Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Randy_Carson]

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

Thank you, Father. Have you read Soloviev?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Eventually, yes, and from what I have read so far, I venture to say that it was with some reluctance that Soloviev made that crossing alone. It was his deeper desire that the Orthodox re-unite with the visible head of the Church.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Thank you, Father. Have you read Soloviev?

Not in many years. I had an area in Russia history on my PhD in history. He was a member of the Slavaphil movement.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

We both have our own kooks. It is for people of good will to seek understanding and ways to respect each other. I personally favor Metropolitan Hilarion’s approach to ecumenism. Even if it is not possible for Orthodox and Roman Catholics to agree on doctrine and reestablish Communion, we still need to work together to provide a common witness against the raging secularism and immorality that has become acceptable in the world today.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[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?

When I say Vespers and Matins daily, I use a Menaion, a set of 12 books one for each month containing the services for the Saint of the day, published by the Melkite Eastern Catholic Diocese of Newton which is in Communion with Rome. All of the Saints commemorated are pre-schism. I know that St. Photus is included. I also have a Triodion, a book of the Lenten services, published by the Byzantine Catholics, that commemorates St. Gregory Palamas just like Eastern Orthodox on the 2nd Sunday of Great Lent although St. Gregory is post schism. The calendar in the back of our Liturikon, our official Antiochian Orthodox service book is filled with pre-schism Western Saints. Although I am of British heritage, I find the names of the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Saints the most difficult to pronounce.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

When I say Vespers and Matins daily, I use a Menaion, a set of 12 books one for each month containing the services for the Saint of the day, published by the Melkite Eastern Catholic Diocese of Newton which is in Communion with Rome. All of the Saints commemorated are pre-schism. I know that St. Photus is included. I also have a Triodion, a book of the Lenten services, published by the Byzantine Catholics, that commemorates St. Gregory Palamas just like Eastern Orthodox on the 2nd Sunday of Great Lent although St. Gregory is post schism. The calendar in the back of our Liturikon, our official Antiochian Orthodox service book is filled with pre-schism Western Saints. Although I am of British heritage, I find the names of the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Saints the most difficult to pronounce.

Archpriest John W. Morris

St Gregory Palamas is also commemorated in the Melkite, November Menaion.

 

[frjohnmorris]

St Gregory Palamas is also commemorated in the Melkite, November Menaion.

Thanks. I did not think to check because I am still using the October vol. of the Menaion. That would make sense for the Melkites because they only left the Orthodox Church in 1724 long after St. Gregory. They publish not only the Menaion but the only complete English Oktoechos that I have seen. Their books are very good, although I am more used to the King James English used by the Antiochian Archdiocese and do not find the modern English that they use appealing.

Fr. John

 

[Peter_J]

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 haven’t read Likoudis, but I have occasionally had sentiments similar to what you just described (in reverse) when listening to Orthodox talks at the Orientale Lumen conferences.

 

[steve_b]

That’s actually laity on laity, and basically irrelevant. In the Ukraine, it went the other direction. The Orthodox persecutions of the Catholics were brutal. And later, backed by the Soviet secret police. Again, laity on laity, without the endorsement of the hierarchy.

It’s like claiming the US is a nation endorsing serial killers because a we have a significant number of them who have no sanction from the nation itself.

Now, the crusades were endorsed… and thus relevant,

For clarification, yes the crusades were endorsed, the sack of Constantinople was NOT.
A:

especially since the popes underreacted to the sacking of Constantinople by crusaders.

Again for clarification, when pope Innocent III found out about the sacking, he was proactive and excommunicated all the crusaders for what they did.

As an aside,

There’s much more to the story that seems to never get mentioned…

JPII apologised to the Greek Patriarch for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, and his apology was accepted. [http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=28935 (http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=28935)

OrthodoxBp Ware in looking back at this same history, comments

(emphasis mine)

**"Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, while addressing the historical legacy of mistrust between Catholic and Orthodox Christians, has also commented on the events of 1182. ****Each [Catholics and Orthodox] … must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182, when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. **(5)" [http://archive.is/81CV (http://archive.is/81CV)

Re: 2 dates, 1182 & 1204 and that link which gives particulars

• 1182 In Constantinople 50,000 Latins (Catholics) were massacred and 3000 survivors sold off as slaves to the Muslims by the Orthodox
• 1204, in Constantinople 2000 Orthodox were killed in the sacking of of the city by the Catholic crusaders.

