www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News News from Athos

Also, I have to add that if you go back, you will see that I had positive things to say about Pope Benedict's trip to the Phanar. I believe that it is a good thing for us to work together. But I do not believe that any agreement of a theological nature has occured. We talk to each other now, which is a good first step. But that is all it is. A first step. Once the table is set and true discussion begins, it will be a lot more heated !

Alexandr

Alexandr,

Thanks for your response. My issue is not with you, of course.

Regarding "submission", oviously that does not mean slavish obedience. One could say "submission in charity". As a father of three, I want my children to submit to my wife and as lovingly obedient sons and daughters. As a father, God has given to me the office and charism of raising them faithfully - it is my vocation. As father to Constantinople, the same could be said of Patriarch Bartholomew. He is graced by God to be both father and shepherd.

Continuing with the family analogy, I believe a divorce is the more appropriate image. Rome and Constantinople (representing West and East) were gradually estranged from one another. We offspring of the Unia represent children of the divorce who desire to return to a time when both parents lived together in communion with one another. The image of the prodigal as applied to Rome is really somewhat patronizing and not at all historically accurate.

Whether monastics are the guardians of Orthodoxy is an interesting question. In one sense, they are unquestionably the prophetic guardians of the spirit of Orthodoxy, especially for the people - and yes, even for the hierarchy. Whether or not they should dictate how the Patriarch conducts his relations with the Bishop of Rome is another question altogether. Again, the charism of governance rests within the hierarchy, and monasticism, while eschatalogically significant and vital to the common life of the Church, is still esentially a lay vocation. This does not somehow diminish the lay vocation, but I believe sets it in proper perspective.

Two additional points on the supposed role of monastics as "guardians": if they are to guard anything it is first and foremost the domain of prayer, not ecclesiastical and ecumenical relations. Secondly, this charism can also be easily confused with "conservatism" which is not the same as Orthodoxy.

As to the examples you provide of the Unia and the Florentine Council, naturally I as an Eastern Christian in full communion with Rome do not share all of your views on those events. Nor do I hold up those events as stellar models of union either!

Finally, there are the particulars of the statement of the monks of Athos that I find very offensive, not the least of which are accusations of heresy (to the best of my knowledge, no such claim has ever been made by Rome against the Orthodox). This notion of equating joint public prayer between Catholics and Orthodox as some form of a betrayal of Orthodox principle does not I believe holds up to historical scrutiny (see Fr. Chrysostom Frank's wonderful article on Orthodox-Catholic relations in the journal Pro Ecclesia from several years back) and itself betrays a "more Orthodox than the Patriarch" conservative mindset that does not necessarily equate with Orthodoxy.

Your point about working through theological issues is well taken - caritas et veritas - cannot and should not contradict one another. Any move towards union necessitates a deeper penetration of both...on both sides.

But respectfully, give me the thoughtful and challenging discourse of a Metropolitan John Zizoulas any day over the periodic tirades of the leadership of Athos. They should stick to their prayers (and knitting of prayer ropes), IMHO!

And I prefer more light than heat.

Maranatha!

Gordo

Gordo,

I find that to be a very insensitive and actually a prejudicial remark. A great number of the monks (especially those in Holy Orders) of the Holy Mountain have at least Masters degrees in Theology along with a number holding Doctorates from either the University of Athens Theological School or Thessaloniki. Comments like that display an ignorance of the monastic life and of the monks and life of Mount Athos. I should remind you that a number of scholarly works that are appearing in English as of late are being produced by the monasteries of the Holy Mountain, i.e. "The Synaxarion", which is one of the best collections of the Lives of the Saints I have ever seen transcending nationalistic lines.

I think before you single out the fathers of the Holy Mountain as undergoing tirades, you should also carefully examine some other personalities rather than stereotyping them and degrading them to a level that equates them as cranks and of little value to the church. I find the statement regarding prayer ropes to be a stereotypical comment not unlike ones equated with the value of certain members of our own society in the 1950's.

Yes, if you want to know, I found the above statement to be offensive.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Father Anthony,

Thank you for your response.

I will only clarify that my statement specifically refers to the leadership of Athos who generated this statement, and not at all to the whole of the Holy Mountain. I do recognize that Athos is full of true saints, theologians and mystics who far surpass me (and many others) in holiness of life!

For any offense given (especially my attempt at humor with the prayer ropes), I do apologize. Again my statement had more to do with the letter generated by the leadership, which I still view as a tirade, especially when considered next to the writings of a great theologian like Met. John Zizoulas.

Yours in Christ,

Gordon

Gordo,

As far as the fathers of the Holy Mountain (the leadership) no statement would be made unless each had the approval of their respective community. This is how the life of the monasteries function on Mount Athos. So the statement regarding the leadership is reflective of the monasteries of the Holy Mountain and their collective membership. No individual including an abbot would dare sign or make a public statement as in the above quoted letter without first gathering the consensus and approval of the collective brotherhood. To what you view as a tirade is their way of putting the brakes on things so that this can be approached in a careful and thought out theological manner, not out of emotional desire or need.

