An eastern Orthodox abbot likes Pope Francis

[Casilda]

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/morningoffering/narcisistic_clericalism

This is his daily talk. One reason why I see faithful in the eastern and western churches uniting in what matters (aside from church politics and the tit for tat that has gone on for centuries).

 

[Nine_Two]

If by “what matters” you mean common causes, moral outreach and the like, I think that unity has already happened. Things like the Manhattan Declaration (also involving Protestants) illustrate this.

 

[chero23]

I truly hope there can be unity in my life time between Catholics and Orthodox, we hold so many similarities, I know somebody will try to be Devil’s Advocate, but it will be beautiful to see God’s 2 lungs together working as 1.

 

[theistgal]

Hmm, well, we can’t even get unity among Catholics (look at all the wrangling around here between “Novus Ordo Catholics” and “Traditionalist Catholics” not to mention us poor li’l Eastern Catholics; if we can’t even get along with each other why should we expect to get along with the Orthodox?

And I’m sure any honest Orthodox will acknowledge the infighting within their Churches as well.

Let’s face it, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree till we can get a Judge in here to settle this once and for all!

 

[Nine_Two]

And I’m sure any honest Orthodox will acknowledge the infighting within their Churches as well.

Our infighting is also of a very different nature, and at the end of the day we recognize each other as fully Orthodox. I’m not sure the same can be said about the various Catholic factions.

 

[theistgal]

Our infighting is also of a very different nature, and at the end of the day we recognize each other as fully Orthodox. I’m not sure the same can be said about the various Catholic factions.

Really? I spend a lot of time at an Orthodox discussion forum and I certainly see some Orthodox denying that others are “fully Orthodox”. The Western Rite Orthodox come in for a lot of criticism, and the Oriental Orthodox certainly do not see the Eastern Orthodox as “fully Orthodox” or vice versa.

 

[Nine_Two]

Really? I spend a lot of time at an Orthodox discussion forum and I certainly see some Orthodox denying that others are “fully Orthodox”. The Western Rite Orthodox come in for a lot of criticism, and the Oriental Orthodox certainly do not see the Eastern Orthodox as “fully Orthodox” or vice versa.

“Oriental Orthodox” and “Eastern Orthodox” is not internal. We are two distinct Churches. That’s like saying because Catholics and Lutherans don’t agree on something it must mean there is no Catholic Consensus (because Lutherans call themselves catholic). The Church that the Oriental Orthodox separated from included both what is now the Catholic and Orthodox Church - they are as much internal to you as they are to us (that is not at all).

I see Latin Catholics throw this around, and it annoys me but it is just another symptom of the usual Western ignorance of the East. I’m concerned to see an Eastern Catholic throw the accusation around though.

You do, however, have a point about the Western Rite Orthodox. Many are suspicious of them because they come out of the West and instead of adopting a traditional Orthodox liturgy, use a sanitized version of a western liturgy. I have great issue with these people (the ones that say the Western Rite aren’t fully Orthodox, just for clarification. Orthodoxy is defined by its teachings, not its lesson plan), and I think they do us more harm then good. I’d like to say they are a tiny minority but I have no idea what their numbers are. I’ve never met anyone who openly took that position, but it isn’t exactly something I’ve brought up in conversation.
Although I wouldn’t quite call it infighting, more a case of picking on the different kid who can’t fight back.

With all that said, I do stand by my point - perhaps with a slight adjustment. Our infighting is of a different nature, and by-and-large at the end of the day we recognize each other as fully Orthodox.

 

[Wandile]

“Oriental Orthodox” and “Eastern Orthodox” is not internal. We are two distinct Churches. That’s like saying because Catholics and Lutherans don’t agree on something it must mean there is no Catholic Consensus (because Lutherans call themselves catholic). The Church that the Oriental Orthodox separated from included both what is now the Catholic and Orthodox Church - they are as much internal to you as they are to us (that is not at all).

I see Latin Catholics throw this around, and it annoys me but it is just another symptom of the usual Western ignorance of the East. I’m concerned to see an Eastern Catholic throw the accusation around though.

You do, however, have a point about the Western Rite Orthodox. Many are suspicious of them because they come out of the West and instead of adopting a traditional Orthodox liturgy, use a sanitized version of a western liturgy. I have great issue with these people (the ones that say the Western Rite aren’t fully Orthodox, just for clarification. Orthodoxy is defined by its teachings, not its lesson plan), and I think they do us more harm then good. I’d like to say they are a tiny minority but I have no idea what their numbers are. I’ve never met anyone who openly took that position, but it isn’t exactly something I’ve brought up in conversation.
Although I wouldn’t quite call it infighting, more a case of picking on the different kid who can’t fight back.

