www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West A Question for Father Kyrill

Dear Forum,

This is some what of a sad subject, especially for those that are in "World Orthodoxy".

The fact is, the Roman Church and the "world Orthodox Church" are sister churches. Since both of them recognize each other as grace-bearing with valid sacraments and Apostolic Succession. It is a fact, that neither the Roman church or the "world Orthodox church" can say that they alone have Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments.

To the documents adopted as a result of the "theological" dialogue between the pseudo-Orthodox(world Orthodox) and the Papists, in particular the so-called Balamand Unia (1993), which refers to the Papist assembly as a "Sister Church", and which declares that it possesses grace and uninterrupted Apostolic Succession, that its sacraments are true, and which forbids proselytizing (i.e., the conversion from the Papal error to the saving faith of the Orthodox Church): Anathema!

For those under those under the Patriarchate of Antioch (world Orthodox):

To the agreement reached in Antioch in 1991, as a result of which the Orthodox Church of Antioch entered into full ecclesiastical union with the Syrian Monophysites, the Jacobites: Anathema! Anathema to all those who do not consider Monophysites to be heretics and who do not avoid prayerful and eucharistic communion with them. For they have all been anathematized by the 630 Holy Fathers present at the Fourth Ecumenical Council held in Chalcedon, and remain under ban now and in the age to come.

(Betania Monastery July 22/ August 4, 1997)

In Christ,

Timothy the Reader

Dear Timothy the Tonsured.

I don't know what calendar you're observing, but it's Great Lent. We are all supposed to be asking forgiveness as we begin this Holy Season.

Hurling anathemas at folks, including Balamand, on your own initiative without benefit of Council or Synod seems both unkind as well as arrogant.

I beg you to refrain from this invective in the spirit of the Humble Christ.

Let us all pray for each other and ask forgiveness for all the stupid things we've done and said to each other.

[This message has been edited by Dr John (edited 03-13-2000).]

"You make me wonder if you are in Christ or someone else like the devil."

[This message has been edited by Robert Sweiss (edited 03-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Robert Sweiss (edited 03-15-2000).]

That is what I expected from you.

It is also the way the saints have been treated through out the centuries.

It is just hard for you to understand that your bishops dont agree with you Robert. That is the other sad thing. Since you are in communion with your bishops, you could at least hold the same confession of faith as they do. LOL

Peace,

Timothy the Reader

P.S. Your bishops DO believe that the Roman church has *valid* sacraments with a *valid* priesthood.

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

Dear Rober Sweiss,

you wrote:
>>I hope you did not write to cast judgement on my salvation or even to damn me with...<<

I don't want to offend you by explaining so obvious things (like this one: " Man is not deprived of his free will and till the last moment of his life he can choose between eternal life and eternal death. However salvation or damnation of any person is a sovereign decision of God. He has revealed to us some of the reasons for damnation sentence, just to warn us and to make us avoid certain beliefs and deeds.")

>>... a biblical quote which sounds quite Calvinistic.<<

Biblical quote is just a biblical quote.
I tried hard but I haven't found any flaw of Calvinism in my previous post.
I take no responsibility for your idea of Calvinism and I hope you'll never allow this heresy to deceit you.

>>The Catholic Faith is that of Orthodoxy not Catholicism.<<

With all due respect, this original mindset you call "Orthodoxy" is neither orthodox nor catholic.
Continuos and conscious refusal to remain in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Universal Pastor of the Church, constitutes a very grave sin of schism. It's like making a bleeding wound in the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the Holy Church. It's like tearing it apart.
Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia, "the Church is there where Peter is", as the ancient rule says.
The additional problem with "the Eastern Orthodox Churches" is that there are also some dogmatic differences (e.g. those concerning papal infallibility under strictly defined circumstances).

I was wondering about one thing.
As an Orthodox apologist you must have read some Catholic apologists, just to prepare some counter-arguments. Have you? Have you read any good Catholic handbook of dogmatic theology, or some of the best Catholic apologias?
I ask because every time I talk with some Orthodox I have this strange feeling that they don't know what are they talking about. I mean - they present to me some horrible, fantastic theories which sound like a "drunk madman's dream" and call it Catholicism.

There is not enough time and place to enumerate all good Catholic books I would like to recommend you. I hope my Byzantine brothers will provide you with it when you ask them.

