Back to the Beginning: A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Catholic Church

The culture is now flooded with bogus scholarship whose main purpose is to put Christianity — and especially orthodox Catholicism — on the defensive. But most Catholics have no idea how to respond, and more than a few take these books and documentaries at face value. After all, they have the imprimatur of the History Channel or a large publishing house like Doubleday.

Macaulay keeps laying it on, awestruck by the Church's perdurance through the centuries. The rhetorical excess is particularly striking coming from an agnostic who regarded history as a steady climb from religious obscurantism to secular enlightenment. But Macaulay's point is always worth making: No institution in history is remotely comparable to the Catholic Church. It is a subject that well repays study. And yet most Catholics know very little about their own history.

This is unfortunate for many reasons, but especially today, when a dinner-party conversation can suddenly turn to some specious best-seller that presumes to rewrite Church history. The culture is now flooded with bogus scholarship whose main purpose is to put Christianity — and especially orthodox Catholicism — on the defensive. But most Catholics have no idea how to respond, and more than a few take these books and documentaries at face value. After all, they have the imprimatur of the History Channel or a large publishing house like Doubleday.

The media have a sharp appetite for this recycling of 19th-century, anti-clerical scholarship, and so books by scholars like Gary Wills and Elaine Pagels get maximum exposure. And then there is The Da Vinci Code, which has sold a staggering nine million copies. Both the New York Times and National Public Radio seem to think that it is based on historical fact. Even its author appears to think so. But a book that claims that Christians did not believe in the divinity of Christ until the fourth century, that a Roman emperor chose the four Gospels, that the Church executed five million witches, and that Opus Dei has monks is obviously little more than a farrago of nonsense.

We live in a sea of false historiography, and so it is worth asking: What exactly happened during the first centuries of Christianity? How did a small band of believers, starting out in a despised outpost of the Roman Empire, end up the dominant institution of the Mediterranean world? What was "primitive Christianity"? John Henry Newman became a Catholic in the course of answering that question. History, he said, is the enemy of Protestantism. It is also the enemy of the newly vigorous anti-Catholicism that circulates among our cultural elites.

The word gospel means "good news," and the first thing to say about the early Church is that its members had an urgent message for a civilization that already contained the seeds of its own demise. Early Christianity was above all a missionary enterprise, an evangelical movement in a world ripe for its teachings. At the end of his public life Christ had said to His disciples, "Go"; and, in addition to the journeys recorded in the New Testament, tradition has the apostles spreading all over the map: Thomas to Parthia and India, Andrew and John to Asia Minor, Bartholomew to south Arabia. Each may have undergone exploits as spectacular as St. Paul's, but unfortunately there was no St. Luke to record them.

Early Church Fathers like St. Augustine believed that Providence had arranged ancient history so that Christianity could spread as rapidly as possible. The Pax Romana was a remarkable achievement, and the general law and order, combined with Roman road-building, made it easier to get around Europe at the time of Tiberius and Claudius than it would be a thousand years later. There was also a widespread Hellenistic culture, which meant that many people spoke Greek. This was the legacy of Alexander the Great, who not only spread a common tongue but, like other rulers of that era, had a mania for building cities. The large concentration of urban dwellers made evangelization more efficient, and within the space of about a century we find Christianity flourishing in all the vital nerve-centers of the Roman empire, which had a population of about 60 million.

The great tipping points of history often occur beneath the radar, and it is doubtful that anyone in the year 51 noticed an itinerant rabbi from Tarsus crossing the Aegean Sea into Macedonia. But this was Christianity's entrance into Western Europe, with incalculable consequences for the future. Christopher Dawson writes that Paul's passage from Troas in Asia Minor to Philippi did more to shape the subsequent history of Europe than anything recorded by the great historians of the day. Put simply: The Faith created modern Europe, and Europe created the modern world.

