www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Close, but no cigar.

http://praiseofglory.alabanza.com/abbotboniface.htm


Why did the Church of Greece take such a stand?

Elias

I guess no one knows why. Maybe we are all happy wallowing in our schism? We are content. We give the Muslims reason to laugh at our disunity. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! ...........

No longer does ecclesial unity shine and glisten.

As we are content in our disunity and schism.

We are always right and 'they' are always wrong.

We will never stand together in temple to offer God a song.

Just remember: You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant - even excuses for continuing the schism.


Elias


[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 12-20-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 12-20-1999).]

>>>Only, there was just one hitch, something that made the cautious Pope Paul VI ill at ease and hesitant right up to the last moment: of all the Byzantine Churches,
only the Patriarch's own Church of Greece stood against him, unforgiving of the 4th Crusade of 1206 that had destroyed Constantinople with the approval of
Pope Imocent III (though he'd approved on the basis of misinformation).

Greece threatened to break from Constantinople if Athenagoras went through with his plan, and it was serious--"Ihe gloves were off." In spite of this absurd
refusal, the Patriarch meant to go on, and not make the whole Church a victim of unrelenting hatred and highly unchristian unforgiveness. At this solemn
moment in Church history he trusted the power of Christ's command of unity in forgiving love (Jn.17: 21-23), that Christ makes the proof of the genuineness
of his whole plan of redemption.<<<

One must understand something of the history of the Greek Orthodox Church (meaning the Orthodox Church of Greece). First, its history and the history of Greek independence are inextricably linked to each other. The Church was the driving factor in the Greek War of Independence, the Church kept alive the Greek identity in Greece. Second, the Church of Greece is a state Church, the only one in the Orthodox communion. As such, it is closely tied up in Greek politics, and furthermore, with the Greek national identity. To be Greek is to be Orthodox, whether or not one ever steps foot in a church after baptism. Only about 5 percent of Greeks in Greece actually attend Liturgy on a regular basis. Most of them do not fast, or follow other Church regulations. But ask them, and they are Orthodox. Conversely, NOT to be Orthodox is somehow NOT to be Greek. It is unpatriotic, even treasonous, in the minds of many Greeks for a Greek to belong to any other faith. Hence the near hysterical reaction of the Greek Orthodox Church to the Greek Catholic Church (which has all of 2500 members and which focuses exclusively on charitable works). The Greek reaction to the Catholic Church, the Greek reaction to uniatism in particular, is conditioned by these historical and cultural factors. Most members of the Church of Greece know very little about the uniate situation in Eastern Europe. They get their information second or third hand, and they lack the understanding to interpret the information correctly. Hence, they hear of church buildings reverting to the Eastern Catholics, and they think it means "their" churches are being given to the Catholics; they never grasp that these were Catholic churches from the get-go, stolen by the Communists.

Stuart,

How we live with lies and in fear!!! Is the Holy Spirit effective in Greece? How CAN one be Orthodox if one doesn't worship? Can the Greek Orthodox benefit from the sacraments by staying away from them? Tele-communion?

Lies. Fear. Hatred. Complacency. The Spirit of Indifference. Conceit. All are hallmarks of contemporary false Christianity. Yes, we are all sick. Institutional Christianity is sick. Schism. Politics. Nationality. Forgetfulness of how to love. Love? What is that?

What is the ratio of heretic clergy to heretic laity in the history of the Church?

What do we have to learn from these Christians-by-name? Are they truly living icons? Sure, they may have beautiful temples with glistening icons; but is this the inheritence of an Imperial Church? No wonder why many left for Islam. The temples glistened but the Christians had ALREADY left. LOL!!!

The excuses are beginning to run out why we can't love anymore; why we don't let the Holy Spirit in our churches. THEOSIS? NOT!!! EPICLESIS-THROMBOSIS? YUP!!!

Elias

>>>What do we have to learn from these Christians-by-name? Are they truly living icons? Sure, they may have beautiful temples
with glistening icons; but is this the inheritence of an Imperial Church? No wonder why many left for Islam. The temples
glistened but the Christians had ALREADY left. LOL!!!<<<

What you say is manifestly unfair to the many Orthodox who not only live their faith daily, but who have suffered unspeakable persecution because of it. Between them and us, there is no real division, and if such a division is maintained, I would attribute it to the Fathers of Lies than the Father of All. The Orthodox are just as much victims of their own historical situation as we are of ours, and the Romans of theirs. The real question is whether we are going to transcend that historical legacy so that we might grow in Christ as persons and as Churches. Bishop Kallistos noted that two things are needed for us to achieve unity. One is repentence, so that we may approach each other in charity and forgiveness. The other is to keep a constant focus upon Christ, and nothing but Christ. For if we do that, then no matter where we are now, we will surely be converging at our common destination.