I also happen to disagree with the assessments regarding Metropolitan John Zizoulas. Time will tell regarding him and his works. If you look through the catalogs of the Orthodox English book services over the past two decades he is one only a bunch of "pop" or "in" writers at the moment. The true test of whether or not his writing will be counted among the great works or fall by the wayside will be the ultimate test of time. If you carefully research it, his own works have drawn fire from theological quarters from within the Church of Greece.

Now, I have to go into the office.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Father Anthony,

Fair enough. I still take issue with the contents of the letter. Perhaps I was just resentful and reacting emotionally to being called a heretic, which would then make my own post in its own way something of a tirade. Life's little ironies, no? (looking for a fork for my crow...)

Very interesting perspective. I did not realize that he was such a controversial figure, although I personally still favor his writings. I will have to do a little research on that.

God bless,

Gordo

PS: BTW, I did want to mention that I know that monastics come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and ages and ecclesiatical vocations. (My own spiritual father is a Patriarchal Archimandrite and a priest who has his own parish.)

I am a little late to this thread and apologize if my comments are thus out of sync with where the conversation has gone. As a historian, I find the discussion interesting. The only way to substantiate any discussion about "converts" etc. is to look at the clergy lists. Although this is a "top-down" approach to considering Church membership, it at least can give an indication of the influence of Protestant-converts on Church policy and direction vis-a-vis the Roman Church.

Having said this, I think it is important to note that the number of protestant converts varies from Jurisdiction to Jurisdiction.

For example, if you look at the priest list of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, you will notice a large number (I did not do the full calcuation, but I guestimate it is more than a simply majority) of convert priests from Protestant backgrounds. From my own personal experience as well as the stated position papers of the Antiochians over the past decade, it is clear that as the number of protestant-convert clergy has grown so too has the hardening of the positions of the Antiochians against Rome (as well as the Ecumenical Movement in general). **This interesting historical occurence has given birth to a very ironic situation -- e.g., that the Orthodox Patriarchate historically most open to Rome (i.e., the Antiochian) in America is very (one might even say, the most) anti-Rome.

On the other hand, if you look at the clergy lists of the Serbian, Ukrainian and Greek Jurisdictions, you will notice that most of the priests were born and raised in traditional Orthodox families.

One more note to this thread. I am interested to see what happens when the children of the convert priests grow up to assume leadership positions in the Church. There can be no doubt that their parents brought anti-Rome Protestant baggage with them -- it will be interesting to see if this pulls through to the next generation. Or, will there be a softening??

I also wanted to make a personal observation about the role of Eastern Catholics. I have lived in various geographical regions of the country, and I have noticed (this is purely anecdotal evidence, so please take it for what it is worth) that the fewer the number of Eastern Catholics in a region, the higher the level of anti-Roman rhetoric coming from the Orthodox. On the other hand, the higher the percentage of Eastern Catholics, the more openness to Rome demonstrates itself. I believe the reason for this is probably obvious. The Eastern Catholic presence "reminds" the Orthodox that one can be in communion with Rome (i.e., Catholic) without being Western, Augustinian, etc. (To use contemporary sociological language, it is harder to castigate the "other" as being completely different when in day-to-day interaction the "other" seems remarkably similar to "us.") On the other hand, when there is no (or little) Eastern Catholic presence, the differences between East/Orthodox and West/Roman become more defined and more obvious. In this situation, it is far easier to define the "other" as definitely NOT "us".

Shlomo PrJ.,

You are quite right. I would also say it does matter about which Orthodox Church(es) is/are in the area. The Antiochene Orthodox are the best at ecumenicalism (non-Western rite), because they are willing to acknowledge the errors of the Orthodox Church.

At a forum on Church unity, it was an Antiochene priest who pointed out that Constantinople would not have been sacked if the Emperor had not renigged on their debt to Venice. He also pointed out that if the Byzantine state had not been un-Christian in how they had handled dissidents within the Church Islam would never had expanded. Believe me, it was a site to have anti-Catholic Orthodox sitting around looking like fish out of water, by having their victimhood stripped from them. It also, made the Catholics feel that they alone are not the only ones responsible for the sins of the past.

I hope such honest dialog continues on all fronts, for that is the only way true unity can come about.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

PrJ,

Interesting post.

I can recall listening to a recording of a clergy retreat given by Bishop Kallistos to clergy (many of whom were converts, I believe) from the Antiochians some years ago. In it, one of the priests asked whether it would be appropriate for an Orthodox priest to give absolution to a Catholic fireman who was trying to rescue thousands of people in the Twin Towers on 9/11 and faced almost certain death. Bishop Kallistos' response (thankfully) was "Of course!". As I recall, the way the question was phrased seemed to imply some doubt as to the legitimacy of that practice, and even Bishop Kallistos' response (again, it has been several years since I listened to this) seemed as though he was somewhat shocked that it should be even questioned. (I could be reading more into his reaction than I should, but that was my impression.)

