www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Father Alexander Schmemann on papacy

I know.

Abdur

I know.

Abdur

Generally speaking, are the Oriental Orthodox Churches' relations better with the Catholic Church or with the Eastern Orthodox Churches? I've heard (from this forum and from elsewhere) that the relations between the Orientals and Catholics are very good. Is this true?

ChristTeen287

Dear Aklie:

Please forgive me...I should not have posted so sarcastically.

But do you not see how offensive Mor's post might have been to me? And heck, I'm not even Portuguese.

For the record, this is something close to my heart. Our Jesuit pastor spent 20 years as a missionary in India, where he ran a center for the most destitute and despised Hansen's Disease (leprosy) patients. He would go out into the jungle and villages and seek out people in the advanced stages of leprosy, covered with fetid sores, missing arms and legs...and he would lovingly carry them back to the center, where they would be cared for as if they were kings and queens.

No one else would touch these poor souls with a ten-foot pole. But the Jesuits took loving, tender care of them.

So when Mor tells me how horrible the Catholics supposedly were /are in India, I get my Irish up!

Our parish retains a strong "Indian connection." Not only do we have a bunch of Indian members, but we're also visited from time to time by an Indian Jesuit priest, an erstwhile associate of our pastor, who now serves as a missionary in Jamphedpur, in a nearly 100% Hindu area, where he bicycles through the wilderness in order to bring the Gospel to the villagers. He used to sleep on roadside benches at night. Now the villagers at his "base" village have built him a small hut, where he sleeps. Several villagers guard him at night, as the militant Hindus would kill him for sure if they knew he was there.

So again...when Mor blames all the ills of the Indian Orthodox Church on the Catholic presence in India...well, I think you can see why I might take umbrage at that!

Frankly, I don't see how Catholics can possibly have had any impact, either positive or negative, on the internal workings of the Orthodox Church in India (or in any other country for that matter).

But again, I did not mean to offend Mor, and I apologize for having done so.

Blessings,

ZT

The Coptic Patriarchate and Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria cooperate on issues common to both communities. A Coptic Orthodox hierach is a member of the Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate has very close relationships with Oriental communities.

The Eastern/Oriental Orthodox contingent of the WCC work closely together, with the Coptic Pope serving a leadership role.

The Moscow Patriarchate and the Armenian Patriarchate share close fraternal bonds.

Abdur

Dear Abdur,

And the Russian Orthodox are brothers to the Ukrainians.

We can choose our friends . . .

Alex

ZoeTheodora,

Thank you very much for your considered post(even though you should have addressed it to Mor and not myself).

when Mor blames all the ills of the Indian Orthodox Church on the Catholic presence in India...well, I think you can see why I might take umbrage at that!
Mor never blamed all of the ills of the Indian Orthodox Church on the presence of Catholics in India. In fact, I know for a fact that he does not blame them enough! I talk to him in the open and trough private messages enough to know that he does not blame them for everything, not even most things.

Look, the RC lit the spark that started the fire. The Protestants poured fuel over that fire but ultimately it is up to us to put out that fire and to the extent that we don't we can not and do not point the finger at anyone else, it is our own faults.

But do you not see how offensive Mor's post might have been to me? And heck, I'm not even Portuguese.

I do not see how any of Mor's remarks were offensive at all. He said:

This jurisdictional problem and others also wouldn't have occurred in the first place had the Roman Catholic Portuguese not tried to either bring us under Roman control or kill us, or both.

Mor's statements stands, he will most likely stand by it, I stand by it and any historian knowledgeable of this history will stand by it as well.

Why would you take offense to that? It is just true. In order for serious unification dialogue and ecumenism to take place we must all understand this context. Indians have never sailed to Portugal with the intention of destroying the faith and heritage of the Portuguese; they have never persecuted, slaughtered or killed scores of Portuguese. They have never taken advantages of internal problems in the RC in order to co-opt these for their own purposes. They have never collaborated with the Indian state in order to colonize Portugal.

So you're Irish huh? Good, I think I can draw an analogy.

The English conquered Ireland and did everything they could do to destroy her Celtic language, identity, heritage and history. Over the centuries they have brutalized, humiliated, dehumanized and repressed the Irish people. After the rise of Protestantism they have belittled and scoffed at the Catholicism of the Irish. If an Irish person mentions this history, in what ever tone or way, the English have no right to even be offended.