With all that said, I do stand by my point - perhaps with a slight adjustment. Our infighting is of a different nature, and by-and-large at the end of the day we recognize each other as fully Orthodox.

The same applies to Catholicism by this standard.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

The same applies to Catholicism by this standard.

In what way?

We share a similiar Ecclesiology with the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox. Our disagreements are generally over language, history, and the Councils since Chalcedon (not a small disagreement by the way, I am not going to insult their Fathers or Ours by minimizing the differences…or gloss over the injustices that were perpetrated by us or the Latins. The Christological Discussions are no small matter either) which is prickly but not impossible to overcome. The differences between the Latins and Chalcedonian Orthodox are of a trickier nature, in that we do not share a common Ecclesiology anymore, nor can the innovations of the last 1000 years be ignored or easily incorporated into the Church. Rome’s claim of dominion over the Church is a non-starter, an instantaneous shutting of the door on any reunion. Your Ecclesiology is built on this claim of “Universal Jurisdiction”…which makes reunion a whole heck of a lot harder.

 

[SyroMalankara]

This is a commonly mentioned and well-intentioned, but uninformed perspective I’ve seen repeated by EO online. The OO Churches ecclesiologies are not all exactly the same, nor are they the same as the EO in all aspects. For example, if you don’t like the Petrine insistence of Rome, you will not like the claims of the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch either.

 

[dzheremi]

Syro-Malankara, please don’t overstate the case. The Syriac Orthodox Church certainly recognizes the primacy of St. Peter as foremost among the apostles (and explicitly identifies its Patriarch as the rightful successor to St. Peter), but this does not translate into claiming the kinds of privileges that Rome claims for its Pope. Indeed, these appear to be separate issues in practice, as the same Church that writes of the indisputable primacy of St. Peter also specifies the limits to which the Patriarch, the true successor of St. Peter, is subject in the exercise of his considerable and commendable authority. These limits should look very familiar to anyone of the Oriental tradition, and quite distinct from the Roman ideas about their own Pope. Given that you are Malankaran, I probably don’t need to do any more than remind. From the above article on the concept of jurisdiction in the SOC, we read of the authority invested in the synod to undertake the following actions:

1: elect the Patriarch and enthrone him in the patriarchal residence at a suitable time and to receive the resignation of the Patriarch and the metropolitans and to order their dismissal.
2: to agree on or to reject the decisions of the Patriarch to candidate the monks for the rank of episcopate in the case of their election and appointment.
3: to investigate the Patriarch and the metropolitans and to judge them according to canon law.
4: to look into the religious heresies which are against the faith and traditions of the church and its by-laws and to issue judgments against whomever committed them, whether clergy or laity, with all of the punishments of the church.
5: to meet, presided over by the oldest metropolitan, if the Patriarch has not called the Synod for three successive sessions.
6: to shift Metropolitans from one archdiocese to another and to establish, to renew and to abolish archdioceses or to change its geographical borders or to sell a part or all of the endowments of the Patriarchate.
7: in case of a vacancy in the See, the Synod is to elect one of the metropolitans as an interim authority according to the principals and articles of the constitution.

As per (1) and (3), the synod is permitted to judge, discipline, and even dismiss the Patriarch as necessary. Quite far from the RCC model, don’t you think?

 

[Casilda]

I am sorry to see that my OP has turned into a somewhat political foray. Having been on the fence for years whether to join the eastern church or go back to my Roman roots. It is precisely this politicking that led me back to Rome.

I saw in my own city the chaos that exists in the eastern churches because we have every patriarch represented. This overlap in of itself is a blatant uncanonical phenomenon.

