Another question to consider (and one which is dividing Orthodoxy)

What to do now with the Oriental Orthodox -- the Copts and the like. It would certainly not be fair (or theologically accurate) to consider them "Monophysites" at this time in history, especially in light of the Declaration on Christology signed by both Pope Shenouda and Pope Paul in 1973:

It is the desire of Pope Shenouda to see the reconciliation between the Oriental churches and the Orthodox churches -- and some Orthodox churches have responded favorably. Others have not.

Can anyone weigh in on this?

Blessings,

In the Christian world there are roughly two types of Christian communions: churches and ecclesial communities.

The former (churches) are made up of communities that have mainitained apostolic succession and preach and practice seven sacraments/mysteries. Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Old Catholics like the PNCC as well as "breakaway" groups like Old Calendar Orthodox, the ICABB, and PERHAPS some Anglican bodies that have recieved the spiscopate outside the Anglican communion from Orthodox and Old Catholics, etc.

The latter (ecclesial communities) includes the vast majority of the Protestant world. Posessing two valid sacraments, (name them!) these groups would include the Lutheran communion, Methodists, Baptsts, etc.

Well in the Christian world the two communions comprising of churches that should and would seem most likely to heal a rupture would NOT - at face value - seem to be the (Byzantine) Eastern Orthodox and Rome, but rather the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox communities. The Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Eastern Churches.

Why should THESE two communities have such favorable chances at intercommunion? Well with time and scholarship, dialogue and patience and prayer, some centuries old linguistic situations are being cleared up and clarified. Additionally, unlike communion with Rome, neither party would be called to accept any degree of "papal recognition" or "western innovation" that most all parties in both communions are at least somewhat uncomfortable. Put plainly, they commonly share in their objection of certain Roman concepts...

Barring the intentions of the original fathers of the schism, it is becoming clearer that their modern day sons and daughters likely DO NOT posses the misgivings and understandings their forebearers were at least percieved to hold.

The Christians of the "west" (in the mind of the Oriental communions, Greeks ARE western!<G>) are better seeing that MAYBE it was more an issue of misinterpretation that caused the barriers and impediments to full communion between the Oriental Churches and the EO. With greater clarification and patience, we are begining to see that perhaps the "Nestorians" were not nearly as Nestorian as we thought. Perhaps the Monophosites were not really very "Monophositic" after all. Maybe, sadly, we all just got our words lost in translation a bit. If it is esablished with certainty that both communions in fact DO share a common understanding, as some are begining to suspect, where do we go from there?

WHO CAN MAKE COMMUNION AGREEMENTS?

But here is the rub, what or which patriarch, synod or mechanism is in place or could be put in place to restore full communion of the Christian East?

The Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Alexandria certainly both enjoy a pride of place. Some would disagree of course, but I think it is fair to say that each see generally is appreciated as being a visible figurehead for their communions at least on the level of senior or ranking patriarch.

The PoC has certain privelages - through understandings - of overseeing and speaking for certain "diaspora" communities that have set up diocese outside of their homeland, and in the instances where there is a move to create or establish new or autonomous jurisdictions, his recognition is seen as a very good thing, but not considered essential. In some cases, this see does NOT recognize the independent and self-governing status of certain churches that other EO patriarchs (especially Moscow) DO recognize.

But neither should be seen as a "quasi-Pope of Rome" to their respective communities, as neither is viewed or attempts to assert a position within their respective communities to "speak for" their individual communions authoritatively.

So here is my $64,000 question: If the faithful and hiearchies of both communions evince (as one would hope they should!) a desire to end centuries of division, how would or could such a feat be accomplished?

Lacking any two patriarchal sees between the two bodies that could simply sit down and hammer out an agreement, would EACH Oriental Orthodox national church and EACH Eastern Orthodox national church need to establish communion one by one by one? Would Pope Shenouda of Alexandria need to go from Constantinople to Moscow to Bucharest to (you get the idea) to establish a pact of communion and create a healing of schism with each singular body? Would the Patriarch of Moscow need to send delegates to the Armenians, Copts, Syriac Orthodox, Indian Orthodox, etc to reconcile to each?

That is the $64,000 question. Now to the $32,000 question!

WHAT ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS MUST BE REACHED?

