Addendum:

If I were to look at the question as a mathematical problem, I would say that Roman Catholicism is a set that is entirely contained within the universal set that is Orthodoxy. There is nothing doctrinally (practice is another matter, primarily dealing with papal primacy) that is not contained therein that isn't encompassed within the universal set that is Orthodoxy, but since orthodoxy does not confine itself by definitions for the most part, it constitutes a larger set of belief. (I can still be orthodox, for example, and believe that original sin is guilt, the next person that it is human pride, the next person that it is absence of grace, the next person that it is being convicted to a life with suffering and death, and so on. Or I may deny the presence of original sin along these lines of thought. All of us would still be orthodox in our theology.) This is not to denigrate catholic teaching which is trying to reach us at a human level and to make sense out of the salvation provided by Jesus.
Perhaps this is the problem between the churches. The doctrine of the Roman Church is a subset of all that is Orthodox, yet it claims a primacy that extends beyond honor alone.

Dear Brother Ed,
The differences between the two churches are enormous regardless of outside appearances. It is not uncommon for a Byzantine Catholic like Petrus to deny the historical disparity between the churches. This is precisely why they are Uniates. Since 1724 AD, they have linked themselves to Catholicism which has been problematic for them in regards to the sacramental, liturgical life understood properly in Orthodoxy. Some Byzantine Catholics speak of "having the best of both worlds" to cover-up the inconsistent theological beliefs of Catholicism. As the old saying goes, "You can't have your cake and eat it too." I would love to correspond with you on these matters and I would also encourage you to visit and speak with the Orthodox Churches (i.e. Antiochian). There is a catalog,"Light & Life Publishing"(www.light-n-life.com), you should order to find books on this important topic. I recommend books knowing your situation such as "Coming Home: Why Protestant Clergy Are Becoming Orthodox" by Fr. Peter Gillquist; "Anglican-Orthodox Pilgramige" by Franklin Billerbeck; and "The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church" by Clark Carlton. I recommend you to pick an issue such as the understanding of grace, Eucharist, etc and begin to trace its history to the Apostles. This will require a bit of struggle and prayers as you seek the truth. Nothing comes easy in our understanding and will take time. Everyone learns and understands on their own particular levels. My e-mail is rsweiss@dotplanet.net if you would feel comfortable asking me in private. I tend to express the Orthodox beliefs I espouse as clearly as possible even though some of my friends in this forum don't like what I have to say. I don't take personal offense of their criticism and I know that it will be a matter of time before they return to Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Brother Robert

Dear RS:

I have seen some of your doctrinal statements. They are not counter to Catholic teaching, just a different perspective from what you perceive to be Catholic dogma. Your beliefs are consistent with Catholic dogma. This is especially true for grace, the Eucharist, sacramental life, and so on. The only issue that still holds controversy deals with papal primacy. Most Catholics, including the clergy I know, and even JPII himself, agree that this requires further exploration. This is not a war of East vs West but a journey to our eschatological destiny.
To be able to find authors who have converted from Protestantism to Orthodoxy proves nothing. Their are similar books of protestants who have become Catholic (Kreeft, Howard, Hahn), and I am sure I can find books written by Orthodox who have become Protestant or (gasp!)Catholic. One of the points that must be kept in mind about Catholic dogma is that it is apophatic. It is not meant to define once and for all what a belief is or should be. Rather it should be interpreted that to believe this is not wrong. So for example, one may refute the churches teaching on say Immaculate Conception because it diminishes the role of Mary's free will. But if one still accepts an "unnatural" or better yet supernatural closeness between Mary and Jesus then one still is in agreement with this dogma. One only has to look at an icon of the Virgin, who by Tradition is never depicted without the Son, to have an appreciation for the Immaculate Conception. It is not that the Orthodox disagree with this formulation but rather they fail to see why it needed to be defined in the first place. The Roman teaching on this highlights Mary as the perfect human, perfect theologian, perfect doctor of the church. This does not eliminate Mary's free accpetance, but rather, highlights Mary's role in our salvation. And Mary's willingness ultimately opens up and leads us to our own salvation.

A humble sojourner;
John

[This message has been edited by Petrus (edited 02-06-2000).]

