The Catholic Vs. The Orthodox Church: Which is the True Church?

[mardukm]

Dear brother ASimpleSinner,

No, you did not understand the question. All of the sources you listed, are used by well-meaning and sincere scholars who come to different conclusions. This is not at all unlike (only more nuanced) Protestants who demure that they have “the very Word of God, what more would you need?”… So as clearly as I can possibly ask, I want to know, when it comes to matters on which equally sincere and equally well educated parties differ on what constitutes the Orthodox thinking on a matter or matters, how can the hoy palloi clearly know what the definative answer is?

I don’t think the inconsistency of some EO practices and beliefs is inherently objectionable, nor is the fact that they can’t really p(name removed by moderator)oint a solid authority for some of their practices or beliefs.

What is more seriously objectionable is that some of these practices/beliefs find no patristic support. You mentioned just one of them - the fact that it is generally acceptable to use the principle of economy to not exercise a Sacrament (e.g., they don’t ordain priests who had no valid ordination, or don’t baptize those who they believe had no valid baptism, etc.) . This is a practice and belief that finds absolutely no support from the Fathers.

Things such as these lead me to believe that while the EOC is a true Church, it is not the true Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

the EOC is a true Church, it is not the true Church.

It is a true Church…the true Church…the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner
Where, when and how do you draw the line to self-determine what of the Sacred Tradition is reasonable, allowable, and accurate, Mickey

But can you answer that? Or are you content with this non non sequitur?

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner
My comment and question was not polemic.

I do. Can you do better to be glib about it? Or in the absense of anything productive to say, do you still feel compelled to at least say something?

Demonstrate how it was polemic.

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner
Than refute it.

Or you could make effort to refute it.

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner
Mickey, I know I only invite my own aggravation to simply ask (like so many times before) wherein does your own particular confidence lie in what falls under “speculative matters” or definative teaching?

This I know… and it underscores the point that it can be clear in Catholic circles which things ARE up for theological speculation, and which are not. As to the allusion to “the now defunct teaching of limbo”, we need to find a thread to take that discussion to where we can disabuse you of these (however polemically expedient!) notions…

I have already answered you regarding sources for definitive matters but you do not understand. I am sorry that you aggravate yourself.

If I aggravate myself, it is mostly by my own foolhardy insistence in even discussing these things with you as though you and I could have a reasoned discussion with each other that transcended a war or wits, a “battle of the clever” or honest and frank discussion of points raised. No, you have not yet offered me an answer that I can accept as to how it is known with any sort of finality how matters can be understood authoratatively.

I sincerely and honestly, without guile or polemic, cannot understand how you are satisfied with pointing to “The Holy Orthodox Church has Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, writings of the holy fathers, seven great Ecumenical Councils” and than treating me as obtuse for not accepting that what these sources have to offer can be considered by different sincere, well educated, and well meaning parties with different conclusions drawn.

In fact, it is not that I fail to comprehend the point you offer, is that I truly and honestly believe that it is insufficient and cannot satisfy my question as to how it is we can best know what is authoritative, final or conclusive.

In an article that appeared very recently in the Times, a monastery on Mt. Athos was profiled that is on the most extreme end of the spectrum of interpreting all the sources you list above, so much so that they have ceased to commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople given that the occupants of that office have cordially met with the Pope of Rome, and done so in prayer at times. Citing all the same sources that you have, they (and various other groups) have offered strident and (depending on one’s perspective) often compelling arguments for matters ranging from “Why the revised Julian calendar is heretical” to “the necessity of baptising ANY convert from a Christian background” to any number of other issues.

From my perspective, how their objections (ostensibly just as rooted in all of the sources you offer) are handled by the (Eastern Orthodox) folks they decry is just as telling as anything. Some - as Hesychios seems to allude - suggest that the schisms of some of these “extreme” groups (“extreme” because they are in the minority? Like non-Arians?) is largely surmountable, easy to overlook, or legitimate so long as certain measures are taken… Others, such as my Serbian friend in Belgrade, is just as insistent that the nationalistic breakaway faction of the Maceodian Orthodox Church is graceless.

All of the above are using the same sources your purport to be authoratative and sufficient. How is one to tell what stance to take?

P.S–definitive is spelled with an “i”. Forgive me, but you use this word often so I thought that I should correct you.