Stuart,

I was writing about those Christians-by-name who don't go to church but get upset with any chance of union or intercommunion. Hee! Hee! It's like the non-church goers telling the church goers what to do at church. Get the picture? Obviously not.

Yes, there are martyrs and sufferers on both sides of the schism. Yet how much forgiveness is needed? How long can we wait for the unchurched Orthodox-by-name Christians to make up their mind to thaw their hearts? Maybe when they think highly enough of God to start PRACTICING their faith and getting their butts to liturgy. If 90% of Greek Orthodox don't even go to church, then we will be waiting until hell freezes before any union. THAT is the joke in a nutshell. "Hey! I am an Orthodox Christian. I don't go to church or practice my faith (along with 89.999% of our Greeks). So... don't talk about unity, OK?"

Did it ever occur to you that unity and Christian charity can NEVER occur when their are 90% of one side of the schism not even worshipping God? Am I the only one who sees this irony?

Many fear union more than damnation.

Elias

PS: He who never receives communion at liturgy can't talk about communion of the churches.

He who has already rejected Christ, will never accept unity with fellow Christians.

Are there any Orthodox Christians who would like to defend their fellow Greeks who are "NO SHOWS" at liturgy? I would like to hear the rationalizations.


[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 12-21-1999).]

Outside of the fact that the piece appears to be an apochryphal anecdote with little direct evidence. How does one keep such a thing quiet?

While I heartily approve of working out differences with our "Catholic" friends and working with each other for charitable causes in aspirit of love, I doubt that the Patriarch of CP would make such a move in a nearly unilateral fashion and risk a breech with the other Orthodox jurisdictions. It would greatly violate the conciliar nature of Orthodoxy to do such a thing without consultation with the other patriarchs. He can lead, push, and cajole, but not impose on all of Orthodoxy.

Bill Mo,

Then Orthodoxy can never act as ONE - since UNITY is an impossibility and the desire for unity is second to other things. Let me ask you, Bill - Is an Ecumenical Council possible? Seriously. Can Orthodoxy agree amongst itself who represents who to fully recognize Patriarchal participation in an Ecumenical Council according to Nicaean guidelines? I know Patriarchates have multifplied since the Pentarchy, but IS and Ecumenical Council (representing UNITY?) possible?

Was the mutual lifting of the excommunications just a personal thing which the Orthodox do not recognize? Are Patriarchs assigned only symbolic acts which contain no substance? no bearing on the faithful? Why are the monks on Athos all up tight with the present Patriarch if he has only symbolic significance? Why not just ignore him?

Can we prove the Muslim's claim that we are not unified as false?

Elias




[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 12-21-1999).]

Well Elias, even Orthodox general councils since the schism have not been held up as Ecumenical. I'm not sure if it's a recognition of the break with the west or due to the political realities that existed where Orthodoxy is rooted. I'm sure there are multiple interpretations depending on whose ox you want to gore. Many in the Orthodox hierarchy do, however, claim the right to convene an "ecumenical" council with just the Orthodox. Rome has held a dozen or so "ecumenical" councils since the schism.

These councils are usually called to face some sort of dogmatic controversy and I don't know of any serious Orthodoxy wide theological problems in the past 600 odd years that would require such a council.

It was the anathemas on the individual participants that were rescinded as a sign of good will. Roman Catholicism still has anathematized Orthodoxy since we don't accept the filioque, papal infallibility, many reject transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception as a dogma (not necessarily as a theory).

If everyone got together and said "intercommunion now and we'll work out the details later" then that's fine, but NONE of the problems that caused the break to begin with would be addressed and a future break would be all the more likely. Can the Roman Catholic church make mandatory dogma optional for the Orthodox (then is it dogma anymore?) or must the Orthodox accept RC dogma and direct authority from Rome?

To truly be one means we must believe the same "required" set of things. Can we be one and not be of one set of beliefs and hold two different creeds?

