Comments on: To Believe and Not to Believe

By: fatherstephen

fatherstephen — Sun, 13 May 2012 02:36:29 +0000

Philip Jude,
Gosh. This just seems to be polemic for the sake of being offensive. A minute or two looking at even web sources(such as Orthodoxwiki or the like) should tell you what the Orthodox think of these things. It is St. Mark of Ephesus that is received by the Orthodox as having the definitive word on the councils. The Patriarch of Moscow never accepted it, and the Orthodox condemn it to this day. But to say, “before your Church was “swallowed up by the Turk,” is simply beyond the pale. Perhaps you have a mechanical or automatic view of councils (like declaring councils to be “Ecumenical” even before they are held), even those in which bishops are coerced. Coercion was a common tool of Rome during that period, but something renounced these days. It is shameful to assert otherwise.
There are a variety of practices among Orthodox jurisdictions viz. the reception of converts from Rome. Some jurisdictions would indeed receive them by Baptism, some by chrismation, and some by confession (including the renunciation of heresies). These things differ and are at present a subject of discussion that is ongoing among the Orthodox and scheduled to be decided by the Great and Holy Council that is in the process of planning. How the Orthodox understand the matter of the reception of converts varies, because all of the Orthodox have a very different understanding of the sacraments than Rome. Thus is there any difference between Catholics and Baptists? Of course. One group are Catholics and the others are Baptists. Some of the Orthodox would receive a Baptist by Chrismation, though most would direct that they be Baptized. The notion of “valid” is foreign to Orthodoxy – as is the question, “Are Roman Catholic sacraments valid?” It’s like asking, “Is this tree valid?” It’s a question that makes no sense.
Florence is not a council, except in the sense that Rimini was a council. It instead is an event of sadness to be considered alongside the sack of Constantinople, the creation of the Unia and other painful aggressions by the RC’s. You do not do well to bring the subject up – much less to assert that I am engaging in revisionism.
The conversation has gone far enough afield, I think. As to the normal boundaries of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue – that the Orthodox are polite enough not to bring up the obvious insults by Rome throughout our history is generous. But don’t mistake politeness for acquiescence, nor is it helpful to be less than polite yourself.
I think it’s enough said.

By: Michael Bauman

Michael Bauman — Sun, 13 May 2012 02:22:41 +0000

PJ, you have some really interesting points and perspectives, but when you lapse into the Roman doctrine of “all would be fine if the Orthodox just submitted to the Pope” it gets tiring very quickly and your posts turn a bit unctious and condescending.

We are never gong to return to submission to the Pope because we’ve never been in submission to the Pope. but I think you know that.

I’d appreciate it if you would simply refrain from continuing such calls, no matter how subtle, on this Orthodox blog. It just doesn’t seem very polite for a non-Orthodox to tell Orthodox not only what we believe and how to believe it, but also revise history in the process.

It is more than a little offensive to me and I suspect others as well.

Forgive me if I have over-reached Father I do not mean to offend, but I just felt it needed to be said.

By: Michael Patrick

Michael Patrick — Sat, 12 May 2012 23:42:37 +0000

OrthodoxWiki says about him:

Our father among the saints Mark Evgenikos, Archbishop of Ephesus, was famous for his courageous defense of Orthodoxy at the Council of Florence (1439 A.D.) in spite of the Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaeologus and the pope of Rome Eugenius IV. He held Rome to be in schism and heresy for its acceptance of the Filioque clause added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and for the claims of the papacy to universal jurisdiction over the Church, and was thus the only Eastern bishop to refuse to sign the decrees of the council. Sometimes he is called “the conscience of Orthodoxy.”

By: dinoship

dinoship — Sat, 12 May 2012 21:33:16 +0000

PJ
All Orthodox know that Mark Evgenikos is the true representative of Orthodoxy in that example you have used though!
We hold him to great esteem because of that very fact.
Just like in the early Church Saint Basil was in a huge minority or like Prophet Elija thousands of years before, (sheer numbers do not mean much at all as you already know).

Forgive me, but, I sincerely think you are punching above your weight in an unknown ring here…

There is nothing “revisionist” whatsoever in Father’s words, they rather exude the very spirit of Orthodoxy actually, could you please refrain from such characterisation…

By: Michael Patrick

Michael Patrick — Sat, 12 May 2012 18:57:21 +0000

off-topic…

P.J. Allow me to remind you that you were going to “point to chapter and verse” in a prior comment you made about Fr. John Behr’s book, “The Mystery of Christ”. This is under in Fr. Stephen’s recent “Intuition of Narnia” post. MarkBasil and I still hope that you will respond as you said you would.

If you’d rather not follow this through, that’s OK too; just let us know.

By: PJ

PJ — Sat, 12 May 2012 16:12:15 +0000

Father,

I think you are denying historical facts and engaging in serious revisionism. As late as the fifteenth century, the Orthodox understood the Catholics to be divided brethren, and vice versa, as is evidenced by the councils which aimed at reunion. Indeed, before your church was swallowed up by the Turk, it had conceded the issue of Petrine primacy and tied itself again to Rome. Your Patriarch Joseph II, along with all the eastern bishops at Florence saved Mark of Ephesus, agreed to return to the fold. Had it not been for that terrible event, we might not be having this discussion.

Now, do you deny that there is a difference between say, Catholics and Baptists? If not, then I cannot help but find you well outside the normal boundaries of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 12 May 2012 08:45:59 +0000

Father, if I may, a quick note or two:

Schism is a historical recorded “fact” that has been utterly eclipsed by Pascha. It is if you will, a mere footnote in history. In the real world, in the slums of Calcutta, it is less than this.

Also you say:

“Christ is everywhere – even with non-believers”

If however, we exclude him, he will not be there. This of course, is nothing less than a manifestation of God’s great love for mankind.

By: fatherstephen

fatherstephen — Sat, 12 May 2012 02:13:44 +0000

Andrew, you have rules that sound interesting but are simply not theologically correct. Christ is everywhere – even with non-believers. Christ is everywhere, even with sinners. The Scripture warns of schism, so apparently it can actually happen. A schism from the Church, is a group of believers, regardless of doctrine, who abandon the unity of the One Cup in faith and truth. When they do so, they have excommunicated themselves from the One Church. Of course, between Rome and the Orthodox, there is not an understanding of “mutual schism.” There is an disagreement about who is in schism. But there is no disagreement that someone is in schism. If you think there is no schism, then you need to drop a note to the Vatican and to the Phanar and let them know, because it would be news to them. Novel ecclesiologies are protestantism.

By: dinoship

dinoship — Fri, 11 May 2012 22:30:45 +0000

The “two lungs” theory seems both ridiculous and cunning.

To even come up with it in the first place sounds, to me, like the excuse created by an impostor, his “crutch”.

It also sounds like the reasoning of an ‘outside’ observer. The unfathomable depth of the One True Faith presupposes that immersing oneself in it precludes such an “outsider’s observation”.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 11 May 2012 22:10:49 +0000

There cannot be schism where Christ is.