www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Mr. "Comehome" and Roman Catholic fears

Dear Mr. Sweiss:

If the Orthodox Churches are the only true Church, then why:

1) hasn't there been, in recent years, a Pan-Orthodox Synod of Patriarchs and Bishops?

2) why are the various Orthodox Churches [notably the Patriarch of Moscow and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople] feuding with each other {over the status of the Estonian Orthodox parishes and over the status of the various Ukrainian Orthodox Churches}

3) why won't certain Orthodox Churches, especially two in the U.S.A., have intercommunion with each other?

4) why won't certain bishops of these same Orthodox Churches in the U.S.A. stop calling each other heretics and schismatics and worse?

5) why aren't all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches one church, instead of being splintered into various ethnic churches?

Michael,

If those arguments make Orthodoxy not a true church or not "the" true church, then it applies to Catholicism as well. There was not full intercommunion between Rome and the Eastern Catholic churches in "communion" with Rome until the last half of this century.

Michael,

You might wish to rethink some of your questions. They are valid questions but do not have anything to do with Orthodoxy being or not being "the one true Church".

1) Why hasn't there been, in recent years, a Pan-Orthodox Synod of Patriarchs and Bishops?

2) Why are the various Orthodox Churches [notably the Patriarch of Moscow and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople] feuding with each other {over the status of the Estonian Orthodox parishes and over the status of the various Ukrainian Orthodox Churches}.

These are the two most valid questions, but again, have no relation to Orthodoxy being or not being "the one true Church". There is currently no vehicle within Orthodoxy to call a pan-Orthodox Council and no way of making it binding on all the local Orthodox Churches if one did meet. In the early Church the Emperor held the right to call a council. After the fall of the Empire, in the Latin Church this right fell to the pope. In the Eastern Churches, no one assumed this right. The Patriarch of Constantinople claimed this right but none of the other Orthodox Churches acknowledged it to be his and it has never been tested. [Unfortunately, Robert never participates in a discussion on this topic or even acknowledges it as an issue.]

3) Why won't certain Orthodox Churches, especially two in the U.S.A., have intercommunion with each other?

All of the canonical Orthodox Churches do have intercommunion. The only major issue is whether the Orthodox Church in America is an autocephalous Church since Constantinople does not recognize the right of the Moscow Patriarchate to grant this status. There are, admittedly, a number of smaller groups who are independent and are not currently in communion with anyone (like ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia). I have no doubt that the issues affecting these groups will someday be addressed.

4) Why won't certain bishops of these same Orthodox Churches in the U.S.A. stop calling each other heretics and schismatics and worse?

You will probably need to cite actual instances of this and document them. The only recent example I can think of is at the East-West Dialogue in Emmitsburg, Maryland, where Greek Orthodox Archbihsop Stylianos of Austraila publicly asked that OCA Metropolitan Theodosius leave because he was not a member of a canonical Church. Sad as this is, it has no bearing on the truth of Orthodoxy.

5) Why aren't all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches one church, instead of being splintered into various ethnic churches?

You are absolutely correct. There should be only one Orthodox jurisdiction for all of the various ethnicities that have come to America. The reasons for this are complex but there is an on-gong SCOBA dialogue that will eventually resolve this (most likely over the next 2 or 3 generations, as the ethnic people become predominantly American).

But again, one must be careful about using this reasoning to conclude whether a Church is true or not. Byzantine Catholics also still have jurisdictions based upon ethnic histories that don't make sense to maintain. Would you conclude that because of it that we Byzantine Catholics are not members of "the one true Church"?

MICHAEL,

You asked the following questions to Robert Sweiss. Moose has already done an excellent job of responding to these from the Byzantine perspective. I can offer you a somewhat different, yet Orthodox, perspective.

