Blessed Father Kyrill --

About three months ago I visited a Great Liturgy at St. Anne's in Harrisburg PA. I would like to ask a couple of questions, if you would be so kind.

1.) Why does the Byzantine Church use the form of a combined bread/wine dispensed with a spoon to the faithful? Is this dogma or a local practice?

2.) What is the understanding of the Byzantine Church in relation to the elements? Do the elements change in substance as the Western Rite teaches, or do you simply leave it as being a "divine mystery" by which when receiving the Bread and Wine you truely receive Christ's Body and Blood?

3.) Does the priest, by the words of consecration, change the elements (which seems to be the Western teaching) or does Christ, honoring the priest's request, change the elements?

4.) As I sit outside the boundaries of what you would define as the catholic church, I see several bodies, all claiming to be the original Church. What am I to make of this division in my search for the truth? How am I, of a simple mind, and 25 years a Protestant to boot, supposed to know who is presenting the truth to me, since there are disagreements even within the unity of these bodies?

5.) Vatican II proclaimed that Christ may well have sheep outside the fold of Rome, thus making allowances for those who, for various reasons, are unable to come to Rome. Salvation it seems, is more of Christ, and less of Rome, than previously taught. Would you agree that one may work out one's baptism without the necessity of being in full communion with the Byzantine Church? I guess to put it bluntly, if I die tomorrow while I am trying to figure this all out, do I have a chance at eternal bliss?

6.) Here's a question I asked one of my Western Rite brothers which intrigues me. To which of the following is the Eucharist more real? A.) The nominal catholic who goes out of a sense of ritual and thinks fairly little of the importance of the Eucharist B.) The fervent believer (for instance, an Anglican or Lutheran) who comes to the altar with active and fervent faith that the elements are the Body and Blood of the Lord and receives them in faith that they will be a means of grace to him.

Well, I suppose that is enough for now.

Thank you again for this forum and for allowing me to be here.

Brother Ed

Doxa Theo!

Dear TruthSeeker Brother Ed:

I'm not Fr. Kyrill, but perhaps I can offer some answers to your questions.

1. First, not all Churches in the Byzantine tradition use the spoon -- my own Melkite Church does not, for example. Communion by intinction, that is the bread and wine mixed, is an ancient tradition. It is not dogmatic, nor is it local tradition. This method of tradition goes back as far as memory reaches. The reason for communion "under both species" as the West says is because the symbolism is fuller and it allows us to comply more fully with the command of Jesus to "take, eat...take, drink."
2. Here I will admit that my understanding may not be completely correct. The Western understanding of transubstantiation is not an Eastern understanding. In general, the Church is content to say that it is a mystery.
3. Both East and West teach that Christ changes the bread and wine into his body and blood through the agency of the priest. The West explains that the sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato which is shorthand for "through the working of Christ" (although that is not a literal translation of the Latin). The East also teaches this. However, only the West teaches that the specific words "this is my body" and "this is my blood" effect the change. The East is less precise and simply says that the Anaphora, the entire Eucharistic Prayer effects the change.
4. Knowing Truth can be difficult or it can be easy depending on how open you are to God's movement in your life. If there are serious questions, study the history of the Church, read the Church Fathers, look at the early Church and then see which Church today has all the practices and teachings found in these sources. When you do that you will have found your answer, sort of. I say sort of because both Orthodox and Catholic can lay claim to meeting those criteria. At that point prayer is the only recourse.
5. Salvation is always from Christ and from Christ alone. The Church is the institution founded by Jesus and through which Jesus works in the world. In answer to your question about "working out" salvation -- if you are convinced that membership in the Catholic Church (Byzantine or otherwise) and you remain outside the Church salvation is not possible. If you are seeking God with a sincere heart, are trying to follow Him with the light that He has given you, and have simply not arrived at a point where you can make a decision before your death -- then we trust in God's mercy to know what was in your heart as evidenced by how you lived.
6. The answer here is simple -- the casual Catholic. The reason for that is equally simple, neither the Lutherans nor the Anglicans have valid orders (per Leo XIII with regard to the Anglicans) and, therefore, they do not have grace filled mysteries.

Now a disclaimer. I am theologically trained in the West, and I serve as a bi-ritual deacon with both a Latin and a Melkite parish. I am stydying Eastern theology, but I am nowhere near as comfortable there as I am with Western theology.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Blessed Fr. Deacon Edward

Thank you for your grace filled responses to my questions.

I would like to persue question 6 just a tad more, if I may without seeming to be stubborn.

There is considerable argument in relation to the validity of Anglican orders, based on the tracing of the apostolic lineage back through English history to the 4th century when missionaries from the catholic church came to the Celts and began their work. But let me put that aside for a while.

It seems that in your answer it is not Christ as the priest who consecrates the elements by faith as much as it is the having of proper form and personage at the altar. While the idea I am about to present is a bit to the extreme, it possibly could happen that one who really is either heretical or even has left, at least inwardly, the faith, could preside at the altar, possibly for a lack of having any other vocation to persue.

I find it interesting to think that despite this man's being out of the faith, because of his orders, he could still pronounce the consecration and Christ would respond and become present in the elements.

Yet there are those of us of good will who sincerely believe that we serve under legitimately ordained priests and who recieve the elements believing that our Lord has interceded upon the consecration, yet there is some question to the validity of those elements.

*sigh* For the life of me, I cannot imagine why the Lord, in such a matter as important as the salvation of one's soul, would have allowed both the schism and the Protestant revolt. You cannot believe how hard all this makes it on one who reads all the fine apologia from all sides and yet realizes the need to make a choice. I do not believe that Christ's salvation comes outside the Church.

Where is it? That is the question, isn't it?

Thank you for your time.

Brother Ed A dumb sheep.

Greetings Truthseeker,

It's me, your old friend, Xpihs...

If I may, brother, answer some of your questions...

You asked...

3.) Does the priest, by the words of consecration, change the elements (which seems to be the Western teaching) or does Christ, honoring the priest's request, change the elements?


I would say that the Western Theology is that it is Christ's words that the priest says that effects the sacrament, not because the priest's human powers, but because of the Sacrament of Holy Orders affords him this authority to speak authoritatively in the Name of Christ for the whole Church... So it isn't really the priest's words, but Christ's and it isn't really a request, but the fulfilment of Christ's command to the Apostles...


You also asked...
4.) As I sit outside the boundaries of what you would define as the catholic church, I see several bodies, all claiming to be the original Church. What am I to make of this division in my search for the truth? How am I, of a simple mind, and 25 years a Protestant to boot, supposed to know who is presenting the truth to me, since there are disagreements even within the unity of these bodies?

I would offer that there is no disagreement but perhaps a misunderstanding between the West and the East...The Western Theology is Latin in thought, Scholastic more than the East, but also a different Language, and as I have personally learned, people of different languages think a little differently not just because of culture but do to the language itself...The Eastern Theology is Greek in thought, not as inclined to explain everything, but content to contemplate the mystery knowing that God cannot be fully explained anyway... I believe one saint once said, I cannot speak of God perfectly so I dare not speak of God at all, but if I dare not speak of God at all I would die, so I must speak of God even if it can only be inperfectly...so the East speaks of God and perhaps mantains the balance more so than the West who in speaking of God attempts to be a thourough as he can even if he must invent a new word...

You asked too this question...

5.) Vatican II proclaimed that Christ may well have sheep outside the fold of Rome, thus making allowances for those who, for various reasons, are unable to come to Rome. Salvation it seems, is more of Christ, and less of Rome, than previously taught. Would you agree that one may work out one's baptism without the necessity of being in full communion with the Byzantine Church? I guess to put it bluntly, if I die tomorrow while I am trying to figure this all out, do I have a chance at eternal bliss?

I believe that if one is in communion with any Church that is Catholic one is in communion with the Whole Church....be one Byzantine, Roman, Ambrosian, or Coptic, (thinking that there is a Coptic Rite Catholic Church)...

If you are seeking Ed, it is not because you need to find the Truth more than it is God who is calling to Himself who is the Truth...and if you seek the Truth, he will reveal himself...he did for me...and even in the Latin Church, the Roman Rite...

And your final question...

6.) Here's a question I asked one of my Western Rite brothers which intrigues me. To which of the following is the Eucharist more real? A.) The nominal catholic who goes out of a sense of ritual and thinks fairly little of the importance of the Eucharist B.) The fervent believer (for instance, an Anglican or Lutheran) who comes to the altar with active and fervent faith that the elements are the Body and Blood of the Lord and receives them in faith that they will be a means of grace to him.


And I have a very different answer...

And it goes like this... To a sane man reality is more real to him than is imagination...to an insane man, his imagination is more real to him than reality...

The saint is the most sane of men, for to him, the reality of God and his work is more real to him than his apparent environment...

So while the Eucharist may seem to be more real to an Anglican without valid orders or to a Lutheran with out orders, and while the Eucharist may not seem real to even a nominal Catholic who has little if any faith, the Valid Eucharist of a Validly ordained Priest is The Only Real Eucharist because, at least from the Catholic Perspective, no matter how one views it be they nominal or fervent, and bread is bread no matter one be Anglican, Lutheran or Jewish... The Reality of the Eucharist is an objective truth, where as the question you ask: " To which of the following is the Eucharist more real?" is a question of subjective truth not objective truth...so in a sense is a trick question... the better and more interesting question, at least for me, would be to ask who is more sane...the Nominal Catholic or the devout Anglican or Lutheran?

Xpihs

Dear Brother,

Thank you for your very thought provoking questions. Not wishing to pre-empt Father Kyrill's answers, may I address one of the points you raise?

I recall a few words of the Anaphora, or the 'Eucharistic Prayer' used most often in the Eastern (Byzantine) Church.

Praying to God (the Father), the priest asks him:

"make this bread the precious body of your Christ"

"and that which is in this chalice the precious blood of your Christ"

"changing them by your Holy Spirit."


So, it is the sending down of the Holy Spirit upon us, and upon the gifts, that effects the Change.

