My apologies for the lack of activity here since the beginning of the Nativity Fast.
Cathedra Unitatis has been around now for a year (it premiered on January 12, 2007). I originally started the blog for a very selfish reason: I wanted answers to my own questions about the differing ecclesiological visions of Rome and the Eastern Churches. I wanted smart Orthodox and Catholics to come together and engage in an honest yet charitable dialogue on ecclesiology, and specifically, the issue of the Papacy and primacy in the Universal Church.
When I started the blog, I was an Orthodox convert seriously contemplating the possibility of coming into the communion of the Church of Rome. Today, a year later, I remain an Orthodox Christian, and I am determined to remain in this faith and communion until I die (a fact which will, no doubt, dismay both my Catholic friends and my Orthodox critics alike!).
The question now is whether to abandon the blog, or to keep it going albeit in a somewhat different form. I am still very interested in ecclesiology and the Papacy, but perhaps at this point the blog would work better as a place for discussion of Orthodox-Catholic rapprochement. It seems to me that ecumenically-minded Orthodox are woefully under-represented in the blogosphere (two exceptions being the wonderful blogs by Fr Gregory Jensen and Peter Gilbert).
I am grateful for your readership and especially for your insightful comments during the past year. I have learned a great deal, and I look forward to learning more from the discussions here, God willing.
Cathedra Unitatis 
i do so hope you maintain it (for similarly selfish reasons).
this blog has represented to me some glimmer of hope for ecumenical success on a very pragmatic level. the discussions engaged in here have been consistently intelligent and representative of christian charity. unity is a hard sell. mostly because we are trying to out-shout each other. also the resources and thoughts you’ve brought to the table here are very valuable (at least to me, who has teetered on this same fence for a while now). however you decide, know you did do something here.
thank you and peace be with you.
I appreciate your work here. From past entries I discern that you are reluctant to reveal much in the way of personal information; however, I would be interested to read about the questions/issues concerning the papacy that prompted your investigation to begin with and the reasons you came to your current position. You started off an inquirer, a serious one, and now seem firm in your desire to remain Orthodox for the rest of your life. One can imagine a number of reasons for such a final statement, but can you enlighten us — even if in a roundabout way?
Andrew – Thanks for the kind words!
Sean – I am indeed reluctant to reveal too much about myself, for reasons that I’ve discussed before. And for that reason, I’m not sure that I want to be too specific about my exact reasons for reconsidering Rome. But, God willing, in the near future I will address some of the non-personal reasons (1) why I became interested again in Rome, and (2) why I decided, at the end of the day, to remain Orthodox.
This Roman Catholic reader hopes you decide to continue your blog.
I did not realize until this post that your tag line, “An Eastern Orthodox Christian Looks At The Church Of Rome”, meant something deeper than merely “here is how an Eastern Orthodox Christian sees the Roman Church.” In other words, a critique. I now know that “looks at” meant “considers joining.”
Therefore, since I liked your blog when I did not know you were considering joining the Church of Rome, I’ll still like it now that you are remaining in the same place that I did not know you were thinking of leaving. And I’ll continue to like it because of factors that will not change now that you have decided not to change: 1) you write well (clear and straightforward); 2) you seem fair minded; 3) your topics and links contain interesting materials; and 4) Your interest in ecumenism (my wife is Greek Orthodox).
No matter what you decide, thank you for your enriching blog! I wish you all the best and the peace of Christ in whatever you do!
Tim
Thanks for the hat tip.
Why not keep up the blog? Certainly, as you point out, there is a shortage of ecumenically minded Orthodox in blogdom. But, as my wife says, “As God wills.”
+FrG
Thanks. God Bless.
I hope you continue your blog because of its value in presenting current information from both Catholics and Orthodox regarding the need for Unity among all Christians.