No, I will not forgive you for this your second and now more pointed effort to draw attention to my failings and human weakness in the realm of my frequent and often laughable typos and mispellings. It is part of a condition that is comorbid with another problem with which I deal which has no bearing on my intellect or ability to make an argument. It is, however, frequently problematic in my ability to proof-read my own texts or catch my own rather laughable typos which very frequently include phonetic spellings and misuse of homonyms (as in “I no better”). These frequently shine through in things I write on various fora that I - given the constraints of time - do NOT have another proofread or run through a “spell check”.

The first time was a “correction”. In this more pointed secondary effort to draw attention to it, replete with what I can only see as a rather disingenuous “Forgive me”, I am left to conclude that first and foremost this is an effort to either “act a smart alec” or at the very least embarass me.

Let’s be better than that.

 

[Mickey]

But can you answer that?

I already have. I am content with my answer. You are not.

Or you could make effort to refute it.

Refute what?

we need to find a thread to take that discussion to where we can disabuse you

Ouch. Please do not disabuse me.

If I aggravate myself, it is mostly by my own foolhardy insistence in even discussing these things with you as though you and I could have a reasoned discussion with each other that transcended a war or wits, a “battle of the clever” or honest and frank discussion of points raised.

Correct. I have found that you and I disagree on so many issues, that it is a waste of time to converse with you. It always leads nowhere—or to the land of ego.

No, you have not yet offered me an answer that I can accept as to how it is known with any sort of finality how matters can be understood authoratatively.

Yes, I have.

I sincerely and honestly, without guile or polemic, cannot understand how you are satisfied with pointing to “The Holy Orthodox Church has Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, writings of the holy fathers, seven great Ecumenical Councils” and than treating me as obtuse for not accepting that what these sources have to offer can be considered by different sincere, well educated, and well meaning parties with different conclusions drawn.

These are valid sources. They are the same sources of your Roman Catholic Church. I am not treating you as “obtuse”. If you cannot accept my answer—so be it.

In fact, it is not that I fail to comprehend the point you offer, is that I truly and honestly believe that it is insufficient and cannot satisfy my question as to how it is we can best know what is authoritative, final or conclusive…

Then I suppose you have more issues than can be ironed out through a chat forum.

In an article that appeared very recently in the Times, a monastery on Mt. Athos was profiled that is on the most extreme end of the spectrum of interpreting all the sources you list above.

If you feel the need to discuss the Orthodox position regarding the heresy of Ecumenism—or the Julian calendar—I suggest you start a thread.

Others, such as my Serbian friend in Belgrade, is just as insistent that the nationalistic breakaway faction of the Maceodian Orthodox Church is graceless.

If I made polemical statements or pronounced judgements on the RCC based on what my Catholic friends told me–you would laugh me out of town.

No, I will not forgive you

That is unfortunate. I truly did not intend the correction as an insult.

It is part of a condition that is comorbid with another problem with which I deal which has no bearing on my intellect or ability to make an argument.

I never made any such indication regarding your intellect or “ability to argue”. Sheesh!

I am left to conclude that first and foremost this is an effort to either “act a smart alec” or at the very least embarass me.

Tis’ a pity you feel that way. I have been called “a smart alec” before–though my name is not alec. But I was not intending to be one in this instance.

One of my shortcomings is connected to a condition of being somewhat of a perfectionist–spelling errors figures into my condition—especially my own.

Since my dialogue often inflames passions of anger within you, I am going to stop all conversation with you.

Forgive this wretched sinner.

May you have a joyous-mournful Lent.

 

[SSTeacher]

ASimpleSinner;4900389:

I am left to conclude that first and foremost this is an effort to either “act a smart alec” or at the very least embarass me.

Tis’ a pity you feel that way. I have been called “a smart alec” before–though my name is not alec. But I was not intending to be one in this instance.

One of my shortcomings is connected to a condition of being somewhat of a perfectionist–spelling errors figures into my condition—especially my own.

Since my dialogue often inflames passions of anger within you, I am going to stop all conversation with you.

I’m disappointed you’ve terminated your exchange with ASimpleSinner. I was quite engaged by it.

