Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[frjohnmorris]

Maybe you don’t mean it as an insult calling Eastern Rite Catholic’s Roman Catholic’s, but those Churches uning a different Rite are not Roman Catholic’s simply because the term Roman Catholic as I am, have always considered it to mean the Latin Rite. We are not the Roman Catholic Church but ‘The Catholic Church’ which has many different Rites. As I said Roman Catholic simple means to us that we belong to the Latin Rite of the ‘Catholic Church’ Other Churches with their different Rites are part of the Catholic Church, not of the Roman Catholic Church. I know many people call us Roman Catholic Church to mean all the various Churches in union with Rome and while myself am not offended , there are others who are. I wonder if the Orthodox and Catholic Church ever reunites will we call ourselves Catholic-Orthodox or Orthodox- Catholic? since it appears too me that names are important to some, or one or the other?

Your argument makes sense. I will be more careful in my terminology in the future.

Fr.John

 

[SyroMalankara]

The switch over from Syriac to Malankara Orthodox happens every once in a while in India, usually the Syriacs consider the priest switching to Malankara Orthodox excommunicate and his priesthood graceless and himself not even a layman in good standing. When the switch happens the other way, similar actions follow. There have even been bishops that have gone back and forth.

This is probably not a “norm” since the whole thing is uncanonical, considering the situation between the SOC and MOC, especially in India, but it transfer to wherever they have bishops and more than a tiny shared parish in the boonies.

 

[spina1953]

Your argument makes sense. I will be more careful in my terminology in the future.

Fr.John

Its all any one can ask for. Thank you for understanding!

 

[Peter_J]

Hi again. Seems I missed a lot, being away from the computer this afternoon and evening.

Read any book written by a professional historian on Russian history and you will find that they use the term Uniate to describe Eastern Catholics. Although, I do not understand why. It is simply a reference to the Union of Brest that founded the Eastern Catholic Churches in areas formerly ruled by Kievian Rus. I have avoided this term because I know that Eastern Catholics find it offensive. However, Catholics should avoid using terms to describe themselves that offend us.
I have never called you or any other Eastern Catholic as heterodox or heretical. If you want to have dialogue with Orthodox Christians, you have to listen to our concerns. This particular issue is one major concern of Eastern Orthodox.

Fr. John

You’re right in saying that the “U-word” wasn’t always a negative term. But it is and always was a Rome-centric term: calling those in communion with Rome the “united” churches, and those not in communion with Rome the “disunited” churches. I think you, as an Orthodox, should be the first to be offended by that.

 

[Peter_J]

May I ask a question. If you do not agree with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church why are you a member of a Church in Communion with Rome? Seriously, you are intelligent enough to know that Rome expects obedience from the Melkite Patriarch and that the Melkites agree with Roman Catholic dogma. Although the Menaion of the Melkites honor St. Gregory Palamas, Byzantine Daily Worship, changes the 2nd Sunday in Lent from a commemoration of St. Gregory to a celebration of relics.

Fr. John

I’m not sure I can give a completely satisfactory answer, but I should point out that many Melkites (like me) are cradle Catholics who, if we had been born into Orthodoxy instead, wouldn’t leave it. Plus, of course, if we don’t regard Rome as heretical, then breaking communion with her is a very questionable proposition (and anyhow, if the arrangement is as problematic as some people think it is, then why doesn’t Rome discontinue it?)

But at the same time, I don’t think there is any easy answer, so I’m sympathetic even with those who were once in communion with Rome but no longer are.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father, it has been made known to you many times that we are not Roman Catholics. Regardless, you could act politely in this matter even if you think us to be Roman Catholics. As someone who has been part of joint dialogues in the past, surely you understand this concept. If you wish, call us “those in Communion with Rome” but please stop using that pejorative term (Roman Catholic) to refer to us.