The non-Chalcedonians (Oriental Orthodox) are only accepting of the first four ecumenical councils that the Chalcedonian (Eastern [Greek/Byzantine] Orthodox) accept. What demands ought to be made of the Oriental Eastern Churches to "bring them up to speed" with the councils they do not accept?

In the reception of Roman clergy into the EO, there has been at least three different canonical realities. (1) Some Byzantines, (like the Johnstown Greek Catholics, the liquidated Ukrainian Catholic Church, etc.) have been recieved into communion en masse perhaps with simple chrismation or an oath of allegiance to an Orthodox patriarch.

(2) SOME roman clergy who married post ordination were NOT recieved as priests or re-ordained because it was the perception of the hierach that the petitioned that there Roman orders were valid, and that it would be uncanonical for them to serve as Orthodox priests, having entered marriage after ordination. (3) Others have roundly ignored this idea and accepted and incardinated ex-non-Orthodox clergy who contracted marriage after ordination, recognizing the ordination as valid but not recognizing the post-ordination marriage as an impediment....

(4) Some have been re-ordained (or in the eyes of some EO, ordained for the first time!) in the same mannner certain ex-Anglicans who have come to Rome have been. While it seems to be a minority opinion among what we recognize as mainstream EO (in the US) today, some pozit that the original Roman ordination was graceless. I believe this would be the likely view of the majority of "Old Calendar" Orthodox - some of whom are in communion with SOME national churches, some of whom are not.

While I have not read much debate specifically on EO views on OO orders and mysteries, some views I have read (likely broadly meant to be mostly addressing Roman orders) do speak with certitude about non-Orthodox mysteries being graceless. While it may not be the case that this is a majority view (or it may be the case that it is in SOME places) who could settle this objection? No matter how this question were generally settled - if it even could be - it seems fairly likely that multiple parties from either communion would not be accepting of the solution provided.

On another score, I have read that before WWI, a segment of the Armenian Oriental Orthodox Church had been reconciled to the Moscow Patriarchate. Unfortuntely (and I would appreciate some help here!) I have not been able to find out a lot about the terms of this union. I have read this much in an edition of Bp KALISTOS (Ware)'s book the venerable "The Orthodox Church" that the Russian party, while allowing for the continued use of the Armenian langauge, insisted on the adoption of Greek rites in the the Armenian tongue.

(I believe the forebearer's of today's Orthodox Church of Georgia were also originally numbered among the "monophosytes" but today they are in the EO communion and employ Byzantine/Greek rites. But to be honest, I do NOT know the hitory of the Georgians ritual usage at all.)

Today, in light of the fact that some hierarchs have made allowances for "western rite" Orthodox communities using variations of the reconstructed Sarum missal, the Tridentine Mass, and or a revised Book of Common Prayer, the issue of ritual ussage may or may not present problems.

(Bear in mind that the acceptance of these "western rites" has not been universally accepted, and certain non-Antiochan Orthodox EO bishops in the US who are not part of the Antiochan jursidiction have forbade thier own priests from celebrating or assisting in said western rites. Given how localized this western ritual expression is to the US and to the UK, one wonders if they would be accepted if they were investigated by a broader range of hiearchs throught the world.)

But my point is this: How would it be determined what ritual expression could be part of a united Eastern Chrsitianity?

On all these points, barring a final authority to look to and say "What he rules/they rule we accept, who stands with him/them is Orthodox, who does not is not!" these challenges, seem likely to to create certain problems that are possibly as daunting or vexing as to the very question:

"Why are these two communions STILL divided?"

Greetings, my friends

Let me brag on a good buddy!

On Sunday, I attended the Ph.D graduation of one of my closest friends (and the godfather to one of my children).

My friend, Fr. Kenneth Yossa, is an Eastern-Rite priest (Romanian) in full communion with Rome. The subject of his dissertation was the relationship between the Oriental and Orthodox churches, and the remaining barriers to unity. His director (a leading, if a bit liberal, Catholic ecumenist) has suggested that Fr. Yossa's work is the most important work on the subject extant in the Western Hemisphere. He literally traveled the world doing his research (India, Syria, Switzerland) and has hopes that his dissertation will be published in book form.

I sincerely hope so!

"Where charity and love prevail, there God is ever found . . . "

Blessings,

David,


My wife is Romanian. Very deep spirituality with the Romanian's. Sorry I haven't been able to reply in a while; I have been very ill and have not been up to posting. I Will post more later; I promise.