What Paul and other missionaries found everywhere in the Roman Empire was a spiritual vacuum: The Roman gods, practically speaking, were dead, the victims of much scoffing from intellectuals and poets. The upper orders had turned to Stoicism — self-cultivating itself in aristocratic isolation — but this spoke only to a small minority. Others with spiritual hankerings went to more dubious sources: mystery cults, Asiatic magic, exotic neo-Platonisms, whose goal was ecstatic visions and emotional release. There was a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo in an atmosphere of tent revivalism, with a dash of emperor worship on the side. But no matter where it turned for solace, the late classical mind was steeped in melancholy, a kind of glacial sadness; it was utterly lacking in what Catholics would call the theological virtue of hope.

Since The Da Vinci Code and other dubious best-sellers claim that early Christianity was anti-feminist, it's worth recalling that large numbers of women during these centuries thought otherwise. The Church's teachings about marriage and family, along with its strictures against divorce, abortion, and the exposure of newborn babies — all of which a pagan husband could force his wife to do, no questions asked — resonated with women who were treated like chattel under the old dispensation. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke goes out of his way to mention female converts like Lydia and Damaris. Even at this early date, women played a key role in the Church's evangelical mission. No world religion has ever given women a more important place than Roman Catholicism. Even Protestantism would turn out to be largely a male enterprise.

These early Christians were conscious of a single responsibility that transcended and sustained all others. They were bound to preserve with the utmost fidelity what had been taught by the apostles. Long before there was a New Testament, there was a deposit of faith concerning the nature of God, His threefold personality, His purpose in making man, the Incarnation. It is already presupposed in the early letters of Paul as well as ancient documents like the Didache. Any departure from these teachings provoked the strongest possible response, and the Acts of the Apostles and most of Paul's letters show the Church facing her first doctrinal and disciplinary problems.

The determination to hold fast to "what has been handed on" (tradere, hence "tradition") is one explanation for the early Christian's veneration of the episcopal office. If there has been a revelation, then there must be an authoritative teaching office to tell us what it is. And so the role of bishops — whose job was, and still is, to teach, govern, and sanctify — was crucial from the beginning.

We do not know the precise details of how the Church's internal authority evolved in the first century. It is one of the most debated points of Church history. Protestants have an obvious bias toward an early congregationalism, but there is little evidence for this. We do know that from the original "twelve" there soon emerged a hierarchical church divided into clergy and laity. It seems that at first there were apostolic delegates, people like Timothy and Titus, who derived their authority from one of the apostles — in this case, Paul. These men governed the local churches under the apostles' direction, and, while some apostles were still on the scene, this arrangement naturally evolved into the college of bishops.

Within each city there was a single church under a bishop, who in turn was assisted by priests in the spiritual realm and deacons in the administrative. The latter devoted themselves especially to alms-giving, and a striking feature of primitive Christianity is its organized benevolence. These local churches were largely self-sufficient but would group around a mother church in the region — Antioch, Alexandria, Rome — and the bishops of each region would occasionally meet in councils. But they all considered themselves part of a universal Church — the Catholic Church, as Ignatius first called it — united in belief, ritual, and regulation.

From the earliest times we find one of these churches exercising a special role, acting as a higher authority and final court of appeal. We don't know much about the early development of the Roman church, and the lists of the first popes are not always consistent. But we do know that around the year 90 a three-man embassy bearing a letter from Rome traveled to Corinth, where there were dissensions in the local church. In that letter, Pope St. Clement speaks with authority, giving instructions in a tone of voice that expects to be obeyed. The interesting point is that the apostle John was still living in Ephesus, which is closer than Rome to Corinth. But it was Rome (at the time, a smaller diocese) that dealt with the problem. Here was the prototype of all future Roman interventions.