I’m drawn toward Orthodoxy because of the way in which I’ve seen and experienced Orthodox worship. The Divine Liturgy is beautiful. So is Great Vespers. It’s remarkable to think that the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom goes back to, well, Saint John Chrysostom. Despite the administrative confusion within Orthodoxy there seems to be agreement upon worship. I suppose the Catholic Church is more efficiently organized than the Orthodox Church but within Catholicism there seems to be a huge disagreement with regard to worship.

Do you ever think along similar lines?

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[dzheremi]

Hello Mick,

I know that your reply wasn’t addressed to me, but I just wanted to post here because I have been feeling the same way for quite a while now. It is shameful for me, a relatively recent convert to Catholicism in the first place (3 years ago now) to be having these real doubts, but what can I do? Denying them isn’t helping. I’ve talked to my priest a few times and he definitely agrees that I have a lot to think about…not exactly the “you should do X” sort of talk I really want to want! But…I don’t know…everyone has to figure these things out at some point, I guess. For my part, I am taking it as a sign to read and learn as much as I can about the beliefs of the respective churches, because I am certainly not about to make any rash decisions, and honestly part of me feels like I don’t even understand the issues that each church sees as important enough to be divided over, so gaining the appropriate knowledge is a must (to all who read this: any suggestions as to what to read would be very appreciated!).

All I can say is that I am glad it is Lent…the message of the Mass last Sunday, about Christ’s time in the desert, has hit me particularly hard. That’s a good sign, perhaps! I hope that if you are participating in this holy season, you can use this time of reflection to find peace and insight in your own “desert”.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hello Mick,

I know that your reply wasn’t addressed to me, but I just wanted to post here because I have been feeling the same way for quite a while now. It is shameful for me, a relatively recent convert to Catholicism in the first place (3 years ago now) to be having these real doubts, but what can I do? Denying them isn’t helping. I’ve talked to my priest a few times and he definitely agrees that I have a lot to think about…not exactly the “you should do X” sort of talk I really want to want! But…I don’t know…everyone has to figure these things out at some point, I guess. For my part, I am taking it as a sign to read and learn as much as I can about the beliefs of the respective churches, because I am certainly not about to make any rash decisions, and honestly part of me feels like I don’t even understand the issues that each church sees as important enough to be divided over, so gaining the appropriate knowledge is a must (to all who read this: any suggestions as to what to read would be very appreciated!).

All I can say is that I am glad it is Lent…the message of the Mass last Sunday, about Christ’s time in the desert, has hit me particularly hard. That’s a good sign, perhaps! I hope that if you are participating in this holy season, you can use this time of reflection to find peace and insight in your own “desert”.

Hi dzheremi,

Thanks for posting. I don’t think doubts and difficulties are necessarily shameful. It seems to me that they are part of the settled order particularly in the spiritual realm. Doubts demonstrate the presence of faith, don’t you think? Only religious people can be dead certain that they are completely right (and that everybody else is completely wrong). May the Lord save and preserve us from such a mentality.

I’d suggest reading the Psalms and Proverbs. You could do a lot worse.

And if you like fairy stories, read Granny’s Wonderful Chair. You can read it for free at Project Gutenberg. It might take your mind off your uneasiness for an afternoon and perhaps cheer you up:

gutenberg.org/catalog/wor…k_files=848044

Sincerely,
Mick

 

[Hesychios]

Hi SSTeacher,

Despite the administrative confusion within Orthodoxy there seems to be agreement upon worship.

Respectfully, allow me to disagree.

The confusion is in the eye of the beholder. If we were confused about anything, the uniformity of our teachings would quickly suffer.

Christian unity is in the theology, and the worship derives from that. This is why one can visit Orthodox churches all over the world and experience a solemn and dignified worship experience.

The Papal Communion has just as much and often more administrative confusion than the Orthodox, but tend to assume it’s Ok because they are all “under the Pope”. That does not make it better but whitewashes real problems.

You may be thinking about the “confused” canonical situation in North America, I will come to that.

I suppose the Catholic Church is more efficiently organized than the Orthodox Church but within Catholicism there seems to be a huge disagreement with regard to worship.

Do you ever think along similar lines?

I disagree that the Catholic Church, by which I take you to mean under the Pope, is more efficiently organized.

In North America, the Catholic Church under the Pope has numerous overlapping jurisdictions. In fact, it looks for all the world like the Orthodox church! If you want a count I am sure I can give you a figure later :coffeeread:

The big difference is that under the Papacy, the bishops of the BIG sister church have been able to leverage it’s influence with Rome to abuse the little sisters, and historically that is easily demonstrated.

