10-23-1999).]

Dear StuartK,
Regarding the Filioque, you have implied that the Filioque is an offending phrase and should remain as an option as not to shock Catholic reciters of the Creed if it were to be removed. Now you should know by now how scandalous this was to the Orthodox by adding the insertion. However, by removing it you believe it would cause more harm than good. That is too bad because the Orthodox were and are correct. You do more harm by not telling the truth. The truth does hurt and should make people think about what they have been told. There is no option in truth but for you it exists due to a historical and theological blunder. You are trying to explain/hide away the truth of the insertion by recommending it to be used as an option. This indeed is scandalous! You do not want to disturb the simple Catholic mindset that the insertion was a cause for a breach in the contract(The Creed). I would like to say that I do not like to go out drinking when heresy is being reinforced especially according to your polemics. This issue is a scab for you but you refuse to put away the knife that caused the scab to coagulate on the wound in the first place.
Furthermore, only a heretic would state the Orthodox Church does not possess the fullness of the Apostolic faith. You may speak on behalf of Rome but you are not entitled to speak for Orthodoxy where you are not. However, I understand your position and subscription to the "Missing Lung Theory" but it does not amount to the truth of Orthodoxy that is lacking in Catholicism. You belonging to a Uniate Church is problematic for Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy would love to welcome the Latin Church back to the fold and honor the Pope of Rome the Primacy once Rome has recanted and confessed that she was in the wrong. This will take alot of courage and I pray for that. You have a gross misunderstanding of Orthodoxy by claiming that She deviated from the Apostolic faith. Your irrational insults the Holy Spirit and, worse yet, that the Spirit mislead the Church of Christ. How Satan inspires people to speak in this manner is disturbing. I pray for you to reevaluate your beliefs and to once again to seriously consider Orthodoxy for Orthodoxy to bless you.

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

Is it just me, or is this forum being overrun with very unkind Orthodox, who enjoy attacking and belittling us?

I must ask: if these were Roman Catholics attacking us in such a cruel manner, would we allow them to continue with their tirades?

Anthony

Dear Dragani,
Please take it easy. Perhaps this forum is way over your head. Your perception of what you see deceives you into believing that people like myself are out to attack others. This is not true. If I have given this false impression forgive me. I believe in speaking honest and universal truths that are within Orthodoxy. There is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church. I hope I may do my duty by speaking truths and not compromise it for unholy traditions of men. I pray to reach out to Roman and Byzantine Catholics and inform of what is true and what is not true. At times when I am engaged in dialogue I may learn about something that I did not have full or little knowledge of. This forum is a great place to share truths and ask questions where people can learn and begin to research information from. It is no secret I am Orthodox. I am opposed to Catholicism but that does not prevent me from listening to what Catholics have to say about their beliefs and thier responses towards my beliefs. Therefore, please relax. I am not out to get you or anyone into trouble. If you have any questions follow the biblical verse of "ask and you shall receive".

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

'No salvation outside the Orthodox Church'?????

Do the terms 'narrow minded', 'fanatical', 'extremist', or 'fascist' mean anything to you?

Thankfully, God isn't as narrow as you are. Salvation is in God's hands, not those of the extreme right-wing Orthodox.

I hope you enjoy looking down on billions of souls in hell from your exclusivist place in your 'heaven'.

Get a life.

What gospel are you teaching here ?

Where in the whole of Holy Tradition is taught that salvation can accur outside of the CHurch?

I am sorry, but that is a new gospel which we are to reject!

It is true that in 1990 in Barr, Switzerland, representatives from the Roman catholic, "world orthodox" and Protestants drafted a 2,500 word statement on "Religious Plurality", and in that statement they stated that they find a "need to move beyond a theology which confines salvation to the explicit personal commitment to Jesus Christ."

So your statement doesnt surprise me, it is totally in line with the 'one world religion' of the anti-christ>

Timothy, reader

Yes, our Savior, saints and holy martyrs were narrow-minded according to your standards!

>>>Is it just me, or is this forum being overrun with very unkind Orthodox,

who enjoy attacking and belittling us?

I must ask: if these were Roman Catholics attacking us in such a cruel

manner, would we allow them to continue with their tirades?<<<



Perhaps we need to create two new folders: one entitled "Surly Orthodox Rantings", the other entitled "Ultramontanist Delusions". That ought to take care of most of the fringe traffic.

Dave Ignatius wrote:

<< Thanks for a peek at your research! I would agree that there is some growth (I hesitate to say development) in the Church's understanding of the faith. >>

IMO doctrinal development is just about the only topic worth discussing between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. It stands behind our entire understanding of dogma and behind the entire rejection thereof by the Orthodox.

<< The canon of the NT is a discernment of the Apostolic era (I hold to a first century date for the composition of the NT books). It is not possible for new books to be added to the NT canon. >>

True, but the actual formulation of a formalized canon was the work of centuries. The entire canon was by no means received "everywhere, always, and by all."

