www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West true Orthodoxy ?

It comes from being a teenager with nothing else to do... :p

What has this got to do with the magisterial teaching of the Church? How is the Church as a whole at fault for what members of its clergy might opine?

Myles, here is my take on the Catholic mindset:
--theology that is religious philosophy
--obedience to the pope
--sometimes, devotion is to the Eucharist

As I wrote above, the first two points revolt my entire being because I find God to be utterly beyond mere human philosophy and institutions.


Here is my take on what you posted:


And there is no mention of the Holy Spirit. In Orthodoxy, Christ came to repair the capacity for man to be united with God, and the Holy Spirit came to sanctify us.


My friend, now it is my turn to ask aloud: Are you serious?


Sadly, often yes. Happily, there are many Catholics who find the simple truth of the Gospel and live it in their lives.


we?


Won? Myles, what have you won? Belief in the papacy is a matter of faith. People either believe in it as the Catholic Church teaches, or they don't. Well, I don't. The same is true for millions of Catholics. The same is also true for millions of other Christians. Your arguments at this forum, which you claim to have won, are hollow victories. I still don't believe in the papacy. I have tried. I even have managed to convince myself on occasion. But, experience convinces me otherwise; and I find the Orthodox view of the papacy to be more accurate.


I disagree, for obvious reasons.


And that is precisely what I am in the process of doing. Just remember, reasonable minds can take the same evidence and come to different conclusions . . . usually by what factors are given the most weight. I will not try to speak for you personally.

I will speak for myself. Truth Is. It is God. It is utterly beyond the capacity for the human mind to apprehend. However, by the grace of God, Truth can be received by the heart. Hence, I look for a Church which treats the Truth apophatically, mystically, practically. Increasingly, I think the Orthodox Church does a better job of that than the Catholic Church.

As for the Eastern Catholic Churches, they have been interesting to me; but I have come to two conclusions about them. First, they are probably going to dwindle away in the U.S. (unless Dan Lauffer is right). Second, they are, ultimately, Catholic and not Orthodox. They do and say and think some things that are Orthodox, but they love the pope and they follow him.


Absolutely. And I increasingly think that the Orthodox do the best job of that because they start with the Mystery and stay with the Mystery and they do not try to box the Mystery into human intellectual arguments or papal decrees. The Orthodox let the Mystery be the Mystery that It Is, and they try to live in ever greater harmony and union with it.

For me, the issue is coming down to this:


So do I. I have been for the last 21 years.

For the last 10 years, at various points, it has been in the back of my mind to become an Orthodox Christian.

That has increasingly been on my mind for the last year. Hence, I have been here at this forum wondering and learning if it is possible to be Catholic and Orthodox. And, as I mentioned above, the answer is no. Either a person is catholic (Eastern or Western) or an Orthodox. And, I still find myself wanting to be Orthodox rather than Catholic.

And it's finally dawning on me: If I like and agree with the Orthodox Church more than any other church, it's time for me to convert to the Orthodox Church.

I'll wait to make my decision till at least the end of this year: in order to truly weigh this and with an open mind.

Myles, I want to thank you for a vigorous debate.

--John

I haven't read through the whole of this thread, but I do (probably to my eventual embarassment)want to babble about this last post.

Byzantine Christianity (for lack of a better term) has plenty of philosophy in it; the mindset of a certain era fills everything. My challenge to you on this:

1. the standard of Catholic theology is the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. What is theologically deficient in it?

2. can you describe to me, in broad terms how the Orthodox Church makes better use of the Greek fathers than the Roman-rite Church makes better use of the Latin fathers in their present theology?

3. can you describe to me (relying primarily English language translations of the original works) a few examples of how the theology of, say, St. Gregory Palamas and St. Simeon the New Theologian are better and less philosophical than, say, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross?