Laudetur Jesus Christus!
From Robert Sweiss post:
>>Please do not believe for one moment that The Roman catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are "sister Churches" because that relationship died a thousand years ago.<<
Dear Robert,
I belive and I know that Orthodox and Roman Churches are 'Sister Churches' Since you deny this fact openly I am sorry to say that your opinion is contrary to what your very own Antiochian Orthodox Church belive. This Church hosted in 1993, in Balamand, Lebanon International Commision for Theological Dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox Churches. After this meeting common statement was released. Read this, please:
>>14) It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).<<
Antiochian Church was represented by His Eminence Metropolitan George of Byblos and Botrys and Father Archimandrite Youhanna (Yazigi). Full text of a/m statement is on http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand_txt.htm .
God bless you, piotr c

Dear piotrc,
I will state for the record regardless what some Orthodox would love to believe: the Roman Catholic Church WAS a sister church an IS a prodigal church. The word,"sister church" was not defined and ignored in the Balamand Statement. What makes a church a "sister"? Its past, present or future communion? We may agree of a past, but it is not true of the present and I reserve my doubts of a future communion in my lifetime or in the next life. The Balamand Statement is not part of my faith or belief, and I believe is misleading. It reminds of the Councils of Florence and Lyons. History is a reminder of the ignited false unions between churches. Let's not fool each other. Roman Catholic apologists tend to believe that they are quite clever in their rhetorics about accepting Orthodoxy. There also some on the Orthodox side that accept this pseudo-rhetoric. Bottom line is that there is no communion at the present time. It does no good to begin to call the two churches as "sisters" when they have nothing in common as they once did. Another thing, until all of the Orthodox Church accept the misleading statement, which they wont, then I will reevaluate the situation again. Petrus is mistaken to believe that what we believe as Orthodoxy is practiced and understood in the Roman Catholic Church. Rome will be required to repent and return to Orthodoxy. The Melikites will wake up one day and smell the coffee that awaits them in the Orthodox Church.

Dear Robert:

The concept of sister churches seems appropriate then. This implies separatedness, uniqueness, but at least some mutuality by being in the same family. This is different than unity as would occur within one own body, or within a marital union. Each "sister" naturally has her own perception of the nature of the relationship with the other. In this circumstance, the Catholic "sister" presumes a closeness that the Orthodox "sister" denies. Neither is wrong, each is rooted and speaks to the overall reality. Sister churches are not completely unified but demonstrate a familial closeness within the family that is Jesus Christ.

A humble sojourner;
John

>>It does no good to begin to call the two churches as "sisters" when they have nothing in common as they once did.<<

Since we share a common faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit we are already brothers and sisters. Since 95% of the theology between East and West is identical - although sometimes expressed a bit differently - we are Sister Churches. For Robert to say that we have nothing in common is, well, foolish.

>>Another thing, until all of the Orthodox Church accept the misleading statement, which they wont, then I will reevaluate the situation again.<<

Robert has, of course, set himself up as the judge of what is and what is not Orthodox. Unfortunately for him, the canonical Orthodox Churches (those in communion with the ancient patriarchates) disagree with him and do consider the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to be sister Churches.

When I look to see what the Orthodox Churches profess, I look to what the canonical Churches profess by word and deed, not to what Robert wishes that they believe. The two are quite different.

Christos posered nas!

Dear Brother Truthseeker,

I thought you may like to hear that you've been placed firmly in prayer intentions of some Roman Catholics from Europe.
It's a true joy to read about so great things that Holy Spirit has done to you. Rest assured - He will consistently continue His work in your soul. Just be patient and don't oppose Him, because there is no one in the universe who knows you better than Him and no one who loves you more than Him.

Hearty greetings in Christ,

Godfrey

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

Dear Robert Sweiss,

1) IF you had a real opportunity to learn, study, examine the Catholic Faith (including the rules of healthy
development of the Christian doctrine), i.e. the very same Faith of Apostles, Fathers and Doctors;
2) IF you are intelectually capable to understand it properly;
3) IF you have rejected it for ANY reason;
4) IF you didn't regret this rejection before your death, if you didn't ask the Lord for forgiveness -
- you couldn't have a good hope that you would be saved.

On contrary, most possibly you would be sentenced to eternal damnation (see: St. Mark's Gospel 16,16).
I assure you that I don't find any delight in telling it to you, as honestly as I can.
I just think you're far too intelligent and educated man to be treated like a baby. That's all.

It is only the Truth that can set us free.


In Christ the King,

Godfrey

Greetings Godfrey,
I do not understand the intention of your post. Please elaborate in specific terms. I hope you did not write to cast judgement on my salvation or even to damn me with a biblical quote which sounds quite Calvinistic. The Catholic Faith is that of Orthodoxy not Catholicism. I have read one of your posts and I think you have abandoned Catholicism. However, I am not sure if you are Orthodox or a Uniate because you cannot be both. My friends here will challenge that but history cannot be changed. I await your reply.

