www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Celtic Orthodox Christian Church

Does anyone know anything about this church ? I've visited there website, but they don't give much information about there origins.

i know of the celtic rite in general...its probally under the antiochian orthodox patriarchate like the western(roman rite) orthodox.

here is a website for its history

http://www.celticorthodox.org/about.html

This is neither Orthadox nor a Church. It is a vagante body, whose British members broke away from the equally fake, but now respectable 'British Orthodox Church'. This body itself has spurious origins to some monophysite Syro-Jacobite group, although Alan Bain in his book on Independent Bishops states that their whole history and links to the 'bishopric of Iona' are totally invented.

The Archbishop of Thyateira and Gt Britain, Kyr Grigorios, issued an encyclical several years ago, warning the faithful to stay away from this self-styled Celtic Orthodox Church, such is the spiritual danger.

Having said that. they are certainly and interesting and colourful group... but not a Church... and not Orthodox.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Friends,

It would be wonderful if the Celtic traditions could, once again, find their true home in Orthodoxy - and Catholicism.

This Christian tradition was slowly destroyed by the incoming Roman Christians in Britain, but its spiritual sources relate to the Eastern Church and speak loudly to Western souls in search of the piety and asceticism this tradition holds out.

Unfortunately, what passes as "Celtic spirituality" is often a form of neo-paganism that is neither Christian nor truly Celtic.

Alex

I have to say that the spirituality of the Celtic 'Orthodox' group seems very sound, but their liturgical life as reflected in Glastonbury is bastardised and debased. The parish in Glastonbury claim to use the Liturgy of St James, yet according to my godson, they intersperse it with Anglican hymns and manage the whole thing in 45 minutes. I cannot speak for those who use the Stowe-Lorrha missal, but am nervous about the resurrection of obsolete rites - as I have said many times before. This is a great danger in archaelogical liturgies. Bits are missing, so gaps are filled unsuitable pieces, especially in do-it-yourself groups with self-styled and self-proclaimed Orthodoxy or Catholicity. By their very nature such groups are outside Holy Tradition as a living, grace-filled force in the life of the Church.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

O.K., fine . . .

Alex

I don't know about the celtic chruch, but the British Orthodox Church is now part of the Coptic Orthodox Church, and they are definatly Orthodox. They do use the Liturgy of St. James, and I do know of one priest who does it in 45 min sometimes, but that's in India with members who are ex-Muslims and have to get in and out quickly before it's discovered that they're Christians. I don't think they're normally quite as long as in the Coptic Church (3.5 hr), but from what I've heard it's normally just fine. The use of old Anglican hymns for the Communion hymns is not a problem, many of the old hymns from the Anglican or very theologically rich, and beautiful. In fact my priest has taken some of them and set them to liturgical music to use as Communion hymns for English Liturgies in the Coptic Church, and some of the nearby Churches use them too.

Dear CopticO,

Excellent points!

The British Orthodox Church is truly a province of the Holy Coptic Church of Alexandria.

I think, though, that Father Mark was referring to another grouping, the "Celtic Orthodox Church" that has even canonized its founder a saint - St Tugdal.

There are also Celtic groups here in North America that have canonized "St Morgan of Wales" (Pelagius) and "St John Scotus Eriugena" of the 9th century.

Borrowing Anglican and Wesleyan hymns is something that has truly enriched the Western Catholic liturgical tradition.

There is much in these traditions that can enrich us all spiritually!

Alex

I looked at the web-site of this group, and found nothing Celtic about it (others have already observed that it is neither Orthodox nor a Church). I don't know any of these people, but I suspect that they are more enamoured of romanticism than of authentic Celtic anything. One wonders why a group which wishes to be Celtic Orthodox would not appreciate a connection with the Coptic Orthodox Church - the old Celtic Church was intensely monastic, with her monasticism derived straight from Egypt. Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

Yes, indeed!

There is a site: Celticchristianity.org that has an English translation of the Celtic offices.

The Celts were the only Western monastic tradition that performed prostrations as is done in the East.

Alex

If I am not mistaken there are several groups claiming to be the Celtic Orthodox Church.