"Conversion" to Byzantine Orthodoxy from the West (Catholicism or Protestantism) need not involve any hostility towards Catholicism. I think back to a marvellous - but brief - conversation I had with Jim Forrest of Orthodox Peace Fellowship some years ago. Himself a "convert" to Orthodoxy from Catholicism, he betrayed none of the typical symptoms of those who leave one jurisdiction for another, and even though I had approached him specifically concerning my interest in possibly converting, was unwilling to criticize Catholicism or encourage me directly to change.

The more we come to realize that we are part and parcel of the same ecclesial reality, some differences in emphasis notwithstanding, and drop all polemics (of which I am guilty myself from time to time) the sooner we can "be one" and witness to the world for Christ. To ascribe (or imply) any ontological difference to either side, whatever our respective weaknesses, does not, IMHO, reflect the true nature of the breach between us.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo, I have listened recently to the clergy conferences of Bishop Kallistos and you quote him correctly. The conferences are available on orthodox.tv and Light & Life.

fr. Jim

Dear Gordo,

If I recall correctly, communion was given regularly by the Orthodox to the Catholics in the Gulag. I think what Father Anthony objected to in your posts was the comment of the Orthodox succumbing to their shephard. Although I sincerely believe that the Pope of Rome is the spiritual leader, not only of the RCC, the Byzantine Catholics, the Melkites, but all Christians as well as of the whole world...and that includes those that are not Christian, it does not mean though, that anyone will succomb politically to his authority.

To emphasize this, one has only to consider the statement by Osama Bin Laden a few days after the Pope declared that one cannot kill in the name of God. Osama then declared that they do not want to kill people, but rather to destroy the West economically.

The Pope is the only voice that is listened to, and I say that as one that was a member of the Orthodox Church for many decades, and recall that every move within our Church, no matter how slight, came about because of certain declarations by the Pope.

We can also say that the enlightened capacity of the Pope to humble himself so readily to other denominations and religions, again shows that he, and only he is in the exalted position of being able to do so. People with responsability and power do not insult not offend nor look for faults within others, but rather become, (as the Pope so well stated), the 'Servant of Servants'.

The monks of Mount Athos can throw as many barbs and insults towards the Pope and the Western Church, but that act in itself only shows the limitation of their position.

Do not fret, nor take offense. The fear on the part of the monks will be overcome as was those of the Synod of Greece. Let the theological discussions start, so that the Holy Spirit can enlighten all involved. The world today as we know, is in a desparate situation.

Zenovia

Dear Zenovia,

I believe before I am being assumed to have made a position or statement, my posts should be carefully read through. I actually made no inference of the kind regarding that in either of my posts or even anywheres near that subject area, and I believe I was quite clear in what I was addressing to Gordo. I really do not appreciate being misrepresented as to what I am clearly saying.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I can't help but wonder how much of the fighting between Catholics and Orthodox really has to do with preserving the apostolic faith. There can come a point, I think, where one begins to understand and even sympathize with the position of some protestants and minimalists (C.S. Lewis, for example) and their notion of "Mere Christianity". When I was a Catholic, I realized that official documents, catechisms, etc. were subject to multiple conflicting interpretations. As an Orthodox, I realize that there are multiple views of what constitutes Orthodoxy among the Orthodox. I even read an article the other day by a priest who said that using Viagra was sinful and contrary to Orthodoxy. But how much of any of this has to do with,

"You shall love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, thy strength, and thy mind and love thy neighbor as thyself."

I've been thinking lately that maybe I have too many opinions on too many things. Perhaps, it is none of my business what the Church hierarchs do, or fail to do, with regard to Church unity. Perhaps, I need to become more aware of my own sins, confess my sins, and receive communion in my Church. If we are all doing that in our own Churches, then can't we rejoice that we are all communing with Christ? Does it matter so much that we can't go to any Church we want and commune?

I don't know. These are just some random thoughts. I am beginning to think that church unity, even within a communion (much less between communions) is really an illusion. It is an ideal to aspire to, but not achievable in this fallen world. God bless.

Joe

Zenovia,

I think actually you might be referring to Alexandr's comments to me re: "submission" to the shepherding of the hierarch. Also, I did not intend to say that the Orthodox monks should submit to the pope, but rather to their "papa," the Patriarch.

Father Anthony was rightfully chastising me for using inappropriate humor to make my point, as well as for potentially mischaracterizing the whole of Mt Athos, which, while not my intention, appeared to be the result.

But your points are very interesting and well worth thinking about.

God bless,

Gordo

Holiness and wholeness ("one and holy") are the fundamental aspirations of the Church...are we not called to be the New Israel - a gathering place for the nations?

These virtues also reflect our individual calling which, based on my last confession, I am failing to achieve on a regular basis. But should I give up striving for holiness and wholeness because I fall? No - to quote St. Benedict's rule, I must begin again each day!

The Kingdom is for us here and now. Hope must be the bridge between the now and the not yet. Don't lose it! What is impossible for man is possible for God, bro.

And the exquisite pain you feel is the cross of our catholicity. It is the end of the reach of our own arms with God asking us, by His grace, to reach much further.

God bless,

Gordo