And I utterly disagree with the "sometimes devotion to the Eucharist" point. I find that I can do much more Eucharistic devotion in a Roman parish than in a Byzantine one (which is not to say the Byzantine parish is deficient). The Eucharist is CENTRAL to the Latin Church - you can receive every day, you can go to an adoration chapel, you can participate in various private and semi-public Eucharistic devotions, you can attend Holy Hours. All these are either available at your local parish or possible with only a bit of coordination with the priest and other parishoners.

Your list of the Latin Church's priorities is inverted, in my view. My experience has been Eucharist and prayer life (e.g. the Rosary) first, with the catechisis/doctrine stuff being a distant second. The Pope should not even appear on one's sprititual radar screen except as someone to be prayed for and whose encyclicals offer food for spiritual consumption.

Moving from taking potshots over points on a thread I haven't read in depth, to making presumptuous, broad overarching and possibly misguided conclusions, I offer the folllwing:

John, it seems you're upset about the way things are done in the Latin Church. However, you also seem to feel that your local parish could do things in the "correct" way that is there but is obfuscated by current theology/ecclesiology, things would be OK.

Restating the above, you seem to want things done the way you think they should be done. My question: how do you know your local Orthodox parish will do things any "better"? There are lots of ills that befall an Orthodox parish: indifferentism, ethnic exclusivity, etc. How do you know that you'll be any more content there?

[unsolicited and possibly bad advice] Before you convert I would recommend attending an Orthodox parish for at least a year. Go through their formation program, talk to the priest in depth about some of the things you've just posted and have most of your posts relating to this subject printed for his perusal when you do.

Attend Vespers, Orthros, Liturgy as often as possible and adopt a serious, consistent prayer life. If time permits, do serious study of the original works of the Greek Fathers and important Saints.

Then, go back and be able to describe to yourself what is deficient about Roman sacraments, Roman prayers, and the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. You should be capable of describing every Catholic "heresy" and stating what is deficient about what Rome teaches in the CCC in Rome's own terms and based on your own research of whatever sources are available. Be also very sure that you're going to "get" what you're looking for whem you convert. (I'd also recommend attending a good Byzantine Catholic parish for at least a little bit, and I'd be curious to hear what the Orthodox do "better").

[/unsolicited and possibly bad advice]

Sorry for the very presumptuous tone of this post. But I wanted to ask the questions and couldn't think of another way.

Marc

This thread began with a quotation from a post I made a few days ago, and stand by what I said, because as a Byzantine Catholic I see myself as an Orthodox Christian who also happens to be in communion with Rome. Moreover, I believe that the bishop of Rome himself wants the Eastern Churches that are in communion with him to rediscover their own heritage and to remove Latinizations in a timely and non-confrontational manner.

Now some of this work of rediscovery on the part of Byzantine Christians may cause some confusion among Catholics on both sides, but it is important that this process continue. That being said, this period of rediscovery may be harder for Latin Catholics to understand, and they may even feel threatened by it at times, but they should not feel that way, because the Catholic Church, if it is to be truly Catholic, must embrace those things that make the East unique.

Now by this I do not mean that the Latin Church should itself become Byzantine, for then it would lose that which makes it unique; instead, I mean that Latin Catholics must recognize that there can be formulations of dogma and ways of living the Catholic faith that are uniquely Byzantine.

Ultimately, Eastern and Western Christians must be faithful to their own spiritual, theological, and liturgical traditions, because it is only in that way that they can show the true Catholicity of the one Church of Christ.

You can always count on a Latin for that :p


How can you have sacraments without the Holy Spirit? That was assumed knowledge on my part. I didnt see the need to explain that sacramental grace is the gift of the Holy Spirit since that is embedded in both the teaching of the Latin and Greek Church's on the sacramental economy.

Yes! God didnt even need to make me, nevermind redeem me and forgive me. My heart is full of gratitude. To think that He would further reveal Himself to me and give me guarantees on how to serve Him is even more beautiful than that. The clergy are one of God's great gifts to mankind. They give us the sacraments and they give us the teachings we need to deepen in love for God and purify our hearts that we may see God. They defend the authentic revelation of God and because of them we have come to know God more deeply.