Now, if we somehow miraculously unified under the Pope do you think Orthodox jurisdiction “confusion” will suddenly go away? Nope, I don’t think so.

Nothing would change except that everyone would pretend that the crazyquilt pattern of overlapping jurisdictions does not matter anymore, it being somehow different under the Pope. We would just sew our quilt onto their quilt and nothing would fundamentally change, other than we would possibly have to accept the foreign concept of religious orders working in our jurisdictions and a few suspect theological constructs.

Since we regard unity in theology far more important that any need to satisfy our sense of reporting order, going for a deal like that would solve no problem of immediate concerns but may compromise our theology. No win.

If you would like to learn more about this, how and why such jurisdictional issues occur, even under the Pope, read this series of articles written by a Catholic priest. It is just one of many stories that can be told but quite an interesting read.

Another point I should make here (it never seems to be mentioned), is that he number of Orthodox jurisdictions has been steadily declining in the last few decades, as the divisions (caused by politics and war in Europe) are working themselves out. The two most recent being a merger of the two Serbian jurisdictions in North America into one and the merger of ROCOR with the Moscow Patriarchate (another two into one). The Ukrainian jurisdictions also merged together some time back. Things are returning to normal. It may seem too slow to us, as impatient as we are, but we are on God’s time here.

The Faithful are well cared for in the meantime, and there is no real hostility between any of them, nor fear that somehow anyones salvation is in jeopardy. Orthodox faithful visit one another’s parishes frequently, with no harmful effects.

 

[Mickey]

I’m disappointed you’ve terminated your exchange with ASimpleSinner. I was quite engaged by it.

I am sorry. But it seems that every time there is a conversation between us, it disintegrates into uncharity. I feel that it is best to stop the contact.

But I will try to answer any questions you may have–privately or otherwise.

 

[Mickey]

I’ve talked to my priest a few times and he definitely agrees that I have a lot to think about…not exactly the “you should do X” sort of talk I really want to want! But…I don’t know…everyone has to figure these things out at some point, I guess.

Interesting. I had a similar experience. When I was in the Byzantine Catholic Church, I began to have doubts about the post schism doctrines of Rome. I started talking to many different priests. When I asked about purgatory, an Eastern Catholic priest told me that the East has a different understanding. When I asked about the IC, I was told that the East calls it “The Conception by St Anna of the most Holy Theotokos”. When I asked about papal supremacy I was told, “We are under the Pope, but not really”. These answers did not satisfy me. We did not say the Filioque. Finally, I sat down with my pastor and told him in detail about all my doubts and confusions. He answered me, “You have a lot of issues”.

Two weeks later I found myself sitting in the Orthodox Church.

 

[JW55]

Father Thomas Loya on his “Light of the East” radio program, broadcast #231 has an interesting discussion of the Eastern Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in regard to individuals who feel compelled to leave the either the Eastern Catholic or Latin Church to join the Eastern Orthodox Church. I think it is a very fair discussion of the subject. He addresses why an individual might choose to make such a change.

byzantinecatholic.com/radio.htm for those who might be interested in listening.

 

[Hesychios]

Father Thomas Loya on his “Light of the East” radio program, broadcast #231 has an interesting discussion of the Eastern Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in regard to individuals who feel compelled to leave the either the Eastern Catholic or Latin Church to join the Eastern Orthodox Church. I think it is a very fair discussion of the subject. He addresses why an individual might choose to make such a change.

byzantinecatholic.com/radio.htm for those who might be interested in listening.

Father Tom was my pastor. Much of what I learned about Holy Orthodoxy I credit to him, I am most grateful.

I paid for his very first radio show (and several others) in 2004.

 

[JW55]

Father Tom was my pastor. Much of what I learned about Holy Orthodoxy I credit to him, I am most grateful.

I paid for his very first radio show (and several others) in 2004.

Hesychios-

I’ve really enjoyed listening to his program and have learned so much, not only about the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, and Eastern Orthodox Churches but the Christian faith in general.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;4904259:

Despite the administrative confusion within Orthodoxy there seems to be agreement upon worship.

Hi SSTeacher, Respectfully, allow me to disagree.

OK.

