An excerpt from His Beatitude’s address to the First Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America.
We share the hope of full ecumenical relationship and reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church. However, I believe that we are of one mind, the Anglicans and the Orthodox, in that we reject the papal ecclesiology and the theological distortions of papal infallibility, and some of the hypertrophy regarding Our Most Holy Lady Theotokos, the Ever-Virgin Mary. We love the Most Pure Mother of God, but I think we have to remember what is right and decent and in order. And it’s only by, only by the repeal of such doctrines that there is going to be any possibility of reconciliation of the Roman Church with the Orthodox Church… some don’t like that.
Love him or… not, I haven’t heard anyone accuse Met. +Jonah of beating around the bush when he speaks. He has pretty consistently laid it on the line (though always with that love which is true charity) whether he was talking to his fellow Orthodox or Anglicans or Roman Catholics. I have not had the opportunity to hear his recent address to the Roman Catholics. But his speech to the new Anglican Church of North America (http://tinyurl.com/l3ugrx) left a powerful impression on his audience. And that says a lot since most of them of course will never become Orthodox. His manner of clear and to the point address (no hierarchical diplospeak) is a breath of fresh air.
It’s early days yet. But thus far, every time he has opened his mouth I have been powerfully impressed and moved by the man. And I don’t think I am alone. One interesting observation someone sent me in an email was that when +Jonah talks you want to stand up and cheer. But you are held back because you realize that a lot of what he is saying is aimed at YOU. I have heard people whispering the “S” word in reference to him.
As for how one views the substance of his words, well I guess that will depend on which side of your bread you like your butter.
In ICXC
John
I want to confirm what John says about Metropolitan Jonah. I, a Roman Catholic, heard him speak a few weeks ago, and I was greatly impressed. I blogged about it here:
http://ericsammons.com/blog/2009/06/17/we-need-a-pope/
Nonetheless, his caricature of Catholic Marian devotion is less than helpful, and that is the understatement of the millennium.
He is a convert from evangelicalism, non? ISTM he still carries some of that baggage, although he has dressed it up in exotic language — “hypertrophy” vs. “Mariolatry.” But it is the same old tired canard, reflecting profound ignorance of What Catholics Really Believe.
And don’t get me started on the left-over-Protestant Romophobia. I’ve taken to calling it “No Potpourri” — although that’s an insult to all scented bags of dried flowers.
I should think it better to elevate all the Patriarches’ status of infallibility rather than reducing just the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. After all, there were 12 apostles, not one. And the Church is founded on Christ and his apostles, and the Church is infallible because Christ cannot deny himself. Sure, Peter had charisma, and he was favored, and it seems the Latin Rite has to this day the most numbers than the Orthodox combined. However, such infallibility should only apply to their proper rite. Much of the problems, as the Trinity, were verbal semantics where there was insistence to essence and being, but the meaning behind the words demonstrated that we were unified and so St. Athanasius overcame Arius.
In regards to the Theotokos, Anglicans do not share with Orthodoxy the same regard. I was an Anglican, well at least I was Episcopalian until I heard about Gene Robinson. At any rate, attending the Divine Liturgy recently and obtaining a Orthodox Prayer book, Mariology of the Catholic Church is much closer to the Orthodox than the Anglicans. Much of the dogmatic aspects of the RC perhaps is over-the-top attempts to overcorrect the scholastics of the Middle Ages. I.e. Mary’s immaculate conception as stated ex cathedra by Pope Pius IX in “Ineffabilis Deus” 1854 is due to the “stain of original sin.” Had the dogmatism of “Original Sin” remained close to the Orthodox position of “Ancestral Sin,” not inheriting the guilt, there would be no need for the pronouncement. Since the Orthodox do not explain away the mystery, it is essentially the same. Anglican’s “via media” is not a reliable theological methodology.
Actually, there was an intense debate at Vatican I on the subject of the relationship of the Pope’s infallibility being linked to the entire episcopate, ( i.e; “read” the other 11 apostles). In fact, it seems to me, the entire focus was on the collegiate aspect of infallibility ( and primacy). Unfortunately, ultra-montane views seemed to have hijacked the interpretation.
Stephen,
Wow! I am not sure where to start with this stream of consciousness spiel. I conclude that you are trying to pack a whole lot of meaning in a single post. If I understand you correctly, you are a former Episcopalian who has gravitated to (or at least towards) Orthodoxy but have never been directly exposed to Catholic cathechetics.
Let me try to unpack your post accordingly, albeit at some length.
“I should think it better to elevate all the Patriarches’ status of infallibility rather than reducing just the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.”
My suspicion here is that you may not be entirely clear on what is implied by infallibility. Yes, the Church is infallible (i.e. it cannot fail in the mission assigned to it by Christ to serve as an instrument for our salvation). Catholics and Orthodox agree on that much. That’s the point of departure, and anything we say regarding infallibility stems from this.
