www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "Upon this rock."

Robert,

People fear the Holy Other because they can't have control over it. It is the Fall all over again. We live a 'sick' humanity. Our fast-food/have it my way or the highway culture doesn't have the lexicon for worship because worship of God means putting aside earthly cares and ridding of the Old Adam. Many peoples' anger at you and others like you is due to their resentment of you selling your personal Freedom. Yet Dostoevsky(sp?) tells us that True Freedom is in Christ, our archetype of true humanity. Look at the many balls-and-chains (I don't mean wives, but worldly cares/things) tied to those who can't sing "Alleluia." They are on the ballfield playing the new religion of sports on Sunday mornings. It's for the kids, they say. Yet they are leading them into selfishness and egotism like themselves. They want control. They, those who do worship at times, also forget that worship determines what we believe and not the other way around; lex orandi, lex credendi. What is the community of faith if I don't have control.


Elias

Christos anesti! Alithos anesti!

Dear Elias:

I'm going to wear both my Latin and Eastern hats at the same time in this reply. While it is certainly true that there are Roman Catholics who have vurtually divinized the pope, that's certainly not the position of the Latin Church. The pope speaks as the official voice of the Church -- but that voice must be tempered by consultation with the bishops who, in turn, are supposed to be in consulation with their people. In a very real sense the pope has more authority in the Latin Church than any Eastern Patriarch has in his Church. The reasons are many and varied and aren't really germane to the discussion at hand.

At the same time, I'd like to point out that numerous RCIA groups have attended the Divine Liturgy at my Melkite parish. We are careful to take the time to explain beforehand what they will be experiencing, and then spend time after the liturgy explaining what they saw and answering questions.

In my Latin diocese we are blessed with numerous Eastern Churches including the Ruthenians, Melkites, Maronites, Chaldeans and Coptic Catholics. At the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress in 1999 we offered the Divine Liturgy and it was the most attended Liturgy of the Congress exceeding even the closing Liturgy!

We in the Eastern Catholic Pastoral Association of Southern California are working on ways to make our Churches better known among the Latins. To that end Fr. Alexei from the El Segundo Russian Church has offered the Divine Liturgy numerous times in various Latin parishes.

Of course, that alone speaks of the difference between the Latins and the Eastern Catholics -- we'd normally prefer to offer Vespers or Orthros as that is something done daily while the Divine Liturgy is usually only served once a week.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Fr. Deacon Ed,

This is good. My criticism only goes for those RCIA programs which not only leave out anything Eastern but anything looking orthodox. What you and others are doing is great. This is needed even more in order to gain a better balance.

God bless you in your ministry!
Elias

Elias,

I did not identify the magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church with the Pope. The pope, together with the other bishops of the Church make up the apostolic magisterium. I do not subscribe to the narrow interpretation of the magisterium as only being the Ecumenical Councils. The magisterium of the Church has always existed and is has always been active in the life of the Church. It is the magisterium of the Church which decided upon the canonicity of the Scriptures, which has proclaimed the dogmas of the Church, developed the various forms of the Liturgy, under the direction of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ.

Pado

I've been reading this board for two months now, and have decided to weigh in. As far as background, I grew up Ukranian Catholic, but have been recently Lutheran. Long story for another day. At any rate, I am examining a return to the East. Logistically, the Orthodox Church is much closer to where I live, thus much more practicle for ongoing worship, learning and growth. however, I do feel a closeness to my roots, although the local BC churches are significantly farther away.

At any rate, I have been following the issues closely. Elias points out that the treatment of the position of the Pope is the true sticking points between the two Churches. Because of my current status, I will try to deal with the facts dispassionately.

By profession, I am an attorney. And to be honest, the differences between the Catholic and Orthodox sides resembles a very messy and acrimonious divorce. In such cases, both sides are right, and both are wrong. And neither is going to give an inch because its not about justice, but about pride. As in all divorces, the only winners are the lawyers (Billing$) and the losers are the children.

By my observaton, both the Catholic and the Orthodox are one Church. They may be separated, but God just doesn't favor divorce. Not for marraige and not for churches.

Now I realize there are theologic differences. But both sides must ask if they are truly matters pertaining to essential doctrine, or merely difference that are at worst, well intended errors. There is a difference. Maybe they are just different ways of looking at the same thing. Maybe a lot of this is only intellectual onanism.

My advice is: Settle for the sake of the children (the sheep).

PS: the true fault lies with the shepards (bishops) Christ gave the apostles one church, and they have a fiduciary obligation to give it back in the same condition (hopefully larger). The prime responsibility lies with the Pope. After all, he has primacy (although we may differ on what exactly that means) Primacy in authority means primacy in responsibility.

