Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[malphono]

None of this is to say that every act committed by conquistadors is to be laid at the feet of the RCC itself, but a realistic appraisal of history of European conquest can’t leave religious motives out.

I often wonder whether there was much in the way of legitimate “religious motives” involved, particularly on the part of the Iberians. It’s certainly true that the French brought Catholicism too, but they were far less rabid in their approach.

Again, none of this is an indictment against the RCC as an institution, but it is the reality of how RCism spread all over the world. It is a colonial religion everywhere outside of Europe not because it was designed to be so, but because at that time it was the religion of the majority of the colonizing European powers that managed to carve up the largest chunks of the world for themselves: The Spaniards, the Portuguese, and the French. In other places, other forms of Christianity are the traditional colonial form. Lutheranism is not the dominant form of Christianity in Namibia by accident, for instance; it is, of course, the state church of the Germans who originally colonized that country.

This is an excellent observation. It’s true of the Brits as well, particularly in parts of Africa. And it even manifests itself in the very existence of the Marthomite Church in Kerala: Anglican Protestantism with a Syrian façade. It’s also true of the Russians in Alaska and, to a lesser extent, in other regions of the Pacific Northwest.

 

[dzheremi]

Indeed. As I originally hail from the southernmost tip of the historic Russian empire (my hometown is the closest settlement to the Russian outpost of Fort Ross), I can testify as to the antiquity of Eastern Orthodoxy in America (at least my part of America), and how it got there. It’s an interesting area…where Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism meet. Over here, we have Santa Rosa, and a few miles away, Sebastopol.

Anyway, I’m afraid you’re probably right about the Iberians and their (quasi-)religious motives. It’s not that they didn’t do the job of converting people, but the part of the Atahualpa story that I left out was where he promised to fill a large room with silver and gold in tribute to the Spaniards (in reality, probably in an effort to escape execution; I can’t remember if he actually did so, but either way it did not work, as they executed him anyway). Their greed for natural resources and precious metals probably outstripped their religious zeal, though it is obvious from the story of Atahualpa and de Valverde that they at least had religion as a pretext for their conquering in some cases.

Not that it was all bad. One good side-effect of colonization (from my point of view as a linguist anyway) was that many of the priests who traveled to the new world with the conquistadores learned the languages of the natives, and often provided the first written descriptions of them. Many languages had writing systems devised for missionary purposes, and there is even the famous case of the Cherokee language, whose script was invented by a Cherokee, Sequoyah. While not strictly devised for missionary purposes (legend has it that Sequoyah regularly dealt with whites and was impressed by their writing, and so became determined to develop the same for his own language), later in its life missionaries who learned the language and script as part of their evangelization of the Cherokee took to producing two competing Latin-based systems for writing the language. In one, there is a characteristic doubling of certain consonants, so that Sequoyah would’ve been written like Ssisquoyah or something like that, with an initial double S. In the other, there was no such doubling. To this day, both systems have been maintained among different groups of Cherokee, so you can tell who was evangelized by who back in the 1850s or whenever based on how they spell things.

Um…and that’s why I am against reunion between Orthodox and Catholics at present. Hey, wouldya look at that, we’re back on topic…

 

[SyroMalankara]

How so? No one ruled under that model during the days of the Empire.

While the OO all have different systems individually, the system they use between churches is pretty conciliar.

The Roman Senates come to mind. The power struggle between the Emperor and the Senate also mimics Rome’s claims for itself historically vs. the EO push for Conciliarity.

 

[malphono]

The Roman Senates come to mind. The power struggle between the Emperor and the Senate also mimics Rome’s claims for itself historically vs. the EO push for Conciliarity.

It’s interesting that even the emperors recognized that, else the famous “SPQR” would not have been ubiquitous. It was so ingrained that it even survives in the City of Rome until this day.