Dear friends, you forgot to add that in addition to the "British Eparchy" there is also a "Orthodox Catholic Church of North America-Celtic Rite" that comes from the "Holy Roman Orthodox Church" ("Benedictine Orthodox"), they are based in MI. They call themselves "Ordo Arcanorum Gradalis". The "HROC" trace its Apostolic Suiccession in "St." Aftimios who was, as far as I know, a canonical Bishop of the AOC, it seems that he lost his head whern he came to America. There is a "Holy Trinity Celtic Orthodox Universal Life Church" in Milwakee too, independent jurisdiction. The "Celtic Orthodox Christian Church" in Akron (OH) has restored a thing called "Stowe Missal" (another archeological liturgy).

This is just causing confussion amng Orthodox faithful or inquirers who look for a true Orthodox Church. I don't mean the vagantes are bad, I am sure there are good chistians among them, I suppose it would be good if any Canonical Church tries to include them in the mainstram Eastern Orthodox Church.

Dear Snoopers,

Yes, in 1985 the "Independent Orthodox movement" canonized Afthimios Ofiesh and Theophane Noli (Albanian) - both of which were married men in the episcopal state (according to the orders of their groups).

The Liturgy of Lorrha-Stowe is hardly an archaic service - it just wasn't used when the Romans put down the Celtic practices.

St John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco was apparently very much in favour of the Western Rites, especially the Gallican Rite.

Fr. Dcn Geoffrey O'Riada's website on Celtic Christianity has done much to bring a balanced perspective to this historic perspective.

There is no reason why the RC and Orthodox Churches should not make room for the fullest possible expression of Celtic liturgical and spiritual piety.

Alex

BIG difference between Metropolitan (Theo)Fan S. Noli and Ofiesh. Ofiesh married AFTER his episcopal consecration! Where in his biography does it say that Metropolitan Fan Noli was ever married, Alex? Was he a widower when he was tonsured a monk then?

OrthodoxEast

Dear OrthodoxEast,

Oh, I didn't know that!

Believe it or not, I have some friends in the "Independent Orthodox Movement" (we both do, as it turns out! .

One of them once described to me the healing of his hand that had a cancerous growth by touching the grave of Afthimios Ofiesh.

This was at a time when I really didn't know the difference between these groups . . . I even made the suggestion to him that he have an icon of his miracle-working patron written - which he did

And it was once suggested to me I get ordained in the "Anglican Orthodox Catholic Church."

But I find the Book of Common Prayer confusing . . .

(It is good that you have a sense of humour when it comes to me!)

Alex

Alex, there was a time when even I (how could that be?) could not distinquish between "Vagante-ism" and canonical Orthodoxy either.

For the record, Metropolitan Fan Noli ended his life being fully canonical. He brought his Albanian-American jurisdiction into the former Metropolia, now known as the Orthodox Church in America, the "OCA." The Albanian Orthodox Archdiocese in America is an integral diocese of the OCA to this day.

Ofiesh, OTOH, went the other way, i.e., from canonical Orthodoxy into vagante-ism, esp. with his marriage. When a so-called "Orthodox" group claims "apostolic succession" of its bishops through Aftimios Ofiesh, you may be assured that 99% of the time it's "vagante," i.e., outside the canonical Orthodox Communion. Canonical Orthodox do not seem to have the need to "prove" their Apostolic Succession as much as do the hoaky "vagantes."

OrthodoxEast

For some reason, St Patrick has apparently become popular within the OCA.

The 45 minute liturgy of St James to which I referred, was indeed in connection with the 'Celtic Orthodox Church'.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Someone comments that "For some reason, St Patrick has apparently become popular within the OCA." No doubt. But has the OCA become popular with Saint Patrick? On a completely unrelated point, do people really send in postings during the middle of the night, or is that just a peculiarity of the computer? Incognitus

Dealing with your second part - late night/early morning posts - well I think it really depends where we live.
Possibly the night owls do post when the house is quiet - or they can get at their computers.

If you look at your own Personal Profile there is the possibility of adjusting the time on the Forum to allow for different time zones. I'm just too lazy to do it - and anyway I just add 5 hours from what the board time is , and I get the time here where I am. That's what can make it such fun - catching up in the mornings when folk have been on overnight.

Anhelyna

Dear OrthodoxEast,

How fascinating!

But Fan Noli is not a saint in the OCA, is he?

He was canonized by the independent movements, even though he repudiated them (by joining himself to canonical Orthodoxy).

One group has even canonized Rene Villatte who spent his final days in an RC monastery repenting of a lifetime of wide-spread ordinations.