They have no right to be offended because they oppressed the Irish but the Irish have done nothing to oppress them. Ditto with the Indians; Indians did absolutely nothing to Portugal, the Vatican, or the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore these parties have no right to be offended when the historical record is set straight.

The examples that I used were all 20th Century ones and ultimately the RC was only indirectly involved in them. I could have cited older

The Priest that you mention has all of my respects and admiration. He is truly living by Christian Charity in all senses of the term. Many missionaries do such great things and make great personal sacrifices; many times while local Orthodox people are not making such sacrifices. This is not anything that Mor nor myself would deny.

But in all due respect these types of efforts are similar to those done by all proselytizers in general. As a Catholic I am sure you can relate to Protestants, with the mighty Protestant western dollar coming to an impoverished Catholic Indian community in Latin America and opening a school and health clinic (while maybe some of the Latin American urbanites were not willing to do so) and possibly building an irrigation structure. They then demonstrate to the poor Indians that it was (the Protestant) God that gave them all of this stuff. They have a new congregation. See the problem?

A brotherly thing to do would be to assist the Indian Orthodox with strengthening and reviving their own Church so that they themselves can spread the Gospel throughout the rest of India; through the medium of a completely Indian Christianity.

We all have our disagreement and should always discuss our disagreements. Passion is nothing new in Christian dialogue. Heck, some of the fathers used to have fist brawls. But in the end we know we have this passionate dialogue for the higher purpose of unity. To the extent that we take things personally then we lose.

In love and hopes of reunion,

A. Semaet

ChristTeen287,

Yes, in general the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox have good functioning relations. You would never know this however if you had to base your understanding on silly wasp convert sites like Orthodoxinfo.com

Orthodox would tend to see the church as an organic unity rather than an organic organism. That is, each local church is fully the church and therefore is in all essential elements identical to all other local churches. Therein lies unity -- both its basis and its outward manifestation. The Orthodox approach is trinitarian --ie, emphasizing the essential one-ness of the three triniatarian persons, who are nevertheless in perfect unity -- whereas the universal organism approach would -- following that model -- appear to subsume the other "persons" into the "Father" (that is, by subsuming the "persons", which in this analogue are the local churches, into the single person of the "Father", which in this analogue would be the Church of Rome under RC ecclesiology). The local churches are one as the persons of the Trinity are one, and the church in toto mirrors (or ought to mirror) that trinitarian structure. Nothing more (as I would say to RCs who tend to overemphasize the need for administrative, juridical unity) but also nothing less (as I would say to some Orthodox who tend to underemphasize the need for inherent unity).

Brendan

But do you not see how offensive Mor's post might have been to [i]me? And heck, I'm not even Portuguese. [/i]

Dear Zoe,

Please accept my apologies for any offence I caused you if I was insensitive in my reply to you; I didn't think I was, but if you felt that way, I'm sorry.

With that said, however, I stand by and defend my comments, and I challenge you to tell me where I got my facts wrong.

For the record, this is something close to my heart. Our Jesuit pastor spent 20 years as a missionary in India, where he ran a center for the most destitute and despised Hansen's Disease (leprosy) patients. He would go out into the jungle and villages and seek out people in the advanced stages of leprosy, covered with fetid sores, missing arms and legs...and he would lovingly carry them back to the center, where they would be cared for as if they were kings and queens.

No one else would touch these poor souls with a ten-foot pole. But the Jesuits took loving, tender care of them.

Believe me, I have nothing personal against the Church of Rome or her children. I love all sorts of things about Roman Catholicism. And I am thankful for those Catholic missionaries in India who are undertaking charitable work there (what part of India was your priest based in, and/or what language does he speak?).

But we also see the bad side of such charitable work. Roman Catholic and Protestant organisations have been "helping" us out with various things for a while, and one instance is in helping people find jobs overseas. One RC organisation would send women to Germany to go to nursing school to become RN's, so they could work overseas. Others would help train men in other professional jobs with the hope of overseas placement. And the education was free...you even got a monthly stipend for expenses. What does it cost the applicant? They have to convert to Roman Catholicism, since the programme was billed only for Roman Catholics.

You take a poor guy from a poor family who needs to do something for his destitute family so they can get out of their rut, and you tell him he can be educated without cost to him, and get a job that pays in dollars, pounds, dinars, or marks to support his family and improve their situation, and the only thing he has to do is change Churches, and you think he's gonna say "Well, I'm Orthodox, so you can take your jobs and your heresy and shove it"? No...he's gonna convert to get all the goodies. And he did...and many others followed that same route.

