Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

Orthodoxinfo.com ^ | 1848 | Various

[kosta50]

Maybe after another 1000 years

We are in no hurry. We didn't even initiate this. Apparently those who did were not prepared to make an offer.

Either the Latin Church wants to retun to her Patristic roots or wants to absorb others into her fold. Which is it?

[kosta50]

Maybe after another 1000 years

We are in no hurry. We didn't even initiate this. Apparently those who did were not prepared to make an offer.

Either the Latin Church wants to retun to her Patristic roots or wants to absorb others into her fold. Which is it?

[kosta50]

First of all, people HAVE been "waiting in line". I don't think you know what you are talking about

Englighten me.

How many parishes are now Latin-only parishes? Out of how many total parishes?

Second of all, what does the Traditional Mass have anything to do with chicken wings on Friday? They are not related. Abstinence of meat is not related to Latin Mass.

Traditional Latin Mass is tied to specific traditional observances. This was the major reason given in opposition to the reinstitution of the TLM. If you'r gonna do it the old way, you gotta do everything the old way.

So, now that you can eat meat on Fridays, why did the Church teach otherwise for at least the past 1,400 years? Just because?

Fasting? What does that have to do with Apostolic Traditions?

You mean it's arbitrary? Why bother with any rules then? They are all man-made, right? But the Church seems to have been steadfastly dedicated to keep them for so many centuries. Are you saying it was all an unnecessary pretense? A lie?

Now, I was told that the "Left" invaded the Church in the 1930's and is chiefly responsible for the Vatican-II changes. If so, were the changes in the centuries' old discipline also part of the "Left" subversive plot, or did the Church just decide they were really unnecessary without an explanation?

And if not, could you tell me why was the Vatican II convoked? What heresy promoted the Council to meet? What heresy was condemned? Or was the "heresy" just the 1,400 year old tradition that had to be put to death because Catholics wanted a "lighter" more Protestant-like Church?

[kosta50]

Ah, but you ARE asking us to "sign away our Catholicism

The Orhtodox are askingh for nothing. They didn't even ask for the reunion. We are appy that the Latins are seeking reunion, we just don't know how they imagine this to bear fruit?

If you think this is going to be some sort of a horse-trade you better think it over.

There are only two possible outcomes: (1) either we start at the point where you left us, or (2) you try to absorb us a la Florence.

The first option is workable. The other is not.

Table your innovations, profess the Patristic faith you professed before you left us, with the condition that the Pope immediately convokes the 8th Ecumenical Council at which all your dogmas and doctrines will be put to discussion with the East until resolved, and vice versa.

Furthermore, it would make sense to stipulate that if the Church fails to come to an agreement, the Council shall be suspended without any anathemas, and give both sides more time to reflect on lessons learned until such time when we are ready to try again. Perseverance, my friend, is the key.

It's okay to honestly fail if we honestly try.

From the Orhtodox side, I believe there is readiness to listen to your arguments and to give your innovations more than due consideration with an open and fraternal attitude.

There must be no outside pressure, whether real or perceived, to epxloit or to abuse as was the case with Florence.

The problem is that the Latin side has yet to propose what it seems to advertise. The offer has yet to be made known. How can we have any predisposition to something if we don't even know what the Latin side wants?

[kosta50]

You know, I can’t imagine why you would want to pretend to a common communion with people who don’t believe the same things you do. We certainly don;t want to do that

Indeed, why?

[FormerLib]

The Council of Florence was attended by representatives from throughout Eastern Orthodoxy, and ratified by these representatives of the Eastern church.

And later repudiated, rendering the point moot.

[jo kus]

The Church was state-run from the beginning, whether the state was extrinsic or intrinsic.

Eh? Maybe in the East it was, but in the West, that wasn't the case. There were Church-state entanglements, but the State didn't run the Church.

Regards

[jo kus]

And later repudiated, rendering the point moot.

By whom? The individual priests overruled their own bishops?

