www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Catholic Church has apologized, when will the Orthodox Churches?

Dear Elias,
The Orthodox Church does not comprehend nor accept sacraments outside of herself. She does know that the Roman Catholic Church continues to view her sacraments as valid. I believe there is a difference of perception as well as orientation in the meaning and understanding of the sacraments between the two churches. As an Orthodox who is not in communion with Rome, I can tell you two views of how your sacraments are viewed: not valid or don't know if there is grace in them. You must know by now that when a Roman Catholic or a heterodox converts to Orthodoxy he or she is chrismated rather than baptised. Do you understand what this might possible say about the views of our sacraments or yours sacraments? This is not church politics. This is reality. Catholicism may hold to parts and pieces of Orthodoxy but the issue of grace in her sacraments is a question left unanswerable. One may be of the opinion that there is no grace in them or one may honestly say that they do not know. Therefore, Orthodoxy does not recognize the validity of the Western Sacraments in terms of the function of grace. We may say that the two churches share in the seven sacraments which is more of a structured way of agreeing on a common past adherence.
As you probably know in one of my posts I did argue about the validity of the use of leavened bread in contrast to unleavended. The Eastern Churches stance makes more sense than that of the Roman Catholic Church. The reason you stated that "the Gospel writers cannot even agree on" the use of leavened or unleavened bread is because you are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church that uses unleavened. The Roman Catholic Church did utilize the leavened bread before the eighth century. Why would Rome want to change to unleavened? This is an interesting question! The Orthodox Church is quite definite on her position. As for some Byzantine Catholics they tend to waffel on this issue and claim ignorance as not to offend Roman Catholics. I really don't see the offense in telling the truth as it is. This is just one issue out of hundred other ones. In regards to your "if" statment about the Holy Spirit's failure, this sounds blasphemous. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter and the Spirit of Truth is not the author of confussion and divisions. I believe the Orthodox Church is the indivisible and infallible Church of Christ. I don't know how you view your own church but I do know she has been responsible for leaving Orthodoxy on her own free will. I do know from reading Western-oriented history books that the West has always made and maintained the claim that the Orthodox Church left the Catholic Church. I just recently heard this said to my face and I do know this is a common amongst the ignorant. Well Elias, I don't know or I should honestly say I don't think we are going to have that Eighth Ecumencial Council any time soon. I think we would be better holding off with the bread and the alcohol. They say that alcohol is better off aged but I think we should freeze the bread. What do you think?

Dear Dozier,
Those who claim the "great schism" occurred in 1054 AD know nothing of Church hisory. The problems began way before 1054 AD that the reached a high point in 1054 AD and even higher in 1204 AD. One can trace the problems if they quit using a Western mindset
and take seriously the historical facts and agreements between the churches before 1054AD. I will add three cents to your two cents to think about.

Rob S,

�� Orthodoxy does not recognize the validity of the Western Sacraments in terms of the function of grace.�

Elias: But they recognize the current Pope of Rome and other RC bishops as bishops and not men dressed up like bishops. Even the late Patriarch Athenagoras was going to concelebrate with Pope Paul VI. What does that say about the mutual validity of each other�s sacraments? Was the Patriarch a heretic for thinking such a thing?


�As you probably know in one of my posts I did argue about the validity of the use of leavened bread in contrast to unleavended. The Eastern Churches stance makes more sense than that of the Roman Catholic Church. The reason you stated that "the Gospel writers cannot even agree on" the use of leavened or unleavened bread is because you are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church that uses unleavened.�

Elias: Determining which type of meal our Lord celebrated as the Last Supper is difficult. So many Easterners theologize the reason for unleavened bread because it is Living Bread. This is fine but doesn�t answer the question what meal took place the night our Lord was betrayed. This is not an argument for the use of leavened bread, but a comment on our inability to nail down something so eventful as the Last Supper. We don�t know and the RC Church considers the Last Supper as a Passover Meal. They have to reconcile their Synoptic and Pauline interpretations of that event with the Gospel of John. Easterners have to reconcile their leavened bread theologies with the Synoptics. What makes it more confusing is that the Pharisees and the Sadducees determined the Passover on separate days. My being in communion with Rome has nothing to do with my earlier statement. The West ignores John as much as the East ignores the Synoptics.


