THE MYTH OF SCHISM by David Bentley Hart

[Peter_J]

Well, this is a sensationalist title if I’ve ever heard one.

I’m guessing you’ve heard quite a few sensationalist titles … I have. Seriously, wouldn’t it be more newsworthy if he had chosen a title that was not sensationalist?

Why doesn’t Rome seek to undo its own numerous schisms and then focus on the East/West one.

I think you’re final sentence gives a pretty good idea of the answer to this question:

We have the entire Oriental Orthodox communion that we should be sorting out our differences with: may the Lord guide us!

Just as you Orthodox have a preference for ecumenical relations with OO rather than Rome, so too Rome has a preference for ecumenical relations with Orthodox (and OO) rather than Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist etc etc etc.

Have you considered that you could be flattered rather than offended?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Have you considered that you could be flattered rather than offended?

Peter J bringin it!

:clapping:

 

[a_priori]

Have you considered that you could be flattered rather than offended?

Very well put.

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

I never heard of this guy before, but as far as who should have ecumenism with who, I don’t think it’s wrong to talk to any group so long as we have serious representatives on our side. The Coptic Orthodox Church even talked with the Nestorians a few years ago in Egypt. It did not hurt us, even though it did not bring the results we wanted either. At least we tried in a good spirit to invite those people back to Orthodoxy. I think Rome will have more trouble with the other western churches, though, because the Protestants protest Rome in particular. Honestly we mostly don’t think about Rome very much, because we have had very little contact for the 1600 years since the rupture in Chalcedon (only since maybe 300 years ago, and really only a lot since the 1970s).

 

[Kosta]

I’m guessing you’ve heard quite a few sensationalist titles … I have. Seriously, wouldn’t it be more newsworthy if he had chosen a title that was not sensationalist?

I think you’re final sentence gives a pretty good idea of the answer to this question:

Just as you Orthodox have a preference for ecumenical relations with OO rather than Rome, so too Rome has a preference for ecumenical relations with Orthodox (and OO) rather than Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist etc etc etc.

Have you considered that you could be flattered rather than offended?

Point taken: sensationalistic titles grab attention. I can’t fault him for that.
What, my final sentence as in "May the Lord guide us & protect us? That’s about the only thing that unites all Christians: the belief that the Lord will provide. That’s about it.

What’s so bad about me suggesting to work backwards? All these Protestant schisms happened on Rome’s watch, so doesn’t it follow that Rome should fix it? Your average Catholic always blows our similarities out of proportion. This site has a weird habit of blaming Orthodoxy for being stubborn and whining about union but then saying we’re not worth the baklava/borscht/hummus we make at our festivals.

That’s the problem: my Church doesn’t prioritize fixing the separation with our Oriental brothers & sisters. It’s trendy to show up on the cover of Time magazine & start the umpteenth talk about our similarities and differences, and engage in joint prayer sessions. Yet we can’t swallow our pride and not give up until unity is restored with people who are Orthodox & Apostolic and share the same faith as us? The state of interecclesiastical-relations these days is absolutely ridiculous.

We have a preference of ecumenism with the Oriental Orthodox because we share the same faith as them, plain & simple, as I just said. We share a lot more in common with that Church than anyone else.

This site is bad for my wealth. On the one hand, everyone here is whining about how it’s our own eastern stubbornness that kees up separate, but then on the other we’re all stereotyped as stupid “ethnics” in an ecclesiastical community devoid of grace. When I see something that’s supposed to invoke flattery, then I’ll be flattered, but until then, I’ll be offended by the attitudes here. Keep up that martyr complex: it’s a really endearing trait.

Peter J bringin it!

:clapping:

Oh shut up. You’re the most bitter & worst offender of the the collective superiority complex around here. Congratulations: your attitude sets back ecumenism a century just about.

 

[a_priori]

This site is bad for my wealth. On the one hand, everyone here is whining about how it’s our own eastern stubbornness that kees up separate, but then on the other we’re all stereotyped as stupid “ethnics” in an ecclesiastical community devoid of grace. When I see something that’s supposed to invoke flattery, then I’ll be flattered, but until then, I’ll be offended by the attitudes here. Keep up that martyr complex: it’s a really endearing trait.

I never get that emotionally invested in a thread. Christianity is not a zero-sum game. If we don’t challenge each other, no one will learn. “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” Proverbs 27:17

 

[Peter_J]

This site is bad for my wealth.

I’m not sure if you meant “for my health”, or what, but i would like to expand your thought way beyond what you said: I think the whole internet is pretty bad.