It is not difficult to find even liberal Catholic scholars who endorse the early primacy of Rome. In his popular history of the papacy, Saints and Sinners, Eamon Duffy writes that the apostolic succession of the Chair of Peter "rests on traditions which stretch back to the very beginning of the written records of Christianity." Around the year 180, St. Irenaeus, battling heretics who presumed to correct and supplement the Faith with their Gnostic speculations, wrote that if anyone wishes to know true Christian doctrine, he has only to find those churches with a line of bishops going back to one of the apostles. But it is simpler, and suffices, to find out the teaching of the Roman see: "For with this Church all other churches must bring themselves into line, on account of its superior authority."

The early Church was not only hierarchical, it was liturgical and sacramental. But it was above all Eucharistic. St. Ignatius, in his letter to the church at Smyrna, attacks local heretics who "abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins...." By the year 150, when St. Justin Martyr described the Sunday liturgy in some detail, all the principal elements of the Mass are in place: Scriptural readings, prayers of intercession, offertory, Eucharistic prayer, and communion. There was no need back then to remind the faithful that Sunday Mass attendance was obligatory, since they regarded the liturgy as absolutely central to their lives as Christians. It would not have occurred to them to forgo Sunday Mass for a brunch date or ballgame.

The readings at these early Masses were from both the Old Testament (then simply called "Scripture") and from many (but not all) of the documents that eventually would comprise the New Testament. And how did the New Testament canon come together? Although some Protestants seem to think otherwise, this was not a spontaneous process. Humanly speaking, it involved a lot of institutional machinery. The 27 books themselves were a kind of providential accident. Christ Himself did not write anything, nor (so far as we know) did He tell His disciples to write anything. There is, after all, something about hearing, rather than just reading, the Christian message. "Faith comes by hearing," writes Paul, who, even though a scholar, does not say "by reading." Books are wonderful evangelical tools, but it is still true that most conversions are brought about by personal witness.

In the ancient Middle East, the preferred medium for passing on the teachings of a religious master was oral, and people had strongly trained memories. Christ spoke in the traditional rhythms of Jewish speech, often using parallelisms that are easy to remember: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." The Old Testament is shot through with this kind of mnemonic device. Christ's immediate disciples probably did not write down His words during His lifetime. Being a close-knit Jewish community with a strong oral tradition, they didn't have to.

But as time went by and the Church spread out, the danger of inaccurate reporting grew. This was especially true when Christianity moved into the Greek-speaking cities of Asia Minor and Macedon, where the habit of oral transmission was not strong. So the practice of giving the earliest Christian missionaries little books, or manuals, with the sayings and miracles of Jesus may have arisen. If there was such a document, it has not survived. Yet scholars reasonably posit an ur-document they call Q, which is said to be a sourcebook for the Gospels.

But we may leave the Jesus Seminar to find out what really happened. First, the scholarly consensus is that the three synoptic Gospels were written much earlier than heterodox "experts" wish us to think: Between 50 and 65 A.D. John's Gospel was written last, perhaps as late as 95, when John, the only apostle not martyred, was a very old man. More than any documents in history, these four books have been the target of the "hermeneutics of suspicion." It is therefore worth pointing out that the four evangelists were closer to their material than were most ancient historians. The biographers of the caesars — Tacitus and Suetonius — were not better placed to get accurate information about their subject than were the evangelists about the life of Christ.

Even though the four Gospel writers differ markedly from one another and have diverse agendas — Matthew is proselytizing his fellow Jews, Luke is fact-gathering for Gentile converts, Mark relates Peter's version of events, John is responding to heresies that deny the Incarnation — the striking thing is how strong, consistent, and identifiable the personality of Christ is in all four books. C. S. Lewis remarks that in all the world's narrative literature, there are three personalities you can identify immediately if given a random and even partial quotation: Plato's Socrates, Boswell's Johnson, and Jesus Christ of the Gospels.

Most of the documents in the New Testament are ad hoc; they address specific issues that arose in the early Church, and none claims to present the whole of Christian revelation. It's doubtful that Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would someday be read as Holy Scripture. Moreover, there is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of John's apocalypse) claim to be inspired.

