www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eucharistic Communion.

I will not make a comment on what you just said. It is not my intention to offend you or others. I will take a different approach than what I used to, for the benefit of everyone.

So, I will pass this one up, even though it is most difficult to do so.

Peace!

Timothy, reader

Stuart,

All in all, I think the Poles have been less than helpful to Greek Catholics. But I do think in the particular item you cite, the Latin Church was inno position to do anything else. It was a very bad time for Catholics of all sorts. The Communists were determined to destroy the Greek Catholic Church, the only option was to latinize or adopt atheism.

Well said, Reader Timothy! You and I both struggle when we "let things slide." But it's good for our souls.

I'll pray for you; please pray for me.

>>>All in all, I think the Poles have been less than helpful to Greek

Catholics. But I do think in the particular item you cite, the Latin

Church was inno position to do anything else. It was a very bad time for

Catholics of all sorts. The Communists were determined to destroy the

Greek Catholic Church, the only option was to latinize or adopt atheism.<<<



Precisely. So if the Roman Catholic Church was in no position to do otherwise, then neither was the Orthodox Church in any position to do other than it did in regard to the Greek Catholics. The behavior of both left much to be desired, and just as the Orthodox Church (with few exceptions) has not atoned for its behavior, neither has the Roman Catholic Church atoned for what it did (or didn't) do to the Greek Catholics. To this day there are still Greek Catholic churches in Eastern Poland which have not been returned to their rightful owners. In many cases, the property is in the hands of the local Latin dioceses, some of which uses them for their own services, others of which are simply abandoned and decrepit.



Since both sides have sinned equally, it is time to put the argument away for good.

Tim,

You wrote: "I will not make a comment on what you just said. It is not my intention to offend you or others. I will take a different approach than what I used to, for the benefit of everyone. So, I will pass this one up, even though it is most difficult to do so."

I would really like to know what you have to say. Will you deny the validity of eucharistic communion? Are Roman Catholics just cookie worshippers? Come on! Who REALLY holds us together in Communion? Is it US in our ecclesial brokeness?


Vincent,

You wrote: "Well said, Reader Timothy! You and I both struggle when we "let things slide." But it's good for our souls."

We can't let our schism slide. We are all schismatics. Everyone of us who cannot LOVE are schismatics. Anyone who looks the other way from the validity of eucharist in both Catholic and Orthodox 'churches' (there I go again using that term again) and says in his/her heart "My eucharist has Christ's presence in it more than yours" is a plain fool, not a fool for Christ. The heretic Sethians thought their baptismal water was more 'special' than the Orthodox Christians. It was Living Water, not just plain ordinary water they would tell us. Yet they were plain Gnostics. The sacramental presence that makes eucharist is from the power of God, in the Holy Spirit - not in the formula of any special bread. The same goes for baptismal water. The same goes for Church communion.

Elias

I am not a schismatic or a heretic, but I am a sinner.

I think you know my views concerning the "mysteries" of others.

I will let others speak on this particular subject.

Tell you what, you go ahead and read what St. Basil has to say regarding this subject. I share the views of St. Basil and the other Church Fathers.

God bless,

Timothy, reader

Tim,

WE ARE ALL SCHISMATICS. What do you say in your heart? Do Roman Catholics worship cookies?

Elias

Let us not use our own interpretation as to what a schismatic is. We should listen to what the Canons tell us what a schismatic is. That is my criteria, Holy Tradition, not my own opinion.

Why do you persist? Why can you not accept my silence?

Timothy, reader

Tim,

What do the canons say about schism?

My other questions still stand: (1) Do Roman Catholics worship cookies? (2) Are the sacred mysteries in the Catholic Church - Eastern and Western - valid? Are they real?

The Latin treatment of the East during the Crusades is a hurt that runs deep. I can understand. Enthroning a prostitute on the altar of the Cathedral Church of Constantinople is a reflection of what they thought of the sacraments in the East. Should we, in turn, enthrone the prostitutes of our mind on the altars of the West by considering their eucharist invalid and illicit on the plane of Protestant communion services? Where is there forgiveness, man?