The next issue is “How does the Church articulate this infallibility?” or, put another way, “Who speaks infallibly for the Church?” This is where we run into problems. Trying to navigate as far as we can within agreed Catholic-Orthodox positions, we can say that the episcopate as a whole can speak infallibly for the Church (at least on matters that affect your salvation). But what if the bishops do not agree, or fail to use the same words, or the same level of specificity, in articulating the “truth?”
Catholics and Orthodox agree in stating that the bishops gathered in an ecumenical council and jointly approving a given teaching can do so infallibly. And this is as far as Orthodox will usually go. For Catholics, however, the issue can’t end there for three reasons:
First of all, ecumenical councils are a relatively late development in the history of Christianity, the first not being held until 325. If the Church was infallible between John’s death circa 100 and 325, how was this infallibility articulated? Orthodox might point to unanimity amongst the bishops, but it is precisely when the bishops are not in agreement that the question needs an answer.
Next, ecumenical councils have never been, even after 325, permanent organs of the Church. So who speaks infallibly for the Church when an ecumenical council is not in session?
Finally, how can one tell whether a council is ecumenical or not? No council has ever been attended by every bishop, many councils claim to have been ecumenical when they weren’t (or at least weren’t recognized as such by either the West or the East). Also what about the councils recognized as ecumenical by one Church, but not by the other?
Orthodoxy does not have clear answers to these questions, alluding instead to what Catholics consider vague allusions to the sensus fidelium that amount to little more than “we will recognize the truth when we see it”.
Catholics maintain that the Church has always been in a position to speak infallibly, even when an ecumenical council is not sitting, in fact even before ecumenical councils were invented. For Catholics, there is a hierarchy of infallible authority. At the top lies the episcopate speaking unanimously. This case, almost by definition, applies essentially only to issues that have never been controversial. The next level, is that of an ecumenical council, deemed such because of its intent to gather all the bishops and because its decisions are taken in symphony with the president of the episcopate, i.e. the bishop of Rome. Finally, and this is where most Orthodox would have to take issue, Catholics believe that the episcopate can teach infallibly through its president, even when an ecumenical council is not in session.
So getting back to your original suggestion, Catholics could conceive of circumstances in which the Patriarchs, including the Pope, called together could teach infallibly. That still leaves open the question of who is or is not a Patriarch in this sense, but that is secondary. The main problem would be that this would probably be too novel an approach to infallibility for most Orthodox. What is inconceivable for either Church, however, is a framework that allowed for competing “infallibilities,” and superficially, that seems to be what you are suggesting.
With regard to Trinitarian “semantics,” Catholics would agree in large part. With respect to the filioque specifically, however, the differences cannot entirely be reduced to semantics as the interpolation rests in part on an understanding of the hypostatic relationship between the Son and the Spirit, to which most, albeit not all Orthodox appear to take serious objection, but which is virtually universal in the West (amongst both Catholics and Protestants, which is why some Orthodox claim to be unable to see any meaningful distinction between the various Western forms of Christianity).
With respect to the Immaculate Conception, my own suspicion, and Catholic participants should feel free to correct me is that the problem lies in the terms in which the doctrine was articulated and defined. It wasn’t intended as a teaching about original sin, but as an assertion that Mary, the “new Eve,” was conceived by Christ’s anticipatory grace in the same state that Adam and Eve enjoyed before the Fall. And that whereas Eve chose to sin, Mary chose to be obedient and this throughout her life. Unfortunately for ecumenical relations, the doctrine which might have been otherwise broadly acceptable to Orthodox was couched in terms of the Augustinian understanding of original sin, an understanding most Orthodox consider mistaken if not actually heretical.
Finally, yes, both Catholics and Orthodox are bemused by Anglican pretentions to the following the via media. Similarly they both reject the theological indifferentism and phyletism implied in the Branch Theory. I hope this helps.
an understanding most Orthodox consider mistaken if not actually heretical.
But it was not always thus; in fact, I get the impression that the insistence on Ancestral Sin as normative is a relatively recent development. Our good host used to link to an irenical Orthodox blogger who provided historical and patristic evidence for a more Augustinian understanding among some Eastern Fathers and doctors. And a former Orthodox (now Eastern Catholic) whose name escapes me even produced Eastern patristic passages that used the “stain” terminology to describe the effects of Original Sin. (Not that I would insist on such terminology…but it is interesting to see that it was not as foreign to the Eastern mindset as some people claim.)
Personally, I have problems with the notion that we inherit only death, not sin, from our first parents’ Fall. I think that opens the door to (at least) semi-pelagianism.