As long as Rome stakes no more than an "elder brother" referee role and makes no claim to direct authority over the Orthodox, then I don't see why not work out the details later, then Rome's problem with its own dogmatic catalog remains her own problem and she'll have to explain it to her own people. Otherwise I can see Metropolitan Theodosius of the OCA or Bishop Spyridon (sp?) of the Greek Orthodox getting a missive from Cardinal O'Conner wondering when the Orthodox are going to get with the Roman restrictions on married priests like the Byzantine Catholics.

The monks of Athos are uptight with the Patriarch because he is the head patriarch of Orthodoxy. There are things that he can do within his jurisdiction as he is the head shepherd there. But he cannot unilaterally act for all of Orthodoxy. He may lead, but not dictate. Any "Orthodoxy-wide" activity he partakes in unilaterally is symbolic in nature and carries no teeth. If the senior Roman prelate of Poland decided to be in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church would it speak for all of Roman Catholicism?

Muslims in unity????? Shi'ites and Sunnis have been fighting each other for centuries. If they're laughing at us, it is out of ignorance of their own history and current events. I'd be more concerned about what God thinks and not the Muslims.

I heartily agree that both hierarchies have been stiff-knecked and haven't been active enough ironing things out (or at least it appears so) and as laity we need to poke them in the ribs more often.

Bill Mo,

Bill: Well Elias, even Orthodox general councils since the schism have not been held up as Ecumenical. I'm not sure if it's a recognition of the break with the west or due to the political realities that existed where Orthodoxy is rooted. I'm sure there are multiple interpretations depending on whose ox you want to gore.

Elias: O.K.


Bill: Many in the Orthodox hierarchy do, however, claim the right to convene an "ecumenical" council with just the Orthodox.

Elias: Really? Rome is out of the question � even though the canons of Nicaea stipulate that all five of the Pentarchy must be present? What do they base their claim on?


Bill: Rome has held a dozen or so "ecumenical" councils since the schism.

Elias: Pope Paul VI referred to Lyons as a General Councl of the West even though the same Pope referred to the Vatican II Council as �Ecumenical� when he just became Pope and was still able to halt the proceedings of the council. Yet we have to be careful here: Ecumenical for the Roman Church since it was primarily a Roman Catholic synod of bishops made up of all extent RC bishoprics and not just a regional synod of bishops. I don�t think anyone can ever claim it was a TRUE Ecumenical Councl like the first seven.


Bill: These councils are usually called to face some sort of dogmatic controversy and I don't know of any serious Orthodoxy wide theological problems in the past 600 odd years that would require such a council.

Elias: What about the Filioque, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Papal Infallibility, etc? Or the Great Schism itself? If Orthodoxy was true to its nature and responsibility, then why don�t they call an Ecumenical Council and invite the Pope? � seeing how he is the one, according to Orthodoxy, who needs public / ecumenical reprimanding. Yet this isn�t done. Orthodoxy seems to find it alright to consider Rome as just another Protestant sect that needs repentance and not an invitation to attend an Ecumenical Council. Oh well.


Bill: It was the anathemas on the individual participants that were rescinded as a sign of good will.

Elias: �Good will� only? Do bishops issue excommunications and/or lift excommunications out of good will? Fancy that! Since it was a personal excommunication that was lifted (the original guys being dead long ago), does that imply that the Churches to which each Patriarch was a head of remain in excommunication? Like the saying goes: the innocent children sometimes inherit the sins of their parents. Maybe inherited guilt is right? It is a shame that our bishops keep us in schism. Did they not lead us there?


Bill: Roman Catholicism still has anathematized Orthodoxy since we don't accept the filioque, papal infallibility, many reject transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception as a dogma (not necessarily as a theory).

Elias: Where can I read the official text anathematizing the Orthodox? Eastern Catholics dropped the Filioque several years ago. The Pope omits it on every Pentecost � thus confirming our common Nicea-Constantinopolitan faith. Transubstantiation is an Aristotelean term not tought in Eastern Catholicism; and the same goes for the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Church Fathers use many terms for what �happens� to the prosphora during the Eucharistic Prayer. Interesting enough, St. John Chrysostom speculated that the �change� occured during the Words of Institution. I don�t think we really know �when� the change happens, but we do know it DOES. I think we know when the change happens as much as we can agree where to place the
Kiss of Peace during the liturgy.