If the RC's and the Protestants were serious about their "good will" toward the Orthodox in India, they would recognise that the Orthodox Church is the indigenous Church, and they would help her out in her mission to spread the Gospel in India, and would help out people, without stealing her members by enticing them with undreamed of opportunities at the expense of their religion. They would not *actively* support one party involved in a sticky ecclesiastical situation against another when that situation is outside of the Roman Catholic Church or the realm of the Protestants...why meddle in another Church's "politics"? Why are they doing these and other things? I respect those who come to our country, learn our languages, and help out our people in a spirit of Christian charity and brotherhood. But I cannot respect those who do so and and at the same time sow division and reap our people.

I will not comment on why "no one else would touch" these people, as that becomes a discussion about, among other things, Hindu belief.

So when Mor tells me how horrible the Catholics supposedly were /are in India, I get my Irish up!

Like Aklie said, facts are facts. They were much worse in the past, and are better now, but even now, they've got a lot more to go.

Several villagers guard him at night, as the militant Hindus would kill him for sure if they knew he was there.

And this is why Catholics should be helping us rather than doing their own preaching.

In India, especially in the past few years, everyone's a nationalist. That is a fact of life there, even for religion.

Other than Christianity, no other Indian religion has "foreign authorities" to answer to. But Catholics have the Pope, Protestants have the Archbishop of Canterbury and others out West, and even the patriarchal faction Jacobites have a loyalty to the Patriarch of Antioch that'd match RC loyalty to the Pope of Rome. So the Christians are the only ones seen as being Indian, but also swearing fealty to non-Indian powers.

Some, including the Hindu nationalist types, insist that all Christians in India unite under one Indian Church under one Indian head, not perceiving the differences between the Orthodox and the other branches of Christianity introduced into India from the 1500's on.

But there is one Church that is indigenous to the country and is headed by an Indian, and that is the Malankara Orthodox Church. If the other Churches and groups would help this Church evangelise the country by preaching and charitable works, I have a feeling things would not be so bad. But because all of these others seem to be in it for themselves, even to the point of pushing us down, things aren't so good.

That is just my opinion, but I think it is an informed opinion based on my experiences with the Church and the "state".

So again...when Mor blames all the ills of the Indian Orthodox Church on the [i]Catholic presence in India...well, I think you can see why I might take umbrage at that! [/i]

Not all of the ills. We're pretty good at creating a lot of our own troubles.

But certainly Catholics have wreaked more than their share of havoc on our Church and people. That is just history...sorry if that upsets you, but the history of the RCC isn't immaculate.

And this is a note to Aklie, but I put it here. Thanks for responding in my defence. If I had gotten here on time, I probably would've written verbatim what you wrote, but not as well as you have done. You and I are of like mind, and I am glad that is the case...I'd hate to be your enemy.

Mor Ephrem:

You said:

If you can put to task the Catholic Church in India and her charitable works among the poor and the destitute, what is so sacrosanct about Hindu beliefs and the Hindus' "abandonment" of needy Indians, especially the "untouchables?"

Can you not evaluate, for our discussion purposes, the merits or demerits of the "caste system" still playing hide-and-seek throughout the Indian subcontinent as it relates itself to societal problems?

Do you mean to say that only that Indian Jesuit priest cited by ZoeT and those sisters of Mother Teresa's congregation are "low enough" (and have the heart) to scoop up those Indians dying in the streets of Calcutta and in the slums of other Indian cities from hunger and illnesses (like leprosy)?

If the Indian "caste system" is perceived to be inhumane we, as Christians, should say so regardless of one's ethnicity.

Are the Syro-Malankarese and the Syro-Malabarese Churches not "indigenous" enough because both are Catholic, and not Orthodox?

How about the more than 10 million Indian Roman Catholics?

Just thinking.

AmdG

If the Catholic Church is willing to strengthen the Indian Orthodox Church, then the Indian Orthodox Church should be willing to strengthen the Catholic Church as well. I am not aware if either group is currently assisting the other, and neither am I convinced that a religious organization should be expected to put forth effort in revitalizing another religious group; everyone has an agenda, and it seems that it would make sense if these Churches would work for the betterment and revitalization of themselves. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice if they worked for the enlargement of the other Church, but it wouldn't seem to make a lot of sense. Therefore, I can't see how one would expect a group to do this (although it would be amiable).