Nevertheless I think it would be good to propose you something.
Please think over the following issues:

#1) The Apostles had their different names, of Semitic or Greek origin. Our Lord changed Simon's name to "Kephas". This Aramaic word is the only name of any Apostle that was being translated to Greek ("Petros") and to Latin ("Petrus") by the first Christians. Why? Why they wanted to add such an emphasis to the meaning of this word? Isn't it because of the unique duty that had been entrusted to St. Peter?
#2) Some say that the Holy Scripture is always referring to God alone when using the word "rock". Not so - see Isaiah 51,1 for example.

#3) In the Holy Gospels and in the Acts of Apostles we find this constantly repeated phrase "Peter and the Apostles". Very meaningful, isn't it? In this book the primacy and very broadly defined power of St. Peter are simply obvious to every unprejudiced reader.
#4) St. Peter was the FIRST to confess the Divinity of Lord Jesus and the FIRST one to enter the empty grave and to witness the Mystery of Resurrection. Quite meaningful, ah?
#5) How about the "Power of Keys"? (St. Matthew 16, 19)
#6) St. Ignatius of Antioch was teaching about papal duty of "presiding in love". But certainly he didn't want to contradict or to water down the idea expressed in this holy text: St. Luke 22, 31.
#7) In "Praescriptio adversus haereticorum", chapter 36, Tertulian is writing about the common recognition of the authority of Rome (that was before he left the Church).
#8) 2nd half of the II century, "Against the Heresies" by St. Ireneus (3,3,2): "(...) With this [i.e. Roman] Church, because of her supreme authority, the whole Church, i.e. all the faithful from everywhere, has to agree, since the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved in her through those who come from everywhere." It is my own lame translation from the Polish version and of course I'm sending you to the original or to some non-manipulated English translation.
#9) 343 AD, acts of the synod in Sardica (today's Sofia, capital of Bulgaria), Bishop of Rome recognized as the ultimate canonical instance in judicial process.
#10) 431 AD, all fathers of the Ephesian Council reacted with unanimous applause to the following statement of the papal legate: "(...) He [i.e. St. Peter] until now and forever lives in the persons of his successors and exercises his jurisdictional power". As to the text of translation - see my comment above (#8).
#11) 517 AD, after the end of so called "Akatius' schism" bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople sign the confession of faith formulated by pope Hormisdas. The confession contains the following phrase: "(...) because catholic faith has been always preserved unflawed on the Apostolic See (...). As to the text of translation - see #8.
#12) Numerous Eastern bishops, including Patriarchs of the Constantinople, were referring to the popes as to arbiters. E.g. St. John Chrisostom addressed pope Innocentius I in 403 AD, asking him for justice.
#13) It is known to everyone familiar with the Church's history how great help was provided by Rome to the Byzantine orthodox hierarchs during iconoclastic revolts in VIII and IX centuries.
#14) Roman primacy was reflected even in the state legislation of Constantinople. Emperor Justinian, in his IX novel from May 535 AD had stated the following: "The old city of Rome has this honor to be mother of laws and nobody should doubt that the seat of the supreme episcopal power is located there. Therefore we also consider it to be necessary: to venerate this cradle of law, this source of spiritual authority, with a special law of our holy will." As to the text of translation - see #8.
#15) As to calumnies cast on the pope Victor (an ALLEGED Montanist, III century), see: Eusebius of Caesarea, 'Ecclesial History', 5,28,6.
#16) As to calumnies cast on the pope Liberius (an ALLEGED Arian, III century) see: St. Athanasius, 'Apologia for My Escape', chapter 4 (Liberius, Bishop of Rome, is said to be one of the "good bishops, propagators of the truth"). More evidence for that is given by:
-- Teodoret ('Ecclesial History', liber 2, caput 16: stenographic relation from interrogation of this pope, conducted by emperor Constantius; it resulted with sending the pope to exile);
-- pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus, describing the same events.
In his 'Apologia against Arians' St. Athanasius is complaining only about too passive resistance to Arian heresy by pope Liberius. However he doesn't accuse the pope of heterodoxy.
Let us add here that the so called Third Formula o Sirmium, signed by the pope, can not be considered as Arian, contrary to what some fierce yet uneducated "pope-eaters" may think. Of course those three 'Sirmian Formulas' are somewhat rotten fruits of political-religious crisis. They are not good nourishment for our faith and they do not deserve being taught today. They are just another example of word joggling, so frequently inspired in the Church by the evil one.
Anyway, the Nicene Creed was then and after accepted by all popes (including Liberius), so the whole debate seems to be pointless for theologians. [Historians and politicians may challenge that opinion, which is no wonder |:-(( ].
18) As to calumnies cast on the pope Honorius (an ALLEGED Monotheletian, VII century).
In his (in)famous response to patriarch Sergius (condemned by the 3rd Council of Constantinople) he actually proves that he doesn't understand the idea of Monotheletism and that he still believes properly (see the text: Denzinger 487). He considered the idea as some kind of academic abstract that could be useful for political or diplomatic purposes (the unity of the Empire was seriously endangered).
We are lacking of the original sources and documents so to a great extent we have to refer to testimonies of reliable witnesses. Among defenders of orthodoxy of the pope Honorius were pope John IV (see: Denzinger 496 - 498) and famous Byzantine theologian St. Martin the Confessor (+ 662 AD). St Martin the Confessor writes that Honorius, "although simple as a dove, was lacking of a serpent's discernment". Lateran Synod (649 AD) composed the list of names of the creators of the Monotheletian heresy and condemned it solemnly. There was no pope Honorius' name on the list. Moreover, pope St. Martin I, who called the synod, was martyred because of his anti-Monotheletism in 655 AD.
So: did pope Honorius sinned with inaccurate pastoral care? Yes. Was he teaching and promoting Monotheletism? NO.
(In the above comments I have used extensively the writings of excellent RC theologian, Fr. Jacek Salij OP. Without his consent, I must add. ;-)