The Father sends, Christ offers (and is offered), the Spirit accomplishes, invoked by the priest, who prays for himself, and on behalf of the whole Church.

So no one 'agent' accomplishes, so much as it is a coming together in harmony, of the Trinity, and the whole Church with its ministers. The whole Divine Liturgy, and not just the reception of the Holy Mysteries, is a real experience of 'holy communion' between the work of God and his creatures.

This may hint, at a solution to your greater question, which moves my heart. I am touched by the sincerity with which it is expressed.

Where is God, where is my salvation, where is my hope, where is Church?

It is God's grace that places this yearning for him, within you. Even as you are reading, and searching for the Lord, in humility, in Spirit, in truth; please rejoice and know that he is already within, already leading and directing you. To yearn for him, is to be a true and faithful servant of God.
The mystery of Salvation (like the Eucharistic Mysteries) involves more, accomplishes more, effects more, than our human minds can grasp or imagine.

I look forward to hearing other responses to your challenging questions.

Elias, monk

[This message has been edited by Monk Elias (edited 01-30-2000).]

Dear in Christ Ed,

May God Bless you.

The path to Faith is not an easy one, especially when we look for "proofs". This is a very Western approach to Theology, "tell what the truth is, tell me what it is". The Eastern Church is not at all that way. We rather look at "what it is not", thereby softening the hard edges of Domatic Theology. Eastern mysticism far outweighs Eastern dogmatism. And so it is most empatically with the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist.

The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is the God-ordained mystery in which Christ Himself IS in reality in the elements of Bread and WineBecause of this is is far more than a "memorial". It is rather the actual Sacrament and the Sacrifice of Christ. In the myticism of the Eastern Church, the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not performed other than when It was actually Instituted...in other words It is beyond time and space, and therefore the same Act as that of the Last Supper.

The Bread and Wine are "changed" into the Body and Blood of Christ. This does not mean that Christ's Body and Blood are "present" in the bread and wine; but that the bread and wine become in subatnce the Very Body and the Very Blood of Christ. This Change is made by the creative almightiness of God and as such cannot be comprehended by the mind of man. This act is evident in the prayer of the Anafora:
Again we offer to Thee this
reasonable and bloodless service,
and we ask and pray and supplicate:
end down Thy Holy Spirit upon us
and upon these Gifts here presented,
and make this bread the Precious
Body of Thy Christ, and that which
is in this Cup the Precious Blood
of Thy Christ, changing then by Thy
Holy Spirit.

Because of this, it is NOT the priest who makes the change, it is the Holy Spirit. So even an unworthy priest can stand at the Holy Altar and prayer to God to make this change, and it will occur. If we were to begin requiring only the worthy , sinless and holy at the Altar, we may never be able to have another Divine Liturgy. It is precisely because we recognized that it is not us who do this, as well as all Sacraments, that they are worthily conducted. There is no "legality" involved in this Act, it is a pure spiritual mystery..

I cannot say what it is that Christians outside of the Tradition and Apostolic Succession receive at their Holy Communion. Surely many do not even claim it to be the Actual Body and Blood of Christ, but rather a memorial meal. Others do believe that there is some form of transmutation, which is present for a time and then dissipates.I am ceertain that this is one of those great "leaps of faith" a person must make as they approach the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

I will tell one story , if I may. I had a man who in a parish once, who never came to Holy Communion . I asked him why he never received, even on the Great Feasts. He told me he was a recovering alcoholic and did not want to "tempt fate" by drinking the "wine". I just laughed out loud and told him, "Don't be silly, we don't receive wine, we partake of the Precious Blood of Christ. If you believe that what problem do you have receiving Holy Communion?" I asked if he believed that he was an Orthodox Christian, to which he aanswered yes. " So what's the problem, then?" He soon started to come to Communion, and is still quite sober.

And please bear with me for one more story from ther same parish, ( in Los Angeles ). There was a group of women who had been very faithful receivers of Holy Communion, along with their children who suddenly stopped rec eiving. I asked them why, and they told me that they believed one of the Church members had AIDS and they did not want to take the chance of contracting the disease ( this was in the mid 80's ). I asked them if they were Orthodox and believed that the Holy Eucharist was Truly the Most Preceious Body and Most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ. If they believed this as Orthodox then they would know it was ONLY His Blody and His Blood they would be receiving. They came back to Communion....no one got sick!


unworthy servant

+Kyrill

Blessed Elias, monk --

One of the first books I read involving Eastern thought was by Bishop Kallistos Ware on the Orthodox Church. I found it stimulating and refreshing. Your post reminds me again of just how refreshing and different I find the Eastern mindset.

Out of curiousity and in my quest to learn, I attended RCIA classes at one of the local RCC parishes. When the presiding priest said that the priest "calls Christ down out of Heaven and into the host" I was deeply offended by the tone of what he said. Perhaps I misunderstood, but in the context he was speaking, he was referring to the power given to the priest in the Eucharistic ceremony.

To the contrary, I was much blessed by the words of the Anaphora which you shared with me, for I think they represent the humility with which we, mere creatures, approach the holy and mighty God, beseeching Him that once again we might be blest to receive the Blessed Sacrament which, according to our Lord, to eat is to live. Or, as I so love to tell others, "the medicine of immortality" as the Early Fathers referred to it.

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement for me as I journey onward. My pilgrimage has already led me in places I would have never expected to be in last year at this time. To change from a diehard, bigoted, anti-catholic to having a thirst to know the truth and an acceptance of and real appreciation of Apostolic practice and doctrine is nothing short of a miracle.

Who would have guessed it. It has been something of a shock to my Protestant brothers.

Yours in Christ,

Brother Ed -- A dumb sheep

Blessed Father Kyrill --

How puzzling sometimes is the way that God works. I first became Eucharistic in my thought from, of all places, an article written in a Calvinist magazine defending Sacramentalism from the attacks of the nominalist Evangelicals. The cover of the magazine was especially striking.

On the cover was a picture of a mass of humanity, presumably at one of those Evagelical dog-and-pony shows they call a "Crusade for Christ". (sorry -- came out of this system and have no respect for it) The inference is that they are ready to respond to the "altar call" and "accept Jeeeeezus".

Then, down at the lower right hand of the cover, the corner is "peeled back" to reveal the Bread and Chalice. Above this is printed the words: "How do we receive Christ? Our way or His?"

Stunning effect.

What do nominalists receive at their "Lord's Supper"? Well, could it be that they receive exactly what they believe they receive -- NOTHING? Makes sense to me. Does God have compassion on them in their ignorance and give some measure of grace anyway? Well, that is for Him to know and me not to speculate upon.

Then there is the enigma of we darned Anglicans. There is claim made to Apostolic authority based upon the establishment of the mission by St. Augustine to Great Britan in the fourth century in subjection to the Pope. There is a plea to that lineage of bishops which I have heard.

What amount of politics goes into Rome's refusal to acknowledge the ordination of Anglican bishops? It is a sticky issue, but do remember that up until just recently , the anathemas were headed East also. Now, all of a sudden, according to Rome, the Orthodox have valid orders. What changed? They still don't recognize Rome.

Must one be Roman to be catholic? Or must one believe at the Vincentine Canons state "that which has been believed at all times, by all people, in all places" to be catholic? What little I have learned of the Anglican Church indicates to me that the Anglicans have the same agenda as the Orthodox, a repudiation of certain "errors" they see in Rome. Yet we are not recognized, even with our ecclessiastical history. *sigh*

Who knows. Perhaps the Anglican Church is just a way station for me to stop at and get my breath while I study the harder points of Apostolic and Eastern thought. Worked that way for John Cardinal Newman. (Not that I would ever be the mind he was) :-)

I pray for light. Your prayers are appreciated also.

Brother Ed -- Sheep, seeking Shepherd

Doxa Theo!

Dear TruthSeeker:

You ask: No, it is Christ who works in the mysteries to effect the change. But Christ does not do this just because someone invokes the change. Were I to read the Eucharistic prayer nothing would happen -- for I am not ordained a priest. And that is the key. If one is not validly ordained a priest it does not matter what one believes or thinks for there can be no mystery where there is no valid priest.

In the East only a priest may marry a couple because our theology teaches that in the mystery of holy crowning it is Christ working through the priest who brings about the graces of marriage and who actually joins the couple. If I were to go through the motions of holy crowning nothing would happen.

You see, Jesus established a particular Church through which He operates. He does not distribute the Mysteries to any who go through the motions, but only to those who are properly disposed and ordained.

Since the issue of Anglican orders has already been ruled upon by Pope Leo XIII based upon an examination of the rites employed and the intention evidenced in those rites, it logically follows that there can be no grace in their mysteries.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Blessed Fr. Deacon Edward --

Okay. I understand the idea of authority and that authority coming from a source. If I might use the same kind of military metaphor which Paul used, I would have no authority to go to the local military base and begin to order around privates, corporals, etc. I haven't been given that authority.

What I do find very funny is a story I heard at RCIA class. Father Mahoney told me that there are now Lutheran and Anglican priests who are going to the bishops of the Old Catholic order in Sweden and having them lay hands on them so that they can go back and offer their parishoners a valid Eucharist.

That really seems funny in light of the fact that these people want the blessing of valid orders but not the submission to Rome nor the primacy of the Chair of Peter.

Why, I wonder, would God honor with valid authority, attitudes such as that and how are they any different than the Anglican attitude which Leo XIII condemned?

Oh, and BTW, you wouldn't think that there would be any politics or desire for power involved in that, do you?

Naaaaaaahhhhh!!

Brother Ed

I don't believe I'm doing this, but I'm going to quote the "Baltimore Catechism".

What is a Sacrament?

A sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.