Take for example the Church's beautiful teaching on contraception. Not only does it bare witness to the patristic statements on the matter but it goes to the heart of love. Not only does it defend the dignity of the human person but it opens the spouse's up to the teaching of Sacred Scripture that we read in Ephesians 5. Husband and wife giving self-sacrificially allowing each other to percieve in their own lives the wonder that is the complete self-giving of God and the Church. Through striving to deny themselves they do not merely engage in an aesthetic struggle but they open themselves up to see the denial that Jesus placed upon himself 'enough to give up his life for her' and thus this teaching become a doorway to mysticism, a portal to heaven, and the couple themselves can by observing this teaching become an icon of the Church and her beloved husband. To think that our great God who so far transcends us would be so concerned with making sure we live in love with Him and know and understand His love for us in mere human terms, so much as to remove any little obstacle to that realisation e.g. contraception, is AWESOMELY POWERFUL. As the Psalmist says what is man that you should be mindful of him to make him? And not just make him but pay such attention to the TINIEST little details, that not one jot or one tittle can pass without you making sure that it does not prove to be an obstacle between You and he...The work of the Holy Spirit in guiding the magisterium...how could we possibly forget Him when He does things like this. I feel like singing Veni Creator Spiritus after mulling over that...

Truth as His Holiness Benedict XVI has maintained is not a matter open to democractic debate if they dont believe it its their loss, they loose the certainty that the Papacy brings. Against the witness of Sts Ignatius and Ireneaus, the appeals to Rome by Sts Dionysius of Alexandria and Basil the Great, the statements of the Orthodox Bishops at fourth Ecumenical Council as well as the Alexandrian delegation's hailing of Leo as 'Ecumenical Archbishop' and sixth Ecumenical Council's official synodical letter to Pope Agatho, the teachings of numerous other post-Nicene's e.g. including Gennadius Patriarch of Constantinople and Sts Maximus the Theologian and Theodore the Studite I do not find myself in opposition but agreement. Thats without even touching upon the greater number of Western Fathers e.g. Jerome and Augustine as well as the Pope's themselves like St Leo the Great who were more than clear about that statement of Ambrose 'Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia'. Et tu?

Dear Friends,

This is all excellent reading!

Orthodoxy itself was in communion with Rome, even though that communion was different from the experience of being jurisdictionally "under" Rome.

Rather than see Orthodoxy as "lacking" communion with Rome etc. I see Orthodoxy as a model for a future reunified Church.

And I think Rome's theologians also think so.

RC theologians are focusing more on Patristics these days and on what the united Church of yesteryear held in terms of a common faith and Creed as the foundation for the unity that we once had.

And Orthodoxy's focus on papal primacy based on mutual respect among the Churches is something that is certainly an ideal worth striving after by everyone.

So, even though I'm an EC or "Uniate" or whatever, I see the EC model of church unity as being itself imperfect and even flawed. Just ask Cardinal Kasper!

"Orthodox in communion with Rome" is something that all Eastern Christians may hope to one day be, Catholic or Orthodox.

And that would only be possible once Rome also returns, as I believe it will, to the Petrine Ministry of the first millennium of the CHurch of Christ.

Alex the Uniate

God Bless, I'm the first to respond good...I just wanted to apologise for having caused offence to John or James (or anyone else) in the course of this thread. My own imperfections often colour, taint and poison what I say and that has happened a lot in the last 48 hours. I am sorry.

Yet I stand by the substance of my posts if not by their form. Truth is objective and when one makes claims about the truth then one must provide evidence for that claim. The Roman Primacy (and indeed many aspects of Catholic teching) cannot be reduced to a Christian existentialist leap of faith; demanding only an act of the will isolated from the action of the intellect. Either the Papal claims are lies or they are truth, either they are verifiable or they are not and the only way to arrive at a conclusion to this question is to weigh up the evidence for and against it.