 

[Anthony86]

I find the tone of some of the arguments, especially the demonetization of Patriarchs St. Photius and Michal I very offensive. There is a way to discuss these things in respectful matter as brothers and sisters in Christ without resorting to insulting an Orthodox Patriarch like Michael I. Every time that I read a post that refers to him as Cerularius, I am offended by the lack of respect for an Orthodox Patriarch.

You’re not wrong, but you are on a Roman Catholic forum, and I’ve seen considerably worse treatment of Popes and Western saints on Orthodox fora… That doesn’t make it right, of course, but it is somewhat peculiar when Orthodox complain about Catholic presentations of e.g. Photius (when the Catholic Church nevertheless actually allows him to be venerated as a Saint) when the Orthodox are the ones consistently claiming we’re heretics fallen from grace… The Catholic Church allows the veneration of post-schism eastern Saints, including Gregory Palamas. Is there any such respect from the Orthodox side?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pointing out inconsistency–some might even say hypocrisy–in your posting is not uncharitable. You dish out all sorts of criticisms and outright insults at the Orthodox, but you cry foul when criticisms are directed at the Catholic Church. There’s no good reason why someone shouldn’t call you out, and there’s nothing uncharitable about it.

I’m a pretty hard-nosed apologist, Ryan. I don’t cry “foul”. If you read my post carefully, you will note that I rightly objected to the shoddy use of a discredited attack on Catholicism.

However, you might be interested to know that you, Ryan, inspired me. Today, I went to the Catholic bookstore, and purchased two books:

1. 
   *]On a Mission, Lessons from St. Francis de Sales by Patrick Madrid. Madrid is well-known author and Catholic apologist, and he examines the successes and methods of St. Francis de Sales who has been called “the Gentleman Saint” because of his patience and gentleness. He is credited with the re-conversion of tens of thousands of Calvinists back to the Catholic Church in Switzerland in the century following the Reformation.
   
   ]* The Russian Church and the Papacy **by Vladimir Soloviev. According the the blurb on the back cover, “Soloviev’s true legacy consists of three simple propositions. Jesus Christ instituted the universal jurisdiction and infallible teaching authority of the papacy as a perpetual gift to his church. Apart from the papacy, the Eastern churches will always remain what they are now: ethnic, national churches, totally independent and disunited. Only in union with Rome can the separated Eastern churches become truly Catholic.” (Gee, sounds like what I’ve been saying all along.)
   
   So, I’m going to be spending some time learning the arguments from a former Orthodox theologian and the technique for presenting them more effectively from two master apologists. If I have even a fraction of the success de Sales knew, I will consider this time well spent.
   
   I’m excited, and I look forward to re-engaging with you and others very soon.
   
   :tiphat:

 

[frjohnmorris]

You’re not wrong, but you are on a Roman Catholic forum, and I’ve seen considerably worse treatment of Popes and Western saints on Orthodox fora… That doesn’t make it right, of course, but it is somewhat peculiar when Orthodox complain about Catholic presentations of e.g. Photius (when the Catholic Church nevertheless actually allows him to be venerated as a Saint) when the Orthodox are the ones consistently claiming we’re heretics fallen from grace… The Catholic Church allows the veneration of post-schism eastern Saints, including Gregory Palamas. Is there any such respect from the Orthodox side?

I RESPOND: I do not remember ever calling Catholics heretics fallen from grace. In the past both sides used intemperate language. Today both sides have their fanatics, but they are a minority. I am not aware of any official declaration by the Orthodox Church that actually calls Catholics heretics. There are certainly expressions of disagreement with the Catholic Church, but I know of no council that has officially declared the Catholics heretics fallen from grace. Certainly modern Orthodox leaders do not use such terms. The Ecumenical Patriarch refers to the Catholic Church as a sister Church. The Patriarch under which I serve, His Beatitude John X of Antioch, was in Rome paying respects to the new Pope a few weeks ago.