For the faithful in the pew, we want to worship Christ, not a jurisdiction.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Syro-Malankara, please don’t overstate the case. The Syriac Orthodox Church certainly recognizes the primacy of St. Peter as foremost among the apostles (and explicitly identifies its Patriarch as the rightful successor to St. Peter), but this does not translate into claiming the kinds of privileges that Rome claims for its Pope. Indeed, these appear to be separate issues in practice, as the same Church that writes of the indisputable primacy of St. Peter also specifies the limits to which the Patriarch, the true successor of St. Peter, is subject in the exercise of his considerable and commendable authority. These limits should look very familiar to anyone of the Oriental tradition, and quite distinct from the Roman ideas about their own Pope. Given that you are Malankaran, I probably don’t need to do any more than remind. From the above article on the concept of jurisdiction in the SOC, we read of the authority invested in the synod to undertake the following actions:

1: elect the Patriarch and enthrone him in the patriarchal residence at a suitable time and to receive the resignation of the Patriarch and the metropolitans and to order their dismissal.
2: to agree on or to reject the decisions of the Patriarch to candidate the monks for the rank of episcopate in the case of their election and appointment.
3: to investigate the Patriarch and the metropolitans and to judge them according to canon law.
4: to look into the religious heresies which are against the faith and traditions of the church and its by-laws and to issue judgments against whomever committed them, whether clergy or laity, with all of the punishments of the church.
5: to meet, presided over by the oldest metropolitan, if the Patriarch has not called the Synod for three successive sessions.
6: to shift Metropolitans from one archdiocese to another and to establish, to renew and to abolish archdioceses or to change its geographical borders or to sell a part or all of the endowments of the Patriarchate.
7: in case of a vacancy in the See, the Synod is to elect one of the metropolitans as an interim authority according to the principals and articles of the constitution.

As per (1) and (3), the synod is permitted to judge, discipline, and even dismiss the Patriarch as necessary. Quite far from the RCC model, don’t you think?

I agree that Rome makes lofty statements, but the Patriarchs may not say so explicitly, but act in some ways with more authority and jurisdiction in practice. For example:

For this reason he himself writes and reads what he has written according to the canon. This means his announcement embracing the constitution of the creed as is fitting to him, that he will behave well in justice and uprightness, walk or act according to the apostolic canons, accept the famous fathers and the three Ecumenical Councils, refute the heretics and dedicate himself to work and sacrifice for the safety and continuance of the Holy Church of God. He will also reconcile between two disputing adversaries in whatever promises are needed. He is never obliged to say: That he obeys an order of any of those who are ordaining him as they are obliged to submit to his order.

The act of kneeling down by the head of the synod and all of the metropolitans who are with him on the ground before the one to be elected and the head of the synod says to him: The Holy Spirit is calling you to become Patriarch, the father of the heads of the city of Antioch and to the whole jurisdiction of this Apostolic See, I mean the father for all of us. In return for that the one elected for the patriarchal see kneels before the synod and says: I have agreed and accepted.

and the following:

The Patriarch is the authority to refuse or approve any of the judgements issued by any preliminary court in the countries of the Middle East and the diaspora, and to appoint the head of the court of appeals in the patriarchate or in any other country. He has the right to appoint the head of a preliminary court in the patriarchal vicariates wherever they are found. He also has the right in case of the removal of one of the heads from his position in any spiritual court in the archdioceses to deputize another person for a short time in that case. The Patriarch alone is head of the high court in the church and is the highest level in the churches’ courts and his decisions are legally valid and are not able to be appealed. This is for the subject of personal affairs. But on the subject of church punishments in the lower levels, the Patriarch does not interfere in the rights of the metropolitan or archdioceses but he should be informed of the matter. The subject of church excommunications remains entrusted to the Patriarch and after examination of all of the aspects of the case he will issue a judgement of excommunication on the clergy or the laity and will announce it by known media.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The same article also mentions:

(2) The Jurisdiction of the Patriarch The first article from the general rules in the church constitution says that: The Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch is One, Universal, Holy and Apostolic Church. The old patriarchal headquarters was in Antioch where its See was founded by St. Peter, Head of the Apostles in the year 37 AD and its present headquarters (after 1959) is Damascus, the capital of Syria. The second article says: His Holiness the Patriarch is the supreme head over the church and its Holy Synod.

In article 7 we read about the title of the Patriarch: His Holiness Mor Ignatius … Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, Supreme Head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church.

It is clear from these articles that the jurisdiction of the Patriarch is like the jurisdiction of the Holy Synod: he is the supreme head over the church wherever her sons and daughters are spread, he has the right to be preeminent in the archdioceses that have legal metropolitans and his jurisdiction includes all of the churches whether they are independent or are patriarchal vicariates.

Article 5 of the constitution says: The churches and the institutions and the Evangelistic Associations that are not included in the Syrian archdioceses mentioned in article 4, are administered directly by His Holiness the Patriarch. Since the Patriarch is the symbol of unity of the church and the universal father of all Syrians in the world, so it is necessary he be obeyed by the clergy at all levels and ranks, the deacons, the institutions, the active committees and the people altogether.