But at the same time I think both of them (this particular website and the internet overall) are what you make of them. I actually find that a surprisingly simple approach works well: namely when going through a thread, to look at (1) who a post is written by and (2) whom it is in response to (if anyone). If one or the other of those two things does not immediately cause me to want to skip the post, then I’ll probably read it.

On the one hand, everyone here is whining about how it’s our own eastern stubbornness that kees up separate, but then on the other we’re all stereotyped as stupid “ethnics”

I can understand how it might seem like “everyone here”. Good thing the Roman Communion isn’t governed by a majority-vote of CAF posters. (Seriously.)

 

[Peter_J]

I never get that emotionally invested in a thread.

Indeed I think it’s a bad idea to get very emotionally invested in any web discussion forum. (Well, unless it’s a chemistry forum or something like that. Maybe. ) Heck, the fact that I can no longer spend 10-20 hours a week on CAF may well be a blessing in disguise.

 

[SyroMalankara]

That’s the problem: my Church doesn’t prioritize fixing the separation with our Oriental brothers & sisters. It’s trendy to show up on the cover of Time magazine & start the umpteenth talk about our similarities and differences, and engage in joint prayer sessions. Yet we can’t swallow our pride and not give up until unity is restored with people who are Orthodox & Apostolic and share the same faith as us? The state of interecclesiastical-relations these days is absolutely ridiculous.

We have a preference of ecumenism with the Oriental Orthodox because we share the same faith as them, plain & simple, as I just said. We share a lot more in common with that Church than anyone else.

The truth is, if it wasn’t for the Catholic-Orthodox dialogues and Vatican II, many of the OO Churches and EO Churches still wouldn’t be on speaking terms. That the OO and EO consider each other Orthodox is a huge step forward, but it wouldn’t hurt to acknowledge that the Catholic Church did so first. The dialogues with the Assyrian Church of the East is another example. For centuries they were either ignored, to be converted to Byzantine, West Syriac, Coptic, etc or anathemized until Rome’s intense reunion dialogue with them.

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

The truth is, if it wasn’t for the Catholic-Orthodox dialogues and Vatican II, many of the OO Churches and EO Churches still wouldn’t be on speaking terms. That the OO and EO consider each other Orthodox is a huge step forward, but it wouldn’t hurt to acknowledge that the Catholic Church did so first. The dialogues with the Assyrian Church of the East is another example. For centuries they were either ignored, to be converted to Byzantine, West Syriac, Coptic, etc or anathemized until Rome’s intense reunion dialogue with them.

Why do you claim this? Are you saying that our initiatives are somehow not our own, but that we owe some credit to Rome? I don’t understand how this could be when Rome has never been involved in them (they are between us and the Greeks only; we have different dialogues with you). But maybe you mean it in some different way.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Why do you claim this? Are you saying that our initiatives are somehow not our own, but that we owe some credit to Rome? I don’t understand how this could be when Rome has never been involved in them (they are between us and the Greeks only; we have different dialogues with you). But maybe you mean it in some different way.

Not at all, all credit for the dialogues go to the participants. However, much of this began around the time when Vatican 2 began. The Holy See invited many observers from Orthodox Churches, as well as some Protestant ones. This reawakened some EO and OO as to the similarities between the Churches. Even decades prior to this, there were ongoing initiatives from Rome for dialogue among the different Orthodox Churches.

 

[Kosta]

The truth is, if it wasn’t for the Catholic-Orthodox dialogues and Vatican II, many of the OO Churches and EO Churches still wouldn’t be on speaking terms. That the OO and EO consider each other Orthodox is a huge step forward, but it wouldn’t hurt to acknowledge that the Catholic Church did so first. The dialogues with the Assyrian Church of the East is another example. For centuries they were either ignored, to be converted to Byzantine, West Syriac, Coptic, etc or anathemized until Rome’s intense reunion dialogue with them.

Oh yes, please tell me how Rome paved the way to get us quarrelsome into the same room because we we’re too stubborn to do it ourselves. There was a recorded meeting of the two Patriarchs of Alexandria in the 1860’s under the rule of the Mameluk Sultan—nice try, my man, Vatican II didn’t make us all take each others’ hands and sing “kumbaya” afterall.

I’m not sure if you meant “for my health”, or what, but i would like to expand your thought way beyond what you said: I think the whole internet is pretty bad.

But at the same time I think both of them (this particular website and the internet overall) are what you make of them. I actually find that a surprisingly simple approach works well: namely when going through a thread, to look at (1) who a post is written by and (2) whom it is in response to (if anyone). If one or the other of those two things does not immediately cause me to want to skip the post, then I’ll probably read it.