At the same time, I wonder whether our Orthodox brethren may be misunderstanding our Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. I’ve seen some Orthodox claim that we Catholics believe that Original Sin is passed down genitally — rather like an STD. Obviously that is NOT what we believe! It may help if we could clear up confusion and caricatures on both sides. But that is always the task, isn’t it?
Diane
“Ancestral Sin” is a term recently used by the late Fr. John Romanides. I don’t know if it was used that often before he popularized it.
I am firstly a layman, and I did go through the RCIA and became Catholic on Easter 2004. However, I think the Catechuman process needs to be a lot longer. I can see where it is shortened because some laymen, not really caring about the faith aspect, tend to become Catholic for the purpose of a Catholic wedding with all the lovely display. However, I think much of the problems can be corrected. For instance, since the council of Vatican I and II, along with Trent, are not completely ecumenical with the Orthodox patriarchs, that the Catholic Church can drop the term ecumenical and strictly apply it to the whole Latin Rite, in which case that was its purpose since the Great Schism already happened. It was a matter of cleaning up and focusing on the problems or potential problems that the Rite faced. If we view each other’s sacraments as being valid, which seems the visits of the Pope with other Patriarches seems to indicate such mutual respect, there is no real need to keep the rites functioning a closed communion policy to each other. The Devil is in the details. What the filique means to the Catholic is a verbal semantic. The Scriptural proofs of which the Catholics use to support it is from the Gospel of John where Christ promises the Holy Spirit. However, this is an easy remedy of which I think the current Pope and magesterium will drop the filique from the Nicene Creed, and which I agree needs to be dropped since the Nicene Creed is originated from an Ecumenical Council and should not be ratified.
Stephen,
You are raising two issues.
First, with respect to the post schism councils, I agree that the acquired habit in both East and West of actually numbering them in a fixed chronological list is unfortunate. This excludes the possibility of post facto ascription of ecumenical status to strictly regional ones that may have nonetheless play a decisive role in defining the faith. This is effectively what happened with respect to the Council of Constantinople in 381 to which no Latin bishops participated, for example.
The second problem, is that the fixed list approach treats all these councils as if they had the same importance. Clearly Ephesus enjoys greater authority than Chalcedon, for example, as it enjoyed greater reception. Recent discussions and understandings with the Oriental Orthodox, have tended to relativize the degree to which Chalcedon actually addressed their legitimate beliefs in ruling out their terminology.
There is absolutely no prospect, however, of the Catholic Church abandoning any of the definitions it subscribed to in the Western Councils it considers ecumenical. One can’t stoop to treating authoritative definition of the faith as an empty legalism. These definitions are subscribed to by Catholics, not because they were approved by an ecumenical council, but because they have been authoritatively deemed to be “true” (the fact that these definitions were formalized at ecumenical councils is entirely secondary).
Now the apparent inability of Orthodox to subscribe to these definitions is a separate matter that is not necessarily without possible solutions. To what extent is the Orthodox understanding of these definitions accurate, stated and structured as they are in unfamiliar language and theological frameworks? To what extent are these definitions accurate and faithful reflections of what their framers demonstrably actually believed? To what extent might they be further refined or expressed in terms Orthodox might be more comfortable with? To what extent is non reception of these definitions an obstacle to communion or to salvation generally? These are all questions Catholics consider open to discussion and, indeed, these form part of the meat of ecumenical reflection.
Specifically with respect to your second point, i.e. the filioque. Yes, the Latin Church (the Eastern Catholic Churches largely recite the Creed without the interpolation) could drop the filioque from the Creed as a measure of ekonomia, but it is difficult to conceive of Catholics renouncing the underlying understanding, which is what most Orthodox seem to expect them to do.
It is so absolutely obvious to Catholics that all relationships between the three persons of the Trinity are, and can only be, timeless and hypostatic (as God cannot be bound in time which is part of the created order) that they have real difficulty understanding why some Orthodox insist on reading John 15:26 in a purely temporal sense, particularly as this insistence has never been consensual even amongst the Eastern Fathers.
Nevertheless, I am impressed by John Meyendorff’s take on the Council of Blachernae at which the post-Florentine Orthodox attempted to grapple with this “temporal” problem while still rejecting the filioque as they understood it. Their solution, making a distinction between the Spirit and His “eternal manifestation,” is unsatisfactory to Catholics, but possibly some similar formula can be found expressing a comprehensive common understanding of the hypostatic relationship between the Three Persons that is rooted in Scripture and the Fathers and that addresses both Catholic and Orthodox concerns. I can’t see the West dropping the filioque before then, and it is facile of Orthodox to expect otherwise. It’s not like Catholics insist that Orthodox recite the Creed with the interpolation.