You have made your point. I will no longer call Eastern Catholics Roman Catholics. I will refer to them as Eastern Catholics. I never realized that it was such an emotional issue and that my arguments would cause such a fire storm. However, I hope that you will in turn try to understand my feelings on the matter of Eastern Catholics calling themselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome. Mutual respect is necessary. I will respect to the right of Eastern Catholics to define themselves as Eastern Catholics, but I think that Eastern Catholics should respect our right to define what makes a Church Orthodox. I think that is a reasonable suggestion.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

I’m not sure I can give a completely satisfactory answer, but I should point out that many Melkites (like me) are cradle Catholics who, if we had been born into Orthodoxy instead, wouldn’t leave it. Plus, of course, if we don’t regard Rome as heretical, then breaking communion with her is a very questionable proposition (and anyhow, if the arrangement is as problematic as some people think it is, then why doesn’t Rome discontinue it?)

But at the same time, I don’t think there is any easy answer, so I’m sympathetic even with those who were once in communion with Rome but no longer are.

My problem, is I wonder what do Melkites believe? What is the position of the Melkite Church on the authority of the Pope over them? What about the other doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism like purgatory, the ban on all forms of birth control even if they are non abortive, and Palamite theology? It is my understanding that the Popes demand complete doctrinal agreement. How much freedom do Melkites have to disagree with Latin theology?

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Hi again. Seems I missed a lot, being away from the computer this afternoon and evening.

You’re right in saying that the “U-word” wasn’t always a negative term. But it is and always was a Rome-centric term: calling those in communion with Rome the “united” churches, and those not in communion with Rome the “disunited” churches. I think you, as an Orthodox, should be the first to be offended by that.

Before Vatican II Roman Catholics tended to call us “dissidents.” I see your point. I have not used it but once and after receiving a private note from the moderator ceased using the term. I was merely point out that it is used by historians because of the Union of Brest and was never meant to be an insult. However, if we are to have an honest discussion, don’t I get the right to point out terms that are offensive to me such as “Orthodox in Communion with Rome.” If there is to be a free exchange of ideas, it is necessary for us to be honest with each other. You tell me if I unintentionally offend you and I tell you if you unintentionally offend me. Is that one fair?

Fr. John

 

[Peter_J]

You have made your point. I will no longer call Eastern Catholics Roman Catholics. I will refer to them as Eastern Catholics. I never realized that it was such an emotional issue and that my arguments would cause such a fire storm.

Fwiw, even though I’ve been around these kinds of discussions a lot, I was a little surprised as well – not that there were negative reactions, but by how intense they were.

My problem, is I wonder what do Melkites believe? What is the position of the Melkite Church on the authority of the Pope over them? What about the other doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism like purgatory, the ban on all forms of birth control even if they are non abortive, and Palamite theology? **It is my understanding that the Popes demand complete doctrinal agreement. **

I think that last statement is a little misleading. After all, Rome hasn’t not broken off communion with the Melkite Church.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Not so much as a defense of Father John Morris’ terminology (as he is perfectly able to post such himself, if he wants to), but a reminder of sorts, it bears repeating that there is an ecclesiastical difference built into the Roman communion itself that has no analogue in the Orthodox Church that can explain the confusion in terms (in the sense that it can be confusing for Orthodox to understand what they should and shouldn’t call people in your communion). As you well know, having been Orthodox once yourself, there is traditionally no concept of a difference between “Eastern” and “Western” Orthodox that would necessitate different canonical enrollments for those who are attracted to a given tradition, in the sense that we have many people on this board who who were baptized as infants into the Latin/Western church but later canonically ‘switched’ to one of the Eastern/Oriental Catholic churches. I am Coptic Orthodox by baptism, but if I were to begin to attend an Armenian Orthodox Church for some reason, there would be no circumstance in which it would be appropriate for me to petition to be “formally enrolled” or whatever in the Armenian Orthodox Church. Why? Because I’m already a part of that Church by virtue of my participation in it, including receiving all the sacraments I could also receive in the Coptic Orthodox Church into which I was baptized or any other Church within our communion. I know the same is true in some ways in the Roman Catholic communion (i.e., a Roman Catholic can receive in any church in communion with Rome, regardless of its particulars), but the crucial difference is that there is no canonical transfer of enrollment or whatever you guys call it whereby I could even conceivably go from being Coptic to being Armenian. It is unnecessary, not allowed, and frankly weird. We are all one Church and it doesn’t matter that I’m from over here and these other people are from wherever they’re from. I will be Coptic until the day I die (even that day comes when I’m communing in a different OO jurisdiction), but I will be Orthodox (just as you will be Catholic) by virtue of the fact that I share the same faith regardless of form.