The Catholic Church venerates post-schism Eastern Saints because of the Eastern Catholic Churches venerate them, but does the Latin Rite venerate them as Saints? I honestly do not know which, if any, post schism Saints are venerated by the Orthodox Western Rite.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Nine_Two]

The Roman Senates come to mind. The power struggle between the Emperor and the Senate also mimics Rome’s claims for itself historically vs. the EO push for Conciliarity.

No it doesn’t. The senate was a mostly powerless body from the time Octavius took power.

And we aren’t talking about Rome or how the Churches interact, we’re talking about the Orthodox Conciliar form of government.

 

[Randy_Carson]

One has to approach most theologians with caution, I think, unless they have “St.” or “Pope” in front of their names, but I thank you for the heads-up.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Vladimir Soloviev left the Orthodox Church and converted to Roman Catholicism. Therefore, he would write such things. However, he also had some ideas that I suspect that Roman Catholicism would consider suspect if not heretical. He was deeply influenced by Gnosticism, Buddhism and Jewish Kaballa mysticism. He also was a follower of Sophiaism, which is worship of the divine feminine.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

I do understand, but was a poor layman like me to do?

This particular book is a condensed version of his larger work, Russia and the Universal Church. It is published by Catholic Answers, contains a forward by Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, has a preface by Scott Hahn and was edited by Fr. Ray Ryland who also wrote the introduction.

I’m going to risk it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Vladimir Soloviev left the Orthodox Church and converted to Roman Catholicism. Therefore, he would write such things. However, he also had some ideas that I suspect that Roman Catholicism would consider suspect if not heretical. He was deeply influenced by Gnosticism, Buddhism and Jewish Kaballa mysticism. He also was a follower of Sophiaism, which is worship of the divine feminine.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Noted. But THIS book is on the papacy. Given the “who’s who” line-up of people who contributed to it, I think it will be “orthodox” enough.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m a pretty hard-nosed apologist, Ryan. I don’t cry “foul”. If you read my post carefully, you will note that I rightly objected to the shoddy use of a discredited attack on Catholicism.

However, you might be interested to know that you, Ryan, inspired me. Today, I went to the Catholic bookstore, and purchased two books:

1. 
   *]On a Mission, Lessons from St. Francis de Sales by Patrick Madrid. Madrid is well-known author and Catholic apologist, and he examines the successes and methods of St. Francis de Sales who has been called “the Gentleman Saint” because of his patience and gentleness. He is credited with the re-conversion of tens of thousands of Calvinists back to the Catholic Church in Switzerland in the century following the Reformation.
   
   ]* The Russian Church and the Papacy **by Vladimir Soloviev. According the the blurb on the back cover, “Soloviev’s true legacy consists of three simple propositions. Jesus Christ instituted the universal jurisdiction and infallible teaching authority of the papacy as a perpetual gift to his church. Apart from the papacy, the Eastern churches will always remain what they are now: ethnic, national churches, totally independent and disunited. Only in union with Rome can the separated Eastern churches become truly Catholic.” (Gee, sounds like what I’ve been saying all along.)
   
   So, I’m going to be spending some time learning the arguments from a former Orthodox theologian and the technique for presenting them more effectively from two master apologists. If I have even a fraction of the success de Sales knew, I will consider this time well spent.
   
   I’m excited, and I look forward to re-engaging with you and others very soon.
   
   :tiphat:

1. 
   A philosopher. He was no true theologian.

 

[dzheremi]

What’s next – Sergius Bulgakov clearly shows that the Russian Orthodox Church supports RC excesses in Mariology? Nothing screams “I don’t know what I’m talking about” quite like the amateur apologist’s ‘I found this guy from your church who says X, Y, Z therefore we are right and you are not’ quest for anyone with a Russian (or Greek, or whatever) name who will seemingly give Rome’s positions some kind of stamp of ‘Eastern’ approval or authenticity. Didn’t you guys already create whole churches out of sections of the Slavs, Greeks, Arabs and others who were willing to accept Rome’s positions? I’m pretty sure that happened, so I find the recourse that some RCs think they have found in producing a few non-Latin names that they claim support RC stances rather confusing. You already have a bunch of that: they’re called Byzantine Greek Catholics, Romanian Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, etc. Why dredge up the likes of Vladimir Soloviev or James Likoudis or whoever else? One group’s heretics are another group’s proof, or rather ammunition. Odd. Fittingly, you don’t see that on the other side. I don’t recall the EO ever using Jaroslav Pelikan (former Lutheran pastor) as proof that Protestantism in fact agrees with Orthodoxy but maybe the Protestants are just to stubborn to realize it, as is often asserted by RC apologists here.

