Eastern Catholic and Orthodoxy

[mardukm]

Dear sister Byzgirl,

Members of these various churches to which we commonly but mistakenly give the generic term “Orthodoxy” or “the Orthodox Church” share basically the same faith. But the terms “Orthodoxy” and “Orthodox Church” are only abstractions. They correspond to no empirical entity. A member of the Russian Church does not automatically belong to the Greek Church; a member of the Bulgarian Church does not belong to the Rumanian Church.

Though I share your concern for what even the Orthodox call the heresy of nationalism, I cannot agree with you that the term “Orthodoxy” or “Orthodox Church” are abstractions. There IS INDEED an identifiable entity called the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Oriental Orthodox Church. They are identified by their beliefs. To some extent, a member of the Greek Church is not a member of the Bulgarian Church, etc., But whether from the Greek or Bulgarian Church, they are all members of the EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH.

Suppose an American Protestant ignores history and decides to become an “Orthodox” Christian. Where is the “Orthodox Church” he wants to join? It does not exist. He will have to make his choice (“pick a number . . .”) among the thirty-eight separate jurisdictions of Eastern churches in this country.
Yes it does exist. Just because there are separate jurisdictions does not mean there are separate Churches. I would agree with you, however, that conflicts of jurisdiction are unChristian and not apostolic.

On the whole, your assessment is an overly broad generalization.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Badaliyyah]

Ecumenism, by definition, means to be of “one house”.

"There is no institution to which one can point and say “That is the Orthodox Church.” There is no “Orthodoxy.” There are only separate, totally independent, national, ethnic churches. Which of the sixteen or so national Churches is a convert supposed to join? The Russian? the Greek? the Antiochian? the Rumanian? The list of possibilities goes on and on.

Members of these various churches to which we commonly but mistakenly give the generic term “Orthodoxy” or “the Orthodox Church” share basically the same faith. But the terms “Orthodoxy” and “Orthodox Church” are only abstractions. They correspond to no empirical entity. A member of the Russian Church does not automatically belong to the Greek Church; a member of the Bulgarian Church does not belong to the Rumanian Church.

**Suppose an American Protestant ignores history and decides to become an “Orthodox” Christian. Where is the “Orthodox Church” he wants to join? It does not exist. He will have to make his choice (“pick a number . . .”) among the thirty-eight separate jurisdictions of Eastern churches in this country.

What we generally call “Orthodoxy” is in fact a very loose federation of “autocephalous” (each its own head) churches. Though essentially united in what they believe, they are deeply divided by nationalistic, ethnic differences, rivalries, yes, even hatreds, most of whose origins go back many centuries.**

A century ago, a learned member of the Russian Church (who embraced Catholic teaching on the papacy) pointed out that the human race is divided into racial, cultural, national groupings. He asked, rhetorically, will Christ seek to draw humanity to himself in these groupings by giving them “independent national Churches”? (He was speaking of the disunity among the Eastern national churches.) Did Christ say to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Churches?” (Vladimir Solovyov, Russia and the Universal Church, 86)."

"God wills unity for his people. Christian disunity greatly hinders proclaiming the gospel to a desperately needy world. And so the Catholic Church is committed to carrying on ecumenism. Indeed, that commitment is explicit and firm.

Ecumenism “is not just some sort of ‘appendix’ which is added to the Church’s traditional activity. Rather, ecumenism is an organic part of her life and work.” Therefore, it “must pervade all that she is and does; it must be like the fruit borne by a healthy and flourishing tree which grows to its full stature.”

John Paul sums up the meaning of Christ’s high-priestly prayer for unity in these words: “To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father’s plan from all eternity.” Again, “God wills the [Catholic] Church because he wills unity”

The goal of Catholic ecumenism is to restore unity to the separated traditions by bringing them within the unity of the Catholic Church (UR 24). The current Pope assures the world that full communion, the hallmark of restored unity, “will have to come about through the acceptance of the whole truth into which the Holy Spirit guides Christ’s disciples” (UUS 36). And where is that truth to be found?

“It is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained”

The Catholic Church and the churches of the East have particularly close bonds, says the Holy Father. “We [East and West] have almost everything in common; and above all, we have in common the true longing for unity.”

Pope John Paul declares, “The Church of Christ is one. If divisions exist, that is one thing; they must be overcome, but the Church is one, the Church of Christ between East and West can only be one, one and united.”
“The Church must breathe with her two lungs!”

The second message of Ut Unum Sint is this: The Catholic Church alone has preserved the fullness of the truth and the means of grace with which God endowed his Church. “Full unity will come about when all [Churches and communities] share in the fullness of the means of salvation entrusted by Christ to his Church.” The Catholic Church, in other words, is the one true Church. The unity which Christ wills for his Church requires that all Christians be reconciled in full communion with the Catholic Church.