So this difference creates a situation in which there are very self-consciously “Eastern” or “Oriental” Catholics on the one (or two) hand, and Latins on the other, and when we as outsiders look at what unites them it is ecclesiastical submission to the Pope of Rome.
The very fact that you would consider being identified as Roman Catholic to be an insult speaks to the fact that you have your own theologies and such that need to be respected and that being associated with Rome in that way does not do so. So it is an awkward situation in that we apparently cannot state plainly what makes you Catholic and not Orthodox (or something else) without offending you, yet what else is there to call you? I am fine with “Eastern Catholic” as a courtesy, but given the Orthodox view that you are who you are in communion with, combined with the unique ecclesiology of the Roman communion that places the defining feature of your eccelsiastical identities entirely in a Roman context (i.e., you are Catholic by virtue of your relation to Rome, not Rome’s relation to you), it seems a bit like we are having to pretend with you that you are something that you really are not. And that feels weird and, well…kinda wrong.

As a counterpoint, you have perhaps noticed how before I decided it was better for both of us that I put Fr. John Morris on my ignore list, I had no trouble confronting him on what I believe to be his wrong assessments of the Oriental Orthodox communion of which I am a part, as he had presumably no trouble writing those assessments. Say what you will about OO-EO relations, but this is preferable to me than another situation in which he would have to play lip service to the Orthodoxy he clearly does not believe that the OO possess. This is what happens when you have two who are serious about ecclesiology, Christology, etc. I’m not saying this to be mean or insinuate that Eastern Catholics either has a whole or as individuals are not serious about the same, only to point out that for the Orthodox (no matter who you believe that is), offense does not get in the way of the truth, even if others may find it offensive. So while no offense is ever intended (I assume), sometimes it happens if there’s no other way to make the same point in a softer fashion.

Don’t you have a provision for a Coptic Orthodox to become a member of a parish of a Syriac or Armenian Orthodox Churches? For example if an member of a Greek Orthodox parish moves to Vicksburg where there is no Greek Orthodox Church, they can simply join my parish. Out of courtesy, I would discuss the matter with their former Priest so that he is informed and to make sure that the person is not under any kind of penance.
I have never written that Coptic Orthodox are not Orthodox. I have carefully used the term Eastern Orthodox to describe us out of respect for the Oriental Orthodox. As I have written before, I think that what divides us is not doctrinal, but differing historical interpretations on what happened at Chalcedon.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fwiw, even though I’ve been around these kinds of discussions a lot, I was a little surprised as well – not that there were negative reactions, but by how intense they were.

I think that last statement is a little misleading. After all, Rome hasn’t not broken off communion with the Melkite Church.

It was not meant to be misleading. Let me phrase it differently. What level of agreement on doctrine does Rome require to establish and maintain Communion with the Eastern Catholics? Exactly what authority does Rome exercise over the Eastern Catholic Churches? Orthodoxy requires complete agreement on doctrine as a basis for Communion. However, we also understand that it is possible to agree on doctrine but use different terminology to express the same doctrine.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Hello mardukm,
Holy Scripure says: “We had all gone astray like sheep, all following our own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.” (Isaiah 53:6). Now, the Catholic Church baptizes infants who have only the stain of original sin but the Scripture says that God laid upon Jesus the guilt of us all. Therefore, original sin has the character of guilt or fault in every human being.

Further, Psalm 51:7 says “Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me.” And St Paul says “Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned.” (Romans 5:12). “Inasmuch as all sinned,” i.e., as all mankind sinned in Adam for “the whole human race is in Adam as one body of one man.” (CCC#404). Therefore, original sin has the character of guilt or fault in every human being.