Doamne Milueste!!!!!!!

Jake

You and your family are in my prayers.

Blessings,

Jake,

Prayers uplifted for you and your family...


Roy

Jake,

I am very sorry to hear that. You will be remembered in my prayers. Supposing you are "new Calendar" Christ is Born!

2006 for me and for many has not been the very best year to date. Here is to hoping for a better 2007!

Simple

Simple,

I hear you on 2006 being an up and down time for many of us. I for one am glad that 2007 is just about here. I know I said back at the beginning of Advent Happy New Year as in the Church Calendar and I am now saying Happy New Year to all for a prosperous year and blessing for all here in 2007. Praise God from whom all blessing flow especially for getting us through the tough times during this year of transition for many.. Praise God I only have 3 months and 1 week until my being confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church and being able to receive the Blessed Sacrament.... I am looking forward to the last half of RCIA. I am trusting this process and how sweet it will be on the East Vigil when I will be able to receive the Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament for the first time.. Again Blessings to us all for prosperous new year....

Tony aka: The Baloney Man :D B) :)

I too am looking forward to being received into the Church this upcoming Easter. The Lord is blessing me now in my spiritual communion as I attend Mass each week. How much more glorious it will be when I will be able to receive His precious Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. Thanks be to God for His indescribable Gift to us! His blessings are beyond counting and His mercies are new every morning!

A most blessed and joyous new year to all of you!

Peace,
Patrick

I am rather disappointed that this topic has sputtered and died out. Anyone have any interest in pursuing things further here?

I am!

Likewise my friends, I am disappointed to see the lack of participation, not only in this topic but others as well. I'm wondering if the holiday break simply took folks away from the discussions and they haven't returned yet?

I know I would like to see continued comments from those within and those who departed the CEC to track their progress, hopefully, on both sides. I also know we were starting some pretty interesting discussions surrounding topics related to those of us who are in RCIA or still considering such a move.

And I do miss the great postings in which links to sites providing definitive answers were posted... hopefully folks will return in many areas!!

Blessings to all

Roy

Dear Roy: I think there are a lot of reasons people are not posting so much, the biggest being that for most, the crises and information gathering are over.

For some of those still interested, one of the comments I have heard is that they get tired of being made to feel as if they don't "go home to Rome" they are homeless and less worthy second class people.

Just my thoughts.
rusty+

Fr. Rusty,

I hear you but I am sorry you feel that way... 81 one days and couting until HOME IN ROME. :lol: :D :P

Hey Tony: I do not want to be miss-understood.
I am so very happy for you, overjoyed in fact!
God bless you and I would never do anything to dampen that great joy for you.

What I would like to see from the Romans is that they would be glad, happy and feel joy for those of us who find our home in other branches of the Church Catholic.
I believe we should all be where God wants to place us in the body, and we all have need of each other.
I do see a typology, if you will, with the scriptures in this, and it is quite different than some C.E.C. folks wanted us to believe, see, I have need of you, just as the body cannot say to itself I have no need of the other parts, the eye cannot say it has no need of the hand, so to I cannot say I have no need of Rome or Roman Catholics.
I do need you, I need the Orthodox, I have need of the whole Body of Christ, and we all have our part to play.

Oh how I wish we all were one, but we did not cause this mess in the body of Christ and it will not get fixed overnight, so we live, and we learn, with Gods help.

So I rejoice in your life, I rejoice in you being where you are supposed to be, and I would ask that you rejoice with me wherever God places me and that together we work for better unity for us all.

And one day, we will all be truly Home, Home with God, Home with Christ as we sit at the table of the Lord, rejoicing in God our Savior and in all that He did to get us there, and, rejoicing at seeing each other there,,,,Home, finally and wonderfully Home for eternity.

in HIM,
Fr. Rusty

Fr Rusty,

I rejoice in you and your place with us! You are not forgotten and it is good to see you back again. By the way, my Rosary is absolutely beautiful, it is a work of art. I am working to get to the place I pray it every day, but I'm still in "training", its hard to break old habits to reconstruct my schedule. With His Grace, I will be able to do so!

My regards & prayers to you and Sister Nell, you are truly God's people and for that I am Blessed!