Bill: If everyone got together and said "intercommunion now and we'll work out the details later" then that's fine, but NONE of the problems that caused the break to begin with would be addressed and a future break would be all the more likely.

Elias: This is interesting. First, I don�t think everyone will get together. Second, �Lex orandi, lex credendi� is the Orthodox way and not �lex credendi, lex orandi� like the Protestants � who have to figure out what they believe FIRST before deciding how they are to worship. If we recongnize each other�s sacraments as �valid� (to use a Western term) then we are already united � though in an incomplete way. It seems the Holy Spirit still does His job despite and in spite of our sins. Can we appreciate such a eucharistic communion? What exactly do the Orthodox want? Are there any encyclicals out there? Hello!? What does Orthodoxy want when Patriarch and his people can�t agree? I am confused and the Athonite monks are peeved. BTW, aren�t the Athonite monks subject to the Patriarch?


Bill: Can the Roman Catholic church make mandatory dogma optional for the Orthodox (then is it dogma anymore?) or must the Orthodox accept RC dogma and direct authority from Rome?

Elias: I don�t accept Western �doctrines.� They are valid for them since they are using a different system of theological expression. Eastern Catholics have already dropped many of these doctrines in liturgical practice and its theology. Let�s move on.


Bill: To truly be one means we must believe the same "required" set of things. Can we be one and not be of one set of beliefs and hold two different creeds?

Elias: Of course. The Latins taught the Filioque long before the last two Ecumenical Councils! No one in the East made anything of it � until the Francs inserted it into their creed AGAINST the Pope�s wishes. Why didn�t the East cry �Heresy!� when the Filioque was being taught in the early centuries? Even Jaroslav Pelikan, a recent convert to Orthodoxy, mentions this in his writings.


Bill: As long as Rome stakes no more than an "elder brother" referee role and makes no claim to direct authority over the Orthodox, then I don't see why not work out the details later, then Rome's problem with its own dogmatic catalog remains her own problem and she'll have to explain it to her own people.

Elias: Even a referee makes decisions that directly EFFECT other churches. Where do the Eastern Church Fathers state that Rome has NO authority over the East and that any decisions in its role as Court of Highest Appels are worth no more than the paper their written on?


Bill: Otherwise I can see Metropolitan Theodosius of the OCA or Bishop Spyridon (sp?) of the Greek Orthodox getting a missive from Cardinal O'Conner wondering when the Orthodox are going to get with the Roman restrictions on married priests like the Byzantine Catholics.

Elias: The Byzantine Catholic bishops are working on it. They can, like Protestants, just set up a separate shop; go independent, but things do have to be worked out. I think the Byzantine Catholic bishops are weak. They are the kind of �Fathers� who allows neighbors dictate how to run their household. I will let them answer for themselves before God. Until then us Byzantine Catholic uniates will have to suffer a bit more.


Bill: The monks of Athos are uptight with the Patriarch because he is the head patriarch of Orthodoxy. There are things that he can do within his jurisdiction as he is the head shepherd there. But he cannot unilaterally act for all of Orthodoxy. He may lead, but not dictate.

Elias: How does one lead if one cannot dictate? You are blowing my mind here, Bill. Can you imagine Generals �leading� soldiers into battle without the authority to issue commands? It�s like being a �Manager� title but with no one to manage. LOL! Come on, Bill! What is all this talk about LEADERSHIP and REFEREEING when these �leaders� and �referees� aren�t allowed to lead or referee? Help! I need a stiff drink on this one. St. Photius, Pray for me!!!


Bill: Any "Orthodoxy-wide" activity he partakes in unilaterally is symbolic in nature and carries no teeth.

Elias: The brassiere manufacturers call them �falsies.� So the patriarchs are just for pretend. Fake boobs. Fathers of families with no parental rights.


Bill: If the senior Roman prelate of Poland decided to be in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church would it speak for all of Roman Catholicism?

Elias: Yeah, right. Anyways, I hardly doubt the senior Roman prelate in Poland is Roman Catholic.


Bill: Muslims in unity????? Shi'ites and Sunnis have been fighting each other for centuries. If they're laughing at us, it is out of ignorance of their own history and current events. I'd be more concerned about what God thinks and not the Muslims.

