www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Does Orthodoxy need to be anti-Catholic?

Gordo,

The document you quoted was sad and sadly typical of a certain mindset. I would only add two points. That kind of close-mindedness is not the norm among the Orthodox, and (sadly) that kind of close-mindedness is not the exclusive property of any one religion.


No. There are plenty of examples, especially at this Forum, to the contrary.


I will let Todd speak for himself. However, my impression of his posts that I have read indicates a man who takes his religious beliefs seriously but not belligerently nor polemically. Also, his frequent participation in this forum (especially in its theological debates) indicates a willingness to deal with people on their own terms while still remaining true to his own beliefs.

Hmmmmm ....

-- John

I don't know what others might say, but yes, I can agree with it. Sorry to have to say the contents of the letter from Athos match my understanding, but I would not normally write so explicitly. I will not speak for Todd, he speaks for himself and has a right to his opinion. This isn't some calculated attempt to drive him out is it? I should think the Catholic Communion would be glad to have such Orthodox-minded members. After all, isn't that what is being asked when reunion is proposed?

Do we want the Orthodox to join with the Roman Catholics or not? This is essentially what you'll get: 200 million more people, but they do not accept universal jurisdiction or papal infallibility (plus the other items in the list above). They don't accept it now and they will not accept it later. Even if we only achieve intercommunion (and not some organic fusing of our church structures), Orthodox are still going to think the west teaches error.

As far as I am concerned, reconciling the apparant opposites (as opposed to correcting) between the Latin church positions and the Greek church positions is an exercise in futility. It seems to me that people who do this are "trying too hard" (although I appreciate the Christian love that motivates them), it comes across as "you believe the sames things we do, let me show you why that is so". Reconciling the positions of the Greek Catholics and the Orthodox has much more potential.

Let's face it, in many ways the latins and Greeks have drifted apart and putting us together would require some genuine conversion.

+T+
Michael

I don't understand why the monks would be against Papal primacy, which was established by �cumenical Council and recognised by the Orientals, Easterns and Romans.

Michael,

I need to run right now, but let me respond to two things:

1. NO! This is not some twisted attempt to have anyone leave the forum, especially not someone like Todd. I for one have nearly always appreciated his posts, even if I did not agree fully with the psitions he took. He is extremely articulate in matters that, quite frankly, make me dizzy at times. I thought he took an extreme position in his post, and I wanted clarification. I initially interpreted in an anti-Catholic manner, as I have stated. After reading it further, I recogized that his interpretation of "accept" might be taken a number of different ways, hence my request for clarification.

2. Your point about the Orthodox never accepting universal jurisdiction is an interesting one. I would argue that perhaps the Orthodox might accept it as "defined" or lived in the first millennium. That seems to be what then Cardinal Ratzinger advocates. At a minimum, the Orthodox would need to NOT state that developments in the West were heretical, as the monks of Mt Athos did.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised you would cast your lot with them in this regard. Are you reading the whole text with great care? Apparently not if you received Holy Communion this morning. According to these individuals, the "Holy Things for the Holy" in any Catholic jurisdiction is pure blasphemy and nothing but empty ritual and men in costume.

Returning to Todd's statement (not to him personally) I was concerned that he would align himself with positions like those of Mt. Athos. The West is heretical. The Pope and the Roman assertions must be resisted at all costs, etc etc.

As to the reconciliation of opposites, I do not believe it to be as futile as you say. St. Maximus the Confessor, Metropolitan John Zizoulas, Yves Congar, Henri deLubac, Pope Benedict, etc etc are all great examples of those who have striven to reconcile apparent opposites. Granted it is not an easy task...but I would argue it is much more difficult to reconcile the Oriental Orthodox with the Orthodox! At least we approach the core definitions of the faith in Christ and the Holy Trinity from the same conciliar basis...

One of my favorite quotes from Thomas Merton comes to mind.

There is much to unpack in this quote from Merton, as is often the case.

God bless,

Gordo

Hi Gordo,

No, actually I did not receive communion today, I was not prepared.

I believe I must have mislead you, more than likely because of my profile which indicates that I am an Orthodox Catholic. I sure feel like one, and I feel like a brother to anyone who may wish to identify themselves in that fashion, but I am not in communion with the bishop of Roma since last December. :rolleyes: I apologize for the confusion but I cannot apologize for the label which is as appropriate for me as anyone else who posts here.

In any case, if I were to have taken communion this morning I would have felt quite correct in my opinion regarding the Athos document.