Not making any excuses for any of this, I’m just asking questions. When speaking of Constantinople, why does this argument always revolve around the latter and the former never appears on anyone’s radar? JPII publically apologised for 1204. Has the Orthodox patriarch apologised for 1182?

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Anthony86
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…

I RESPOND: I do not remember ever calling Catholics heretics fallen from grace.

Oh I agree – in fact I would say that the Orthodox posters here, in general, are really exemplary in their posting. But that isn’t the point. I think the point should be that each forum (Catholic or Orthodox, or protestant for that matter) has its faults. In particular, on a Catholic forum you can expect to see Orthodoxy getting a bad rap, but conversely on an Orthodox forum you can expect to see Catholicism getting a bad rap. (I myself have spent quite a lot of time on an Orthodox forum, although I recently cut down.)

 

[Anthony86]

Oh I agree – in fact I would say that the Orthodox posters here, in general, are really exemplary in their posting. But that isn’t the point. I think the point should be that each forum (Catholic or Orthodox, or protestant for that matter) has its faults. In particular, on a Catholic forum you can expect to see Orthodoxy getting a bad rap, but conversely on an Orthodox forum you can expect to see Catholicism getting a bad rap. (I myself have spent quite a lot of time on an Orthodox forum, although I recently cut down.)

Agreed, but my point extended a little beyond that. Based on my personal experience, I’d say the anti-Catholic rhetoric among Orthodox surpasses the anti-Orthodox rhetoric among Catholics quite a bit. This is also evidenced by the fact that the Catholic communion has Churches which revere post-schism Saints and allows Orthodox to receive communion in Catholic liturgies. The reverse is not true. Given that situation, I am somewhat offended when Orthodox complain about Catholics not being sufficiently respectful. This is not meant as personal commentary on frjohnmorris, and if I overstated the case, I apologize, but this is how it appears to me.

 

[frjohnmorris]

For clarification, yes the crusades were endorsed, the sack of Constantinople was NOT.

Again for clarification, when pope Innocent III found out about the sacking, he was proactive and excommunicated all the crusaders for what they did.

As an aside,

There’s much more to the story that seems to never get mentioned…

JPII apologised to the Greek Patriarch for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, and his apology was accepted. [http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=28935 (http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=28935)

OrthodoxBp Ware in looking back at this same history, comments

(emphasis mine)

**"Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, while addressing the historical legacy of mistrust between Catholic and Orthodox Christians, has also commented on the events of 1182. **Each [Catholics and Orthodox] … must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182, when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. (5)" [http://archive.is/81CV (http://archive.is/81CV)

Re: 2 dates, 1182 & 1204 and that link which gives particulars

• 1182 In Constantinople 50,000 Latins (Catholics) were massacred and 3000 survivors sold off as slaves to the Muslims by the Orthodox
• 1204, in Constantinople 2000 Orthodox were killed in the sacking of of the city by the Catholic crusaders.

Not making any excuses for any of this, I’m just asking questions. When speaking of Constantinople, why does this argument always revolve around the latter and the former never appears on anyone’s radar? JPII publically apologised for 1204. Has the Orthodox patriarch apologised for 1182?

If any discussion between Orthodox and Catholics gets bogged down on who did what to whom hundreds of years ago, it will not get anywhere and will prevent any reconciliation between us. Any dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox should only deal with historical matters that have theological significance and on the doctrinal issues that still divide us.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[dzheremi]

The Orthodox practice closed communion with respect to the non-Orthodox with much the same understanding that Roman Catholics practice closed communion with respect to Protestants, so I really don’t see how that’s an example of “anti-Catholic rhetoric”. It’s not “anti-Lutheran rhetoric” when you tell them they cannot receive in your churches, is it? I don’t think so, anyway.

 

[Anthony86]

The Orthodox practice closed communion with respect to the non-Orthodox with much the same understanding that Roman Catholics practice closed communion with respect to Protestants, so I really don’t see how that’s an example of “anti-Catholic rhetoric”. It’s not “anti-Lutheran rhetoric” when you tell them they cannot receive in your churches, is it? I don’t think so, anyway.

This doesn’t seem to address my point. Drawing in Protestants just confuses the issue; the rift between us and Protestants is far more profound and covers almost the whole range of theology, including elementary points of soteriology and the sacraments.

