Christian Unity might be possible if Christians had any interest in achieving it but, unfortunately, most Christians don’t consider Christian Unity to

[dzheremi]

In no order, as with your list, I personally found these to be big issues:

1. Even as a Russian-speaking visitor to the local OCA Church, I saw such a mishmash of cultures there (Slavic, Arab, Eritrean, Greek), adopted in an enthusiastic way by ~90% white American Protestant converts, that it was hard for me to reconcile that with my experience in Catholicism. As a person of both Latin American and Southern European background, why should I stop praying in the manner that is most fitting with my culture to be like the converts in the OCA praying in Greek and Russian modes? There is no “Latin Orthodoxy” that I have seen; the Orthodox Churches that I have seen in Mexico, while very beautiful, are apparently in a Byzantine style. If I wanted to be Byzantine, I figure I could do that. I want to be Latin! That is where I am comfortable, culturally, even if that doesn’t exactly mean that I am most at home in what has come to be known as “Latin (rite) theology”. Can Orthodoxy provide me a “natural” way of cultural expression, as someone who has no roots whatsoever in the East? Like I said, I can speak Russian, so I can pick up at least a good chunk of Old Church Slavonic, but that is not really the issue…
2. Your observation that there is no great saddness in your Orthodox circles at the division of Christendom is another great point. While I understand and agree (in a way) with the Orthodox position against the “two lungs” model of Christianity, those outside Orthodoxy cannot help but sometimes feel that, even while individual Orthodox such as yourself may burn with desire to see reunion, Orthodoxy as a whole does not. This is, it seems, a natural consequence of the completely reasonable Orthodox position that it is possible to say where salvation is (i.e., in the Orthodox Church), but not where it is not. Therefore, I suppose it is not your concern where others are. Forgive me if this seems like a very cruel and glib interpretation of Orthodox thought. It certainly does not apply to everyone, but I swear, if I have to sit through another “the Pope is a traitor to Orthodoxy” speech/video/book in my search for some sort of basis for common dialogue with you guys, I’m gonna scream. The bottom line is that, while Orthodoxy feels a great deal of defensiveness, perhaps justified given the history of Catholic conversion of large parts of the Orthodox churches (what are today the “Eastern Catholic” Churches), the Catholic Church (that is, the one headquartered in Rome) still tells its laypeople that we OUGHT to be united with the Orthodox. What I see on the Orthodox side is a lot of quoting of cannons about how they are not to even talk to “heretics”, which of course is what the Catholic Church is in their view. The only option as far as the hardliners can see is the complete destruction of the Catholic Church, not the reforms of relatively recently-pronounced doctrine that the more sane among you propose. The question from this outsider is: Which of the two ideological groups truly represents Orthodoxy? It would be easier to tell if you guys had some sort of central authority we could go to… (kidding, of course!)
3. So Eastern Orthodoxy is the one true Church and always has been…and the Oriental Orthodox are what, exactly? I come from an area of the country with not only many Eastern Orthodox people, but also more recently many Oriental Orthodox (primarily Ethiopians and Eritreans). I am aware of the issues that separate the two “Orthodox” churches, in a very general way, but I cannot for life of me see why I should believe you and not them. Granted, the Catholic Church most definitely affirms the Council of Chalcedon, so that is why I feel closer, theologically, to the EO than the OO, but as much of the EO Church’s claims as to its historicity come in the form of appeals to conservatism against modern invention (Catholic, Protestant, or other), then it would seem to me that the even OLDER form of Hebraicized Christianity practiced in Ethiopia and Eritrea, which keeps the Sabbath, something very, very close to Kosher dietary laws, etc. might be able to claim the same about themselves. Granted, I am not in communion with either of you, but since this essentially boils down to conflicting claims as to who is holding to the “original” doctrine of the Apostles, I can’t just throw out this other communion of Apostolic Churches just because I agree more with the Greeks than I do with the Copts. I am, in fact, quite taken by the sermons I have heard by H.H. Pope Shenouda III (like this one), but of course I remain committed to the view of Christ put forth at Chalcedon…so there we are, another contradiction for me to live with! Now do you see why I put “unsettled” in my profile?