Why don't you answer in your own words instead of hiding behind silence? Do you ever think the East and West should re-unite. I write 're-unite' because they were both ONE communion. Both the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch nullified the mutual excommunications from 1054. Was this only symbolism over substance?

If you wish not to answer me then I will consider you in agreement with what I write based on the argument from silence. Thank you for your support. The fact that you still answered me with a post shows you are not silent yet.

Let's pray for forgiveness. I love the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. As a uniate (and proud of it!) I consider the ecclesial divorce as an insult to God's will if not a problem that arises with men personally. To date, I know of only male heretics - and most of them were ecclesiastics. Hmmmmm?

Elias

[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 11-17-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 11-17-1999).]

Hello,

I would love to answer you, and will. Just give me your e-mail and I will do as you wish.

Okay? Great! I cant wait!

Timothy, reader

Tim,

You can reach me here on this message board. Why the need for a side-board meeting? Is what you believe in private and what you profess publicly two different things? Please answer my previous questions.

Elias

Have you ever attended services at St. Nectarios American Orthodox Church in Seattle, WA?

If so, ask Fr. Neketas. He will be glad to help you.LOL

Timothy, reader

Tim,

Quit running behind Council statements and other people. Since you participate on this message board, I take it that you are quite competent to answer questions. I asked you several questions which you have yet to answer.

As a 'Reader' in the Church, you would respect my questions if you knew who I am. Yet, I ask you as a friend in Christ and considering you as a man. Can you not answer my questions regarding the eucharist and communion in general and the 'validity' of Roman Catholic eucharist in particular? It's time to fess up. Time to grow up, Mr. Reader.

Elias,
An Orthodox Christian in Communion with Rome

concerning the content of the myteries of Rome: one word; 'graceless'!

Timothy, the Orthodox reader

P.S. That is the teaching of the Orthodox Church and our Orthodox Bishops. This is not meant to be mean-hearted, but to be loving and truthful.

Without fanning the flames, I think I understand a bit of what Tim is saying.

The core issue is, I believe, what model of ecclesiology one adopts. The traditional (and I use that term loosely) ecclesiology of the Eastern Churches has been one of union based on the sharing of a common faith and sacraments. The Western Church (i.e., Roman Catholic) has a model of ecclesiology which is authority-centric.

Both, I think, have their flaws, and extremists on both sides serve only to demonstrate the respective weaknesses.

On the side of the Eastern extreme, one finds the 'protestantizing' tendency of defining 'Church' as those who accept a specific formulation of doctrine and who, essentially, live in the past, unable and unwilling to see doctrine and practice as an organic entity which grows and evolves. The 'True Church', in their view, consists only of those who reject the imaginary heresies of the Conspiracy Theorists and who cling to an 8th century weltanschauung.

On the extreme Western side, one finds the same tendency - to define the 'true church' as those who accept an ultramonatist definition. They, like the Lefevbre-ists, find themselves in the awkward position of having an ultramonatist church without a head. Very strange indeed! Just to the left of these strange birds are those who see 'heresy' around every corner, and who define themselves as being the Remnant within the body politic of the church.

Those in the middle, too, have their weaknesses. The Western model of ecclesiology has evolved into one in which the authority issue is paramount - legal authority to administer the Sacraments, legal authority to define doctine, legal authority to exercise, well, authority. The Eastern model of ecclesiology, without 'authority' as being a defining charastistic, has evolved into one in which things are done by consensus, and in which there is a centrality of 'charism', but one in which administrative squabbles abound.

From where I sit, I see each side suffering from the absence of the other. The West could use a strong infusion of collegiality and charism, and less of an emphasis on legalism, while the East could use a stronger central authority.

Perhaps we Byzantine Catholics have the best of both worlds, at least until the Schism is healed.