Andy,

"...the differences between the Catholic and Orthodox sides resembles a very messy and acrimonious divorce. In such cases, both sides are right, and both are wrong. And neither is going to give an inch because its not about justice, but about pride."


BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Great Divorce (Schism) is the worst example for those going through Pre-Cana classes.

Elias


PS: Is this too far away?

St. George Byzantine Catholic Mission
9730 Yelm Highway
Olympia, WA 98513
Administrator: Fr. Michael Durka
Phone: 360-413-5651

Schedule of Divine Services:
Saturday - Vespers and Divine Liturgy: 5:00 PM
Sunday - Divine Liturgy: 10:00 AM

[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 06-02-2000).]

Elias

Olympia is doable, but it does take me way out of the way from where I normally am. Same thing for Seattle. I don't know if you've ever been in that area. I have actually been there. Beautiful church, and impressive for its size. Very nice country. But there are no direct highways, so you have do a fair bit of country road travel. Actually, its a good area for that church because there is a lot of development going on there.

The local Orthodox church is almost in a straight line between me and my office, so it makes quick midweek stops very accessable.

To get back on topic, would you agree that the better date for the Schism is better placed witht he Photian Schisms rather than 1054, which really just finished the process? Just a thought.

[This message has been edited by AndyM (edited 06-02-2000).]

Posted by Andy M

"By profession, I am an attorney. And to be honest, the differences between the Catholic and Orthodox sides resembles a very messy and acrimonious divorce. In such cases, both sides are right, and both are wrong. And neither is going to give an inch because its not about justice, but about pride. As in all divorces, the only winners are the lawyers (Billing$) and the losers are the children.

By my observaton, both the Catholic and the Orthodox are one Church. They may be separated, but God just doesn't favor divorce. Not for marraige and not for churches"

You have put it so very well, Andy.

And yet, I have seen things that give me hope for the future. For example, several months ago the wife of one of our people died. One of their sons attends a local Orthodox parishes. His pastor co-officiated at the funeral liturgy with my pastor. Then we all sat down together for the mercy meal. I must say, in spite of my sadness at the sudden death of a lady I liked very much, it is the sight of the two priests serving together that sticks in my mind.

Vicki Williams
(Melkite)


[This message has been edited by Victoria (edited 06-02-2000).]

Andy,

The 'Photian Schism' was a myth developed from the West.

St. Photius, who is remembered in February in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches, died in communion with Rome. Read "The Photian Schism" by Fr. Francis Dvornik. He debunked this myth and the Eastern Catholic bishops now recognize St. Photius on our calendar.

A divorce starts on both sides. Though the Popes of the West have a nasty habit of excommunicating Eastern bishops by jumping the gun and by meddling. St. Cyprian reprimanded Bishop Stephen of Rome for excommunicating the Eastern Churches.


Elias

I agree that St Photius (and I do recognize him as such) died in communion with Rome. However, the unfortunate event is one worthy of critical analysis because it illustrates a repetative cause of friction between East and West.

At first communion, I was given a worship book entitle "Let Us Pray to the Lord." (I received it in 1964, so the information therein probably doesn't reflect current Catholic policy.) It refers to Photius as a ambitious courtier.

On the Orthodox side, Photius is St. Photius the Great. And I believe that his accomplishments meritthe title.

My read on the situation is that St. Photius came to the patriarcy in an effort to settle internal problems caused by the Byzantine Empror's interference in Church administration. Therefore, I can see why the circumstance would cause the Pope no small amount of concern. After all, going from layman to patriarch in one week is a little unusual.

At the same time, I can agree that the Pope perhaps jumped the gun. After all, even Gregory conceded that Photius was a good man.

While the actual schism my be a myth, Can you see how the events could fuel future controversy? In some part, it lays the groundwork for 1054. The issue was probably never fully resolved as it should have been.

I'm not an expert, but this is my analysis of the events.

Dear Andy,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Greetings from a recovering lawyer

1054 is probably a complete red herring. The Orthodox did not seem to realize that any definitive break had occurred until 1204--the Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople by the "Christian" Franks. Then again, it is possible to trace breaks in the "schism" as late as the 1700s, at least in the Mediteranean and Middle Eastern world. Intercommunion did occur at different times, more or less offically. Somewhere Bishop Kallistos has reviewed the considerable evidence of this in an article--I think in one of the Kievan Church Study Group papers, so the journal Logos would be the place to start if you were interested in looking it up.

Personally, I think it was the hardening of Rome's ecclesiological exclusivism in the wake of the Reformation that finally did the trick. It was only after the Catholic side aggresively demonstrated its belief that salvation was possible only under the jurisdiction of the Pope (as the couter-reform theologians maintained at the time of the Union of Brest)that you start seeing the same attitudes mirrored in Orthodox writings in, say the Rudder which was compliled by St. Nicodemus in the 18th century.