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

Greetings Pete K,
Permit me to correct and add to my statement on the lack of commonality between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church is the modal standard by which I view the Roman Catholic Church and not vice verse. As you certainly may or may not know Rome was at one time Orthodox and has ever since forfeited her position due to pride. The words "sister Churches" are symbolic gestures of a past communion calling for a true communion which is not current at this time. It may or may not ever happen until one or the other submits. Whether you like the word submission or not this must occur for a true communion to take effect. In my eyes it is Rome who must submit to Orthodoxy and come back to attain her rightful place of honor. The words "sister Churches" have mislead many naive people of a near-coming communion between the two churches. I know very well that such a communion will not happen in my lifetime until papal fallacies are erradicated and apologies are made in their entirity. There are Orthodox elements found in the Roman Catholic Church from being once Orthodox herself. However, this is not enough. Until Rome submits and becomes Orthodox once again then she can be rightfully called a "sister Church". This is my best understanding of being a true sister Church. Also that means there is Eucharistic understanding and sharing between Churches. Furthermore, that the elements of leavened bread and wine are used for the Eucharist within the sister Churches. No one church can teach or invent a doctrine without the consent and acceptance of all the churches in communion.
Regarding your view about canonical Orthodox Churches in the U.S. reveals an ignorance of other Orthodox Churches who are not part of this SCOBA club. It is mainy in the U.S. that we hear about canonical versus uncanonical Orthodox Churches. Indeed this is a problem. However to elevate and emulate the canonical over those who are not is a form of malpractice. What is canonical? Who is and who is not? Where is this taught in Sacred Tradition? I am not the Judge of who is Orthodox or who is not. God knows that I have much imperfections than anybody else. However, I struggle to know and practice my theosis. With regret, I find no meaning and understanding of theosis in Catholicism. If you feel I am mistaken enlighten me. I say what I know now but I know not.

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

Laudetur Jesus Christus!
Dear Robert,
In your last post you denied "sister church" status of Romans because we use unleaved bread for Eucharist. Answer me pleas, if in case of our future submission to Orthodoxy we will be allowed to use white wine as we do presently, or is that heretical habit and we will be obliged to change to red.
BTW. I've visited pages of WRV of your eparchy. I didn't find anything about using leavend bread in their churches, so I suppose they still obey western customs.
Yours in Christ, piotr c

Dear piotr c,
The Roman Catholic Church does not deserve the right to be called a "sister church" whatever that may mean to you not just because of the malpractice of the Eucharistic elements but because of her entire papal mindset. In regards to your facetious remarks about having white or red wine used in the Eucharist, if you can turn white wine into red wine like Jesus did with the jugs of water at Cana you may be permitted to keep the white wine. Finally, you are mistaken about the WRV. They do utilize leavened bread as it was once customary of the early, western Church. Rome did use leavened bread before it reverted back to Judaism.

In Christ,
Robert

Laudetur Jesus Christus!
Dear Robert,
First small quotation from WRV pages:
>>The Western Rite, as approved by the Antiochian Archdiocese is a theologically corrected form of worship used by the Latin Church (Roman) or the Anglican Communion. In some Western Rite congregations, the Liturgy may be a Latin or English form of pre-Vatican-II Roman Catholic worship.(...)Other Western Rite parishes use a liturgy based on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. Modifications, while important, would not be terrible noticeable to even the most regular worshippers. Two of these alterations
include the deletion of the Filioque [and the Son] clause in the Nicene Creed and the addition of a stronger epiclesis in the eucharistic prayer said by the priest at the consecration of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.(...)In addition to these two changes, the Western Rite includes oter indiscernaible changes that Latin Roman Catholics and most Anglo Catholics (old fashioned, High Church Episcopalians would find to be either familiar or certrainly acceptable.<<
(see http://www.aaron.org/Western-Rite/index.html).
I do not cosider changing the kind of bread and wine used for eucharist as "indiscernable change" and I presume you are of the same opinion. So I see only two possibilities:
1. You were right in your last post and I am
not so much mistaken as rather intentionally misleaded by the authors of WRV pages ( such method of veiling full truth smells badly with sectarian mentality and proselytism).
2.Unfortunately you were wrong. I can only hope it was unintentionally.
Tertium non datur, as the Romans used to say.
In Christ,
piotr c

Sorry. I didn't see page 2.


With all due respect to Fr. Kyrill, I've heard the "follow your heart" or go "where the Holy Spirit guides you" lead to all sorts of destructive self-deception in the Episcopal Church. However if one recognizes the normal bounds of acceptable belief such as Scripture, the Creed, etc. Fr. Kyrill is certainly giving sage advice.

I think the sincerity with which we seek the truth in such things, the charity we show all sides in the argument and how we live our lives towards all people shows how we have brought ourselves in congruence with God's true design for humanity.

Signing off for Lent.

Have a blessed fast everyone. Be careful out there.

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Mo (edited 03-13-2000).]