Q_A Orthodox Catholic

8/9/2019 Q_A Orthodox Catholic

1/9

http://home.att.net/~sergei592/NewQ_A

5/13/2008

Blog Faith News & Politics About This Site E-mail Guestbook

Things Roman Catholics often

dont understand

about Eastern Orthodoxy Part 1:Introduction

Part 2:The Orthodox tradition

Why arent you under the Pope?

RTHODOX believe the Church in its fullness is present wherever the faithful are gathered round their

bishop a successor to the apostles holding the true faith celebrating the Eucharist. (Priests in the

thinking of the early Church are ordained to stand in for the bishop at the local communitys offering of

the Holy Sacrifice.) Therefore national or autocephalous (self-headed) churches (under their own

patriarchs some of these patriarchates date back to the apostles) are each the Church in its fullness. (The

patriarch of Constantinople is not the Orthodox Pope or the spiritual head of the worlds Orthodox

Christians as is often wrongly reported.)

The word Churchoften is used in four ways: the one true Church (the universal or CatholicChurch) is made

up of Churches (particular autocephalous or autonomous churches) in communion with each other. These in

turn are made up of local churches each gathered round a bishop, and these are made up of localcongregations (including, for example, geographical parishes).

Roman Catholicismagrees with much of this Orthodox understanding but it holds that communion with only

one patriarch, the Pope of Rome (who indeed was pre-eminent in the pre-schism Church), is necessary to be

fully the Church. He is regarded as both the patriarch of his particular Church, the Roman one, and a kind of

super-patriarch, the vicar of Christ, of the entire universal Church. This implies (but doesnt actually say) that

the Roman Church (its rite, its theological schools of thought), of which the Pope is patriarch, is somehow

superior to the Byzantine and other Churches: more Catholic, as if Roman equalled universal. Many

Roman Catholics at least unconsciously take this as a given. Unfortunately, this in practice relegates the

Eastern Churches to second-class status. This is unacceptable to all Orthodox.

Before the Schism, the historic, apostolic Orthodox Churches of the East, which like Rome accepted the

Council of Chalcedons teaching on the two natures of Christ, were in communion withthe Pope but never

were underhim as parts of his patriarchate.

What it boils down to really is: is and has the Pope always really been the head of the whole church on earth

with immediate jurisdiction everywhere (so why bishops then?), the RC position today, or is the Pope simply

one of several man-made ranks, like other patriarchs, metropolitans and archbishops, in the divinely instituted

episcopate, the apostolic ministry? (To hold to the latter is not to hate the papacy or Western Catholicism,

believe theyre graceless heretics and so on, which is where I think I and many/most Orthodox sharply part


2/9


5/13/2008

...because Catholicitycannot be

truly Catholic universal

without you, without the other

authentic and apostolic half of

Christs Church, we have no

intention of replacing you in this

Church, for you are the only onecapable of preparing us a place in

it. Only as the Catholic Church

opens and affords you a loving

home within its fold, on an equal

basis with the Latins, will we be

able to feel at home in it

ourselves.

Metropolitan Joseph (Slipyj), who

spent nearly 20 years in Soviet prisons

for not breaking with Rome to servethe Communists

ways.)

The Catholic Church has the Eastern rites. Why dont you all just

join those?

Roman Catholicism holds the Orthodox have real bishops and real

sacraments and therefore that corporate reunion with the Orthodox as

whole Churches, not as individual converts, is possible. (This is not true

of Protestants.) This in part makes the existence of the Eastern Catholic

Churches (also called the Eastern rites or the Oriental rites) possible.

But:

The creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches from the late 1500s

onwards reflected a thinking among many Catholics that identified the

Church in its fullness with the Roman Rite. Rather than seeking

corporate reunion, Roman Catholics sought to gain individual

conversions at the Orthodox expense, angering and hurting theOrthodox to this day. The Eastern-rite Catholic churches were set up as

vehicles to steal people and local churches from the Orthodox and also

with the long-term goal of making the converts Roman Catholics, with

the Eastern rites tolerated as an interim measure. While Roman

Catholicism (including the Popes) did not officially sanction this

latinisation, it did view its Eastern rites as some sort of substitute or

replacement for the Orthodox: a strategy called Uniatism.