You have published plenty of factual historical information concerning the headship of a Papacy of universal authority existing long before the Cerularian Schism. Thus your position in remaining in that Schism remains, frankly, incoherent. It is the Catholic Church that remains faithful to the teachings of the ancient Church, not the Byzantine Orthodox who reject adherence to the indefectible and infallible Petrine authority of the Pope whose position in the Church is not based on any Papal usurpation or Conciliar concession but on the very words of Christ Himself. It is distressing to see how the words of Our Lord concerning the unique prerogatives of the Chief and Head of His Apostles(Matt.16: 18-19; Luke 22: 31-32; Jn. 21:15-17) and which have resonated throughout the first Millennium of Church History are simply evacuated of their divine force by those calling themselves “orthodox” but who remain fixed in the senseless polemics of the past. The patriarch Cerularius in 1054 accused the Latins of the “heresy” of Azymes and thus began an on-going tragic Schism with Rome. Was he justified in doing so and proceeding to further poison relations with the West with yet other mindless charges (e.g., the Procession of the Holy Spirit) for centuries and to this very day ? If you were living in 1054, would you have followed Cerularius or Pope Leo IX ?By the way, what exactly are the doctrinal heresies which all Byzantine Orthodox agree “prove” the Catholic Church not to be the one true Church ? Do point them out.
Christ founded but one Church and it is that ecclesial body which remains built on the Rock of Peter. The fragile union of bishops in the communion of Eastern Orthodox autocephalous Churches, alas, do not rest upon that Rock. For Peter in his successors is missing among them.
-James Likoudis
Hi, CU. I must admit that I am shocked and saddened. I will redouble my prayers.
We Catholics have often swallowed the line that it is “six of one, half a dozen of the other” WRT the decision to be Catholic or Orthodox. I know I have been tempted in that direction myself. It’s so much easier just to assume everything’s OK as is or, rather, that we should just wait for our Church leaders to iron everything out. But recent Vatican documents have clarified that this position is untenable. We are called–nay, commanded–to share with others the fullness of faith and truth found only in Catholicism…and yes, this means sharing even with the Orthodox, who are so very, very close to us.
Therefore, I would be remiss if I didn’t continue to pray, pray, pray, with more fervor than ever before, that you would complete the Spirit-led journey you have begun by coming into the fullness of the Catholica.
Whatever your ultimate decision, I wish you the very, very best.
And I do think this blog serves a valuable purpose. So, I add my voice to those urging you to continue it.
God bless, dear brother in Christ!
Diane
P.S. On another note: Have you seen this? I had never heard of this Fr. Mack before:
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/218854/fpart/2
Dear Mr. Likoudis,
Thanks for your comment. I was expecting some disappointment from some Catholic followers of this blog. Though it might be strange for me to say at this point, but I did enjoy reading all three of your books on Orthodoxy. Most Orthodox find your writings to be abrasive and off-putting, but I feel that they say some important things that the Orthodox need to be aware of. And, of course, I find them no more abrasive or off-putting than most Orthodox materials dealing with Rome and the schism.
I happen to think that there’s much more to the Papacy than most Orthodox controversialists are prepared to admit. I believe that the Church needs Petrine Primacy, and that by the design of Christ himself. At the same time, in all honesty, I have to say that the Orthodox do have some legitimate grievances about both the exercise of papal primacy, and about the way in which Western Catholics have conceived of the Papacy throughout the millennium of our separation. The late Pope John Paul II himself recognized as much in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, and I get the impression that the current Holy Father is of the same impression. And I think there are plenty of Catholics (both Roman and Eastern, and not all “liberals”) who find the ecclesiological language of Vatican I to be extremely problematic.
The long and short of it is that, while I am dismayed by certain aspects of contemporary Orthodoxy and attracted by certain aspects of Catholicism, at the end of the day I do not find that I am absolutely bound in conscience to leave the Orthodox Church. Interestingly enough, it was my talks with some Catholic priests (both Roman and Eastern) that convinced me of this, not my talks with my spiritual father/confessor and other Orthodox priests.
Perhaps my position is inconsistent and incoherent. But I also think, for various personal reasons (which I will not go into here), remaining Orthodox is the best option for the health of my soul. This is not a decision which I have come to lightly. And, frankly, I don’t think that the Catholic Church would condemn my decision, especially since nowadays it seems to want to deal with the Orthodox as a corporate entity, rather than siphon off individual converts.
You may think me deluded, but I don’t believe that my decision to remain Orthodox automatically means a rejection of the Holy Roman Church, or the Papacy, or the many good things from that communion that enrich Christendom. I don’t buy most of the Orthodox polemics about Rome, to be quite honest. I just believe that it is my duty to remain where I am and hope and pray and work for the healing of the schism.