In Him


Roy

Dear Roy: The joy is in seeing you grow and your journey deepen, that is one of the great joys of being in the Family of God.

I will be sure to let Nell know of your post, she will be very pleased.

Isn't this really what it is supposed to be about, edifying one another.

If we have been any help to you on your journey into wherever God wants you to be, then we are just grateful of having the honor of being a small part of that journey.
Now I should not be speaking for Nell, but I feel sure her feeling will be much like mine.

God bless you as you carry on.

in HIM,
Rusty+

Fr. Rusty,
We have missed your input on the forum!

May I ask...what is happening with you and your church now? Have you sensed any definite direction for the future?

Yes, the roads may lead us to different new "homes" (Rome, Orthodoxy, etc.)...but we all have a past together. And we are still brothers and sisters in Christ. We have all gone through quite a time "together" through this forum.

Keep us updated, dear brother.

TS

I thought some of you might be interested in the following article, taken from the Detroit Free Press.

Ancient Ways Entice Detroit Christians

Note at the end of the article very brief mention is made of the fact that the mission this mand will form and serve as an Orthodox priest will be a "western rite" body.

The western rite used by the Antiochan Orthodox is served in individual parishes and the majority of the western congregations use a modified version of the BCP. (I understand that there are some parishes that use a type or Mass comparable to the Anglican Missal translation of the Tridentine missal...)

Western Rite Orthodox

The use of a western rite in Orthodoxy is interesting. For years, it has been a source of contention that certain Orthodox bodies have achieved communion with the Roman Church maintianing Greek Rites (so called "Uniates"). In the past centruy there has been a slowly growing movement to create a viable western expression of the Orthodox faith.

At this time, I think it is fair to say the jury is still out on this one. A certain hierarch of the Greek Church has forbidden his priests to concelebrate in such rites or for western vestments to be worn by concelebrating clergy.

One wonders if a day will come when the Western Orthodox will want their own bishops and diocese/eparchies.

Thats interesting, do you know which One is forbidding this?
rusty+

With a little googling, you can find out the name... I am not sure I am interested because the point isn't so much that this certain bishop is forbidding it, but more that it is an issue at all.

There is more than enough - dare I suggest TOO much discussion of the motives of figures in authority on the A&FCF/D board...

The point is there seems to be at least a little bit of difficulty in coming to a consensus about what rites of the Western Church could fit into Orthodoxy. Really, who or what is in place to decide that?

Dear SS: It is important to validate information when we give it.
I have many friends that I love dearly, and I do mean dearly, that are considering making Western Rite their last life journey just as there are many here making Rome their last journey.

If there are problems, known issues that could have the rug pulled out from under them, then they should know that.
But they cannot make decisions based on non-confirmed information.

These things are a great concern to me, and should be to all of us that people we love taking different journeys as those relationships will , in most cases, be forever changed.

People that were once very, very close, will, as they embark on different journeys, drift away from each other.

Oh, they will mean to stay close, and they will remain friends, but their relationship will grow more distant as time goes on as they build the relationships they need within their choice of a Church.

But even putting that aside, if there are problems looming for the future of something like this, then they need the evidence of that to factor in to their decisions.

If we know of it, but do not present it well, and they get hurt, then some of the responsibility for that hurt belongs to the ones who knew and did not give out that information.

In all of this, facts are needed, hearsay will not help.

That’s why I asked if you knew who it was, hoping you could direct me to something to read and research.

Thanks for you time.

in HIM,
Rusty+

Fr. Rusty,

I don't know if this will help clear things up, or further muddy the waters. I cannot comment on SS's assertion re: the Greek Church. But I do know from my own research that the Western Rite is very small. I suggest anyone considering it should explore the website at www.westernorthodox.org. You will notice only a smattering of churches listed throughout the nation. Upon further inspection you will find that very few of these places are self sustaining. They are renting facilities and struggling along with very few parishoners.

In addition I would also suggest that they contact the bishop of the area as well as any other Orthodox clergy. I feel confident that the picture that will emerge is that the Western Rite is frowned upon by many as not truly Orthodox.

With all this in mind, I think anyone considering the Western Rite should think about the fact that there will be very little fellowship, perhaps a good deal of criticism, and a lot of work as they will be carving out brand new missions. In other words, this will be a lot like being in the CEC all over again.

So those are some thoughts to pass along to your friends. I hope it is helpful.