The fact that you found someone who says what you have been saying all along only proves that you’re both wrong. Soloviev’s accusations reek of RC polemic regarding the hopeless “ethnicity” of the EO ,which, again (for the millionth time), is actually even more prevalent in the RC communion than in Orthodoxy, as the RCC is home to several “ethnic” churches which have no direct Orthodox counterpart, such as the Syro-Malabar, Chaldean, and Maronite.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What’s next – Sergius Bulgakov clearly shows that the Russian Orthodox Church supports RC excesses in Mariology? Nothing screams “I don’t know what I’m talking about” quite like the amateur apologist’s ‘I found this guy from your church who says X, Y, Z therefore we are right and you are not’ quest for anyone with a Russian (or Greek, or whatever) name who will seemingly give Rome’s positions some kind of stamp of ‘Eastern’ approval or authenticity.

Gee, how many* professional* apologists are there?

Didn’t you guys already create whole churches out of sections of the Slavs, Greeks, Arabs and others who were willing to accept Rome’s positions? I’m pretty sure that happened, so I find the recourse that some RCs think they have found in producing a few non-Latin names that they claim support RC stances rather confusing. You already have a bunch of that: they’re called Byzantine Greek Catholics, Romanian Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, etc. Why dredge up the likes of Vladimir Soloviev or James Likoudis or whoever else? One group’s heretics are another group’s proof, or rather ammunition. Odd. Fittingly, you don’t see that on the other side. I don’t recall the EO ever using Jaroslav Pelikan (former Lutheran pastor) as proof that Protestantism in fact agrees with Orthodoxy but maybe the Protestants are just to stubborn to realize it, as is often asserted by RC apologists here.

The fact that you found someone who says what you have been saying all along only proves that you’re both wrong.

Now, there’s some sound reasoning. But thanks for the tip about Likoudis…I’ll check him out next.

Soloviev’s accusations reek of RC polemic regarding the hopeless “ethnicity” of the EO ,which, again (for the millionth time), is actually even more prevalent in the RC communion than in Orthodoxy, as the RCC is home to several “ethnic” churches which have no direct Orthodox counterpart, such as the Syro-Malabar, Chaldean, and Maronite.

Have you actually read any of his work? Specifically, have you read Russia and the Universal Church? I’m betting that no one posting in this forum has. Yet. I’m settling in for a nice long read now.

FWIW, John Paul II referenced Soloviev in Fides et Ratio (74). Urs Von Balthasar praised his “skill in the technique of integrating all partial truths in one vision” and ranked him second only to Thomas Aquinas as “the greatest artist of order and organization in the history of thought.”

A Russian Orthodox theologian, Georges Florovsky, praised Soloviev for his passion for Christian unity. Soloviev, said Florovsky, regarded the reunion of Christendom, and especially the reconciliation between the Eastern Churches and Rome as “the central problem of Christian life and history.” He also described Soloviev’s contribution to the discussion on Christian unity as “momentous.” This should suggest that Soloviev has some credibility, don’t you think?

 

[Nine_Two]

A Russian Orthodox theologian, Georges Florovsky, praised Soloviev for his passion for Christian unity.

My first priest, the one who brought me into the Orthodox Church, once praised John Paul II, in front of a portion of the congregation, for the great efforts he undertook in the name of Christianity.

Somehow this priest still managed to believe that it is Orthodoxy which preaches the fullness of truth.

One can praise someone for one thing while believing they are completely wrong about something else.