Thanks again for your writings, and please pray for me.
Dear Diane,
Thanks for your comment. I suspected that you would not approve of my decision. 🙂
But, as I said to James Likoudis above, it would be a mistake to assume that I have thereby rejected Rome, or have given into the ridiculous Orthodox stereotypes about Rome.
What sustains me is my hope (reminds me of a recent papal encyclical!) for continued rapprochement and the eventual unity of Christendom.
I welcome your prayers for my miserable self, especially to La Guadelupana!
CU, thanks for the thanks!
I cannot stop thinking (and grieving) about this. It is such an unexpected shock. Please pray for me as well!
And, frankly, I don’t think that the Catholic Church would condemn my decision…
I agree. But is that the point? To me, the question is: Are we willing to follow Christ, no matter where He leads us?
If I thought that the Orthodox Church was likely the True Church founded by Christ, I’d sign up in a nano-second. But it is precisely because I am convinced otherwise that I remain Catholic—despite the very real problems afflicting Catholicism past and present. I do not belong to a perfect church…just to the one actually founded by Jesus and intended for all mankind. She’s a mess, but she’s the Real Deal.
especially since nowadays it seems to want to deal with the Orthodox as a corporate entity, rather than siphon off individual converts
The most recent statement from the CDF does say otherwise, though. This is precisely the confusion that has afflicted us Catholics in recent years–the feeling that we dare not approach individual Orthodox with the Good News of Catholic fullness because “we’re not into individual conversions anymore.” The most recent CDF document re evangelization makes very clear that the Catholic Church is in the business of individual conversions…just as the nuns used to tell us way back when! No, we are not supposed to “proselytize” (whatever that means), but yes, we are supposed to evangelize, and not just on the corporate level. I will dig up the document in question later.
Re the ways the primacy has been exercised in the past: Yes, there have been serious problems, and yes, we Catholics ourselves cringe when we read some of our own history. But bad praxis does not invalidate true doctrine. If it did, then no church could stand!
Furthermore, IMHO (and here I must be blunt), the most power-hungry, overreaching pope has never come close to the over-reaching power hunger of some of the Byzantine emperors and the patriarchs they supported and/or controlled. No church is free of such corruption, alas, not even the little Two Seed in the Spirit Primitive Reformed Baptist Church on the corner with its spiritually abusive, egomaniacal pastor. (I am making up this example, but I know of Real Life examples galore.)
I guess I just don’t see how stuff like this can prevent us from embracing Catholicism. I grew up in a messy Church, so messiness doesn’t throw me for a loop, I guess. It’s the human condition, and we don’t shed that condition when we become Christians. Hence power-mad corruption does not shock me (although it saddens me) when I read about the Borgia popes, just as it doesn’t shock me (although it saddens me) when I read (at OCANews.org) about the latest shenanigans of Met. Herman or Bishop Nikolai.
But perhaps I am completely misunderstanding your objections. If so, I apologize. Please take it from whence it comes: I’m in shock.
I greatly respect your resolution to remain an irenical, ecumenical Orthodox, without an ax to grind against Rome and the West. But I must ask, in all earnestness: How tenable is that? ISTM that anti-Romanism is so baked into Orthodoxy–into Orthodoxy’s self-definition; hence into her esse–that it cannot be entirely avoided. I have even seen reasonable, irenical people like Father Patrick Henry Reardon say some utterly bone-headed things about Catholics, Catholicism, and the Papacy. And I have seen other people who started out amazingly ecumenical–one person springs to mind–but who ended up rabidly anti-Catholic once they solidified their commitment to Orthodoxy. (I am talking about converts here; I think it may be different for cradles. And I am certainly not saying that this would apply in your case; you have far too much sense. But…I’m nervous!)
The Orthodox Church defines herself against Rome; she must perforce do so in order to justify her continued separation from us and her resistance to ecumenical rapprochement. This inevitably leads to an “anti” mentality, ISTM. How can it not?
