www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and Catholic Orders

First, RCs claim that the Orthodox are heretics on every RC board I've ever visited.

Second, the reason people who accuse the Orthodox of heresy are reprimanded here is that this Church officially teaches that the Orthodox are part of the Church. The Orthodox Church does not share the opinion about the RC therefore an Orthodox board will tolerate agnostic opinions about the RC.

When you speak of "mutual respect," what exactly do you mean? For example, I have a friend who is an Orthodox Jew. She will not come into my home. Will not eat food I've prepared. Her husband won't look at me or shake my hand. She will not invite me to her home. I think she's wrong about religion. She thinks I might be an idolator but doesn't really care because my mother wasn't Jewish. Yet I think we have "mutual respect." We just accept that we disagree. I don't tell her that she's stupid or going to hell and she doesn't tell me that I'm stupid and going to hell. That's mutual respect, IMHO.

My grandmother is a Methodist. I don't think her church has "grace" in the strict sense of the word. She thinks I believe stupid catholic things. But we have mutual respect.

Mutual respect does not mean agreement. It does not mean that we can't disapprove.

I think it's very unfair to the Orthodox to criticize them for believing what their Church teaches.

When this was originally discussed on OC.net I made a comparison to the RC view of Anglicanism. One could argue that the RC teaching about the lack of apostolic succession in the Anglican church is "unfair." Is it based on accurate history and a correct understanding of Anglicanism or the same old RC vs. Protestant fight? I'm no expert on Anglicanism so don't have an opinion. However, I don't RCs are "uncharitable" for believing that that the Anglicans don't have valid orders. It's what the RC teaches, after all. Further to suggest that this comparison is "uncharitable" (because it says that in the eyes of the Orthodox the RC is like the Anglicans, i.e. protestants) might itself be uncharitable because such an argument presumes that Anglicans are protestant and not catholic.

Mutual respect IMHO means allowing people believe what they want to believe. It means not telling them what they should believe. IMHO criticizing the Orthodox for not thinking like RCs isn't respectful because it doesn't allow the Orthodox to be independent. The idea that Rome's determination should guide everyone else presupposes that Rome is supreme which isn't respectful to the Orthodox.

I also think that the people here should understand (and I think most of you do understand) that this board's opinions about "Orthodoxy in communion with Rome" is itself offensive to the Orthodox.

Jennifer,

Since you plan to join the Orthodox Church "again", it might be in your best interest not to burn the bridges to your previous faith.

The grass is never greener on the other side, its just the Light shines upon it just a wee bit different.

james

"Burning bridges?" See this is the kind of talk that I hate. It's not a fight.

What...will Rome not take me back because I've "burned my bridges?"

iconophile,

He may be, but he claims he is not.

One more thing...does it strike anyone else as strange that it's acceptable here to call someone who attends SSPX Masses a "schismatic" but it's not acceptable to call the Orthodox "schismatics?"

Attending SSPX Masses (which I've never done, btw) does not make one a schismatic.

Also if it's "uncharitable" for the Orthodox to believe that Rome is in schism then why it is not "uncharitable" for Byzantine Catholics to call SSPXers "schismatics?"

iconophile,

It is a bit difficult to summarize but I will try. On more than one occasion on this board non-Orthodox have claimed to present Orthodox practice which was not accurate. Orthodox clergy have even stepped in only to be ignored (about the same as being told one is wrong). There was no moderation.

I suggest that you feel such things as what happened to you on oc.net clearly because you are Catholic, you feel them differently than a non-Catholic does. Some of the insinuation, accusation and simple misrepresentations that have come out on this board show that people are oftentimes ignorant, to a dangerous degree. Yet, it is our position to enlighten as much as possible those individuals. Some refuse to be corrected, they prefer an untruth to a truth. Usually I presume such ignorance to be benign in its intention, no malice involved. Sometimes I am wrong.

I didn't follow the thread you refer to on the other board. I don't know what you asked or how you asked it. However, it should be obvious to you that on a non-Catholic board asking about such polemical matters as the Papacy will bring out a wide range of responses. The fact that the Orthodox Churches do not have a single definitive position on the RCC makes for this situation.

I agree with Jennifer, you are expecting a reciprocity that is unreasonable. The ecclesiology of the RCC leads to the RC positions you have cited, the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church is not the same. If you recall a thread about some guy who was gonna move to AK and there was only going to be an Orthodox parish nearby and the Orthodox were called "stingy with the Sacraments" [note: no moderation to that comment IIRC] because of following the general practice of the Orthodox Churches, this notion of different ecclesiologies was presented (again by me).

Again, Jennifer's point about Anglicanism is useful. The Anglicans historically thought of themselves as part of the Catholic Church, yet the RCC does not reciprocate that notion.

T

Well, if you don't like the position of the clergy in one Orthodox Church, just ask the clergy of another Orthodox Church. The answer you get will depend on who you ask. As Tony said"
There are many situations where Orthodoxy does not have a unified view or teaching. One of my Orthodox friends refers to his Church as, "disorganized religion at its finest."

