Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Hesychios]

…I think that non-Orthodox Christian communities have a true experience of Christ, and cannot be said to be truly outside the Church.

I think so too. WE can’t stop the Holy Ghost. He goes where He wills.

The second is that it seems to me that there were in fact real losses for Orthodoxy in the schism. Not that they do not now have everything needed, but they are missing things that would enrich them. I think the loss of Western modes of music was a great loss.

I think that modes of music are basically cultural. Since western modes of music are essentially recent, they were not in existence then, and not an issue now. I have to assume that you are referring to music in worship, because we can hear the recordings any time. I am a big fan of Jazz myself , but you have to give the Greeks credit for Yanni, and the Japanese for Kitaro .

Anyway, western Orthodox draw deeply of the rich liturgical (including musical) tradition of the west. If the Latin Catholic church ever did return to Orthodoxy, we wouldn’t expect them to ditch Thomas Tallis, William Byrd or Pierluigi da Palestrina.

But what of David Haas, Marty Haugen and the St Louis Jesuits? I am not so sure

a I think that in many cases the loss of Western theological models was a loss.

Personally, I think that western theologians love to play with religion. Just like the philosophers who try to top their old teachers and make their own marks. It’s a great past time. The theological models are more or less ‘theories’ until some faction wins the prize of the big chair in Rome and can force their ideas down the throats of the rest of the church. If the idea should become an embarrassment before that point is reached the church claims “it never formally taught that” and leaves the few who are aware enough of history to question this confused. Rome plays these groups off one another, rather than offend anyone it remains often as non-committal as necessary for as long as possible. It’s a very big tent.

And if one tries to say “Well, those things would be nice but to not in any way affect the fullness of truth held by Orthodoxy” - it seems to me one begins to water down the ideas of completion and fullness to a degree that they become almost meaningless. But if these things are a loss, should not Orthodoxy wish to have them back?

That argument assumes that they have some value to begin with.

But for arguments sake let us assume that there is some genuine value in it. The concept of “Two Lungs” famously put forward by Pope John Paul II is dangerously weighted in favor of the Latin, there is no “two” anything and never was. The Latin west is one of many spiritual traditions among the Apostolic churches. Instead of lungs one should think of some other natural multiple, like the fruit on a tree. The Latin spirituality is one example of many beautiful pomegranates/figs/bananas hanging off of that tree, and in the big scheme of things the divergence of one was not as damaging as might be assumed. Apostolic Christianity continues.

{continued below}

 

[Hesychios]

{continued from above}

And thirdly, and most importantly to me, can anyone really say that the East bore no blame or responsibility in the schism, even if they were perfectly correct theologically? Was there no pride, no self-will, no lack of charity? If indeed none of these things happened, then perhaps bare justice would decree that there is no need to try to repair the breech. But are Christians only called to bare justice?

First of all we need to set the record straight.

Cardinal Humbert was as arrogant and myopic a man as ever could have been sent to represent a Pope. The Patriarch had personality problems of his own there can be no question about that, but the demands those people were making were totally unreasonable and even ridiculous (perhaps motivated by problems they were having back home in Italy and Germany but we’ll never really know). Nevertheless the patriarch did put up with them as protocol demanded, until word arrived in Constantinople that the bishop of Rome had died and these men were now not speaking for the ecclesiastical superior who sent them, the See was vacant and their mission was at an end.

The Patriarch didn’t have to talk with them any more and dismissed them. Those are the facts.

It should also be noted that these men (Humbert and Frederic) were simply Cardinals (now without a mission, they were essentially foreign priests or bishops without jurisdiction visiting the city). Cardinals even today must rank behind every patriarch (Latin or Eastern) by the Catholic church’s own reckoning. The Patriarch of Constantinople, who was equal in stature to any other patriarch in the Pentarchy and next in preeminence of authority after the bishop of Rome, was at that point in fact the leading prelate of the Christian church anywhere in the world and these Cardinals’ unquestioned ecclesiastical superior while they remained in the city. They should have repaired to Rome in haste to participate in the election of a new bishop of Rome, and to perhaps receive another portfolio.

Reading the Bull of excommunication in this light, the language employed by those disrespectful junior churchmen is doubly shocking and uncalled for. I am sure you have read the text, it was posted here before.

Let us now address the present situation.

The Orthodox have been very open to dialog. Heck, most of the churches have even participated in the World Council of Churches (although I am convinced that they are mostly disgusted with lack of progress, which is why some are pulling out), this is something the RCC wouldn’t even do. The point is Holy Orthodoxy has been very honest in it’s dealings with *every *non-Orthodox Christian faction, including Rome. It has been very charitable and cordial in it’s dealings, while being bluntly straightforward with everyone.

There is a video linked into a post in the Eastern Catholic section of a Bulgarian Orthodox delegation visiting the Pope and kissing his hand. This is a sincerely respectful gesture to the bishop of Old Rome. Some Catholic poster over there is polemically trying to make it seem like they are eagerly “submitting” to the Pope! The spin doctors are never at rest, one might say we are the most stubborn and prideful people and another might say we are bending over backwards to fall in behind the Supreme Pontiff, all in the same thread.