Like I said, the Devil is in the details. If the Orthodox has a Eastern mentality, not having the need to disect the mysteries, it seems when it encounters dialogue with the West that their objections are no longer Eastern, but Western. As such, just chalk it up as a particular function of the Rite in its philosophical atmosphere within the Western culture. I do not think it needs to be a contention between the two. No matter how much the Catholic Church tries to understand the mysteries, mysteries cannot be explained away and become unmysterious. Like science, once something is discovered, it opens a lot more questions than it does answers. As such, I think some of the dogmatism of the Catholic Church does not have to be given up just as the Eastern Orthodox does not have to assent. It seems to me that some people want to make it so that the Orthodox and Catholics have to become one Rite, and this would never happen anyways. The EO is made up of 14 Autocephalous Churches, and if the Catholic Church comes into full communion, which the dialogue’s purpose is geared toward attaining, it will only mean the Orthodox Church would become 15 Autocephalous Churches, with the Latin Rite being the largest in terms of clergy and laity membership, but we all benefit, Catholic and Orthodox, as being truly one visible and Holy Catholic Church as the Apostles Creed states. Much has already been done in making repairs to the schism, let’s not have the EO dictate to the Roman Pontiff, what the past Roman Pontiff attempted to force the EO Churches. I am for full communion, unless it can be proven beyond shadow of a doubt that the Catholic sacraments are invalid. Then I might just have to become a Catechumen of an Eastern Rite. Anyways, perhaps I have said too much where a layman’s opinion has no bearing and in some ways remains niave and ignorant in many places concerning the full history and dogmatic positions of the Churches. Feel free to email me at hobbitmania@yahoo.com. I am still planning to learn more about the Orthodox Faith by going to the Divine Liturgy when I can and learn more from the Greek Orthodox priest going with me in my military unit.
It has been interesting and a blessing to read your responses to my postings.
BTW, let me call your attention to the following statement which offers a (relatively) brief but impressive presentation of the background to the dispute, possible points of convergence, and outstanding difficulties related to the filioque:
http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html
Stephen,
You wrote: “Anyways, perhaps I have said too much where a layman’s opinion has no bearing and in some ways remains niave and ignorant in many places concerning the full history and dogmatic positions of the Churches. Feel free to email me at hobbitmania@yahoo.com. I am still planning to learn more about the Orthodox Faith by going to the Divine Liturgy when I can and learn more from the Greek Orthodox priest going with me in my military unit.”
We all come to this discussion at different points on our learning path. We are all “still naive and ignorant in many places concerning the full history and dogmatic positions of the Churches,” so please don’t feel singled out or intimidated. I am truly humbled by how much I have been able to learn from others through this site, not only about Orthodoxy but about Catholicism as well. Even the anti-ecumenists who pop up with increasing frequency provide food for thought.
All the points you raised were worth discussing, and I enjoyed sharing with you what I think I have already learned, just as I enjoy learning more from being informed and even corrected by others who have had a longer interest in ecumenism than I have.
I might also add that it is quite refreshing to see a Protestant moving to Orthodoxy without the usual load of anti-Catholic baggage. It gives one hope. :-)
Michael: Stephen is not a Protestant moving to Orthodoxy. He is a Catholic moving to Orthodoxy. That is a different matter altogether.
Forgive me, but I think prayers are definitely in order.
1) Before Emperors became Christian and could summon councils of hundreds of bishops to a single location, paying for all the transportation-costs, it was the heretics who were doomed to wander from Patriarchate to Patriarchate, hoping to find understanding from at least one of them… only to find themselves successively anathemized by each and every single local synod: because the Church was of one mind.
2) The expression, translated word-by-word, is indeed `ancestral sin`; but expresssions aren’t translated word-by-word, because to do such would be to commit linguistic calque. (He introduced a foreign, barbaric term in order to better illustrate the difference between the two views; but there’s nothing inherently wrong with the Latin-Western original phrase of ‘original sin’, because it was the sin commited by the original [primordial] pair of human beings).
3) Roman Catholic Ecumenical Synods are valid IF Roman Catholics are the true Church for the same reason that the Synods after the second are Ecumenical [though they lack Assyrian-Nestorian presence] and the Synods after the third are Ecumenical [though they lack Oriental-Myaphysite presence].
Diane is correct in pointing out I am a Catholic inquiring into Orthodoxy. However, if one does look at my full history, I have been a Catholic for relatively a short time. I grew up Assembly of God and non-denomination; i.e. I was a raised a charismatic tongue-speaking, pretributionist, Arminian Evangelical. I converted to Lutheran, then to Episcopalian, short stint as a Southern Baptist, and then Catholic. If I do become Orthodox, it will be because I am convinced from the Orthodox position that Catholics do not have valid sacraments. Otherwise, I, at the very least, hope to incorporate into my own spiritual walk, prayer life, etc. some of Orthodox spirituality. I would prefer that Catholic and Orthodox come back to full communion with each other. It seems rather unproductive of the Orthodox to even have a dialogue with the Catholics if full communion is not possible; I mean look at the problems with Catholics and Russian Orthodox when they were trying to reestablish churches after the collapse of the USSR. I hear it caused a lot of heartache. And now I hear the Russian Patriarch supposedly say that reunification is possible within a few months? God be praised it it is true, what a light to world it would be, what a refreshing renewal of the Gospel message it could bear to the spiritually dying in Europe and to Protestants in America!