So, the purpose of the sacraments is to provide 'grace' or 'spirit' to follow God's will. If someone doesn't receive the sacraments, can that person be holy and fulfill God's plan for salvation? I think the answer is yes because Christ welcomed everyone, even the Samaritan woman. I'm not saying that a person should avoid the sacraments that are available. But I truly believe that when Anglicans or Lutherans pray, they are communing with God.
Interestingly enough, the Latin church used to have a pious practice called 'spiritual communion'. It essentially taught that when one was not physically able to go to communion at church, one could 'receive' by lifting one's heart and mind to God and by asking for the grace of the Eucharist. Thus, when good Anglicans and Lutherans lift their hearts and minds to God to receive the Eucharist, I don't think that God would deny them the graces based upon their pastor's ordination status. (I guess I'm just a big old softy!)

I think that there is a distinct danger of approaching the Eucharist as some sort of 'magic'. "You say the words, you get the magic". I think that the eucharist comes to us as the result of good people praying together with their bishop/priest and begging the Holy Spirit to provide the graces mediated by the sacrament. Can that happen if there is no priest present? I'm not sure what God does in that case. But when an 'apostate' priest speaks the words of consecration over a bread basket and a glass of wine at a restaurant, I don't believe that the bread and wine are consecrated, despite the "priest's" intention. (I know that this flies in the face of a lot of pious beliefs, but I don't quite understand how God would allow this mockery to take place.) For me, the Eucharist as a mediator of grace comes when the 'ekklesia' gathers with its bishop or priest and calls down the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. It irks me to think that the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the Absolute Source of Being, is thought to be able to be held hostage by human beings who can just 'say the words' and by virtue of ordination can bring God down to earth for whatever purpose. The priest is 'chosen from among the people to serve the people in the things that pertain to God.' If the priest is not doing that, then he's not a priest. I'm sure that the grenades will start flying in my direction very soon, but I just can't live with the 'magic' aura that surrounds the sacraments. It's God that we are dealing with; and our relationship with God is paramount, not the sacraments that are meant to provide grace.

8)Our relationship with God is through partaking of the Sacraments which are filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit if you believed in Orthodoxy. Christ should have sent the Holy Spirit on Pentecost to some other people to suit your understanding. I sincerely and truly understand the reasoning of your phronema(mindset) which is not Orthodox but it certainly is not acceptable. What am I to say about the Melkites who broke communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church? The Orthodox believe that Rome is lacking in grace. By how much I don't know. If I were to guess I would probably have to say zero. The Orthodox Church is indivisible and I pray that those outside the communion come home soon. Forgive my narrowness which I surely expect from you and from many. Matthew 7:13-14 states "Enter by the NARROW gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way which leads to destruction, and there are many who go by it. Because NARROW is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

[This message has been edited by Robert Sweiss (edited 01-31-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Robert Sweiss (edited 01-31-2000).]

Dear Blessed Robert --

First of all, let me make what might sound like a very strange statement from one who seems to be begging for tolerance. I actually appreciate your firm stand on principle.

I think what Dr. John is saying is that grace is, well, GRACE!! It is undeserved kindness of God to us scruffy sinners, us lost sheep who wander confused in this wilderness.

I wonder how God views my struggle? Remember, I have spent 25 years in Protestantism hearing that anything catholic is of the devil (I kid you not!!). Now, all of a sudden, I find that I am highly sympathetic to and completely in agreement with catholic doctrine in principle and have joined a church I THOUGHT was apostolic, only to find out that there is some question about this too.

I did so, not out of rebellion, but out of what I thought was obedience. Are you saying that there is no grace for those who operate on the principle of trying to be an obedience son or daughter.

And to make matters worse, for whatever reason, God ALLOWED the schism to happen, so that there is not one church claiming authority but two, and actually, more than that if you take into account the claims of the HOCNA that they alone are the real and true Orthodox church.

And I, with my pea brain, am supposed to figure this out or I can't get the grace of God?

I'm sorry if this sounds wrong, but there have been times that I have considered this and been severely tempted of the evil one to just chuck Christianity altogether. If my salvation depends upon finding the TRUE CHURCH, and yet God has allowed schism and division and arguements which confuse someone like me one the outside, then I might as well roll dice and pick a church based upon how the numbers come up.

I hope I have conveyed a sense of my deep frustration. And now I am told that I might as well be eating a chicken sandwich at the altar for all the spiritual good it does me.

I thought that Scripture said "man looks upon the outer appearence, but God regardeth the heart" Is this a heart issue or an issue of having perfect outward obedience? Surely if there are not valid orders in the Anglican congregation, I may not be getting the full blessing and grace which others are getting, but again, isn't it the point of grace that it is "UNMERITED FAVOR"? If it is unmerited, then does it depend solely upon perfect understanding and right decisions to receive grace, or might I receive grace as I move towards God in imperfect attempt at obeying the light I have been given?

God's rich blessings up you. Thank you for your input and answers.

Brother Ed

Dear Truthseeker,
Forgive me for correcting you but I am far from being proclaimed "Blessed" by the Orthodox Church. Augustine is called Blessed Augustine. However I understand and appreciate your good intentions. I spent over a decade as a agnostic searching for evidence of truth regarding Christ and His Church. I discovered that I was immersed in Western culture which Western Christianity had shaped and infected me with the heresy of relativism. The understanding of grace in the West is far removed and watered down in comparison to Eastern Christian thought of mysticism. Studying the early Church Fathers such as St. Gregory Palamas and Dionysius the Areopagite will give you a greater appreciation of the meaning of grace. I do not possess authority over grace or where grace is complete and available. An adequate understanding of grace stems from our understanding of the Holy Spirit and how that grace is poured out to the people of God. If you believe in the day of Pentecost and who were the people that were in communion, by you following Church history, it would have to be the Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholic Church was Orthodox and forfeited this historical claim through its arrogancy. The Roman Catholic and Protestant view and understanding of grace is nothing in comparison to Eastern Christian thought. Please take the time out to read about the eastern understanding of grace. If God willed His grace to everyone without any demands from us then I must say one has submitted to relativsim rather than to the True Church. People in the world are confused and frustrated as it is when there are thousands of sects, cults, denominations, heretical and heterodox churches staking their claim to the truth. The fact is there is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The question for you remains: which one, the Roman Catholic and her affiliates or the Orthodox Church? I could tell you the answer but that would be biased and I truly believe you have to discover that for yourself.
In Christ,
Robert

<font color=blue><b>Not blessed? Well, you are in my book. Anyway, if not blessed, then I shall call you --BROTHER ROBERT --

unless you have an objection to that. :-)

Thank you for your post. I would like to ask if you have any links or books to recommend which wouyld help me to understand this relativistic stance of the Western Church?

I went to the dentist today and while waiting I was reading Bishop Ware's book THE ORTHODOX WAY. I haven't been in it for a while, but I must admit that it reminded me of several things about the Eastern mindset that I really like.

BTW -- Are you Orthodox or Byzantine? How close do you consider these two bodies to be/

Thank you for your communication with me. In closing, I just want to share with you something that hit me today like a ton of bricks.

I was thinking about my struggle to understand and find the Church. As I sat in my chair pondering, I suddenly realized that what I am looking for, based on my arguements, is a church which meets my criteria for what Christ's Church should be.

And suddenly it hit me with a force that "I" am not the one who has any right whatsoever to determine what the Church should look like. That is Christ's job, for it is His Bride. For me to refuse to join a Church until I find one that meets my criterion is not only a lack of faith, but it is putting my trust in myself rather than in Him, and taking His place, usurping Him as God.

I was, to say the least, stunned for several minutes.

Pray that God will make my path and duty abundantly clear. I believe I have a willing heart to go where ever He leads me.

Thank you.
Brother Ed

Dear Brother Ed:

Let me refer you to the works of Karl Rahner, and I quote: "Such a man may assume he is an atheist: he may grieve at the thought that he does not believe; concrete Christian doctrine may seem outlandish to him. Let him but press on, following the light there in his heart of hearts, and he is on the right road; and the Christian has no fear that such a man will not reach the goal, even though he has not managed to turn his anonymous Christianity into explicit Christianity. It is a Christian truth that a man who seeks has already been found by the One he is honestly looking for, albeit anonymously. All roads lead to him. 'In him we live and move and have our being'(Acts 17, 28). Comprehending all things, he is comprehended by none. And therefore Christianity, faith in God through Christ in one Spirit, is child's play, because all it says is that we are called into the immediate mystery of God, waiting for the revelation of that which already is so--'that God [is] everything to everyone."
from Do You Believe
in God
A mere seeker of God;

John

Dear Brother Ed,
If you want to call me Brother Robert that's okay by me. I am an Antiochian Orthodox Christian who was baptised under the Jerusalem Patriarchy in Jordan. Regarding the heresy of relativism, I do not have any specific books which I do know are available. There are a couple of books that might be of interest. The book,"The Empty Church," by Thomas Reeves and "The American Religion" by Harold Bloom. Both books reveal what is happening to the demise of American/Western Christianity. The focus is more on Protestantism than on Catholicism. However, Catholicism and Protestantism are in many ways no different than each other. They both claim authenticity and authority. Both are always inventing new teachings to adjust to modernity at the expense of neglecting Apostolic teachings. They are opposites of the same coin. It is unfortunate for the Melikites(Byzantine Catholics) to have made communion with Rome in 1724AD. I have some relatives and friends who are Melikites. My parents were married in their church. After studying the history of how Rome tried to conquer the Middle East and convert the Orthodox to Roman Catholics it became quite clear in my mind that Rome was an antagonist and sheep-theif. The Orthodox Church never went out of Her way to establish a Greek Patriarchy in Rome as opposed to Rome's Latin Patriarchy in Jerusalem. There is no doubt of a spiritual and political struggle with Rome. The Melikites were sincere Orthodox Christians who apostazied and came into union with Rome. They hoped and continue to hope that Rome will accept them as equals when their past history has indicated otherwise. I will pray for you on your journey into the fullness of the faith. Please checkout the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese Home Page at www.antiochian.org. I know of a former Anglican Priest who converted to Orthodoxy by the name of Fr. Patrick Reardon who serves in my archdiocese and in my city of Chicago. You can find info about him through the above web page and ask to speak to him. He has told me the terrible stories of what had happen with the Anglicans and why he decide to become Orthodox rather than Roman or Byzantine Catholic. God bless.
In Christ,
Brother Robert

Dear Servant of God, Robert

Glory to Jesus Christ !