Elias: So what do you imagine God is �thinking� (so anthropomorphic) about our disunity? About Roman Catholics holding ecumenical councils without the Orthodox and the Orthodox technicall being able to call an ecumenical council (as you say) without Rome?


Bill: I heartily agree that both hierarchies have been stiff-knecked and haven't been active enough ironing things out (or at least it appears so) and as laity we need to poke them in the ribs more often.

Elias: I agree. We should fire these managers-by-name-only. Maybe we have inherited too many referees and leaders who aren�t allowed to do either.

Elias



[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 12-21-1999).]

I find a lot of what Elias proposes on this page to be a form of Christian neo-fascism. It seems to be "either my way or the hell-bound highway". First of all, we're here to love God and love our neighbors. Not to judge them.

Second, as a Greek-American, I'm a little bit sensitive to folks who condemn the Church of Greece because a large number of people don't attend liturgy. Is attendance at liturgy the touchstone for apostolicity or holiness? I guess you'd have told Mary Magdalene to get lost.

Next, the relationship between the Greek-speaking Church and the Church of the West is very complicated and the attitudes of the Greek people are very much underscored by histoical events. The fact is: the Italians have invaded Greece on several different occasions, the most recent being the unprovoked October 1941 invasion by Mussolini (trying to impress his pal, Hitler.). The Greeks responded to the demand to surrender with the Prime Minister's one word telegram: "Ochi" = "No". The Greeks then beat their tails back across the border, through Albania and up through Yugoslavia, until Hitler sent in the Panzers to save his buddy's fat butt. The October date is a national holiday in Greece. Greeks don't trust the Italians, i.e, the Romans. And this carries over to ecclesiastical realms as well. (The freakin' Venetians = Italians, blew up the Akropolis during the early 19th century.) So, when Greeks avoid any and all contact with the "Romani", there is a lot of history behind it. Of course most Americans can't even find Greece on a globe, so how can we possibly expect them to know anything of the relevant history.

Third, using ancient canons and man-made regulations about how the church communities should "govern" themselves strikes me as the hallmark of the 'traditionalists' who want us to do ANYTHING as long as it is not modern or subject to synchronous human judgement. I see this as a sin against God the Father/Creator, who gave us brains-- to be used to improve our ability to love God and love each other. We now know how to save lives through surgery and antibiotics, to improve vision through glasses/contacts and laser surgery, to keep geographically separated families together through telephone and the internet, and to evangelize through the use of electronic communications media (like this forum!). To demand of us that we live like our ancestors did seems to be the response of the ecclesiastically terrified-- i.e, scared to have to make a decision on one's own and always running to the past for decisions.

We need to live in the real world of 1999, soon to be 2000. We need to evangelize in this world, not the middle-ages or the Victorian period.

While people can yip and yap about beards, cassocks, partiarchal jurisdictions, canon laws (God help us!), ethnic traditions, and yardsticks for canonicity, Christ has to come first. If you aren't living your life the way Our Lord did: loving, forgiving, helping the needy, and encouraging the weak, then I personally don't care how many canons get quoted or anathemas get tossed. (Did it never occur to folks that Christ never anathematized anyone? He just admonished and forgave.)

But our "beacons of orthodoxy/Orthodoxy" and judges of ecclesiastical validity come on condemning everyone who does not meet their standard of holiness.

My impression: They're just lying sacks of pre-processed fertilizer. I don't want to be anywhere near these folks when Christ returns.

[This message has been edited by Dr John (edited 12-22-1999).]

Dr. John,

Dr: I find a lot of what Elias proposes on this page to be a form of Christian neo-fascism. It seems to be "either my way or the hell-bound highway".

Elias: Reminds me of Green Patriarch�s FINAL SOLUTION (My Way) to the Uniate Problem. Might not be FASCISM; but it does leave a bad taste in my mouth. Can you explain his NON-neo-fascist words?


Dr: First of all, we're here to love God and love our neighbors. Not to judge them.

Elias: SHOW ME LOVE.


Dr: Second, as a Greek-American, I'm a little bit sensitive to folks who condemn the Church of Greece because a large number of people don't attend liturgy. Is attendance at liturgy the touchstone for apostolicity or holiness?

Elias: One cannot receive communion if they don�t attend liturgy. Christ said that if you don�t eat his body and drink his blood you will have no life in you. Maybe the fundamentalists and evangelicals are right: maybe Christ�s words were only symbolic. Are there exceptions for the Greek Orthodox?