Alex

No, Alex, Metropolitan Fan Noli has not been Glorified by the OCA, nor by the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Albania either. I have not heard of any movement within the OCA to canonize the Metropolitan, who is a well-known Albanian patriot, one of the first to translate the Divine Services into Albanian (Greek had heretofore been mandated for Albanian Orthodox Christians), and a one-time Premier of Albania before the Communist takeover.

The next time that His Grace, Bishop NIKON of Baltimore, Auxiliary to Metropolitan HERMAN with the special responsibility for supervising the OCA's Albanian Archdiocese and New England Diocese, visits my parish, I shall make a special point of asking Vladyka NIKON about Metropolitan FAN [Noli]. Vladyka NIKON, a *widower*, is an American of Albanian descent on both sides, paternal and maternal. He was tonsured into monasticism at St. Tikhon's Monastery after his wife's death from cancer. It was also at St. Tikhon's where he was Consecrated to the Episcopate as "Titular Bishop of Baltimore, Vicar to the Metropolitan [of the OCA]."

OrthodoxEast

Concerning St. Patrick, Archbishop of Armagh and Enlightener of Ireland: The Holy Orthodox Church includes this popular St. Patrick (as well as St. Patrick of Prussa and possibly other Saints named "Patick") on its Calendar of Saints, so why should he not be popular in the OCA?

Even the ROCOR church across the river from my OCA church has icons of both St. Patrick, Enlightener of Ireland, and St. Brendan the Navigator displayed for veneration. Why? The rector, Father Brendan, is an Irish-American convert to Orthodoxy (as is his twin brother, Father Chad, also a priest in the ROCOR)!

OrthodoxEast

Dear OrthodoxEast,

Well, I've had a picture of Theophan Noli in my icon corner for some time, after I heard the independent groups glorified him . . . May he be glorified by canonical Orthodoxy, according to God's Will!

The Celtic Saints, like St Patrick, were just as ascetical, if not more so, than Eastern saints.

Patrick would read the first fifty Psalms during his vigils and then he would put his feet in cold running water as he read the next fifty to keep from getting sleepy (!).

The Celts of old had a beautiful ascetical exercise where they would read Psalm 119 and make prostrations after every two verses and would continue until they made 100 prostrations - the "Cross Vigil."

They also had a beautiful practice called the "Shrine of Piety."

They would face the four corners in cross-wise fashion (much as a priest does during the Feast of the Precious and Life-Giving Cross) with arms extended and would recite the Our Father three times at each place, and each Our Father would end with the prayer "O God come to my assistance, O Lord make haste to help me" said three times and the Glory be.

The Celtic Celi De monks recited the Psalter in its entirety every day before 3:00 pm. If they couldn't finish it, they would recite the Beatitudes 12 times instead.

Alex

I certainly wasen't objecting to the OCA's veneration of St Patrick, it's just that in all honesty, outside of the OCA, those in North America who are Orthodox, tend to be so because of ethnicity or marriage. So I'am wondering if the veneration of St Patrick is a very well meaning attempt to appear more inclusive, or to put it humorously, an attempt to get the Irish vote.

Dear Lawrence,

Certainly, there are plenty of Irishmen in Orthodoxy today!

And so many of them try to appear as more "Orthodox" and more "Russian" than anyone.

You can take the Irishman out of the Catholic Church but you can't take St Patrick out of the Irishman!

Alex

It is well to remember that Metropolitan Fan Noli was also a pioneer in providing English-language service books and music books for the Orthodox. Interesting man, and very well educated. Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

That does it!

I'm all for beginning a movement to have Fan Noli glorified a saint by the OCA!

Can I be chair of the committee?

Alex

The only issue I have with this is "who would use it"? The Irish and Bretons are both very, very Roman at this point. The Scots are Presbyterian. Maybe the Welsh?

Brendan

I have some friends who are belong to a ROCOR parish and have a huge devotion to St. Patrick, Enlightener of Ireland. I admit to having great fun teasing them with questions why they celebrate his feast on March 17th instead of March 30th (which is the 17th running 13 days late). The usual response is that they really can�t celebrate on a day other than the one it is celebrated on in Ireland and here in America. Then I get to tease them again by asking them about the dates for Christmas and Pascha that are the �normal� ones for most of the West.

I have a beautiful icon of St. Patrick, given to me by some friends who made the journey East.