Thus then-Orthodox Dave Brown found that, when he wanted to remain ecumenical toward Catholics, he couldn’t; he was under relentless peer pressure to emphasize his differences with Rome rather than his affinities and areas of agreement. This became unbearable for him; it ultimately led him back to Rome. (Well, reading the writings of Pope Saint Leo helped, too. :))
Anyway…I just think that a convert to Orthodoxy who wants to remain ecumenically minded toward Catholics has a tough row to hoe. Indeed, I do not quite see how it can be done–which may explain why there are so few converts to Orthodoxy who remain ecumenically minded toward Catholics!
Let’s pray for each other!
God bless,
Diane
“For Peter in his successors is missing among them.”
No, I believe Antioch resides in the fullness of Orthodoxy.
———
Diane, I guess I need to get out more; my experience simply doesn’t match your idea that the “Orthodox Church defines herself against Rome.” As an Orthodox inquirer who attended several churches as I began my journey and has now been settled into one (OCA) for some time, I can say that I hear scarcely word one about Roman Catholicism; in fact, as it pertains to the “esse” of Orthodox, less than scarcely (zero).
I can’t say I’ve solidified my commitment to Orthodoxy – I feel I need to understand as best as I’m able the same issues raised by CU on this blog – but I’m pretty close, and I promise you I’m on no path to be “rabidly anti-Catholic.” In fact, I’ve become less critical of Rome as I’ve moved to Orthodoxy. Go figure: it doesn’t support RC blogosphere polemics, but it’s the truth.
Diane,
I really do appreciate your concern. There’s no need for mourning … it’s not like I announced that I’m joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or anything. 🙂
I have yet to read the CDF document on evangelization. I would be very surprised indeed if it specifically mentions the need to evangelize individual Orthodox Christians. This would be a major reversal in the Roman Church’s policy with regard to Orthodoxy, since the time of John XXIII. My impression was that the CDF document is more about evangelizing non-Christians, contra Fr Peter Phan’s syncretistic tendencies.
Now, I understand that Rome has never abandoned the idea that individuals who feel bound in conscience to join the Church must do so. I have been told by a number of Catholic priests that I must not join unless I am 100% convinced that it is my moral duty to do so. In all honesty, I am not 100% convinced. And so I remain where I am, which according to Rome is a place with real priesthood, sacraments, and all the means of salvation.
The “anti” attitude that one experiences in the Orthodox Church continues to be a major stumbling block for me. And yet I know many Orthodox, clergy and laymen, who do not display this attitude, despite the centuries of polemical back-and-forth between the churches (Catholics also used to be a lot more cranky about Orthodox and Protestants than they are now … and some Catholics are still like this!). One certainly wouldn’t get that impression from visiting Orthodox message boards and blogs, but I don’t see any need, as an Orthodox Christian, to believe what the online ideologues say. No matter what they say, anti-Westernism and anti-Romanism are not dogmas of the Orthodox Faith, and so I am not bound to believe or mimic such positions.
I’d be happy to discuss things further with you offline, if that’s OK.
Phil,
“No, I believe Antioch resides in the fullness of Orthodoxy.”
I think that one can understand Peter’s successors in a number of different ways. I would not deny that the Bishops of Rome are Peter’s successors in a very special and unique way (and I am sorry that there has been a breach of communion between Peter’s successors at Rome and the Oriental and Byzantine communions), but the Roman Church has never denied that Antioch and Alexandria are also sees of Peter. Certainly Antioch has never claimed what the Bishops of Rome began to claim very early on (I find the witness of the early Popes to be very convincing indeed). But there are other Petrine Sees. Nor has she condemned the beliefs of many Church Fathers that, in a sense, all faithful bishops sit on the chair of Peter, or that each faithful believer follows Peter in his confession of the Lord’s Divinity. I do not believe that these positions are mutually exclusive; I like the “both and” approach.
CU – I agree with you and like the way you’ve put it (as usual). My comment was tongue-in-cheek.
CU–offline would be fine. 🙂
I’ve learned, through bitter experience, that my words convince no one and may likelier drive people away. That’s why I have recourse to prayer instead.
But I would love to continue this dialog offline.
I’m sorry if my grieving gave the wrong impression–I know staying Orthodox is certainly not like joining the Mormons or even the Baptists, God bless ’em.
I guess I’m still getting over the shock and surprise. It really did come as a complete surprise!
God bless and much prayer,
Diane
Phil,
I wasn’t trying to refute you or anything. It is always good to point out that there are three historic Petrine Sees!