The ministry of the Successor of Peter has been established by God as the Church’s “perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity,” in the words of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church. The Spirit sustains that ministry “to enable all the others to share in this essential good.” The ministry of the Bishop of Rome is “the visible sign and guarantor of unity” of all Christian (Ut Unum Sint, section 88; italics his). One might paraphrase the Pope’s teaching by calling the papacy "the sacrament of unity
ecumenical dialogue leads (or should lead) the participants to question one another, as well as understand and inform one another. Dialogue helps participants to see their actual disagreements clearly. These disagreements must be approached charitably, respecting the demands of the consciences of all the participants.

Catholic ecumenists are required “to avoid both false irenicism [pretending that unity exists where it does not] and indifference to the Church’s ordinances.”
The truth is that for the Catholic Church ecumenism is apologetics is ecumenism
Only within the Catholic Church can other Christians find “the unity of the one and only Church, which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning,” unity which “she can never lose.”

The objective of all ecumenical activity (“this holy objective”) is “the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ.” This teaching is the foundation of authentic Catholic ecumenism. It is the starting-point of Catholic apologetics.

You really need to start screening your sources better. Soloviev would probably be the architypical example of what you are complaining about in ecumenism since he did not think he had, in any way shape or form, to cease to be Orthodox. He remained communing in the Orthodox Church until his death, and claimed Russian Orthodoxy until his death. So even if his communing within Roman Catholicism is more than a rumor (and that’s not entirely clear, though the rumors were constantly swirling at the of his life), he did not cease considering himself Russian Orthodox. Moreover, the idea of “Sobornost” in Soloviev, which was the basis of his ecumenism, is not one you are likely to like. It remains, in many ways, very Orthodox (e.g., when a group of bishops come together, it is a “sobor”…aesthetic concepts of beauty and harmony from the slavophiles are fundamental).

Soloviev was complaining about the nationalistic divisions that threatened world Orthodoxy, that moreover divided world Orthodoxy from Catholicism and actively tried to unite Western philosophy and the slavophile movement into what saw as a new vision of Russian philosophy. Russian philosophy was going to bring everything together harmoniously in a beautiful Sobornost. In the end for Soloviev, it was as much about bringing Catholicism back into world Orthodoxy as it was bring Orthodoxy into communion with Rome. World Orthodoxy was the historical culmination of Christianity; of course there could be no Sobornost without Rome.

Finally, with regards to your question about which Church the initiate into Orthodoxy would join…the answer is whichever one they want. The Churches are all in communion with one another and are all the One Body of Christ. Where the Eucharist is, there is the Church, to paraphrase Afanasiev. No Orthodox person thinks the idea of the Body of Christ is an abstraction. That is a gross misrepresentation of Orthodox ecclesiology.

Btw, without of course endorsing each and every aspect of any thinker, JP2 holds up Soloviev as one model of what modern Christian thought ought to be in his encyclical Fides et Ratio. Von Balthasar also has an extended engagement with Soloviev in his study of Beauty: The Glory of the Lord.

salaam.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Are you not? If not, then mummified (without internal organs).

What, because we aren’t monolithic we have to be petrified?

No, we’re not. As I’ve often said I’ve been in nearly all the autocephalous Churches and quite a few autonomous ones. And I could go to communion in every one.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t exactly know what the point of bringing these up are. In any case, St. Stephen’s rationale should be applied even to these

but it wasn’t.

• did they have the correct form of baptizing in the Names of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? That it self is a distinguishing factor, because some heretics were only baptizing in the name of the Father and Son, or the Son alone or the Father alone, etc. Obviously, Pope St. Stephen would not have accepted the baptism of these.

In contrast, St. Cyprian did not distinguish AT ALL.

I don’t recall St. Stephen making a distinction. I’d have to reviews.

Yes, I’ve read of the notion that the debate between Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian was really only one of practice, and not doctrine. However, both Catholics and Orthodox today treat it as a matter of doctrine. See- development DOES occur!

You read wrong.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You really need to start screening your sources better. Soloviev would probably be the architypical example of what you are complaining about in ecumenism since he did not think he had, in any way shape or form, to cease to be Orthodox. He remained communing in the Orthodox Church until his death, and claimed Russian Orthodoxy until his death. So even if his communing within Roman Catholicism is more than a rumor (and that’s not entirely clear, though the rumors were constantly swirling at the of his life), he did not cease considering himself Russian Orthodox. Moreover, the idea of “Sobornost” in Soloviev, which was the basis of his ecumenism, is not one you are likely to like. It remains, in many ways, very Orthodox (e.g., when a group of bishops come together, it is a “sobor”…aesthetic concepts of beauty and harmony from the slavophiles are fundamental).