I am very happy to see the veneration of any of the saints of the pre-schism west. Many ancient pious devotions, such as those outlined by Alex, can find a valued and valid place in the personal prayer and devotions of the faithful or the cell-rule of the monastic.

Liturgically, we can simply celebrate the Celti9c saints within the framework of the living-tradition of common prayer and worship that moulds our Byzantine Christianity.

I think that a framework such as the Byzantine vespers and matins, with their wealth of variable proper texts are an incredible way to celebrate the Western saints, or any saint whatsoever.

In all honesty many 'Western' Christians, and Christians of Celtic descent would find our Eastern liturgical life no more foreign, or perhaps just as foreign as that of the Celts.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Brendan,

Excellent point - thank you for gracing us with your presence here yet again. It is just such an overwhelming experience

I see a return to Celtic forms of worship in the British Isles on two levels.

One is as a result of "protest" against Roman dominance and as part of a kind of Celtic nationalism.

Certainly, Western Orthodoxy has tended to inspire strong feelings for "Orthodox Gaul" and "Old England" etc.

And that is as it should be.

On another level, the Latin Churches of the British Isles have always maintained strong Celtic practices that are most evident, as Father Mark has said, in the personal devotional lives of Catholics ie. pilgrimages to Downpatrick, leaving votive stones, etc.

There is a great interest in Alexander Carmichael's work and in Celtic monasticism, although the latter is largely the result of "picking and choosing" what doesn't hurt too much . . .

Ultimately, the bringing back of Celtic spirituality, including Celtic liturgy, would enrich us with the insights of an Orthodox Western tradition that was once honoured by the entire pre-schism Church.

Plus it would put pay to modernist, Protestant and even pagan claims to it . . .

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Yes, you are more than correct!

The Celtic tradition is closer to our Eastern one than the other Western traditions in many respects.

I think that a rediscovery of the fullness of this ancient Orthodox-Catholic tradition by the West would help even more in the process of bringing the West into a greater patristic consciousness.

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have read all the posts and replies with facination on the topic of Celtic Orthodoxy. Being a convert to Orthodoxy from Catholicism, as well as a Celt by heritage, I had wondered how my church, the Antiochian, would accept me and my Celtic spirituality. I was very pleasantly surprised. As has been mentioned many times on this thread, St Padraigh's feast day was richly celebrated. I fit in just fine and was even more amazed that Father is an Irishman as well. With Christ, all things are possible! The pre-schism Celtic church is full of rich treasures. Pray that we all can see it in that light.

Dia Is Murie Duit!
Michael

I'm half Celtic (1/4 Irish and 1/4 Highland Scottish means 1/2 Celtic...with some Pictish and Viking, and maybe even some Norman mixed in, I presume!)

Logos Teen

It appears that the legimately Orthodox, Celtic Orthodox Church of the British Eparchy, is quite small at present.http://www.celticorthodox.org/contacts.html

Dear Lawrence, this 'Church' is not legitimately Orthodox. It is a vagante body recognised by noone, with no real links to Orthodoxy.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Celticson,

The Celtic heritage has much to teach us all!

What has always inspired me is the Celi De devotion to the Psalms and their Spartan spirituality.

The Greek Catholic Church in Dublin has published a Divine Liturgy booklet in both Gaelic and Ukrainian - through the goodness of Andrij Bebko, I have a copy.

It depicts an icon with St Patrick and St Nicholas Charnetsky - the Ukrainian Catholic Martyr who was the first Greek Catholic hierarch to formally visit Ireland in 1932.

Great stuff!

Alex

Dear Teen Logo,

Well, nobody's perfect!

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!


Dear brother Alex-


Thanks for the input, I always look forward to hearing your take on things, your wisdom is most welcome. After all this time, please, call me Michael.


Slainte Chugat Alex,
Michael

Dear Michael,

Right back at y'a, Big Guy!

It was Dublin's Fr. Archimandrite Keleher that inspired me about my own tradition - and he still does.

The liturgical booklet commemorates the Pope but ONCE - we Ukies commemorate him generally four times in one Liturgy.

Does it take an Irishman to set us straight?

It would appear so . . .

Alex

I spend a lot of time lurking on the Forum and enjoy the lively exchanges. But on the issue of the Celtic Church, I can't help but chime in.