�As for some Byzantine Catholics they tend to waffel on this issue and claim ignorance as not to offend Roman Catholics. I really don't see the offense in telling the truth as it is. This is just one issue out of hundred other ones.�

Elias: Waffle? Just pointing out something fundamentalist-like Orthodox wish not to address. Answer me this: What type of meal DID Jesus have at the Last Supper. What is your authoritative source(s)? How do you reconcile the often conflicting statements among the Gospel writers? Using all of the New Testament scriptures (canonical, of course), on what day did Jesus die?


�In regards to your "if" statement about the Holy Spirit's failure, this sounds blasphemous. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter and the Spirit of Truth is not the author of confusion and divisions.�

Elias: If the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has many overlapping jurisdictions (remember: I lost count after one), then who is the author of that disunity?


�I believe the Orthodox Church is the indivisible and infallible Church of Christ. I don't know how you view your own church but I do know she has been responsible for leaving Orthodoxy on her own free will.�

Elias: Sometimes we forget one tiny fact: it was ORTHODOX who left the Orthodox Church and not Byzantine Catholic �Uniates.�


�They say that alcohol is better off aged but I think we should freeze the bread. What do you think?�

Elias: The Ukrainian Orthodox and Russian Orthodox should unite within their own churches before suggesting how the entire church should be united.

Elias

Robert,

You wrote...

"One can trace the problems if they quit using a Western mindset and take seriously the historical facts and agreements between the churches before 1054AD."

What were some of those issues as you see them - or as the Orthodox see them? If it's possible to state these issues "with malice towards none" - say, just as a police officer would do in a police report - "Just the facts, Maam!", I'd be interested in getting even more cents from you than just three! (Mind you, there was no pun intended in that!)

Peace, Orthobro!

Gordo, sfo

Dear Elias,
The Orthodox Church recognizes the Pope of Rome no different than recognizing the State of Israel. However, the question remains open as to their validity. The late Patriarch Athenagoras would have been excomunicated if would of tried to concelebrate with the late Pope. The reality is that there was no concelebration and the mere speculations do not change the reality. You should know our history of excommunications of Popes and Patriarchs that fell out of line.
Again in regards to the use of leavened or unleavened bread I put my trust in the Orthodox Church to lead and guide me in that truth. The Orthodox Church is the authoritative source on this issue. The reason you propose a conflict to this issue is because your confused between East and West.
Your statement,"Sometimes we forget one tiny fact: it was ORTHODOX who left the Orthodox Church and not the Byzantine Catholic Uniates," does not make any sense and contradicts historical facts. I think you meant to say that it was the Uniates who left the Orthodox Church. Thank me later for this correction. Please note why you people are still refered to as Uniates. Also please pray for us for the establishment of an American Patriarchy and the elimination of jurisdictionism.

Dear Dozier,
MOre than 30 years ago there was hardly any Orthodox perspectives in the literature books of the West. Western writers mainly wrote what they thought of Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church rather than allowing them to speak for themselves. I have a Catholic history book dated in 1954 that is quite biased and misinformed. Could you imagine from 1954 until today how much misinformation and prejudicey have filled ROman Catholic mindsets on what they think they believe about the "Greek" Church? This is just a sample amongst the millions of past-dated books that were in circulation. There was a book when I was in college that caught my attention and changed the way I viewed the world. THe book,"Orientalism," written by Professor Edward Said exposes the harm on how the West viewed the East and elsewhere. What this boils down is that the West especially the Roman Church has much to confess on how it treated non-ROman Catholics in her past whether in words or deeds. Yes I do have a problem with the way Roman Catholic Church thinks which is the problem found in her mindset and orientation. I will help as much as I can to revive her again to her original senses.