Everything is up for discussion, this has been going on since the days of Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI (so I am guessing 45 years straight running now) and volumes have already been published revealing the mass of correspondence between our respective churches. The next talks are supposed to deal with the nature of the primacy of Rome squarely. But assuming we are truthful and honest in this process it seems we will only be praised if we tell the Latin Catholics what they want to hear. If we say anything else we will be excoriated for perpetuating schism.

So be it.

There is a reason the church is a ‘teaching office’ (this is what Catholics like to call “the Magisterium”, forgetting that the Orthodox have it too). It is to teach and proclaim TRUTH. If it doesn’t do that, if it does not always stand for the Truth of Christ it is not a teaching office and we don’t need it.

I think that what bothers Latin Catholics so much is that the Orthodox are comfortable with straight talk, and it is often just too much to bear.

 

[JRKH]

{continued from above}

First of all we need to set the record straight.

Cardinal Humbert was as arrogant and myopic a man as ever could have been sent to represent a Pope. The Patriarch had personality problems of his own there can be no question about that, but the demands those people were making were totally unreasonable and even ridiculous (perhaps motivated by problems they were having back home in Italy and Germany but we’ll never really know). Nevertheless the patriarch did put up with them as protocol demanded, until word arrived in Constantinople that the bishop of Rome had died and these men were now not speaking for the ecclesiastical superior who sent them, the See was vacant and their mission was at an end.

The Patriarch didn’t have to talk with them any more and dismissed them. Those are the facts.

It should also be noted that these men (Humbert and Frederic) were simply Cardinals (now without a mission, they were essentially foreign priests or bishops without jurisdiction visiting the city). Cardinals even today must rank behind every patriarch (Latin or Eastern) by the Catholic church’s own reckoning. The Patriarch of Constantinople, who was equal in stature to any other patriarch in the Pentarchy and next in preeminence of authority after the bishop of Rome, was at that point in fact the leading prelate of the Christian church anywhere in the world and these Cardinals’ unquestioned ecclesiastical superior while they remained in the city. They should have repaired to Rome in haste to participate in the election of a new bishop of Rome, and to perhaps receive another portfolio.

Reading the Bull of excommunication in this light, the language employed by those disrespectful junior churchmen is doubly shocking and uncalled for. I am sure you have read the text, it was posted here before.

Very interesting -
Now please note that I am no expert on these matters and most of what I know I have gotten from discussions on these boards. But it is my understanding that the response of the Patriarch issued his own bull of excommunication. Who did he excommunciate? And even more importantly why did he excommunicate anyone when the Pope had died and so the situation was in flux.

It seems that, while the delegates from Rome were obviously a poor choice (to put it charitably) the Patriarch acted just as poorly in his response, given the situation in the west (the death of the pope).

Let us now address the present situation.

The Orthodox have been very open to dialog. Heck, most of the churches have even participated in the World Council of Churches (although I am convinced that they are mostly disgusted with lack of progress, which is why some are pulling out), this is something the RCC wouldn’t even do. The point is Holy Orthodoxy has been very honest in it’s dealings with *every *non-Orthodox Christian faction, including Rome. It has been very charitable and cordial in it’s dealings, while being bluntly straightforward with everyone.

I don’t think anyone would accuse the EO of being dishonest. Mistaken perhaps but certainly not dishonest. I would hope that those in the EO would recognize the same quality in the RCC.
Naturally this does not preclude certain individuals from being dishonest and “rabble rousers” but this is something that both sides must deal with.

There is a video linked into a post in the Eastern Catholic section of a Bulgarian Orthodox delegation visiting the Pope and kissing his hand. This is a sincerely respectful gesture to the bishop of Old Rome. Some Catholic poster over there is polemically trying to make it seem like they are eagerly “submitting” to the Pope! The spin doctors are never at rest, one might say we are the most stubborn and prideful people and another might say we are bending over backwards to fall in behind the Supreme Pontiff, all in the same thread.

Absolutely true!!! That is why, other than for trying to explain this or that misunderstanding between us, we, as “lay persons”, should leave these discussions, decisions etc to those charged by each community with the task of sorting through all of the issues.
We should all learn to be just as careful in our speach as the Patriarchs (including the Holy Father) are.

Everything is up for discussion, this has been going on since the days of Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI (so I am guessing 45 years straight running now) and volumes have already been published revealing the mass of correspondence between our respective churches. The next talks are supposed to deal with the nature of the primacy of Rome squarely. But assuming we are truthful and honest in this process it seems we will only be praised if we tell the Latin Catholics what they want to hear. If we say anything else we will be excoriated for perpetuating schism.

So be it.

There is a reason the church is a ‘teaching office’ (this is what Catholics like to call “the Magisterium”, forgetting that the Orthodox have it too). It is to teach and proclaim TRUTH. If it doesn’t do that, if it does not always stand for the Truth of Christ it is not a teaching office and we don’t need it.

I think that what bothers Latin Catholics so much is that the Orthodox are comfortable with straight talk, and it is often just too much to bear.

It is my fervent hope that - eventually - both sides will get past the hurts of history and the difficulties of language and semantic to recognize the legitimate truths in each sides arguments, and seek language to express those truths that is acceptable to both Churches. I can assure you that whatever agreement is reached by the two Churches will be accepted by me as the Will of The Holy Spirit (as stated so well in Acts 15).

Peace
James

 

[Bluegoat]

{continued from above}

First of all we need to set the record straight.