Peace!

Fr. Rusty,

I tend to agree with Patrick here. I do wish that A Simple Sinner would back up his assertion -- but I see no future in Western Rite Orthodoxy.

My biggest concern is that Metropolitan Philip -- while a good and godly man -- is the "prime mover" behind the movement -- and he is very elderly, has had several heart attacks, and is not necessarily "in sync" with other Orthodox hierarchs. I don't see the movement successfully outliving him.

Blessings,

Leaving aside other discussions of figures of authority . . . ;)

I too, would be interested in your source. I've tried googling -- and have come up with some interesting stuff (to say the least) but not the answer to this question.

Honestly, though, I'm not surprised (having expressed my greatest concern with Western Rite Orthodoxy in my previous post.)

Blessings,

Patrick,

Thanks I couldn't agree with you more.... Have a blessed day.....I am glad to have gone Home to Rome


72 Days and Counting :lol:


Take Care Tony :) B)

The enemy will do everything in his power to keep Christians divided. However the unity gained must be at the extent of the truth not its expense. I have a dear friend who teaches RCIA who says, "I'd rather you be a good Protestant than have you be a bad Catholic!" Yet, as I am fully convinced, God would have us be Catholics, good or bad. He is the judge of what is deemed good anyway. There is much evil among ALL denominations, even the Catholics, Orthodox and all protestants.

So I am baptised. Who says it must be a Trinitarian baptism? The Church. I believe the Bible. Who says it is the Bible? The Church. I have Apostolic Succession. Who gave it to me? The Church.

So what is the Church? "Simon (reed), you are Kepha/ Peter/ Petra (rock) and upon this kepha I will build My Church," stated Jesus, who happens to be the Creator of the universe.

Your Bible, your baptism and your bishop comes from the successor of Kepha, the bishop of Rome, so why do you 'bite the hand that has fed you'?

Didn't Jesus say of the Church, His Kingdom expression on Earth (Rev. 1:6), that there would be 'tares among wheat', 'carp among trout', 'nested pigeons in a mustard tree'? He knew there would be pedi-erotic priests, feminist nuns, effeminate catamites, sodomites and me (chief of sinners) when he said this.

Why, in God's precious name, do we then not accept Jesus' Church/ Kingdom? Instead we have sown a new crop, escaped the dragnet and planted a new tree.

Saint Cyprian wrote, 'what rascal, what traitor, what madman would be so misled by the spirit of discord as to believe that it is permitted to rend, or who would dare rend the Divine unity, the garment of the Lord, the Church of Jesus Christ?' (De eccl., unit., viii); 'The spouse of Christ is chaste and incorruptible. Whoever leaves the Church to follow an adulteress renounces the promises of the Church. He that abandons the Church of Christ will not receive the rewards of Christ. He becomes a stranger, an ungodly man, an enemy. God cannot be a Father to him to whom the Church is not a mother. As well might one be saved out of the ark of Noah as out of the Church. . . . He who does not respect its unity will not respect the law of God; he is without faith in the Father and the Son, without life, without salvation'" (op. cit., viii).

Please read http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

Father Rusty,

I really hope they don't make decisions on nonconfirmed information - especially if I am the progenitor of it, third hand from you. I think we are at a point where no one who actively participates in these forums would deny that it is bad to circulate unsourced rumors that are sources of major contention or revelation...

Having said that, anyone who can be troubled to google or wikiepedia "Western Rite Orthodox" or go to http://orthodoxwiki.org could do at least this much research.


Bishop Anthony Issues Encyclical on "Western Rite"

Western Rite Criticism

http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/western...espondence.html

Here are three links including info on an encyclical written by the GOA bishop discouraging and forbidding inter-ritual concelebrating.

But honestly Father Rusty, the idea that these are somehow non-confirmed or possibly dubious accusations on my part kind of goes to the level of research people are doing on the WR. I hav every confifidence that person's putting the care of their eternal souls will do a bit more due dilligence than go by what I have posted... All one needed to do was go to www.Google.com and type in "Western Rite Criticism" and all of this is there. Those of us who have had at least a passing interest over the years in tracking this movement in the greater Orthodox communion would have been aware. Certainly persons who are considering making WRO their home, should be learning of this!

