From the blog Communio, via Sean, the recent letter of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon to the Archbishop of Athens and the Metropolitans of Greece on their Church’s ongoing dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. Emphasis added.
Your Eminence,
Given that much turmoil has been unduly created by certain circles, on the subject of the official theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and that views have also been expressed, which often range between inaccuracy and open falsehood and slander, I am hereby addressing Your affection in order to clarify the following:
1. The aforementioned theological Dialogue does not constitute a concern of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and much less, that of a specific person, but is something that is taking place upon the decision of all the autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches without exception. Specifically with regard to the present period of the Dialogue, during which the undersigned has the co-chairmanship from the Orthodox side, the agreement of all the Orthodox Churches for the continuation of the Dialogue has been recorded in Memoranda signed by the venerable Primates of the Orthodox Churches, which are hereto attached in photocopy. As Your Eminence will see when reading these Memoranda, even the most holy Church of Greece – and in fact with a Synodical decision – has admitted that “despite the existing difficulties, which spring from the provocative activities of Unia to the detriment of the flock of the Orthodox Church, the said Theological Dialogue must continue.” Consequently, those opposed to the said theological Dialogue are doubting and judging pan-Orthodox decisions, which have been reached synodically. By claiming solely as their own the genuine conscience of Orthodoxy, these people are in essence doubting the Orthodoxy not only of certain persons – as they misguidedly insist – but of the very Primates and sacred Synods of all the most holy Orthodox Churches.
2. The same things apply in the case of the said Dialogue. We are informed that a certain professor in his letter to the Reverend Hierarchs is censuring the topic of primacy as a chosen topic for the theological Dialogue, and believes that the Dialogue should be concerning itself with other matters. But the said professor is either ignorant of, or indifferent to, the fact that – again – the topic of the Dialogue was decided on at a pan-orthodox level. The attached Memoranda, signed by all the Primates of the Orthodox Churches, testify to and verify this. The most holy Church of Greece thus accepts that “this discussion (regarding Unia) can, for the sake of facilitating the course of the Dialogue, be conducted within the framework of ecclesiology through the prism of the primacy”. This is precisely what we normally intend to do, during the forthcoming discussion of the subject “The Primacy during the 2nd Millennium”, which is also when Unia first appeared. The remaining topics that the said professor referred to will by no means be overlooked by the Dialogue. However, during the present phase, as decided at an inter-orthodox level from the beginning of the Dialogue, the focal point of the discussion is Ecclesiology. It is duly respected and legitimate, for the said professor – or anyone else – to have a different point of view, but it is inadmissible to be crying out that Orthodoxy is in danger because the Primates who are shepherding Her do not share his opinion. Where are we heading as a Church, my Reverend holy brother?
3. It is being propagated very falsely and conspiringly that the signing of the union of the Churches is imminent! A professor emeritus of Theology, who is well known for his ill-will towards my person, had visited a Hierarch of the Church of Greece and had told him that he knew with certainty (!) that the union had already been signed (in Ravenna!) and that the relative announcement was a matter of time!!! Clergy and laity have approached me and asked me if it is true that the union is to be signed in Cyprus, in October! Obviously, a feeling of unrest is being attempted among the people of God through this behaviour, with unpredictable consequences for the unity of the Church. However, those who are disseminating these things are fully aware (as long as they have not been blinded by empathy, fanaticism or a mania for self-projection), firstly, that the ongoing theological Dialogue has yet to span an extremely long course, because the theological differences that have accumulated during the one thousand years of division are many; and secondly, that the Committee for the Dialogue is entirely unqualified for the “signing” of a union, given that this right belongs to the Synods of the Churches. Therefore, why all the misinformation? Can’t the disseminators of these false “updates” think of what the consequences will be for the unity of the Church? «He who agitates (God’s people) shall bear the blame, whoever he may be» (Galatians 5:10).
Your Eminence,
The responsibility of all of us, and mostly of the bishops who have been appointed by God to cater to the safeguarding of the canonical unity of their flock, is an immense one.
What is being jeopardized is ecclesiological: What is the authority and the prestige of Conciliar decisions? Do we conform to the Conciliar decisions as we are already doing – and being attacked for doing so – or do we conform to the “zealots” of Orthodoxy? Can there be an Orthodoxy and Dogmas without any Conciliar rulings?
We ask you to please place yourself on the matter, before we are led to a complete demerit of Conciliar decisions, and before Your flock disintegrates because of negligence on our part.
In humility and in awareness of episcopal responsibility, we submit the above to Your affection and judgment and remain,
in Athens the 26th of September 2009
With Respect, honour and love in the Lord
+ John of Pergamon
Orthodox Co-Chairman of the Committee for the Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholics
I notice that in all of the discussion about reunification, nobody has mentioned the Orthodox, only the hierarchy. Yet no synod can just hand down a decision; it must be accepted by the laity, or it will be void. See the Council of Florence.
No attempt at reunification can proceed until Roman Catholics educate themselves about Orthodox ecclesiology, instead of assuming it is the same as theirs (and it most emphatically is not.)
I have to assume the contents of this letter are public. I can only cringe at what it is from the Church of Greece that would have provoked this outburst. I guess I am too used to the mellow bureaucratic smoothness of recent Vatican correspondence. Do Orthodox bishops often write to each other in such a tone? Ouch!
RWP,
Yes obviously the terms of any proposed reunion would require public discussion. Current Catholic ecclesiology does differ from that Orthodoxy has developed for itself in the absence of a universal primacy since the schism. This much is true. Premature union would just provoke further schisms.
