Replies

Thanks for the ping. I find this whole line of "we're returning icons/relics, therefore it's time to talk theology" quite curious, but perhaps I'm just out of touch.

The Archimandrite makes a number of curious statements.

"The return of these relics means that one more bridge is created between the sister Churches of Constantinople and Rome, between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox..."

The former does not equal the latter, and statements like this may not inspire confidence in Orthodox Christians who are not under the Patriarch of Constantinople (the vast majority.)

You as an Orthodox Christian understand that in the Orthodox Church, a bishop is a bishop is a bishop, and while different honor is given to different bishops, the authority of each bishop only extends to the limits of his own diocese. But most non-Orthodox do not understand this, particularly Roman Catholics who are used to a system of organization where the Pope has the authority to act unilaterally throughout the entire Roman Church worldwide.

There are large segments of the Orthodox Church who feel that we are a very long way from being able to "discuss a speedy process of rapprochement of the Churches" for a variety of reasons of theology and praxis. I would also find that many of us would see as misleading the statment that "The problem that remains to be surmounted is 'Uniatism.'" I understand that what is meant is that 'Uniatism' is an impediment to even being able to talk at all -- but the casual observer would imagine that what is meant is that this is the only problem remaining to be surmounted for union to occur! If and when the Romans renounce Uniatism, and the discovery is made that union won't immediately follow, Orthodox are going to be accused of false advertising by Roman Catholics who thought that this was the hurdle.

The problems that remain to be surmounted are not found in the rarified airs of official dialogues, but rather are most strikingly seen in most cities by attending a few services and hearing a few sermons at local Orthodox parishes and then doing the same in the very liberal Roman Catholic parishes found throughout most of America, at least. We have Roman Catholics who occasionally attend our Orthodox parish and are visibly shaken by the differences between what they encounter here compared to what they are being offered "back home"...

This is why your recommendation for grass-roots contacts are so very important. I welcome them. And in all of our dialogues we must be Christian, civil, and completely truthful -- there is no room for inflammatory talk, but neither is there room for implying that we are closer to union than we really are just because it is what we think others want to hear.

Thanks again for the ping to this interesting thread. I'll stick around to lurk and see how things proceed.

If and when the Romans renounce Uniatism, and the discovery is made that union won't immediately follow, Orthodox are going to be accused of false advertising by Roman Catholics who thought that this was the hurdle.

The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15). Pope John Paul II said that "the Catholic Church is both Eastern and Western." It recognizes 22 different liturgies that make up the "two lungs" of the Church. The Eastern Churches have their own hierarchy distinct from the Latin Rite, system of governance (synods) and general law, the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches. The Supreme Pontiff exercises his primacy over them through the Congregation for the Eastern Churches.

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

The term 'Uniatism' was dropped many years ago. The Eastern Rites are the rites used by many of the ancient Christian churches of Eastern Europe and the Middle East that are in the Catholic Communion but do not follow the Latin Rite. The churches that use these rites are called the Eastern Catholic Churches. The faithful who use these rites are technically members of "Eastern Catholic Churches", not rites. Their union with the Catholic Church, in which they are sui iuris Churches, gives rise to the term Uniate, which is not used by the Vatican.

Western (or "Latin-Rite") Catholic bishops are subject directly to the Pope, but most Eastern-rite Catholic bishops are subject indirectly to the pope via one of six Catholic "patriarchs of the east", who sit in Alexandria, Antioch, Antelias, Baghdad, Beirut, and Damascus but who acknowledge the primacy of the Pope. (There is a seventh "patriarch" of the east in Jerusalem, but his church follows the Latin Rite, as his title is honorary, not juridical.) These churches accept Catholic dogma, but retain hierarchies and liturgies distinct from the Western church, and follow many laws and customs that differ from those of Western church. They are subject to the "Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches" promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1991. For example, their priests need not be celibate, and their parish priests, rather than diocesan bishops, normally confirm parishioners, using the chrismation rite rather than the rite used in the west.

We have Roman Catholics who occasionally attend our Orthodox parish and are visibly shaken by the differences between what they encounter here compared to what they are being offered "back home"...

This same distinction can be made with regard to Roman Catholics who attend the Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Catholic Church. It was true for me and for everyone I have sent "East", in their search for orthodoxy. Perhaps we, who have "breathed with both lungs" can evangelize those who are disconsolate, believing there to be only one liturgy.

Watching the live coverage this morning, of the transfer of the relics, was to witness a major event in the reconciliation of our churches.