<< The Dormition has some rather early evidence that is quite explicit (see the volume _On the Dormition of Mary_ by Brian Daley, SJ, published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press). >>

I would be very interested in hearing more about this. Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt that this evidence is of such a nature that it would prove that the Assumption was believed "everywhere, always, and by all."

<< Some classical Orthodox apologetics (polemics?) would deny any growth in understanding in the Church's faith. I think one should be careful not to attempt to freeze the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Having said that I think we should also be wary of establishing dogmas that have no clear pedigree to the early Church. >>

How early? Anytime in the era of the undivided Church? This is a problem I have with Protestant and Orthodox apologetics at times. They do indeed seem to make an arbitrary cut-off date and then if they don't find some explicit evidence for a given dogma prior to that they disbelieve it on principle. But that approach comes back to bite the user because, if the dates are indeed basically arbitrary, there is no reason not to move them earlier and earlier (as the Protestants do), calling anything that does not conform to earlier usage a "corruption." What I'm trying to do with papal infallibility is show its organic connection with what is implicit in the patristic tradition. For those who insist that the words "papal infallibility" must by used by the Fathers then no explanation will do. But then they've set a standard that ends up undermining their own position on other doctrines.

<< Again, Vincent, I appreciate your initial explanation of your apologetic on papal infallibility. >>

Thanks.

<< I'd like to hear more (perhaps others here would as well) >>

Apparently not ;-D.

God bless,

Vincent


[This message has been edited by Vincent (edited 10-27-1999).]

Dear in Christ,

Now before this gets totally out of hand, I need to remind the contributors of this forum about this forum. The title here if "East-N - West" . It is NOT "East -NOT - West". It was meant as a forum for the discussion of relations between the Church of the East and the Church of the West. I am supposing that that means the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic and/ or the Eastern Catholic Churches. This Forum was never meant to become a tool for proselytizing one Church over the other.I have seen triumphalism here from both extremes, Roman and Orthodox. I must say that this is not the Forum for that. If anyone here believes that there is no room for the other to exist in God's Creation then I strongly suggest that you find another Forum more in line with extreme views. If you have strong feelings, but are willing to "listen", not just talk then you are welcome. I will not allow anyone to continually post aggrieving messages, nor to be personally insulting to other members.

One thing that we ALL need to remember is that we Orthodox, Roman or Byzantine are guests in someone's home. It is an unfortunate sideaffect of the Internet to feel aloof and immune with regard to common courtesy. So if you feel that you can continue a friendly, and even spirited conversation in my "living room" , then please continue: if not, I invitre you to leave.

unworthy servant

Father Kyrill
Moderator

It saddens me to see such a lack of tolerance, understanding, and love between people. I feel that I am in the middle of a personal and religious crisis with no earthly home. I live in northern LA and attend RC Mass as often as I can. BC Divine Liturgy is not available. I often feel unwelcome in Roman Catholicism because RC's do not consider me to be Catholic. Recently, I have been attending a weekly course on History of the Mass. The priest knows that I am "Eastern Catholic," but I do not think that he knows what it means. Tonight he suggested that the Holy Father is the leader of the Roman Catholic church, not the Catholic church. He also stated that Orthodox Christians were catholic just like the Eastern Catholics, but with a different leadership. I gently asked him to clarify, but again, no reconition of my Catholic Faith. He said that a RC cannot receive communion in an "Eastern church" and vice versa. I sing in the Choir, and this is where I worship. Do you know how it feels to be excluded from this community? I recently returned from a trip to Rome where I was blessed with the opportunity to hear an audience with the Pope and be in his presence. He appeared very ill, but his will was truly awesome. I felt his holiness and profound love, just sitting in his presence. It is so heart breaking to feel such allienation upon return to the USA, when all I want in life is to worship the Lord and serve him.

I log onto this site to feel some connection with my Catholic brothers and sisters, and again I feel saddened after I read through several topics of discussion. I am struck by the hostile tone and lack of attention to the important purpose of which we all have. It again gives me a feeling of allienation. One wonderful thing which I have learned in my class about the history of the Mass: it all started with Jesus when he said "Take this and eat it, this is my body, do this in memory of me." So, Christ gave us his perfect life, and he gave us the Eucharist; but he did not give us a mass or a liturgy, that developed over time. Things changed, developed, stabilized, changed, etc. The celebration of Christ is dynamic, that is not to deny the beauty and holiness of the traditions and ways created by the many holy people who have defended the church, or their Christianity. But, can we not accept that we all (RC, BC, Ruthenian, Ukranian, Melkite, and Orthodox) have the Holy Eucharist, and The Gospel, and that our ways of Celebration are DIFFERENT, not better.