Cardinal Humbert was as arrogant and myopic a man as ever could have been sent to represent a Pope. The Patriarch had personality problems of his own there can be no question about that, but the demands those people were making were totally unreasonable and even ridiculous (perhaps motivated by problems they were having back home in Italy and Germany but we’ll never really know). Nevertheless the patriarch did put up with them as protocol demanded, until word arrived in Constantinople that the bishop of Rome had died and these men were now not speaking for the ecclesiastical superior who sent them, the See was vacant and their mission was at an end.

The Patriarch didn’t have to talk with them any more and dismissed them. Those are the facts.

It should also be noted that these men (Humbert and Frederic) were simply Cardinals (now without a mission, they were essentially foreign priests or bishops without jurisdiction visiting the city). Cardinals even today must rank behind every patriarch (Latin or Eastern) by the Catholic church’s own reckoning. The Patriarch of Constantinople, who was equal in stature to any other patriarch in the Pentarchy and next in preeminence of authority after the bishop of Rome, was at that point in fact the leading prelate of the Christian church anywhere in the world and these Cardinals’ unquestioned ecclesiastical superior while they remained in the city. They should have repaired to Rome in haste to participate in the election of a new bishop of Rome, and to perhaps receive another portfolio.

Reading the Bull of excommunication in this light, the language employed by those disrespectful junior churchmen is doubly shocking and uncalled for. I am sure you have read the text, it was posted here before.

Let us now address the present situation.

The Orthodox have been very open to dialog. Heck, most of the churches have even participated in the World Council of Churches (although I am convinced that they are mostly disgusted with lack of progress, which is why some are pulling out), this is something the RCC wouldn’t even do. The point is Holy Orthodoxy has been very honest in it’s dealings with *every *non-Orthodox Christian faction, including Rome. It has been very charitable and cordial in it’s dealings, while being bluntly straightforward with everyone.

There is a video linked into a post in the Eastern Catholic section of a Bulgarian Orthodox delegation visiting the Pope and kissing his hand. This is a sincerely respectful gesture to the bishop of Old Rome. Some Catholic poster over there is polemically trying to make it seem like they are eagerly “submitting” to the Pope! The spin doctors are never at rest, one might say we are the most stubborn and prideful people and another might say we are bending over backwards to fall in behind the Supreme Pontiff, all in the same thread.

Everything is up for discussion, this has been going on since the days of Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI (so I am guessing 45 years straight running now) and volumes have already been published revealing the mass of correspondence between our respective churches. The next talks are supposed to deal with the nature of the primacy of Rome squarely. But assuming we are truthful and honest in this process it seems we will only be praised if we tell the Latin Catholics what they want to hear. If we say anything else we will be excoriated for perpetuating schism.

So be it.

There is a reason the church is a ‘teaching office’ (this is what Catholics like to call “the Magisterium”, forgetting that the Orthodox have it too). It is to teach and proclaim TRUTH. If it doesn’t do that, if it does not always stand for the Truth of Christ it is not a teaching office and we don’t need it.

I think that what bothers Latin Catholics so much is that the Orthodox are comfortable with straight talk, and it is often just too much to bear.

I don’t disagree with your analysis, in general. However, I was not thinking just of that particular incident, but the whole period of difficulty between the east and west. I don’t think it is possible to say it was a one sided affair.

But more to the point, I was responding very specifically to Harpazo’s post, and the attitude that a few Orthodox seem to have that there is no need to reach out to other Christian groups, they should just come to Orthodoxy. I know that not all see it this way, and it seems to me that in general the leadership doesn’t see it that way.

One idea that I have heard from many is that it should just be individuals converting, no special arrangements should be made for groups. But it seems to me this is to overlook the nature of the local Christian community.

Also - practically speaking, many converts do have to give up Tallis and Byrd in liturgical services, and I have heard very impassioned arguments from Orthodox that no such thing should ever be allowed in an Orthodox service. It seems to me that in practice, many would make the same kind of mistake Rome has made in trying to control local churches beyond the bounds of what is essentially orthodox.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t disagree with your analysis, in general. However, I was not thinking just of that particular incident, but the whole period of difficulty between the east and west. I don’t think it is possible to say it was a one sided affair.

But more to the point, I was responding very specifically to Harpazo’s post, and the attitude that a few Orthodox seem to have that there is no need to reach out to other Christian groups, they should just come to Orthodoxy.

I don’t recall Andrew’s pointt offhand, but I usually agree with him, so I will just take your comment at face value and run with it. Historically the Orthodox have accepted groups. There was a significant movement in Africa many years ago that came out of the AME tradition, I believe, and more recently the group of American Evangelicals who derived from the Campus Crusade.

But there has not been a concerted effort to divide and conquer other churches, we would like them to come to Holy Orthodoxy as genuine converts, not because they have to follow some preacher or charismatic figure who will lead them like a Pied Piper into our churches without converting them.

One idea that I have heard from many is that it should just be individuals converting, no special arrangements should be made for groups. But it seems to me this is to overlook the nature of the local Christian community.

Like I said, it has happened.