Btw, sobornost is the root of the Slavic word for catholic (universal, as opposed to katolik, Catholic, Vatican) and the word for cathedra, and synod.

Soloviev was complaining about the nationalistic divisions that threatened world Orthodoxy, that moreover divided world Orthodoxy from Catholicism and actively tried to unite Western philosophy and the slavophile movement into what saw as a new vision of Russian philosophy. Russian philosophy was going to bring everything together harmoniously in a beautiful Sobornost. In the end for Soloviev, it was as much about bringing Catholicism back into world Orthodoxy as it was bring Orthodoxy into communion with Rome. World Orthodoxy was the historical culmination of Christianity; of course there could be no Sobornost without Rome.

Finally, with regards to your question about which Church the initiate into Orthodoxy would join…the answer is whichever one they want. The Churches are all in communion with one another and are all the One Body of Christ. Where the Eucharist is, there is the Church, to paraphrase Afanasiev. No Orthodox person thinks the idea of the Body of Christ is an abstraction. That is a gross misrepresentation of Orthodox ecclesiology.

Yes, I and many other former Protestants have no problem no matter where we ended up. The problem was only getting there.

 

[Aramis]

What, because we aren’t monolithic we have to be petrified?

No, we’re not. As I’ve often said I’ve been in nearly all the autocephalous Churches and quite a few autonomous ones. And I could go to communion in every one.

The Episcopalians and Anglicans would likely let you as well, but there is no unity in that.

 

[Nicholas82]

The Episcopalians and Anglicans would likely let you as well, but there is no unity in that.

They would let you as well, what does that have to do with anything and what is your point? You wouldn’t recieve there because they are not part of your Church; same with an Orthodox Christian.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

but it wasn’t.

Not specifically, to those other heresies, but that is only because the Novatian heresy was the primary (if not sole) cause of the whole debate.

I don’t recall St. Stephen making a distinction. I’d have to reviews.

Thank you for doing so. To be clear, the distinction was in the reasoning (itself) that St. Stephen used to accept the baptism of the Novatians - that they baptized in the Names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Using THAT condition, I admit that my claim that the baptisms of other heretics who only baptized in the Father, or in the Son and the Father, or in the Son alone, etc. would necessarily have been denied is an INFERENCE. But it is nevertheless a logical, rational and believable claim.

You read wrong.

You’re the one that referred to it as a (universal) practice, remember? .

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

If that were true, then we’d be as splintered as the Great Western Schism, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation and the Conciliar movement and Vatican I and II have made you.

Is it true that there are no groups that have splintered off from Eastern Orthodoxy? I’m not talking about the numbers of adherents of these groups, but your claim that you’re “not as splintered.”

Here’s a Wiki page that describes some movements within Eastern Orthodoxy that were/are not united to the canonical EO Churches:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Eastern_Orthodox_minor_churches_and_movements

BTW, there were only three splits from the Catholic Church during the Reformation - the Lutherans, the Calvinists, and the Anglicans. All other branches are offshoots from these, and not the Catholic Church.

On the whole, I think you guys are just as splintered as we are.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Episcopalians and Anglicans would likely let you as well, but there is no unity in that.

Yes, but we’re agreed on what the Eucharist is, rather Who He is, and they are not.

They would let you as well, what does that have to do with anything and what is your point? You wouldn’t recieve there because they are not part of your Church; same with an Orthodox Christian.

Exactly. We turn people away from communion.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

Not specifically, to those other heresies, but that is only because the Novatian heresy was the primary (if not sole) cause of the whole debate.

Thank you for doing so. To be clear, the distinction was in the reasoning (itself) that St. Stephen used to accept the baptism of the Novatians - that they baptized in the Names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Using THAT condition, I admit that my claim that the baptisms of other heretics who only baptized in the Father, or in the Son and the Father, or in the Son alone, etc. would necessarily have been denied is an INFERENCE. But it is nevertheless a logical, rational and believable claim.

You’re the one that referred to it as a (universal) practice, remember? .

No, I’m the one who claimed it a matter of dogma/doctrine.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

Is it true that there are no groups that have splintered off from Eastern Orthodoxy? I’m not talking about the numbers of adherents of these groups, but your claim that you’re “not as splintered.”

The only group(s) of any importance in the list (and I’ve seen bigger) are the Old Ritualists, a schism then heresy in the Russian Church. It didn’t affect the rest of the Church.