Thank you for posting the Antiochian web site link. I went there and found a link for the Antiochian Village in Ligonier, PA. I enjoyed perusing this link, since this is the location where our annual Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh Great Fast Retreat will be held this March 24-26, 2000. Ukranian Catholic Father George Appleyard will be the retreat master. I am happy and I applaud the Antiochian Church for allowing a Catholic Ruthenian Church to hold such a spiritual fulfilling event on Eastern Orthodox property.

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner

<b><font color=blue>Brother in Christ Petrus --

Your post most vividly shows the difference between Western and Eastern thought. It seems that the thought of the East is that Christ, by His death and resurrection, reconciled the whole world to Himself, so that all men are the legal possession of our Lord to do with according to both grace and justice.

Western thought gives mankind into two classes -- those who are "saved" and those who are "lost". The more extreme version of this is the Calvinistic view which states that only a certain group of people were saved by the Crucifixtion, and the rest are not even in God's thoughts except in judgement.

Perhaps I need to rethink the idea of where man is in relation to God through the work of the Cross.

Brother Ed

Dear Joe Prokopchak,
I am glad you found the Antiochian website and discovered the site you will attended with your church. As you probably know we do have good relationships with the Melikites, Marionites, Syrians, Coptics, etc. We have much in common except when it comes to discussions of being in communion with Rome. Byzantine Catholics are the nearest to us in the Antiochian Church. I know of the Melikite and Marionite priests in Chicago who have good relationships with my priest and attend our functions and we attend theirs as well. When we have our worship service with their presence we will not give them the Eucharist, and at the same time we would not accept their Eucharist during their worship services. There are very good reasons for this which I have stated in many posts. God-willing we will wait for their return to Holy Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

[This message has been edited by Robert Sweiss (edited 02-01-2000).]

Laudetur Jesus Christus!
Dear TruthSeeker,
I would advise You to seek some help in The Catechism Of the Catholic Church. Remember please that it is valid for all Churches in union with Rome, although I supose our Eastern hosts on this forum are of opinion that in some places it is too westernized.
Also for question 2 read:
#1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."[199] In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."[200] "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."[201]
Note that #1373 speaks about another ways of Christ presence which is also 'real'.
#1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church:[195] in his word, in his Church's prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"[196] in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,[197] in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."[198]
Coception of substantial change of elements is already known in Roman Church in 11th century ( Creed of Berengarius, 1079).
The change is substantial, because during consecration species of bread and wine become as identical with Body and Blood of Christ, God and man, as Son of God is substantially identical (consubstantial) with God The Father (see Nicene Creed), as Jesus Christ, Incarnated Word of God, is consubstantial to us in his humanity (see decrees of Council of Chalcedon).
so the idea of'transsubstantiation' is not so much scholastic, since it uses cocepts evolved for explanation of ourfaith durin early councils common for East and West.
I'm able to understand eastern scepticism about this matter, because it was worked out by Western Church alone, and not on common Ecumenical Council, but Byzantinians, especially Catholics, should remember that their Churches have never faced doctrines deniing real presenc of Christ in Eucharist.
I'm strongly convinced, and CCC confirms that in #1399, that eastern Churches, catholic, orthodox and nonchalcedonian, have valid Eucharist.Words are not as important, as common faith is.
#1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."[235]

Now about question 3:
#1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing[178]) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).
In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

#1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:
It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.[202]
And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed.... Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.[203]

This last one article is especially interesting, since it cites St.John Chrysostom. I may only add that generally Easterners care more about epiclesis, and Westerners about institution narrative.
Question 5; here some more articels:
I. THE CHURCH IS ONE
"The sacred mystery of the Church's unity" (UR 2)
813 The Church is one because of her source: "the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit."[259] The Church is one because of her founder: for "the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body."[260] The Church is one because of her "soul": "It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church's unity."[261] Unity is of the essence of the Church:
What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her "Church."[262]

814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church's members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."[263] The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."[264]

815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."[265] But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:
- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.[266]

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it.... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."[267]
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."[268]

Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."[269] The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism[270] - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.[271]

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."[272]

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"[273] are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."[274] Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,[275] and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."[276]

Toward unity
820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."[277] Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."[278] The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.[279]

821 Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:
- a permanent renewal of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;[280]
- conversion of heart as the faithful "try to live holier lives according to the Gospel";[281] for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ's gift which causes divisions;
- prayer in common, because "change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;"'[282]
-fraternal knowledge of each other;[283]
- ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of priests;[284]
- dialogue among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;[285]
- collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind.[286] "Human service" is the idiomatic phrase.

822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."[287] But we must realize "that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts." That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."[288]

I'd stress #817.Catholics belive that the Only Church of Christ exists in catholic church ruled by The Successor of St.Petr, but it seems this faith does not exclude Its existence in other eathly Churches.
Question 6;
1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."[236] It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."[237]

So Anglicans and Lutherans beliving in real presence in Eucharist are in fact closer to Apostolic Faith than your "nominal catholic", although they err considering Eucharist in their churches as valid.
As for the Church of England its orders were defined as invalid by LeoXIII in 1896 due to certainevents in 16th century, which broked off Apostolic Succession in this Church.
ThruthSeeker, forgive me if I answer a few words to Robert Sweiss.
Robert, You have chosen following reading from The Gospel:Matthew 7:13-14 states "Enter by the NARROW gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way which leads to destruction, and there are many who go by it. Because NARROW is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
Considering all your opinions i've read on this forum I suggest you to read another one: Luke 18:9-14 ;
9
He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else.
10
"Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
11
The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector.
12
I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.'
13
But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner.'
14
I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
piotr c, still trying to be humble.
Full text of CCC is to be found www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html

Dear piotrc,
I should tell you the truth about all the Catechism quotes you posted as well as about the book in general. It's mixed with false teachings commingled with with Orthodox teachings. This is a horrible place for a non-Orthodox believer to start. You remind very much of a Protestant who fills up the entire message board with Biblical quotes to prove his heretical points. According to 817 of the Catechism, the sins that cause divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes originated in the Roman Catholic Church. That's how I interpret your bad medicine. I am glad of the existence of the Catechism which can be demonstrated as fallacious which the Latin church rests upon. I will be more than happy to engage you on the Catechism teachings of the filioque, Papacy, Eucharist, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Indulgences, etc. I am also aware of how the elements of Orthodox teachings are manipulated and exploited to present greater credibility to the Roman Catholic Church. Rome needs to return to Holy Orthodoxy by eradicating the Papacy.

<b><font color=blue>Dear brethren in the faith --

Well, Brother Robert's post really gets to the heart of where I stand right now, confused as a baby in a topless bar. Both Rome and Constinople make for yards and yards of apologia, throwing proof texts, grammer, history, etc. at each other in an attempt to prove that they have stayed true to the faith and the other has fallen into heterodoxy. Both claim to be the True Church, which creates quite a bit of consternation for me, since I am a corporate covenantalist, or to put it another way EXTRA ECCLESIA NULLA SALUS -- that is, God does not normally give salvation outside of the bounds of the Church.

More succinctly put THE SCHISM GIVES ME A MIGRANE!!!!!!!!!

Brother Ed

Dumb Sheep seeking Shepherd

Dear Brother Ed,

The schism has the same effect on me. What a sadness.

In our body, we feel the pain of a fracture or tear. We should feel no less pain (but rather greater) that our sin and hate has torn the Body of Christ. We have cut Christ's seamless robe!

When we cease to feel the pain of this tragedy (or yearn for its healing), the Evil One's work is complete.

Let us pray for healing and reconciliation. Let it come soon, O God!

Elias, monk

Dear in Christ Brother Ed,

May God Bless you!

I am quite sure that the pharmaceutical companies are full of theologians to assure the plentiful need for aspirin in light of their arguments.

The simplest thing I can say to you in the face of Apologetics is to make a sincere prayer that Our Lord Jesus Christ lead you by the Holy Spirit, and then follow your HEART and not your HEAD. Remember that the Pharisees were all "head" and thus had no place in their hearts, since these had turned to stone, to receive Christ when he came.

I fear that you will not find a resolution in these forums, especially when the "apologetic" fever begins to rise. First it is polite, although snidely so; then the gloves come off and the combatants end up calling one another heretics. Then I step in to chide both sides, it quiets down for a while until some innocent asks the simplest question.Sometimes the clanking cymbals are deafening!!!

I think that you already know where your "heart" is leading you, why not follow
it and be at peace.

unworthy servant

+Kyrill

Laudetur Jesus Christus!
Dear Ed,
I think that we are HEART and NEAD, therefore we try to express in words what we belive in our hearts. You asked a few question in which, and also in further posts, you showed certain misunderstanding of western teachings. (pity that it was sometimes caused by catholic priests). By citing CCC my only intention was to show you what can be considerd as authoritatively catholic.
I don't want quarel about words or liturgical habits. For me eastern Christians belong to the Churches which share the same Apostoli Faith with us roman Catholics. They are neither schismatics nor heretics, although, shamefully, visibly we are still divided. I mean not only Byzantinian Orthodohs, but also nonchalcedonians or Oriental Orthodoxs and Assyrians.
Their Churches as well as Roman have valid Apostolic Succesion, valid Sacraments, all sources of God's grace.
If you will decide to join Orthodox Church, you still will be my brother in Christ, member of sister Church. I only hope you will not share Robert Sweiss's opinions about catholics.
EXTRA ECLESSIA NULLA SALUS. Interestingly enough it is opinion of St,Cyprian, Bishop of Carthagina in mid 3rd century (he was latin). Ed, please do not mix this ECLESSIA with any earthly Church. God is almighty, we are not able to dictate Him anything. Excuse me last one quotation from CCC:
#1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[59] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[60] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[61] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Your brother in Christ piotr c

Dear piotrc and Brother Ed,
Know this that my opinons do not count but only the historical, theological facts established within Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church is full and complete as well as indivisible and infallible. These attributes are lacking and contrary to Rome and her Protestant progenies. I only speak the truth when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church's false teachings. I dont play "politically correct" games if people take offense at my truthfully and sincere writings about heretics or heterodoxes. 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. There is no hope for Rome if she does not return to Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy will not defy Her very own teachings for the sake of unity with Rome or others who do not believe the same. I hope and pray for Brother Ed to find the True Church in Christ that is full of grace. Catholicism does not cut it but squanders it.