Diane,
I will e-mail you. Nothing you’ve ever said here has offended or driven me away.
First, let me urge you to keep the blog, as long as you feel you can and wish to. I think it is a contribution to the much-needed dialogue. Especially at a time, the present, when *both* sides seem to be pulling back somewhat from dialogue. On the RC side, this has happened with several recent Vatican documents, and with such actions as that of the Catholic Answers forums, which recently eliminated its “Eastern Christianity” forum, on which EOs were allowed to share their opinions along with RCs, replace it with an “Eastern Catholicism”, with discussion limited to issues specific to the Eastern churches united with Rome, and relegate EO discussion to the “Non-Catholic Religions” forum, where EOs are lumped in with Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Islamists, etc. Words cannot express the disgust I feel towards Catholic Answers for that move.
Mr. Likoudis’s books and his post here are also proof enough, in my view, of the hatred towards Eastern Orthodoxy which exists in some quarters of Roman Catholicism.
But of course you are right that there is much hatred and misniformation on the Orthodox side as well, and I commend you for your efforts in cobatting that. I agree that much of, *perhaps* the bulk of, Orthodoxy has overreacted to the papal claims and has englected the legitimate place of the bishop of Rome in the Church, but some quarters of Orthodoxy have not done so, and have set forth a reasonable and, well, *orthodox* ecclesiology which includes the papal primacy, properly understood. Olivier Clement’s book, *You Are Peter*, is a shining example. Many RCs would agree with his approach, despite running afoul of some of the Vat. I dogmas. Unfortunately, such efforts seem to have gotten little response from Rome.
For what it’s worth, I believe the reasons you have given for remaining Orthodox are sound.
Anyway, I don’t always agree with you, but I usually look forward to reading your thoughts and perspectives on Church issues.
Btw, if you haven’t yet, pick up a copy of Henry Chadwick’s latest *East and West; the Making of a Rift in the Church*. It’s sometimes a little awkwardly written, but I think it’s a valuable contribution. I learned a lot from it. And he gores both oxes. Joe
I have generally thought that there should be fewer blogs with more regular and irregular contributors. It’s as if we are all out there trying to be self-published pamphleteers and we all generally find that it is difficult to keep up with grind of regular posting, which is why so many bloggers burn out leaving their conversation communities scattered. Perhaps Fr. Gregory would begin inviting other bloggers to post on his blog while acting as its editor.
Dear CU,
As a Catholic who yearns for the unity of the apostolic churches, and who in a small way works towards that unity on a grassroots level: the Society of St. John Chrysostom; I would miss your voice very much. Who knows, perhaps you’ll even begin your own local chapter!!??!
Sia lodato Gesu` Cristo!
Vito
It’s nice to read that your quest has come to an end and that you will continue blogging. I look forward to reading more about the reasons you chose to remain Orthodox as you feel free to share them.
I am glad that the Lord is and continues to be in charge of His Church.
This Sunday, we will celebrate the feast of Our Lady of the Miracle, an obscure feast but one with much meaning for me, as my goddaughter is a convert from Judaism.
Here is my (anonymous) account of the event that led to the feast. Please excuse the occasionally purple prose:
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/BVM/ratisbonne.html
En route home tonight, I resolved to implore Our Lady of the Miracle for yet another miracle: viz., that she would lead our friend CU home into the fullness of the faith in the Catholic Church in union with the Successor of Peter.
I pray for the same miracle WRT all my separated brethren (and would-be separated brethren, like Joe :D).
Our Lady of the Miracle, pray for us!
I pray for the realization of the Fifth Joyful Mystery of the Rosary: the Finding of Jesus in the Temple–that we all may find Him in the Temple of the New Israel, the Catholic Church.
Diane
For what it’s worth, I believe the reasons you have given for remaining Orthodox are sound.
And alas, I am not surprised.
I would comment further, but I dare not. This is not a time for controversy but for prayer.
Here is some info on the recent Vatican statement re evangelization:
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=26208
http://ihmhermitage.stblogs.com/2007/12/14/vatican-christ-gives-catholics-duty-to-evangelize/
http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=5646
As y’all can see, it clearly states that Cathoilics have a duty and obligation to evangelize–not just on the corporate level but individually as well. And yes, that includes evangelizing the Orthodox, although great sensitivity must be exercised in that regard.