The confusion is in the eye of the beholder. If we were confused about anything, the uniformity of our teachings would quickly suffer.

That seems logical. I freely confess to being a beholder with a confused eye.

Christian unity is in the theology, and the worship derives from that. This is why one can visit Orthodox churches all over the world and experience a solemn and dignified worship experience.

What little I’ve so far experienced of Orthodox worship is certainly solemn and dignified. In fact, to me it seems ethereal.

The Papal Communion has just as much and often more administrative confusion than the Orthodox, but tend to assume it’s Ok because they are all “under the Pope”. That does not make it better but whitewashes real problems.

Yes, the “under the pope” concept is one that I have in mind. Now I pause and think about it I suppose I equate it with “under the thumb” and then go on assume that there are no administrative difficulties within Catholicism.

You may be thinking about the “confused” canonical situation in North America, I will come to that.

I am indeed focusing on that.

SSTeacher;4904259:

I suppose the Catholic Church is more efficiently organized than the Orthodox Church but within Catholicism there seems to be a huge disagreement with regard to worship.

Do you ever think along similar lines?

I disagree that the Catholic Church, by which I take you to mean under the Pope, is more efficiently organized.

Yes, in my mind under the pope equals efficient organization.

In North America, the Catholic Church under the Pope has numerous overlapping jurisdictions. In fact, it looks for all the world like the Orthodox church! If you want a count I am sure I can give you a figure later :coffeeread:

This is a big surprise for me.

The big difference is that under the Papacy, the bishops of the BIG sister church have been able to leverage it’s influence with Rome to abuse the little sisters, and historically that is easily demonstrated.

OK.

Now, if we somehow miraculously unified under the Pope do you think Orthodox jurisdiction “confusion” will suddenly go away? Nope, I don’t think so.

I never considered such a question. Another surprise.

Nothing would change except that everyone would pretend that the crazyquilt pattern of overlapping jurisdictions does not matter anymore, it being somehow different under the Pope. We would just sew our quilt onto their quilt and nothing would fundamentally change, other than we would possibly have to accept the foreign concept of religious orders working in our jurisdictions and a few suspect theological constructs.

I guess it would be exactly as you portray.

Since we regard unity in theology far more important that any need to satisfy our sense of reporting order, going for a deal like that would solve no problem of immediate concerns but may compromise our theology. No win.

This is a powerful argument.

If you would like to learn more about this, how and why such jurisdictional issues occur, even under the Pope, read this series of articles written by a Catholic priest. It is just one of many stories that can be told but quite an interesting read.

I would indeed like to learn more and I will read it.

Another point I should make here (it never seems to be mentioned), is that he number of Orthodox jurisdictions has been steadily declining in the last few decades, as the divisions (caused by politics and war in Europe) are working themselves out. The two most recent being a merger of the two Serbian jurisdictions in North America into one and the merger of ROCOR with the Moscow Patriarchate (another two into one). The Ukrainian jurisdictions also merged together some time back. Things are returning to normal. It may seem too slow to us, as impatient as we are, but we are on God’s time here.

I never thought about that, either.

The Faithful are well cared for in the meantime, and there is no real hostility between any of them, nor fear that somehow anyones salvation is in jeopardy. Orthodox faithful visit one another’s parishes frequently, with no harmful effects.

Yes, I can easily believe it. I’ve actually seen it happen.

Well, thanks very much for giving me a fresh perspective, Michael.

Gratefully,
Mick

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SSTeacher,

Well, thanks very much for giving me a fresh perspective, Michael.

I don’t mean to downplay brother Michael’s perception of things, but I think you need to consider a few things:

Though there are overlapping jurisdictions in Catholicism (as well as EO’xy), there are no jurisdictional STRUGGLES within Eastern/Oriental Catholicism unlike in EO’xy - and this is indeed because of the papacy.

Though there are overlapping jurisdictions in Catholicism, there is a canonical justification for this. These overlapping jurisdictions are in the territory of the (then) Patriarch of the West. It is an ancient canonical principle that the bishop of any territory should and morally must supply for the spiritual needs of those in his territory. That the Pope has set up these jurisdictions in HIS patriarchal jurisdiction for Easterns/Orientals is a reflection of this canonical obligation to care for the Easterns/Orientals in HIS patriarchal jurisdiction. There is ONE patriarchal jurisdiction in the West, where the Patriarch in these lands has done something to meet the spiritual needs of the Easterns/Orientals in his ONE Patriarchal jurisdiction.
On the other hand, there is no canonical justification for the overlapping jurisdictions within Eastern Orthodoxy where Patriarchs of DIFFERENT Patriarchal jurisdictions set up churches in the same canonical area.