<b><font color=blue>Dear Brother Robert --

Thank you for all your posts relative to my continuing search for the Master's true House.

If I may ask you for one more post -- would you define the differences you see between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

If you don't want to start a doctrinal firestorm here, you may write me at

leprechaunhill@mindspring.com

I just want to be sure my understanding of the differences is as complete as possible.

Brother Ed
Uneasy Anglican Sheep

Dear Brother Ed:

If you ask any Byzantine Catholic what the doctrinal differences are between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, the answer is there really aren't any. There is merely a difference in approach. The RC church is more rational (i.e. scientific in its approach) and therefore tends to define things (i.e. the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, original sin, etc.). These teachings are not contrary to Orthodox teaching. By this I mean, that if an Orthodox Christian held these views, he or she would still be faithful to the Orthodox faith. Rather, the Eastern mindset views these things as mystical and therefore beyond definition and human understanding. The attempt at defining these things is limiting and therefore not complete. (This is also not contrary to RC teaching. The limitations of language and the difficulty in achieving the nuance of meaning as one translates from one language to another and from one era to another typically results in a vast oversimplification in the Roman doctrine).
The understanding of church is also a little different. The Eastern churches are first and foremost local under one bishop; the Western church tends to view itself first as universal under the Pope.
The beauty of being Byzantine Catholic is in recognizing all of this. We do not like the term Uniate as it connotes passivity on our part. It presumes an "artificial" ecclesiology; we were duped into union. Yet, I am sure that every Byzantine Catholic that participates in this forum has seriously discerned the question: Am I Eastern or ma I Catholic? We have all concluded that we are both. We proscribe to the divine tension: East vs West, rationalism vs mysticism, local vs universal. And as a result, we are fulfilled.

A humble sojourner:

John

error

[This message has been edited by Petrus (edited 02-05-2000).]

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 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 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).]

Dear Forum,

This is some what of a sad subject, especially for those that are in "World Orthodoxy".

The fact is, the Roman Church and the "world Orthodox Church" are sister churches. Since both of them recognize each other as grace-bearing with valid sacraments and Apostolic Succession. It is a fact, that neither the Roman church or the "world Orthodox church" can say that they alone have Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments.

To the documents adopted as a result of the "theological" dialogue between the pseudo-Orthodox(world Orthodox) and the Papists, in particular the so-called Balamand Unia (1993), which refers to the Papist assembly as a "Sister Church", and which declares that it possesses grace and uninterrupted Apostolic Succession, that its sacraments are true, and which forbids proselytizing (i.e., the conversion from the Papal error to the saving faith of the Orthodox Church): Anathema!

For those under those under the Patriarchate of Antioch (world Orthodox):

To the agreement reached in Antioch in 1991, as a result of which the Orthodox Church of Antioch entered into full ecclesiastical union with the Syrian Monophysites, the Jacobites: Anathema! Anathema to all those who do not consider Monophysites to be heretics and who do not avoid prayerful and eucharistic communion with them. For they have all been anathematized by the 630 Holy Fathers present at the Fourth Ecumenical Council held in Chalcedon, and remain under ban now and in the age to come.

(Betania Monastery July 22/ August 4, 1997)

In Christ,

Timothy the Reader

Dear Timothy the Tonsured.

I don't know what calendar you're observing, but it's Great Lent. We are all supposed to be asking forgiveness as we begin this Holy Season.

Hurling anathemas at folks, including Balamand, on your own initiative without benefit of Council or Synod seems both unkind as well as arrogant.

I beg you to refrain from this invective in the spirit of the Humble Christ.

Let us all pray for each other and ask forgiveness for all the stupid things we've done and said to each other.

[This message has been edited by Dr John (edited 03-13-2000).]

"You make me wonder if you are in Christ or someone else like the devil."

[This message has been edited by Robert Sweiss (edited 03-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Robert Sweiss (edited 03-15-2000).]

That is what I expected from you.

It is also the way the saints have been treated through out the centuries.

It is just hard for you to understand that your bishops dont agree with you Robert. That is the other sad thing. Since you are in communion with your bishops, you could at least hold the same confession of faith as they do. LOL

Peace,

Timothy the Reader

P.S. Your bishops DO believe that the Roman church has *valid* sacraments with a *valid* priesthood.

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

Dear Rober Sweiss,

you wrote:
>>I hope you did not write to cast judgement on my salvation or even to damn me with...<<

I don't want to offend you by explaining so obvious things (like this one: " Man is not deprived of his free will and till the last moment of his life he can choose between eternal life and eternal death. However salvation or damnation of any person is a sovereign decision of God. He has revealed to us some of the reasons for damnation sentence, just to warn us and to make us avoid certain beliefs and deeds.")

>>... a biblical quote which sounds quite Calvinistic.<<

Biblical quote is just a biblical quote.
I tried hard but I haven't found any flaw of Calvinism in my previous post.
I take no responsibility for your idea of Calvinism and I hope you'll never allow this heresy to deceit you.

>>The Catholic Faith is that of Orthodoxy not Catholicism.<<

With all due respect, this original mindset you call "Orthodoxy" is neither orthodox nor catholic.
Continuos and conscious refusal to remain in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Universal Pastor of the Church, constitutes a very grave sin of schism. It's like making a bleeding wound in the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the Holy Church. It's like tearing it apart.
Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia, "the Church is there where Peter is", as the ancient rule says.
The additional problem with "the Eastern Orthodox Churches" is that there are also some dogmatic differences (e.g. those concerning papal infallibility under strictly defined circumstances).

I was wondering about one thing.
As an Orthodox apologist you must have read some Catholic apologists, just to prepare some counter-arguments. Have you? Have you read any good Catholic handbook of dogmatic theology, or some of the best Catholic apologias?
I ask because every time I talk with some Orthodox I have this strange feeling that they don't know what are they talking about. I mean - they present to me some horrible, fantastic theories which sound like a "drunk madman's dream" and call it Catholicism.

There is not enough time and place to enumerate all good Catholic books I would like to recommend you. I hope my Byzantine brothers will provide you with it when you ask them.

Nevertheless I think it would be good to propose you something.
Please think over the following issues:

#1) The Apostles had their different names, of Semitic or Greek origin. Our Lord changed Simon's name to "Kephas". This Aramaic word is the only name of any Apostle that was being translated to Greek ("Petros") and to Latin ("Petrus") by the first Christians. Why? Why they wanted to add such an emphasis to the meaning of this word? Isn't it because of the unique duty that had been entrusted to St. Peter?
#2) Some say that the Holy Scripture is always referring to God alone when using the word "rock". Not so - see Isaiah 51,1 for example.

#3) In the Holy Gospels and in the Acts of Apostles we find this constantly repeated phrase "Peter and the Apostles". Very meaningful, isn't it? In this book the primacy and very broadly defined power of St. Peter are simply obvious to every unprejudiced reader.
#4) St. Peter was the FIRST to confess the Divinity of Lord Jesus and the FIRST one to enter the empty grave and to witness the Mystery of Resurrection. Quite meaningful, ah?
#5) How about the "Power of Keys"? (St. Matthew 16, 19)
#6) St. Ignatius of Antioch was teaching about papal duty of "presiding in love". But certainly he didn't want to contradict or to water down the idea expressed in this holy text: St. Luke 22, 31.
#7) In "Praescriptio adversus haereticorum", chapter 36, Tertulian is writing about the common recognition of the authority of Rome (that was before he left the Church).
#8) 2nd half of the II century, "Against the Heresies" by St. Ireneus (3,3,2): "(...) With this [i.e. Roman] Church, because of her supreme authority, the whole Church, i.e. all the faithful from everywhere, has to agree, since the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved in her through those who come from everywhere." It is my own lame translation from the Polish version and of course I'm sending you to the original or to some non-manipulated English translation.
#9) 343 AD, acts of the synod in Sardica (today's Sofia, capital of Bulgaria), Bishop of Rome recognized as the ultimate canonical instance in judicial process.
#10) 431 AD, all fathers of the Ephesian Council reacted with unanimous applause to the following statement of the papal legate: "(...) He [i.e. St. Peter] until now and forever lives in the persons of his successors and exercises his jurisdictional power". As to the text of translation - see my comment above (#8).
#11) 517 AD, after the end of so called "Akatius' schism" bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople sign the confession of faith formulated by pope Hormisdas. The confession contains the following phrase: "(...) because catholic faith has been always preserved unflawed on the Apostolic See (...). As to the text of translation - see #8.
#12) Numerous Eastern bishops, including Patriarchs of the Constantinople, were referring to the popes as to arbiters. E.g. St. John Chrisostom addressed pope Innocentius I in 403 AD, asking him for justice.
#13) It is known to everyone familiar with the Church's history how great help was provided by Rome to the Byzantine orthodox hierarchs during iconoclastic revolts in VIII and IX centuries.
#14) Roman primacy was reflected even in the state legislation of Constantinople. Emperor Justinian, in his IX novel from May 535 AD had stated the following: "The old city of Rome has this honor to be mother of laws and nobody should doubt that the seat of the supreme episcopal power is located there. Therefore we also consider it to be necessary: to venerate this cradle of law, this source of spiritual authority, with a special law of our holy will." As to the text of translation - see #8.
#15) As to calumnies cast on the pope Victor (an ALLEGED Montanist, III century), see: Eusebius of Caesarea, 'Ecclesial History', 5,28,6.
#16) As to calumnies cast on the pope Liberius (an ALLEGED Arian, III century) see: St. Athanasius, 'Apologia for My Escape', chapter 4 (Liberius, Bishop of Rome, is said to be one of the "good bishops, propagators of the truth"). More evidence for that is given by:
-- Teodoret ('Ecclesial History', liber 2, caput 16: stenographic relation from interrogation of this pope, conducted by emperor Constantius; it resulted with sending the pope to exile);
-- pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus, describing the same events.
In his 'Apologia against Arians' St. Athanasius is complaining only about too passive resistance to Arian heresy by pope Liberius. However he doesn't accuse the pope of heterodoxy.
Let us add here that the so called Third Formula o Sirmium, signed by the pope, can not be considered as Arian, contrary to what some fierce yet uneducated "pope-eaters" may think. Of course those three 'Sirmian Formulas' are somewhat rotten fruits of political-religious crisis. They are not good nourishment for our faith and they do not deserve being taught today. They are just another example of word joggling, so frequently inspired in the Church by the evil one.
Anyway, the Nicene Creed was then and after accepted by all popes (including Liberius), so the whole debate seems to be pointless for theologians. [Historians and politicians may challenge that opinion, which is no wonder |:-(( ].
18) As to calumnies cast on the pope Honorius (an ALLEGED Monotheletian, VII century).
In his (in)famous response to patriarch Sergius (condemned by the 3rd Council of Constantinople) he actually proves that he doesn't understand the idea of Monotheletism and that he still believes properly (see the text: Denzinger 487). He considered the idea as some kind of academic abstract that could be useful for political or diplomatic purposes (the unity of the Empire was seriously endangered).
We are lacking of the original sources and documents so to a great extent we have to refer to testimonies of reliable witnesses. Among defenders of orthodoxy of the pope Honorius were pope John IV (see: Denzinger 496 - 498) and famous Byzantine theologian St. Martin the Confessor (+ 662 AD). St Martin the Confessor writes that Honorius, "although simple as a dove, was lacking of a serpent's discernment". Lateran Synod (649 AD) composed the list of names of the creators of the Monotheletian heresy and condemned it solemnly. There was no pope Honorius' name on the list. Moreover, pope St. Martin I, who called the synod, was martyred because of his anti-Monotheletism in 655 AD.
So: did pope Honorius sinned with inaccurate pastoral care? Yes. Was he teaching and promoting Monotheletism? NO.
(In the above comments I have used extensively the writings of excellent RC theologian, Fr. Jacek Salij OP. Without his consent, I must add. ;-)