When we come to speak about God these words of St John Damascene from his 'Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith' should suffice:


It is not wrong to express ourselves according to our limited capacity, indeed St John Damascene spends the next four Books of this important exposition doing just that. Indeed, in chapter 3 of Book I he even sounds like St Thomas Aquinas in his proofs for God's existence based upon mutability in the world etc. (Indeed, since St Thomas quotes St John Damascene a fair amount its likely that he was influenced by St John's work) Using the same brand of 'religious philosophy' that has come to be so associated with Roman Catholicism. One might say this cataloguing work pre-empts the sentences and summa's of the Latin Scholastics The Orthodox Church is not completely apophatic nor is the Catholic Church completely catophatic and when neccessity arises we argue out points, even about God himself, thus I see no reason why we should not debate one of His actions: The Roman Primacy.

If you have problems with this idea present them and the reasons why it has become troublesome for you. Then by the grace of God I can respond and we can arrive at the truth as it has been witnessed to by Providence in ecclesiastical history.

Agreed?

PS) I agree, I believe that the Eastern Churches the ideal existence should mirror what it was in the first millenium. The Roman Church has a universal jurdistiction but only in extraordinary cases. As a matter of course a more 'authentic' Roman Primacy is one where Mater Roma acts to defend the traditions of the Church as she did in the era Alex refers to and was so exalted for especially in the tumultous times that marked the conclusion of the Patristic era (surrounding the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils). In the Western Patriarchate she should reign supreme but in the other Patriarchate's their synods should look after their own governance and Rome, as she did in the first millenia, should only interfere when neccesity demands as she did in the past. For the Byzantines I can understand Rome acting in the stead of Old Rome because the Byzantines dont have their own Patriarch. For the other Eastern churches...the role of Rome becomes more unclear.

Dear Brother Myles,

I'm a Uniate so you have to take what I say with a grain of salt (or vodka, as the case may be).

No one denies the Petrine Primacy, but surely you agree that the form of its exercise has differed, even widely, in the Church of Rome over the years?

Even a die-hard papalist ultra-montanist such as yourself probably wouldn't put up with the rantings of a Pope Urban VIII? (Or would you?)

Even we Uniates want the Pope to limit his papalist jurisdiction to his Particular Latin Church and leave us to our own uniatistic devices.

And what do you make of what the Vatican is saying about us Uniates in Russia these days?

Is that also "inspired" by you? Hmmm?

Have a great day!

Alex the Uniate

Sometimes Alex I dont know if you're joking or not. Honestly, even I, a Briton dont know if you're being serious or whether I actually write THAT sloppily that its impossible to understand what I say.

I'll try and cover the points you raised:

This in Myles speak translates to: The Pope should govern the Latin Church and not interfere in the governance of the Eastern churches, only acting to call Councils and make statements of doctrine if an Eastern church finds itself paralysed by heresy as in the 1st millenia. That is what I meant by:

How from this you infer that I think every action of the Vatican e.g. the Russian situation is 'inspired' I must admit I am unclear about. If you might explain it for me I would be most grateful...

Hmm at this rate I'll be translated into English more times than Kant was translated into German

Dear Myles,

Yes, that is what I meant about the grain of salt or, more to the point here, vodka!

The Roman Primacy can be exercised through a wide range of ecclesial models and the ones we've had in the last 500 years aren't necessarily the best.

So the Roman Primacy is inspired but the way it is fulfilled is not - that is what I meant to say.

And what the Vatican is doing in Russia also uninspired - in more ways than one.

How the Vatican can complain about the treatment of Latin priests in Russia, but yet go against, as it would seem it is doing, Russian Eastern Catholics, is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Perhaps you as a Briton and an Oxford student could enlighten me here?

How is the weather where you are?

Alex

Actually doc I'm in London. Trinity term finished awhile back so I'm taking some time out to teach foreign students to speak English during my summer break--by the way the weather is miserable, lol!