I can understand how it might seem like “everyone here”. Good thing the Roman Communion isn’t governed by a majority-vote of CAF posters. (Seriously.)

Yes, I meant to write “health,” not wealth. It’s hard to write on forums on an iPhone.
Something we agree on, then! Hear, hear!

That’s too hard for me. The mind isn’t willing, so the flesh is definitely weak.

Something else we agree on! Hear, hear!

Maybe there are people who make ecumenism worth while .

I never get that emotionally invested in a thread. Christianity is not a zero-sum game. If we don’t challenge each other, no one will learn. “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” Proverbs 27:17

Why do you try to turn everything between us into a competition? I don’t even know you.
I’m a very emotional person: I leave a lot of destruction in my wake and this site has a tendency to make my blood boil. I’ll be about as sharp as a ka-bar soon.
How is Christianity not a zero-sum game? Either Jesus Christ is part of a Trinitarian Godhead and rose from the dead, or He’s not. Either one mortal man rules all of Christendom, or he doesn’t. Me and about 270 million people made our decision.

 

[a_priori]

Oh yes, please tell me how Rome paved the way to get us quarrelsome into the same room because we we’re too stubborn to do it ourselves. There was a recorded meeting of the two Patriarchs of Alexandria in the 1860’s under the rule of the Mameluk Sultan—nice try, my man, Vatican II didn’t make us all take each others’ hands and sing “kumbaya” afterall.

Yes, I meant to write “health,” not wealth. It’s hard to write on forums on an iPhone.
Something we agree on, then! Hear, hear!

That’s too hard for me. The mind isn’t willing, so the flesh is definitely weak.

Something else we agree on! Hear, hear!

Maybe there are people who make ecumenism worth while .

Why do you try to turn everything between us into a competition? I don’t even know you.
I’m a very emotional person: I leave a lot of destruction in my wake and this site has a tendency to make my blood boil. I’ll be about as sharp as a ka-bar soon.
How is Christianity not a zero-sum game? Either Jesus Christ is part of a Trinitarian Godhead and rose from the dead, or He’s not. Either one mortal man rules all of Christendom, or he doesn’t. Me and about 270 million people made our decision.

The point of this thread was to show that Catholics and Orthodox might have more in common than we think.*** It was intended as a positive thing***.

Coming to a Catholic forum and then being truly surprised when Catholics disagree with you is a very curious thing.

 

[Peter_J]

The truth is, if it wasn’t for the Catholic-Orthodox dialogues and Vatican II, many of the OO Churches and EO Churches still wouldn’t be on speaking terms.

Why do you claim this?

I think it’s a matter of the-truth-lies-somewhere-in-between.

There’s no question in my mind that there was a general ecumenical atmosphere at that time (and since). I guess I agree with your point, SyroMalankara, but I would just stress that the influence wasn’t unidirectional. (To put it in perspective, we would surely object if Anglicans claimed “We’re the reason that Roman Catholics are ecumenically minded” without any mention of the opposite direction.)

 

[onenow1]

I sense that there is an underlying assertion couched within this question. The original thing that rankled me a bit was when totalcatholic said “Everyone wants to be their own pope,” and now you’re asking me how do you decide which interpretation to follow? I will attempt to show you where the underlying assertion is.

“How do you decide which interpretation to follow?”

If I’m reading between the lines correctly, you’re asserting that if I don’t put the pope in charge of being the decider, I must of course be putting myself in charge of deciding. Is that correct? Because if that is the underlying assertion, I must disagree with that before I even begin to answer the question. You see, there is much that I do not decide. I said a bunch of things about experts and expertise in my earlier post, and just to clarify, I am not an expert. Experts do the real work, experts do the heavy lifting, I just try to know some things about what they come up with.

So to answer your question (finally), given a particular issue or verse that requires interpretation, I am likely to say something like “The expertise and scholarship on this matter has achieved a high level of consensus to the effect of thus and such.” Or I might say “I’m reasonably familiar with the work that’s gone into this issue, and consensus hasn’t been fully reached but I can tell you about a range of two or three main types of conclusions that are the strongest arguments and then there’s a few other ones that have basically been rejected after being put to the test, and I can tell you why those interpretations are flawed.” And sometimes, I might tell you I don’t have much familiarity with the work that’s gone into it and I just don’t know. That’s pretty much how it works. And now, in the reply to Randy Carson that immediately follows, I will give you a real-life example of how this works using an actual verse that he submitted for my analysis. Remember, this has a lot more to do with leaning on the work and scholarship and conclusions of experts than it does on my own attempts to act as if I were an expert, which I am not.