(Consider the tradition of Latin as a language, does that really make the RC church more orthodox, or holy? The language was adapted because Pope Callistus said put the mass in the language of the common people. Latin was considered a vulger language spoken by the common people, Greek was the language of fewer, perhaps better educated and wealthier people. This tradition, which developed to reach the common people, continued for many centuries despite the eventual inability of the common people to understand latin.) Vatican II went back to the 4th century and again said "put the celebration in the language of the common people."

My point is that the celebration is dynamic, it developed and develops, and often this is a good thing. Many may detest the idea of mixing of tradition, but consider that many components of the Roman mass developed in Gaul and in the East and moved to Rome. If we do not want to change the Byzantine Liturgy that may be the right path, as the Holy Father has asked us to adhere to our Eastern traditions. Perhaps this will help lead to healing the Schism with the Orthodox Churches.

However, consider that no one is right, we are different, and celebration of the Eucharist (Mass or Divine Liturgy) will continue to develop traditions.

Is it really so difficult for us to accept our small and beautiful differences, and is it possible for us to remember that foremost Christ asks us to Glorify God and to love one another.

Is there any inspiration out there for this wearied Byzantine Catholic who seeks only to please the Lord in any way that he wishes. God Bless You ALL, Sharon

Sharon,

Don't be too discouraged by your experiences in your local RC parish or here on this forum. For the last millennium, to be Catholic meant to be Roman Catholic. Even our Byzantine Catholic brothers and sisters bought into this first class / second class idea (some on this forum still buy into the idea that West is best and that we are really Roman Catholics with a cabaret license to celebrate a funny liturgy). In recent years (and especially since Vatican II and during the reign of Pope John Paul II), much progress been made in our understanding of one another. The official dialogue between East and West has passed from one of just getting to know one another to actually discussing the issues with keep us apart. Roman Catholics are far more likely to be aware of our existence than they were a generation ago, although they still do not know who we really are. The progress may be much slower than many of us wish, but it is progress.

You are privileged to have the opportunity to travel to Rome to see the Holy Father. Pope John II has been a steadfast leader of the Church. He has been strong enough not just to lead the Church but even to invite the East to help him redefine his role as pope so that it may be acceptable and better serve a reunited - Orthodox and Catholic - Church.

Your observations about the Eucharist are most appropriate since it is the Eucharist which must be seen as the symbol of full communion.

Sometimes the discussions here become a bit strong. But that's ok. In order for anyone (myself included) to really learn and understand another it is necessary to break down walls. Byzantines and Romans, Orthodox and Catholics, each come to the table already judging one another when in reality we are just beginning to learn to see Christ in one other. This is progress - even if it is not packaged as pleasantly as we would like.

You mentioned that you live in Northern LA. You might want to check out Byzantine parishes within a reasonable commuting distance (I know that Los Angeles county is quite big). St. Mary Cathedral is in Van Nuys and there are about 6 or 7 Byzantine Catholic parishes (Ruthenian, Melkite, Ukrainian, Russian, etc.) in or near LA. But it is quite possible that you are exactly where you should be and that you are being called to provide witness and plant a few seeks among the Roman parish you worship at.

Dear Moose
Thank you so much for your kind reply. I appreciate your positive words of encouragement. I live in Northern Louisianna, sorry for the abreviation. I am 3 1/2 hours from Dallas, and 5 hours from New Orleans. God Bless you, Sharon

Dear Sharon,

Please know that my prayers are with you. I am Latin Rite but I too crave a liturgy offered in "spirit and truth" which because of my circumstances I basically cannot have. We live in rural WI; there is no Byzantine Catholic parish in WI and it is a long drive to anything resembling a traditional Catholic Mass (and I don't mean Tridentine or even Latin; just distinctively Catholic would be fine with me.)

It is a time for us to suffer; let us bear it well and to the glory of God. But please take courage; the new Spring is coming.

Hi Sharon!

I'm Sharon, too. Now we have two Elias-es and two Sharons. Everybody pay attention, or you won't be able to tell the players without a scorecard.

I'm in Columbus, Ohio. We occasionally have a gentleman from LA attend with us. I think there may be some preliminary rumbling about looking into beginning some type of Byzantine activity in the New Orleans area, but I have no recent info, and that's at the other end of the state.

Meantime, hang in there. Grit your teeth, mutter "thank You, Jesus," and try to embrace the opportnity to educate. A ribbon-tied copy of Orientale Lumen might make a dandy Christmas present for your current pastor...

Cheers,

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Dear Vincent and Sharon M.
The Lord be with you! I know that he is with me, I was searching for someone to understand me. I also was wondering why there were no (or few) entrys from women. Then, behold, a woman who shares my faith and my name! Hmm, dare we start a topic that focuses on the role of women???!! Perhaps we are a wealthy resource waiting for acceptance.