But of course we have a duty to evangelize everyone without exception. How could we not? Jesus clearly commanded this. He said to teach all nations the full truth: “all that I have commanded you.” Not part of it but all of it. He never said that there were exceptions. Rather, He made it crystal-clear that He intended the whole truth for all people. He told us to let our light shine, not to hide it under a bushel. How much clearer could He be? Does He have to write it in sky-letters? 😉
This is classic, immutable Catholic Teaching. It did not change with Vatican II, and (pace Joe) it has not “changed back” now. It is part of the Depositum Fidei (viz. the “Great Commission”), which cannot change, just as Jesus Christ Himself cannot change (“the same yesterday, today, and forever”).
Because of recent emphases, esp. at the grassroots level (and yes, among priests), the faithful have been confused. But this confusion says nothing about the doctrine itself, which is as explicit in the documents of Vatican II as it is in the early Councils–or in the recent CDF documents.
And it stands to reason. Even common sense confirms it. If you have the fullness of the truth, would it not be selfish, cowardly, indeed sinful, to withhold it from anyone seeking it? It is Good News, after all.
This was true when I was a little kid before VCII. It was true during and after VCII. And it is true now. The recent Vatican document merely reaffirms it.
I do not expect all of my Orthodox brethren to understand and accept this. But then, I do not expect my Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, and animist brethren to understand or accept it either.
It’s the Scandal of Christian Particularism: this radical claim that Jesus alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life…and that He founded only one Church, to which (as VCII puts it) all men are bound to belong.
In “Little Gidding”, T. S. Eliot wrote:
It sounds like your exploration has led you back to the Orthodox Church, and I hope that you have re-discovered it (and a few other things besides).
I do hope that you will keep this blog running for the benefit of readers like myself and of the whole Church. Every now and then, when my hope for sane conversations between the East and the West wears thin, I think about blogs like yours and Fr. Gregory’s, and am encouraged.
As your Eastern brother on the other side of the ineffable tragedy of the Great Schism, I send you fraternal affection, peace and hope of that reunion for which we both long.
W.H.
CU,
Christ is Born!
I rejoice on 2 levels: that you have chosen to remain an Orthodox Christian, and that you will keep your blog active. I wish that our Roman Catholic respondants would exercise some restraint in some of their comments. Orthodox Christians tend not, as a whole, to get confrontive on the ecumenical plain. In fact ecumenism has gained a very bad reputation among many Orthodox Christians. I too believe that the dialogue with the Roman Church, but at the level of true theological reflection on the issues that divide, rather than on trumped up ones. For Example, we know that a Primacy does exist in the Church does exist, but the notion of Supremacy is alien to the history of the preschism church, and certainly unacceptable to Orthodox Christians. I am a fan of Pope Benedict the XVI, and know that he really understands the theological issues. One never reads the extreme remarks or polemics of the sort that I sometimes read here. I would urge my Roman Catholic brothers to follow the example of the Pope in charity and in restraint. By the way we need not resurrect the Crusades; remember they were not effective for anyone.
To be frank, I am outraged to read my fellow-catholics speak of “evangelisation” concerning efforts to “convert” our Orthodox brethren. The Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council has tended to avoid talking of conversion forn non-Catholic Christians, preferring to speak of “reception into full communion”, and without considering myself a theological liberal, I think it does so advisedly. This is because the pre-conciliar ecclesiology (which, like many things considered “traditional” dates back no further than a couple of centuries at most) focused on allmost eclusively juridical criteria, making belonging to the Church of Christ a matter of “yes or no”, and lumping in the same unchurched mass both pagans and non-Catholic Christians.
Thanks be to God, Vatican II has restored among us a more traditional, more coherent ecclesiology based on the notion of the Church as Sacrament. All of those whom Christ has called to Faith and Baptism belong to the Church in some way. Perfect belonging requires communion with the Roman Church and its bishop, but other bodies and the persons belonging to them are considered in partial communion. As such, while they are invited (corporately in the first place) to seek to re-establish that broken communion – sometimes by rediscovering part of the apostolic deposit and sacramental life which some of these ecclesial bodies have rejected in part – but it is entirely inappropriate to speak of evangelizing, as if they were not already blessed with faith in the Gospel.