Regards

[jo kus]

I grieve for the Catholic Church. Unlike the Church in Russia, which was raped, the Church in the West committed suicide in 1964.

Sorry to disappoint you again, but we are alive here... Apparently, to you, "life" in Christ consists in bowing at the correct times and saying prayers that were said 1500 years ago. Those who do not say those prayers and bow at the correct times are "dead" to Christ? Christ desires mercy and forgiveness, not external sacrifices...

Regards

[jo kus]

Well, how about this. You treat whatever “dogmas” your local synods and your “infallible Vicar of Christ on Earth” have come up with over the last 1000 years as local, disciplinary canons. We already do that except perhaps for the Palamite “dogmas” but we can do that and of course no Patriarch claims infallibility (which is good because we’d sack him in a heartbeat for being insane and/or a heretic)so we don’t need to deal with that. Then we have a Great Council.

It was already done at least once... The people of the East won't allow it, no matter what the bishops come up with - except for total Western compliance. Remember, every Eastern lay person is a self-proclaimed expert in Western theology, so any Eastern bishop who had the audacity to say that the West and East taught the same thing using different words would be "sacked"...

Sorry, my friend, that is what I am hearing from over there right now...

Your later innovations called dogmas are not. I assume Palamism isn’t for you. It is unlikely in the extreme that Palamism would be a deal breaker for Orthodoxy but it certainly seems that unless Orthodox accepts Romes sua sponte innovations, there’s no deal.

Your innovations are our natural develoments led by the Spirit... We don't believe the Spirit has been silent for 1000 years. Just as you say Palamite doctrines were found in Patristic writings, so were original sin, the Immaculate Conception, and Purgatory. Hundreds of years before the Schism. Why is it the East can "develop doctrine" based on their reading of the Cappadocians, but the West are called heretics for developing their own doctrines from Augustine, Leo, Ambrose, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, etc...?

Now, as to your "acceptance" of our "innovations", I am certain that there is room for discussion on these. The words of the formula are not infallible, just the idea that they express. I'm thinking there is room for agreement, IF the Eastern laity can allow it.

I can’t imagine why you would want to pretend to a common communion with people who don’t believe the same things you do.

Kolo, do family members agree on EVERYTHING the EXACT SAME WAY? Of course not. We should agree on essentials and have a respectful allowance of other issues. What is essential? That would be a good question. However, "uncreated energies" is not one of them. What would you consider are "essential" on what we disagree on? The Filioque formula? I think we believe the same thing there. Maybe the Papacy? I think there is some common ground there. But again, there has to be some work done at the grass-roots level in the East. Any agreement made by the East will AGAIN be ultimately refused by the laity UNLESS they are educated that our differences are not so great. As long as the majority of Eastern theologians continue to put the West down, belittle them, call them heretics, and point out all the shortcomings, from the Filioque to the use of unleavened bread, HOW is union going to happen? Apparently, the people overrule the bishops over there, so it seems to me that the people must be convinced that Rome does not teach a different Gospel and that people of faith can express themselves in slightly different manners.

regards

[jo kus]

From the Orhtodox side, I believe there is readiness to listen to your arguments and to give your innovations more than due consideration with an open and fraternal attitude.

Have you read your own posts? Either we must totally capitulate or there can be NO discussions?

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

“Remember, every Eastern lay person is a self-proclaimed expert in Western theology, so any Eastern bishop who had the audacity to say that the West and East taught the same thing using different words would be “sacked”...”

No, we are experts on Orthodoxy. If any Eastern bishop from the EP on down wants to tell us that up is down or black is white, Orthodox-wise, we will indeed sack him. We really aren’t any more interested, as a group, in the theological innovations of Rome over the past 1000 years than we are in those the Spirit lead the Protestants to over the past 500 years...except to the extent some hierarch tries to make us accept them.

“As long as the majority of Eastern theologians continue to put the West down, belittle them, call them heretics, and point out all the shortcomings, from the Filioque to the use of unleavened bread, HOW is union going to happen? Apparently, the people overrule the bishops over there, so it seems to me that the people must be convinced that Rome does not teach a different Gospel and that people of faith can express themselves in slightly different manners.”