Who, then, decided that these books were Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the letters and decrees of two popes and three regional councils near the end of the fourth century that the Catholic Church had a fixed canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and "apostolic" writings were circulating around the Mediterranean basin: The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted, and there were also cogent arguments to jettison the Old Testament. All these issues were sorted out by the hierarchy, and, as Augustine logically remarks, it is only on the authority of the Catholic Church that we accept any book of Scripture.

Mired in the evil of creation, the Gnostic sought liberation by joining an elite band of believers who through gnosis — arcane speculation, philosophical pirouetting, secret verbal formulas — sought to obtain Promethean control of the spiritual realm. The object was a mystical knowledge that separated the believer not only from the corrupt world but also (and even better) from his neighbors. The initiate, moreover, was above sexual taboos, since the body is of no account. The resulting mixture of hedonism and mystical exclusivity was heady stuff, and the power of Gnosticism to assimilate elements from any source — Platonism, Persian dualism, even Judaism — made it very dangerous when it encountered Christianity and tried to subsume it into a higher and more beguiling synthesis.

Gnosticism's attempt to insert itself into Christianity involved the production of its own scripture, which it tried to smuggle into the Christian canon. The most famous Gnostic text, the Gospel of Thomas, comprises 114 "secret" sayings of Jesus. You don't have to read more than a few of them to recognize that the author has simply skimmed material from the original Gospels and given it a strange "spiritual" twist. Christ is now something of a Magus, a shadowy dispenser of puzzles and gnomic utterances. He bears no resemblance to the Christ of the four evangelists.

In her best-selling books, Pagels makes much of these "forbidden gospels" whose message — despite the occasional anti-feminist hiccup — gives her a fuzzy inner feeling. It seems that the modern Gnostic can retreat into a cozy realm of the spirit and then do whatever he or she pleases. There are no dogmas or commandments to scandalize the post-Christian academic mind. Pagels plays down the intellectual rubbish in these documents, and she's not entirely forthcoming about their elitism and anti-Jewish bias. And finally, it's ridiculous to speak of the Church's exclusion of these spurious second-century documents as a power play by a self-appointed male hierarchy bent on eliminating genuine spiritual impulses. Pagels ought to read the lives of the saints, which include not a few early popes and bishops.

The Church did Western civilization a huge favor in beating back these esoteric, anti-humanist ideas, as it would in the 13th century when it crushed the Cathar heresy, another nihilistic doctrine that had blown into Europe on the winds from Persia. In fact, no institution has done more for the surrounding culture than the Catholic Church. And it is identifiably itself from the beginning. To paraphrase Hilaire Belloc, there was no such thing as a religion called "primitive Christianity." There is and always has been the Church, founded by Christ around the year 30 A.D. That Church has always been hierarchical and sacramental. And it saved Western Europe from both pagan barbarism and Eastern nihilism.

In fact, almost everything we value in our civilization — hospitals, museums, universities, the idea of human rights — is by origin Catholic. These things did not come from the Vikings or northern German tribes; they certainly did not come from the Gnostics. But our modern secular culture displays a willful amnesia on the subject of our Catholic patrimony. The technocrats currently drafting a new constitution for the European Union don't even want to hear about it. As Chesterton quipped, first Catholic, then forgotten. Perhaps we can change that by getting out a clearer picture of the splendors and perils of the early Church.

Where do you get your information? Most converts in America are non of the Ethnicity of the Church they convert to. I am Irish-American, and I go to a Russian Orthodox Church. Converts to Kolokotronis church are Phillipean.

Even in Russia growth in numbers isn't coming from Ethnic Russians (who are decreasing as a population in Russia) it's coming from the ethnicities immigrating TO Russia.

I refuse to read your entire diatribe when your first premise is complete BS.

Papal supremacy as defined in Vatican 1, as exemplified by the unilateral adoption of the filioque by the bishop of Rome before the 1054 schism is not Papal supremacy as defined in Councils prior to that time.