So did I, that is, outside of Rome's own patriarchal jurdistiction.

As for the Holy See's policy in Russia. I must admit that I cannot explain it but who knows maybe if I downed the vodka you spoke of earlier will give me a new perspective :p (too bad I'm T-total).

Dear Myles,

When one is tired of London, they say, one is tired of life itself!

I'm jealous . . .

And vodka is Russia's indisputable contribution to world civilization.

To your very good health!

Alex

Dear Marc,


You wrote:

In my opinion, it is deficient because Catholics rely on a book for their theology. It is deficient for the very premise: that theology is an intellectual subject or a religious philosophy. It is deficient because it is a bunch of ideas about God. It is deficient because it represents a fundamentally cataphatic attitude toward God: that we can know Him by having ideas about Him.

In my opinion, theology is not mostly or only an intellectual subject. In my opinion, theology is not religious philosophy. In my opinion, theology --which is the knowledge of God-- is beyond all human forms of knowledge because God is utterly beyond us. Yet, by God�s grace, God descends to our level in order to raise us up to His level. God the Father does so through His Son, Jesus Christ, and through His Holy Spirit. Hence, in my opinion, Christian theology is the direct, personal experience of God by partaking of His Trinitarian life. In my opinion, therefore, theology should represent an apophatic view towards God: that God is utterly beyond our knowledge, but He nevertheless shares His life with us, and thus we can only �know� Him only by going beyond human knowledge to direct experience of Him.

I�m not trying to be flippant. I�m trying to express a fundamentally different way of understanding God and religion.

For Catholics, Christianity is based on official Catholic teachings and obedience to the pope.

For Protestants, Christianity is based on the Bible and however the individual interprets the Bible.

But for Orthodoxy, Christianity is based on the direct, personal experience of God by partaking of His Trinitarian life.

Hence, if an outsider asks a Protestant for suggestions to learn more about Christianity, the Protestant will probably suggest reading the Bible, a number of other books about the Bible, and talking to a pastor.

Hence also, if an outsider asks a Catholic for suggestions to learn more about Christianity, the Catholic will probably suggest reading the Catholic Catechism, maybe some other books, and talking to a priest.

For both Protestants and Catholics, inquiring into Christianity usually begins with reading a book. That is because their theology is ideas about God. Their specific ideas about God can be very different, but both Catholics and Protestants share a view in common: theology is ideas about God. That is cataphatic.

Orthodoxy is different. If an outsider asks an Orthodox for suggestions to learn more about Christianity, the Orthodox will probably suggest coming to Divine Liturgy. Books and talking to a priest come later, but (in my experience) the *first* thing which the Orthodox suggest to an inquirer is to visit Divine Liturgy. For the Orthodox, theology is experience of God. That is apophatic.

Put another way: In Orthodoxy, there is no difference between mysticism and theology. In Orthodoxy, the whole point of Christianity is the direct, personal experience of God by partaking of His Trinitarian life. That is because God is utterly beyond us, yet God loves us so much that He comes down to our level in order to raise us up to His level: starting now and foretasting forever. It is the process of salvation and sanctification that is worked by God with our active co-operation. That is theosis. That is also theology. For the Orthodox, knowledge of God can only be learned by direct, personal experience of God by partaking of His Trinitarian life. Hence, for the Orthodox, theosis is theology.

Indeed, if the word �orthodox� is properly understood --as correct knowledge of God that only comes from experience of God-- then theosis is Orthodoxy. And, anything less than Orthodoxy is less perfect or less complete theosis. To the Orthodox, Orthodoxy is theosis is theology.

