Pope Leo did not excommunicate the Eastern Orthodox Church. Firstly, Pope Leo was dead at that time, and secondly, the papal legates, led by Cardinal Candida, which Leo had dispatched (seeking aid against a Norman invasion) excommunicated the Constantinople Patriarch for moves against local churches, and the Patriarch in turn excommunicated the legates.
I imagine Bernonensis is referring to Leo II's ratification of the Third Council of Constantinople, which had anathematized Honorius for excessive tolerance of (though not personally teaching) monothelitism.
Honorius was found by the Council to have taught the monothelite heresy, not just to turn a blind eye to it. The Council fathers wrote:
“In addition, we find it necessary, together with them, to expel and excommunicate from the Holy Church of God and anathematize Honorius, the former Pope of ancient Rome, because from his letters to Sergius, we were convinced that he completely shared his opinion and confirmed this wicked teaching.”
I'm curious, are you an Orthodox? If you are not comfortable answering, I understand.
The past is the past, none of us were there, we cannot easily/practically undo what was done and, particularly, I don't believe the appetite to do so is there universally. Challenges: Orthodox believe Catholics erred. Catholics, myself included as one of Orthodoxy's advocates, wouldn't know where to begin as Orthodoxy doesn't seem to agree within itself. Ukraine and the so-called Oriental Orthodox are likely Orthodoxy's biggest challenges. In blogosphere, any Orthodox, particularly converts, seem radicalized. Who is teaching this and why? Why aren't they being taught to focus solely on their sins and salvation. Similarly in blogosphere and within some of the Churches, Bartholomew is regularly derided. Where possibly could this be taken? Note: Many online Orthodox priests make tremendous sense relative to how they present the faith. Part of me thinks these priests aren't anywhere near as radical as some believers have become. As well, Pope Leo seems reasonable, might consider change for the greater good that Christ expects, some degree of saving face institutionally will be required, but, in your view, is just going to be words and empty documents? Just curious. Hopefully, you will see this as this post is becoming buried.
Yes - within the New Gracinica Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church. I became Roman Catholic in my mid-20’s. Then was baptized into the Orthodox Church at a Greek parish a few years later. I’ve spent time in the Trad Cath world with the various groups (SSPX, FSSP, ICKSP) before settling into life in the Serbian Church where we have a very attentive spiritual father in our almost totally convert parish. The history is lengthy and somewhat embarrassing in hindsight. But I can elaborate if it furthers the conversation.
As for your questions:
Oriental Orthodox are a non-issue as they aren’t Orthodox.
We are on the side that does not see the EP established “church” in Ukraine as legitmate: we support Met. Onuphry and the suffering Ukrainian Church.
I agree that online Orthodox commentators appear radicalized. I think that is because many of them are youngish men who have converted. At that age and mindset, it is easy to be hubristic — I have done plenty of that myself in my younger years. These things tend to settle down over time, but we are seeing a huge influx of young men converting, so there’s always another crop. The same thing happens in Trad Catholic circles — it’s something that happens to a young man when he has found a cause to believe in.
There is antagonism between non-GOARCH and GOARCH in America. This isn’t just an online phenomenon. I don’t pay any attention to the EP personally as he’s not my bishop, but I am staunchly anti-ecumenist as are most Orthodox. So I think that’s where the issue lies with the EP. And there’s his tendency to reach for prerogatives that he doesn’t have that are foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology.
I’ve got notifications on for this so I’ll see your reply.
Thank you so much, Marc, for your reply in general and for sharing your own journey.
I can understand your legitimacy point. At the same time, there's the appearance of collusion between the ROC and the Russian regime that many struggle with. Faith and politics should not be intertwined in this way. You might be aware that for a variety of reasons, there are jurisdictions that formerly would have been part of Kiev (pre ROC as a patriarchate), that being ACROD and the UOC.
I also understand your opinion on ecumenism. I dislike greatly the variety of leaders who assemble and pray together, even if the cause itself is worthy. It's the display that gives me pause. We're not all on an equal footing and to play "unity" is an afront to the traditions we protect. Nonetheless, it goes on and it is more photo-op than meaningful.
That said, the Orthodox were represented at Francis' funeral and Leo's inauguration. Representatives of the OCA had an audience with Leo the other day during which gifts were exchanged. Which way should it be then?
So, as a pewsitter, is there any common ground upon which to build? To many within Orthodoxy, my Byzantine Church is an anomaly and an afront despite the inconsistent ways the various groups came over to the Catholic Church. I have always hoped that we would be a bridge, not an impediment as our beliefs are so aligned, I could be assigned as a member of an Orthodox Church tomorrow and have little in the way of adjustment as a result. But, here we are, Ukraine is a tinderbox, converts who aren't even Slavic are viciously against that which has nothing to do with them and most likely are aligned with you, the EP is there seemingly as a figurehead without much influence. It's interesting that in many places in the U.S., Orthodox and Byzantine priests maintain very cordial relationships and will cooperate based upon need and resources that aren't in endless supply.