But I think it is interesting to note the great emphasis on being Western Rite on the part of some seekers? Why? I am Byzantine Catholic and proud of my Greek patrimony, but if I could not worship in Greek rites, being Catholic comes first to me.

Would your very close friends contemplate the move to Orthodoxy for it being a true home even IF they had to pack away their old BCPs?

I don't mean to come off as surly or arrogant, but as a Greek Catholic who has suffered the brunt of cries of "Uniatism", I have watched these Orthodox "Uniates" with some interest over the years... and I am left with an impression of a very mixed bag. Some seem to have a wide view of Orthodoxy wishing to encompass a western expression. More than a few have left me with a feeling they are looking to “do their thing” in Orthodoxy.

Years ago when I was at a crossroads as to weather I wanted to remain a Greek Catholic like my grandmother or enter Orthodoxy I did a lot of exploring on the issue. At one point I believe I was on every mailing list of every English language publishing company - from the GOA to the Old Calendarists, from OCA to ROCOR, and at one point I even drove about 2 hours to visit a monastic community affiliated with the "Orthodox Church of France".

(Interestingly, at the time I corresponded between this monk of the OCF and a monk of a monastery down in TX who was with an old calendar jurisdiction - both repudiated the history and usage of the other's western rite challenging the other's validity. Of course, one of them used the "Gallican Missal" while the other used the "Sarum Missal" which are different from the MAIN missals used by ROCOR and the AOC...)

Good luck to your friends pursuing Orthodoxy. For their sakes', I hope they pursue Orthodoxy first, and western rites second.

In the end, my concearns remain not about WHOM has expresed his misgivings about the rite(s) of Western Orthodoxy, but rather how it is that this expression of faith will find a place in an already divided communion lacking a mageisterial authority to place an imprimatur on it.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Western_Rite_Criticism

http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/western...encyclical.html

Sorry, I had meant to post these links....

Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware says, "From the start Greeks and Latins had each approached the Christian Mystery in their own way. The Latin approach was more practical, the Greek more speculative; Latin thought was influenced by juridical ideas, by the concepts of Roman law, while the Greeks understood theology in the context of worship and in the light of the Holy Liturgy. When thinking about the Trinity, Latins started with the unity of the Godhead, Greeks with the threeness of the persons; when reflecting on the Crucifixion, Latins thought primarily of Christ the Victim, Greeks of Christ the Victor; Latins talked more of redemption, Greeks of deification; and so on. Like the schools of Antioch and Alexandria within the east, these two distinctive approaches were not in themselves contradictory; each served to supplement the other, and each had its place in the fullness of Catholic tradition. But now that the two sides were becoming strangers to one another — with no political and little cultural unity, with no common language — there was a danger that each side would follow its own approach in isolation and push it to extremes, forgetting the value in the opposite point of view."

It is not "apples and oranges", it is two sides to the proverbial coin. In the end, it is selfishness, rebellion and scandal that we are not visibly one.

The events of AD 1054 were the result of conflicts in culture, language, rites and politics. Do you think we are past these in our time?

Ken,

Nice Post :)


Tony :rolleyes:

"It is easier to understand how a schism continues than how it began. Schisms are easily made; they are enormously difficult to heal. The religious instinct is always conservative; there is always a strong tendency to continue the existing state of things. At first the schismatics were reckless innovators; then with the lapse of centuries their cause seems to be the old one; it is the Faith of the Fathers. Eastern Christians especially have this conservative instinct strongly. They fear that reunion with Rome would mean a betrayal of the old Faith, of the Orthodox Church, to which they have clung so heroically during all these centuries. One may say that the schism continues mainly through force of inertia."

"In its origin we must distinguish between the schismatical tendency and the actual occasion of its outburst. But the reason of both has gone now. The tendency was mainly jealousy caused by the rise of the See of Constantinople. That progress is over long ago. The last three centuries Constantinople has lost nearly all the broad lands she once acquired. There is nothing the modern Orthodox Christian resents more than any assumption of authority by the oecumenical patriarch outside his diminished patriarchate. The Byzantine see has long been the plaything of the Turk, wares that he sold to the highest bidder. Certainly now this pitiful dignity is no longer a reason for the schism of nearly 100,000,000 Christians. Still less are the immediate causes of the breach active. The question of the respective rights of Ignatius and Photius leaves even the Orthodox cold after eleven centuries; and Caerularius's ambitions and insolence may well be buried with him. Nothing then remains of the original causes."