I have never heard anyone complain about the general level of catechesis in Orthodoxy. I suppose there are bad cases but in general people who come into the church are very carefully scrutinized for their convictions and the level of instruction is pretty good. The conversion has to be genuine so the manner in which people are accepted has been influenced by this need. In the early church catechumens were carefully instructed for as many as three years in some cases, and received as individuals. I think that this is ideal, but it makes it hard to receive large numbers all at once that way (although historically that has happened too, the process of catechizing is thereby greatly complicated).

http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/1i7aar4mqflvt/staf9r/baptism-of-russia.-victor-vasnetsov.jpg

Also - practically speaking, many converts do have to give up Tallis and Byrd in liturgical services, and I have heard very impassioned arguments from Orthodox that no such thing should ever be allowed in an Orthodox service.

Well, I have not heard that, but I see the point completely.

If converts want to bring that music into the Byzantine church they are essentially trying to change the Typicon. That style of music and it’s content does not fit in the Byzantine liturgical tradition. The hymn is carefully prescribed, it is prayer of the liturgy crafted in song specifically for that particular day in the calendar, it is not normally a nice decorative element that can be switched out with some other option equally nice.

That would be fine for a Western Orthodox parish, because the nature of the western Mass can accommodate it. The disturbing problem here is that some people may actually make this sort of thing a condition on their acceptance. In other words they might say “if I cannot worship in my old familiar tradition I am not coming”. Well, the truth is that is not a sincere conversion to any tradition.

If I was convinced that the Catholic church was right, the Novus Ordo couldn’t keep me out. If I was convinced Anglicanism was correct the Rite II couldn’t keep me out.

Anyone who is not completely convinced of the Truth of Holy Orthodoxy without reservation and unwilling to give up everything familiar if need be for the sake of their soul should refrain from presenting themselves for the Holy Eucharist in an Orthodox church, they should stay where they are and bloom where they are planted. In the Orthodox church we come to learn our Faith in the bosom of a faithful community, we are not in any position to place conditions upon it, it places the conditions upon us.

But beyond all that, let’s recognize that this apparent ‘inflexibility’ is in part responsible for the generally high level of dignified worship one finds in an Orthodox church from generation to generation, even though one can see that each local church across the spectrum of Holy Orthodoxy has it’s own customs and unique music! We have nothing like a GIRM, or a central authority that can regulate our practices, yet we have not been plagued with liturgical abuses either. It is very ironic.

It seems to me that in practice, many would make the same kind of mistake Rome has made in trying to control local churches beyond the bounds of what is essentially orthodox.

The western rite has been allowed via economy in some places (thus Tallis and Byrd would fit right in there). But there is no interest in setting up a parallel Roman Catholic church, so we have no bishops of that tradition. This deliberate restraint is actually intended to facilitate just exactly what you advocate: the return of the entire Papacy and the other western churches to Holy Orthodoxy without obstacle.

We don’t want to turn them into Byzantines, we just want them to become Orthodox and that is entirely dependent upon what they think and believe, not the liturgical/musical/architectural tradition they follow. There was an historical period deep in the past when the Roman Empire made Christianity the state religion, and enforced the Nicene form of Christianity as well as the liturgical practices of the great church in Constantinople, the people who supported the government (and subsequently conformed their liturgy to Constantinople’s) were known as the Melkites, the “King’s Party”. But that was an event in political history in the empire of Late Antiquity, not a standing policy of the Orthodox church.

 

[Bluegoat]

http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/1i7aar4mqflvt/staf9r/baptism-of-russia.-victor-vasnetsov.jpg

Well, I have not heard that, but I see the point completely.

If converts want to bring that music into the Byzantine church they are essentially trying to change the Typicon. That style of music and it’s content does not fit in the Byzantine liturgical tradition. The hymn is carefully prescribed, it is prayer of the liturgy crafted in song specifically for that particular day in the calendar, it is not normally a nice decorative element that can be switched out with some other option equally nice.

That would be fine for a Western Orthodox parish, because the nature of the western Mass can accommodate it. The disturbing problem here is that some people may actually make this sort of thing a condition on their acceptance. In other words they might say “if I cannot worship in my old familiar tradition I am not coming”. Well, the truth is that is not a sincere conversion to any tradition.

If I was convinced that the Catholic church was right, the Novus Ordo couldn’t keep me out. If I was convinced Anglicanism was correct the Rite II couldn’t keep me out.

Anyone who is not completely convinced of the Truth of Holy Orthodoxy without reservation and unwilling to give up everything familiar if need be for the sake of their soul should refrain from presenting themselves for the Holy Eucharist in an Orthodox church, they should stay where they are and bloom where they are planted. In the Orthodox church we come to learn our Faith in the bosom of a faithful community, we are not in any position to place conditions upon it, it places the conditions upon us.

But beyond all that, let’s recognize that this apparent ‘inflexibility’ is in part responsible for the generally high level of dignified worship one finds in an Orthodox church from generation to generation, even though one can see that each local church across the spectrum of Holy Orthodoxy has it’s own customs and unique music! We have nothing like a GIRM, or a central authority that can regulate our practices, yet we have not been plagued with liturgical abuses either. It is very ironic.
The western rite has been allowed via economy in some places (thus Tallis and Byrd would fit right in there). But there is no interest in setting up a parallel Roman Catholic church, so we have no bishops of that tradition. This deliberate restraint is actually intended to facilitate just exactly what you advocate: the return of the entire Papacy and the other western churches to Holy Orthodoxy without obstacle.