�1) If the Orthodox Churches are the only true Church, then why:
1) hasn't there been, in recent years, a Pan-Orthodox Synod of Patriarchs and Bishops?�

The main reason is that the Orthodox Church has been, until about 10 years ago, under almost constant turmoil since the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. From 1453 to the end of the 19th Century, most of the Greek, Arab and Balkan Orthodox were under the Ottoman Empire � this situation resulted in canonical irregularities (such as the temporary elimination of the Balkan patriarchates, and the concentration of power in Constantinople vis-�-vis the other Eastern Patriarchates � a circumstance which was a proximate cause of the Melkite Schism in 1724) due to the Sultan�s desire to concentrate power in Constantinople. The EP was a quasi-official in the Ottoman system � an unfortunate circumstance that undermined his ecclesiastical role substantially, in terms of �authority�, even as it concentrated �power� in his hands. This was clearly the lowpoint in the history of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The fact that periodic councils were held during this period is nothing other than a manifestation of the ability of the Holy Spirit to act even under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. When the Ottoman nightmare unraveled, it was replaced by the worse nightmare of nationalism � this was one of the significant �engines� driving the rebellions against the Turks, and it infected the ecclesiastical consciousness of the rebel nations � such as Serbia and Greece. The period from the late 19th Century to the Russian Revolution was a time of attempted consolidation in the Orthodox world under the very turbulent, problematic influence of nationalism � something which the Orthodox Church explicitly condemned in this period. And then, of course, the Russian Revolution happened � taking the largest group of Orthodox Christians into perhaps the most militantly anti-Christian regime in history; World War II saw the militant atheists gain control of Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, thereby placing even more Orthodox churches under varying degrees of official persecution. The fact is that for most of the last 500 years, significant portions of the Orthodox Church have been intently focused on one thing: survival, simple survival, in the face of hostile governments. This situation really only ended about ten years ago, and the Orthodox Church is busily reconstituting itself in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union � a process that will take some time, and is definitely taking the energy of the most numerous Orthodox Churches in the world today. It is important to hold a Pan-Orthodox Synod, but before that can happen there must be a real consolidation and reinvigoration of Church life � that is the number one priority at the moment.

Moose�s comments about the power to call a Synod are interesting. Orthodox wouldn�t look at the issue that way. When the Orthodox Church is ready for the Synod, it will happen � not because the EP �convokes� it, but because the Church wills it and the Patriarchs consent to it. Admittedly, the situation is juridically ambiguous following the demise of the Emperor (another fallout from 1453), but since the Orthodox Church has been in survival mode ever since then, it�s quite understandable why this particular issue has not been the object of much preoccupation over the past few centuries.

�2) why are the various Orthodox Churches [notably the Patriarch of Moscow and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople] feuding with each other {over the status of the Estonian Orthodox parishes and over the status of the various Ukrainian Orthodox Churches}�

Feuding is the wrong word. There was/is a jurisdictional disagreement as a result of the new situation in these countries. There were similar issues generated by the demise of the Ottoman Empire, when the shoe was on the other foot (ie, the Balkan and Greek churches �split� without the EP�s permission and were not recognized by the EP for quite some time). The problem in both cases is phyletism, something which the Orthodox Church has explicitly condemned, but which is still a reality, just as nationalism is still a reality in the world. As a result of conflation, among some, of Nation and Church, changes in the national boundary sometimes seem to mandate a change in ecclesiastical jurisdiction � something which has no basis in the history of the Orthodox Church but nevertheless is a reality which has unfortunate precedents in the situation at the close of the Ottoman Empire. The fact is that while there is a disagreement about the jurisdictional aspects in both of these cases, this has not resulted in a breach of communion between these two sees � it is simply an issue which must be worked out, and that in the context of the entire Orthodox Church (the same issue lurks behind the EP�s attitude toward the OCA, by the way).

�3) why won't certain Orthodox Churches, especially two in the U.S.A., have intercommunion with each other?�

To whom are you referring? All of the Churches that are in communion with Constantinople are in communion with each other � communion with Constantinople is not the sine qua non of Orthodoxy by any means, but under the current situation it is a useful rule of thumb for non-Orthodox who are not familiar with Orthodox jurisdictions. The Churches that are not in communion are (1) the ROCOR (which removed itself from communion due to disagreements it had with �world Orthodoxy�) (and, as an aside, it is helpful to note that the ROCOR is, in fact, in communion with everyone anyway because of its maintenance of communion with Serbia, which is itself in communion with everyone else), and (2) other, much smaller, groups of Old Calendrist Orthodox. In addition, there are a good number of non-Orthodox groups who use the word �Orthodox� in their names and thereby confuse people. Again, a good rule of thumb is that everyone in communion with Constantinople is in communion with each other, and the ROCOR is a special case.