My thoughts, anyway.

In Christ
unworthy monk Maximos

Dear Br. Maximos:

Thank you for the new input. I never put the facts together that way, but it does make a lot of sense.

As far as the topic goes, what should the nature of "primacy" be?

Personally, the leadership of Peter in the biblical accounts is probably undisputed. But maybe the answer is in his leadership style. He was not one to lord it over his fellow apostles, In at least one instance, where Paul opposes him to his face, Peter submits to the authority of the council headed by James.

Maybe a similar mechanism, headed by the Patriarch of Jeruselem, could serve as a similar check on Papal, and even Patriarchal, excess.

Why not?

Andy

This topic is quite interesting. I am ashamed to say that I knew little of the events leading to the Schism before coming to this message board.

We had been told the the 1054 split was over the filique (sorry if I have spelled it wrong. We were also told, (this was when I was in RCIA 7 years ago), that the filique was basically an excuse, that the real reasons for the Great Schism was cultural differences and a power struggle between Rome and Constantinople. That was about the sum of the coverage of the Orthodox in RCIA. What reference there was toward Eastern Catholics was couched in terms of Rites-

I remember thinking at the time that it seemed a little *easy*,to ascribe a single year for a split of the magnitude of the Eastern and Western Church.

With this in mind, I have a question. Aside from the question of the Papacy, what would you say would be the biggest thing that separates East and West? (please be as specific as you can/wish. I know that there is a big difference as far as spiritualities are concerned, though taken together, they sound complementary... From what I have read, and reading discussions on the different spiritualities, it sounds to me as if the two spiritualities are opposite sides of the same coin.



[This message has been edited by Catherine Kostyn (edited 06-02-2000).]

Catherine, you are right. East and West are, or should be, complementary.

As to differences, I'll address one. While the West adheres to a concept of original sin, the East does not. West sees the fall of man as creating in inherent stain of sin on all humans. In the East, there is no stain because we cannot be properly judged guilty for the actions of another, at least where we are not complicit. Rather, the frailties of human nature, death and propensity to sin to name two, are consequences that flow from the guilt of Adam and Eve. In a sense, those who would otherwise be innocent feel the affects of the guilty. This we can relate to because it is a common occurence in our own lives.

From this treatment of the effects of the fall, flows a derivitive difference in the treatment of the Mary. Because the West ascribes to original sin, the doctrine of MAry being born without original sin becomes more necessary. In the East, it is unnecessary because there is no issue.

Hope this helps. I really hope my understanding is accurate!

Andy

One point that needs to made from the Orthodox perspective vis a vis 1054. The concept of sui juris rite churches is a western concept being applied to the eastern church. Fr. Alexander Schmemann was asked to provide the Orthodox commentary on Vatican II's Document on Eastern Catholic Churches. Fr. Alexander commented in the offical book of the documents with commentaries that it was a western document about eastern churches.

In the pre-Schism Church, the Patriarchates were territorial and ritually all inclusive. The controversy between Patriarch Michael Kerularios and Cardinal Humbert regarding ritual churches including the closing of them in the Patriarchates. The Byzantine parishes in Italy were under Rome and the Latin parishes in Constantinople were under Michael. In fact, on Athos there are still ruins of the Amalfi or Latin Rite monastery, under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. From a Byzantine perspective, this saying that there are 22 equal rites in the Catholic is nonsense. There is no Bulgarian Rite and Romanian Rite etc. All Orthodox Christians on Athos are under Patriarch Bartholomew regardless of whether or not they are Greeks in Esphigmenou, Serbians in Chilandari, Russians in Sviati Panteleimon or Bulgarians in Zographou. If the Latin Rite monastery were revived, they would be in exactly the same situation.

The North American canonical irregularity (mess) continues quite frankly because the Old Country Patriarchates need our money (ah, confession of sin is good for the soul). However, in the Antiochian Archdiocese, the pre-Schism discipline continues with the 22 Western Rite parishes and missions fully integrated into the Archdiocese's Regions (praise God). I think it is fair to say that Fr. Schmemann and certainly his students (and their students) would agree that the Byzantine Catholic Churches will come a long well toward recovering their rich theology when they pull back from seeing themselves as sui juris ritual churches (Latin definition of Eastern Churches), and move forward with seeing themselves in the Hellenistic concept of ecclesia (or the church as the worshiping people of God).

Respectfully submitted prayerfully in anticipation of His Ascension,

Three Cents

Christos Anesti!
Alithos Anesti!
Alithos A Kyrios!