"Thanks for the ping. I find this whole line of "we're returning icons/relics, therefore it's time to talk theology" quite curious, but perhaps I'm just out of touch."

Note how the Archmandrite speaks of the gifts which have been exchanged. I suspect that the return of the relics of two very great pre-schism saints, saints for whom union with Rome was very important, is symbolic in two ways. First, the obvious one I just mentioned. St. John Chrysostomos was particularly favored by and favorable to Rome yet was twice Patriarch of Constantinople and fully Orthodox in his teaching. Second, and perhaps less obvious is cultural/historical. I can remember numerous instances over my lifetime when someone, laity, clergy or hierarch, here or in Greece, would in some public forum launch into a tirade on the sack of Constantinople by Papal Crusaders. The story of the pillaging of The City and the desecration of the Churches, especially of Agia Sophia has become a basic culture myth in Greek Christendom. I can remember my own mother coming home from a trip to Italy and being enraged by what she saw in Venice at St. Mark's. The belief developed, wrongly in my opinion, that 1453 was a direct result of that sack. The return of the relics, taken in the sack, has powerful meaning for the Greeks. I'll propose that these gestures had to happen before any serious talking could take place.

"You as an Orthodox Christian understand that in the Orthodox Church, a bishop is a bishop is a bishop, and while different honor is given to different bishops, the authority of each bishop only extends to the limits of his own diocese. But most non-Orthodox do not understand this, particularly Roman Catholics who are used to a system of organization where the Pope has the authority to act unilaterally throughout the entire Roman Church worldwide."

You are of course correct. And our Roman brethren must keep this in mind. Each of the Patriarchial jurisdictions and the national churches will have to speak for themselves. But Constantinople is the first among equals and one has to start somewhere. Past experience tells me that Antioch and Alexandria will be intimately involved in these discussions. If the Uniate problem is solved, Moscow will be along too. Many of the national churches already have close relations with Rome and/or Constantinople. But in the end, its up to the churches themselves and the people like us. The EP can't tell them what to do in this area.

"There are large segments of the Orthodox Church who feel that we are a very long way from being able to "discuss a speedy process of rapprochement of the Churches" for a variety of reasons of theology and praxis."

The only way to deal with the theological differences is by discussing them and seeing if we can come to an agreement on what the Truth is, so we must discuss theology. Praxis is another, much broader realm. Much, probably most praxis is of a disciplinary/cultural nature and should be left to the churches to decide. In other areas, however, praxis reflects and teaches and preserves dogma. In those areas where praxis and dogma intersect, and I would think that will be true in much ecclesiology, more intensive discussion will have to take place. As for "speedy rapprochement", I suspect the Archmandrite is speaking of the development of very close relations, even a sort of communion like we seem to have developed with the so called monophysites or what goes on in Lebanon between the Orthodox and the Maronites and Melkites. I trust we all realize that a Great Ecumenical Council isn't going to happen next month and when it does, it won't be over in a week.

You point out a very practical, potential problem with socially or theologically liberal Roman Catholics. The truth is they will be extremely uncomfortable with the Orthodox. Contrary to some opinions expressed on FR, we are light years more conservative than even the Romans on matters of established dogma and praxis. I don't know what will happen with the "Liberation Theology" crowd, the "ordination for women" group or the "Catholic Worker Movement" cabal. What will all the silly lefty nuns do when they are told to get back to their convents or missions or the syncretist RC priests when they are told to be silent? As I have shared with you before, my real fear in all of this is that "modern world" Romanism will infect the Church in the East. In many ways, I see that as the biggest stumbling block of all for the Orthodox people to accept any reunion.

I sincerely doubt that you will find any Orthodox talking reunion because we think the RCs want to hear that, though I think they do. The "only" reason for reunion is that Christ has told us that we are to be one. A false union, like that from the Council of Florence, will only make matters much worse. In fact, I think that is why the Archmandrite, speaking for the EP, has asked us to have this discussion. Unless the Laos tou Theou are on board, this simply won't work, as we learn from history.

Let me make a suggestion that we discuss matters in the following order:

1. Uniatism; hopefully someone on each side is fully informed on the problem. That would not be me!

2. The Role of the Pope

3. Filioque (though I think this really is sort of a dead horse)

4. Original Sin (because so much Roman theology and dogma rises out of Blessed Augustine's formulation), and thus,

5. Purgatory/ Toll houses

6.Immaculate Conception

7. Liturgics to the extent that the Liturgies reflect Sotirology, Christology and Mariology.

Comments?