www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint

I don't think you should either.

The Post was originally suppose to be a question as how can we go forward towards the unity which Jesus desires for His Church.
Let's get back on track. Please.

Well, it might be a good idea for all the various patriarchs involved--Eastern and Western, Catholic and Orthodox--to take stock of the shameful mess that the accumulation of history and all of the conflicts surrounding the issues that are under discussion here have made of the Body of Christ. Perhaps, then, they might permit themselves to back away from all the details and observe what all of their churches--all of our churches--have in common, and in observing all that we have in common, acknowledge that what unites us is so much more profoundly overwhelming than those comparatively insignificant things that divide us.

I'm sure what I'm saying sounds elementary and perhaps naive and even trite, perhaps, to those awash in the all the liturgical, traditional, jurisdictional, and historical details but, really,just for a moment, imagine that the details that we are so concerned about are actually of no importance to Jesus Christ, at all.

If they--if we--radically imagine that Christ's concern is that we live the beatitudes and come together in charity to celebrate his body and blood, pardoning one anothers' debts just as the Father pardons ours, I think it might astonish us just how unconcerned he is about all the rest of the "stuff" that we all manage to get ourselves all worked up over.

Now, maybe I'm wrong; maybe Christ really does care a great deal about patriarchates and episcopal prerogatives and infallibilities and credal pronouncements about things we have never experienced and never will and therefore cannot really understand (the procession of the Holy Spirit, for example). Maybe man-made liturgical ceremonies and traditions are of grave concern to Jesus, just as much as the essence of the celebration of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Maybe titles and authorities and jurisdictions are of paramount concern to the Incarnate Word of God who taught his apostles that he came to serve and not to be served. Maybe he cares about the words "Orthodox" and "Catholic" so much so that he is pleased to see his church divided 16 ways 'til Sunday on account of them.

Is it conceivable that perhaps the way to unity is to simply look upon the things that divide us for what they are...just that: things that unecessarily divide us...and then resolve to simply let the conflicts of history dissolve into our embarrassment at having behaved like children for well over a millenium, valuing everything that is meaningless while paying lip service to that which Jesus actually asked of us?

I am a Roman Catholic because history and circumstances so label me. I do not perceive myself that way any longer, however. I am a member of the Church of God, a follower of Jesus Christ, a walker along "The Way". Whenever I find myself in the worship space of an Orthodox community, I find it beyond absurd that I must refrain from sharing in the Eucharist with these men and women who are clearly my brothers and sisters in the Church of God, pilgrims on "The Way", who are celebrating the same Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that I, too, consume in the houses of worship of my own tradition.

Why can I not share the body and blood of the Lord with them? They acknowledge, after all, that my church, like their own, has the same true sacraments initiated by the Lord Jesus. The very same. They acknowledge, therefore, that I really and truly have been fed with the body and blood of Jesus Christ, just as they have. That I have been marked with the chrism of the Holy Spirit, just as they have. That I have received the forgiveness of God in the Sacrament of God's mercy, just as they have. So what's the problem? The problem is that I cannot share the body and blood of the Lord with them because of animosities based upon politics and history that neither they nor I were ever a party to. And all because even as late in the game as the year 2012, we apostolic Christians still cannot manage to see the forest through the trees.

I wonder if mankind isn't so far gone that the Church will ever be healed as long as men walk the earth. "The Way", in too many ways, has retreated from the table of the Lord and back into the temple; we've become pharisees again in so many ways. It seems, as it were, that the freshness, the liberating freedom of the Gospel, was more than we could bear. So we retreated behind the walls and curtains of the temple, again, obsessing over rules and ceremonies and titles and prerogatives and tassels and ourselves.

If Jesus Christ were to personally intervene by summoning all the bishops of every tradition in Council, I wonder just how much stuff that seems so important to all of them he would simply throw away altogether. I would bet that all of the things that the Lord would simply toss into Gehenna would bury Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. And to all the arguments and disputes he would just stomp his foot and shout, "basta!" And that would be the end of that. And we would be left with a Church that I am sure would delightfully suprise all of us with its beauty, its authenticity, its freshness, and above all, its unity.

If you put any stock in the Old Testament, you should consider that God himself gave the laws of liturgical worship in absolute fine detail to the jews, and that at the Last Supper once gain God himself instituted rules for our new liturgical worship.

I understand what you are driving at, and I agree with you that charity is the highest law but I don't think showing a form of condescension to these outwards things (liturgy, canons, jurisdictions, etc) will bring forth the fruit of charity.

Nice.

Christ is in our midst!!

Maybe what seems absurd is not so much. First of all, the Church has fought hard throughout her history to preserve the Faith in a pure form. That�s why she has called herself �catholic� or universal since the latter part of the first century�to distinguish herself from the many sects that had already formed by that time. We have only to remember the letter of St. Paul where he mentions that some say they belong to one or another Apostle or teacher and he reminds the people to whom he writes that it is Christ to whom we belong and not to the person or leader who has taught us the Faith.

Then there�s the issue of what communion is all about, beyond the mere exercise of the reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Being in communion means that I, the communicant, am in complete agreement with the man serving the Liturgy, with his bishop, with the doctrines that he and his bishop hold to be true and necessary. And I also reject and condemn the doctrines that he and his bishop reject. The very fact of preserving the Faith in all its purity is bound up with the Liturgy and our participation in the saving action brought to lived experience within it. When we receive the Lord, we receive within the context of community as well as individually. All of this is inseparable from the reception of the Lord. We receive the Body of the Lord within the Body fo the Lord, the Church. The importance of where the Church is and who forms the Church is bound up with the Liturgy and our reception, like it or not. To try to separate all this complexity just to some sort of "feel good" starts us down the road of syncretism and heresy--something the Church has fought to avoid.