#19) The wonderful work titled "Proceeding of The Holy Spirit From The Son In The Genuine Greek Theology" by Fr. Benedict Huculak OFM, S.T.D. (Pontifical Academy 'Antonianum', the Eastern Institute) - still awaits for its translation to English. When it appears on the web I'll let you know as soon as possible.
#20) "The last Divine Liturgy said in the great basilica Hagia Sophia was said in union with the Pope of Rome. The last Emperor Constantine XI Paleologus, when he died on the battlements on May 29, 1453, died a Catholic" (quotation from the EWTN website, I can't remember the author). As you see it is difficult to say when this "sinister policy of Uniatism" had actually started. A closer historical study may prove that something like that has never existed. There was only a series of "many disruptions of communion, disruptions that were by no means uncommon between Rome and Constantinople throughout their years of rivalry, but which were never regarded as final in any way". (source: as above) Those bishops (both from East and West) who really acted in truth AND in charity, those who wanted to restore the full unity - were usually in minority, that's all. What we need now is an absolute majority of the Eastern Ortodox bishops determined to fulfill the holy will of Jesus Christ: "May they all be one!".
#21) 'Rome Sweet Home' by Scott and Kimberly Hahn contains very interesting remarks concerning papal primacy. Those concerning Orthodox Churches are also worth reading.

>>I have read one of your posts and I think you have abandoned Catholicism.<<

Presuming your good will I won't treat that as a purposed insult.
Yes, I posted here some bitter remarks about poor enforcement of liturgical and dogmatic discipline in today's Latin Church. I reflected a little about certain causes of tensions between Catholic East and Catholic West. There was a lot of rhetoric and exaggeration, but I simply couldn't write about it without any emotion.
I'm a "cradle" Catholic. I have never abandoned true Catholicism, as I never joined this modernistic pseudo-Catholicism promoted by ordinary heretics starring in liberal media. Everyone who is mixing up these two is a victim of misinformation made by the certain anti-Christian circles.

>>However, I am not sure if you are Orthodox or a Uniate because you cannot be both. My friends here will challenge that but history cannot be changed.<<

Maybe Lord Jesus wants me to join some Eastern Catholic Church...
I still haven't discerned that...
Yes, it is difficult to be .O.rthodox and "Uniate" at the same time, just like .O.rthodox are hardly ever orthodox (most of them deny one or more Catholic dogmas.)

>>I await your reply.<<

Well, there you have it.
As for our further discussion: firstly, it's the Great Lent time. Secondly, I don't have any slave to work my job for me. ;-) Thridly... just one more biblical quote: Letter to Titus 3, 9-11 :-(.
So now - although I hate to write it - I do not await your reply. Sorry. (Of course I'm speaking for myself only).
Anyway, I assure you of my prayerful memory.

In Christ,

Godfrey

PS: I think you exaggerate about the leavened bread. Two great, over-1500-years-old liturgical traditions - Roman and Armenian - still use the unleavened bread. If it was so VERY important I think St. Peter and St. Paul (Apostles of Rome), St. Bartholomew and St. Juda Thaddeus (Apostles of Armenia) would certainly stress it in their teachings, thus not allowing the other practice to develop.
G.