Finally, I second brother Hesychios’ statement that determination of Truth is a better criterion for deciding which Church to belong to, rather than organizational stability. But this is not about organizational stability. I would ask you to keep in mind that unity, as Jesus asserted in John 17, is ITSELF to be a witness TO THE WORLD that the Father sent the Son. It is only a visible unity that will satisfy this exhortation from the Lord. As I stated earlier, though there are overlapping Catholic jurisdictions in the West, they do not lead to jurisdictional struggles, unlike in EO’xy. What is a better witness to the world, overlapping jurisdictions that leave peaceably with each other, or overlapping jurisdictions that are squabbling?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SSTeacher]

Dear brother SSTeacher,

I don’t mean to downplay brother Michael’s perception of things, but I think you need to consider a few things:

Though there are overlapping jurisdictions in Catholicism (as well as EO’xy), there are no jurisdictional STRUGGLES within Eastern/Oriental Catholicism unlike in EO’xy - and this is indeed because of the papacy.

Though there are overlapping jurisdictions in Catholicism, there is a canonical justification for this. These overlapping jurisdictions are in the territory of the (then) Patriarch of the West. It is an ancient canonical principle that the bishop of any territory should and morally must supply for the spiritual needs of those in his territory. That the Pope has set up these jurisdictions in HIS patriarchal jurisdiction for Easterns/Orientals is a reflection of this canonical obligation to care for the Easterns/Orientals in HIS patriarchal jurisdiction. There is ONE patriarchal jurisdiction in the West, where the Patriarch in these lands has done something to meet the spiritual needs of the Easterns/Orientals in his ONE Patriarchal jurisdiction.
On the other hand, there is no canonical justification for the overlapping jurisdictions within Eastern Orthodoxy where Patriarchs of DIFFERENT Patriarchal jurisdictions set up churches in the same canonical area.

Finally, I second brother Hesychios’ statement that determination of Truth is a better criterion for deciding which Church to belong to, rather than organizational stability. But this is not about organizational stability. I would ask you to keep in mind that unity, as Jesus asserted in John 17, is ITSELF to be a witness TO THE WORLD that the Father sent the Son. It is only a visible unity that will satisfy this exhortation from the Lord. As I stated earlier, though there are overlapping Catholic jurisdictions in the West, they do not lead to jurisdictional struggles, unlike in EO’xy. What is a better witness to the world, overlapping jurisdictions that leave peaceably with each other, or overlapping jurisdictions that are squabbling?

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks, Marduk, for your contribution. You are very kind.

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;4904259:

I’m disappointed you’ve terminated your exchange with ASimpleSinner. I was quite engaged by it.

I am sorry. But it seems that every time there is a conversation between us, it disintegrates into uncharity. I feel that it is best to stop the contact.

Well, that’s shame. I guess that’s what generally happens when two people with differing views bring a great deal of intensity to the discussion.

But I will try to answer any questions you may have–privately or otherwise.

OK. Help me figure out how to understand the way the Catholic Church treated Archbishop Lefebvre and more importantly the why. Could anything similar happen in Orthodoxy?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Hesychios]

Thanks, Marduk, for your contribution. You are very kind.

Appreciatively,
Mick

I would just like to point out that, in spite of some person’s preconceived notions, Holy Orthodoxy is not less stable than any other church.

Quite the contrary, having borne more persecution in modern times than any other church, it has proven to be quite the stable as well as flexible church!

Still uniformly teaching Truth.

Those who would like to suggest that I would prefer a less stable church for any reason are simply putting words into my keyboard. I have never mentioned the term “stability”.

Neither have I at any time before now mentioned “squabbling”.

To be sure, there will always be issues between the churches, especially when in contemporary times new countries arise like phoenixes out of the ashes and borders shift. But there is a method in place to resolve these, and it is the same process the church has been using for 2000 years. Naturally there will be a time lapse between when a problem manifests and when cooler heads prevail. No Orthodox hierarch is stating “unless one is under MY jurisdiction, one cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels…”. I cannot think of any statement made like that in 2000 years of Orthodox “squabbling”.