The problem is that, through the course of history and through our living out of it, we have all become somehow parochial in our way of understanding the universal truth that the Apostles received. Through the prism of history, language, culture, custom and a whole host of other human categories, we have come to be like the Tower of Babel in that we do not understand each other any longer. That is not to say that there are not very serious doctrinal issues that separate us and these should not be taken lightly. These issues revolve around the question of �Who do you say that I am?� When we get the answer to that wrong, we get down the wrong path. As Chesterton observed, orthodoxy is of utmost importance. The problem here is that each of us has concluded that we and we alone have preserved the orthodoxy that is necessary for both communion with the Savior and with each other.

Please understand that I am as frustrated as you are, but we need to understand the complexity of the issues as they have developed over the millenia. There are no easy answers.

Bob

Hmm ... I don't know, Bob. Maybe you're one of those at whom Jesus is going to stomp his foot and shout "basta!"

For starters your assumption that they acknowledge what you claim. The vast majority do not. They will state that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church outside of which they prefer not to speculate on the grace of other's sacraments. They know Orthodox sacraments are grace-filled. They do not know if Catholic sacraments are, so best to play it safe. A minority will agree with you, while an equal minority will disagree vehemently, stating Catholic sacraments are empty rites devoid of grace.

"while an equal minority will disagree vehemently."

Can you even call that a minority? Even us "crazy old calenderist schismatics," your label not ours, would agree with the statement, "They will state that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church outside of which they prefer not to speculate on the grace of other's sacraments. They know Orthodox sacraments are grace-filled. They do not know if Catholic sacraments are, so best to play it safe."

About the salvation of those who have not consciously rejected Christ, we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:

�You ask, will the heterodox be saved� Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such concern. Study yourself and your own sins� I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever.�

And there are the words of the Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad a very conservative theologian:

�It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics�i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth� They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The Lord, �Who will have all men to be saved� (I Tim. 2:4) and �Who enlightens every man born into the world� (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation In His own way.�

However, Elder Nektary of Optina said:

�God desires not only that the nations be saved, but each individual soul. A simple Indian, believing in his own way in the Creator and fulfilling His will as best he can, will be saved; but he who, knowing about Christianity, follows the Indian mystical path, will not.� [Ivan Kontzevitch, Elder Nektary of Optina, p. 181].

Individuals within Orthodoxy might give you all sorts of different answers, but the most uniform response you will get about who God will save outside of the Church is that we simply do not know. Christ as God, and King and Judge can save whoever He wants to save, and condemn whoever He wants to condemn. Even being in the Church is no guarantee of salvation; it�s not a free ticket. We must cooperate with God and experience a rebirth.

I had the special blessing of attending the Liturgy of St Basil at a local Greek Orthodox Church on Christmas Eve, and when I heard the words, �� bring back those in error and unite them to your holy, catholic Church,� I realized that they were reading the same words at my UGC parish far away. It made me happy that we are praying for each other with the same words. Perhaps, if we truly do His will, the Lord will answer our prayers.

I have never used such a label. I thought I was clear however the majority will state they don't know. There are minorities however. One who will affirm the validity of Catholic sacraments and another who will deny them outright. This reality is far from the one Roman Interloper presumed.

I did presume, Father Deacon Lance; thank you for clarifying that for me.

I always assumed that the Orthodox perspective on Catholicism was more or less one that viewed Catholic sacraments as entirely valid, although of perhaps questionable liceity...the way that the Catholic Church once viewed the Orthodox Church, in other words. I did not realize that some Orthodox actually regard our Sacraments and orders as no more valid than we regard those, say, of the Anglicans or Lutherans. It surprises me to hear that, in fact.

"I thought I was clear however the majority will state they don't know."

I think a better way of stating it would be that they find them questionable. I don't say that to be confrontational but just keeping it real. Until a counsel it will always be speculation.

Can you name some specific ways that the non-Latin Churches can have meaningful autonomy(the only real gripe I have is that our Liturgical books must be approved by Rome)?

1. Right to appoint bishops throughout the world without interference from Rome.

2. Right to ordain married men to the presbyterate throughout the world, according to the Tradition, without interference from Rome.

3. Restoration of the authentic theology and discipline of marriage, even to the point of allowing remarriage by non-sacramental rite after divorce, and a limitation on three marriages per lifetime.

4. Commemoration of the Pope only in Patriarchal liturgies, and commemoration of other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs at same.

5. Right to erect eparchies, archeparchies, metropolia and even patriarchates, without prior permission from Rome.

6. Right to elect metropolitans and patriarchs without prior approval from Rome (i.e., without the need for selecting from a list of "suitable" candidates).

7. Right to vote in Papal elections without belonging to the College of Cardinals.

8. Establishment of a standing Synod of Patriarchs, consisting of all the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and the Partriarch of the West.

9. Abolition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, AKA the Colonial Office, AKA the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

10. End of mandatory ad limina visits to Rome for Eastern Catholic bishops.

Ten was good enough for Moses, it ought to be good enough for us.