Today, one of the few good outcomes of Roman Catholicisms Second

Vatican Council(1962-65) otherwise a dbcle of mistakes in

prudential judgement in favour of that counterfeit of Christianity calledliberalism is that this approach to the Orthodox has been dropped,

and again, corporate reunion a restoration of communion between

the Churches, not the liquidation of the Orthodox is the goal. (The

late Metropolitan Joseph (Slipyj) of the Ukrainian Catholic Church

agreed.) The Balamand Statementsigned by officials from both sides in

1993 reaffirmed this.Here is a listof the Orthodox signers.

Roman Catholicism today defends the right of the present-day Eastern

Catholics to exist in communion with Rome, but has discarded the use

of these churches to solicit conversions from the Orthodox. Also, the

Eastern Catholics are being told to remove latinisations andbecome as much like the Orthodox as possible more

traditional! to prepare for an eventual reconciliation of

Roman Catholicism with Orthodoxy.Here is a more in-depth articleon the Eastern Catholics

by my acquaintance Archimandrite Serge (Keleher), aRussian Catholicpriest. Still more from

Fr Serge.

May an Orthodoxy that is holy and strong, not broken or vanquished, be the saving medicine for what ails

many in the Roman Church today, sweeping the whole CatholicChurch clean of Modernism (the religious

version of liberalism).


3/9


5/13/2008

Theterminus ad quemof all legitimate ecumenical dialogue and the goal of this site:One Catholic

Church under the Pope much as it was in the first millennium A.D. with an equality of rites, including a

restored Roman Massand office, and the Christian East not in the diminished state of the present-day Eastern

Catholics but rather as Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytsky), Blessed Leonty (Leonid Feodorov)and Pope St

Pius X (nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter: no latinisations) envisaged it with full Orthodox usage.

OOK down, most merciful Lord Jesu, our Saviour, upon the prayers and sighs of thy sinful andunworthy servants falling down before thee and unite us all in one, holy, Catholicand apostolic church.

Pour thine ineffable light into our souls. Resolve religious differences so that we as thy disciples and

beloved children may glorify thee with one heart and one voice. Most merciful Lord, quickly fulfil thy promise

that there be one flock and one shepherd of thy church and grant that we may worthily glorify thy holy name

now and ever and unto endless ages. Amen. Blessed Leonty

Is Russian Orthodoxy the same religion as Greek Orthodoxy, etc.?

Russian Orthodoxy is the same religion as Greek, Antiochian (Arab), Romanian, Bulgarian and Serbian (etc.)

Orthodoxy. Remember that in Orthodoxy, the Church is a family of Churches in communion with each other,and that these Churches are independent of each other in government, even though they hold the same faith.

So, in Europe and the Middle East, each country or ethnic group has its own Church, usually geographical,

that is communion with the rest of the Orthodox community worldwide.

If youre all one religion, why are you in different churches in

America?

In America before 1917, all Orthodox of whatever ethnicity were under one

Church jurisdiction, the Russian mission, otherwise made up mostly ofSlavic former Eastern Catholics from the Austro-Hungarian Empire

(reacting to the bad treatment they got from the Roman Catholic bishops in

the US see the note below) and some immigrants actually from Russia.

But after the Russian Revolution, communication with the Church in Russia

became difficult and unreliable so the various ethnic groups started their

own jurisdictions, asking the Churches in their homelands for help. (The

Russians themselves split into three groups to deal with this problem.)

Today, the Orthodox in America recognise that their multiplicity of

jurisdictions is an historical anomaly that is uncanonical and needs

correction, especially since the original reason for the proliferation of

separate Church groups Communism in Russia no longer exists. (The

apostolic ideal is onebishop per city; Americans live simultaneously in at

leastfiveOrthodox dioceses.) All of the divisions are superficial and

temporary, and have nothing to do with the essence of Orthodoxy. All

Orthodox can cross jurisdictions and receive the sacraments at other canonical Orthodox churches. Click here

for more on the divisions among Eastern churches. Right: Fr Alexis Georgievich Toth, originally an Eastern

Catholic from what is now far eastern Slovakia. His ill treatment by Archbishop John Ireland in Minneapolis,

for being a married priest (widower), caused him, and consequently many churches along the US East Coast,

to join the Russian mission in the 1890s and early 1900s. (The Russian archbishop had to move from San

Francisco to New York to oversee his new flock.) Today, about 60% of Russian Orthodox in America are


4/9


5/13/2008

really ethnicRuthenians(more) like Fr Alexis, whom one Orthodox Church has declared a saint. (In

Orthodoxy, local Churches can glorify their own saints, whom all Orthodox recognise.)

