Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[Apotheoun]

When a person does in depth research on a joke it is pretty clear that he did not get the joke. Had dzheremi presented the Russian joke as a factual story, I believe that doing research on it would have been called for, but who researches a joke? Only a person who is humorless or who has an axe to grind.

 

[dvdjs]

Yes, and a priest, a rabbi, and a minister probably never walked into a bar…

There is a difference between fiction and falsehood. It’s not rocket science

If you are capable, then your responses are even more bizarre. Maybe I’m the one missing the joke here. You’re really on the cutting edge of anti-humor, dvdjs.

The point is simple. Reference to the EP’s remark is often made by those who wish to assert some great divide between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. That point might be made in a number of ways, some of which might even be true. But this remark is typically cast aloft as its meaning and implications were self evident and beyond subject to being proved. We never get - no matter how often we asked any cogent discussion on substance, meaning, validity, or proof.

That is frustrating. But, as I’ve mentioned, the manner in which this assertion is typically “defended” carries a major insult to Greek Catholics. That cannot be left without response. Sorry, but the singularity that you want to proclaim for Orthodoxy is not singular at all: it alive and well in the Catholic church. The ostensibly vast and even ontological divide continues to be spanned by Greek Catholics.

 

[Apotheoun]

I agree. I would be at a loss to understand what else (if anything) a reader could understand from the address, if not that (perhaps that’s why presenting it here as I did has caused problems; it really does seem obvious to me, but if it wasn’t I don’t know what I’d think about it).

It is pretty clear to me that Eastern Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics live the Christian life in different ways (tropos), and that that is why the two sides have a hard time accepting each other. It does not follow from the fact that East and West approach the mystery of Christ differently that one side is necessarily better than the other; instead, it just means that each side see things from a unique perspective that often prevents them from understanding their dialogue partner’s position on a given issue.

 

[dvdjs]

When a person does in depth research on a joke it is pretty clear that he did not get the joke. Had dzheremi presented the Russian joke as a factual story, I believe that doing research on it would have been called for, but who researches a joke? Only a person who is humorless or who has an axe to grind.

Perhaps you can illuminate the humor, perhaps without being contradicted by reality.
I plead “axe to grind”, as I am not the least bit humorless. I have explicitly ground the axe already in a couple of posts…

 

[dvdjs]

It is pretty clear to me that Eastern Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics live the Christian life in different ways (tropos), and that that is why the two sides have a hard time accepting each other. It does not follow from the fact that East and West approach the mystery of Christ differently that one side is necessarily better than the other; instead, it just means that each side see things from a unique perspective that often prevents them from understanding their dialogue partner’s position on a given issue.

1. Is the matter East and West - or is the matter Catholic and Orthodox? Is it culture or Churches? Are you, personally, “ontologically different” from Orthodox? Are you unable as a Catholic to see thing from an Orthodox perspective?
2. The EP gave a long list characteristics of the lived life of the Orthodox church. Where was the contrast to the Catholic church? Which of the items noted are provably not part of the Catholic mentality? What would constitute sufficient proof? Your finding it “pretty clear”?

 

[dzheremi]

It is pretty clear to me that Eastern Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics live the Christian life in different ways (tropos), and that that is why the two sides have a hard time accepting each other. It does not follow from the fact that East and West approach the mystery of Christ differently that one side is necessarily better than the other; instead, it just means that each side see things from a unique perspective that often prevents them from understanding their dialogue partner’s position on a given issue.

Very well stated. Thank you.

 

[Apotheoun]

I agree. I would be at a loss to understand what else (if anything) a reader could understand from the address, if not that (perhaps that’s why presenting it here as I did has caused problems; it really does seem obvious to me, but if it wasn’t I don’t know what I’d think about it).

It is pretty clear that Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics often have a hard time understanding each other too. Just take a look below at the response of the Eastern Catholic Bishops in the United States to one of the rough drafts of 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Toward a Response to the Universal Catechism

It is laudable that, in the face of many difficulties and challenges in the modern world, our sister Churches of the West have seen it appropriate to write a summary of Christian faith and life. However the draft text, Catechism for the Universal Church, to which we are asked to respond, presents for us, sister Churches of the East, certain difficulties. We will address two major questions - What is a universal Church? and How universal is the catechism itself? - then look at some specific problems in the text itself.

A - What is a Universal Church?