It is assumed that an independent Celtic system is long dead and gone, but I have reason to believe that it has survived in the Highlands of Scotland. I know individuals who live the old traditions and tell the old stories, all being handed down from generation to generation. What they have is not a johnny come lately group calling themselves the Celtic Church, but a belief system that streches back generations.

They pretty much keep to themselves but will talk with those who they truly believe to be honest in their search. Part of the reason they keep to themselves is the persecution they suffered from Protestant hands. They were able to co-exist with the Catholics, but were always considered a "little strange".

In some ways they could be compared to the Old Believers, holding on to the old traditions and ways while persecuted for their refusal to have change forced upon them.

They do claim to have orders, but I have no way of verifying whether their orders are legitimate though I personally believe they are.

I am on a qwest to rediscover my spiritual heritage. I was raised Latin but have been attending a Melkite Church for the last year and a half. Going Eastern was one step in reclaiming my spiritual heritage but not completely. I am Irish and I would love to see the restoration of the true Celtic spirituality in the larger body of the Church as well. As my mentor has told me, being Celtic is not a matter of denomination but a matter of heart.

I don't know, but someone said Scotland was Presbyterian. You better take that back or you could find an army of angry Highlanders swooping down upon you. Many of the Highlanders remained Catholic and may take umbrage at being called Presbyterian.

Just a note to Alex. I know David B as well since we attend the same church. You have to love him.

Sl�n agus beannacht,

Terry (Toirdealbhach)

I think its fair to say that Celtic spirituality is recognised on this forum as alive and kicking within the heart and soul of Christians of various traditions. However, there is no living institutional canonical Celtic Church, as a consequence of history and circumstance - something we all lament.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner

Father Mark, I still seem to be missing something. According to the British Eparchy's website, there Church derives Apostolic succession from the year 1866, when Jules Ferrette was consecrated as a Bishop, by the Bishop of Emesa of the Syrian Orthodox Church. And, they also mention that there orders are accepted by the Egyptian Coptic Church.

Dear Fr. Mark,

I am only raising the possibility of a surviving Celtic remnant into the present day. The one I am in contact with was one of my high school teachers back in the 60's and so I have known the man well for over close to 40 years. It is only in the last few years that he has entered into "orders". Again I can't verify whether their orders are true or not, but I plan to talk to him soon and will try to get a clearer picture on the handing down of "orders" through the centuries.

I am curious though what would be involved in determining whether there has been a true succession. I know part of it is recognition by another Church in true communion, but if they are true descendants of the Celtic branch of the Church, what would be required seeing that they have been in isolation since the suppression of their Church in the 12th century (?)?

Again, I'm not saying one way or the other, but only raising the possibility.

I ask your prayers and blessing,

Toirdealbhach

The history of the British Orthodox Church is contested by many people, among whom there are those who insist that the lineage of the present primate only really goes back to his predecessor Mar Georgios, who was nothing other than a vagante of an Old Catholic ilk. I saw a photograph he sent to the author of a book on independent bishops. In this photo he was dressed in Anglican convocation attire, looking very Cramnerian indeed - hardly Orthodox!!!

This dubious figure, who lived in London, used to have people travel in Glastonbury to post his mail and ensure the Glastonbury postmark on the envelope. Such was the pretence of the 'see of Glastonbury'.

Such was the concern about this body, and such was the respect for the Coptic pope, that when he visited in Britain around a decade ago, several Eastern Orthodox clergymen (lovers of the Coptic Tradition) urged His Holiness Pope Shenouda not to have anything to do with this group.

The worrying factor is that in the light about serious doubts about their dubious origins, their orders were accepted as canonical and apostolic. The risks here place the perils of people's souls in danger.

This now respectable Copticised group should be treated with care.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

There is nothing particularly Celtic about the British Orthodox Church (Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria) headed by Abba Seraphim, but never mind. The point as to ordinations is that Pope Shenhouda actually consecrated Abba Seraphim to the episcopate and instructed His Grace to elevate each of the clergy to the next highest rank available, so as to place each of the clergy firmly within the Holy Orders of the Coptic Orthodox Church. So whatever about Mar Georgius, there is no doubt that Abba Seraphim and his clergy are fully within the clergy of the Coptic Church. Incognitus

My understanding is the same as Fr. Mark's.

Dear Annie,

Father Mark, as an Old Ritualist, wouldn't think much of the Franciscans either

Alex

Thank you for pointing this out.
If I am not mistaken, their Orders originated with the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch which is hardly a vagante organization.