But surely, even in Orthodoxy, it is still the bishops (and the bishops alone) who determine who is or is not admitted to communion. The bishops alone determined on schism, and the bishops alone can decide to end it if they feel circumstances and new understandings justify it. Ultimately Lyons and Florence lacked success not just because they failed to sway the Orthodox faithful, but because they failed to sway the Orthodox episcopates as a whole.
Truth is truth, and I am not sure Catholics would much value a union that depended on a plebiscite of the laity. Would you consider such a plebiscite an appropriate way to deal with ANY doctrinal issue? You have only to look at those Protestant denominations in which doctrinal authority lies with the laity to see where this leads.
No attempt at reunification can proceed until Roman Catholics educate themselves about Orthodox ecclesiology
And of course all the education must be on the RC side…right? ;)
Impishly,
Diane
Michael: I may be way off-base, but I think RWP is espousing the ecclesiological views of Nicholas Afanasieff & co. If he is indeed aligning himself with this ecclesiological school, then it’s a bit ironical … because the Afanassieff school itself enjoys far from unanimous endorsement among Orthodox laity. Leastwise, from what I’m told. Indeed, some Orthodox apparently think that Afanassieff’s views veer dangerously close to Protestantism. Again, this is just what I’ve been told, and I could well be wrong….
Poor Met. Zizioulas! Blessed are the peacemakers — but they’re also usually in the line of fire, LOL. Will keep the good metropolitan in my poor papist prayers.
Diane,
I sense more Romanides than Afanassieff. I am no expert on the latter (or the former, for that matter), but I don’t find his ecclesiology, such as I understand it, all that troubling. If taken to extremes, a purely sacramental ecclesiology could lead to something like congregationalism, but I don’t think this (or the sovereignty of the laity) is what Afanassieff was arguing for. His critique of primacy as he saw it in existence in both East and West was that its foundation was too juridical and insufficiently charitative. This is not so much a denial of “universal” ecclesiology as such. He pointedly recognizes that different churches enjoy different charisms of authority and thus responsibility to their sisters.
He also makes a good point in describing all legitimate legal authority in the Church as sacramental in origin, and this is precisely the point I am making. The bishops bind and loose through their authority over the sacraments. Thus continuation or ending of the schism is up to the bishops collectively and not, as Metropolitan Zizioulas points out, at the whim of unordained “zealots.”
You clearly know waaaay more than I do about Afanassieff; I will gladly bow to your superior knowledge, especially as I was only recycling hearsay anyway. ;-) I’m sure you’re right that there’s a stronger whiff of Romanides hereabouts. Perhaps RWP could let us know what sources he is drawing his arguments from…?
There is more than one singular definition of Church in both confessions and there is considerable overlap in fact on many points.
And as far as I can tell over the years, neither confession, operates as a democracy.
Mary
1)John Zizioulas of Pergamon to all Metropolitans of the Church of Greece:
http://www.oodegr.com/english/koinwnia/koinwnika/zizioulas_letter.htm
2)Seraphim of Ioannoupolis proposes the postponement of the Cyprus convention
http://www.oodegr.com/english/koinwnia/koinwnika/IoannoupolisSeraphim_letter.htm
3)Seraphim of Piraeus letter to Archbishop Hieronymos
http://www.oodegr.com/english/koinwnia/koinwnika/serafim_letter2archbishop.htm
4)Metropolitan Andrew’s letter to Archbishop Hieronymos
http://www.oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/Konitsa_announcement.htm
“But surely, even in Orthodoxy, it is still the bishops (and the bishops alone) who determine who is or is not admitted to communion”
Certainly, perhaps even more so in some ways than the Roman Catholics. I am merely pointing out that there is an ignored element in these discussions. As for educating ourselves about Roman Catholic ecclesiology, what is there we don’t know? The difference is one of exposure: We have been exposed to RC ecclesiology, and still are, all the time; there is no similar exposure to Orthodox ecclesiology. After all, just because we have bishops doesn’t mean we operate the same way.
And folks, you are attributing to me endorsement. I am merely pointing out that the church ignores the laity at their own peril. Again, see the Council of Florence. I make no endorsements here, certainly not Afanasieff or Romanides.
I might point out that there is yet another ignored element: Monastics. Monastics are not a fringe element in Eastern Christianity as they are in the West, but are surely the fundamental and most highly respected people in Orthodoxy. They are also the most conservative.
And again, before you jump all over me or start attributing things to me I did not say, I am merely making a point: That these discussions mostly operate on the concept that bishops can sign a document and seal the deal. Uh, no.
what is there we don’t know?
Judging from some of the comments posted by our friend Lucian, I would say: Plenty!
Exposure and understanding may be two different things. ;-)
Perhaps you are that rarity among Internet Orthodox Comboxers: an Internet Orthodox Comboxer who truly knows, understands, and appreciates Catholic ecclsiology.
But, if so, you are a rare bird indeed. At least in my (admittedly limited) experience.
Monastics are not a fringe element in Eastern Christianity as they are in the West
My dear RWP, if you maintain that monastics are a “fringe element” in the West, then I would humbly suggest that you may know less about our ecclesiology than you suppose. :-)
Nobody faint. I must agree with Diane’s comment on monastic life in the west. One would have to be significantly out of the loop to suggest that monastic life in the west is not central to the spiritual life of the Body.
Also, it is clear to me that monastics in both Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church have made major contributions to our bi-lateral ecumenical dialogues through their mutual focus on liturgical prayer, fasting and theological knowledge and experience.
There is often much more in common among our monastics than among our laity in terms of liturgical and spiritual practice.