We don’t want to turn them into Byzantines, we just want them to become Orthodox and that is entirely dependent upon what they think and believe, not the liturgical/musical/architectural tradition they follow. There was an historical period deep in the past when the Roman Empire made Christianity the state religion, and enforced the Nicene form of Christianity as well as the liturgical practices of the great church in Constantinople, the people who supported the government (and subsequently conformed their liturgy to Constantinople’s) were known as the Melkites, the “King’s Party”. But that was an event in political history in the empire of Late Antiquity, not a standing policy of the Orthodox church.

I think essentially we are on the same page. I agree it would be inappropriate to try to bring western music into the Eastern liturgy - and that someone who is convinced would come to Orthodoxy anyway, even if he didn’t relate to the style of worship.

I wonder though - conversion is rarely just about an intellectual movement. Familiar artistic forms can play a real role. And there are very few Western Orthodox churches, and really, unless whole parishes convert, where would they come from? I don’t really have a point - I’m just musing. Music played a big part inn my attraction to Christianity, it tends to be how I connect emotionally with Christianity, so I wonder how variety of musical and other artistic expression affects how people are able to relate to Orthodoxy.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I don’t recall Andrew’s pointt offhand, but I usually agree with him, so I will just take your comment at face value and run with it. Historically the Orthodox have accepted groups. There was a significant movement in Africa many years ago that came out of the AME tradition, I believe, and more recently the group of American Evangelicals who derived from the Campus Crusade.

And even more recently, late last year a group of over half a million Guatemalans was received by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Link

 

[Bluegoat]

And even more recently, late last year a group of over half a million Guatemalans was received by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Link

Had they been Catholic?

I am noticing more and more people moving to Orthodoxy. We have an Orthodox parish that meets in our church hall, and recently my friend’s little brother converted. Their dad is an Anglican priest.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Had they been Catholic?

I am noticing more and more people moving to Orthodoxy. We have an Orthodox parish that meets in our church hall, and recently my friend’s little brother converted. Their dad is an Anglican priest.

It is my understanding they had already left the Catholic Church some time ago.

 

[josie_L]

This has to be some of the most ignorant and anti-Orthodox writing I have seen pushed here in a long time. This is unfortunate. The filioque was anathematized at Constantinople IV in 879 and Rome accepted this, until after the schism when he retroactively declared it a “robber council.”

In Christ,
Andrew

No Pope (Rome) ever ratified/accepted Constantinople IV of 879, in fact, here is my response to another Orthodox poster claiming the same thing:

The Church (pope John VIII) never accepted 879-880, moreover, I doubt he even repudiated the 869 council, in fact, a letter written by pope John VIII to emperor Basil stated that he would recognize Photius as patriarch if he apologized for his past behaviour, returned Bulgaria to Roman ecclesiastical administration, promoted no laymen to bishop, and brought peace to the eastern Church. Part of the letter to Emperor Basil reads as such:

(Dvornik, Photian Schism, pp. 182-186, 207-236; Jedin and Dolan, History of the Church, III, 185; Vogt, Basile 1er, pp. 240-242.)

“Knowing that the Patriarch Ignatius has departed this life and having considered all the circumstances mentioned in your letters, we decree that Photius may be forgiven whatever he is known to have done in the past, although he usurped functions that were forbidden him without reference to our See; and we decree this without prejudice to the apostolic statutes or the rules of the Holy Fathers: rather do we act on the strength of those rules and their manifold authority.”

(Dvornik, Photian Schism, pp. 183.)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6688499#post6688499

The letter written by Pope John VIII to emperor Basil was reworded courtesy of Photius:

1. Alterations to Pope John VIII’s Letter to Basil

(1) Photios embellishes Pope John VIII’s praise of the emperors and changes the letter to say that the emperor consults Rome merely “for the sake of union” (Mann 258). (2) Photios omits everything about St. Ignatios and “the circumstances of the time,” pretends Pope John VIII was yearning to restore him, and pretends that he was unwillingly restored by the emperor (259). (3) He eliminates the letter’s statements that he has to ask for forgiveness before a council, and omits Pope John VIII’s mention that he, as the supreme pastor with the plenitude of power, absolves Photios and all those condemned with him (259). (4) Photios adds self-praise and makes John condemn all the councils, including the Eighth Ecumenical Council, that condemned him (259). (5) Photios palliates John’s conditions that after Photios dies, a Constantinopolitan cardinal priest or deacon (but not layman or court member) is elected Patriarch, that clerics are not to be speedily elevated, and that Photios relinquishes his pretensions to have jurisdiction over Bulgaria (260). (6) Photios omits John VIII’s threat to excommunicate him should he receive any bishops the pope has condemned (260).

thebananarepublican1.wordpres…il-of-879-880/

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Thanks for the info, Josie.

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

To all- I really appreciate the depth and thoughtfulness of this discussion. I’m sitting back and attempting to absorb it all. Keep going!
-OP

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

That’s the problem, and that’s one of the things that keeps me Anglican! I’m much more dubious about Anglicanism’s status, but I can’t fully accept the exclusive claims of either of the major claimants.

I wanted to focus on this particular statement, as I think it applies to me, as well. I was raised as a Free Methodist, and I currently attend a Baptist church. I have to admit I don’t agree with much of the theology there, but my wife and I have some good friends, people love God, and it seems as good a place as any, until I sort out my theological confusion.