Further I do not redefine it since if I am talking about the post schism church's standing on the bishop of rome, certainly I am talking about the post schism catholic application of papal supremacy.

The Bishop of Rome was excommunicated and started a heretical church, and innovated doctrine outside that doctrine accepted by the councils. That is the schism, and now amount of surprise or lack thereof changes that.

This really brings to view the whole problem of eccumentical relations; Catholics who would like the assume that the problem is social, or political, and forget the schism ever happened.

Patriarch Alexy II has repeatedly expressed that there can be no healing of the schism until 2 things are addressed; the non canonical uniate church proselytizing in Orthodox areas. No amount of Icon returning, and freindly gestures will change that; The Orthodox church is headed by Christ non a single man, and rejects the false doctrines of the Bishop of Rome.

I began to read your link...

"Orthodox patriarchs, bishops, priests, and theologians — all you who actively pursue a policy of rapprochement with Rome: Beware. You are trying to bring the Orthodox Church into a lion’s den of unbelievable malignancy. You cannot save the Catholic Church; but the Catholic Church can and will contaminate and then destroy you."

That's as far as I got. From other people on this forum, I am happy to learn that all Orthodoxy doesn't feel this way. Perhaps despite people such as yourself and the priest of your article, we will be united. Rather than continue in your polemics, perhaps you should look to the FACT that we are more alike in beliefs than you think.

I have read other Orthodox articles, and they have a different view on Rome. We Catholics can only hope that you and your views represent the minority of Christian Orthodoxy. The Spirit is not a Spirit of dissension

Regards

The Orthodox Church, every one I've heard of, requires that Catholics denounce the false doctrines of the Bishop of Rome to convert to Orthodoxy, and I have personally witnessed it myself.

It is not a matter of being more similar than different. The Monophysites are extremely similar to the Orthodox in practice, and that doesn't change the fact they hold an absolutely heretical beleif. There can be no capitualtion of truth for the sake of unity.

Show me one Orthodox church that does not renounce the false Doctrine of the Bishop of Rome.

The Bishop of Rome was excommunicated and started a heretical church, and innovated doctrine outside that doctrine accepted by the councils. That is the schism, and now amount of surprise or lack thereof changes that.

This can very easily be changed to read "the bishop of Constantinople was excommunicated and started a heretical Church..." Where does that leave us?

Out of curiosity, I ask you, by what authority does the bishop of Constantinople have over the See of Peter, the keeper of the keys? EVEN IF all apostles were equal, WHEN did the Constantinople decide it could excommunicate an equal ranking bishop??? I would say this is an usurped power, never given to Constantinople or any ordinary Bishop. Thus, the "excommunication" is not in force (not that it ever was, as ONLY the CURRENT bishop of Rome was "excommunicated" in 1054 - not subsequent Bishops of Rome)

You have yet to show me where the entire Catholic Church was excommunicated from Orthodoxy

Did Orthodoxy EVER declare that the now current Bishop of Rome is a heretic? Or that he is excommunicated? Was EVERY Bishop of Rome, thus, declared excommunicated by Orthodoxy? Again, where is this power given to the those bishops? It seems to me that you are claiming a "primacy of power" for Orthodox bishops. But yet, Rome has none.

the non canonical uniate church proselytizing in Orthodox areas

Does this mean that the Orthodox Church will be leaving the United States, since it is not "Orthodox" territory? I didn't know that the world was divided into "Orthodox" and "Catholic" sections.

Regards

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=194&SID=3
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp
http://www.antiochian.org/Orthodox_Church_Who_What_Where_Why/Why_I_Became_An_Orthodox_Christian.htm
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:zB6KRFLpgpsJ:mospat.ru/text/e_news/id/7706.html+site:mospat.ru+%22bishop+of+rome%22&hl=en&client=safari

That is the schism. It isn't about politics. It isn't about contraception or divorce. It is the notion that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church, and False doctines subsequently adopted by the Bishop of Rome.