The inapropriateness of this language is particularly shocking in the case of the Orthodox churches, which have persevered in preaching Apostolic doctrine and celebrating Apostolic sacraments in spite of a millenium of separation. This separation, moreover, should cut to the heart of every “traditional” Catholic all the more as we see that doctrine neglected and the celebration of those sacraments degraded and trivialised so much in the life of our own Church, for all her vaunted “perfection”. (One could add that the partial severing of the liturgy from its roots in tradition was only possible in a Church where the attribution of authority almost unilaterally to the Pope enabled papal fiat to be used to imose fabricated rites on a docile and unprepared flock.)
In any Case, Vat II states that the “partial communion” of the separated Eastern Churches is “almost perfect” because of that shared heritage. I accept the language of the latest Vatican document about the churches separated from Rome being “wounded” in their catholicity. I very much regret, however (and in this I am at one with the excellent Wei-Hsien Wan) that the opportunity was missed to point out that the Roman Church too is “wounded” by being severed from her sisters. There is wrong on both sides in the separation, but each should look to his own sin first. The “converting” that needs doing is the conversion of all of us to the Lord against whom we have sinned.
Among that sin needs to be counted the use of prideful and arrogant language. Popes have practiced it in the past, but thank God they have renounced it for forty years or more. Some Catholics, well-intentioned no doubt but with more zeal than justice or charity, do not seem to have gotten the message. They should be more lucid in their examination of history. Innocent III claimed, at the apogee of papal pretension, that the eternal salvation of each human being is dependant upon “subjection” to the bishop of Rome. It was left to subsequent generations, first of all to iron-out the scandalous ambiguity inherent in the use of language more fitting for secular domination than the exercise of a ministry of service, and then to interpret this statement by virtually explaining it way. For generations (and well before Vatican II) the overwhelming majority of Catholic theologians have sought to minimize the scope of this statement. Unless Mr Likoudis and Dianeski are Feeneyites – a deliciously ironic position in view of its disavowal by Rome itself – they will be forced to accept that the Catholic Church has moved on from its triumphalism of past centuries.
CU my friend, thank you for having the courage to continue providing a forum for those of us who are in search of dialogue and not diatribe to find that commodity, all too rare in the blogosphere as several contributors have said. If my own contribution has erred in the direction of acerbity, I apologise. But I believe that plain speaking is necessary to dialogue too. May the Holy Spirit guide us towards the day when we can celebrate our One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism at the One Eucharistic Feast, not by either of us submitting to the other, but by our both submitting to Christ. Faxit Deus.
d:
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven…. And you when you pray, you are not to be as the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, in order to be seen by men. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you.”
Your efforts to convert CU (and by extension the other Orthodox who post here) might be more effective if you didn’t continue to parade them on his blog. And even if you do have a duty to evangelize him and the other Orthodox, hasn’t CU made it clear that if this blog is to continue, it “would work better as a place for discussion of Orthodox-Catholic rapprochement” (which seems to me to suggest that attempts to convert EOs to RCs and vice-versa belong elsewhere)? The sought-for “ecumenically-minded Orthodox” will probably not want to post here if they continue to get messages that they are being “prayed for” and that their brethren uniformly define themselves against Rome instead of simply as Orthodox Christians.
CU,
First, anyone who wishes to post on either of my blogs http://palamas.blogspot.com/ or http://othervoicesaboutorthodoxy.blogspot.com/ is certainly welcome to do so. In fact, I would be overjoyed to host a forum for discussion on my blogs. But, before anyone signs on, let me offer a few thoughts.
While I sympathize with the RC comments, and have encountered my share of anti-Roman sentiment in Orthodoxy, I have also encountered my share of anti-Orthodox sentiment among RC. But what does the recollection of “their” sins against “us” accomplish but the deepening of the estrangement each from the other?
Several years ago a woman commented to me that she resented being told by what she need to do for all eternity by those who had not even bothered to learn her name. In so many of our conversations we seem to replicate this folly.
To the best of my knowledge, none of those who comment here–be they Catholic or Orthodox–have a blessing to speak officially in the name of their respective Church. Most I dare say are self-appointed. Our encounters therefore are personal, as friends, and not institutional.