Mary
Actually no, from our perspective, Roman Catholic monastics are very much on the fringe. We draw our bishops from monasteries; you do not. Western monastics have comparatively little influence within the church; monastics in the East are the most powerful political block. Monasticism has changed little in the East since St Anthony of Egypt; many, if not most, Roman Catholic monastics aren’t even monastics, dressing in street clothes, and not contemplative orders. Historically, in the West when monastics came up against the hierarchy, the monastics usually lost; in the East, monastics usually won (again, see the Council of Florence as just one of many examples). The influence of monasticism on Eastern Christianity cannot be overstated; the fact that monastics have been ignored in these discussions says a great deal about how little the West values* their own monastics. If you think, as you said, that believing Western monastics are a fringe element, that shows how little you understand of the fundamental role monasticism plays in the East. I suspect that the comparatively lax fasting and abstention guidelines in the West stem from the different roles of monastics (that’s merely a personal hypothesis, but one I can defend). The rules of monasticism in the East are viewed as ideals every Christian should emulate.
Compared to monastics, bishops have comparatively little power in Eastern Christianity.
*This is not the best word, but at the moment, my rheumatoid arthritis is flaring up, and I’m on pain meds. I don’t mean to imply that Roman Catholics don’t place much value on monastics, just that we view ours very differently. Just as much, if not more, power is found in the monasteries as in the synods.
Actually no, from our perspective, Roman Catholic monastics are very much on the fringe.
Oh dear, the Lucian Syndrome: “Hear, o Papist! I (as an Orthodox) tell you what Catholicism’s all about; how dare you tell me it’s not the way I say it is? Just because you’re Catholic you think you know something about Catholicism? Hah!”
Siiiigh.
Lucian, dearest, if you’re out there, please forgive me for taking your name in vain. You know I do so affectionately. :)
Western monastics have comparatively little influence within the church
That would come as news to the Benedictines who kept the Faith alive in various parts of Europe and the British Isles during the early Middle Ages. And who helped define Western civilization in the process.
And that’s just one example. There are others.
I am sorry but this is a truly ignorant portrayal of monasticism in the west.
To not know the power of a western Superior General, Abbot, and Arch-Abbot in their respective orders and in the Church is woeful ignorance. And that is just the beginning.
Every major order wears an easily recognizable habit, and there are millions of tertiaries around the globe…lay men and women who are either associated with a major order or actual members of the order such as the Dominican, Franciscan and Carmelite tertiaries. These lay people have strong influence in parishes around the world and bring the monastic life to the people in myriad ways.
Then there are the eastern Catholic monastics, men and women and their associate members, and that has its own history and influence.
There’s really no point in advancing an argument against bombast that has little basis in reality except common “wisdom” of the easterner.
M.
Just for the record, I know that rwp has done his Catholic time at some point and speaks most disparagingly of it on his blog, but I must say that it could have been time much better spent.
M.
Hmm, I am not sure where to begin. I will grant rwp’s point that the monastics in the West are “different” from those in the East, but I think he is overstating the importance of Eastern monks and understating that of Western monasticism.
It’s hard to square such a notion with the missionary and teaching orders, not to mention the likes of St Bennedict, St Thomas Aquinas , St Bernard, St Francis of Assisi, St Dominic, etc.. When Western Christians think of their saints, they mainly think of monastics. The parallels do not end there. Much of the Western episcopate is also drawn from the regular as opposed to secular clergy, for example.
Now with respect to Orthodoxy, granted that all (or almost all) bishops are chosen from the monastic order, does this not mean that all bishops thereby cease to remain monks? Do they become less holy by virtue of becoming bishops? Is becoming a bishop in Orthodoxy a demotion for a monk? Do monks canonically sit over bishops in judgment? I trust you see where this is heading.
The idea that Florence and Lyons failed solely because of the opposition of monastics is largely a myth. Only a small minority of Eastern bishops attended these councils and signed the canons. It was both the monks AND the Eastern episcopate as a whole who failed to recognize the new unions, not just the monks alone.
It does seem, however, that some Orthodox do seem to hold their episcopate in contempt as the source of all their woes. I have never been able to understand this as it does fundamental violence to the patristic and apostolic heritage both Churches share.
I think that the Easterners would do well to learn that the West has not the doctrinal unity that it appears to have on many issues. The ecclesiology of the Church is a prime example. Is it a “Perfect Society”? Is it “The Mystical Body of Christ”? The list goes on.
Dialogue would also be much improved if we could get to the bottom of the issue of modern Hesychasm. The Eastern monastics tend to dislike the West because the West has traditionally held that Hesychasm is a late medieval innovation based on auto-suggestion and questionable ideas about the existence of “uncreated light”. Now, this needn’t be Church dividing issue but we do need to make it clear that we can agree to disagree over it.
The development of the Eastern view of divorce, contraception and the nature and bounds of secular authority are also developments that the Easterners do need to realise are things where the West holds the stronger cards than they (just as they hold the stronger cards viz the traditional usage of papal power, liturgy, and the authority of Tradition).
PS: The West does value monasticism. I would say that we probably have as many religious as the east as a proportion of the clergy. In fact, if we are going to include women religious there are something like 3 times the number of monastics than secular priests.
Michael: I think you have hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head. Monasticism plays a different role in the West than it plays in the East, but that role is no less significant. “Different” does not mean “lesser.” It just means…different.
As Mary notes, there is simply NO way anyone can assert, with a straight face, that monasticism is at “the fringe” of Western Catholicism. Not credibly, in any event!