Why are some of your priests married?

In the early Church, priests often were married, and the Orthodox have maintained this discipline, confirmed

by the (non-ecumenical) Quinisext Council in trullo, which also ruled that bishops must be celibate (a

discipline, not a doctrine). Orthodox bishops are either widowers or longtime monks. Except in places whereRome banned it (including the US), the Eastern Catholics also ordain married men. The rule is a married man

can become a priest but a priest cant get married. In the Roman Catholic Church, there are deacons and

former Anglican priests who are married; these follow the same discipline as the Orthodox. They were married

before ordination to major orders (starting with the diaconate) and when the wife dies they cant marry again

except by dispensation.

Why do your churches have those paintings and not statues?

Why dont you have Stations of the Cross?

Byzantine Rite churches most Orthodox churches and someCatholic churches under Rome are full of special paintings

called icons, which are more than decoration, teaching tools

though a lot of theology is behind their designs, and they do

teach theology or devotional aids. They are more like a

sacrament, halfway between pictures and having the Sacrament

in the room with you. The person shown in the icon is

mystically present. However, icons are not idols the prayer

passes through the icon to the person represented and so the

wood and paint arent literally worshipped or adored. Icons

arent meant to be lifelike or realistic, but instead are painted

following strict rules, an elaborate language of colours and

symbols. They are blessed by a priest before being used in

church or at home. Early and medival Western religious

paintings, before the Renaissance, resembled icons.

Also, using paintings instead of statues is partly cultural. In the

early Church there was controversy over whether one could use

images in worship the Jews say it violates the First

Commandment and the Muslims have adopted this position. For about 100 years, enforced by the Byzantine

emperor, the anti-images faction in the Church, called iconoclasts(Greek for image-smashers), won. But

then the whole Church had a council, the second Council of Nica, which restored the use of images thefact that God has become man means we can show His face in figural art. But in the East there was and still is

a compromise: instead of statues, which look like the figures of Greek and Roman gods in pagan temples,

Christian images are flat, or at most bas-relief.

Every year, on the first Sunday of Great Lent (the fasting period before Easter), called the Sunday of

Orthodoxy, the Byzantine Rite celebrates the Churchs teaching on icons.

The Stations of the Cross is a medival devotion spread in the Roman Catholic Church by the Franciscans,

who based it on the route Jesus took on the way to His crucifixion. Because the Byzantine Rite evolved

separately from the Roman Rite, there are no Stations in Orthodox churches. Also, Orthodox devotion tends


5/9


5/13/2008

to emphasise the glorified, transfigured, risen Christ more than His earthly sufferings, but the latter are not

ignored. Orthodox use and venerate the crucifix.

Why dont you praythe rosary?

Using beads to count prayers is a nearly universal religious practice older than Christianity. Eastern Orthodox

do it monks and nuns count prayers this way and the beads are part of their habit, worn on the left wrist but the rosary was introduced to the Roman Catholic Church by St Dominic after the Schism. Again, the

Byzantine Rite evolved separately from the Roman. The rosary is a wonderful practice but not native to the

Orthodox tradition, and with all the akathists, canons and molebnyto choose from in their tradition you can

argue that the Orthodox dont need it!

Why dont you kneel?

In the Roman Rite kneeling is a posture of adoration; in the Byzantine its penitential so its not done in church

on Sunday, a joyful day celebrating Jesus rising from the dead.

Why do you cross yourselves backwards?

Why doyou? (Only joking.)

Those who follow American football might remember Bernie Kosar, who

played for the Cleveland Browns and would cross himself the Orthodox way

on the field. (He is an Eastern Catholic.) Actually, the way people make the

sign of the cross in the Byzantine Rite used by the Orthodox and some

Eastern Catholic Churches using the fingers of the right hand, touching

the forehead, below the chest, right shoulder, then left shoulder (like this:

actually a bigger, fuller gesture than whats done in the Roman Rite)

is the original way of doing it. The Roman Catholics did it this way too! The

Byzantine way also uses the fingers

symbolically, holding the thumb,

index and ring fingers together to stand for the Trinity, and the fourth

and little finger folded against the palm to stand for the two natures,

human and divine, of Christ. Sometime in the 11th century, starting in

Italy, Roman Catholics began touching the left shoulder first. Nobody

really knows why.

Why do some of your crosses have extra

bars like the slanted one on the bottom?