Dr: I guess you'd have told Mary Magdalene to get lost.

Elias: I think you got your scriptures confused a bit. It was the Apostles who hid when Christ was hanging on the Tree of Life. It was a woman who anointed Christ with her hair. It was women who were the first to learn of the Resurrection. Where were the Apostles? One �betrayed� Him; another �doubted� Him. Notice Christ never had a problem with women? Those who wanted to �stone� a woman did.


Dr: Next, the relationship between the Greek-speaking Church and the Church of the West is very complicated and the attitudes of the Greek people are very much underscored by histoical events. The fact is: the Italians have invaded Greece ...

Elias: Amazing! There you go again. Giving reasons (err, excuses) why YOU or a certain people can�t LOVE. Sorry, but I wasn�t around when the Italians invaded Greece nor was I around when white Anglo-Saxons maintained a slave trade here in the U.S. or when the Slavs moved into the Balkans or ... If you want me to say �I am sorry,� then here it is: I AM SORRY FOR EVERYONE�S SINS AGAINST YOU AND THE GREEKS, INCLUDING MY VERY OWN. The only Greek I met was an Orthodox bishop. I thought I met Saint. I went to a Serbian Orthodox church once and was scolded by the priest there when he found out I was a Byzantine Catholic. He said I was a Roman Catholic and that his Latinized temple was our fault. Actually, I don�t remember Latinizing his parish. When are you all going to get over it? No wonder our youth are leaving. Tired of hearing about the days of the Hatfields and McCoys. Don�t want our type of Balkanized Christianity.


Dr: So, when Greeks avoid any and all contact with the "Romani", there is a lot of history behind it.

Elias: I am comforted by the fact that we all have a history. The Greek (err, Byzantine Catholics) had the IRISH here in the U.S. to deal with. In fact, the Rusyns couldn�t get along with the Galicians/Ukrainians nor could the Presov Rusyns get along with the Uzhorod Rusyns. The Greek Orthodox won�t even allow Greek Catholicism to go beyond a certain population limit in Greece. The Patriarch of Greece suggests a �Final Solution� to the Uniate Problem � even though the Antiochians have established a Western Rite. LOL! I guess Uniatism (or jurisdictional gobbling) is O.K. just so a Western Church is not practicing it.


Dr: Of course most Americans can't even find Greece on a globe, so how can we possibly expect them to know anything of the relevant history.

Elias: Our honor-student secretary had to ask where Brazil was. So don�t feel bad if our youth don�t know where they are in the world. If they can find there way to the mall to get more multi-piercing, then they are happy.


Dr: Third, using ancient canons and man-made regulations about how the church communities should "govern" themselves strikes me as the hallmark of the 'traditionalists' who want us to do ANYTHING as long as it is not modern or subject to synchronous human judgement.

Elias: Hee, hee, hee. Reminds me of the stress the Roman Catholic apologists have where they can�t quite understand why the Eastern Orthodox can�t accept that Latin theology and canon law continued to develop even after the Great Schism. Which way is it, Dr. John? If the West rejects ancient canons: the Orthodox accuse the Romans of �innovations� and �parallel developments� excluding the Orthodox. Forget the first two Ecumenical Councils � let�s all include the Filioque in the Creed! Ring a bell? If subject to synchronus human judgement: then the Romans are accused of �innovations� and �parallel developments� excluding the Orthodox. This Catch-22 leads folks to drink.


Dr: I see this as a sin against God the Father/Creator, who gave us brains-- to be used to improve our ability to love God and love each other. ..... To demand of us that we live like our ancestors did seems to be the response of the ecclesiastically terrified-- i.e, scared to have to make a decision on one's own and always running to the past for decisions.

Elias: O.K. Let�s chuck those Ecumenical Councils. They were getting in the way anyways. To heck with Tradition too. Let�s do the Protestant thing and multiply into another 20,000+ denominations. Let�s forget the past too. Yet there are some Orthodox Churches which cannot forget the past. We are still reminded of those Italians invading Greece, or the Crusaders sacking and pillaging Constantinople, or .... (you fill in the rest). Demands are made on the Pope to beg forgiveness and issue formal apologies. Where is this FORGIVENESS you talk about? Obviously, you haven�t forgotten the past. Thanks for the reminder.


Dr: We need to live in the real world of 1999, soon to be 2000.