What makes Oriental Orthodox Christianity more "Indian" than Catholic Christianity? That's a little bit offensive; Catholicism is universal. Sometimes it seems (I don't know how accurate this is, thus my emphasis) that the Catholic Church is willing to bend its will to the will of the Orthodox Churches, for the advance of ecumenism, while some of the Orthodox Churches aren't willing to move a muscle precisely because a very few of them do not desire reunion.

I don't think it's necessary that the Churches labor for the advance of the other, but that they treat each other with Christian respect. This is something the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church have fallen short on.

ChristTeen287

If you can put to task the Catholic Church in India and her charitable works among the poor and the destitute, what is so sacrosanct about Hindu beliefs and the Hindus' "abandonment" of needy Indians, especially the "untouchables?"

Can you not evaluate, for our discussion purposes, the merits or demerits of the "caste system" still playing hide-and-seek throughout the Indian subcontinent as it relates itself to societal problems?

Dear Amado,

You assume that I think that the Hindu "situation" is "sacrosanct". This thread has nothing to do with the Hindus. Hence, I preferred not to introduce such a topic into it; nevertheless, I know there is more to "no one else is willing to care for them" than just the fact that no one wants to deal with lepers, so while recognising there is more to the problem, I also didn't want to get into a discussion of that here, and lead the thread astray.

Second of all, I did not nor do I take the Catholic Church "to task" for its charitable works. I take her to task for meddling in ecclesiastical politics outside of her realm, and for making conversion to Roman Catholicism (Eastern Catholicism was not a viable option in these programmes) a necessary prerequisite to being helped out of a rut, among other things.

Do you mean to say that only that Indian Jesuit priest cited by ZoeT and those sisters of Mother Teresa's congregation are "low enough" (and have the heart) to scoop up those Indians dying in the streets of Calcutta and in the slums of other Indian cities from hunger and illnesses (like leprosy)?

If you read my post rather than reacting, you'd understand what I meant. I can assure you, I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to help others in a spirit of Christian charity and brotherhood, whether they are Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant...no problems at all.

If the Indian "caste system" is perceived to be inhumane we, as Christians, should say so regardless of one's ethnicity.

Yeah...so?

Are the Syro-Malankarese and the Syro-Malabarese Churches not "indigenous" enough because both are Catholic, and not Orthodox?

The Syro-Malankar Catholics and the Syro-Malabar Catholics are indigenous, simply because they, while under Rome, are descended from the original Church that existed in the country prior to the advent of the Europeans who brought Roman Catholicism with them. Nevertheless, they are not under an indigenous head, as the Orthodox are, but are under Rome, and that is the problem which some of those who insist on "indigenous everything" have.

How about the more than 10 million Indian Roman Catholics?

The very fact that they are Roman Catholics implies that they are the result of missionaries "from Rome", since the Roman Church and her rite never held sway in India at all before the Portuguese. Hence, I feel justified in not calling Roman Catholicism indigenous to India in the way that Orthodoxy is, and I also feel justified in denying that Roman Catholics, unlike their Eastern Catholic brethren, are "Saint Thomas Christians". Sorry if that bothers you, but the facts are the facts.

If the Catholic Church is willing to strengthen the Indian Orthodox Church, then the Indian Orthodox Church should be willing to strengthen the Catholic Church as well.

Ah, but has it been established that the Catholic Church is willing to strengthen the Orthodox Church in India? I don't think so...

I am not aware if either group is currently assisting the other, and neither am I convinced that a religious organization should be expected to put forth effort in revitalizing another religious group;

Sure, no one is required to help anyone else, but certainly it is the Christian way.

everyone has an agenda, and it seems that it would make sense if these Churches would work for the betterment and revitalization of themselves. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice if they worked for the enlargement of the other Church, but it wouldn't seem to make a lot of sense. Therefore, I can't see how one would expect a group to do this (although it would be amiable).

Would you support an Indian Orthodox mission to Italy on a large scale? Would you support our folks helping out the less fortunate but requiring their conversion to Orthodoxy to do that? Would you support us if we meddled with internal affairs of the Roman Catholic Church in Italy (and by that I mean really high level internal affairs, and not just the administration of a small diocese here or there)? I don't think you would, and you shouldn't.