Some would say that I would be better off as either a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, and that either choice, regardless of which one is the true Church, would be an improvement on my current situation. However, it seems that to choose Catholicism is to reject Orthodoxy, and to choose Orthodoxy is to reject Catholicism. I am not prepared to do either one. My current situation is far from ideal, but it allows me to affirm the genuine Christianity of Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike.

Choosing between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is extremely difficult. I am sure my experience is far from unique, but it is not any less of a struggle, for that. I have read quite a few conversion stories, and this struggle rarely makes an appearance. The Catholic conversion stories I have read are nearly all about people moving away from some sort of Fundamentalist Protestantism into the Catholic Church. For them, finding the ancient faith was finding the Catholic Church. They detail how their Protestant objections to Catholicism fall away, until entering the Catholic Church became the obvious choice. It is as if they lived in a Catholic-Protestant world before their conversion, and they continued to live in that world after. They simply moved to another part of their world.

I have not read as many Orthodox conversion stories, but they are not much better. One example is Becoming Orthodox, by Fr. Peter Gilquist. As some of you may know, it is about a group of Evangelicals, many of whom had been involved with Campus Crusade, who studied their way into the Orthodox Church. The problem I had with the book is that these people appeared to enter into this journey with a Protestant bias, which they were unable to let go, even as their study of the early Church demolished their preconceptions. As Protestants, they believed the Catholic Church was incorrect, and they never appeared to seriously consider otherwise, even as they joyfully accepted all doctrines the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church hold in common.

I can understand stories like these, as they are simple, and they are useful tools for conversion. The stories tell about the journey from point A to point B. If a possible point C was considered, it would tend to sidetrack the story and confuse the reader. However, for many of us, we are not stuck between point A and B, trying to decide whether to move forward or move back. We are at the intersection of East and West, trying to decide if B or C should be our destination.

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

I wanted to focus on this particular statement, as I think it applies to me, as well. I was raised as a Free Methodist, and I currently attend a Baptist church. I have to admit I don’t agree with much of the theology there, but my wife and I have some good friends, people love God, and it seems as good a place as any, until I sort out my theological confusion.

Some would say that I would be better off as either a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, and that either choice, regardless of which one is the true Church, would be an improvement on my current situation. However, it seems that to choose Catholicism is to reject Orthodoxy, and to choose Orthodoxy is to reject Catholicism. I am not prepared to do either one. My current situation is far from ideal, but it allows me to affirm the genuine Christianity of Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike.

Choosing between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is extremely difficult. I am sure my experience is far from unique, but it is not any less of a struggle, for that. I have read quite a few conversion stories, and this struggle rarely makes an appearance. The Catholic conversion stories I have read are nearly all about people moving away from some sort of Fundamentalist Protestantism into the Catholic Church. For them, finding the ancient faith was finding the Catholic Church. They detail how their Protestant objections to Catholicism fall away, until entering the Catholic Church became the obvious choice. It is as if they lived in a Catholic-Protestant world before their conversion, and they continued to live in that world after. They simply moved to another part of their world.

I have not read as many Orthodox conversion stories, but they are not much better. One example is Becoming Orthodox, by Fr. Peter Gilquist. As some of you may know, it is about a group of Evangelicals, many of whom had been involved with Campus Crusade, who studied their way into the Orthodox Church. The problem I had with the book is that these people appeared to enter into this journey with a Protestant bias, which they were unable to let go, even as their study of the early Church demolished their preconceptions. As Protestants, they believed the Catholic Church was incorrect, and they never appeared to seriously consider otherwise, even as they joyfully accepted all doctrines the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church hold in common.

I can understand stories like these, as they are simple, and they are useful tools for conversion. The stories tell about the journey from point A to point B. If a possible point C was considered, it would tend to sidetrack the story and confuse the reader. However, for many of us, we are not stuck between point A and B, trying to decide whether to move forward or move back. We are at the intersection of East and West, trying to decide if B or C should be our destination.

Precisely. When I became a Roman Catholic 7 years ago, I was operating in an entirely Catholic-Protestant world; Orthodoxy simply did not occur to me, and the choice/truth was not difficult, once the Protestant theology began to fall away, and eventually become irrelevant. It’s a very weird spot to be in, not knowing East or West…

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

The Iambic Pen: perhaps you would be more interested not in Protestant to Catholic, but Orthodox to Catholic conversions. One famous example is St. Josaphat (died 1623), Bishop of Polotsk (historic Poland-Lithuania, present day Ukraine), the martyr who died for reunion of our Churches, and whose incorrupt body can still be visited in Rome (at St. Peter’s Basilica). He is usually depicted with an axe striking his head, because that’s how he was martyred. His body was thrown into the river Dvina, but later recovered and buried. Five years later when exhumed, due to miracles taking place at the grave, the body was found incorrupt - this is a special grace of God, confirming the great sanctity of St. Josaphat. Recently I’ve read an Ukrainian pilgrim’s eyewitness account who saw and venerated the incorrupt body of St. Josaphat while visiting St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, during the past few years. For me personally, the story of St. Josaphat was instructive in the sense that it made me better understand the connection between martyrdom and the glory of God’s Church - the old saying “The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church”. None of that blood was shed in vain, since in God’s mysterious plans the martyrdom of the saints precedes and prepares the victory of the Church.