Elias: I don�t get into numbers. Nor do I think the Church is a fad. The world has always been �real.� Next year is no different from this year or the year before. The liberal abortionist group kept telling us that this was the 70s and that we had to accept their practices because it was the thing to do.


Dr: While people can yip and yap about beards, cassocks, partiarchal jurisdictions, canon laws (God help us!), ethnic traditions, and yardsticks for canonicity,...

Elias: Which people? I imagine the ONLY issue holding up a union of the Eastern and Western Churches IS the role of the Papacy; hence the need to define patriarchal rights, etc. Yet you make it sound that this is secondary to Christ. I agree. So why the Problem with the Orthodox accepting the current model of Papal jurisdiction? Why the REJECTION of Uniatism as a model of unity? Why the squabble over Uniate temples which were confiscated by the communists and handed over to the Orthodox if it ISN�T a matter of jurisdiction?


Dr: Christ has to come first.

Elias: Aaaaahh! Interesting concept.


Dr: If you aren't living your life the way Our Lord did: loving, forgiving, helping the needy, and encouraging the weak, then I personally don't care how many canons get quoted or anathemas get tossed. (Did it never occur to folks that Christ never anathematized anyone? He just admonished and forgave.)

Elias: He even told Peter that he was �Satan.� Jesus also was a nice when he tossed the tables at the Temple. Jesus also called some Jews �hypocrits� and �brood of vipers.�


Dr: But our "beacons of orthodoxy/Orthodoxy" and judges of ecclesiastical validity come on condemning everyone who does not meet their standard of holiness.

Elias: Do you accept the Eastern Catholic Church as a �valid� Church?


Dr: My impression: They're just lying sacks of pre-processed fertilizer. I don't want to be anywhere near these folks when Christ returns.

Elias: Spoken with charitable eloquence.


Elias



[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 12-22-1999).]

Dear Elias,

I'll hit as many points as I can within the constraints of time.

I believe you misunderstand the concept of primacy of honor as opposed to what you must be used to with the Pope.

One Patriarch cannot dictate to another Patriarch, just as one general cannot dictate to an equal general or one manager in finance cannot tell an equivalent manager in production what to do, since you brought up secular examples. He can dictate within his own jurisdiction, but not outside.

An arbitrator takes disputes as they come to them and of course they have an effect, but they do not actively seek to meddle in disputes that do not come to them.

As far as the anathemas, get translations of the west's general or ecumenical councils, the formulations are always, "whoever doesn't hold this to be true, let them be anathema." I've only seen snippets from contributors at other bulletin boards (including this one)who appear to have documented them carefully, so I have no reason to doubt them. They don't explicitly say, "Groups X, Y, and Z are now anathematized."

As far as transubstantiation, I'm not saying it's NOT true or that one is wrong to believe it. Simply that it is an definition of what is essentially a mystery. We know the end result. It's a great bit of Aristotelian philosophy and logic, but who says God's Aristotelian?

Regarding the existence of the filioque, the east didn't learn about it until about 100-200 years after it was first introduced in Toledo when the Franks tried to accuse the east of heresy for NOT including it. I don't have my books at work so I don't have the exact timeline. Information moved much more slowly back then and east and west, politically and eccliastically were pretty separate at the time although still in communion.

There is also the reality of making a good peace. I'm not saying all the i's need to be dotted and all the t's need to be crossed, but there does need to be a common Creed and the role of the Pope with respect to the Orthodox jurisdictions needs to be ironed out. Rolling things back to the eleventh century canons is fine with me. The last two times Constantinople tried unity with Rome solo, it failed because it was a total capitulation to Rome for purposes related to imperial politics causing the laity and lower clergy to revolt and Constantinople never consulted any of the other Patriarchates and was rejected by them. Let's learn from history and not ignore it.

With regards to Rome's "ecumenical councils," I'm afraid, Elias, you represent a minority opinion amongst those in communion with Rome, especially those outside the non-Latin groups. I have yet to see a western Catholic reference refer to them as anything other than "ecumenical." Can I personally say a council can be truly ecumenical when Rome or Orthodoxy is absent, I don't know. But our Lord says that the true Church is always one. Does that mean visible unity or is there some other invisisble bond? (What of "Protestants?")