Byz — I don’t see the political connections to be an essential problem since, as you say, they’re somewhat inevitable. The machinations at those levels can be problematic, but the church will eventually carry through.
I also don’t see a problem with hierarchs attending the funeral for a deceased pope since it makes sense from a global leadership perspective. Of course, we don’t see the pope as “pope” or even a cleric at all, so any involvement beyond attendance could be an issue. On the whole, providing nice messages about the deceased is simply the Christian thing to do, as is congratulating the newly elected. The pope is a world figure after all, so treating him as such is appropriate.
On the Eastern Catholic question, I do not know the history. I know that people from Orthodox areas that have experienced the Unia take a very dim view of them. Personally, I don’t claim to see the theological appeal; although, I certainly understand the liturgical and spiritual appeal to the faithful.
My take is that you are lacking Orthodox ecclesiology, which is a major flaw. To the extent you must accept or turn a blind eye to Latin theological developments that aren’t Orthodox, it seems you’re living in a schizophrenic state.
I don’t think that means people need to be mean about it, like you’re saying. But I think it’s always best to clear about these things: I believe Orthodoxy to be the True Church and to represent the ecclesiological and theological teaching of the Fathers, who continue to teach us thru the modern saints. So I hope that all Eastern Catholics (and all people everywhere) will respond to that witness and convert.
According to Google, that was the Latvian Orthodox Church that George converted to.
Serbian Orthodoxy is a unique blend of Russian and Greek liturgical traditions with some peculiarities all its own. Our services tend to be maximalistic, lasting around 2.5 hours each Sunday. We don’t have pews or chairs. And we follow the Julian Calendar. So it’s a bit of a culture shock initially (except all the services are in English).
Peculiarities in the sense of local customs. As an example, there are special services on patron saints days, etc.
Orthodoxy has always used vernacular in the liturgy (hence, the work of Ss Cyril and Methodius, for example).
Orthodox liturgics are in general more flexible than the post-Tridentine Roman Rite. The Greeks in America, for example, tend to shorten the services. The Russians tend to follow everything to the letter. The bishop has the authority to determine what is the suitable liturgical expression for his people in certain ways. Usually the variations are found in the first parts of the liturgy, before the Anaphoras (of St Basil or St John Chrysostom, according to the day).
15 comments:
Interesting indeed , Father. But you could have included Leo II, who condemned an earlier Pope for failure to combat heresy.
How nice if our current Pope Leo would be able to bring them all back into the Church!
Pope Leo did not excommunicate the Eastern Orthodox Church. Firstly, Pope Leo was dead at that time, and secondly, the papal legates, led by Cardinal Candida, which Leo had dispatched (seeking aid against a Norman invasion) excommunicated the Constantinople Patriarch for moves against local churches, and the Patriarch in turn excommunicated the legates.
Did not know that. Do you have any specifics on that?
Fr. AJM,
I imagine Bernonensis is referring to Leo II's ratification of the Third Council of Constantinople, which had anathematized Honorius for excessive tolerance of (though not personally teaching) monothelitism.
Nick
Honorius was found by the Council to have taught the monothelite heresy, not just to turn a blind eye to it. The Council fathers wrote:
“In addition, we find it necessary, together with them, to expel and excommunicate from the Holy Church of God and anathematize Honorius, the former Pope of ancient Rome, because from his letters to Sergius, we were convinced that he completely shared his opinion and confirmed this wicked teaching.”
Marc,
I'm curious, are you an Orthodox? If you are not comfortable answering, I understand.
The past is the past, none of us were there, we cannot easily/practically undo what was done and, particularly, I don't believe the appetite to do so is there universally. Challenges: Orthodox believe Catholics erred. Catholics, myself included as one of Orthodoxy's advocates, wouldn't know where to begin as Orthodoxy doesn't seem to agree within itself. Ukraine and the so-called Oriental Orthodox are likely Orthodoxy's biggest challenges. In blogosphere, any Orthodox, particularly converts, seem radicalized. Who is teaching this and why? Why aren't they being taught to focus solely on their sins and salvation. Similarly in blogosphere and within some of the Churches, Bartholomew is regularly derided. Where possibly could this be taken? Note: Many online Orthodox priests make tremendous sense relative to how they present the faith. Part of me thinks these priests aren't anywhere near as radical as some believers have become. As well, Pope Leo seems reasonable, might consider change for the greater good that Christ expects, some degree of saving face institutionally will be required, but, in your view, is just going to be words and empty documents? Just curious. Hopefully, you will see this as this post is becoming buried.
Yes - within the New Gracinica Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church. I became Roman Catholic in my mid-20’s. Then was baptized into the Orthodox Church at a Greek parish a few years later. I’ve spent time in the Trad Cath world with the various groups (SSPX, FSSP, ICKSP) before settling into life in the Serbian Church where we have a very attentive spiritual father in our almost totally convert parish. The history is lengthy and somewhat embarrassing in hindsight. But I can elaborate if it furthers the conversation.
As for your questions:
Oriental Orthodox are a non-issue as they aren’t Orthodox.