Hmm, ok, a few points:
1. I don’t think the Orthodox as a whole contest the validity of Catholic sacraments per se (though some do). What most claim is that Catholic sacraments do not convey grace until such time as Catholicism returns to orthodoxy. I am not sure what the practical implications of this are, but perhaps an Orthodox poster could enlighten us.
2. If what you are looking for is “Orthodox” spirituality, you might have a look at one of the Eastern Catholic Churches first (as you are already Catholic), particularly one of those those that follows the Byzantine liturgy. There may be one in your area, and they are all already in communion with Rome. Have a look at http://www.byzcath.org . You should only convert to Orthodoxy if you think Orthodoxy is correct on all points of disagreement with Catholicism. I think any Orthodox priest would tell you the same thing, especially given your history of denomination shopping.
3. No, Patriarch Kyril has not said reunion might be possible within a few months. Catholics wish it were, but it will take much longer, if it happens at all. There are various steps short of full reunion that might be possible in the near future, however.
1. The moment they disect such a point, will be the day the Orthodox decided to follow after the methodology of the scholastics of people like Thomas Aquinas.
2. I have had a penetant discussion with an Orthodox priest already, and he told me to respect my current tradition to seek for absolution. I am expressing interest in Orthodoxy, due to its current accessability that I did not have when I left the Episcopalian Church USA because my parish would not be firm in denying Gene Robinson’s election as a open practicing homosexual. To tell me to search for “Orthodoxy” within the Catholic, is to tell me that the schism happened all the way back to Christ and his apostles and not developed prior to 1054. I find it rather an inconsistent remark both to your personal conviction as an Orthodox, as well as to the ecumenical progress from which both the EO and RC are pushing towards in progressive stages and within what I consider the Holy Spirit’s direction. Also, a man cannot convert solidly if he is not instructed properly, hence if you do hold the fullness of the Gospel in its transmission is found in Orthodoxy, why would you instruct people to be satisfied with only the fundamentals of Protestantism or perhaps a less sacramental life in the Catholic Church? It also seems my own journey is now a pot-shot of “denominational shopping.” I’ve heard the type of snide remarks as a Protestant talking about things like “sheep stealing” or “church hoppers.” I find such ideas, while perhaps well intended, is counterproductive to Christian unity on a layman level.
3. I’ve seen a few articles online floating around that suggested it, but have not verified the remark. As such, I have no real comment except what I stated earlier that I hope it was true.
Peace be with you all.
Stephen,
No re-union will take place, ever, between Catholics, Orthodox, and Monophysites. And no, Catholic services and sacraments are not devoid of divine grace.
Lucian
I am interested in knowing more precisely what is your attitude on Catholic sacraments. Can you tell us more?
Well, Lucian, I am just grateful that you are not the Holy Spirit. I see on a layman level a unity of faith, hope, and love, what I see in the clergy is cynicism, doubt, and bitterness of past offenses and misunderstandings and this seems to extend to the laity which disrupts the Gospel message to the world. If the Orthodox and Catholics do attain full communion, are you going to become a Protestant? Or are you going to submit to your ecclesiastical authority as the Church Father Ignatius in his letters might instruct?
Most especially, when I was a Protestant, I felt blessed and amazed at going to two John Michael Talbot concerts. I was raised on Jack Chick tracts telling me Catholics are going to hell, yet this Franciscan monk’s singing the Psalms and ministry just was full of the Spirit’s signs… Love, joy, peace, patience, … . That is the type of unity I see on a layman level, a genuine move of the Holy Spirit. The attitude that it will “never” happen is not the issue, the attitude is how will it happen and when.
Stephen,
I think you misunderstood the gist of my remarks regarding conversion. The ecclesial picture is somewhat more complicated than you suggest (though you may realize this already).
The main Catholic rite is the Latin, but there are also 22 other sui juris “Eastern” rites consisting of other Churches that, while keeping (more or less) to their ancient liturgical and theological traditions, are united with Latin Catholics. Some, like the Maronites, have always been so and were never affected by the schism (from the Catholic point of view), others have come back to Rome as recently as the last century. Each one of these Churches is basically self governing, though they recognize the Pope’s overall authority and accept all points of Catholic doctrine (though they may express these in different language).
My point was that if you are looking for Orthodox “spirituality” (i.e. liturgy, theology and religious practice) you can find it in one of these Churches without going over to Orthodoxy. As a Catholic you are welcome to attend any of their services and spiritual retreats, and receive communion. They are just as Catholic as you are.