In sum, the issue between us is not which text to look at, nor which logical proposition is sound, etc. The issue between Western Christians and Orthodox Christians is our fundamentally different understandings of theology. Both agree that the word �theology� means �knowledge of God.� Hence, the core question is: How do we know God? How do we understand theology? Western Christians (Catholics and Protestants) have a fundamentally cataphatic answer. Namely, Western theology is ideas about God. Orthodox Christians have a fundamentally apophatic answer. Namely, God is utterly beyond our ideas, but He nevertheless shares His life with us. Hence, Orthodox theology is direct, personal experience of God by partaking of His Trinitarian life. In other words, Orthodox theology is a process, theosis, that produces experiential knowledge of God by partaking of His Trinitarian life.


* * *


I would add this: This debate is increasingly impressing me with just how different Western Christianity is from Orthodoxy and vice versa. Truly, we have become different men. Western Christians (Catholics and Protestants) see things so differently from the Orthodox that the two are almost foreign to each other. That is true even here at a forum which is dedicated to �Byzantine� Christianity: supposedly a bridge between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Maybe it is a bridge, but probably not as it is hoped by the Byzantine Catholics themselves. (Unless, of course, Dan Lauffer is right.) Byzantine Catholicism is not a bridge of union; it is a bridge for learning about the very real differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and why they are very separate.

Perhaps, one day, the various churches will reunite: sharing some kind of communion without a unified organization and agreeing to disagree.

That would be nice, but I am not holding my breath. Reunion is not a matter of position papers by theologians, nor is it a matter of pride (as I so often used to think).

We have become different men. That is the issue in ecumenism. Hence, I increasingly think that reunion takes place in the Holy Spirit. Hopefully, we will all see each other in heaven. Till then, I increasingly think we should be good neighbors by being polite but also by maintaining good fences.


* * *


Marc also wrote:

I wish that were true. Theologically, it is true. In practice, it is something else. In my experience here in the U.S., I have found a range of devotion to the Eucharist. I haven�t done a formal study, but the range of devotion seems to follow a curve. A small group (10 - 20 % of Catholics?) are very devoted to the Eucharist; they attend Mass daily or as often as they can, and they go to Eucharistic adoration, and so on. A larger number of Catholics (30% ?) find the Eucharist to be very important; they get to Mass on Sundays and they generally keep the Gospel. That is, perhaps, one half of the curve. The other half of the curve starts with a large group of Catholics who find the Eucharist to be mostly a symbol or a tradition. They (30%) go to Mass anywhere from once or twice per month to once or twice per year. Then, there is another group (10 - 20 % ?) who are the lapsed Catholics who never go to Mass but who haven�t converted to anything else (except, perhaps, secularism).

From what I can tell about Orthodoxy in the U.S., the range of Eucharistic devotion is probably similar to the range of Catholic devotion. If it is different, I would expect devotion to be somewhat higher among the Orthodox because of the high percentage of converts in American Orthodoxy.


* * *


Finally, Marc wrote:



Actually, that is very good advice, and I plan on doing that.

Thank you, Marc and all you others, for your heartfelt and sincere and generous concern; and for some really good discussion.

--John

Dear John,

Actually, Orthodoxy is very "big" on canons, regulations et al. and even moreso than Latin Catholics.

There have been Orthodox Catechisms in the past, such as that of St Peter Mohyla and even St John Damascene.

There must be a rule of orthodox faith that we adhere to.

The "lex orandi" is fine - but if we were to look at the way those Eastern Churches condemned for heresy in the past worship, we would not really find anything in their services that would point to heresy at all.

As for the Papacy, episcopal primacy in Orthodoxy is exercised in different ways in different churches.

The Patriarchs of the large Orthodox Churches are essentially run much in the same manner as the RC Church from the Pope down.

Perhaps there is an idealization here that is simply not the case in practice . . .

In that case, you should indeed move from books and ideas about Orthodoxy, to learning more about the life of the Orthodox Churches in actuality.

At a time when I thought I should become Orthodox (NOT in communion with Rome), I did so. I too believed as you, and largely still do.

But the reality of life in Orthodox churches is something that can hit any idealist, including me, very hard.

Alex

To see just how big on canons the Orthodox are, thumb through "The Rudder", if you can locate a copy.