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

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 http://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

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 http://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.

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.

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 j