On the other hand, if you think Orthodox and Catholics should regard one another as they regard Protestants, that’s clear enough - but something I would very much disagree with.

 

[Peter_J]

Agreed, but my point extended a little beyond that. Based on my personal experience, I’d say the anti-Catholic rhetoric among Orthodox surpasses the anti-Orthodox rhetoric among Catholics quite a bit. This is also evidenced by the fact that the Catholic communion has Churches which revere post-schism Saints and allows Orthodox to receive communion in Catholic liturgies. The reverse is not true. Given that situation, I am somewhat offended when Orthodox complain about Catholics not being sufficiently respectful. This is not meant as personal commentary on frjohnmorris, and if I overstated the case, I apologize, but this is how it appears to me.

I don’t think you’re considering this fully. What this boils down to is that there hasn’t been a “union-of-brest-in-reverse” (so to speak), right? The question then becomes, is it a credit to the Orthodox that there hasn’t been, or is it a criticism? I would have to say that it is a credit to them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not in many years. I had an area in Russia history on my PhD in history. He was a member of the Slavaphil movement.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Since you have a doctorate in history, I would be interest in hearing your assessment of Soloviev’s overview of EO history. If that sounds daunting, don’t worry…I read the whole chapter in an hour or so. You can find the entire work online here:

strobertbellarmine.net/books/Solovyev–Russia_Universal_Church.pdf

I look forward to your critique.

 

[Anthony86]

I don’t think you’re considering this fully. What this boils down to is that there hasn’t been a “union-of-brest-in-reverse” (so to speak), right? The question then becomes, is it a credit to the Orthodox that there hasn’t been, or is it a criticism? I would have to say that it is a credit to them.

I don’t think I can agree with you on this point. The Orthodox Church has Western Rite parishes, which are actually Easternized on various points and (to the best of my knowledge) ‘cleansed’ of all post-1054 Western Saints. These Western Rite parishes also fall under Eastern bishops. I fail to see how this is so much more commendable than the Union of Brest.

Moreover, the issue of the Catholic Church allowing communion to the Orthodox can (I think) not be reduced to the Union of Brest.

 

[Nine_Two]

This doesn’t seem to address my point. Drawing in Protestants just confuses the issue; the rift between us and Protestants is far more profound and covers almost the whole range of theology, including elementary points of soteriology and the sacraments.

On the other hand, if you think Orthodox and Catholics should regard one another as they regard Protestants, that’s clear enough - but something I would very much disagree with.

Nonsense. Criticizing us for treating you how you treat others smacks of anti-Orthodoxy.

We believe that our two faiths are different - similar, but different - if you can’t respect that, and insist that we must accept you or be "anti-Catholic (a term thrown around all to much, and covering everything from Chick tracts to criticism of the Pope not using soap when he washes his hands), then I would say that you are anti-Orthodox simply looking for a reason to demonize us.

There is real anti-Catholic, and anti-Orthodox behavior out there. But when you address it like this, or make it into a competition, you’re just confusing the issue.

 

[Anthony86]

We believe that our two faiths are different - similar, but different - if you can’t respect that, and insist that we must accept you or be "anti-Catholic (a term thrown around all to much, and covering everything from Chick tracts to criticism of the Pope not using soap when he washes his hands), then I would say that you are anti-Orthodox simply looking for a reason to demonize us.

Completely over the top nonsense. This is thoroughly uncalled for.

I only mentioned these things (post-schism saints, communion, etc) because of the accusation that Catholics are insufficiently respectful of Orthodoxy.

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t think I can agree with you on this point. The Orthodox Church has Western Rite parishes, which are actually Easternized on various points and (to the best of my knowledge) ‘cleansed’ of all post-1054 Western Saints. These Western Rite parishes also fall under Eastern bishops. I fail to see how this is so much more commendable than the Union of Brest.

Moreover, the issue of the Catholic Church allowing communion to the Orthodox can (I think) not be reduced to the Union of Brest.

The Western-Rite isn’t comparable to the Union of Brest.

The “Western-Rite” is not a status, a Church on its own, or even a formal thing. It was never claimed to be. All it is is a set of services which were created so that convert parishes could, with the blessing of their bishops, continue to serve the liturgy in the way they are used to doing it. This is a far cry from what Brest was, or was ever meant to be.

Bottom line the Wester-Rite is only, and was only ever meant to be Orthodox worshiping in a Western manner.