Its very basic, Jo. If Rome teaches ANYTHING as dogma which the East does not accept, we will reject any reunion. Its as simple as that. If you have different disciplines, that’s another matter as a general proposition. I say as a general proposition because I can’t see Orthodoxy remaining in communion with any bishop who allows “clown masses”, etc. but in most respects, discipline is discipline and is the call of the particular church; priestly celibacy is an example, allowing your communicants to marry non-Christians is another as are the fastng rules. It is well within the realm of possibility that even your innovative dogmas could be so “nuanced” as to make them acceptable to the People of God but we would need first a council and then a long, long time to see if the People gave the results of the council its AXIOS. In the meantime, maybe some sort of “economia” inter communion could be established as already exists between the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox, the Copts and the Armenians.

[Kolokotronis]

I meant to add, as an aside, that perhaps if the Latin Church scrapped that gd catechism of yours and tried, for a few decades at least, to refrain from defining every “jot and tittle” of The Faith and making a corresponding rule for every definition, it would go a long way towards arriving at a common mindset with the East. I sincerely think that catechism is pernicious!

[TexConfederate1861]

I honestly don’t believe reunion will occur, and honestly, have no desire for it to happen until all of the serious doctrinal differences are resolved. Like:

1. Papal Infallibility
2. Immaculate Conception

Just to name TWO.

I think when the Pope agrees to be Primus Inter Pares again, then there is a basis for possible reunion.

[TexConfederate1861]

Unlike the West, our Bishops & Clergy can “sack” heretical clergy, for blatant heretical acts.We do not need a “Pope” to approve every action. There wasn’t a consensus at Florence, since the Patriarch was found DEAD, with a latin forgery on his body, not to mention St. Mark of Ephesus didn’t agree either.

Our Ecumenical Patriarch is playing friendly with the West, and don’t doubt for a minute, that the rest of the Orthodox world will “sack” him in the twinkling of an eye, if he goes too far! There is a reason why his Holiness, Patriarch Alexy II refused to meet with Rome!

[TexConfederate1861]

That point could be disputed. Phillip II of Spain ran the church with an iron hand in Spain. And lest we forget, what about the French Kings and Avigon?

[annalex]

You treat whatever “dogmas” your local synods and your “infallible Vicar of Christ on Earth” have come up with over the last 1000 years as local...

Absolutely. I think that is the self-evident starting point, and Florence is not.

I think also that the prospects for reunification at this point are poor, albeit best in a thousand years. Two things must happen in addition:

1. The Orthodox people in Orthodox lands, such as Russia and the Balkans have to familiarize themselves with the larger realities of the perils that the Western civilazation is facing. On this score, we have great progress, if that is the right word because progress in terms of mutual understanding is also civilizatonal regress. We see, for example, many bishops, younger bishops especially, of the East understand that in the dual struggle against militant Atheism and militant Islam the Church of the East and West is united. Whether the Orthodox flock should stick to their parochial instincts as regards the West or not is also the function of what the bishops of the West teach them. If they teach the flock in the manner of this letter, they will -- again -- defy the will of Christ, and we'll wait another thousand years. If they honestly explain the content of what is, to them, innovations, without forcing them dogmatically, but also without caricaturing them, they will be doing their job as vicars of Christ. As the previous Pope said, the Church is young, -- we can afford the wait.

2. The Western Church has to mature. She should clear up its liturgy, above everything else. At this point, serious Catholics dread the thought of attending a Catholic service in some clown parish down the street. What reunification? We certainly should stop thinking of Orthodoxy as some kind of merger-acquisition and instead think of the dogmas of the past thousand years as something the rest of the world needs to be evangelized about.

I'd give this process 50-100 years. It certainly should not be rushed. However, is has started, and we know the last chapter, don't we?

[annalex]

why?

Deus vult.