Further, the Council of Trent stated “If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema.” (DS 1515). Original sin has the true and proper nature of sin, i.e., guilt or fault and punishment. The latin word “reatus” is properly translated as guilt while “culpa” is properly translated as fault. Strictly speaking, reatus (guilt) is a mean between fault and punishment according to St Thomas Aquinas, although it is sometimes transfered to mean either fault or punishment. The Church more commonly uses culpa (fault) and reatus (guilt) interchangably as can be seen in its doctrine on indulgences “An indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven as far as their guilt is concerned.”

Further, the Council of Trent states that the washing away of original sin in baptism does not just refer to the consequences of original sin and its punishments but it refers to the cleansing of sin also, i.e., to its guilt. "If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam has harmed him alone and not his posterity, and that the sanctity and justice, received from God, which he lost, he has lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he having been defiled by the sin of disobedience has transfused only death “and the punishments of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul,” let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned” [Rom. 5:12]. (DZS 1512).

Further, the CCC states : "1262 The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.

For the forgiveness of sins . . .

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.65 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God."

Now, nobody can be forgiven original sin or any sin unless sin has the character of fault or guilt. Nor can anybody be forgiven the punishment due to sin unless they are first forgiven of the fault or guilt of sin. For punishment follows upon fault or guilt. Every sin has a double consequence, namely, fault or guilt and punishment as the Church’s doctrine on indulgences states.

The CCC#405 says that original sin does not have the character of personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. This does not mean that original sin does not have the character of fault at all. It means that original sin is imputed to us as our own sin (cf DS 1513) not as a sin we personally committed as Adam and Eve did, but in the sense of being the members of the head of the whole human race which is Adam. For the CCC#404 says " The whole human race is in Adam as one body in one man."
St Thomas Aquinas explains it thus:
And just as the actual sin that is committed by a member of the body [for example, a murder which the hand commits], is not the sin of that member, except inasmuch as that member is a part of the man, for which reason it is called a “human sin”; so original sin is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is called the “sin of nature,” according to Ephesians 2:3: “We . . . were by nature children of wrath.” ( Pt. I-II, Q. 81, Art.1).

Richca

Does the Catholic Church believe in free will? Does the Catholic Church accept the doctrine of total depravity? As you know Luther and the Calvinists took both beliefs from Augustine.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

That is not quite how we see the events of 1724. When Cyril VI entered into Communion with Rome, he left the Eastern Orthodox Church and lost his claim to be the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. Under these extraordinary circumstances, the Ecumenical Patriarch exercised economy to save the Orthodox Church of Antioch. His action was not usual, but someone had to rescue of the Eastern Orthodox in the Patriarchate of Antioch from a union with Rome that they did not want. The fact that most people in the Patriarchate of Antioch accepted Patriarch Sylvester shows that most Antiochian Orthodox did not want to become Eastern Catholics. Today, we are much larger than the Melkite Church.

Fr. John

I forgot to mention Canon IX of Chalcedon that gives a Bishop the right to appeal to Constantinople if he has a disagreement with his Metropolitan or Patriarch. In this case the Bishops under Antioch that wished to remain Eastern Orthodox appealed to Constantinople as provided by canon law. Since Cyril VI had left the Eastern Orthodox Church the Ecumenical Patriarch acted canonically to declare him removed from the ranks of Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and to take extraordinary measures to see that the Eastern Orthodox in the Patriarchate of Antioch were provided with an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

You need to stop insisting on a Catholic forum that we need to change our name as used in our liturgical books because it offends you. It is my honest opinion that I am Orthodox. Out of respect for the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, I use a lowercase “o” for what I consider myself. You keep insisting that I am heterodox (ie a heretic) which is why I come forward as being orthodox (with a little “o”).

It is against the rules of the forum to call us Uniates or heretics:
“Knowing the offense taken by many of the Eastern and Oriental Catholics who post here, and knowing the historical context for their concern, using the term uniate as a generic descriptor for Catholics of the Eastern and Oriental Churches who are in union with Rome is by nature confrontational and uncharitable and as such is not allowed. Likewise, the use of the terms schismatic or heretic may not be used as generic descriptors for any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox.”