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=71

Josaphat, an Eastern Rite bishop, is held up as a martyr to church unity because he died trying to bring part of the Orthodox Church into union with Rome.
…
The separatists saw their chance to get rid of Josaphat and discredit him if they could only stir Josaphat’s party to strike the first blow. Then they would have an excuse to strike back. Their threats were so public that Josaphat preached on the gospel verse John 16:2, “Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God.” He told the people, “You people want to kill me. You wait in ambush for me in the streets, on the bridges, on the highways, in the marketplace, everywhere. Here I am; I came to you as a shepherd. You know I would be happy to give my life for you. I am ready to die for union of the Church under St. Peter and his successor the Pope.”
…
Josaphat came out in the courtyard to see the mob beating and trampling his friends and servants. He cried out, “My children what are you doing with my servants? If you have anything against me, here I am, but leave them alone!” With shouts of “Kill the papist” Josaphat was hit with a stick, then an axe, and finally shot through the head. His bloody body was dragged to the river and thrown in, along with the body of a dog who had tried to protect him.
…
As usual violence had the opposite affect from that intended. Regret and horror at how far the violence had gone and the loss of their archbishop swung public opinion over toward the Catholics and unity. Eventually even Archbishop Meletius Smotritsky, Josaphat’s rival, was reconciled with Rome. And in 1867 Josaphat became the first saint of the Eastern church to be formally canonized by Rome.

saints.sqpn.com/saintj61.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/08503b.htm

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I was also caught totally offguard with respect to the Orthodox Church, when I started dating an Eastern Orthodox woman in 2004. Here was another Church, not in communion with us Catholics, and yet having the same precious Eucharist that we Catholics have. It was quite a surprise. And there’s even more to it - there are the Oriental Orthodox Churches, too, also with a valid priesthood and Eucharist, according to Catholic teaching.

Things that seemed insulting when I first heard them, made sense after I learned more. E.g., then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict 16) saying that Protestant denominations are not “Churches” in the proper sense of the word, but rather “faith communities”. He didn’t mean it as an insult. Churches need a valid priesthood, who can consecrate a valid Eucharist. Valid priesthood means priests consecrated by valid Bishops, i.e. Bishops in the unbroken Apostolic Succession going back to the original 12 Apostles. The EO and OO Churches, similarly to us Catholics, have all that: valid Bishops, valid Priests, valid Eucharist. This is the Catholic teaching on the validity of priesthood and sacraments in the Orthodox Churches.

 

[Contarini]

The Iambic Pen: perhaps you would be more interested not in Protestant to Catholic, but Orthodox to Catholic conversions. One famous example is St. Josaphat (died 1623), Bishop of Polotsk (historic Poland-Lithuania, present day Ukraine), the martyr who died for reunion of our Churches, and whose incorrupt body can still be visited in Rome (at St. Peter’s Basilica). He is usually depicted with an axe striking his head, because that’s how he was martyred.%between%

Of course, you do not discuss exactly what he did that made those Orthodox hooligans so upset

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I wanted to focus on this particular statement, as I think it applies to me, as well. I was raised as a Free Methodist, and I currently attend a Baptist church. I have to admit I don’t agree with much of the theology there, but my wife and I have some good friends, people love God, and it seems as good a place as any, until I sort out my theological confusion.

Since family and community ties play a large role in keeping me where I am, I am in no position to criticize. But I have to say that Free Methodist to Baptist seems like a move in decisively the wrong direction to me!

Some would say that I would be better off as either a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, and that either choice, regardless of which one is the true Church, would be an improvement on my current situation. However, it seems that to choose Catholicism is to reject Orthodoxy, and to choose Orthodoxy is to reject Catholicism. I am not prepared to do either one.

Yes, I think it’s better to stay put unless or until you are clearly (I avoid the word "absolutely) convinced that one particular option is true. Or, as you have said, you could take the view that since you are a Western Christian, in the absence of certainty you should just return to Rome!

My current situation is far from ideal, but it allows me to affirm the genuine Christianity of Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike.

I know. That’s what keeps me where I am too.

I have read quite a few conversion stories, and this struggle rarely makes an appearance. The Catholic conversion stories I have read are nearly all about people moving away from some sort of Fundamentalist Protestantism into the Catholic Church. For them, finding the ancient faith was finding the Catholic Church. They detail how their Protestant objections to Catholicism fall away, until entering the Catholic Church became the obvious choice. It is as if they lived in a Catholic-Protestant world before their conversion, and they continued to live in that world after. They simply moved to another part of their world.

I have not read as many Orthodox conversion stories, but they are not much better.

This is a really interesting and perceptive point. As you go on to say, it’s possible that the “conversion-story” genre is responsible. I have elsewhere criticized Scott Hahn for his rather flippant dismissal of Orthodoxy in Rome Sweet Home (and a Byzantine Catholic priest of my acquaintance had the same criticisms–in fact I learned them from him). But it’s certainly possible that he spent more time considering Orthodoxy than the book reflects, but that the purpose of the book didn’t allow him to go into more detail. As a matter of fact, I don’t think this is true in Hahn’s case–I think that his preconceived “covenantal” ecclesiology (a form of hierarchical patriarchialism) led him inexorably to Rome.