In His high priestly prayer, the Lord Jesus prayed for a specific type of oneness for His followers, all the dimensions of which we can never fully comprehend or express. “That they may be one, even as we are one,” He prayed (Jn 17:11, cf 21), finding the deep cause of this unity – not in human structures, programs or experiences but in the relationship which we have with God in Christ. This unity which He sought for us, then, is basically a mystical and unseen one, transcending our natural capabilities, attempts or preferences and profoundly rooted in the common identity we have been given in Christ as offspring of the Father by adoption.

This prayer has obtained for us a unity on a real, ontological level: one which does not come into being by our designs and which even is not severed when we attempt to withdraw from it (cf 1 Cor 12:15-16, 21). It remains, however shattered or unnoticed, because the source of our unity, God, remains.

This unity we have with God will come to perfection only in the future, in what the ecumenical Creed calls, “the life of the age to come.” Nevertheless, this unity truly exists even now, if in an unseen way, a way grasped only by faith.

The Local Church as Universal

Towards the end of the apostolic age, the term Catholic Church was being used to describe the fellowship of believers. A Catholic Church was seen as one which lived in unity with God and the other Churches through sacramental communion, preserving and proclaiming the totality of the Christian life as handed down from the apostles. Catholicity or universality was thus the mark of authenticity: a community which experienced the fulness of what the Church was meant to be.

The heart of an authentic – and, therefore, universal – Church was seen to be realized through the Eucharist. It is here, in answer to Christ’s prayer, that “the Father in Christ and Christ in us cause us to be one in them” (St Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 8:14). The Divine Liturgy was seen as “the celebrated marriage by which the most holy Bridegroom espouses the Church as His Bride. … [for] by this Mystery alone we become ‘flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone’” (Nicholas Cabasilas, The Life in Christ, 7,1).

Since this deep union in Christ, the goal of Christian life, comes about through the Eucharist, it is the Eucharist which makes present the Church, causing it to be as Christ had willed it: a Body united to and in Him. “If we could see the Church of Christ, we would see nothing other than the body of the Lord, insofar as it is united to Him and shares in His sacred body” (Cabasilas, Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, 36).

Because they saw the Eucharist as that which constitutes the Church, the early Fathers, especially in the East, considered Christ’s presence within the local community as complete. They saw the Church as primarily sacramental and therefore as locally integral, rather than as a geographically universal entity of which local communities are only parts. “Wherever Jesus Christ is,” writes Ignatius of Antioch, speaking of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the local community, “there is the Catholic (i.e. integral, or universal) Church” (Epistle to the Smymeans).

In the same way, depicting the Church by the figure of a ship, the Clementine Homilies represent Christ as the Pilot of the ship, the bishop as the look-out, the presbyters as the crew, the deacons as the leading oarsmen, the catechists as the stewards. The local Church had Christ for its Head, the local Church was the Body of Christ, who was no less present to it as to any other Church. The local bishop was His vicar, “For Jesus Christ – the Life which cannot be taken from us – is the image of the Father, and the bishops appointed over the whole world are in the image of Jesus Christ” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, 3).

Click here to read the rest of the document

 

[dzheremi]

Perhaps you can illuminate the humor, perhaps without being contradicted by reality.
I plead “axe to grind”, as I am not the least bit humorless. I have explicitly ground the axe already in a couple of posts…

:ehh:

Your humor is beyond me, dvdjs, but may no one ever accuse you of dishonesty.

 

[dzheremi]

It is pretty clear that Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics often have a hard time understanding each other too. Just take a look below at the response of the Eastern Catholic Bishops in the United States to one of the rough drafts of 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Toward a Response to the Universal Catechism

It is laudable that, in the face of many difficulties and challenges in the modern world, our sister Churches of the West have seen it appropriate to write a summary of Christian faith and life. However the draft text, Catechism for the Universal Church, to which we are asked to respond, presents for us, sister Churches of the East, certain difficulties. We will address two major questions - What is a universal Church? and How universal is the catechism itself? - then look at some specific problems in the text itself.

A - What is a Universal Church?

In His high priestly prayer, the Lord Jesus prayed for a specific type of oneness for His followers, all the dimensions of which we can never fully comprehend or express. “That they may be one, even as we are one,” He prayed (Jn 17:11, cf 21), finding the deep cause of this unity – not in human structures, programs or experiences but in the relationship which we have with God in Christ. This unity which He sought for us, then, is basically a mystical and unseen one, transcending our natural capabilities, attempts or preferences and profoundly rooted in the common identity we have been given in Christ as offspring of the Father by adoption.