And that means I don’t put myself in charge of being a decider, as if I were a pope. I hope that my point has been made, and for those of you who enjoy speaking on behalf of those you disagree with, please occasionally listen to the people with whom you disagree so that you can state their tendencies with some accuracy.

WE should decide the way Christ decided, He chose St. Peter with His Father’s approval.

God Bless

 

[SyroMalankara]

Oh yes, please tell me how Rome paved the way to get us quarrelsome into the same room because we we’re too stubborn to do it ourselves. There was a recorded meeting of the two Patriarchs of Alexandria in the 1860’s under the rule of the Mameluk Sultan—nice try, my man, Vatican II didn’t make us all take each others’ hands and sing “kumbaya” afterall.

If you are thinking a citation of 1860 prior to 1962 under Islamic rule is an indication of progress, I don’t know what to tell you.

The progress made between CC-EO, CC-OO, EO-OO, and CC-ACoE since the 60s has been almost as much as the totality of all the dialogues prior. I don’t know about the EO, but the inter-OO dialogues have progressed exponentially since the 70s.
The same could have been said about the ELCA merger, the PCUSA merger, and a few others, if it wasn’t for the abject failure of the latter.

As Peter J pointed out earlier, this isn’t to deny that the Catholic Church learned much from the other assemblies, including the Protestant-Orthodox participation in the WCC. Although, today its seen pretty much an abject failure.

 

[Kosta]

The point of this thread was to show that Catholics and Orthodox might have more in common than we think.*** It was intended as a positive thing***.

Coming to a Catholic forum and then being truly surprised when Catholics disagree with you is a very curious thing.

Yes but why do you all disagree? These differences are no laughing matter and blaming us for stubbornness seems pointless to me. I came here to ease the denigration of Orthodoxy that I see around me and maybe clear up some misnomers, but I wouldn’t expect you to care since you left Orthodoxy for Catholicism.

If you are thinking a citation of 1860 prior to 1962 under Islamic rule is an indication of progress, I don’t know what to tell you.

The progress made between CC-EO, CC-OO, EO-OO, and CC-ACoE since the 60s has been almost as much as the totality of all the dialogues prior. I don’t know about the EO, but the inter-OO dialogues have progressed exponentially since the 70s.
The same could have been said about the ELCA merger, the PCUSA merger, and a few others, if it wasn’t for the abject failure of the latter.

As Peter J pointed out earlier, this isn’t to deny that the Catholic Church learned much from the other assemblies, including the Protestant-Orthodox participation in the WCC. Although, today its seen pretty much an abject failure.

Fast forward 155 years and things have gotten worse for Christians in Egypt. Since there, Nasserist policies removed the Greek and Armenian minorities and the successive despots and roving bands of Muslim Brotherhood members are looking to take out the Copts once and for all. I’ve heard someone stay that the state of Christianity in Egypt in the late 90’s to the present day hasn’t been this bad since the 13th Century, and I wholeheartedly agree.

I don’t know how much the Catholic Church has learned from anyone and I don’t really care. What I care about and refute is your statement that it’s been the Catholic Church that’s the one bringing my Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church together. We’re perfectly capable of doing that ourselves, thank you: outside help isn’t necessary. Let’s not forget what happened last time Catholics offered to help Orthodox communities.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let’s not forget what happened last time Catholics offered to help Orthodox communities.

No. We would NEVER want to forget that. It’s been 800 years, but we remember it like it was yesterday.

 

[Kosta]

No. We would NEVER want to forget that. It’s been 800 years, but we remember it like it was yesterday.

There are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches are: yesterday ain’t over yet.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I don’t know how much the Catholic Church has learned from anyone and I don’t really care. What I care about and refute is your statement that it’s been the Catholic Church that’s the one bringing my Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church together. We’re perfectly capable of doing that ourselves, thank you: outside help isn’t necessary. Let’s not forget what happened last time Catholics offered to help Orthodox communities.

Perhaps you choose to read everything in a combative manner, or you just don’t like Catholics - I don’t know and I don’t care. I didn’t say Catholics offered to help Orthodox in their own affairs at all, I stated that Vatican 2 and other similar venues provided an opportunity and an impetus for Orthodox to do something similar which they did on their own.

If it were up to you and those of this mindset in 75yrs ago, the Orientals would still be monophysite heretics and Catholics, well pretty much the way you state. Fortunately, the majority of laity and bishops choose not to interpret the world that way.