However, from personal experience (mostly but not exclusively on the Internet) I know that there are a lot of folks like us. There are quite a few Protestants who have become Catholic (usually in these cases Eastern Catholic) and then Orthodox. One of the first people I ever argued with on the Internet was at that time (14-15 years ago) a militant Calvinist. Later he became Catholic (and Byzantine Catholic, though I can’t remember if he was RC for a while first), and eventually Orthodox. When I last encountered him, about five or six years ago, he was Orthodox. But the thing is that his dogmatism and militant tone hadn’t changed!

While I love and respect him as my brother in Christ, I have never wanted to have that kind of story. I’m not sure that the story of my last 15 years is any more admirable, but I have preferred to dither rather than to throw myself into successive incompatible certainties. When I was initially considering Catholicism, several of my professors, including a Catholic priest, cautioned me that I should take it easy, and one reason was that they thought I would wind up Orthodox! (Interestingly, my closest Orthodox friend from grad school has told me that he thinks I’ll wind up Catholic!) Certainly Orthodoxy seems a lot more convincing now than it did 10-15 years ago. Maybe that wouldn’t be the case if I had become Catholic–we’ll never know. But I would hate to have the same concerns about Catholicism I have now after having been Catholic for ten years–and I know people to whom that has happened.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

However, from personal experience (mostly but not exclusively on the Internet) I know that there are a lot of folks like us. There are quite a few Protestants who have become Catholic (usually in these cases Eastern Catholic) and then Orthodox. One of the first people I ever argued with on the Internet was at that time (14-15 years ago) a militant Calvinist. Later he became Catholic (and Byzantine Catholic, though I can’t remember if he was RC for a while first), and eventually Orthodox. When I last encountered him, about five or six years ago, he was Orthodox. But the thing is that his dogmatism and militant tone hadn’t changed!

Rather like the person who every few years finds his “real” true love - until the bloom wears off!

It often seems the case that converts are the most un-sympathetic to those who remain where they were. You would think, having experienced being in such a place themselves, they would be the most understanding.

 

[steve_b]

I wanted to focus on this particular statement, as I think it applies to me, as well. I was raised as a Free Methodist, and I currently attend a Baptist church. I have to admit I don’t agree with much of the theology there, but my wife and I have some good friends, people love God, and it seems as good a place as any, until I sort out my theological confusion.

Some would say that I would be better off as either a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, and that either choice, regardless of which one is the true Church, would be an improvement on my current situation.

It’s imperative you find the true Church. Otherwise your journey is not over. How are you going to find which one is true?
LP:

However, it seems that to choose Catholicism is to reject Orthodoxy, and to choose Orthodoxy is to reject Catholicism. I am not prepared to do either one.

The apostles would not leave Peter. You have a clear choice.
LP:

My current situation is far from ideal, but it allows me to affirm the genuine Christianity of Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike.

The faith diminishes with every split from Catholicism.
LP:

Choosing between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is extremely difficult. I am sure my experience is far from unique, but it is not any less of a struggle, for that. I have read quite a few conversion stories, and this struggle rarely makes an appearance. The Catholic conversion stories I have read are nearly all about people moving away from some sort of Fundamentalist Protestantism into the Catholic Church. For them, finding the ancient faith was finding the Catholic Church. They detail how their Protestant objections to Catholicism fall away, until entering the Catholic Church became the obvious choice. It is as if they lived in a Catholic-Protestant world before their conversion, and they continued to live in that world after. They simply moved to another part of their world.

That’s like saying one just moved to a new neighborhood in the same town. Not a convincing analogy when comparing it to someone deciding to move away from schism, and join and profess the historic faith Jesus prescribed.
LP:

I have not read as many Orthodox conversion stories, but they are not much better. One example is Becoming Orthodox, by Fr. Peter Gilquist. As some of you may know, it is about a group of Evangelicals, many of whom had been involved with Campus Crusade, who studied their way into the Orthodox Church.

Protestants joining Orthodox, both retaining their protest against the Catholic Church which they both were a part of at one time.
LP:

The problem I had with the book is that these people appeared to enter into this journey with a Protestant bias, which they were unable to let go, even as their study of the early Church demolished their preconceptions.

Exactly
LP:

As Protestants, they believed the Catholic Church was incorrect, and they never appeared to seriously consider otherwise, even as they joyfully accepted all doctrines the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church hold in common.

I can understand stories like these, as they are simple, and they are useful tools for conversion. The stories tell about the journey from point A to point B. If a possible point C was considered, it would tend to sidetrack the story and confuse the reader. However, for many of us, we are not stuck between point A and B, trying to decide whether to move forward or move back. We are at the intersection of East and West, trying to decide if B or C should be our destination.

Bp Irenaeus was from Smyrna (in the East), made Bp of Lyons (in the West) by the pope. Irenaeus was a disciple of Bp Polycarp of Smyrna, who was a disciple of St John the apostle.

Irenaeus writes

Bk 1 ch 10 (Against Heresies) ~ 180 a.d. ~ 80 years after St John dies.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm

ibid Bk 3 ch 3

The Church is Catholic. Written as such by Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Lactantius, etc etc etc. Only much later in history did EO come from schism from the Catholic Church.