If, however, you decide that, on the very few questions of faith separating Catholics and Orthodox, the Orthodox are right, then you should legitimately consider a move. Not all Orthodox Churches are equally welcoming (some may even require rebaptism), but they will ultimately welcome you if you are firm in afirming Orthodoxy. That’s what they are there for. In any case, this is why this Orthodox priest told you to stay where you are and seek absolution. He was apparently not convinced that you knew enough about either Catholicism or Orthodoxy to make a well informed choice.
Now as to Lucian’s pessimism regarding reunion, he may me right, though perhaps it might have been best for him to leave the matter to the Holy Spirit than to try to prophesy.
My feeling, however, is that anti-ecumenists (as opposed to skeptical ecumenists) on the Orthodox side are becoming gradually marginalized within their Churches and, as a result, louder and more strident, particularly on the Internet. Some Orthodox Churches have historically had warmer relations with Rome than others, and all of them are progressively looking at Rome in a new light in response to subtle changes in and signals from Rome, the growing threat of secularism in the developed world and, of course, as a result of ecumenical dialogue.
On the Catholic side, there is growing official acceptance that while one can successfully perceive the one reality with only “one eye”, using two eyes (the Latin and the Eastern) provides a more subtle and complete picture, and thus allows for deeper faith. The reality remains the same, but our appreciation and understanding of this reality becomes correspondingly enriched.
It is these changes that have fueled and given increased force to ecumenical dialogue, and I think we are beginning to see some real fruit (which may be why some of the anti-ecumenists are up in arms). My feeling is that we will see some real breakthroughs in the next few years, though these will fall short of full reunion which will come in God’s good time.
And BTW, I am not Orthodox, if that is what you meant to suggest.
Stephen, I’m just trying to run a reality-check by you, so as to make You avoid making a decision on faulty premises, that will ultimately only end up hurting You and us.
Fr. Paul, when communists tried feeding a Buddhist monk to a pack of hungry (purposefully-starved) dogs, the dogs wouldn’t touch him. The monk blessed them and gave them names. I’ve read a story on a Catholic conversion site of someone who got into trouble with the demonic, and things started to get better after asking a Lutheran priest to serve prayers of exorcism on them. In the fourth century, a Jew was playing a practical joke, pretending to convert and accepting baptism, but when he tried to pull the stunt on a schismatic (Paulinist) bishop, the baptismal fountain would simply not be filled. St. Thomas Aquinas showed himself repeatedly to a Serbian abortician in his dreams, which finally led him to stop performing abortions and become more practicant in his Orthodox faith. A man practicing Buddhism for years had these severe abdomenal pains for years after leaving his former religion. They stopped after a Catholic priest performed sessions of traditional exorcism prayers on him after the rite of Rome (during which he behaved as a demoniac). A Romanian Old-Calendarist schismatic bishop (now a Saint among them) went through the woods (he was a monk) with his disciple (now abbot) and saw a wolf carrying a lamb or sheep in his fangs. He said to it: ‘Let him go!’, and the wolf let go of the lamb and went his way. There are videos of a Monophysite monk performing exorcisms on YouTube. Etc. — The list could go on and on, but I guess that’s enough to answer Your question.
Lucian
well, not really. Do you mean that our sacraments can be invalid but noinethreless convey grace; or that they are valid; or that all religions are equally beneficent as long as one is sincere? Or am I being impossibly western in trying to tye you down to a logically coherent position?
I read in a news-paper that the host transformed in flesh in a woman’s mouth under the eyes of the Pope (John Paul the Second). That again, your holy water doesn’t preserve its freshness like ours does.
Michael, I agree with most of what you say above to Stephen. But I balk a bit at the advice that he move to Orthodoxy if he feels so led. This, I think, takes ecumenism a tad too far — it implies that Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy = “six of one; half dozen of the other.” The gist seems to be (forgive me if I’m wrong): “Bloom where you’re presently planted; but if you really feel called elsewhere, then uproot and go.”
Again, that might be fine if Stephen were still Protestant; Orthodoxy would be a huge step up, so to speak. (With apologies to my Protestant brethren.) But, because he is currently Catholic, it’s a whole different story.
As Dominus Iesus and other recent documents have made clear, Catholic Church Teaching has not changed. Orthodoxy is very, very close to us — closer than any other communion — but it is not yet fully united with us. And, while it remains separate from us, it lacks the Fullness of the Faith. Yes, it may have 99% from our perspective (or 95% or whatever; only God knows), but it is still not the whole enchilada.