Dear Robert and Godfrey,

I would like to see your answers to Godfreys claims. That would be nice to see which way you go with this Robert.

As for Godfrey, you couldnt be more wrong about what you have written. Even Roman Catholic theologians and scholars would disagree with you, since they dont even believe the things they made up. After all, it is those scholars and theologians (latin-minded) who purposely mistranslated the writings of the fathers to change the meaning of the Truth, if possible.

I will try and respond to your false claims, if time permits. Just to let you know, that I would only respond out of love for my neighbor. Some things may sound harsh, but I assure you, it is with a loving heart that I will respond.

Have a blessed Great Lent.

Timothy the Reader

Dear Godfrey,
I made a conscious decision to be in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Orthodox Church and not with a Papal Monarchy. The rule of this Papal Monarchy must surrender and I hate to disappoint you but it is not Orthodox. The problem with Roman Catholics is that they believe to have a monopoly over St. Peter. They make exagerated claims regarding our Holy Apostle to support their unholy agenda. Repentance is what is needed for this explicit and implicit blasphemey. Catholicism is known for exagerations that has somehow misplaced and buried her Orthodoxy centuries ago. The longer you remain attached to Catholicism the more you will distance yourself from it especially from its poor liturgical services. What is this "true Catholicism" you speak of? Is it anything that resembles the fundamentalism of "Orthodox" Tim? As everyone knows Tim speaks of a "true Orthodoxy" and it sounds that you are a Fundamentalist Catholic. Am I correct? The manipulation and distortion of Patristic Tradition from their historical and theological contexts is a shame upon sectarians and fundamentalists. I do appreciate the verse in Titus 3:10 in light of Rome that states that I should reject Rome due too so many Orthodox admonitions presented throughout history. Is not Rome who was causing the divisions by picking and choosing from the whole truth? Rome has followed her own decisions and choices independent of Holy Tradition. Incomplete and erroreous beliefs resulted from the immoral behaviors of Rome. I do not have to tell you that Rome has forfeited her Orthodox position by the time of the Crusade to demonstrate her evil independent of Holy Tradition. Interestingly enough, the Pope recently begged for forgiveness for Romes historical atrocities towards others. Unfortunately, the Pope did not specify in clear and precise terms of his apologies. There will be repeated demands for apologies for all the hurt, persecutions, and afflictions perpetuated against Orthodoxy, Islam, and Judaism. The Pope might have been better off by not having to have made such a confession but I think it is a right step in the right direction. I have yet to hear an apology to Orthodoxy and a public confession for the abandonment of Holy Tradition. If Rome remained Orthodox I am confident that the Pope would not have recently been sorry for his See's atrocities. Rome would not have committed the injustices well-recorded in history especially in Orthodox theology. Right behavior stems from right beliefs---WELCOME TO ORTHODOXY.

P.S. In regards to the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, Rome and Armenia have erred. May God help them. Please read my previous posts on the issue of the Eucharist. Rome understood the use of leavened bread and applied it in her Divine Liturgy but deviated from the Orthodox belief & practice.

Robert,

You speak as if Eastern Orthodox Christians are free of sin in their relations with others. What about Orthodox hierarchical cooperation with the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. What about their cooperation with the suppression of the Eastern Catholic Churches there? Even today, have all churches been returned to Eastern Catholic congregations?

You are correct in saying that right belief is supposed to be expressed in right living. But this is not alway realized, either by Catholic or Orthodox Christians. Although some may never sin against faith, they may sin against charity, -- even among the Orthodox.

A Sinner Praying for the Unity of Christians according to the mind and heart of Christ.

Dear Padova,
I have never implied that Eastern Orthodox Christians sin-free. I believe you would agree with me that we are full of sin whether Orthodox or Catholic. The problem you mentioned is specifically directed towards the Russian Orthodox Church which was occupied by the evil forces of communism. The Russian Orthodox Church at that time did not represent the best of Orthodoxy and in the same breath didn't represent the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Orthodox Church alone. Why should every Orthodox Church in the entire world be responsible for the evils of communism and its evil possession of the Russian Church? There was and is not a single Orthodox Church that condoned the evils of communism and what it made of the Russian Church. There was no Orthodox plot to kill and destroy. Unfortunately, there are people of an Orthodox background that committed crimes against humanity but this in no way should implicate the Orthodox Church of these criminals. Orthodoxy does not teach sin but love for ones neighbors. I believe it is sad historical affair that no one takes pride in whether Orthodox or Catholic.