Michael

Dear Friends,

As for all this talk of validity et al., St Augustine once said:

"There are those outside the Church who appear to be inside it, and those who are inside the Church who appear to be outside it."

I don't know why that sprung to mind . . .

Alex

There can be no question of the validity of the British Orthodox orders, as someone previously said, even if they were invalid, they're not now since they were received into the Coptic Church and Pope Shenouda ordained Metropolitan Seraphim. They're too western for some people's tasts. They're to eastern for something called British for other people's tasts. In any case, they are Orthodox. Maybe they're kinda artificial, I don't really know enought to say. They adopted a Liturgy that wasn't historically theirs. They use beautiful Anglican hymns for Communion hymns. They do lots of stuff that people will look down at them for, but they are Orthodox, and their preists are priests. There is nothing wrong about they way they do things, even if they're not how we typically think of Orthodoxy, or even Western rite Orthodoxy.

Dear Coptic Orthodox,

I've met Abba Seraphim at several ecumenical gatherings in London. He is a member of the Society of Saint John Chrysostom (which has co-sponsored the Orientale Lumen Conferences), and he is always delightful company. But, strictly speaking, are they not Oriental Orthodox, or non-Chalcedonian Orthodox? Does not the title "Orthodox" (in common usage) usually refer to Chalcedonians?

Elias

Uhm, no, Orthodoxy consists of Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Great progress has been made in the last while in relations between the two, and both now accept the other's Christologies and consider each other Orthodox. There are more Eastern Orthodox in the world than there are Oriental Orthodox by a considerable margine, but both hold the Orthodox faith, and although each group considers themselves to have the fullness of Orthodoxy, neither would say anymore that the other is not Orthodox. Other than a few fanatics screeming about heresy and not being aware of agreements reached, I've never encountered an Eastern Orthodox who considered me not to be Orthodox for being Oriental Orthodox.

Dear Coptic,

Thanks for the clarification. I am glad to see the point made, as I don't think I remember seeing it in the thread above, that Abba Seraphim was Oriental Orthodox.

Thanks again,

Elias

"Other than a few fanatics screeming about heresy and not being aware of agreements reached, I've never encountered an Eastern Orthodox who considered me not to be Orthodox for being Oriental Orthodox."

This language is unjust and unhelpful. It is not acceptable to use the word fanatics. Does that mean MOST of the fathers of Mt Athos are fanatics - NO they are NOT!!! People of intense faith and integrity await the genuine, canonical and official healing of the break between Chalcedonians and none-Chalcedonians. This really does mean in line with the canons.

To just think that agreements always mean progress is naive. Agreements were reached at Lyons, Florence, Brest and Uzhgorod - but from an Orthodox perspective these were not progressive. I do not mean to undermine Byzantine Catholic brothers and sisters here, but speak honestly as an Orthodox monk. An agreement was reached between Metropolitan Sergei and Joseph Stalin. Again... not progress. I am not implying that Eastern-Oriental agreements have anything in common with these, but we must make informed and critical examinations. Agreements by bishops have never been automatically accepted by the laos of the Orthodox Church. We live a life of conciliarity not monarchy. The Athonite fathers issued a well considered memorandum on this issue. It was not the voice of the ignorant fanatics, unaware of agreements, but the voice of men of prayer reacting to agreements in the light of the Tradition and canons of their Church.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Friends,

Yes, the term "Orthodox" has been equally used by both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

The Eastern Orthodox theologians have seen that the Oriental Orthodox Christology is that of St Cyril of Alexandria and it uses his terminology i.e. "One Nature of God the Word Incarnate" etc.

It was discovered that what the Oriental Churches mean by "Nature" is what the EO Churches mean by "Person."

Other points that were formerly points of disagreement were bridged.

For example, the use of the Oriental Trisagion with the interpolated "Who was crucified for us" was condemned by the Eastern Orthodox as heretical.

But then it was found that the Trisagion prayer in the Oriental Churches is NOT used as a hymn to the Holy Trinity, but as a hymn exclusively to Christ!

Ultimately, the findings of theologians must be ratified by the competent Church authorities before they can be accepted.

It is possible for monastics to oppose such authorities and the views of theologians, as occurred in the case of St Maximos the Confessor.

Alex

That's okay - lotsa folks think Franciscans are kinda weird!