My thought was that you might be driving Todd out of the church, not the forum. Because that seems to be the result of this kind of process, I can speak from experience. I would hate to see him feel unwelcome in the Ruthenian church, he is brilliant and has so much to contribute! Men like him will rebuild the Ruthenian Metropolia one day.

Is it wrong to want to be in communion with the Pope and still oppose universal jurisdiction? I say no! Neither is it wrong to want to be in communion with another patriarch, and oppose universal jurisdiction.

All other things being equal the problem is universal jursidiction, not the Pope!

It is a commonplace that Roman Catholics confuse Papal Primacy with Papal Supremacy, the confusion is partly deliberate on the part of some authors and polemicists. This is why Orthodox are usually accused of opposing Papal Primacy when we really oppose the absolute power invested in one church office. Orthodox Christianity understands primacy, it is operative on many levels throughout the church. Primacy is not in opposition to Orthodox ecclesiology, supremacy certainly is.

As for the other doctrines, namely the filioque and Papal Infallibility, I must admit that I do not believe them. (I did not believe them as a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic either, but I then considered communion with the Pope important enough to agree that they might be understandable from a purely Latin perspective). There are a few more minor theological constructs held in the western church that are doubtful to me because I cannot reconcile them to Orthodox Eastern theology.

Please understand that I harbor no ill will for the Roman Catholic church, or the current Pope. And I do not see the Roman church to be graceless or with an empty priesthood, few Orthodox I know would be able to make such a statement with any conviction (I don't think the Holy Spirit would abandon the many faithful and devout Christians over some unfortunate human misunderstandings over very secondary doctrinal points). I pray for reconciliation between the communions, I hope I live to see it. But I really think the Roman Communion has got to find a way out of the ironclad claims of the Council of 1870, not a reinterpretation of them, but a removal of them.

I know that is very hard to do (practically impossible) but it must be done if we are to move forward in the name of Christ.

+T+
Michael

Michael,

Thanks for clarifying your status. I wish you well in your pilgrimage, and hope that someday you may return...or that we may return together!

As to whether I could drive Todd from the church, I doubt it seriously that anything I would ever offer by way of question or comment could sway anyone so much, much less Todd who has thought deeply and long about these issues. He has seen both sides of many of the theological connundrums we face and he knows where he stands on these things. I thought many of his statements in the past were challenging, but this latest one struck me as especially pointed. (He even states that some will be bothered by his position. I for one was...at least by what I understood his position to be...)

Of course, Todd is not the issue here. At issue is what has been debated time and time again on this forum for the past several years (and to be sure long before its existence).

What does it mean to be Orthodox?
What does it mean to be Catholic?
What will it take for Orthodoxy and Catholicism to reunite?
What does it mean to be an Orthodox in communion with Rome?

I do not pretend to have the answers to all these questions. I've had friends who have found themselves propelled by conscience into a variety of situations. I've known some that left for Orthodoxy. I knew one that entered Eastern Catholicism from Orthodoxy and then left Eastern Catholicism for a Traditionalist Latin Catholicism, completely repudiating his Byzantine heritage. We still argue (in a friendly way) from time to time.

Heaven help us if we don't find a way out of this crappy mess of disunity we've wallowed in for centuries, though. The pain it creates in a Christian heart is acute. I can only imagine what Christ must think of it all. Both sides have staked out almost mutually exclusive positions. But as Pope Benedict points out, we cannot arrive together without conversion on both sides. I would argue that the anti-Catholic and anti-Latin positions I witness from time to time from my Eastern Catholic and Orthodox bretheren is a good place to start for conversion. As for the Latins, the Servant of God, Pope John Paul II laid out the beginnings of a plan for them in Orientale Lumen. Relinquishing the opposite biases against the East and unbalanced interpretations of their own dogmas and practices is also a good place to start.

Gordo

Ebed,

Not to go off topic with your thread (if you feel it should be moved, I will move it), but why do you think it is that while certain Orthodox monasteries (like the 2 strictest on Mt. Athos) are overly conservative/Traditionalist, Catholic Latin monasteries seem to be fraught with rampant liberalism even heresy (again NOT ALL, but many)?

Do you think this is limited to the United States (Mother Angelica excluded) or am I overgeneralising?

Wow! Yes that probably is its own topic...