Jennifer,

Burning bridges = unkind comments about whoever, nothing to do with Rome.

I have been exploring/converting to Orthodoxy for over 2 years with a few Orthodox priests, and have reached no final decision. We tend to become like feathers blowing in the wind.

East and West do have their unique problems, every person's definition of perfection is different.

By the way, I believe the Vatican has stated that the SSPX's sacraments were valid, I will try to find the story.

May the Holy Spirit lead your heart to His home, be it East or West.

james

I agree that this point is useful, but only in an ironic sense. I think it is clear from iconophile's posts, in particular his allusion to Alice's comportment, that the issue does not in any way involve an expectation that one would deviate from one's church's teachings. Such deviations could never be expected in the name of charity or mutual respect. This point - which applies ot the Anglican and Orthodox Jew casesn mentioned - is, I think, a rather obvious one. Moreover, simply to inform some one about a church's teachings is unconnected to charity or to respect.

But, as the administrator has pointed out, there is, apparently, a range of allowable opinion within in Orthodoxy on questions of the grace, validity, efficacy, etc. of Catholic Sacraments. And there is actual history.

The real question, ISTM, is this: if a positive opinion is allowable - why opt for a negative opinion? Why choose to adopt positions that are less charitiable and less respectful, when the more charitable and more respectful ones are allowable? Why choose to hold the negative, to nuture it, to argue it? Why select precedents that conform to a perspective rather than openly witness the totality of history? Why single out the writings Nikodemos the Haghiorite on the subject - writings that are criticized, within Orthodoxy as non-traditional and innovative. Why not choose the writing of the current on MP and RO synod on sisterhood, and sacraments? Or just the words of Blessed Theophan the words Recluse: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... "

That's the puzzle.

I started looking back to see what you might be talking about. Especially to find if I personally needed to make amends.

The most recent example involved a some misunderstanding of inter-communion. Fr. Thomas spoke out definitively. He was not ignored. The offender admitted error and apologized. Some chose to be understanding of this error (do you really expect flawless knowledge of whether for example, OCA, ROCA, and ROAC intercommune?), others chose to elevate it to the level of - amazingly enough - blood libel. There was moderator criticism aimed at the latter remarks.

Perhaps you had a different situation in mind?

Actually I had that one in mind. If you would link that thread I would appreciate it, perhaps I abandonded it before that happened or my memory is failing me. You may send a private message if you like, in any event it will be appreciated.

I was the one who was reprimanded so I recall that clearly. The poster continued to assert his claim IIRC.

I am happy djs that you mention this. I do not expect flawless knowledge about this. By the same token I do not expect those who do not possess such flawless knowledge to make claims about something they don't really know.

Perhaps the individual who singled out St. Nikodemos' position does so because that is the one he subscribes to? The range of opinion exists across national jurisdictional lines but not usually within them as much as across them. Not to belabor the point, but the ROC has a rather inclusive position, the EP slightly less so but still inclusive while Greece has a more exlcusive position with Mt. Athos being perhaps the most exclusive. The manner of reception of converts is reflected in this.

So, one's opinion would likely be linked to one's jurisdiction.

I think part of the problem is the assumption that one belief is "positive" while the other is "negative." Why is the "negative" position "uncharitable" or disrespectful?

I know many Orthodox Christians who hold the "negative" position who are neither "uncharitable" or "disrespectful" to the RCC.

Sometimes I suspect that the "positive" position taken by Rome towards the Orthodox is not rooted in charity or respect. Demanding reciprocity is not respectful IMHO.

Further, I think it's disrespectful to the 'hardline' Orthodox to equate their beliefs with 'feeneyite' Roman Catholics. By asserting that Rome has no "grace," they are not saying that Roman Catholics cannot be saved. In that, the 'hardline' Orthodox position is entirely consistent with Theopane's words. Note that Theopane refers to non-Orthodox as the "hetrodox." That seems to indicate a 'hardline' position.

Ultimately what this boils down to IMHO is the belief that the RCC gets to dicate the 'rules'of the game. If the RCC says the Orthodox have orders then to be "charitable" the Orthodox must reciprocate. I don't think that's charitable or respectful.

Hello everyone; hope y'all had a blessed Nativity.

I completely agree with Jennifer, Anastasios, and Mor Ephrem.

I must admit I find it astounding that, on this Forum, if one doesn't believe that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches together comprise the Church of Christ, they're considered "extremists."

It's not charitable to attempt to construct a "union" based upon lies, distoritions, and false ecumenism (yes, it's a cliche term, but entirely apropos).

Perhaps when both Churches begin approaching the issue honestly, reunion can occur...and perhaps not. From a Catholic standpoint, the Orthodox must accept all Catholic dogmata, at the very least. From an Orthodox standpoint, the Catholics must disavor their heretical/erroneous doctrinal accretions, at the very least.

Who knows if this will happen? I'm encouraged by the fact that so many of you on this Forum have faith that reunion will occur; I cannot be so sure. But I think the first step is honest dialogue and rising above the petty childishness of pouting over whether a Church's official position on your sacraments is "charitable" or not.

Logos Teen