Again, I tend to agree with Fr Mark on the following general observation. I prefer consensus to conflict - but human history is full of instances where treaties and agreements intended to bring people together actually tore them even farther apart.

Dear Annie,

So you are saying "let's strive to agree but let us be careful lest our agreements lead to deeper separations?"

Alex

AMDG
Greetings all--en Christo to Kyrio hemon. Alex, good points about the Trisagion and the nature/person ambiguity. My question, however, is this: if I'm a Greek, Russian, or for that matter, Coptic Orthodox believer, to whom (and BY whom) is authority granted to declare who is "orthodox" and who is not? Pardon my ignorance; I'm just unfamiliar with the traditions in this regard, except that John of Ephesus calls Monophysites "orthodox" and Chalcedonians "heretics," while our father among the saints John Chrysostom goes vice versa. As a Catholic, I've got the divinely-invested authority of St. Peter, but for an Orthodox, who's got the last word?
LatinTrad

Yes. And, when we have to, let's agree to disagree. It seems to me that we have always had "churches" - lotsa things in St. Paul's Letters about divisions here and there between the communities, and how everyone ought to avoid discord and be followers of Christ. Y'know - we're not followers of Peter or Paul but of Christ.

Reminds me of when I was a kid - about 6th grade, I think - and went to CCD and had this dreadfully mean lady for a teacher. She yelled at a Greek kid (from Greece) in the class for Crossing himself what she called "the wrong way." Then she yelled at all of us loudly, until the spittle flew from her lips and her eyes rolled back to the whites, for arguing with her on his behalf - we told her we couldn't see that God would really care about such things. We further told her that we figured God had to listen the prayers of the people living in Russia, under a nasty regime, and they chose to Cross themselves the opposite way. (I used to Cross myself right to left when at church w/ my mom's family, and left to right when with my dad's. Didn't see any difference. It was all reverent.) In solidarity, we all started Crossing ourselves right to left, to be like the Greek kid.

CCD lady was replaced by a priest who was much, much nicer. Especially to the Greek kid! His mom complained - his mom was really nice, but CCD lady persisted in calling him bad things ("heretic," "schismatic," and some words we had to look up). Really, we felt sorry for CCD lady -she had a lot of pent-up anger and I hope she got help for it. The priest was an excellent fellow named Fr.Nick (of course, he was a "Nicholas"!) and he made it all better!

Listening to my wife's Enya CDs makes me wonder if she is part of this "celtic" tradition?

Dear LatinTrad,

Yes, the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" continue to figure in the self-definitions of both the RC and Orthodox Churches to this day.

The Pope himself prays for "all those who teach the Orthodox Faith" following the First Ecumenical Council and St John Damascus.

The Churches who participated in that Council adopted this term for themselves and the Oriental Churches continue to use "Orthodox" to define themselves to this day as a result.

In fact, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, as the ecumenical commissions have borne out, maintain the Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria - hardly a heretical position to take!

The term "Orthodox" originally referred to the correct belief in and praise of the true understanding of the Person of OLGS Jesus Christ.

Today, there is the "Orthodox Presbyterian Church" which is hardly a group of High Church Presbyterians in union with Orthodoxy . . .

I've heard of the term "Orthodox Catholics" used by traditional RC's as well.

Ultimately, this term means what one wishes it to mean . . .

Alex

Maybe; maybe not. Enya is the Karen Carpenter of the 1990s. (And that's not meant as an insult either. )

Dear Annie,

Your point on the sign of the Cross . . .

Eastern Catholics used to print a letter written by Pope Innocent III - the Pope St Francis went to see - in which he defends the three-fingered Sign of the Cross from right to left.

In fact, Latin Catholics tended to imitate priests blessing them when they started moving from left to right when making the Sign of the Cross.

Priests do go from left to right when blessing the faithful, to follow with their movement from right to left.

This practice was left unchecked and became law in the RC Church.

My RC friends have told me all sorts of fantastical explanations for their new Sign of the Cross which have no relation to reality whatever.

It was simply a mistake that, when left unchecked, acquired the force of tradition.

Alex

What I had heard was that it was the mirror of the priest and just sort of was adopted.

I like right to left better. No idea why. Feels more correct to me. Grew up with both.

Disclaimer for LatinTrad:

I am a full believer in the orthodoxy of the Catholic Faith and of the Most Holy Catholic Church. I'm just playing devil's advocate here...