Let me say that I am not trying to DEFEND the current state of the Latin Church, although the Latin Church is growing and strong in parts of Asia and Africa. It appears that much of the weakness in religious life and church life in general is in the Americas and in Western Europe. I think one reason for the difference is that Mt. Athos has not had to face the ravages of various social and intellectual movements, such as radical feminism, nihilism, deconstructionism and other fruits of the enlightenment. Mt Athos is NOT exactly a microcosm of your typical "pluralistic" society...which is where most religious orders live, breathe and work while engaging people who are dealing with these ideas. (NB: This is not a slam against Eastern monastic life or Mt. Athos in favor of Western "religious community" models.) The "social contract" of Mt. Athos remains pretty much untouched - not so in the Americas and Western Europe.

Mt Athos is a jewel of Orthodoxy in so many ways. I recently read "the Mountain of Silence" and it is marvellous! I would only wish that our Eastern Catholic churches and monastic or religious houses possessed 1/8 the ethos of Athos! (excepting of course the nonsense about the Catholic Church not having an apostolic hierarchy ).

But those are my initial thoughts...

Gordo

I think that is an over generalization. The trend seems to be that the more orthodox Catholics are seeking monastic vocations and some orders never did get hit as hard by the blight as some others. The Benedictines got hit, but even that is uneven from house to house, the Franciscans truly split and have suffered, the Carmelites to some extent.

Most of the Marian orders struggled but maintained their orthodoxy. There are small orders of hermits in this country that remain a well kept secret but who are exceptionally irenic and orthodox. Most of the Carmelite second order cloisters have returned to the strict Teresan Rule and are attatched directly to the papal office rather than the office of the Superior General of the Carmelites. That's how they rode the wave. There are other stories and then there are the newly formed orders and institutes and congregations which all tend to be orthodox.

So yes. I think to say that monastic life in this country suffered, and that many orders simply collapsed is accurate, but to suggest that it is a pan-monastic norm is not at all true.

The two older and larger orders that split most deeply were the Benedictines and the Franciscans. I think about that a great deal as a Ruthenian Byzantine orthodox Catholic.

Eli

Also I would be exceedingly careful about idealizing Orthodox monasticism. They have their own problems in this country, [and I don't mean Blanco at all for that case is right off the map], and certainly the Holy Mountain struggles today as it did yesterday with all manner of temptations and those who yield.

To idealize them is to do them no service. Pray for them as I hope they pray for us.

Eli

I don�t see what this �mess of disunity� is between the churches. The late Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul rescinded the mutual excommunications. It seems to me what we have are mostly differences of opinion and established traditions surrounding church governance. Both churches have grown to be very different as to how they run themselves.

I think the only real possibility for going one step beyond the lifting of the excommunications is to say officially the situation in terms of governance now would basically just be the norm. The East doesn�t interfere in the affairs of the western church and vice-versa. When there�s a need, one church can help take care of member�s of the other if it's requested.

Andrew

Wow, this thread has become quite pessimistic

I think this is the question for the Orthodox. Was the pre-schism West wholely orthodox? If the answer to that question is "No" then I think all hope of reunion is lost. However if the answer to that question is "Yes" then if follows that the East must acknowledge that the West was different to some extent beginning in the fourth century! Moreover, this difference became more pronounced over time (still before the schism). All the histories that I have read, with varying degrees of emphasis of course, agree on this point. There was a gradual estrangement. For example, when one reads Byzantine Theology by Meyendorff he names the most influential figures in its development. Guess what...they are all Eastern saints. No Hilary, Augustine, Jerome, Leo, etc.

I am not interested in seeing either side simply force its framework done the other's throat. I am not willing to give up on Rome just yet.

P.S. I agree that Todd seems like a cool guy

Eli,

The Society of Jesus was at one time a most forbidable rock of orthodoxy, nowadays it seems it depends on the individual - for example, I trust that Father Mitch Pacwa is truly orthodox; but who knows about visible, very public Jesuits like Fr. Drinan who openly support abortion - without the Superior General's intervention?

Sidenote: I read that the Superior General is an Armenian Catholic, does he support any Eastern "causes"?

I suppose I tend to be something of a purist so I don't really think of the Jesuits in terms of things "monastic". That would also leave out some of the newer orders and also some of the marianist orders.

But if you must then we could add the Jesuits to the list of "hardest hit" without damaging the truth in any way.

I don't know much about the order today. There were Jesuit missionaries in my family, so I know with some certitude that the order was once Catholic, but I've gotten away from paying attention. It has been something of a personal disappointment.

Eli