Too frequently though we cloak ourselves in the aura of an institutional authority that we do not have. In doing so we rob ourselves and each other of the possibility of a personal encounter. It is this very spiritual friendship that Pope John Paul II worked so diligently to foster with religious and world leaders.
Our personal encounters, weak and inconsequential though they may seem to the world and those who are in the snare of the powers of this world , allow us to transcends our divisions. Polemics, our unwillingness to respond personally in friendship, on the other hand, simply deepen our estrangement.
Please do not tell me that the most loving thing I can do is tell people the truth. I have heard it before and, invariably, the person who says it doesn’t mean it. Or, more to the point, what they mean is they get to tell me why I’m wrong and they are right.
In my own experience, I have come to appreciate how narrowly my polemics parse the truth. How easily my commitment to truth tell lends itself to my own willingness to hear the truth about myself and own sinfulness.
Any who wish to write in a manner that makes it possible for Orthodox and Catholics to sustain each other in our commitment to Christ is welcome to post on my blog. There is already enough forums for polemics, I am disinclined to host another. If it helps, think Touchstone magazine as my model of Catholic/Orthodox encounter.
In Christ,
+FrG
Dear Readers,
I would love to set up a conference between James Likoudis and some of our Old Calendarist ultrconservative fanatics. Would anyone be willing to provide some popcorn?
Fr. Paul, this Orthodox is most grateful for your post. I especially appreciate it after being lumped together with “Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, atheist and animist” upthread. May Christ unite all who love Him.
Athanasios and Fr. Paul: If this blog henceforth is to host the likes of your comments, then you can count me out.
I can’t help wondering what would have ensued had CU announced that he was crossing the Tiber. Actually, I think I can safely say that all Hades would have broken loose — from the Internet Orthodox side, that is. I have seen it happen before, and it ain’t pretty.
Fr. Paul, if you think my language was intemperate, then all I can say is, you must not have read to many anti-Catholic online EO polemics. My posts, whatever their faults, are decorous and circumspect to the nth power compared with what I have routinely seen from the anti-ecumenical wing of Internet Orthodoxy.
I’m sorry, CU. I appreciate your witness, your candor, your charity, and your integrity. I like you very much as a cyber-acquaintance, and I am honored by that acquaintance. In the past I have deeply appreciated your blog, but I don’t think I can continue to check in here. Once the anti-ecumenical Orthodox brigade barges in, then I’m outta here. Been there, done that, and I’m weary unto death of it.
I hope we can continue to stay in touch by e-mail.
God bless,
Diane
P.S. Hieromonk Gregory: I like you very much, and I agree that Mr. Likoudis’s comments were a tad too harsh. But I think comparing him to an Old Calendarist “ultraconservative fanatic” is a cheap shot, to put it mildly. It is also exceedingly silly.
P.P.S. Fr. Paul: If you have issues with the whole idea of Catholic “evangelization” among individual Orthodox, may I suggest you take it up with Pope Benedict and the CDF? I was alluding, after all, to a recent Vatican document. 😉 You may also want to re-read Lumen Gentium, to see what it actually says regarding the fullness of faith found in the Catholic Church. Thank you, Father.
Scott: For the record, I was NOT lumping Orthodox in with Buddhists et al. Rather, my point was that, just as Buddhists (et al.) take offense at the exclusivist claims of Christianity, so some Orthodox may take offense at the exclusivist claims of Catholicism. It’s been known to happen!
I’m sorry if my meaning wasn’t clear.
BTW: Do you Orthodox not write us Catholics off as “the heterodox”? 😉
And why are Catholic comments acceptable to you only when they essentially give away the farm? What self-respecting Orthodox would give away the farm, so to speak, in ecumenical dialogue, the way you guys expect us Catholics to do?
But no matter. The turn this blog is taking is most distressing. (No, I do not at all blame CU, not in the least.)
In the immortal words of Sarah Brightman: “Time to say goodbye.”
Diane
Roman fever and so on
This is over a week old now, but this is the first chance I’ve really had to say anything about it.
Please refresh your memory on what I have said before regarding Orthodoxy and anti-Catholicism.
With that in mind, consider this posting, plus all…