We are on the side that does not see the EP established “church” in Ukraine as legitmate: we support Met. Onuphry and the suffering Ukrainian Church.
I agree that online Orthodox commentators appear radicalized. I think that is because many of them are youngish men who have converted. At that age and mindset, it is easy to be hubristic — I have done plenty of that myself in my younger years. These things tend to settle down over time, but we are seeing a huge influx of young men converting, so there’s always another crop. The same thing happens in Trad Catholic circles — it’s something that happens to a young man when he has found a cause to believe in.
There is antagonism between non-GOARCH and GOARCH in America. This isn’t just an online phenomenon. I don’t pay any attention to the EP personally as he’s not my bishop, but I am staunchly anti-ecumenist as are most Orthodox. So I think that’s where the issue lies with the EP. And there’s his tendency to reach for prerogatives that he doesn’t have that are foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology.
I’ve got notifications on for this so I’ll see your reply.
Thank you so much, Marc, for your reply in general and for sharing your own journey.
I can understand your legitimacy point. At the same time, there's the appearance of collusion between the ROC and the Russian regime that many struggle with. Faith and politics should not be intertwined in this way. You might be aware that for a variety of reasons, there are jurisdictions that formerly would have been part of Kiev (pre ROC as a patriarchate), that being ACROD and the UOC.
I also understand your opinion on ecumenism. I dislike greatly the variety of leaders who assemble and pray together, even if the cause itself is worthy. It's the display that gives me pause. We're not all on an equal footing and to play "unity" is an afront to the traditions we protect. Nonetheless, it goes on and it is more photo-op than meaningful.
That said, the Orthodox were represented at Francis' funeral and Leo's inauguration. Representatives of the OCA had an audience with Leo the other day during which gifts were exchanged. Which way should it be then?
So, as a pewsitter, is there any common ground upon which to build? To many within Orthodoxy, my Byzantine Church is an anomaly and an afront despite the inconsistent ways the various groups came over to the Catholic Church. I have always hoped that we would be a bridge, not an impediment as our beliefs are so aligned, I could be assigned as a member of an Orthodox Church tomorrow and have little in the way of adjustment as a result. But, here we are, Ukraine is a tinderbox, converts who aren't even Slavic are viciously against that which has nothing to do with them and most likely are aligned with you, the EP is there seemingly as a figurehead without much influence. It's interesting that in many places in the U.S., Orthodox and Byzantine priests maintain very cordial relationships and will cooperate based upon need and resources that aren't in endless supply.
Thanks again for your insights.
Byz — I don’t see the political connections to be an essential problem since, as you say, they’re somewhat inevitable. The machinations at those levels can be problematic, but the church will eventually carry through.
I also don’t see a problem with hierarchs attending the funeral for a deceased pope since it makes sense from a global leadership perspective. Of course, we don’t see the pope as “pope” or even a cleric at all, so any involvement beyond attendance could be an issue. On the whole, providing nice messages about the deceased is simply the Christian thing to do, as is congratulating the newly elected. The pope is a world figure after all, so treating him as such is appropriate.
On the Eastern Catholic question, I do not know the history. I know that people from Orthodox areas that have experienced the Unia take a very dim view of them. Personally, I don’t claim to see the theological appeal; although, I certainly understand the liturgical and spiritual appeal to the faithful.
My take is that you are lacking Orthodox ecclesiology, which is a major flaw. To the extent you must accept or turn a blind eye to Latin theological developments that aren’t Orthodox, it seems you’re living in a schizophrenic state.
I don’t think that means people need to be mean about it, like you’re saying. But I think it’s always best to clear about these things: I believe Orthodoxy to be the True Church and to represent the ecclesiological and theological teaching of the Fathers, who continue to teach us thru the modern saints. So I hope that all Eastern Catholics (and all people everywhere) will respond to that witness and convert.
Didn’t George on an episode of Seinfeld convert to Serbian Orthodoxy?
According to Google, that was the Latvian Orthodox Church that George converted to.
Serbian Orthodoxy is a unique blend of Russian and Greek liturgical traditions with some peculiarities all its own. Our services tend to be maximalistic, lasting around 2.5 hours each Sunday. We don’t have pews or chairs. And we follow the Julian Calendar. So it’s a bit of a culture shock initially (except all the services are in English).
Interesting. Serbians have allowed for liturgical development in terms of English and other peculiar developments.
Peculiarities in the sense of local customs. As an example, there are special services on patron saints days, etc.
Orthodoxy has always used vernacular in the liturgy (hence, the work of Ss Cyril and Methodius, for example).
Orthodox liturgics are in general more flexible than the post-Tridentine Roman Rite. The Greeks in America, for example, tend to shorten the services. The Russians tend to follow everything to the letter. The bishop has the authority to determine what is the suitable liturgical expression for his people in certain ways. Usually the variations are found in the first parts of the liturgy, before the Anaphoras (of St Basil or St John Chrysostom, according to the day).
Thank you, Marc.
Post a Comment