 

[SSTeacher]

In no order, as with your list, I personally found these to be big issues:

1. Even as a Russian-speaking visitor to the local OCA Church, I saw such a mishmash of cultures there (Slavic, Arab, Eritrean, Greek), adopted in an enthusiastic way by ~90% white American Protestant converts, that it was hard for me to reconcile that with my experience in Catholicism. As a person of both Latin American and Southern European background, why should I stop praying in the manner that is most fitting with my culture to be like the converts in the OCA praying in Greek and Russian modes? There is no “Latin Orthodoxy” that I have seen; the Orthodox Churches that I have seen in Mexico, while very beautiful, are apparently in a Byzantine style. If I wanted to be Byzantine, I figure I could do that. I want to be Latin! That is where I am comfortable, culturally, even if that doesn’t exactly mean that I am most at home in what has come to be known as “Latin (rite) theology”. Can Orthodoxy provide me a “natural” way of cultural expression, as someone who has no roots whatsoever in the East? Like I said, I can speak Russian, so I can pick up at least a good chunk of Old Church Slavonic, but that is not really the issue…

I understand. I’m in a somewhat different position. I left London back in 1990 to come across the pond to live in the Yewessovay, starting off in Montgomery, Alabama. In terms of cultural trauma, I guess I’d describe it as a shock and a half. I’ve spent all my time in the South and, for some reason, have lost little of my accent – which means the query, “And where are yew frum?” still comes at me whenever I meet a stranger. So I’ve kinda gotten used to living in the tension of “not feeling quite at home.” I currently attend an OCA mission church about five miles from where I live. The congregation is a mixture of Americans and Eastern Europeans (no English expatriates apart from me) but the Liturgy and Great Vespers are in English. Occasionally, it seems, some concession is made and the choir – of which I’m elated to be a part – might sing or chant something in another tongue. I join in if I can get the pronunciation right and hum if I can’t manage it. But I’m so overjoyed to have found the true faith – as I perceive it to be – I’d happily learn another language if I were required to do so.

Contentedly,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

1. Your observation that there is no great sadness in your Orthodox circles at the division of Christendom is another great point. While I understand and agree (in a way) with the Orthodox position against the “two lungs” model of Christianity, those outside Orthodoxy cannot help but sometimes feel that, even while individual Orthodox such as yourself may burn with desire to see reunion, Orthodoxy as a whole does not. This is, it seems, a natural consequence of the completely reasonable Orthodox position that it is possible to say where salvation is (i.e., in the Orthodox Church), but not where it is not. Therefore, I suppose it is not your concern where others are. Forgive me if this seems like a very cruel and glib interpretation of Orthodox thought. It certainly does not apply to everyone, but I swear, if I have to sit through another “the Pope is a traitor to Orthodoxy” speech/video/book in my search for some sort of basis for common dialogue with you guys, I’m gonna scream. The bottom line is that, while Orthodoxy feels a great deal of defensiveness, perhaps justified given the history of Catholic conversion of large parts of the Orthodox churches (what are today the “Eastern Catholic” Churches), the Catholic Church (that is, the one headquartered in Rome) still tells its laypeople that we OUGHT to be united with the Orthodox. What I see on the Orthodox side is a lot of quoting of cannons about how they are not to even talk to “heretics”, which of course is what the Catholic Church is in their view. The only option as far as the hardliners can see is the complete destruction of the Catholic Church, not the reforms of relatively recently-pronounced doctrine that the more sane among you propose. The question from this outsider is: Which of the two ideological groups truly represents Orthodoxy? It would be easier to tell if you guys had some sort of central authority we could go to… (kidding, of course!)

I feel for you in your turmoil but I have no useful answer.

Peace,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

1. So Eastern Orthodoxy is the one true Church and always has been…and the Oriental Orthodox are what, exactly? I come from an area of the country with not only many Eastern Orthodox people, but also more recently many Oriental Orthodox (primarily Ethiopians and Eritreans). I am aware of the issues that separate the two “Orthodox” churches, in a very general way, but I cannot for life of me see why I should believe you and not them. Granted, the Catholic Church most definitely affirms the Council of Chalcedon, so that is why I feel closer, theologically, to the EO than the OO, but as much of the EO Church’s claims as to its historicity come in the form of appeals to conservatism against modern invention (Catholic, Protestant, or other), then it would seem to me that the even OLDER form of Hebraicized Christianity practiced in Ethiopia and Eritrea, which keeps the Sabbath, something very, very close to Kosher dietary laws, etc. might be able to claim the same about themselves. Granted, I am not in communion with either of you, but since this essentially boils down to conflicting claims as to who is holding to the “original” doctrine of the Apostles, I can’t just throw out this other communion of Apostolic Churches just because I agree more with the Greeks than I do with the Copts. I am, in fact, quite taken by the sermons I have heard by H.H. Pope Shenouda III (like this one), but of course I remain committed to the view of Christ put forth at Chalcedon…so there we are, another contradiction for me to live with! Now do you see why I put “unsettled” in my profile?