As someone who has visited Trappist abbeys, Benedictine convents, and even the famous Regina Laudis monastery of cloistered Benedictine nuns…all I can say is, whew. Just…whew.
Diane
P.S. I don’t know if RWP would consider them “monastics” by his definition…but, from the High Middle Ages onward, both the mendicant orders and the hospitaller orders played a pretty significant role in founding what would eventually become modern Western medicine. If that’s “fringe,” I’d be interested in seeing what qualifies as “non-fringe.”
Don’t forget the military orders Diane! :-P
Hesychasm is still the heart of the Carmelite order and any other contemplative order. The “light that is darkness” is the core of hesychast teaching.
So it would be something of an over-generalization to say that the “west” has seen hesychasm as some sort of innovation in the monastic life.
Father Jordan Aumann of the Dominicans dates the strongest resistance to the prayer of union or the light that is darkness from the end of the 18th century in one of his histories on-line.
Part of it was a reaction to protestant pietism and some of it was a rejection of any notion that any but a very few monastics could ever hope to attain the prayer of union as a result. But even at that it was only certain orders who took those positions. The Carmelites for example never did.
Mary
Christian,
Hesychasm is indeed difficult to reconcile with the scholasticism which underlies the main Western approach to doing theology, but we have to remember that the Christian faith and its binding tenets are revealed and not reasoned. As such, no theological methodology enjoys dogmatic status, and the truth is independent of them.
You can still be a good Catholic while embracing hesychasm and dismissing Augustinianism and scholasticism. Similarly, you should still be able to be a good Orthodox while holding a jaundiced view of the uncreated light and Thomas in angelic esteem. When one’s theological methodology becomes the determinant of one’s faith rather than its servant, one becomes easy prey for demonic delusions. The inevitable outcome is discord and schism.
My main beef with contemporary Orthodoxy (and I have a few) is that it seems to have lost this catholicity of perspective, one it still had as late as the 15th century. It’s as if some Orthodox cannot draw a distinction between being Christian and Byzantine, forgetting that the first Christians were not Byzantines, but Semites and Copts. That said, Catholics can be religious bigots as well. But at least the Catholic Church tries to integrate all the ancient patristic streams, not just the Greek ones.
Would you believe I once heard an Orthodox priest dismiss St John Damascene as essentially a Muslim stooge?
Interesting comments on monasticism, Orthodox and Catholic.
One of the most important diferences between them is education. Western monasticism, from the fall of Rome on, was concerned with preserving and handing down as much knowledge, sacred and secular, as possible. Therefore, one of the most important functions of monasticism was the education of the monks. Benedictine monks, and later other monastic orders, combined a thorough education with a contemplative, liturgical life. The two were seen as integral to a good monastic life.
In Orthodoxy, such was not the case. Instead, monks do not receive even a basic theological education. Instead, they are urged to participate in liturgical functions and prayer. That is considered enough for most monks.
For reference;
Click to access login
Western monastics have always been on the “edge” of the Catholic Church, involved in activities that often bear future fruit for the Church. This is quite evident currently. One may refer to Thomas Merton, the late Cistercian monk, whose writings point to a more inclusive vision of the role of the Church than is even now conceived. One can also point to Henri LeSaux and Jule Monchanin as similar prophetic voices.
One of the most important projects of Western monastics, a fruit of Mertons, Lesaux’s and Monchanin’s efforts, is MIDI which has had numerous dialogues with Buddhist and Hindu monastics. The only drawback to those dialogues is the lack of participation by Orthodox monastics.
Consecrated life in the West and in the East has developed along different lines. Initially both within the East and in the West the monastic life enjoyed a certain unity of purpose and praxis. Within the West historical/theological/ascetical/missiological developments lead to changes in what is broadly referred to as “religious life.” In addition to the monastic order still shared between the East and West, other forms of consecrated life came into being in the West. The Franciscan and Dominican (and later the Carmelite) orders are representative of the mendicant form of consecrated life (which although it shares much with the monastic life cannot be completely identified with it). Later various other forms of “apostolic life” came into being especially during and after the protestant revolution (Jesuits, Theatines, Oratorians etc.). Within the contemporary context have been born even newer forms of consecrated life in the West (secular institutes, ecclesial movements). Within the West these developments are perceived as new initiatives of the Holy Spirit in response to changed and changing historical exigencies. Within the East these developments are sometimes identified as evidence of the West’s departure from the patristic heritage. It is not accurate to equate all these developments in the West with monastic life in the East (or the West for that matter). These develpments in the West due point to the acceptance of a greater plurality of expression then is allowed for within the East. Some would suggest that this plurality constitutes a fuller expression of catholicity and that within a (re)united Church Eastern monasticism would have to take its place as one more charism in synergy with these multiple other expressions of consecrated life. It might be more precise to identify the unique ways in which the different forms influence ecclesial life according to God’s plan. Just felt like offering some rudimentary distinctions to this interesting discussion.
Eastern monasticism has not developed “schools” of thought in the same way that they were developed in the west. That statement is true.
In the first place while Charlemagne was busy trying to bring the population in what is now Central, North- and West-Central Europe out of the stone age, the Greeks and Syrians and also those Slavs who had enjoyed some centuries of contact with the classical world were relishing the fruits of centuries of advanced learning and literacy. The patristic fathers and the desert fathers were learned men and passed that down to those who came after in a system of spiritual sonship, rather than through a system of academies and eventually univerisites that rapidly secularized and professionalized, leaving theology to the worldly experts, at the expense of the divinized experts.
That is a short version but it is real enough.