Given this fact, is it wise or right to counsel any Catholic to leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy? Is this not technically advocating schism? (Yes, I know the “S”-word is no longer politically correct, but it describes the reality that lies behind make-nice terms like “separated brethren.” Not that I object to the latter term; I use it all the time; but let’s face it, schism is still the technical term, even if we’re not supposed to use it in polite company. ;))
I am a firm believer in ecumenism, but ecumenism must never slide into indifferentism. It’s a delicate balancing act for sure, especially WRT the Orthodox, who have “true particular churches” and valid Orders and Sacraments. Nonetheless, even with the Orthodox, we must acknowledge that Catholicism in union with the Successor of Peter = the fullness of Truth and of Faith. Orthodoxy, to put it bluntly, falls short. Not much short, just a teeny-weeny bit short, by Catholic lights, but still…short. If this sounds harsh, well, just think of what even our relatively irenic Orthodox brethren say about us. ;) At least we officially acknowledge the validity of Orthodox mysteries. ;)
Bottom line: Ecumenism goes pretty far but not far enough to completely blur the lines between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. From our perspective, it’s a matter of schism, not heresy (which is a heck of a lot more than many Orthodox will concede WRT us Catholics), but still…schism is a grave sin against fraternal charity. It’s not a Good Thing.
Bottom line: Forgive me, but I do not think it is ever a good thing to counsel a Catholic to defect to another communion, even if the other communion is Orthodoxy. I believe we may very well be imperiling the Catholic’s soul.
I know you mostly weren’t doing this (except in one well-buried sentence), but this is something that has been bothering me for a while about the general Catholic tendency to give away the farm when Catholic-Orthodox relations are discussed. So, I’m using this opportunity to vent and kvetch a bit; sorry about that! But I do not specifically have you in mind; it’s more general.
I think Pope Benedict has tried to provide a check on this tendency toward indifferentism — while still bending over backward in terms of ecumenical outreach. I think I would like to follow Pope Benedict’s lead: Reach out ecumenically as far as we can consistent with fidelity to the Truth…but don’t give away the farm. And please, please, let’s not counsel Catholics to defect to any other communion, no matter how close to us it may be. Protestants, sure…if they want to Dox, more power to them. But Catholics…please, no.
God bless (with fear and trembling),
Diane
Diane
I don’t think that Michaël was advising Stephen to become Orthodox. I read him as saying that if Stephen were to conscientiously decide that he did not believe in those Catholic dogmas which separrate us from the Orthodox, then it would be logical – indeed morally necessary – to leave the Catholic communion for the Orthodox one. That is not indifferentism, it is common sense, and indeeed taught by the Catholic Church.
Stephen,
“1. The moment they disect such a point, will be the day the Orthodox decided to follow after the methodology of the scholastics of people like Thomas Aquinas.”
Some early Church Fathers were just as “scholastic” as Aquinas, and they are Orthodox saints (he’s not the first one with “proofs”). Since original sin was brought up, our (Orthodox) old canons, catechisms, and saints actually refer to newborns being baptised to the remission of original sin (see below).
Don’t just rely on modern authors – pro-east, anti-western society books sell hot right now. Everybody wants to leave it all behind (spiritually, that is) to be a casual Buddhist or something. All that, however, is not the historical Tradition of the Church. I’m not trying to make a decision for you, but know that the tradition of the internet and (not all) convert books are not the Church, and Orthodoxy is not some kind of haven from the West. The Church isn’t an either-or, but the jewel of the faith has many faces.
I don’t know if this blog has ever linked to this info, but here is info from another Orthodox about the Church’s actual stance on the baptism of infants (original sin):
http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html
http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2007/01/original-sin-west-haters-strike-back.html
http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/03/original-sin-in-eastern-orthodox.html
http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-sin-quotations-from-orthodox.html
Diane,
I would never advise even a liberal to leave the Church. If I thought Stephen had all the makings of an anti-Catholic Orthodox, I would have simply held my piece. As it stands, I gave him the same advice the Orthodox priest gave him, and for exactly the same reason.
That said, there are circumstances in which being a good Orthodox is more salvific than being a bad Catholic. Acting against your conscience can lead you into serious sin (far more serious, in fact, than schism), such as disbelief, sacrilege and blasphemy against the Spirit.
The last thing I want to do is be a point of contention. I have stated that I am inquiring into the Orthodox faith. Most of what I know comes throught the prism of the Catechism of the Catholic Church especially 1203, which for all sakes and purposes recognizes the validity and grace in the Orthodox sacraments. I see a far greater danger at work in our local level that could be enhanced greatly should Catholic and Orthodox come together. First, the growth of Islam, of which I am sure the Eastern Orthodox Churches who live in Islamic nations are required to pay a special tax and whose evangelical call is stiffled due to various Islamic secular laws. The growth in England of Islam is a danger, but so is the rampant pluralism (of which the ECUSA extends open communion policy to unbelievers and reduces Christ’s divinity through the “Jesus Seminar” focusing on the “Historical Jesus”), Woman’s liberation (attempting to create women priests), and affirmation of homosexual behavior (as seen in the ECUSA’s recent Anahiem General Conference in July and the ELCA just recently for the allowance of practicing homosexuals in the priesthood and for performing same sex marriage and unions) infesting the Protestant churches, which goes to show you that divided, Satan has a greater capacity to restrict the seed’s of the Gospel’s growth with a false Gospel. If the Metropolitan Jonah wants to say he is in agreement with Anglicans, he better look at the root causes of Anglicanism that allowed for the ECUSA to be so arrogant that is causing the current crisis in their own Anglican world communion.