Rob S,

The term 'uniate' is meant to be derogatory by the Orthodox - who are always just as willing to demonstrate their Christian charity. You will know they are Orthodox if they call you nasty names. And if they don't call you names, they will excommunicate you. Damn that Athenagras, he only wanted to follow Christ's wishes for unity.

Why are you alone in this? Where are your Orthodox brothers and sisters defending you?

As usual, you still didn't answer my question regarding the Last Supper. What meal did Jesus have? The meal would determine the type of bread used. The Synoptics (Mt, Mk, and Lk, incl. Pauline Epistles) do not agree with John. Who is correct, Rob? Are the scriptures in error? Contradictory? A joke?

Do any Eastern Churches still celebrate with Water and Bread, and not wine? Just wondering.


Elias

I must defend Robert on some things here. Previously others have taken offense at the term "Uniate." Some are more sensitive to some terms for Byzantine Catholics than others. Uniate has tended to be more offensive than others to Byzantine Catholics.

As far as Athanogoras, the theoretical concelebration was just speculation. To do such a thing unilaterally without at least consulting the other Orthodox sees would be foolish. I have no doubt he would have been removed from most diptyches, although excommunication would be another speculation. Some would have excommunicated him immediately (and canonically they probably could), but a council probably would have been called to address the issue. Unity with Rome at the cost of breaking Orthodox unity? To choose Rome over other Orthodox patriarchates would be a act of poor conciliar judgement.

While I don't believe every little thing needs to be addressed before unity, things such as the Creed and the basic (not every function) role of the Roman Patriarch with Orthodox sees needs to be addressed. There is peace and there is a good peace. We need to make a good peace. I don't think all that Rome has done since 1054 is anathema to Orthodoxy, so I think we can come together instead of one standing still bidding the other to come towards it.

One can make symbolic arguments for both leavened and unleavened bread. Accuracy with Scripture vs post-Resurrection theology. One can prefer one without insisting the other is "wrong." It's issue 100 of the 101 that divide us.

Dear Elias,
Permit me to give you some views as to why the leavened bread is prefered over the unleavened. First, the Orthodox Church has the mind of Christ as shown in 1 Cor. 2:16. I really think you are opposed to the enlightment of the Holy Spirit by claiming the unleavened bread is valid. The early Church did utilize leavened bread which is symbolic and possesses the richness of the new life in Christ. In unleavened bread there is no life nor growth nor is it fulfilling. If you intend to keep the Jewish MOsiac ways of unleavened bread then I suggest you should keep the Jewish Circumsion of male infants instead of the Circumsion of Christ which is Baptism. The unleavened bread used by the Israelites is interpreted as due to hasty preparations for flight. Now that Christ has come there is no sense and purpose to use unleavened bread. Didn't Christ say in Mat 13:33 that "the Kingdom of God is like leaven?" What if Christ had said that the Kingdom of God is likened to unleavened? Would that make any sense to you anymore than Christ would not have said such a thing?
Nicetas Stethatos put forth the following accusation in his debate with Cardinal Humbert: "Those who still partake of the azymes are under the shadow of the Law and eat of the table of the Jews, not of the reasonable and living table of God nor of the bread which is both supersubstantial and consubstantial to us men who have believed. For we have been taught to ask for substantial bread from on high. For what is supersubstantial if not that which is consubstantial to us? But the bread which is consubstantial to us is nothing other than the Body of Christ, who was born consubstantial to us according to his humanity. But if our lump's nature (which the Word assumed) is living (or possesses a soul), you by partaking of the azymes, do not eat bread which is supersubstantial and consubstantial with us. For indeed the azymes plainly are lifeless (or without soul), as the very nature of things even more plainly teaches." His argument was based on the Church Fathers' teachings on salvation as deification, "God became man so that man might become divine." Why is it that we call Christ or the Eucharist the Bread of Life? There is no life in unleavened bread nor has it ever been likened to the Kingdom of God. Don't blame me or the Orthodox Church for the deviations of Rome or the monophysites's use of azymes. The problem you may think is of minor details but there are hundreds of these minor details in other theologiccal issues. It all boils down to the mindsets that are alien to Orthodoxy (the mind of Christ). In other words, Rome and the like need to return to the rightfully practice and unity only found in Orthodoxy. That's all.