Happy Orthodox Sunday,
Robert Sweiss

Dear members of the Forum --

My apologies for my seeming indifference to all that was posted here. I swore off the Internet for Lent and used the time most profitably. At age 51, this was the first Lent which I have observed and it was most delightful.

I continue to be not just an uneasy Anglican anymore, but one who has become convinced of several things by dint of reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers. In short, sometime in the future in God's timing, I am convinced that I will be moving on from the Church of Henry's Hormones.

1. Christ established an office and a headship over the Church on earth. The Papacy is not a man, it is an office. True, it has been held by some real scoundrels, but that no more invalidates that office than our current president has invalidated the office of the presidency.

2. The Early Fathers such as Ignatius, Augustine, Clement of Rome, and even some later Orthodox theologians, whom Robert will probably accuse of being heretic, have acknowledged the primus inter pares.

3. It seems that there is a begrudging and unforgiving spirit regarding the political missteps of several popes and their actions towards the Eastern Church. Where is the forgiveness of Christ and the desire for unity? Like to keep bringing up grudges? Remember the warning of our Lord regarding unforgiveness.

4. The book of Hebrews states that the patterns of worship which were given to Moses were shadows of the true in Heaven. Since the Catholic (universal) faith is the continuation of the Hebraic forms of worship with the obvious removal of all that Christ fulfilled, the Church should be a continuation of the reality which John the Beloved saw on Patmos. And the reality is that there is only ONE head of the Church in Heaven, therefore there can only be one on earth. A body with more than one head is a freak of nature and belongs in a side show. This is why Protestantism is such a freak show with 28,000 heads!!

5. As a dispassionate ex-Protestant working his way slowly home to full communion with the Catholic faith, I fail to see differences substantial enough to warrant such venom between the East and West. You both have Real Presence, proper liturgy, both reject Calvinist heresies, veneration of the Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, etc. etc. etc. In every way I see so much to be unified around and yet when I come back here I find you are in a pissing match over the color of the communion wine. Sheeeesh!!

Finally, to Brother Geoffrey, my great and deep thanks for the many prayers offered on my behalf as I return from the Protestant Rebellion to the faith once delivered to the Fathers.

My mind is pretty well made up. It is not whether or not I am going to be Catholic, but simply which brand I will take on. I do love Eastern thought and liturgy. If you can prove to me that the Early Fathers had no regard for the office given to Peter, then you might change my mind, but it is going to take a bunch of work, because as I said, the pattern of single headship on earth follows the Scriptural reality of single headship in Heaven.

By the way, I went to my first Good Friday Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in Harrisburg(yeah, I know, new calander -- another pissing match over ant dung in my opinion) and wept through the entire service. Never have I been so touched by the message of our Lord's love for sinners. You know, guys, one of the things I have been convicted of as an ex-calvinist is the way that as a typical Calvinist I was more in love with the "orthodoxy" of my Protestant doctrines than in love with the Lord Himself. Sometimes I see that in the Orthodox Church and it quite frankly scares me.

I would rather have a heart weeping in joy over the Blessed Life giving Cross than a head full of right thoughts.

Yours in the Paschal Lamb

Defensor Fides (aka TruthSeeker)

The most critical thing is the faith that comes from God.

Since Christ told us that the first and greatest Commandment is to love God with our whole hearts, souls, minds and strength and to love our neighbors as best we can, this is obviously the touchstone for our salvation.

As we find our way into a community, we must ever be sure that the community that we join is going to lead us to God. For this reason, we cannot judge anyone else, especially those who are belong to other communities. We must pray for all people, and hope that their prayers and strivings will bring them closer to the Lord.

As we fallible human beings re-experience the events of the passion and death of Christ and His Resurrection, let us remember that each other is in need of Christ's grace, and as Christians we have an obligation to pray for each other.

Blessings to All for the Resurrection of Christ!

Dear Dr. John

That LOVE of God. Oh my. That really is the answer, isn't it?

The Pharisees had their doctrines down pat. Right down to tithing mint and cummin, didn't they? But I notice that they didn't get a standing O from Jesus, but rather a severe rebuke for missing the love of God in their doings.

As a Calvinist, I thought doctrine was the touchstone of whether or not one was really a Christian. This is why Calvinists judge all who are not Calvinists as probably lost and on their way to hell.

As a Catholic (in the most ancient and universal sense) I have come to realize that it is living out the love of the Father. My wife and children have already commented to me that they have noticed a difference.