I’m not saying one is any better than another or one should be supplanted, only that the EO model presented against the RC isn’t the only variations, as usually suggested.

 

[theistgal]

With all that said, I do stand by my point - perhaps with a slight adjustment. Our infighting is of a different nature, and by-and-large at the end of the day we recognize each other as fully Orthodox.

You can say that all you want, but I stand by my point as well - that infighting and accusations of heresy are just as prevelant among the Orthodox as among the Catholics.

 

[Nine_Two]

The same applies to Catholicism by this standard.

Does it? I hear of Conservative Catholics saying Liberal Catholics aren’t really Catholic all the time, and vice versa. You’ve got most of Catholicism saying the other side isn’t Catholic.

We have a group who says the small group who practice the Western Rite aren’t really Orthodox. There is a big scale of difference. I’m not sure you can use “By-and-large” in Catholicism.

 

[SyroMalankara]

“most” ? I would say that’s a stretch. Most “traditionalists” wouldn’t say the “regulars” are not Catholic, they just disagree with the prudence of the modern movements - “misguided” would be a better representation of their view. Even the SSPX, the largest separate body - still tiny compared to the majority - recognizes the “regulars” as Catholic.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

This is a commonly mentioned and well-intentioned, but uninformed perspective I’ve seen repeated by EO online. The OO Churches ecclesiologies are not all exactly the same, nor are they the same as the EO in all aspects. For example, if you don’t like the Petrine insistence of Rome, you will not like the claims of the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch either.

I certainly didn’t mean to say that. I know full well there are differences between say the Syriac Church and the Coptic Church, or even the Armenians and Ethiopians. What I meant, is that in comparison to Latin Ecclesiology, OO and EO are much more compatible in the event of Union. Obviously it isn’t uniform…there are differences within the EO world and actually even in the Latin Communion as well.

The perils of speaking in generalities…my apologies.

 

[Wandile]

“most” ? I would say that’s a stretch. Most “traditionalists” wouldn’t say the “regulars” are not Catholic, they just disagree with the prudence of the modern movements - “misguided” would be a better representation of their view. Even the SSPX, the largest separate body - still tiny compared to the majority - recognizes the “regulars” as Catholic.

Exactly… Most Implies at least Half a billion Catholics condemning another bunch of Catholics as non-catholic. The truth, cavaradossi is that traditionalists make up a small percentage of Catholics , nevermind the extremist factions.

Catholicism is majority (95%) in agreement with each other.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I hear of Conservative Catholics saying Liberal Catholics aren’t really Catholic all the time, and vice versa. You’ve got most of Catholicism saying the other side isn’t Catholic.

You do rather mean that owing to political differences some Catholics accuse others of not being fully, entirely or faithfully Catholic or faithful to their baptismal vows and obligations. But you also know as well as they do that as much as they may want to deny them the name of Catholic, ultimately they have neither the right nor the authority to do so: only the competent authority could possibly make such an effective judgement in practice; and even then there is still one Judge whose final Judgement no other can overrule.

Moreover, if you’re going to take shots at the legitimacy of Christians imagining that the Church might well be filled with both wheat and tares, sheep and goats, then why do you bother us about this? Your issue, I think, is not with us:

28 He said, An enemy has done it. And his men asked him, Wouldst thou then have us go and gather them up? 29 But he said, No; or perhaps while you are gathering the tares you will root up the wheat with them. 30 Leave them to grow side by side till harvest, and when harvest-time comes I will give the word to the reapers, Gather up the tares first, and tie them in bundles to be burned, and store the wheat in my barn.

31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit down upon the throne of his glory, 32 and all nations will be gathered in his presence, where he will divide men one from the other, as the shepherd divides the sheep from the goats;

21 The kingdom of heaven will not give entrance to every man who calls me Master, Master; only to the man that does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 There are many who will say to me, when that day comes, Master, Master, was it not in thy name we prophesied? Was it not in thy name that we performed many miracles? 23 Whereupon I will tell them openly, You were never friends of mine; depart from me, you that traffic in wrong-doing.

Personally I think these squabbles are starting to sound like a holier-than-thou argument and a waste of time. It was very kind of the subject of the OP to speak so kindly of the Holy Father. That was very generous of him and hopefully God will bring all of his children into full and visible communion and unity in his holy Church.