#19) The wonderful work titled "Proceeding of The Holy Spirit From The Son In The Genuine Greek Theology" by Fr. Benedict Huculak OFM, S.T.D. (Pontifical Academy 'Antonianum', the Eastern Institute) - still awaits for its translation to English. When it appears on the web I'll let you know as soon as possible.
#20) "The last Divine Liturgy said in the great basilica Hagia Sophia was said in union with the Pope of Rome. The last Emperor Constantine XI Paleologus, when he died on the battlements on May 29, 1453, died a Catholic" (quotation from the EWTN website, I can't remember the author). As you see it is difficult to say when this "sinister policy of Uniatism" had actually started. A closer historical study may prove that something like that has never existed. There was only a series of "many disruptions of communion, disruptions that were by no means uncommon between Rome and Constantinople throughout their years of rivalry, but which were never regarded as final in any way". (source: as above) Those bishops (both from East and West) who really acted in truth AND in charity, those who wanted to restore the full unity - were usually in minority, that's all. What we need now is an absolute majority of the Eastern Ortodox bishops determined to fulfill the holy will of Jesus Christ: "May they all be one!".
#21) 'Rome Sweet Home' by Scott and Kimberly Hahn contains very interesting remarks concerning papal primacy. Those concerning Orthodox Churches are also worth reading.

>>I have read one of your posts and I think you have abandoned Catholicism.<<

Presuming your good will I won't treat that as a purposed insult.
Yes, I posted here some bitter remarks about poor enforcement of liturgical and dogmatic discipline in today's Latin Church. I reflected a little about certain causes of tensions between Catholic East and Catholic West. There was a lot of rhetoric and exaggeration, but I simply couldn't write about it without any emotion.
I'm a "cradle" Catholic. I have never abandoned true Catholicism, as I never joined this modernistic pseudo-Catholicism promoted by ordinary heretics starring in liberal media. Everyone who is mixing up these two is a victim of misinformation made by the certain anti-Christian circles.

>>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.<<

Maybe Lord Jesus wants me to join some Eastern Catholic Church...
I still haven't discerned that...
Yes, it is difficult to be .O.rthodox and "Uniate" at the same time, just like .O.rthodox are hardly ever orthodox (most of them deny one or more Catholic dogmas.)

>>I await your reply.<<

Well, there you have it.
As for our further discussion: firstly, it's the Great Lent time. Secondly, I don't have any slave to work my job for me. ;-) Thridly... just one more biblical quote: Letter to Titus 3, 9-11 :-(.
So now - although I hate to write it - I do not await your reply. Sorry. (Of course I'm speaking for myself only).
Anyway, I assure you of my prayerful memory.

In Christ,

Godfrey

PS: I think you exaggerate about the leavened bread. Two great, over-1500-years-old liturgical traditions - Roman and Armenian - still use the unleavened bread. If it was so VERY important I think St. Peter and St. Paul (Apostles of Rome), St. Bartholomew and St. Juda Thaddeus (Apostles of Armenia) would certainly stress it in their teachings, thus not allowing the other practice to develop.
G.

Dear Robert and Godfrey,

I would like to see your answers to Godfreys claims. That would be nice to see which way you go with this Robert.

As for Godfrey, you couldnt be more wrong about what you have written. Even Roman Catholic theologians and scholars would disagree with you, since they dont even believe the things they made up. After all, it is those scholars and theologians (latin-minded) who purposely mistranslated the writings of the fathers to change the meaning of the Truth, if possible.

I will try and respond to your false claims, if time permits. Just to let you know, that I would only respond out of love for my neighbor. Some things may sound harsh, but I assure you, it is with a loving heart that I will respond.

Have a blessed Great Lent.

Timothy the Reader

Dear Godfrey,
I made a conscious decision to be in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Orthodox Church and not with a Papal Monarchy. The rule of this Papal Monarchy must surrender and I hate to disappoint you but it is not Orthodox. The problem with Roman Catholics is that they believe to have a monopoly over St. Peter. They make exagerated claims regarding our Holy Apostle to support their unholy agenda. Repentance is what is needed for this explicit and implicit blasphemey. Catholicism is known for exagerations that has somehow misplaced and buried her Orthodoxy centuries ago. The longer you remain attached to Catholicism the more you will distance yourself from it especially from its poor liturgical services. What is this "true Catholicism" you speak of? Is it anything that resembles the fundamentalism of "Orthodox" Tim? As everyone knows Tim speaks of a "true Orthodoxy" and it sounds that you are a Fundamentalist Catholic. Am I correct? The manipulation and distortion of Patristic Tradition from their historical and theological contexts is a shame upon sectarians and fundamentalists. I do appreciate the verse in Titus 3:10 in light of Rome that states that I should reject Rome due too so many Orthodox admonitions presented throughout history. Is not Rome who was causing the divisions by picking and choosing from the whole truth? Rome has followed her own decisions and choices independent of Holy Tradition. Incomplete and erroreous beliefs resulted from the immoral behaviors of Rome. I do not have to tell you that Rome has forfeited her Orthodox position by the time of the Crusade to demonstrate her evil independent of Holy Tradition. Interestingly enough, the Pope recently begged for forgiveness for Romes historical atrocities towards others. Unfortunately, the Pope did not specify in clear and precise terms of his apologies. There will be repeated demands for apologies for all the hurt, persecutions, and afflictions perpetuated against Orthodoxy, Islam, and Judaism. The Pope might have been better off by not having to have made such a confession but I think it is a right step in the right direction. I have yet to hear an apology to Orthodoxy and a public confession for the abandonment of Holy Tradition. If Rome remained Orthodox I am confident that the Pope would not have recently been sorry for his See's atrocities. Rome would not have committed the injustices well-recorded in history especially in Orthodox theology. Right behavior stems from right beliefs---WELCOME TO ORTHODOXY.

P.S. In regards to the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, Rome and Armenia have erred. May God help them. Please read my previous posts on the issue of the Eucharist. Rome understood the use of leavened bread and applied it in her Divine Liturgy but deviated from the Orthodox belief & practice.

Robert,

You speak as if Eastern Orthodox Christians are free of sin in their relations with others. What about Orthodox hierarchical cooperation with the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. What about their cooperation with the suppression of the Eastern Catholic Churches there? Even today, have all churches been returned to Eastern Catholic congregations?

You are correct in saying that right belief is supposed to be expressed in right living. But this is not alway realized, either by Catholic or Orthodox Christians. Although some may never sin against faith, they may sin against charity, -- even among the Orthodox.

A Sinner Praying for the Unity of Christians according to the mind and heart of Christ.

Dear Padova,
I have never implied that Eastern Orthodox Christians sin-free. I believe you would agree with me that we are full of sin whether Orthodox or Catholic. The problem you mentioned is specifically directed towards the Russian Orthodox Church which was occupied by the evil forces of communism. The Russian Orthodox Church at that time did not represent the best of Orthodoxy and in the same breath didn't represent the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Orthodox Church alone. Why should every Orthodox Church in the entire world be responsible for the evils of communism and its evil possession of the Russian Church? There was and is not a single Orthodox Church that condoned the evils of communism and what it made of the Russian Church. There was no Orthodox plot to kill and destroy. Unfortunately, there are people of an Orthodox background that committed crimes against humanity but this in no way should implicate the Orthodox Church of these criminals. Orthodoxy does not teach sin but love for ones neighbors. I believe it is sad historical affair that no one takes pride in whether Orthodox or Catholic.