And then the Old Calendarists. A few have already been reconscilled, e.g. the Russian Church Outside of Russia.

Here’s a Wiki page that describes some movements within Eastern Orthodoxy that were/are not united to the canonical EO Churches:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Eastern_Orthodox_minor_churches_and_movements

The Living Church, for instance, was a Soviet sponsered Church (gee, I wonder why ) It was a huge failure, and evaporated as soon as the Soviets reconciled themselves to the fact that they were going to have to deal with the MoP, because it wasn’t withering away.

BTW, there were only three splits from the Catholic Church during the Reformation - the Lutherans, the Calvinists, and the Anglicans. All other branches are offshoots from these, and not the Catholic Church.

Aren’t you forgetting the Old Catholics, Polish National Catholics, Sedevansists, etc. I won’t include the Liberal Catholic Church, there not officially is schism yet.

On the whole, I think you guys are just as splintered as we are.

Blessings,
Marduk

Good enough.

 

[mardukm]

Aren’t you forgetting the Old Catholics, Polish National Catholics, Sedevansists, etc. I won’t include the Liberal Catholic Church, there not officially is schism yet.

No. I specifically said “during the Reformation.” Pay attention.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Brother Isa,

In your Post # 213 (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4002774&postcount=213) you kept saying “and the canons that say re-baptize?”

What was your point?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Brother Isa,

In your Post # 213 (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4002774&postcount=213) you kept saying “and the canons that say re-baptize?”

What was your point?

Blessings,
Marduk

many posts back someone cited those canons as proof that Pope St. Stephen was right. I pointed out that the only evidence so far given was that St. Stephen was against rebaptism, and the canons in question explicitly deal with rebaptize (or actually baptize) in the affirmative.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No. I specifically said “during the Reformation.” Pay attention.

Blessings,
Marduk

You started out with the Reformation but ended with a rather blanket statement. Are you refering to the Radical Reformation, as being split from the groups you named? Actually, that’s not even true. Many of the anabaptists, for instance, never went through a magesterial Protestant phase.

 

[mardukm]

You started out with the Reformation but ended with a rather blanket statement. Are you refering to the Radical Reformation, as being split from the groups you named? Actually, that’s not even true. Many of the anabaptists, for instance, never went through a magesterial Protestant phase.

I purposely did not include the Zwinglians and the Radicals because these movements came out of political and humanistic idealisms, and did not evolve theologically or ecclesiastically from Catholicism itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I purposely did not include the Zwinglians and the Radicals because these movements came out of political and humanistic idealisms, and did not evolve theologically or ecclesiastically from Catholicism itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

So was Erasmus, but he stayed put.

 

[Mickey]

Wow, Mickey, I completely disagree with you on this

Let me clarify for you:

Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ’s Church is divided into so-called “branches” which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all “branches” or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_anath.aspx

 

[ronyodish]

Let me clarify for you:

Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ’s Church is divided into so-called “branches” which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all “branches” or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_anath.aspx

Mickey,

This anathema by ROCOR is mostly non-applicable to the understanding that the Catholic Church has of the Church. The CC does not understand the Church to be composed of “branches” that hold contradictory teachings, teachings that are essentially different from those handed down by Peter and the Apostles. The CC does not teach that the Church does not exist visibly, or that the Church will be formed in the future when various groups come together.

When it comes to Ecumenism, the Catholic understanding is not about doing the above. Ecumenism for Catholics is about fulfilling the prayer of Christ for His disciples, in bringing all Christians into the fullness of communion with the CC (where the Church founded by Christ subsists).

This one Catholic Church is a universal communion of regional Churches. Churches which are essentially one and united in the Faith, Holy Mysteries, and Hierarchy, and legitimitally diversified in liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary expressions.

There are different levels of closeness to the CC, the Christian Churches of Holy Orthodoxy are already in a deep ecclesial communion with the CC, via Apostolic Succession and the Eucharist, but are not yet in full communion.

Now, as far as the Baptism of heretics, the CC recognizes the presence of a true Baptism among them, so long as they celebrate this Mystery properly. For the Eucharist, the Mystery of the Priesthood is necessary, and so a heretic who has maintained Apostolic Succession and the Priesthood can truely, and when properly done, offer up the Body and Blood of Christ.

I do think that this anathema placed by ROCOR focuses on only the negative side of ecumenism, as if ecumenism is really all that this anathema purports it to be. Ecumenism is about the priestly prayer of Jesus in John 17. I think ROCOR’s next anathema should be the prayer in John 17:21 - If anyone shall say “that they may all be one”, Anathema!

God bless,

Rony