I do indeed understand why you are unsettled. I can give you no good reason why you should not consider the Oriental Orthodox. Actually, I can give you no good reason for not staying in the Catholic Church (except for maybe the Novus Ordo ). I think perhaps that you’ve gone as far as you can with the struggle with yourself and now it’s possibly time for you to concentrate upon the “struggle with God,” which is how I heard H.H. Pope Shenouda III describe prayer when I went to the links that you kindly provided. Keep struggling with God in prayers. I’ll continue to keep you in mine.

God bless you,
Mick

 

[jimmy]

I would say that the first among those who might accept that assertion are also those who claim to be most fidelitous to their Church (a.k.a. “the true Church”) and its faith (“a.k.a. the true faith”) and the teachings thereof (a.k.a. “the true teachings of the true faith of the true Church”). Sometimes I think Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism is an exercise in who can talk the most about truth and the least about details. And the hard work is in the details. But I digress…

I would say that you are right, unfortunately, about the tendency among Christians, but wrong about the impulse. I’ve sat through many stupid “Traitors to Orthodoxy” type polemics (mainly on Youtube, slava Bogu, so I know that I don’t have to take them as seriously as I would the statements of a metropolitan or a patriarch), and their Catholic equivalent (generally so far down several tributaries of the river “Denial” that I actually find them more nauseating than their Orthodox counterparts). I can’t for the life of me imagine that such polemics exist because people have passed of the responsibility of fostering unity to leaders alone. One thing I have noticed about the most hardline anti-ecumenical persons of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is their willingness to turn on their leaders for having the audicity to propose dialogue and/or eventual unity with “the other guy” (no matter how hypothetical that unity may be). And this is one point on which everyone is right, because neither of our Churches permit communion with heretics.

There is something deeply disturbing about the idea, found in both Catholic and Orthodox communities (and maybe Protestants, too, though I don’t know enough about the different churches to generalize), that unity essentially comes from the destruction of one or the other Church. All Catholics recognize Orthodoxy as the one and only true faith, abandon Rome (or Bkerke, or wherever you look to in your particular Church), and worship and believe as the Orthodox do. Or, conversely, all Orthodox recognize the Pope as the supreme authority of the universal Church, adopt Latin doctrines, and worship as those in union with Rome do. I should like to see some other way of viewing things, wherein the dignity of the individual and his tradition is given primacy over who gets to control who. But that is a dream that is not realized today, nor has it been realized at any point in the past 1500 years or so.

I wonder what the people of the Assyrian Church of the East, long broken from communion with the other Churches, many centuries before the Great Schism, think about all this? It’s strange to see world Christianity to some degree at each others throats. But I guess that’s the world of the arrogant, no matter what Church they belong to. I am aware of the Orthodox teaching that it is only possible to say with certainty where salvation is, not where it is not. Honestly, I find this much preferable to “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, not because I don’t believe in that (and the Orthodox, too, hold St. Cyprian to have been teaching correct doctrine, do they not?), but because there is some controversy surrounding it due to various interpretations of different camps of Catholics (“traditionalists” vs. other people, who are, of course, wrong…hahaha).

Me, I just want to worship God in the most reverent way possible. I imagine that I would still have that same goal in mind in my day to day life if I were Orthodox. That’s a good starting point to mutual comprehension, if not unity.

I think the Oriental Orthodox have a very good setup when it comes to the respect of various traditions. You look at the Coptics (one of the OO churches) and they have their own liturgy (the liturgy of St. Basil) and traditions. The Syriacs have their own traditions and liturgy (the liturgy of St. James). You look at the others and they have their own traditions. They have great diversity and they don’t have to worry about their traditions being changed forcably. I think there system is very good.