When the Latin bishops of Poland ask Rome to ban married Ukrainian priests from “their” territories, and less than ten years later the Italian Latin bishops make the same request for Italy, that is not squabbling?..or is it somehow OK because there is a Pope over them all? Do the Ukrainian Catholic bishops have a right to place priests of their own choosing in those places or not?

Why does one church cavalierly assume it can interfere in the running of it’s sister church? What is the precedent for that?

At least the Orthodox do not claim to be perfect. To quote “a monk of the Eastern Church”, and famous convert to Holy Orthodoxy, Father Lev Gillet:
"*O strange Orthodox Church, so poor and weak, with neither the organization nor the culture of the West, staying afloat as if by a miracle in the face of so many trials, tribulations and struggles;

a Church of contrasts, both so traditional and so free, so archaic and so alive, so ritualist and so personally involved, a Church where the priceless pearl of the Gospel is assiduously preserved, sometimes under a layer of dust;

a Church which in shadows and silence maintains above all the eternal values of purity, poverty, asceticism, humility and forgiveness;

a Church which has often not known how to act, but which can sing of the joy of Pascha like no other.*"

And we have still retained the ability to laugh at ourselves! ..

 

[firstmode]

I think that the Orthodox Church carried on the historical and Apostolic church and that the Catholic Church is in Schism with them.

As a Protestant though I believe in the priesthood of the believer and that we are all responsible for the great commission, to teach and spread the Gospel and the Lord works with us and confirmes his word by the signs that accompanied it.

Praise the Lord!

 

[Hesychios]

OK. Help me figure out how to understand the way the Catholic Church treated Archbishop Lefebvre and more importantly the why. Could anything similar happen in Orthodoxy?

Cordially,
Mick

The “sin” of Archbishop LeFebvre is disobedience. He consecrated bishops without permission of the Pope!

What he actually did was challenge the longstanding monopoly of the Pope to name and elevate bishops. Why such a conservative bishop would find himself eventually doing so I cannot say for sure.

But he was no dummy. He was a well educated man, and longtime missionary, once head of the Holy Ghost Fathers or Spiritans.

If he received a proper Catholic education (and of course he did) he most certainly would know that the monopolizing of the naming and consecration of bishops in the hands of the bishop at Rome is NOT an Apostolic practice. He may have, by extension, rationalized that the Pope had no right to excommunicate him on that basis.

However, Archbishop Le Febvre himself did not constitute a synod. It is not as if he were isolated in some place like the Gulags or in the underground church of 17th century Japan where such unilateral action might be understood as necessary to save the church.

Well, perhaps he saw the church as in some sort of apostasy and actually believed he was saving the church through his actions.

Because the ecclesiology is so different, it is not easy to see an equivalent situation in the Orthodox church, but certainly there have been cases of renegade, or split, synods. That is, in fact, how many Eastern Catholic churches got started. It is also how Holy Orthodoxy was saved in some cases! …a mixed bag to be sure…

If a single Orthodox hierarch undertook to consecrate bishops outside of the approval of his synod, he could just as easily be considered disobedient and excommunicated. That is how these things are handled, to be sorted out when possible afterward. I think most would agree with me that the several Old calendar jurisdictions are products of this kind of behavior. We certainly continue to hope that such schisms will not last forever.

But as you have heard “it takes two to tango” and sometimes there is enough blame to go around! If the church behaves in a pastorally insensitive manner it shares in the blame for whatever happens. Only God is a fit judge from this distance…we can only pray for one another.

Mike’s commentary:

I personally have a lot of sympathy for Archbishop LeFebvre, he carried a great burden of conscience. I think millions of Roman Catholics, including Pope Benedict XVI, today owe him a debt of gratitude for his frighteningly courageous stance. In Roman Catholic terms he put his eternal soul on the line, but he helped preserve the dignity of the Latin liturgy, which I as an Orthodox Christian would say is for the greater Glory of God.

Orthodoxy does also know of courageous single hierarchs who, against the objections of (seemingly) all of their own peers stood for the right thing and ultimately prevailed. Some, like Mark of Ephesus, were eventually canonized.

I think that some day Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre may also be canonized by a church which eventually will come to see the worth of his actions, even while they may regret his choice of methods.