There is a difference between Mother Teresa's sisters, which someone mentioned earlier, and some other RC organisations. Mother Teresa's sisters will help anyone "as is"...these other "groups", "movements", or "initiatives" don't necessarily follow her saintly example.

And the Orthodox Church in India does not interfere with the internal affairs of the Catholic Church, does not actively take sides in certain internal disputes, etc. But the same can't be said for the Indian Catholics.

What makes Oriental Orthodox Christianity more "Indian" than Catholic Christianity?

OO Christianity is more Indian than Roman Catholicism. If you have to ask why, you should probably visit an RC parish in India and an Orthodox parish in India, and you'll understand.

That's a little bit offensive; Catholicism is universal.

I find offensive your assertion in another thread a while ago that Catholicism is more universal than Orthodoxy, thus denying at least in part the "catholicity" of Orthodoxy. It seemed in that thread that you were saying Latin Christianity embraces all, while Orthodoxy was more or less a sort of local phenomenon. Now that's offensive.

Sometimes it seems (I don't know how accurate this is, thus my emphasis) that the Catholic Church is willing to bend its will to the will of the Orthodox Churches, for the advance of ecumenism, while some of the Orthodox Churches aren't willing to move a muscle precisely because a very few of them [i]do not desire reunion.[/i]

Have you ever thought about the possibility that maybe the Orthodox position on ecumenism and reunion is already well known and hasn't changed? At this point, the main sticking point is the RC understanding of the papacy, and the Orthodox position on this has been clear. For the Orthodox, this is not nor has it ever been a matter of "bending the will" to accomplish a mere jurisdictional unity...it is a matter of preserving the true faith against what they perceive to be heretical innovations.

I don't think it's necessary that the Churches labor for the advance of the other, but that they treat each other with Christian respect. This is something the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church have fallen short on.

True. But that doesn't preclude one from noting who seems to be the more gentlemanly of the two.

I did not intend to imply that the Catholic or Orthodox Churches have been willing to strengthen each other. I was being theoretical.

Naturally, I wouldn't support an Orthodox mission in Italy, but that in no way means I would not respect the rights of the Orthodox to spread their faith. Just because I don't support it doesn't mean it's not their right and that it should be prohibited.

This is true. Let's pray that many more follow the example of Mother Teresa.

How can I accept this as a worthwhile explanation? Just because a religious group "claimed" a country first (whatever that means, it certainly makes no sense to me) doesn't mean they are necessarily more indigenous. And many Catholics would state that since Orthodoxy is schismatic (as most Catholics believe), the Catholic Church was in India before the Oriental Orthodox Churches were (not that this claim would matter at all). If we went by the standards of who got here first, then Hinduism is much more "Indian" than Oriental Orthodoxy, which is more "Indian" than Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. And so what if it's been there longer? I'm truly not trying to offend you (or anyone else), but I do not understand why, because a group "claimed" an area before the other did, that it's only theirs and that others have no right to spread their faith. If that were to be universally enforced, American would be nothing but Anglicans, Puritans, deists, and what-have-you. American Catholicism and American Orthodoxy would be non-existent. I cannot verify or accept your explanation until I have visited an Indian Orthodox Church in India and somehow find it "more Indian" than a Roman or Eastern Catholic church (Malabar and Malankar churches included), or until someone explains to me why claiming "Well I was here first" matters at all.

Where did I state this? In terms of numbers of people across the globe who adhere to Catholicism, the numbers are factually much higher than those of Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy combined. However, I don't necessarily view Catholicism as more universal than Orthodoxy (are we talkin' Eastern or Oriental?). I sincerely apologize if I have offeded you; it is never my intention to do so. Please accept my apology.

For the sake of Christian unity, the positions on ecumenism should change with the circumstances; why should they be frozen in time? Have they been frozen in time? If by the "Orthodox position" you mean refusing to try to work things out with Catholicism, then I thoroughly reject this position. If by the "Orthodox position" you mean refusing to change doctrine for the sake of reunion, then I applaud this position; Catholicism has done this as well. Bending the will and changing doctrines are completely different things; you seem to equate them. Naturally Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy, will stay clear of what each group deems to be "heretical innovations", but that doesn't mean they can't be flexible and cooperate with the others (I'm not occusing Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy of refusing to cooperate or of not being flexible).

What are you implying? Apparently, both Churches could use a dose of gentlemanly behavior, for the sake of all Christians. This is my point: there's a difference between being "gentlemanly" and changing doctrinal views.

ChristTeen287