This prayer has obtained for us a unity on a real, ontological level: one which does not come into being by our designs and which even is not severed when we attempt to withdraw from it (cf 1 Cor 12:15-16, 21). It remains, however shattered or unnoticed, because the source of our unity, God, remains.

This unity we have with God will come to perfection only in the future, in what the ecumenical Creed calls, “the life of the age to come.” Nevertheless, this unity truly exists even now, if in an unseen way, a way grasped only by faith.

The Local Church as Universal

Towards the end of the apostolic age, the term Catholic Church was being used to describe the fellowship of believers. A Catholic Church was seen as one which lived in unity with God and the other Churches through sacramental communion, preserving and proclaiming the totality of the Christian life as handed down from the apostles. Catholicity or universality was thus the mark of authenticity: a community which experienced the fulness of what the Church was meant to be.

The heart of an authentic – and, therefore, universal – Church was seen to be realized through the Eucharist. It is here, in answer to Christ’s prayer, that “the Father in Christ and Christ in us cause us to be one in them” (St Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 8:14). The Divine Liturgy was seen as “the celebrated marriage by which the most holy Bridegroom espouses the Church as His Bride. … [for] by this Mystery alone we become ‘flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone’” (Nicholas Cabasilas, The Life in Christ, 7,1).

Since this deep union in Christ, the goal of Christian life, comes about through the Eucharist, it is the Eucharist which makes present the Church, causing it to be as Christ had willed it: a Body united to and in Him. “If we could see the Church of Christ, we would see nothing other than the body of the Lord, insofar as it is united to Him and shares in His sacred body” (Cabasilas, Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, 36).

Because they saw the Eucharist as that which constitutes the Church, the early Fathers, especially in the East, considered Christ’s presence within the local community as complete. They saw the Church as primarily sacramental and therefore as locally integral, rather than as a geographically universal entity of which local communities are only parts. “Wherever Jesus Christ is,” writes Ignatius of Antioch, speaking of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the local community, “there is the Catholic (i.e. integral, or universal) Church” (Epistle to the Smymeans).

In the same way, depicting the Church by the figure of a ship, the Clementine Homilies represent Christ as the Pilot of the ship, the bishop as the look-out, the presbyters as the crew, the deacons as the leading oarsmen, the catechists as the stewards. The local Church had Christ for its Head, the local Church was the Body of Christ, who was no less present to it as to any other Church. The local bishop was His vicar, “For Jesus Christ – the Life which cannot be taken from us – is the image of the Father, and the bishops appointed over the whole world are in the image of Jesus Christ” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, 3).

Click here to read the rest of the document

Thank you for this very interesting text, Apotheoun. What do you make of the “vicar” language? I think this is probably another difference between EO and Catholics (I guess including Eastern Catholics, if this text is taken as representative), as I have heard EO discussions on it (by, for instance, Antiochian priest Fr. Andrew Damick on his “Orthodoxy & Heterodoxy” podcast) that were rather negative, stating in short “we have no need for a vicar of Christ, as He’s not gone anywhere”. I thought that was an interesting way of putting it, as I doubt any Catholic who is comfortable with this concept of “Christ’s vicar” would think that He were…

(Shrugging because I can’t imagine Coptic Orthodox using such language one way or another, and we have a Pope!)

 

[Apotheoun]

1. Is the matter East and West - or is the matter Catholic and Orthodox?

I would say it is an East / West issue, because Eastern Catholics would - more often than not - agree with Eastern Orthodox on matters of theology, spirituality, liturgy, discipline, and ecclesiology. So it is not really a Roman Catholic versus Eastern Orthodox issue.

Is it culture or Churches?

I would say that it is a blend of theology, culture, and history.

Are you, personally, “ontologically different” from Orthodox?

I would say that I am personally - as to the mode (tropos) - of living the Christian life ontologically distinct from the Roman Church’s approach, and that I have much more in common with the Orthodox. Again it is important to remember that being corresponds to energy (i.e., activity) in the Eastern tradition. As a side note, it is interesting to see that when you and I read what Patriarch Bartholomew said in his Georgetown address, we tend to focus on different words, because you focus on the word “ontological,” while I focus on the word “manner.”

Are you unable as a Catholic to see thing from an Orthodox perspective?