Well, apparently the divinely-invested authority of St. Peter didn't do too much good for John of E and St. John C, seeing as how they were Catholic/in communion with Rome. Still, they managed to disagree on this. How so, say you?

Logos Teen

AMDG
My dear Logos Teen,
Salve. I don't think John of Ephesus gave one farthing for the authority of the papacy. That was part of his problem, I think.
Anybody know more about him?
Pisteu�n,
LatinTrad

This has nothing to do with the Celts, but it appears that the term "Orthodox" in a Christian context was first introduced to distinguish the, er, authentic believers from the Monothelites. Make of that whatever you will! As to the term "fanatic" one may properly use it with reference to someone whose primary motive appears to be hate (many gourmets are wildly enthusiastic for some particular cuisine, but few of us embark on hate campaigns against some other cuisine). Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

It was actually used at the First Council against Arius.

"Orthodoxy" has come to mean the entire spiritual heritage and culture of the Christian East, however.

Alex

Dear Latin Trad,

In the first thousand years of the Church, the role of the Roman papacy was quite limited to the Ecumenical Councils and as a "court of final appeal."

The idea that a pope had "universal jurisdiction" over the Churches of the East was a much later assertion that has no foundation in Tradition other than papal triumphalism.

Alex

AMDG
Dear O.C.,
I'm not sure what you mean by "universal jurisdiction."
How many tens and hundreds of disputes among Easterners were settled by the authority of the papacy before 1054? Patriarch vs. bishop, emperor vs. patriarch, priest vs. archdeacon, etc., etc. . . . they appealed to the Vicar of Christ and successor of the chief Apostle for resolutions both doctrinal and disciplinary.
I do agree with you, if you mean that the popes did not attempt to manage most Eastern affairs. Indeed, the papacy did not *exercize* that kind of control, even over much of the West, until later; this does not mean, however, that the spiritual authority of the papacy was not, by all rights, universal.
Properly excercised, the authority of the papacy poses no threat to the patrimony of the East--indeed, the pope's primary role is supposed to be *guardian of tradition* (BOTH Divine and ecclesiastical tradition), including the traditions of the East (viz. Orientale Lumen). It is precisely because of that role, however, that the Pope's mitakes can impede the transmission of tradition, and have done so in the West (witness Paul VI). Nevertheless, we have Christ's GUARANTEE that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church founded "epi taut�n t�n petr�n." There was no such guarantee appended to the foundation of any other Church (or "church").
I'm not saying that you necessarily deny any of this; I'm just trying to clarify what I meant by the authority of the papacy.
God Bless, brother--Slainte.
LatinTrad

Dear Friend,

Yes, certainly, the Emperors and Patriarchs of the East had quite the vested interest in maintaining the role of the Pope of Rome as an arbiter for their arguments and even political issues.

And no one is suggesting anything in regards to the Pope's spiritual authority in matters of faith and morals - which is what the East maintained.

The jurisdiction thing is another matter altogether and it will have to be settled in future.

In terms of the foundation of the Church, we Easterners acknowledge that St Peter and the Apostles as a "college" are the foundation corners of the entire Church, Rome and the others.

Rome's primacy of honour was never argued about in the East.

Rome's connection with BOTH Sts Peter and Paul, called by us the "Chiefs of the Apostles" is celebrated in our liturgical services (never Peter alone).

Rome's primacy had more to do with the fact that Peter and Paul were martyred their together - and the fact that Rome was the capital of the Roman empire and a great apostolic Christian centre.

But primacy has a much more limited understanding in the East than in the West - in the East it is associated with Ecumenical Councils and when someone got into trouble and needed an arbiter in the person of the Pope.

Certainly, the figure of the Pope as the servant of the servants of God and as a moral leader is very important, especially in the first centuries of the Church.

Our "Ukrainian" Pope St Clement I was, as you know, a great Apostolic man who spoke in defence of many Christian communities and gave us important Apostolic teachings, having known Peter and Paul directly himself.

I see the current Pope as exercising that same role today.

And I think the current Pope (actually "I know" because I had the opportunity to briefly discuss this with the Holy Father when he was in Toronto last) does understand the stumbling blocks to unity with the East in terms of the papal issue.

That it is God's Will that there be a Petrine Primacy in the Church - of this I don't think there can be any doubt.

It is the "how" rather than the "what" and "why" that is our current ecclesial challenge.

Alex