[jo kus]

No, we are experts on Orthodoxy. If any Eastern bishop from the EP on down wants to tell us that up is down or black is white, Orthodox-wise, we will indeed sack him. We really aren’t any more interested, as a group, in the theological innovations of Rome over the past 1000 years than we are in those the Spirit lead the Protestants to over the past 500 years...except to the extent some hierarch tries to make us accept them.

You ignore my point. You are experts in Orthodoxy, not Catholicism and what it teaches. Yet, you tell us our version of the symbol of faith is false? This is based upon your knowledge of Catholicism? Don't you think it would be advantageous for theologians of both sides who were open to reunification come together in committee and study the words and meaning of their own definitions? As you well know, we can drag out a laundry list of Patristic sources for each of our doctrines that followed the Schism.

If Rome teaches ANYTHING as dogma which the East does not accept, we will reject any reunion.

I think the matter should be left to the experts in the East, not the self-proclaimed lay experts, who are by day farmers, and by night, a budding Gregory of Nyssa... I think it would more constructive to allow discussion on the issue and then let the Bishops of the East make their explanations of THEIR reading of what Rome is saying...It appears you are saying YOU will judge what Rome is saying, no matter what the Bishops tell you (a la Florence). I don't think the majority of the Eastern laity is in the position to know what the West teaches without prejudice. Remember, we are dealing with a group who believes the "other side" has constantly wronged them, left them, are heretics, teach another faith altogether, and probably think they doesn't even have a valid Mass... It is difficult for such to be open to an unbiased review of what the West ACTUALLY teaches with this sense of superiority.

I say as a general proposition because I can’t see Orthodoxy remaining in communion with any bishop who allows “clown masses”, etc

WE don't care for that either. But that falls into liturgical abuse, not dogmatic declarations. Would you care if Rome stuck its noses into your own personal issues at your parish? Maybe the Pope should issue a papal bull against those who wear those funny hats at Mass? :>

We don't want the Patriarch of Constantinople telling us that, either. It seems you keep returning to things that are NOT dogmatic in nature. Let us try to take care of our own problems. These things move at a glacial pace, you know. God has brought a good Pope to Rome and we trust God will take care of this matter in His time.

It is well within the realm of possibility that even your innovative dogmas could be so “nuanced” as to make them acceptable to the People of God

They are acceptable to the People of God! Just not to the People of God over there in your neck of the woods... I see this as a constant underlying attitude from many Orthodox gentleman that I speak with or read on the internet... The condescending attitude that looks down on Western Christiandom. It is unbecoming of the "People of God"... It needs to be corrected, not just for the sake of unification, but for the sake of souls. Religious pride is frowned upon, even by the Eastern Church Fathers. You don't need me to tell you that it is also the most difficult thing to see in one's self...

we would need first a council and then a long, long time to see if the People gave the results of the council its AXIOS. In the meantime, maybe some sort of “economia” inter communion could be established as already exists between the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox, the Copts and the Armenians.

I agree with these suggestions, if the rest of your compadres will allow it. I can understand your distrust. It would certainly be a step in the right direction. But there is really no point IF the laity already have it in their head that they, the "real" People of God, have decided that Rome is heretical and any Eastern bishop that says otherwise (after consultation and exploration of theology with Western bishops) should be sacked.

The attitude in the East that followed Florence can never bring about reunion. We are just looking for a fair hearing. It won't be had if it has already been determined by the laity that we are heretics...

Regards

[jo kus]

I meant to add, as an aside, that perhaps if the Latin Church scrapped that gd catechism of yours and tried, for a few decades at least, to refrain from defining every “jot and tittle” of The Faith and making a corresponding rule for every definition, it would go a long way towards arriving at a common mindset with the East. I sincerely think that catechism is pernicious!

LOL! Shall we pass out coloring books to teach the faith?

That's the way we are. We are overly rationalistic, a product of the Age of the Enlightenment. It is not necessarily a positive trait. I think it would be fair to say that you possess some particular unsavory charecteristics, as a people, as well.

I am thinking, though, that we can get along.

Regards