It is a spirit of dissention to pretend the schism is about something else; it is only when the notion of the papacy and false doctrine are addressed that unity can occur. It is only going back to the Pre-1054 definition of primacy of honor, and a rejection of a handful of minor innovations.

Show me one Orthodox church that does not renounce the false Doctrine of the Bishop of Rome

Show me one Coptic Church that does not renounce the false doctrine of Orthodoxy, or Catholicism BEFORE the Great Schism. Show me one Nestorian Church that does not do the same thing.

Your statement proves nothing.

Are you daying that most Orthodox in the US do not have an ancestral link to Orthodoxy from the old country? Please. I know many orthodox myself, since my sister-in-law is Greek Orthodox (from Greece), and, as someone perfectly at home among the Melkites, having spent years with them, I know lots of Orthodox through them, as they tend to run in similar circles. Out of this fairly sizable number of people, I personally can come up with a mere handful (including an Orthodox priest named McGillicuddy) who are converts from Catholicism or Protestantism. I don't deny they exist. You, yourself, are an example evidently. Evangelicals, in particular, are converting to Orthodoxy, primarily because of the reflexive aversion to Rome that I alluded to earlier. But the vast majority of the several million Orthodox - of all varieties - in the US are Orthodox by birth and ancestry.

But so what? I'm not arguing so much about recent developments. I'm not even arguing about developments in Russia, which is entirely Orthodox territory anyway. My point was that, historically, the Orthodox have, for various reasons, not been at the forefront of evangelization of non-Christian, hitherto unknown lands. I already gave my reasons for this.

The patriarchs were not independant to revise the creed agreed on at the council as they saw fit.

With regard to territory, do Irish Catholics go to italian catholic churches and try to convert them into their parishes? Do they setup churches across the street and convince catholics in the other church to stop attending there and start attending across the way? Do they send out a decree that any clergy wishing to leave the irish church may come serve at the italian church no questions asked? Do they dispute the deed claim by the irish church insisting it be given to the italian one?

ALL OF THAT IS HAPPENING IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

That is why the Uniate church is an issue.

It is only going back to the Pre-1054 definition of primacy of honor

Primacy of HONOR??? You aren't aware of Church History before the Schism, are you. While I will say that Vatican 1 was NOT what the Church practiced in 500 AD, I think a look at Pope Leo and Gregory will give you a quick view on what was practiced BEFORE the Schism. The question is not "restoring the Pope to a position of honor". It is about "What WAS primacy"? It existed. But to what effect? That is the question before us. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that there was PRIMACY - now we must define it, brother. What power did Leo and Gregory have?

Regards

Primacy at those councils:
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Fourth_Ecumenical_Council
http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/HilarionPrimacy.php

It's silly to get into a "first among equals but more equal than others" conversation.

And no we needn't define it. This is the same question debated each time Metropolitan Kirill Meets With Cardinal Walter Kasper.

X:

In great haste because I am at the office and will respond to the dialog between you and Jo Kus at length this evening. I will make, however, two observations. First, you should hesitate long before applying the terms heretic or heresy to the Roman Church. Second, The Christian Activist is the worst sort of dead fish wrapper that was ever written. It is a nativist rag of the first order. If that tripe wrap told me it was Tuesday, I'd check the calendar!!!!!

No. Because we all consider ourselves one Church. As an Irish-German American, I don't go into an ethnically Italian or Polish or whatever parish with the idea of "converting" anyone. We all have the same faith. Ethnicity in Catholic churches, to the extent that it still really exists, is mostly a matter of immigrants banding together for benefit of common language and customs, not differences in belief. Until 1965, the Mass was the *same* in every way, no matter *what* church one attended. The language was Latin. The parts of the Mass and readings were the same everywhere, for everyone, every day.