Orthodoxy also did not have to endure the dissolution of the monasteries, really until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the devastation, as horrific as it was, has not been as thorough nor as long-lasting as the impact was in the west.
So while the east was operating a thriving system of spiritual sonship, the west was busy sequestering manuscripts and navigating the stormy waters of Imperium and Sacerdotum.
So it is good sometimes to simplify things in talking about them but when simplicity substitutes for reality then its time to either stop talking or find something real to talk about.
Also there are MANY other monastics of the 20th century with a far more lasting impact on the Church than Father Louis…Thanks be to God.
Mary
Oh…mind that when I speak tongue-in-cheek about bringing a people out of the stone age that I am making a comparison between their organic development as an oral culture and the overlay of a literate culture on top of them. I am not suggesting any kind of inherent inability or incapacity of the people. Quite the contrary in fact.
M.
James, thank you for that excellent post. :)
Just to give this discussion a slightly different off topic direction than monasticism, a thought occurred to me in relation to the ecclesiology dimension of the next stage in the dialogue the good metropolitan is referring to:
It is now widely accepted amongst Oriental Orthodox and Catholic theologians and bishops that the Christological disputes at Chalcedon were essentially linguistic (see http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=96&IndexView=toc ), and need not in themselves constitute obstacles to reunion.
The remaining areas of disagreement reportedly are ecclesiological and (surprise!) the filioque. This, from the Catholic point of view, suggests that the Oriental Orthodox stand in essentially in the same relationship to Rome as do the Eastern Orthodox.
I know the Eastern Orthodox still have reservations regarding the inability of the Oriental Orthodox to subscribe fully to the specific terminological formulations of Chalcedon, but otherwise why is there so little movement and progress towards Oriental/Eastern Orthodox reunion?
On the Oriental/ Orthodox dialogue, an interesting essay by John H. Erickson
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1564
Also this website;
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/index.php
Thanks Evarius,
Both enlightening and mildly depressing.
Comment for James:
Inaccurate to say that the Carmelites are not monastic. The Discalced Teresian cloisters are monastic. The discalced erimetic friars are monastic, and both in traditional terms.
The Ancient Order Carmelites are not active in the world by choice and would be behind the wall but circumstance and falling numbers has forced them into parish work.
The Discalced Friars in this country live in a motherhouse but travel out as missionaries and for supporting and forming the tertiary laity.
And there are third order religious Carmelite affiliates who confuse things greatly for the average person who does not know that they are affiliates and not directly descended from either the Ancient Order or the Discalced.
So the order has indeed manifest a variety of charisms and apostolates, but to say they are not monastic, as the Jesuits truly are not monastic, would be inaccurate.
M.
PS: One of the things that I sometimes hear Orthodox monastics talk about is the fact that perhaps they should be doing more missionary work, and more work with the poor which would require them to be a bit more active in the world.
M.
Some relevant links:
http://www.oodegr.com/english/koinwnia/koinwnika/serafim_letter2archbishop.htm
http://www.oodegr.com/english/papismos/universal_primacy.htm
http://www.oodegr.com/english/koinwnia/koinwnika/IoannoupolisSeraphim_letter.htm
And a (very poor) translation of the letter from the Holy Mountain on the upcoming meeting in Cyprus. Note the comments of the Patriarch.
The Sacred Community has decided as follows:
1. Throughout the past centuries, the Holy Mountain has remained – with the Grace of Christ – the faithful guardian of the holy Orthodox Faith, which the God-heralding Apostles had delivered to the Church and which our God-bearing Fathers with the holy Ecumenical Synods had preserved, unforged, over the ages. This same delivered Faith was likewise preserved faithfully by our predecessor Holy Mountain Fathers.
2. After having been informed that during the impending Plenary Session of the Joint Commission for the Theological Dialogue in Cyprus, between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholics, the subject is to be «the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Churches during the first millennium», our Sacred Community, not knowing the exact content of the said Dialogue, is hereby expressing its extreme worry and concern, because the the Papal Primacy is foreseen for discussion, before Papism has even begun to cast out its heretic dogmas and its secular character (the Vatican State). Therefore, the only prerequisite for a discussion of the Primacy to take place is the return of the Roman Catholics to the Orthodox Faith and the Conciliar polity of the Orthodox Church, and not the “unity in diversity” of dogmas.
3. «This is the Orthodox Church – the only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church» as also declared in the most venerable Holy Temple of the Protaton by His Most Holy Beatitude the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on the 21-8-2008, during his visit to the Holy Mountain. That is what we believe also, and we will remain steadfast in everything that our holy fathers had proclaimed.
All the Representatives and Principals of the twenty Sacred Monasteries of the Holy Mountain Athos.
From another post on another site:
The translation is poor.
And, an answer to this has been sent by more than one theologian in the Church of Greece.
The Synodical system, as it pertains to the dialogue, especially, has completely broken down, such that, in practice, a very small group of bishops (not of the local churches) are directing the course of the dialogue for the Orthodox.
To give you but two examples:
1. The document that the Orthodox will encounter in Cyprus has been prepared before hand by a handful of people, circulated to none of them beforehand. This means that the representatives are forced to work within parameters, within an approach, which is already predetermined. That is why the Church of Bulgaria refuses to go to Cyprus.
2. Since the beginning of the dialogue – 29 years ago – and over 12 meetings and documents issued NOT ONE of these common statements has even been sent for approval to the local churches nor, obviously, APPROVED by them. Hence, they all remain just “working texts.” And Yet, these “working texts” are repeatedly cited as agreements of the Churches and built upon year after year as building blocks of the dialogue.