I'm not some sort of Orthodox triumphalist who says "Let Rome come to us when she repents." There's alot of bad blood on both sides. As long as both sides are saying, "Let's work things out together," then we're on the right track. We have to work through our human fallibilities to build a stronger house rather than white-washing the cracks in the old.

Blessed Nativity,

Bill

Bill:


Bill: I believe you misunderstand the concept of primacy of honor as opposed to what you must be used to with the Pope. One Patriarch cannot dictate to another Patriarch, just as one general cannot dictate to an equal general or one manager in finance cannot tell an equivalent manager in production what to do, since you brought up secular examples. He can dictate within his own jurisdiction, but not outside.

Elias: I absolutely agree with you. Which reminds me of those scientists who make theological statements outside of their discipline of the scientific method. I was only asking hypothetical questions of why Orthodoxy doesn�t accept the current model of papal jurisdiction (including meddling) if jurisdictions and long beards are not a yardstick for canonicity. I think the current set-up with the Eastern Catholics is a few bricks short of a load. Many Roman Catholic apologists stress the Patristic evidence for papal meddling while not understanding the difference between the role of arbitrator/court of highest appeals and jurisdictional meddling.


Bill: As far as transubstantiation, I'm not saying it's NOT true or that one is wrong to believe it. Simply that it is an definition of what is essentially a mystery. We know the end result. It's a great bit of Aristotelian philosophy and logic, but who says God's Aristotelian?

Elias: I Agree.


Bill: ... there does need to be a common Creed and the role of the Pope with respect to the Orthodox jurisdictions needs to be ironed out. Rolling things back to the eleventh century canons is fine with me.

Elias: But Dr. John suggests that we can�t live in the �past.� It will soon be 2000.


Bill: The last two times Constantinople tried unity with Rome solo, it failed because it was a total capitulation to Rome for purposes related to imperial politics causing the laity and lower clergy to revolt and Constantinople never consulted any of the other Patriarchates and was rejected by them. Let's learn from history and not ignore it.

Elias: I Agree. I was recently given a history lesson reminding me of those Italians invading Greece. But Dr. John states �... using ancient canons and man-made regulations about how the church communities should "govern" themselves strikes me as the hallmark of the 'traditionalists' who want us to do ANYTHING as long as it is not modern or subject to synchronous human judgement.� This is strange coming from an Orthodox Christian. Obviously, the Christian Church operates in a historical vacuum.


Bill: With regards to Rome's "ecumenical councils," I'm afraid, Elias, you represent a minority opinion amongst those in communion with Rome, especially those outside the non-Latin groups. I have yet to see a western Catholic reference refer to them as anything other than "ecumenical."

Elias: When it comes to Ecumenical Talks, it becomes apparent that post-Schism �ecumenical councils� DO NOT speak from the entirety of the Christian Tradition. Otherwise, why continue with the talks if it is only a matter of one side accepting the other�s faith tradition? The recent Christological agreements between the Catholic / Orthodox / Oriental Orthodox Communions tells me that post-Schism theologies (and ecclesiologies) are on the table for discussion � as they should be. The fact that the Pope of Rome omits the Filioque signifies something too.


Bill: Can I personally say a council can be truly ecumenical when Rome or Orthodoxy is absent, I don't know. But our Lord says that the true Church is always one. Does that mean visible unity or is there some other invisisble bond? (What of "Protestants?")

Elias: The Council of Nicaea does give us the minimal requirement of participation of the patriarchates, but �old canons� are to be ignored according to modern, get-with-it ecclesial theologies.


Bill: As long as both sides are saying, "Let's work things out together," then we're on the right track. We have to work through our human fallibilities to build a stronger house rather than white-washing the cracks in the old.

Elias: I�m with you all the way. God bless our Sister Churches.

Elias

Dear Elias,

I hope you had a blessed Nativity and that you enjoy the feast week before the Theophany fast.

With regards to adopting the eastern diffused vs the western centralized government, it's just a matter of preference. The "God-given" order without change is the bishop-priest-deacon model. Archbishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs are installed and not re-ordained. My own ideological bent believes in smaller governmental structures are better as they can respond more quickly to local needs and help protect local traditions.

There is always a tendancy towards a tyranny of the majority over the minority which is one force towards the "latinizing" of eastern Catholics. Smaller groups having their own autonomous structures tends to be superior in this regard, however if taken too far it can leads to a "herding cats" problem.

Obviously having a more centralized structure is an easier way to "get things done."

Bill