And what has all of this got to do with Orthodoxy? Be an old-fashioned Southern Baptist, who believes Jesus is Lord, and roosters don’t lay eggs.
Just trying to tie it back to Jonah’s comment. I believe in Apostolic Succession, with exception of Anglicanism, all of Protestantism rejects the notion; however, Anglicanism faced the same problems as many State run Churches, for an instance the Communist China’s creation of “The Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association” that mimics, but does not carry the priestly authority by a proper succession. Which is exactly how the Church of England was founded by King Henry VIII because he could not get an annulment. I am sure the Orthodox in Russia, while maintaining their succession, had some concerns with the Communist State’s intrusion. And I do not know how much Islam’s laws and culture has affected the manner in which the Churches had to conform to or live with. In fact, if I am correct, there are a few Orthodox Churches that are not Orthodox except in name only. In a way, I should think some benefits of a reunion would help the Orthodox. I am only aware that the Vatican is its own nation and so has some unique advantages which I think in a full communion status could allow the Vatican to plead with secular governments over the sufferings and concerns of Orthodox. I am sure they would do that even now, but the distinct advantage is that to a secular authority, what concern is it of theirs? since they do not share a full communion with each other? I am sure the political entity could favor Catholic and thus alienate Orthodox within their own country. At any rate, it is only a political advantage, not necessarily a spiritual one. And as a Southern Baptist for a short stint, OSAS seems to be a beloved topic that I am sure Orthodoxy would would not agree with. If it has nothing to do with Orthodoxy, Lucian, then Metropolitan Jonah should not state anything in regard to the Anglicans and Orthodox having like minds. It seems to me that the crisis in the Anglican communion is being used as a pawn, since there are many Anglicans upset with Archbishop Rowan with his liberalism and the ECUSA that the Catholics and Orthodox are looking pretty good since Apostolic succession is an important doctrine of the Church of England. Perhaps Metropolitan Jonah quotes Anglicans being in agreement with Orthodox only as a means of welcoming the Anglican lifeboats floating away from the shipwreck of the current crisis.
Bishops aren’t emperors and emperors aren’t bishops: that’s what neither Catholics nor Protestants were ever able to understand.
Well, we can honestly say that we do not have the need for a Bishop to be an emperor, Catholics since Vatican II have given up the idea of a State recognized religion. From reading Archbishop Lefebvre’s Objections to Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, it seems to me that Columbia’s laity in power wished to retain Catholicism as the State religion, but could not. Seems to be in his appendix 2 page 139 of “Religious Libery Questioned.” by Angulus press, 2002. So Lucian, there is a big contrast between Catholics and Protestants that you need to understand. Protestant rationalism still continues to consistently split from each other, from issues over what color the carpet should be, to liberals preaching on the pulpit that homosexuality is ok and should be affirmed, to differences in Calvinism vs. Arminianism, and ad infinitum. This is the heresy of Protestantism that continues to this day, but not so with Catholicism holding any “emperor” role in State politics.
Well, I see Lucian that I have gone “off topic.” My only point has been tried to remain as close to the comment on Metropolitan Jonah above, but now it has moved from him into something more of a personal engagement. So at this time, I ask your forgiveness for allowing your comments to affect me. I shall refrain from making further comments, unless I can directly ask or relate to the original excerpt of Metropolitan Jonah’s quote above. I overlooked where it was addressed, so now I am more convinced that he is laying the groundwork for work of proselytizing Anglicans. Which is fine by me, I do not like the ECUSA’s decisions nor of the unresponsiveness nor firm conviction of the Archbishop Rowan to condemn the ECUSA’s contributing the crisis, nor from what I have read about him… he seems to be in agreement with the liberal ideas of the ECUSA. When I encounter anything relating to the Anglican Church, I am deeply upset because I was branded as a “hyper-conservative.” I was shocked at finding some of the members of my own little parish to be so liberal minded in a small community. I found out the Eucharistic minister was a homosexual, and that another woman was directly seeking ordination. I feel like I understand how Jesus felt when he turned over the money changers tables, and there are some really upset Anglicans even now just after the Anahiem General Conference. Anglicanism is my soap box.