�4) why won't certain bishops of these same Orthodox Churches in the U.S.A. stop calling each other heretics and schismatics and worse?�

The only cases of this are with some of the ROCOR and Greek Old Calendrists. Again, these chose to sever formal communion with �world Orthodoxy�, for a variety of reasons but largely because of disagreements about ecumenical dialogue � whether and how it should be conducted. And, even here, only the most extreme groups (such as the tiny HOCNA Greek Old Calendrist group) say that �world Orthodoxy� is formally in heresy or schism � the others say that �world Orthodoxy� has grace, but is misguided in a significant way due to its approach to ecumenical discussions. Outside of the ROCOR and the other Old Calendrist groups, none of the Bishops in communion with Constantinople is calling any other such Bishop a heretic or schismatic.

�5) why aren't all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches one church, instead of being splintered into various ethnic churches?�

We are all one Church. Our separation into local Churches dates back to the earliest time of the Church. Generally, there is one Orthodox bishop per city � that is the canonical principle which underlies the structure of the Orthodox Church, and if you go to an Orthodox country, you will see that it, in fact, works there. The situation in America is extraordinary because of the Russian Revolution. Before the Russian Revolution, there was one Orthodox bishop per city here � the Russian one (why? Because the Russians were the first Orthodox in North America, coming to Alaska in the 1790s). All of the various �ethnic� groups were under the Russian Bishops. When the Russian Revolution happened, noone was happy being under the Russian Bishops anymore, so the various Old Country churches sent their own Bishops to America � resulting in multiple Orthodox Bishops in one city, a nonsensical, non-canonical, un-Orthodox situation. Since that time, the overlapping jurisdiction issue has persisted because (1) the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as a practical matter, needs his American jurisdiction(s) for financial reasons, (2) the Russian Church only recently emerged from Communist domination and (3) ethnic nationalism, pure and simple � again, something condemned by Orthodoxy but which nevertheless persists. No Orthodox here defends the canonicity or Orthodoxy of the present jurisdictional and administrative situation in America � rather, it is a scandal to the Church, and something which many people are working hard to overcome. However, it is critical to keep in mind that despite these uncanonical jurisdictional and administrative arrangements here, all of the churches which are in communion with Constantinople are in full communion with each other, share priests and facilities, concelebrate liturgies, etc. This is even the case with the OCA (the Church which Moscow declared �autocephalous� in 1970, but whose status the EP and others regard as �uncanonical� � as if it is any more uncanonical than anyone else�s situation here in America!), which also shares priests, concelebrates, etc., with everyone else, and is in full communion with everyone else, despite the disagreements about whether or not its claim to autocephalous status is legitimate. We are one Church, and we are working toward resolving the jurisdictional irregularities here so that we may be more visibly one to non-Orthodox, and thereby fulfill better our mission here in this part of the world.

In Christ,

Brendan

>>Moose's comments about the power to call a Synod are interesting. Orthodox wouldn't look at the issue that way. When the Orthodox Church is ready for the Synod, it will happen - not because the EP "convokes" it, but because the Church wills it and the Patriarchs consent to it.<<

Actually the late Orthodox theologian Fr. Schmemman does look at it this way. And Bishop Kallistos Ware also acknowledges this as an issue. Schmemman discussed this problem in one of his books and others within Orthodoxy do acknowledge this as a problem. If this had really been a non-issue, the Ecumenical Patriarchate would not have attempted to reserve this right for herself.

I will agree that if there is no need for a Synod then no one will call it. I also agree that the almost constant persecution of Orthodoxy under Islam and Communism has kept the focus on simply survival (I have recently addressed this very issue in another thread). I do, however, have difficulty in believing that anyone can legitimately justify that Orthodoxy is not in need of a pan-Orthodox Synod to address the issues it confronts. The last one of any merit was in 1920. We sometimes forget that synods are convened to address Church governance issues as well as theological issues. This poor Byzantine moose has trouble believing that a synod will spontaneously happen without someone taking the leadership to call the meeting to order.