I thought that the purpose of this forum was an honest discussion between Eastern Orthodox and Roman and Eastern Catholics. In order to have an honest exchange of ideas, Eastern Orthodox have to be able to explain their understanding of the issues that divide us. If an Eastern Orthodox Priest is not allowed to express his opinion honestly, how can there be real dialogue? One of them is apparently ecclesiology and what it means to be in Communion.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Someone who insists on calling us Roman Catholic is in no position to ask us to respect your opinion on what it means to be Orthodox/orthodox.

It is obvious that you understand Roman Catholic to equal Latin Rite. I did not mean it in that way, I simply meant it to describe a Church in Communion with Rome. As I have already written, I will try to honor your sensibilities and avoid the title Roman Catholic to describe Eastern Catholics.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Interesting to hear the idea that RCs have such an impact on the way Orthodox shape their liturgy.
One problem: The Latins have not continuously insisted that the Words of Institution are the “point of consecration”.

I do not think that the Eastern Orthodox belief that an Epiklesis is essential came about in reaction to Latin Rite Catholicism. That is something that we have always believed. We actually try to avoid identifying a “point of consecration,” because we feel it necessary to preserve the concept that the Eucharist is a mystery. However, to be honest reading the actual text of the Byzantine Liturgy, it is clear that despite the claims of some Eastern Orthodox theologians to the contrary, the words of the Epiklesis, “make this bread the precious Body of thy Christ and that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of thy Christ; changing them by thy Holy Spirit…” certainly implies that the Epiklesis is the moment of consecration. Every ancient Liturgy had an Epiklesis. We had the Epiklesis long before the schism.
However, before the schism there was a lot of influence from East on West and West on East. For example, before he became Pope St. Gregory the Great spent time in Constantinople where he introduced the Presanctified Liturgy. At the same time the Latin Rite Mass begins with the “Gloria…” which actually comes from Byzantine Rite Matins.
You will notice that I am trying to use inoffensive terms out of sensibility for Roman and Eastern Catholic as well as Oriental Orthodox feelings.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

There has been no question on this thread that pressure was applied to bring Christians under his authority into the Catholic church. What was questioned first is the idea that this effort involved the trickery of a selling the idea of “Orthodox in Union with Rome” or the the Pope had “become Orthodox”. The Latins wanted the bring the Orthodox in as Latins, period. The idea of holding to Byzantine traditions was proclaiming union with Rome was the idea not of the king, the Jesuits, the pope, the local latins, but of the Ruthenian bishops. This is a key point of Taft.

Second, the idea that "King Sigismund III forced the Orthodox under his control to accept the papal authority: needs some qualification. Whatever force was involved, there was an option to opt out. Two of seven bishops did. Was there every any time in Polish-Lithuania that the Orthodox churches and hierarchy did not exist?

Finally, I would about the idea of loyalty to the EP. The EP had big problems; the key contact with the faithful was to extract money to pay tribute to the Sultan. Little by way of moral support. Many were weary of this situation (and were wary of whatever was going to emerge from Moscow). The EP of course had established paid “brotherhoods” to protect his interests against local bishops who were more connected to the interests of their flocks. And of course, none of this has anything to do with Uzzhorod, where the political pressures were flipped.

I already alluded this in an earlier post. You will recall that this act was specifically requested by in the treaty of Brest. And that it, in very short order was rescinded: it was the element of the treaty that was reneged upon.

1875???
Ancestors were Orthodox?

I think that that is a major point of Taft. Alterations were made that were needless in light of the historical use of those liturgies, just enforce conformity - rank Byanztination.

I already stated that the issue of force and deception is not at play in the WR - hard to imagine it in this past century in the US - even as brutal force was being applied with the collaboration of Orthodox in liquidating Greek Catholic Churches in the Eastern Europe. But why is that the point. Surely, in light of their own use of force and work against religious freedom eve to this day, the Orthodox cannot be so contemptuous of GCCs simply because of some element of force or deception (even if there were a needle of truth to be found in the haystack of stuff-made-up). So what is your point? Perhaps if you quoted what you find objectionalbe in Taft, wrt the Western Rite it would be clearer.