"There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism. The Decree of Florence made every possible concession to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church."

"That is the right attitude towards the Orthodox always. They have a horror of being latinized, of betraying the old Faith. One must always insist that there is no idea of latinizing them, that the old Faith is not incompatible with, but rather demands union with the chief see which their Fathers obeyed. In canon law they have nothing to change except such abuses as the sale of bishoprics and the Erastianism that their own better theologians deplore. Celibacy, azyme bread, and so on are Latin customs that no one thinks of forcing on them. They need not add the Filioque to the Creed; they will always keep their venerable rite untouched. Not a bishop need be moved, hardly a feast (except that of St. Photius on 6 Feb.) altered."

"All that is asked of them is to come back to where their Fathers stood, to treat Rome as Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom treated her. It is not Latins, it is they who have left the Faith of their Fathers. There is no humiliation in retracing one's steps when one has wandered down a mistaken road because of long-forgotten personal quarrels. They too must see how disastrous to the common cause is the scandal of the division. They too must wish to put an end to so crying an evil. And if they really wish it the way need not be difficult. For, indeed, after nine centuries of schism we may realize on both sides that it is not only the greatest it is also the most superfluous evil in Christendom."

The "Pope":
- The Orthodox do not accept the supremacy of the Pope, as the only successor of Peter.
- The Orthodox do not have a central authority, no one even claims to be the successor of "Peter", with the immense authority given to him, and only to him and his successors!, by Jesus in Matt.16, Jn.21, Acts.1-9.,
- If the Orthodox could accept the authority of the Pope, as the successor of Peter, all the other differences would be immediately eliminated.
David and Peter: The shepherds of the People of God.
Jesus did with "Peter" what God had done with "David":
1- In Ezekiel 34 God says repeatedly "I myself will look after and tend my sheep"... "I myself will pasture my sheep" (34:11-15)... but in verse 23, God says: "I will appoint one shepherd over my sheep to pasture them, my servant David; he shall pasture my sheep and be their shepherd"... and so, he who is loyal to David or his successors, belongs to the People of God, and he who is not loyal to David or his successors, does not belong to the People of God, even if he is a Jew born in Jerusalem, rather he is a rebel, or a heretic ("heretic" means "rebel")
2- Jesus did the same: In John 10 he repeats "I am the shepherd... I am the good shepherd"... but in John 21, after resurrection, Jesus says 3 times to Peter, and only to Peter, in front of the other Apostles, "feed my lambs... tend my sheep... feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17)... "my lambs"... "my sheep"... the lambs and sheep of Jesus!... so now, accordingly, he who is loyal to Peter or his successors, belongs to the only Church of Christ, and he who is not loyal to Peter or his successors, does not belong to the Church of Christ, even if he knows all the Bible by heart, he is a rebel, or a heretic...

The Primacy of Peter in the NT:
"Peter" was chosen by Jesus to be the "leader" of the 12, and of the whole Church of Christ:
- In Matt.16, Jesus promised Peter the primacy
- In John 21, Jesus gave it to him.
- In Acts, Peter exercised it.
1- In Matt.16:19: "I will give you, Peter, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven".
Here, Jesus offers to Peter, 2 things:
A- Jesus offers Peter, and only to Peter, the prime authority to the Kingdom "keys of the kingdom", in front of the other 11 Apostles.
B- Jesus promises Peter doctrinal authority and infallibility... if whatever he binds or looses on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven, it is because whatever he binds or looses it is the truth, "infallible", "without any possibility of error"!.

2- In John 21:15-17:In his last apparition to the Apostles after resurrection, "Jesus said to Simon Peter... feed "my" lambs... a second time... tend "my" sheep... the third time... feed "my" sheep"...
The other Apostles were there, but only to Peter Jesus gave the order: Feed and tend my lambs and sheep... "my" sheep!... those of Jesus!.
3- In Acts: Peter exercises his "supremacy". He is the one talking, when all the Apostles are present. The first 11 chapters of Acts, report 8 rather long sermons of Peter (1:15, 2:14, 3:12, 4:8, 5:29, 8:20, 10:34, 11:4).
- Another important fact in Acts:

When Judas died, the other Apostles decided to name one to do the job Judas was supposed to do, "to take the place in this ministry and apostleship which Judas abandoned... and they choose Matthias, who was added to the 11 apostles" (Act.1:15-26)... you can be sure that when Peter died, the other apostles did the same, they choose one to do the job Peter did and Pope Benedict XVI is the 263 successor of Peter.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0106.asp

Here is a thought:

Since Pope Leo IX died three months before his Bull of Excommunication was given to the Patriarch of Constantinople, was it valid any longer? Perhaps not.