The only other nit-picking with Brendan's otherwise excellent post is that the maintained communion between ROCOR and the Serbs is really only in name. I don't know of any ROCOR priests who will routinely concelebrate with priests whose Churches are in communion with Constantinople or the OCA. I would find to evidence that proves me wrong.

Moose --

I agree that there is a jurisdictional issue -- that's why I said that "Admittedly, the situation is juridically ambiguous following the demise of the Emperor". That is something that needs to be resolved, but it's not the number one issue in the Orthodox Church right now. The number one issue in the Orthodox Church right now is straightening out the situation in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. That will have to continue to proceed for a while before a Synod can take place, I think. Otherwise, I think we agree.

On the ROCOR/Serbia issue, interestingly I personally witnessed such a concelebration. It was at the ROCOR Cathedral here in Washington -- St. John the Baptist. I happened to show up for their celebration of the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord on 15 February this year (Old Style, of course), and the Divine Liturgy that morning was concelebrated by the local Serbian Orthodox priest -- not the OCA priest, obviously, but the priest here in Washington who represents the Serbian Patriarchate (Fr. Irinej Dobrijevic). Needless to say, it was VERY interesting, because I had always thought, like you, that this was a titular communion only -- but that's not true. That priest who concelebrated with the ROCOR that morning is the representative of the Office of External Affairs of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA and Canada, and is a member of the Board of IOCC (International Orthodox Christian Charities). Here's the website: http://www.oea.serbian-church.net. Go figure, huh?

In Christ,

Brendan

[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited 09-12-2000).]

Dear List,
It seems that this topic has atleast become more charitable, atleast on this "page four" of posts.

Perhaps that is because of the absence of a post from me, or angry responses to them from the Orthodox.

I admit, and apologize for my part in it, that looking back at all the things typed between myself and the Orthodox gentlemen on the list have been steeped with a certain, "stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it!" attitude.

I have been sarcastic, and been insulted in response. I have not said things in ways that lead to discussion or intellectual debate, but only heated, angering arguments. In response, I have recieved posts of the same stuff.

For several days, here in Maryland, I have noticed myself becoming bitter, impatient, etc., in my family life. I believe this is because of my Irish temper, my love for arguing, and similar dispositions among the message board frequenters.

I have been told my attitude is "triumpahlist". I do not know if this is so, but I do know I need to work on patience, tact, and charity, based on the example of the saints. Until I achieve this, I will not come back to this or any other message board.

To Orthodox gentlemen, I say goodbye, and I hope you are more willing to seek unity within the True Church someday soon.

To the Byzantines, I wish you luck with your website, and to the Romans, I hope you perservere, and don't let the ORthodox bash my hero, JP2, but also, don't let them get you angry.

And you are all in my prayers.

Goodbye.

In Him,
Mike

MichaelP,
There is no reason to leave. What's with you Irish people with the temper tantrums? My wife, who is Irish, sometimes drives me bananas! LOL. But I love her and her kind.
There are many respectable people amongst the Roman Catholics like your hero JP2 and my wife most of the times. Bashing is a no-no. It is also not Orthodox. What is Orthodox is correcting distorted perceptions and beliefs and practices but this must be done in good spirits.
I commend you for pointing out to Christian virtues that myself needs help in too. Maybe we will see you around soon. God bless.

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son Of God, Have Mercy Upon Me a sinner"

In my personal opinion, the ECCs should just do it and let the chips fall where they may. There might be some shrieking from a portion of the Curia, but I doubt the pope would seriously object. It might even strengthen the hand of those RCs in the Curia that favor ECCs along with dialogue with the EOC.

Pax Christi,
John

There were no bishops from the West, let alone the pope or his legate, at this council if I recall correctly. The presiding bishop of this council wasn't even in communion with Rome. It was accepted as being ecumenical later, but not because there was representation by Western bishops there. That is why I think your earlier comment that the other councils are not ecumenical because no eastern bishop was there is so weak. I guess you can say that they are not ecumenical in your eyes because not all the Church accepts them as such, but the lack of representation is not something I consider to be very convincing. Btw, there were eastern catholic bishops at Vatican I and II and Eastern Orthodoxy was represented at Lateran and Florence. These two reunion councils were later rejected for reasons other than a lack of representation.

Pax Christi,
John