The top bar is the sign placed on the cross that said Jesus of

Nazareth, King of the Jews. The bottom bar is the piece of wood to

which Jesus feet were nailed. (On Byzantine crucifixes, the feet are

side by side, each with a nail through it; on Roman ones they are


6/9


5/13/2008

crossed, with one nail going through both.) There are several stories

to explain why the bottom bar is often slanted. One identifies it with

the X-shaped cross on which St Andrew later was killed. (St Andrew the apostle is a patron saint of Byzantine

Churches legend has it he visited Scythia, which later became the Ukraine.) Another is a legend that says

the bar tilted like a scale to show the good thief crucifed next to Jesus, St Dismas, joined Him in paradise

while the thief who mocked Him was lost. Still another explanation simply says Jesus was in such pain He tried

to move His legs, causing the bottom board to shift. Most often identified with the Orthodox and particularly

with the Russian Church, the three-bar cross pre-dates the conversion of the Russians in 988. In Byzantine

iconography it has been used as a symbol of martyrdom. Click on the Russian three-bar crucifix at right for a

more detailed explanation of its symbolism.

Why do some of you celebrate Christmas on a different day? Why is

your Easter later than ours?

The churches in some Orthodox countries didnt adopt the modern Gregorian calendar and still use the Julian

one, which is now 13 days behind the Gregorian or civil calendar. So when Russians celebrate Christmas on

the 7th January its because according to the Julian reckoning its the 25th December!

The Orthodox date for Easter is a different issue. Sometimes its the same as the Western date but more often

is later because of an ancient church rule not followed by the West that says Easter cant coincide with or

come before the Jewish Passover.

What do you believe about Roman Catholic saints who lived after the

split between the churches?

My understanding is the only limit to recognition of the other sides post-schism saints is theyre notcommemorated liturgically, that is, in church. Entirely fair and in a way humble the bishops dont claim the

authority to rule either way on phenomena outside their church.

Private devotion, however, is free: at home you can venerate anybody from the other churchs post-schism

saints to your deceased relatives.

What Orthodox often dont understand

about Roman CatholicismRoman Catholicism fell away from the Church in 1054.

False. What happened in 1054 was the result of political rivalry between the western Holy Roman empire

(started when the Pope crowned Charlemagne) and the Byzantine or eastern Roman Empire (the continuation

of the Roman Empire).Here is an excerpt from Bishop Kallistos (Timothy Ware) book The Orthodox

Churchon the Schism.Papal legates excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople and vice versa in 1054,

but neither Church at the time saw this as a permanent break. In fact, the Slavic Byzantine churches remained


7/9


5/13/2008

in communion with Rome after that year, which is why the Russians commemorate the moving of St

Nicholas body to Bari, Italy, and the Greeks dont: it happened after1054.

The Schism was a gradual estrangement in the Middle Ages, exacerbated by the rise of Islamic power in the

Middle East, which cut off contact between Latin Christian western Europe and the Greek Christian

Byzantines, and by the sacking of Constantinople by soldiers of the Latin Fourth Crusade in 1204, and

narrowed with attempts at reconciliation (the councils of Lyons and of Ferrara-Florence). Some Orthodox

sees, like the metropolitanate of Kiev in Rus (now Ukraine) and the patriarchate of Antioch in Syria, tried at

times to maintain communion with both Rome and Constantinople during the medival years. The reunion

effected at Florence was broken in 1473 after the Turks destroyed the Byzantine Empire (conquering

Constantinople in 1453).

So there was no great falling away in 1054. The Russians schismed because they were angry at Poland for

stealing Galicia (the southwestern Ukraine) in the 1300s and the Turks restarted the Greek schism in 1473

because like the Communists 400-some years later (who banned and persecuted the Eastern Catholics for the

following reasons) they didnt want their Christian subjects in a church they couldnt control they didnt

want them in a church with a foreigner in charge. Theology really had nothing to do with it differences in

method were used as excuses.

Some say the Schism wasnt final until the creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches by Rome outraged the

Orthodox.

Catholics believe the Pope isnt a sinner... they believe he is

automatically a saint.(Actual quotations from eastern European Orthodox.)

False. Papal infallibility isnt nearly as broad in its powers as non-Catholics think!