The reality is that the “synodical” basis for Orthodox involvement is non-existent. The recent decisions cited by the Patriarch were made by the prokathimeni (protos/first) of the hierarchs in each local church NOT the HOLY SYNODS.
This is what the theologian Met. Zizoulis is criticizing is saying – a charge not answered by the Metropolitan.
Then it would seem that the Orthodox have to have a council among themselves to agree on a common basis before anything else can occur.
This is the actual difficulty and the actual irony. The “Latins” are quite organized, fairly unanimous, and theologically, very well prepared. The Orthodox, on the other hand, are disorganized, confused as to who has “primacy” and who doesn’t, and have a complex, confusing, theological response.
It seems to me that until the Orthodox can come to a common understanding there can be no real dialogue, let alone, a move towards reunion.
I think the same problematic exists for any reunion with the Oriental Orthodox.
Evagrius, you took the words right out of my word processor. (But said it so much better than I could.)
It seems a hopeless business…doesn’t it?
Once again, I am forced to conclude that only a miracle will bring about reunion.
Diane
Mary, thanks for clarification re the Carmelites.
First a question:
Met John states:
“those opposed to the said theological Dialogue are doubting and judging pan-Orthodox decisions, which have been reached synodically. By claiming solely as their own the genuine conscience of Orthodoxy, these people are in essence doubting the Orthodoxy not only of certain persons – as they misguidedly insist – but of the very Primates and sacred Synods of all the most holy Orthodox Churches.”
I thought that Bulgaria has dropped out of all ecumenical activities, and that Georgia had never participated in them. I thought this included the official dialogues with the RCC. Is my thinking not correct?
Then a comment:
This is purely anecdotal, but I worked for the largest antiquarian theological bookseller for some years, and during that time I bought books at many, many, many Catholic religious houses in the United States. This was mostly during the 90s. At that time, most of the religious I encountered were in secular attire. It may be that each monastic order has its appropriate attire, but for a period of time anyway that dress was regularly discarded by many religious. Of course, most of these folks were old, and the younger religious, such as say the bulk of the Nashville Dominicans, were firmly returning to proper attire. Come to think of it, I do not know that I have met a religious younger than 35 in secular attire.
To be fair, the Catholic/Orthodox dialogue is only following the same standard procedure that has been followed in all the other such dialogues both Churches have been involved in. These are not negotiating sessions, and the papers presented for discussion are the sole responsibility of their authors. They don’t commit the Churches and particiapnts to anything. The process is similar to a university seminar.
This way, if the author is (say) Orthodox, the other Orhtodox participants don’t have to feel that they are somehow bound to support his (or sometimes her) text. The participants then all discuss and critique the paper from their own individual perspectives.
The papers themselves are not drafts for a final communiqué, but are focussed instead on one narrow historical or theological issue (normally more than one paper will be discussed at each session).
A communiqué is only drafted subsequently summarizing the points of agreement and dissagreement that emerged from the discussion. Sometimes the communqué says little more than that this or that paper was discussed.
Communiqué reports (including the original papers) are then sent back to the participating Churches for public circulation and comment. Sometimes the comments can be quite ascerbic (notably those written by the CDF in the Vatican) prompting a new discussion to review, deal with and/or incorporate the concerns raised. Sometimes the comments prompt changes in the the agenda and provide new topics for disussion.
It’s all very open and tansparent and, in my view, quite interesting to follow (if verrry slow,given that the dialogue partners normally only meet once a year at most). I will admit to being a bit of a junkie.
A procedure along the lines Panagiotis seems to be suggesting would be rather sterile as it would simply amount to an exchange of internally negotiated texts on which further discussion would be pointless.
Dear Diane,
Same can and should be said for the Dominicans. The Franciscans are a bit different though there are those who live a cenobitic life as they age and are no longer able to do missionary work or teach regularly.
One might distinguish between living a consecrated life and living a monastic life though the canonical provision for hermits in religious vows makes even that distinction a bit awkward. Still I would place the consecrated hermit in the category of consecrated lives rather than among the monastics, unless that hermit was fortunate enough to live on the grounds of a major monastic community…
Orthodoxy of course has the tradition of the staretz and nuns are sometimes not schema-nuns but something akin to our consecrated hermits living in Sketes that are associated with a male monastic community or a female house. There are stylites and fools for Christ, and lay martyrs who are venerated as saints…men and women who lives were consecrated by blood or desire. And then there is St. Herman of Alaska. So monasticism is not all that cut and dried in Orthodoxy either. Nothing much to worry about really.
+++++++++++++++
And to ochlophobe: I met one of my favorite Franciscan ordinary saints knee deep in one of the prayer garden ponds at his mother house in a white undershirt, with his pant legs rolled above his knees, and in his bare feet. More reminiscent of bed clothes than street clothes in reality but one can hardly be scandalized by an ordinary saint, I think.
Somehow I don’t consider that first meeting as meeting him in street clothes, and its not as though he never wore his habit. He just didn’t root around in the ponds in full habit. Besides I had gone wading in the pond first and he had come down to warn me that the Abbot was home and I was in dire danger of the Wrath of Abba!! It was then that he rolled up his pantlegs, tossed his sandals and was fishing around to find things to show to me. He was a trained botanist and horticulturalist.
He was in his early 80’s at the time and did not live much longer after those couple of summers when we shared a few warm Saturdays in pleasant conversation about many things natural and spiritual. Even without his habit I seem to remember that he wore a pale nimbus and it struck me at the time that I was in the presence of someone quite close to God’s ear.
M.