To the contrary, I have very little trouble seeing the Orthodox perspective, but that is probably because the Melkite Catholic Church’s liturgy, spirituality, and theology are Orthodox.

Lucky for me, I have the added ability to see the Roman Catholic perspective due to the fact that I was Roman Catholic for eighteen years before becoming a member of an Eastern Catholic Church in 2005.

 

[Apotheoun]

Thank you for this very interesting text, Apotheoun. What do you make of the “vicar” language? I think this is probably another difference between EO and Catholics (I guess including Eastern Catholics, if this text is taken as representative), as I have heard EO discussions on it (by, for instance, Antiochian priest Fr. Andrew Damick on his “Orthodoxy & Heterodoxy” podcast) that were rather negative, stating in short “we have no need for a vicar of Christ, as He’s not gone anywhere”. I thought that was an interesting way of putting it, as I doubt any Catholic who is comfortable with this concept of “Christ’s vicar” would think that He were…

(Shrugging because I can’t imagine Coptic Orthodox using such language one way or another, and we have a Pope!)

The use of “vicar” language is not common in Eastern Christianity, because Christ is not seen as in need of a vicar, since He is never absent from His Church. Of course the earliest use of “vicar” language in the Roman Church was not in reference to Christ, but was used in reference to Peter, because the pope was often referred to as Peter’s vicar.

P.S. - As with many Eastern Catholic documents there are varying degrees of Latinization found within them. I personally see no need for the use of “vicar” language and prefer the use of iconic representation in its place.

 

[dvdjs]

1. Is the matter East and West - or is the matter Catholic and Orthodox? Is it culture or Churches? Are you, personally, “ontologically different” from Orthodox? Are you unable as a Catholic to see thing from an Orthodox perspective?
2. The EP gave a long list characteristics of the lived life of the Orthodox church. Where was the contrast to the Catholic church? Which of the items noted are provably not part of the Catholic mentality? What would constitute sufficient proof? Your finding it “pretty clear”?

I want to repeat these and underscore that, for me, these are the questions that need to be discussed for meaning and substance.

I don’t think glib assertions are "pretty clear, nor do I think that there those making them are clear enough about just what they are contrasting. Life in CCs vs EOCs; in RCCs and EOCs; in RCCs in the contemporary US versus EOCs in 18th century Russia, …?
I am wondering about ontological differences between RCs in Sicily and Orthodox in rural Ukraine. Or Poland and Serbia? Or are we talking of theologians, perhaps comparing academics vs monks? What is the barometer of life in the church, and who do we apply it to?

And: while Apotheoun morphs the discussion to RC versus Eastern Christian, that is not what the EP was admitting, nor others here at CAF. So what about the lived experience of Greek Catholic versus Orthodox? I would like for this issue to be clarified.

 

[dzheremi]

Ah. See, the Pope being Peter’s vicar makes much more sense. Thanks.

 

[Apotheoun]

1. The EP gave a long list characteristics of the lived life of the Orthodox church. Where was the contrast to the Catholic church? Which of the items noted are provably not part of the Catholic mentality? What would constitute sufficient proof? Your finding it “pretty clear”?

To respond to these questions would take some time, but even looking at the discipline of the two groups one sees great differences, not only in basic practice, but in the motivation underlying the respective practices of the two sides.

P.S. - If I feel up to it I may try to write a more detailed response later.

 

[Apotheoun]

Ah. See, the Pope being Peter’s vicar makes much more sense. Thanks.

Below is an interesting quotation from a book by Anglican author George Every, S.S.M., on the use of the term “vicar”:

“[In the East] the primacy of Rome was seldom directly denied, in the sense of ‘the primacy among her sisters, and the presidency in the first place of honor at General Councils,’ but the Latin interpretation of the primacy in terms of jurisdiction revealed a difference between East and West in the doctrine of the Church. Attempts were made to relate this to the filioque, but these could not penetrate to the heart of the matter while the distinctive element in Latin theology was very little, if at all, understood in the East. St. Augustine was not translated into Greek before the fourteenth century. His De Civitate Dei and his anti-Donatist writings did much to determine the development of the Western doctrine of the Church, as his anti-Pelagian writings are the starting-point of all Western controversies on the nature of grace. Grace is the connecting link between theology (in the Byzantine sense of the doctrine of the Trinity) and ecclesiology, the doctrine of the Church. The Eastern Churches never had a doctrine of created grace, of the gifts of God apart from the gift of Himself to the baptized who are buried and risen with Christ and live and reign in the Holy Spirit. Therefore they could never understand the idea of the vicar of Christ ruling His Church in His absence. They thought of their bishops not in the first place as rulers, but as high-priests in the presence of Christ and the Spirit, witnesses to the truth, and stewards of the mysteries of God.” [George Every, S.S.M., The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204, pages 191-192]

 

[dvdjs]

To respond to these questions would take some time, but even looking at the discipline of the two groups one sees great differences, not only in basic practice, but in the motivation underlying the practices.