I do not think Christ will judge me based upon my ability to come to perfect understanding of every nuance of doctrine, especially between such close systems as Orthodoxy and Catholicism. He will be judging me on whether on not I followed Him as a trusting sheep who lovingly believed that He was leading me in the right path regardless of where I wound up.

Salvation is by grace, not by having every single doctrine absolutely perfect. The proof of that salvation working in the heart is that the sinner follows the light he has with the love he has been given.

Call me what you will. I love the Lord and am doing the best to follow the light I have, by His grace and leading, attained to thus far.

Your prayers for further light are deeply appreciated.

Defensor Fides (aka TruthSeeker)

Greetings Brother Ed(Truthseeker),
Most Orthodox theologians do confess to the Primacy that Rome once had before she left the Orthodox fold. Primacy and Papacy are not the same. I think you owe it to yourself to find the truth. Why would the Pope ask the Orthodox to help him define the role of the Papacy? Think about it. I highly recommend that you do your homework in regards to how you see the Orthodox Church versus how the Orthodox Church views herself. The Orthodox Church is not all about abstract dogmas or trying to categorize and rationalize her mysteries to the point that one falls into heresy. I do not dare blaspheme the early Church Father's of the Roman See. Nor were they always correct on certain issues such as the Augustinian view of sin. Please think twice before crossing a two lane. Either you will be standing on a safe and true lane or its opposite. Just because you have been reading a little bit more about Catholicism does not give you the right to belittle or ignore Orthodoxy. The ancient five Sees are still in existence and only four of them are in full communion with Rome being the outcaste. The EArly Church Fathers had great regard to the See of Rome. It was only during time that Rome began to become alienated from the other Sees. As Orthodox we pray and hope that the See of Rome is restored to her true and sincere understanding of Primacy. The current model of the Papacy is not that of Primacy as once understood and accepted universally. Do yourself a favor, read the Early Church Fathers as well as Scriptures with the right guidance(the mind of the Church) or you will be repeating the same thought and self-interpretation process of Protestants.

In Christ,
RObert Sweiss

Dear Brother Robert --

Thank you for what was a very well written and temperate post, considering that I took a fairly firm stand.

I cannot get by the fact that Christ's promise and keys were given to one man, not several. Even though the office may have been corrupted, does that nullify the office? Furthermore, since the forms on earth are patterns of the true in Heaven, according to Hebrews 9, there can only be one head on earth as there is one glorious and eternal Head in Heaven.

It seems to me that the Orthodox reaction is kind of the same as the Protestant reaction. Instead of calling a Council and working in concern for the unity of our Lord's body, it is stand outside and throw rocks.

You see, my brother, I worked myself into corner a couple of months ago when I kept telling Protestants I was corresponding with that Luther and Calvin should not have left the Church, but should have stayed in a prayed and worked to right the wrong things. Most of all, they should have been patient and been willing to let God make the changes on His own schedule. And one day I realized that I couldn't stay out of the Church unless I was willing to be called a serious hypocrite. Hey, what's sauce for the Lutheran gander is sauce for the TruthSeeker goose.

At the same time, I am more than willing to continue my studies in the Orthodox direction. Do you have a particular book which you feel I should read to help me understand the Orthodox mindset regarding the Papacy? Something which will give me the Early Father'd definition? I will most gladly purchase and read what you recommend.

It still seems to me as an outsider that the differences are very small compared to the heresies of Protestantism. White wine or red wine for Eucharist. Don't we have anything more substantive than that to argue over? I say that tongue in cheek, of course. It is a shame that these two bodies, so historically close in so many ways continue to regard each other with agrieved suspicion.

Defensor Fides

Robert wrote:

"I think you owe it to yourself to find the truth. Why would the Pope ask the Orthodox to help him define the role of the Papacy? Think about it."

One point of clarification: The pope did not ask the Orthodox to help him to "define" the role of the papacy. Rather, he wanted the Orhtodox and Catholic Pastors and thologians to -

"seek together...the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned."

It is a subtle distinction, but an important one. The holy father is inviting dialogue on the form of the primacy intrinsic to the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, not on the role of the papacy, as already defined by Vatican I.

He continues:

"This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea "that they may all be one... so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (Jn 17:21)

(Ut Unum Sint - 95, 96)

I pray for the same thing on this forum as well.

Christ is Risen!
Christos Voskerese!
Christos Anesti!

Pax,
Gordo, sfo