Robert,

You have certainly given me reason not to consider Orthodoxy at this time with this statement:
"First, the Orthodox Church has the mind of Christ as shown in 1 Cor. 2:16. I really think you are opposed to the enlightment of the Holy Spirit by claiming the unleavened bread is valid."

I have fought too many battles with United Methodist Bishops who claim to have the authority of the Holy Spirit to fall for this trap. Bishops in the United Methodist Church are certainly inauthentic. However, they have claimed Holy Spirit authority for denying the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and the authority of Holy Scripture. They have also used this argument to support same sex marriages and the ordination of non celibate homosexuals.

To claim the mind of Christ for the Orthodox over the Catholics on this matter, or visa versa, does not convince me.

Dan Lauffer

"If you intend to keep the Jewish MOsiac ways of unleavened bread then I suggest you should keep the Jewish Circumsion of male infants instead of the Circumsion of Christ which is Baptism."

Rob,

Jewish ways? Circumcision of Christ?

Isn't the Liturgy of the Word derived from the Synagogue service? Where did Psalmody in the Church come from? Church hymns were restricted by the Council of Laodecea. The sign of the Mosaic Covenant was not retained but the Jewish influence from early Jewish Christians was. Look at how we worship - it is temple-style, not supper-style. What about the evening light for vespers? It came from the Jewish evening prayer. What about the Twelve Apostles? They represent the New Israel. Jesus even quotes the scriptures many times, so do the evangelists.

So my question still stands: What bread was used by Jesus at the Last Supper?

It is not a question of what the Roman Catholics are using today but of what the Jewish apostles and Jesus used. The Synoptics say it was a Passover Meal. If this is the case, then why would good Jews use leavened bread? Yet John states the Last Supper was the night before (the night he was betrayed) and his body was taken down from the cross before the Passover. Who is correct, Rob?

The early Church retained the Old Testament even though anti-Semites like Marcion had nothing to do with the Jewishness of Christianity. Are you an anti-Semite?

Your argument about living bread is a theological interpretation for polemical use. I don't buy it. It reminds me of the symbolic interpretation of the Liturgy as being a Life of Christ. Even the late Schmemann had a few words about this tendency. Let the liturgy stand for what it is and not what we theologize about it. The same for the Synoptics. Were they bad Roman Catholics holding erroneous unorthodox errors for their insistance on calling the Last Supper a Passover Meal? Don't forget that Christ is our New Pasch/Passover. We sing the Paschal Kanon and hymns at Paschal Matins to remind us of Christ being the New Passover. The themes of heaven like leaven and Christ being a Passover reflect a theological interpretation of the Christ event in the Gospels. We can get lost when we reduce these narratives to historicism or gnostic theology. Polemics loves both. Yet our Gospels are seemingly contradictory here.