P.S. - If I feel up to it I may try to write a more detailed response later.

But you have a great start in #406.
If some of the Orthodox would delimit this discussion of “ontological difference” to a contrast of Orthodoxy with the RCC, not CC, which includes ECs, that would be a great start. It is not, however what the EP said, or others here. Some have specifically rejected it.

And again, I see even within the RCC, not a monolithic life, but one that is very intertwined with culture. I don’t know how I would compared the life of the RCs in Poland with that of the EOs in Serbia. In the end, for me, I am interested in the praxis of the elders in villages - so I am more guarded about these generalizations.

 

[Apotheoun]

But you have a great start in #406.
If some of the Orthodox would delimit this discussion of “ontological difference” to a contrast of Orthodoxy with the RCC, not CC, which includes ECs, that would be a great start. It is not, however what the EP said, or others here. Some have specifically rejected it.

As I said, I will - if I feel up to the task later - write a more detailed response.

That said, if I understand your present post correctly you are highlighting the fact that Eastern Orthodox Christians do not accept the Eastern Catholic Churches as distinct from the Roman Church, and if that is what you mean, I agree, they do not recognize a difference. Now the reason that they do not accept the distinction is because the Eastern Catholic Churches in varying degrees accept certain aspects of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, and in so far as the they do this they are not being faithful to their own theological, spiritual, and liturgical traditions.

As far as the Orthodox criticism of Eastern Catholics who basically accept the late 19th century of theory of the papacy is concerned, I believe the criticism has validity, but hopefully as the process of de-Latinization continues that criticism will become less and less appropriate. On that particular issue I continue to hope for the best.

 

[Peter_J]

I plead “axe to grind”, as I am not the least bit humorless. I have explicitly ground the axe already in a couple of posts…

In view of that, I have to wonder if this conversation really shows any promise, or if it will be little more than an opportunity for us to insult the EP.

 

[dvdjs]

In view of that, I have to wonder if this conversation really shows any promise, or if it will be little more than an opportunity for us to insult the EP.

If people come to a forum on Eastern Catholicism and post remarks that are insulting to Eastern Catholic churches, I will respond. There are many venues where one might, inadvertently, talk about the Catholic church or characterize its praxis or mentality as though it were exclusively Roman. But if it is done here, on an eastern Catholic forum, is can hardly be considered inadvertent. A discussion on this forum about the life, praxis, phromnema of Catholics, but which totally ignores or disses Eastern Catholics will get a response from me. That is the axe being ground - just as I have been saying.

I am not interested in anyone insulting the EP, and don’t see why any discussion would lead in this direction.

Past experience leads me to believe that the conversation has no promise. But I think it is worth saying for the sake of readers if those involved in the conversation.

 

[coco2]

If I may give my own comment to the original question, I believe that Orthodoxy IS the true Church, along with the Catholic Church, although the two are divided.

There are differences in doctrine to be sure, but even Pope Benedict at one time expressed the view that they are not insurmountable nor are they reasons for maintaining division.

The Orthodox Church truly does engage in missionizing work and I have come to know even Roman Catholics as well as Protestants who have embraced Orthodoxy, together with non-Christians.

The separation between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is one that affects both Churches - one really cannot be whole without the other. But that is a separate topic.

Apart from the fact that Orthodoxy sees the Patriarch of Constantinople as exercising the Petrine Ministry today, I don’t see any substantial difference in terms of faith between East and West, and certainly nothing that could justify their continued separation.

Both Churches should, in God’s good time, get together in a reunion Council to iron out things and to work out a way to re-establish a relationship to Rome that reflects that of the first millennium. Both sides will be changed as a result of that exercise which will be the work of the Holy Spirit.

When that great day of reunion occurs, we Eastern Catholics will no longer be adjuncts of the Latin Church, but will join with our Mother Orthodox Churches in a special reunion that will bring untold joy to the people of God.

Alex

I pray for this, my friend.