 

[dzheremi]

Gee, how many* professional* apologists are there?

On this board? Zero.

Now, there’s some sound reasoning. But thanks for the tip about Likoudis…I’ll check him out next.

I’m surprised you haven’t heard of him before. He’s something of a convert celebre, if you will, having converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism and subsequently appearing on “The Journey Home” on EWTN and whatnot. Personally, I find him boring and inaccurate (and I’m OO, so I can only imagine what the EO who have come across him must think about him being taken as an “insider” with regard to Orthodoxy), but maybe you’ll like him. I dunno; I tend to find all convert stories boring, regardless.

Have you actually read any of his work? Specifically, have you read Russia and the Universal Church? I’m betting that no one posting in this forum has. Yet. I’m settling in for a nice long read now.

Let us know what you think. I don’t read apologetic work for other churches beyond what it takes to grasp whatever their distinctive teachings are, and for that concerning the RCC I find it much better and safer to just read official Vatican documents, with support from cradle Catholics’ works, though not uncritically in either case (obviously).

FWIW, John Paul II referenced Soloviev in Fides et Ratio (74). Urs Von Balthasar praised his “skill in the technique of integrating all partial truths in one vision” and ranked him second only to Thomas Aquinas as “the greatest artist of order and organization in the history of thought.”

Well, yes…why wouldn’t they? Soloviev was Catholic.

A Russian Orthodox theologian, Georges Florovsky, praised Soloviev for his passion for Christian unity. Soloviev, said Florovsky, regarded the reunion of Christendom, and especially the reconciliation between the Eastern Churches and Rome as “the central problem of Christian life and history.” He also described Soloviev’s contribution to the discussion on Christian unity as “momentous.” This should suggest that Soloviev has some credibility, don’t you think?

In terms of having gained the admiration of Florovsky, possibly (as I understand it, the men came out of the same school), and within the boundaries in which the praise was given, sure. But plenty more also wish for reunion of the ancient Patriarchates, and do so without leaving Orthodoxy, so credibility is another question. I might ask you, hypothetically of course, how much credibility apostates from Catholicism retain among their former co-religionists. Being one myself, I can say confidently that the answer here is also zero, as it should be.

 

[Aramis]

The Catholic Church venerates post-schism Eastern Saints because of the Eastern Catholic Churches venerate them, but does the Latin Rite venerate them as Saints? I honestly do not know which, if any, post schism Saints are venerated by the Orthodox Western Rite.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Not corporately, but I’ve heard Cdl. Arinze say that private veneration is permitted of any saint recognized by any Church in communion with Rome.

I’ve seen Catholic bishops venerate Icons to St. Herman of Alaska (sometimes spelled St. German). I myself have an Icon of St. German on my wall, and venerate his icon because he was instrumental in spreading Christianity in Alaska, and lived an exemplary life.

I have never encountered Catholics venerating St. Photius the Patriarch, but have seen an icon of St. Peter the Aleut in a Catholic parish.

Whether or not that statement extends to the Syrian Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East (both of whom have treaties permitting intercommunion of the faithful, but not concelebration) is dubious.

 

[LionHeart777]

I remember hearing somewhere that at least some Russian Orthodox had/have a devotion or at least an admiration of St. Thérèse of Lisieux, and if I remember, she has been depicted in some Russian Orthodox icons. Can anyone verify this?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Let me give you some advice. I have read one of Likoudis’ books. People like him only harm the efforts towards union between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Unity, between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism can only come through dialogue to resolve our differences and come together on the basis of the Faith that we once shared, the Faith of the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Polemics like those of Likoudis only threaten the possibility of real and meaningful dialogue. I watched the Divine Liturgy celebrated several years ago by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the presence of the Pope on Eternal Word Network and was very insulted by some of the comments made by the priests at their headquarters about our Church. That kind of trading insults will not bring us together. We have to listen to each other with love and mutual respect.

The Very Rev. John W. Morris