I believe the Georgian Church has recently (last few years) withdrawn from all formal ecumenical discussion because of a threatened internal schism over the issue. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t follow or is not interested in the dialogue, however.
Och, even during the ’90s, it depended on the order. You’re right that there’s an overwhelming trend today, especially among younger religious, toward traditional religious garb. But I can remember visiting an active order of Benedictine nuns, back during the crazy ’70s, who wore traditional black habits. Around the same time, I visited the Regina Laudis abbey (cloistered Benedictine nuns), and of course they were in full habit. Then there were the Daughters of Saint Paul–they never forsook the habit. And many similar orders. They were always out there. There’s just a lot more of them today! :) Simple Sinner has an extensive list, with links, at TheBlackCordelias.wordpress.com.
Needless to say, these traditional orders are getting vocations out the wazoo, while the habit-less progs are dwindling away…
Question was:
I thought that Bulgaria has dropped out of all ecumenical activities, and that Georgia had never participated in them. I thought this included the official dialogues with the RCC. Is my thinking not correct?
Answer:
Both the Georgian and Bulgarian churches have withdrawn from the WCC – not necessarily from the particular theological dialogues.
Also, the Serbian church made the decision to withdrawal from the WCC – but then shelved it until a pan-orthodox decision can be reached. That, practically speaking, is almost impossible happen, since the EP would have to call for it and we all know that this won’t happen on this side of the Second Coming. . .
The call to drop out of the WCC has never been seen as the equivalent to ending bilateral dialogue with the Catholic Church…who has steadfastly refused to become a member in the WCC in the first place.
I think I am missing your point.
M.
Evagrius wrote:
Then it would seem that the Orthodox have to have a council among themselves to agree on a common basis before anything else can occur.
Answer:
The ORTHODOX don’t really disagree or have great divisions amongst themselves as to the faith of the church. Rather, the hierarchy of certain key local churches have abrogated responsibility for the dialogue and its progress to a handful – literally two or three people – who manipulate the situation for reasons of personal interests and power interests, and move ahead without the essential and real agreement (not being informed) of the local churches.
If there is anyone to blame for this situation, it is those hierarchs who know better but who look the other way. After them, those to blame are the indifferent – the majority. And only then are the few, who are worldly and power-hungry, to blame. For, if the theologically literate would speak to the problem of a lack of synodicality and challenge the usurpers, then so much of that which angers the Orthodox base and inflames the anti-ecumenist movement would not have happened, would be stopped in its tracks (for example the common prayer/liturgical prayers offered).
The problem of the Orthodox is not with the non-Orthodox, but with those Orthodox who are selling the Church out. It is once again the right church with all the wrong people.
Panagiotis: er…you make it sound really appealing. ;)
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think the Bulgarian Orthodox Church too has issues with various internal divisions among the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church–Alternative Synod, and the True Orthodox Church of Bulgaria which may effect its participation in the synods of which the Metropolitan speaks.
How many Orthodox commentators here are contending that this statement is a lie:
1. The aforementioned theological Dialogue does not constitute a concern of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and much less, that of a specific person, but is something that is taking place upon the decision of all the autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches without exception. Specifically with regard to the present period of the Dialogue, during which the undersigned has the co-chairmanship from the Orthodox side, the agreement of all the Orthodox Churches for the continuation of the Dialogue has been recorded in Memoranda signed by the venerable Primates of the Orthodox Churches, which are hereto attached in photocopy. As Your Eminence will see when reading these Memoranda, even the most holy Church of Greece – and in fact with a Synodical decision – has admitted that “despite the existing difficulties, which spring from the provocative activities of Unia to the detriment of the flock of the Orthodox Church, the said Theological Dialogue must continue.” Consequently, those opposed to the said theological Dialogue are doubting and judging pan-Orthodox decisions, which have been reached synodically. By claiming solely as their own the genuine conscience of Orthodoxy, these people are in essence doubting the Orthodoxy not only of certain persons – as they misguidedly insist – but of the very Primates and sacred Synods of all the most holy Orthodox Churches.
Following Ms. Lanser’s posting;
Hence the confusing situation among Orthodox. To be quite blunt…either they speak with one voice about these issues, ( not only the RCC but the world situation as it is), or they continue their poor imitation of Babel.
Dear Evagrius,
I think that is unfair to do to those Orthodox hierarchs and faithful who are genuinely interested in the resumption of communion and in open dialogue concerning doctrinal issues.
There is ever so much the equivalent amount, if not kind, of babel in the Catholic Church. This blog offers Cardinal George as but one example.
M.
Mary,
Granted that anti-ecumenists such as of the Mel Gibson variety exist in the Catholic Church, but how exactly is Cardinal George an exemplar of the point you wish to make? I am genuinely confused.
Michael,
the Monophysites have the same view on the uncreated divine Energies as we do.
I also don’t understand what the whole discussion about monks has to do with anything. I was taught the faith by my pious grandmother. Orthodoxy is a living faith, lived out in the lives of its faithful. It’s not a long-lost museum-faith. Everybody knows that they have to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays and the Four Great Fasts, and go to Church Sundays and for the Holidays. The texts of the Church-prayers, Scripture-readings and the preaching of the priest done during the Church-services are extremely helpful and informative.
I’m just making an observation, only from my perspective, that the Orthodox need to have a more common approach.
If the weakness of Catholics is too much organization then the weakness of Orthodox is too little organization.
I think this is recognized by both sides who are slowly approaching a common middle way.