Happy Orthodox Sunday,
Robert Sweiss

Dear members of the Forum --

My apologies for my seeming indifference to all that was posted here. I swore off the Internet for Lent and used the time most profitably. At age 51, this was the first Lent which I have observed and it was most delightful.

I continue to be not just an uneasy Anglican anymore, but one who has become convinced of several things by dint of reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers. In short, sometime in the future in God's timing, I am convinced that I will be moving on from the Church of Henry's Hormones.

1. Christ established an office and a headship over the Church on earth. The Papacy is not a man, it is an office. True, it has been held by some real scoundrels, but that no more invalidates that office than our current president has invalidated the office of the presidency.

2. The Early Fathers such as Ignatius, Augustine, Clement of Rome, and even some later Orthodox theologians, whom Robert will probably accuse of being heretic, have acknowledged the primus inter pares.

3. It seems that there is a begrudging and unforgiving spirit regarding the political missteps of several popes and their actions towards the Eastern Church. Where is the forgiveness of Christ and the desire for unity? Like to keep bringing up grudges? Remember the warning of our Lord regarding unforgiveness.

4. The book of Hebrews states that the patterns of worship which were given to Moses were shadows of the true in Heaven. Since the Catholic (universal) faith is the continuation of the Hebraic forms of worship with the obvious removal of all that Christ fulfilled, the Church should be a continuation of the reality which John the Beloved saw on Patmos. And the reality is that there is only ONE head of the Church in Heaven, therefore there can only be one on earth. A body with more than one head is a freak of nature and belongs in a side show. This is why Protestantism is such a freak show with 28,000 heads!!

5. As a dispassionate ex-Protestant working his way slowly home to full communion with the Catholic faith, I fail to see differences substantial enough to warrant such venom between the East and West. You both have Real Presence, proper liturgy, both reject Calvinist heresies, veneration of the Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, etc. etc. etc. In every way I see so much to be unified around and yet when I come back here I find you are in a pissing match over the color of the communion wine. Sheeeesh!!

Finally, to Brother Geoffrey, my great and deep thanks for the many prayers offered on my behalf as I return from the Protestant Rebellion to the faith once delivered to the Fathers.

My mind is pretty well made up. It is not whether or not I am going to be Catholic, but simply which brand I will take on. I do love Eastern thought and liturgy. If you can prove to me that the Early Fathers had no regard for the office given to Peter, then you might change my mind, but it is going to take a bunch of work, because as I said, the pattern of single headship on earth follows the Scriptural reality of single headship in Heaven.

By the way, I went to my first Good Friday Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in Harrisburg(yeah, I know, new calander -- another pissing match over ant dung in my opinion) and wept through the entire service. Never have I been so touched by the message of our Lord's love for sinners. You know, guys, one of the things I have been convicted of as an ex-calvinist is the way that as a typical Calvinist I was more in love with the "orthodoxy" of my Protestant doctrines than in love with the Lord Himself. Sometimes I see that in the Orthodox Church and it quite frankly scares me.

I would rather have a heart weeping in joy over the Blessed Life giving Cross than a head full of right thoughts.

Yours in the Paschal Lamb

Defensor Fides (aka TruthSeeker)

The most critical thing is the faith that comes from God.

Since Christ told us that the first and greatest Commandment is to love God with our whole hearts, souls, minds and strength and to love our neighbors as best we can, this is obviously the touchstone for our salvation.

As we find our way into a community, we must ever be sure that the community that we join is going to lead us to God. For this reason, we cannot judge anyone else, especially those who are belong to other communities. We must pray for all people, and hope that their prayers and strivings will bring them closer to the Lord.

As we fallible human beings re-experience the events of the passion and death of Christ and His Resurrection, let us remember that each other is in need of Christ's grace, and as Christians we have an obligation to pray for each other.

Blessings to All for the Resurrection of Christ!

Dear Dr. John

That LOVE of God. Oh my. That really is the answer, isn't it?

The Pharisees had their doctrines down pat. Right down to tithing mint and cummin, didn't they? But I notice that they didn't get a standing O from Jesus, but rather a severe rebuke for missing the love of God in their doings.

As a Calvinist, I thought doctrine was the touchstone of whether or not one was really a Christian. This is why Calvinists judge all who are not Calvinists as probably lost and on their way to hell.

As a Catholic (in the most ancient and universal sense) I have come to realize that it is living out the love of the Father. My wife and children have already commented to me that they have noticed a difference.

I do not think Christ will judge me based upon my ability to come to perfect understanding of every nuance of doctrine, especially between such close systems as Orthodoxy and Catholicism. He will be judging me on whether on not I followed Him as a trusting sheep who lovingly believed that He was leading me in the right path regardless of where I wound up.

Salvation is by grace, not by having every single doctrine absolutely perfect. The proof of that salvation working in the heart is that the sinner follows the light he has with the love he has been given.

Call me what you will. I love the Lord and am doing the best to follow the light I have, by His grace and leading, attained to thus far.

Your prayers for further light are deeply appreciated.

Defensor Fides (aka TruthSeeker)

Greetings Brother Ed(Truthseeker),
Most Orthodox theologians do confess to the Primacy that Rome once had before she left the Orthodox fold. Primacy and Papacy are not the same. I think you owe it to yourself to find the truth. Why would the Pope ask the Orthodox to help him define the role of the Papacy? Think about it. I highly recommend that you do your homework in regards to how you see the Orthodox Church versus how the Orthodox Church views herself. The Orthodox Church is not all about abstract dogmas or trying to categorize and rationalize her mysteries to the point that one falls into heresy. I do not dare blaspheme the early Church Father's of the Roman See. Nor were they always correct on certain issues such as the Augustinian view of sin. Please think twice before crossing a two lane. Either you will be standing on a safe and true lane or its opposite. Just because you have been reading a little bit more about Catholicism does not give you the right to belittle or ignore Orthodoxy. The ancient five Sees are still in existence and only four of them are in full communion with Rome being the outcaste. The EArly Church Fathers had great regard to the See of Rome. It was only during time that Rome began to become alienated from the other Sees. As Orthodox we pray and hope that the See of Rome is restored to her true and sincere understanding of Primacy. The current model of the Papacy is not that of Primacy as once understood and accepted universally. Do yourself a favor, read the Early Church Fathers as well as Scriptures with the right guidance(the mind of the Church) or you will be repeating the same thought and self-interpretation process of Protestants.

In Christ,
RObert Sweiss

Dear Brother Robert --

Thank you for what was a very well written and temperate post, considering that I took a fairly firm stand.

I cannot get by the fact that Christ's promise and keys were given to one man, not several. Even though the office may have been corrupted, does that nullify the office? Furthermore, since the forms on earth are patterns of the true in Heaven, according to Hebrews 9, there can only be one head on earth as there is one glorious and eternal Head in Heaven.

It seems to me that the Orthodox reaction is kind of the same as the Protestant reaction. Instead of calling a Council and working in concern for the unity of our Lord's body, it is stand outside and throw rocks.

You see, my brother, I worked myself into corner a couple of months ago when I kept telling Protestants I was corresponding with that Luther and Calvin should not have left the Church, but should have stayed in a prayed and worked to right the wrong things. Most of all, they should have been patient and been willing to let God make the changes on His own schedule. And one day I realized that I couldn't stay out of the Church unless I was willing to be called a serious hypocrite. Hey, what's sauce for the Lutheran gander is sauce for the TruthSeeker goose.

At the same time, I am more than willing to continue my studies in the Orthodox direction. Do you have a particular book which you feel I should read to help me understand the Orthodox mindset regarding the Papacy? Something which will give me the Early Father'd definition? I will most gladly purchase and read what you recommend.

It still seems to me as an outsider that the differences are very small compared to the heresies of Protestantism. White wine or red wine for Eucharist. Don't we have anything more substantive than that to argue over? I say that tongue in cheek, of course. It is a shame that these two bodies, so historically close in so many ways continue to regard each other with agrieved suspicion.

Defensor Fides

Robert wrote:

"I think you owe it to yourself to find the truth. Why would the Pope ask the Orthodox to help him define the role of the Papacy? Think about it."

One point of clarification: The pope did not ask the Orthodox to help him to "define" the role of the papacy. Rather, he wanted the Orhtodox and Catholic Pastors and thologians to -

"seek together...the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned."

It is a subtle distinction, but an important one. The holy father is inviting dialogue on the form of the primacy intrinsic to the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, not on the role of the papacy, as already defined by Vatican I.

He continues:

"This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea "that they may all be one... so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (Jn 17:21)

(Ut Unum Sint - 95, 96)

I pray for the same thing on this forum as well.

Christ is Risen!
Christos Voskerese!
Christos Anesti!

Pax,
Gordo, sfo

>>>I cannot get by the fact that Christ's promise and keys were given to one man, not several. Even though the office may have been
corrupted, does that nullify the office? Furthermore, since the forms on earth are patterns of the true in Heaven, according to Hebrews 9,
there can only be one head on earth as there is one glorious and eternal Head in Heaven.<<<

Of course, there are several ways of interpreting what the giving of the promise (remember, it was a promise) of the keys to Peter meant. The Fathers of the Church weren't so sure. The consensus, East and West, seems to be that it was given to Peter on behalf of ALL the Apostles, so that all share equally in the Apostolic charism, just as all of the successors of the Apostles share in the single Episcopal charism. From this general consensus, the West, not the East, seems to have gradually moved to a different understanding. For the West, Peter is the head of the Apostolic college, who is assisted by the other Apostles. For the East, Peter is first among the Apostles, who TOGETHER work towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, and who TOGETHER have authority and responsibility for the Church.