Even now, where the vernacular is used, the translations are *supposed* to derive from the same Latin original (though, I'd be the first to admit, the English translation is pretty shaky sometimes). So, again, there is nothing to "convert" to or from.

We don't dispute deeds among ourselves based on ancestry. We're Catholics first, Germans, Italians, Irish, French, etc. a distant second when it comes to matters of religion. Can you say the same? Indeed, the way you pose the question makes it sound like you take as a given, from personal experience, the assumption that such things are expected to take place.

Anticipating your lack of careful reading here, I will acknowledge that there are, doubtless, a few examples of Catholics who do not embody the proper mindset. Fair enough. But these few exceptions are not representative of our Faith, as they clearly don't know it.

I didn't read the whole activist article, it was among few articles I've found that list the words said when Catholics renounce the pope during Chrismation... rest of the article probably is trash.

I standby the notion that Vatican I Primacy is a heretical idea.
(By the strict definition of the word heretical.)

Also there are numerous schismatic churches which did nothing more consequential that ceasing power and misinterpreting one piece of the doctrine, and are regarded as heretical churches.

The terms are beside my point however; my point is the modern Catholic interpretation of primacy and the uniate church are the key points of contention between the churches.

That is precisley what the problem is.

The uniate church is converting from Orthodox churches, ceasing Orthodox properties, enticing Orthodox clergy to convert by telling them they can join up no questions asked, building churches adcaent Orthodox ones deliberatly to entice folks away by seeming Orthodox but answering to Rome.

That is precisely why it is a monumental problem and not a simple issue of 'territory'; the Catholics cannot begin to speak of union if they are not ready to accept that the Orthodox are already in the apostolic church and don't need converting, and stop ceasing orthodox churches and trying to convert the orthodox parishioners, clergy, and bishops.

The uniate church is not a 'little issue of territory'.

You don't seem to have a problem when Catholics convert to Orthodoxy. You invoke the apostolic nature of the Orthodox Church as a reason for the Catholic Church to stop "enticing" Orthodox over to Rome. Yet, you do not seem to be able to see the equal set of circumstances from our POV. Why do Orthodox Churches "entice" (I'll use your word)Catholics over to Orthodoxy, when they are leaving a Church with an equally apostolic nature? Or is the issue really that you don't recognize the apostolicity of the Catholic Church?

At best, BOTH sides, in different places and circumstances, are acting like children in the matter. Turf wars are unseemly. But, to the extent that a reunification of our Churches hasn't taken place yet, I do believe that the Catholic minority in the Ukraine *is* within its rights to try to get some of its historical churches back. Besides, if your beef is about "proselytizing," you should know that, last year, I think, John Paul II came out with what essentially is an order to catholics *not* to proselytize the Orthodox in Russia and Ukraine. Personally, if anything, I think he went too far, going even to the extent of all but barring converts who *seek us out*.

How awfully silly and venal this must all look to Christ!

I'm not trying to ask the patriarch of a church to join hands.

That is the difference. You cannot simutaenously say 'we are one' and 'you are different, convert and give us your properties or we'll take them by force from the state'. The Catholic Pope keeps calling for a visit to Russia and an end to the schism for years.

John Paul has been denying proselytizing for YEARS. That has stalled relations for YEARS.

It's not a turf war when the state awards the Catholic church your Cathedral and all the orthodox are told to convert or get lost.

You have such a lack of understanding of the Former Soviet Union issues it's not even funny.

Further today in ukraine there is a third problem. There is a split in the Orthodox church with some wanting to remain in the Russian Moscow patriarchiate and some wanting a national Ukranian orthodox church.

All three argue over church properties, and the nationalist Ukraine government has been favoring the notion of a Ukranian national church at the expense of the others. You go to church one morning and the police are there telling you the Church now belongs to someone else.

It's not *my beef*, it's the dispute that's been keeping the pope from meeting with the Patriarch of Russia Alexy II for years.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.