Roman Catholicism teaches that this dogma (defined in 1870) is a specificapplication of Church infallibility, something both sides believe in. It says the

Pope can at times act as a one-man ecumenical council to defend and interpret

Holy Tradition, not invent new dogmas that contradict Tradition. It is a function

of the Popes office, not a personal power of the man. In his opinions as a man

the Pope is as fallible as everybody else (he cant predict the weather, for

example) and can even be a private heretic (which takes care of Pope Honorius,

condemned posthumously for heresy). St Robert Bellarmine explained that if a

Pope tried to teach heresy in his function of infallibility, he ipso factowouldnt be

Pope anymore, because by so doing he would have put himself outside the

Church: The manifestly heretical Pope ceasesper seto be Pope and head as he

ceasesper seto be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be

judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers De Romano Pontifice

(Milan, 1857), vol. II, chap. 30, p. 420. (Orthodox may understandably ask why only the patriarch of the

West is blessed with this gift, since again it seems to place the Eastern churches in the role of supporting

players to the Roman Church, but the first-millennium Church believed in Roman primacy.) In about 900

years only three Popes have been canonised as saints (including St Peter Celestine, a holy monk but a disaster

as Pope, the only one who has had to resign!). John Paul II was said to go to Confession often, so obviously

he didnt think he wasnt a sinner!Here is an articleby Jonathan Tuttle, a Roman Catholic, explaining that

Catholicism is not the cult of the Pope.


8/9


5/13/2008

What about the filioque?

To refute the heresy of Arianism, which teaches Jesus is less than God, Latin

theologians starting in Spain began to add the wordfilioque Latin for and the Son

to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed(... and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and

Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]) adopted by the Church

at ecumenical councils. (An idea found in the writings of some of the Church Fathers,

who individually were, of course, fallible.) By this the West did not teach that there is adouble procession, or two Holy Spirits, one from the Father, the other from the Son!

Still, the Creed shouldnt have been altered (one of the Popes at the time agreed!),

except by another ecumenical council. At the medival reunion Council of

Ferrara-Florence, it was agreed thatfilioquemeans that the Holy Spirit proceeds from

the Father throughthe Son.

And the Immaculate Conception?

First of all, the Immaculate Conception is notthe Virgin Birth of Christ. Both Roman Catholicism and EasternOrthodoxy hold that Mary is sinless, and indeed the Byzantine Rite calls her immaculate. The post-schism

(1854) Roman definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (the concept dates back to John Duns

Scotus in the Middle Ages and even before him to Paschasius Radbertus in the 800s) refers to Our Lady being

free from original sin from the moment of her conception. Some object that this rules out her redemption by

her Son, but since Jesus is God, His acts arent bound by time or space. So by prevenient grace she was,

retroactively if you will, redeemed by Him.

The thinking behind this definition is very bound up in western Catholic thought about original sin. Since the

East doesnt use this theological framework to describe the faith, perhaps the wording of the Immaculate

Conception isnt necessary for the Orthodox to describe the purity of Our Lady.

Doesnt Orthodoxy teach that Roman Catholicism is heretical or

without grace?

Orthodoxy has never dogmatically taught either thing. (Conversely, Roman

Catholicism does not teach that postschism Orthodox are heretics.) All it holds to

dogmatically is that Orthodoxy is the Church and has grace in its

sacraments: the Church is one, her mysteries (sacraments) are

one. The rest is a matter of opinion, and actually one that the

Orthodox arent particularly interested in. Some Orthodox, likeArchbishop Vsevolod(left) in Chicago, hold a view that

reciprocates Romes toward Orthodoxy; others, like the late Fr

Seraphim (Rose)(right), hold the opinion that only Orthodoxy has

grace. Both positions are allowable as Orthodox, but neither are

what Orthodoxy definitively teaches. In fact, the 19th-century Russian thinker

Vladimir Soloviev took this to an unusual extreme, holding that since Russia never

formally had broken communion with Rome and because Orthodoxy never had condemned postschism Roman

Catholicism in an ecumenical council, one could hold everything Roman Catholicism teaches yet remain in the

Russian Orthodox Church! (Roman Catholics today agree with him.) Such views are very rare, however. Most


9/9


Orthodox simply dont speculate about grace outside Orthodoxy.

The walls which divide us... do not reach up to heaven. Paraphrased from Metropolitan Platon of Kiev

That they all may be one

This page is dedicated toArchbishop Vsevolod of Skopelos, Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, 1927-2007

HOME

17,272

Q_A Orthodox Catholic

Documents

Transcript of Q_A Orthodox Catholic