It is significant that throughout the Byzantine era, right down to the fall of the City, the Eastern Churches never--repeat, NEVER--denied the primacy of the Church of Rome. On the other hand, they objected to the way in which Rome had taken, unilaterally, to interpreting and exercising that primacy. The real turning point seems to have come with the transalpine reform of the papacy that brought a series of German monastics to the head of the Church of Rome. These monks, determined to stamp out abuses in the Western Church and to restore the dignity of the papacy, had very constrained horizons and little or no understanding of the relationship between the Papacy and the other Patriarchical Churches. Having devised a monarchical form of government to reform the Latin Church, they naturally tried to extend that model to the universal Church--and ran up against a millenium of the Apostolic Tradition. Intent on extending their "plena potestas" over the Eastern Churches, they also in their ignorance viewed authentic Eastern expression of theology and spirituality, as well as liturgical practices, as being evidence of heresy. Suspicious of diversity in any form (Gregory VII insisted that diversity was the mother of heresy), they insisted that Latin expressions and Latin practices were normative for all Christians, and tried to impose their views on the other Churches.

Now, in the third millennium, the Latin Church has recognized the various errors committed in its name over the last 1000 years with regard to the Eastern Churches. The Latin Church seeks a new definition of primacy, and new modalities of its exercise. One entirely positive development has been a recognition on the part of the Latin Church that the relationship between it and the Eastern Churches as it existed in the first millennium, before the separation, represents the normative manner in exercising the primacy.

Now, there are still some differences regarding exactly HOW the primacy was exercised in the first millennium. Settling that matter is the mission for objective, ecumenical scholarship, not for polemicists on either side. A great deal can already be acknowledged, including the fact that the Christian East knew nothing of the doctrine of infallibility (for that matter, neither did the West until the 13th century), and even moreso the East never recognized the concept of the pope's universal ordinary jurisdiction over other Churches.

The present pope seems to realize that primacy cannot be exercised in a juridical manner, but rather is a mystical ministry of service. Unfortunately, there seem to be many vested interests in the Latin Church, particularly in the curia, that are resistant to any devolution of power or reform based upon truly concilliar models (which is why the most important ecclesial reforms of Vatican II have never been implemented).

The cause of unity would be greatly helped if the Orthodox Church would take Pope John Paul II at his word, and participate in the dialogue to redefine the exercise of the primacy. To date, the Orthodox Church has been most forceful in stating what is unacceptable in the exercise of primacy; it has been less forthcoming in identifying what it will accept. A variety of Orthodox scholars, including Afanasiev, Meyendorff, Schmemmann, Erickson, Zizoulas, and d'Huillier have all noted this fact, and most attribute it to the fact that the Orthodox Church never actually got around to developing a coherent doctrine of primacy. That should be a fundamental task for Orthodox scholars and theologians, using the understandings of the first millennium as a model.

Byzantine Catholics have an interesting role to fill in this dialogue. Called as we are to be Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome, we must live as if that ideal were a reality. This means that each of our particular Churches must act as a particular Church, not as an extension of the Roman Church. All attempts by the Latin Curia to impose Latin norms in liturgy, theology, spirituality, discipline and doctrine must be opposed. All attempts to interfere in the internal life of our Churches should be resisted--to the point of schism, if needs be. Thus, e.g., in the matter of "special norms" governing the ordination of married men to the presbyterate in North America, each of our particular Churches should announce that they do not consider themselves bound by such laws that do not grant "equality of dignity" to the Byzantine rite as specified in the Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches. Neither should we consider ourselves bound by Latin doctrines regarding marriage and divorce, where these conflict with the Byzantine Tradition. Patriarchical Churches should insist on the right to elect bishops in the "diaspora" just as they do in the historical territory of the Patriarchates. In short, the Byzantine Catholic Churches must act as though they really are Churches, and not mere rites of the Roman Church.

The Roman Church issues many promising ecumenical statements to the Orthodox, insisting on how communion with Rome in no way implies assimilation, on how Rome will not interfere with the inner life of the Eastern Churches. The Orthodox, of course, merely look at the history of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and shake their heads. They are left with the alternatives of thinking that Rome is either disingenuous or downright hypocritical. They see how we live, and they say, quite rightly, "If this is the meaning of communion with Rome, we can do without, thanks".

However, if we can reassert our independence, and live in accordance with the fullness of the Byzantine Tradition; if we can show that communion need not mean submission and assimilation, then the promises made by Rome will have more credibility, and the ideal of true unity of the Churches as a communion in the Holy Spirit will move closer to reality.

>>>It is a subtle distinction, but an important one. The holy father is inviting dialogue on the form of the primacy intrinsic to the ministry of
the Bishop of Rome, not on the role of the papacy, as already defined by Vatican I.<<<

Keep telling yourself that if it gives you any comfort. The fact remains that the First Vatican Council is not truly an ecumenical council, but merely a general council of the Church of the West. Moreover, it was a deeply flawed council, and the constitution Pastor Aeternus represented a major departure from, or distortion of, the Apostolic Tradition, as was recognized by a very substantial majority of the bishops there present (who either made themselves absent on the day of the vote, or who refused to sign the required profession of faith); it was especially recognized by the Melkite Patriarch Gregory IV Yousef, who especially objected to the manner in which Pastor Aeternus overturned and nullified the dignity and authority of the Patriarchical office, reducing the Eastern Churches to mere administrative divisions within the Roman Church. He at first refused to sign the document, and finally did sign, but with the caveat "Except insofar as it conflicts with the traditional rights of the patriarchate"--which is to say, he accepted nothing at all.

The Second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution, went far towards overturning Pastor Aeternus, while simultaneously affirming it--the kind of cognitive dissonance (or sleight of hand) for which the Catholic Church is justly famous.

The process set in motion by the Second Vatican Council, particularly in its Decree on Ecumenism, and reiterated by Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, is a rollback of papal perogatives to those which were recognized by the universal Church in the first millennium. And it must be recognized that the imperial papacy defined by Pastor Aeternus was unknown in the first millennium, and would be unrecognizable even to such first millenium popes as SS Leo the Great and Gregory the Great (though I suspect that Gregory VII (who is just over the line) would have said Pastor Aeternus did not go far enough.

Dear Brother Stuart

Thank you for an enlightening post. I have often wondered if it is not indeed an unforgiving spirit which has fostered the continuing reticence for reunion between the Orthodox and Rome. Your post confirms my suspicions.

As I have continued my walk away from the Protestant Rebellion and towards the historic Catholic faith, I have found all the rhetoric over which is the true Church and who has valid orders to be most confusing and frustrating. Add to that my internal hesitancy towards any union with Rome, coming from 25 years of virulent anti-Catholic bigotry (don't smirk Orthodox, I called one of your priests an idol worshipper and had to later find him and repent of it) and the task of finding the Church has been an enormous hurdle for me, made much harder by the schism.

When my Protestant friends start to clobber the Church and defend their separation, I remind them that schism is not God's methodology for dealing with errors within the ecclesiology of His people. Although it has taken 1000 years, your statement on John Paul II shows that the wheels of God's justice do grind slowly, but they do get the job done. Now it seems that it is up to the Orthodox to extend the Olive Branch and get busy reuniting the Body. The abuses are past. Shall we let the past be the past, or is it a convenient club with which to beat others in to submission to our views? That is how Protestants work, rather than dealing with exegesis and hermeneutics.

Thank you for that post. Think I will print it out and save it for further reference and study.

Defensor Fides

Stuart,

Thank you for your posts. Aside from its sheer length, I will spend a great deal of time processing its content as well!

The truth be told, I find the definition of Vatican I quite UNcomfortable and inconvenient. My natural inclination is closer to the Orthodox position. Were it not for my faithful praying wife and an unwielding conscience, I could have become another Robert, with the chrism still drying from this past weekend. The fact is that I could not, in the face of the evidence, bring myself to deny the definition of Vatican I, for all of its limitations. But, such definitions are not intended, as I said in an earlier post, to capture the full mystery of the apostolic authority of the Church.

Additionally, I would also say whatever power of universal jurisdiction that Vatican I defined, it does not in any way shape or form replace the authority of the patriarch or local bishop. (Further clarifications were offered to that effect especially in response to the German government's reaction against the definition.) Vatican II changed nothing, and it is not an example of cognitive dissonance. It was, however, a needed conciliar correction in both popular perception and papal practice. It situated the Vatican I definition in the context of the very valid conciliar tradition of the Church - a balanced perspective which was not presented by Vatican I due (for the most part) to invading armies and the subsequent cessation of the council!

One additional point: Just because one has the RIGHT to act doesn't mean that one should act. Rights and pastoral sense can at times be in conflict. (Obligation is another thing altogether!) This is a principle which I believe is well demonstrated by the current Bishop of Rome.

I agree with many of your assessments of the abuse of papal perrogatives, though, especially with re: to the East. I pray that they are corrected someday soon.

Peace,

Gordo, sfo


[This message has been edited by Dozier (edited 04-24-2000).]

Dear Br. Ed,
I recommend reading the book of essays,"The Primacy of Peter," edited by Fr. John Meyendorff which can be purchased from St. Vladimer's Seminary Press. Another excellent book,"The Church of the Ancient Councils," by Archbishop Peter L'Huillier. This is probably enough for now. Happy reading.

Your brother in Christ,
Robert Sweiss

I am seriously considering either the
Byzantine Catholic Church or Russian
Orthodoxy, me being Roman Catholic myself.
I have several questions:
1. Is the Byzantine Catholic theological
and spiritual perspective identical with
that of the Orthodox?
2. I was wondering how could a Roman Catholic
hold onto a Byzantine or Orthodox perspective
without especially in areas that are disputed with Orthodox without being heretical
to his own beliefs?
3. or can these distinctively Roman Catholic beliefs be somehow reconciled with the
Byzantine/Orthodox viewpoint:
1. Papal Infallibility/Supremacy.
2. Purgatory/Indulgences.
3. Original Sin/Immaculate Conception.
4. Marian Assumption or Dormition.
5. Abortion/Contraceptives(exceptions
in rare cases rather than the Roman Catholic absolute stand on this).
6. Divorce(up to 3 times for Orthodox).
7. filioque.
8. Authority of ecumenical councils
(First seven for Orthodox rather
than the Roman-rite 21 councils).

Christos Voskres,
Jeff C.