If so, since it was only the Patriarch Cerularius, Leo of Achrida and their followers who were excommunicated did that mean all under his see were excommunicated? Perhaps not. Therefore the vast majority, if not all, of the Orthodox are indeed Catholics.

Additionally, the Patriarch of Constantinople NEVER excommunicated the Pope, or Catholics for that matter, but only the Pope's three legates. Therefore, the Catholics should be considered Orthodox from their point of view.

Besides, in 1965 Patriarch Athenagorus and the Pope nullified the Papal excommunication of 1054, if it was indeed valid, and the Constaninople excommunications of the three papal delegates-Cardinal Humbert, Cardinal Frederick of Lorraine, and Abp. Peter. I suspect they met together in Heaven with Patriarch Cerularius and had a cheerful, tearful reunion as the Catholic-Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965 was read out on 7 December 1965. Hmmm....

Therefore there is no schism except in polity. We are indeed one church!!!!

Besides they don't have to say the Filioque in the Creed, use unleavened bread, follow the Latin rite, decree celibacy for all clergy, define Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, The Assumption, Papal Infallibilty the way the West does either, according to the Vatican's own admission. They can still follow the Julian/lunar calendar. If they do, at least let it be in English. Let's drop the Greek, Latin, and Aramaic and at least use English while we are together since that is the international language, so I am told.

What say you?

One Orthodox priest writes," It is important to note, at this point, that the sentences of excommunication were against individuals and not against the Churches as a whole. Also, there is some question as to whether or not Cardinal Humbert’s power as papal legate was still in effect inasmuch as the Pope had already died at the time Humbert excommunicated Patriarch Michael."

"Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. . . . The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware" (Ware, 67).

This changed when the Byzantine Empire collapsed suddenly on 5/29/1453. A soldier forgot to lock one of the gates of the fortified city of Constantinople, and the Turks sacked the city. With the Turks in control of the capital city, the rest of the empire crumbled quickly. Under pressure from Muslims, most of the Eastern churches repudiated their union with Rome, and this is the split that persists to this day. The current Eastern Orthodox communion dates from the 1450s, making it a mere six decades older than the Protestant Reformation. Source: Catholic Answers

Is this true, that Islam instigated the real Schism we have experienced between Catholics and Orthodox since 5/29/1453? http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

I would say yes.

That last Byzantine Emperor had never refuted the union of Florence and died after having recieved communion from Isidore of Kiev.

The Ottomans did NOT wish to see unity between East and West for fear of a more unifieed front in the Christian world against the spread of the Ottoman Empire. Filial loyallty to and recognition of a character of authority in the Roman See - a see outside the control of the Turks, would certainly have been as unpalitable to the Empire than as as ever. In modern times, think of the radical distaste of the People's Republic of China for the Vatican. Their distrust of a "foreign leader" having sway over Chinese Catholics is so strong that they have set up a rival Catholic Church they can control. Not too different a situation with the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman strategy for dealing with the Orthodox in the empire relied heavily on appointing and controlling the Patriarchate with "yes men" Go through the history of the Church in Constantinople since the conquest of it by the Ottomans, and you will see a SAD history of being bullied and the office being manipulated for the benifit of the Imperial whims.

But my biggest frustration in dealing with some apologists and would-be historians is when they refer to 1054 as THE historic rupture in Christendom where the Roman Patriarch left communion with the 4 other "Pentarchs" Roundly ignoring the divisions and schism of the east prior to that date and reunions affected thereafter.

http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2006/06/b...of-hell_26.html

You may be shocked as you read this. I am still awed.

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/librar..._Augustine.html

Ken,
So what's your conclusion?
Jaybird

Thanks, A Simple Sinner, for all your wonderful contributions on this forum. I appreciate that you are toning down on sarcasm in your statements. As I have learned, honey is more attractive than vinegar. Your last post was well written and well received.