Historically both Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have used the state to further their cause. Eastern Orthodox were persecuted by Polish and Habsburg rulers to force them to become Eastern Catholics. Stalin used force to liquidate the Eastern Catholics in areas under his control. Both sides were wrong. I do not think that at this point that there is anything that can be done about it. There were all sorts of evils committed during that period of history on both sides. The people who did it are dead or soon will be. The best solution to the conflicts following the fall of Communism would have been some sort of compromise that allowed those communities that wished to remain Eastern Orthodox to remain Eastern Orthodox and those communities that wishes to join the Eastern Catholics could join the Eastern Catholics. Both sides were wrong to resort to violence. To continue to resent Eastern Orthodox because of the misdeeds of some Eastern Orthodox is just as wrong for Eastern Orthodox to resent Latin Rite Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics for the wrongs that they have done to Eastern Orthodox in the past. You cannot undo history. History tells us that there have been wrongs on both sides. The proper Christian attitude is to forgive and forget.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

That’s a fine answer, but I think it misses the point vis-a-vis the post I was responding to:

The point, if you will, is that you (and, based on my experience, many other Orthodox) have no problem saying that agreement on doctrine is necessary for full communion, yet seem to find it unthinkable that Rome would say that agreement on doctrine is necessary for full communion. Unless I misunderstood.

I think that you miss my point here. First let me clarify one thing, it is not many other Eastern Orthodox who insist that full agreement on doctrine is necessary for full Communion. That is the official position of our Church and is the position that we have taken in ecumenical dialogues. I know because I participated in the dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and the Lutherans. I do not find it unthinkable that Rome would not take the same position. From my Eastern Orthodox point of view, I would assume that if a Church is in Communion with Rome that it also is in full doctrinal agreement with Rome. When the Lutherans went into full Communion with the Episcopal Church, we told them that we could not enter into Communion with the Lutherans unless we also reached full doctrinal agreement with all the Churches in Communion with them.

Fr. John

 

[dvdjs]

I cannot speak for Moscow for obvious reasons, but I have never questioned the right of the Greek Catholic Churches to exist. I

Thank you very much Father, this is a big step that few are willing to take. Greatly appreciated.

I have tried to avoid terms that are offensive to Eastern Catholics. I think that Eastern Catholics should extend to us the same courtesy and recognize that it offends Orthodox for an Eastern Catholic Church to call itself Orthodox in Communion with Rome. I will try my best not to offend Eastern Catholics, I only ask the same consideration from Eastern Catholics.

I don’t disagree. And appreciate also your reserving Catholic to the CC, a point that caused enormous contention some years ago here.

In much of the old territory of Austria-Hungary, even until today, it was “Greek-Catholic”, and pravoslavnyj became pravovirnyj, and in English, “true faith”. Among some vostochniks this is seen as a Latinization to be resisted, notwithstanding the damage that it might cause…

 

[spina1953]

I thought that the purpose of this forum was an honest discussion between Eastern Orthodox and Roman and Eastern Catholics. In order to have an honest exchange of ideas, Eastern Orthodox have to be able to explain their understanding of the issues that divide us. If an Eastern Orthodox Priest is not allowed to express his opinion honestly, how can there be real dialogue? One of them is apparently ecclesiology and what it means to be in Communion.

Fr. John

I agree with you Father! It was my understanding that in this forum we exchange ideas and knowledge of what we believe and hopefully learn from each other. Everyone has opinions as to what they think and while it is a debate of questions and thoughts etc. it never should be heated agruments. You are correct in that we can not change the past and those on every side of these issues, there have been wrongs committed, some in the name of God. That being said, I respect everyone’s opinion and thinking whether or not I agree with it. I do know from my own study of history that Orthodoxcy has a very rich tradition and spirituality. It just seems to me with the schism that occured, it is like a husband and wife being seperated when the two should complament each other, esperially in a world so full of hate and evil.