Elias

For those of us of mixed Greek/Jewish
ancestry, the Pascha/Passover "convergence"
can be a very problematic psychological
event. This year, the perennial issue of
"why?" the slaughter of the Jews during the
Great War of 1939-45 is complicated by the
Supreme Pontiff's belated apology to "God
and mankind" for errors in judgement and
morality that made victims of
millions...millions!!!...of, for the most
part, simple people who had the same simple
dreams and fantasies that all humans have;
who just wanted to live...that is all..just
wanted to love and live amd had no real
interest at all in the abstract ideas of
religion, politics, and economics that
deepened the psychosis of their murderers
and drove these demented butchers into a
frenzy of slaughter unprecedented in human
history. Others were driven to silence by
the poisonous intoxicants of greed,
prejudice, and fear. The rest is history!
Now the pontiff, more than 50 yrs.
after the fact, comes before us in "sackloth
and ashes" and we are supposed to be
grateful?...in awe of his humanity, his
humility? Maybe Ukrainian Catholics and
other Slavic Catholics might feel absolved
of their crimes now..after all the pontiff
has declared to the world..the whole world
and to God that they are not just an "Easter
people" but a MIA CULPA people truly sorry
for their
manifold sins.But I don't think so. For
most of the history of Eastern European
Christianity, the killing of Jews wasn't
even considered a crime; it was a patriotic
duty.Therefore, why repent? What is there to
repent of? Here..alas!!!..Catholics and
Orthodox could agree: In the name of the
Prince of Peace, Christendom must be purged
of the perfidious Jews...for the love of
Christ and the True Faith.(Catholics and
Orthodox get a little "antsy" here.) And
here, for once, the Uniats were not stuck
in- between! They found a place where they
truly belonged with the Big Boys, to the
East or to the West, they were at home! In
fact, the Ukrainian Catholics served the
Hitlerite regime with a devotion equal to
that of the Germans. "..and the streets ran
red with the blood of Jews..for the sake of
Christ..the Prince of Peace...we paint the
gutters red with the blood of Jews." So now
,almost a half-century after the fact, the
Supreme Pontiff, dressed in "ashes and
sackcloth, comes before the world asking
forgiveness. But he is asking the
forgiveness of the living. We, the living,
can't forgive. We are not the victims. The
victims are dead! Let this horror of
history stand as a memorial to the dead and
a lesson for the living that a faith
-practice mired in the muck of
merry-go-round rhetoric and
mindless-soulless esoteric ritual can never
serve as backbone for the moral response
demanded of all sincere believers in the
presence of the Hitlers and other butchers
who come into the world to deface the image
of God in our midst: The image of Christ,
true God and true Man, King of the Jews and
Jew above all Kings! "Religion" just isn't
enough!

[This message has been edited by soulsearcher (edited 04-19-2000).]

Soulsearcher,

An estimated 13 million Ukrainians were starved to death by Stalin. Who was to save them? Archbishop Andrei Sheptesky saved many Jews in L'viv by making false baptismal certificates for them. The Jews in Israel even named a wooded park after him in his honor.

Elias

Elias,

I'm thankful that someone wrote something in response to the charge place by Soulsearcher. We know that the Serbs stood against Hitler at great costs to them and that other states in the area were if not always complicitous, did not resist very strenuously. What part did the Byzantine Catholic Church play in colluding with the Nazi's in handing over Jews? Does Soulsearcher exaggerate or does he speak accurately? Where do we turn for evidence?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Soulsearcher,
A few years ago, a couple of men were arrested in NC and convicted of holding slaves. Unbelievable, eh? But that doesn't mean that NC is a slaveholding state. It means that there were some baaaad North Carolinians who did not follow the laws of their state.

It is that way with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches *against* murder; people who murder are acting outside the Church even were they to be priests. The Pope was asking for forgiveness (as I understand it) for crimes committed "in the name" of the Church or by "representatives" of the Church even when the Church had nothing to do with it or even repudiated it (ie, the Sack of Constantinople) upon learning about it.

At the same time that some people allowed their lower natures to be overwhelmed by what was going on around them, there were also people who kept on their path towards God. At the same time that "Ukrainian Catholics" were butchering Jews, other Catholics were risking and giving their lives to help Jews. Who was following the precepts of Christ and the Church? Not those who followed the pagan Hitler. By acting in such a non-Catholic way they were actually cutting themselves off from the grace of God and from the Church.

If the living can hold onto anger, then the living can forgive. If I am angry about something that happened to my great great grandmother, I *need* to forgive... because nearly every day I pray, "Forgive [me my] trespasses as [I] forgive those who trespass against us..." You yourself show that a person who was not there (I am assuming you were not there, altho perhaps you were) can be angry about what happened. Forgiveness is a letting-go of anger, an admission that "Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord." Non-forgiveness is holding onto the anger, whether the crime was committed against us or not, but ultimately every crime is committed against God, so we mere mortals must forgive and step out of the way of His justice.