Here’s some interesting news;
http://www.oodegr.com/english/papismos/what_pan_orthodox_decision.htm
Evagrius,
Not very edifying. In any case, if it causes grief to the Orthodox side, I am sure Catholic prelates could live with separate praying. It’s not like they make a habit of forcing themselves into Orthodox places of worship.
It seems that those protesting still fundamentally misunderstand what the dialogue involves. There is nothing inherently wrong or shocking that some Orthodox Church’s should take exception to the Balamand statement. It was circulated to them precisely to get their feedback. One would assume that if the dialogue participants wish to return to the statement, it would be with a view to revising it in light of the comments and objections expressed.
I don’t really understand. Has no effort been made to explain the process to all Orthodox bishops? If not, then it might be best for the Catholic side to withdraw until it can be sure the Orthodox participants are in a position to participate in good faith.
I am an English Benedictine monk, superior of a monastery on the outskirts of Lima, very far from Eastern- Western problems. However, my abbot’s first experience of monastic life was on Mount Athos, which he visited while a student of the Greek language at the university of Thessoloniki – his stay lasted far longer than his permit allowed, and it has continued to be an inspiration of his monastice life. A couple of years ago, he was permitted to pray alone in a cave where St Gregory Palamas lived. Fr Louis in my monastery was first attracted to monastic life when he heard, by accident, a talk given by a Peruvian monk from Mount Athos. Br Alex, of this Peruvian monastery, was living the life of an ordinary Peruvian youth, until he was knocked sidewase by what Charismatics call “Baptism in the Spirit”. He disliked the charismatic form of prayer before the experience, and continued to dislike it afterwards. Instead,it led him into monastic life and, a little later, into icon-painting. An Orthodox iconographer with an international reputation has said that, if Alex continues perfecting his (art, vocation?) he mat become one of the best in the world. I too I too have had the “charismatic” experience; but I was already into Orthodoxy, and all it did was to confirm the way I was taking. Yet, none of us are tempted to cross over to the other side. Love, David
In the first thousand years, Orthodoxy and Catholicism were one, in spite of the fact that each lived in a society very different from that on the other side of that which would become the divide. In order to remain one, holy, catholic and apostolic, each side had its own priorities. Each side judged the other according to its own experience, unaware that the other’s experience was different. Each imagined that the other, when its representative spoke, was meaning what the other side would have meant if it had said the same thing. Each side misinterpreted the other.
The GREAT thing is that Catholicism and Orthodoxy now live in the same world which imposes on both the same priorities, and that they are beginning to solve their common problems together. I have no doubt that, in the process, they will eventually discover their common identity and see their differences in a new context. Yours, David
In Belarus and in many parts of the Ukraine there is utter friendship between Cathoic and Orthodox laypeople because they all suffered communism together. In Minsk, Catholics and Orthodox demonstrate side by side for the return of a Catholic church confiscated by the communist state. The monk who met the demonstrators said that they did not mind to which Church, Catholic or Orthodox, it went to: all they wanted was to have it returned. Bitterness and strife are characteristics of clerics. The Latin Catholic church in Minsk has nine masses on Sunday. They clergy were not opposed, but they were puzzled why two Catholic priests, one an abbot, should want to stay in an Orthodox convent. An Orthodox priests gave them a tour of the city’s churches. He went to one that was a model of Byzantine liturgical practice, and to another that has a statue of Our Lady of Fatima. He asked them which was the Catholic church. Of course, the one with the statue of Our Lady of Fatima is Orthodox.
I have been told that in many parts of the Ukraine, there is the same friendliness and cooperation, born of suffering. The bitterness is more among clerics, for reason of ecclesiastical politics. The same in the Holy Land: clerics and monks fight over the Holy Places; while the native laity go to the nearest Mass, Catholic, Orthodox or Oriental. They always have. It was for the situation among Palestinian Christians that Vatican II changed its rules on communion.
Brother David: Your comment re Belarus reminds me of the consensus reached recently among participants at a small forum I frequent, which is run by surprisingly tolerant Calvinists (tolerant of Catholics and Orthodox, that is…it’s a unique forum in many ways). We were discussing the fact that the current culture wars — including the secularist threat to Christianity — perforce bring us together. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there aren’t any anti-ecumenists there, either. As darkness descends on the world, as the Culture of Death seems to triumph, Christians cannot afford to keep fighting among themselves. There are far bigger issues, and we can only face those issues if we band together
Dear David,
If you would, please consider joining Irenikon. The website listed on my profile. It might be interesting for you and there are several once-Benedictines there who would enjoy your presence. One is now a Byzantine priest and the other a layman. Are you Father David or Brother David?
M.
I am very honoured to be asked to join. My title is “father” or “dom”, but that doesn’t matter really. I am a monk of Belmont Abbey, Hereford, England; and I am superior of a small, frail monastery on the outskirts of Lima, Peru, with one Englishman (me), three Peruvians in solemn vows and three in simple vows; hence, we are seven There are also two aspirants. The Abbot of Belmont’s first monastic experience was on Athos, (as a prolonged visitor). One Peruvian is a dedicated and gifted iconographer which, for him, is not so much an art as a spiritual quest. Thankyou for asking. I accept. God bless, David
we are seven
Sounds positively Wordsworthian, Father. :)
What a fascinating story!
As you no doubt know, we have a (Benedictine) Belmont Abbey here in North Carolina. The monks operate a college of the same name, where my sons may end up attending.
Dear Father David,
I know the spirit in which you say it does not particularly matter and agree.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/
This is the url for the list that I run and so I was wondering if you have a profile or account already established on Yahoo? and if you do then it would be a simple matter to sign up for the list.
Mary