You said: "the Supreme Pontiff's belated apology to "God and mankind" for errors in judgement and morality that made victims of millions..." The Church did not make errors resulting in those deaths--the Church spoke out against and worked against what was happening to such an extent that the Chief Rabbi of Rome was inspired to investigate and then convert to Catholicism.

It was not "errors" that led to the deaths of millions; it was evil and sin. It was pride, it was greed, it was lust for power, but when you get down to brass tacks, it was our wounded human nature run rampant.


You said: "Maybe Ukrainian Catholics and other Slavic Catholics might feel absolved of their crimes now..." The individuals involved were not absolved of their guilt by the Pope's action. In order for the sins of the individuals to be absolved, each would need to go to Confession and repent.


You said: "For most of the history of Eastern European Christianity, the killing of Jews wasn't even considered a crime; it was a patriotic duty." Patriotic being... national, not Church-related. The leaders of the nations involved are the ones who need to repent here. Those leaders lied if they said that it was a Christian duty; it wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last, but in any case, it's certainly not the Church's fault someone lied and said it's ok to do something against what your Church teaches.


You said: "Let this horror of history stand as... a lesson for the living that a faith-practice mired in the muck of merry-go-round rhetoric and mindless-soulless esoteric ritual can never serve as backbone for the moral response demanded of all sincere believers in the presence of the Hitlers and other butchers who come into the world to deface the image of God in our midst: The image of Christ, true God and true Man, King of the Jews and Jew above all Kings! "Religion" just isn't enough!" Absolutely!

Religion wasn't enough for many of those who did wrong during the war. These days they would be cafeteria Catholics or worse. They are proof that there are bad Catholics in the Church, not that the Church is bad. If someone were "improving" as a Nazi, then he was becoming a worse person, if someone improves as a Catholic, he becomes a better person.


You said that you come from a heritage of Judaism and Cath0licism. Have you spoken to others of this background? I know that there is a Catholic (Western) apologist who converted from Judaism (with a detour to evangelical Christianity). I just get the feeling that there is a bit of a clash within you because of this and that you are trying to work it out--I may be wrong. My daughter worries because she is part Irish and part British...

[This message has been edited by Philothea (edited 04-20-2000).]

Reverend: 1-Exaggeration? No. Sarcasm? Yes. 2-Archbishop Andrew? Yes,he was a saint. But for every Andrew there were 10 Ukrainian Catholcs serving as volunteers in the SS, often as garrison troops in SS death camps. Ukrainians did the dirty work. The Serbs? Which ones? Partisans or Chetniks? They weren't consistent. Sometimes they saved Jews and Gypsies, sometimes they betrayed them. The Catholic Croatians were consistent: They were notorious Nazi
collaborators and responsibe for the deaths of thousands of Yugoslav Jews and Gypsies as well as the forced conversion of Serbs to Catholicism. The "convert or else" method. The Bulgarians tried to save their Jews, just like the Danes. Many Bulgarian Jews did not survive. The Greeks,at great danger to themselves, struggled to protect Greek Jews who were looked upon by the Greek Orthodox population as Greeks with a different religion.Alas, many Greek Jews did not escape the Nazi net and were transported to the death camps; many did not survive. My 82 yr.old mother did, as did most of her family as they escaped to Turkey where she met my Greek Orthodox(but Communist) father. These are the facts and, as Aristotle said: "There is nothing more stubborn than a fact and nothing as disturbing." As far as your as question as to the "position" of the Byzantine Catholic Church,after the bodies are counted, what difference does it make? We are not talking about abstractions and hypotheticals but real human beings. The proper question is: "How did real flesh and blood individual Byzantine Catholics behave? The facts are, many behaved like savages and some of them were priests! Now, those are the facts. And let us not dishonor the dead by flying off into illusion land and sugar coat the slaughter of millions by a perverted launch into a theoretical charade about the nature of the church etc,etc. Finally, you will find all the material you need to confirm these facts in even a mediocr pulic library or surf the net.