12-18-2007, 10:18 PM
Shlama Akhi
Sorry that I haven't responded earlier but finals week was upon me. I believe that there has been some misunderstanding about a few key points.
What I have written is not a "politically correct" answer at all. At no time was I being political since I have no reason to be. I am neither a bishop or a politico, but a student of Christianity from a Eastern perspective who is interested by the likely doctrinal unity between two bodies who are out of communion. I cannot tell you how real talks would proceed and must err on the side of a more hard nosed approach. If you think I am being political, it is because you overestimate how divisive the Orthodox are. Do not read Rome into Orthodoxy! We have been on seperate paths for a very long time and comparing or projecting Rome unto Orthodoxy is like doing so with the COE.
Please be more careful when reading what I wrote about the ranking of Patriarchates and do not use Roman models of heirarcy to view the Orthodox. I never said the the COE would be under or inferior to Constantinople in any way shape or form. Unity does not mean administrative unity but it means that we acknowledge that both are parts of one unified Body of Christ that cannot be broken. We take communion together and can learn from each other as brothers and manifestation of the Universal Church in each ones respective sphere of ministry. Of course, the COE would not be subject to any one patriachate nor would it be considered inferior to any one patriarchate. I wrote what I did to clarify how the "pentarchy" system is interpreted by the Orthodox. Of course the COE is beyond the pentarchy as is the patriachate of Bulgaria or Greece. The old ranking is used as a formality by the bishops of those sees and is not to be considered in a Roman sense. "First among equallys" is not a doctrinal or ecclesiological decree but a counter-statment to pro-papal supremecy guys that attempts to denote how far we are willing to go in recognizing papal honor. This is not to be applied in a manner to suggest that the COE would be considered within the system of a pentarchy. Apples and Oranges. My statements on ecclesiastical order was to clarify--with the present Orthodox context (read my words honestly here)--how each national church is fully independant and sees to the upkeep of its own household. If there were a re-union (we realize that we are in accord with the COE) between COE and Orthodox, I couldn't imagine that any power shifts or rankings would be touched. Rather, other issues aside, we would open communion by having a shared eucharist and the COE would maintain its present status. Anything short of that, I couldn't imagine. No patriach is above or bellow any other.
I began this thread because in my reading I realise that we may share a faith in a manner that no other two churches do. If that is true it is both sad and a sin that we do not act as brothers in one Universal faith. If that is true we are brothers in one faith who must demonstrate it in one communion. Since you like to read roman powerplays into my words I'll state it again: that does not infer any submission of one to the other but a mutual recognition. (yeah, that is a period)
Issues like Theodore, Nestorius, etc would only properly be examined by commissions of both bodies who address the issues as is appropriate. Paul nor Ashur cannot decide what entire churches should do unless they are deluded enough to be so arrogant. However, I think that there is ground for looking at why there is a division between the two churches. I do read up on Nestorius and am not such a jerk as to think that he is un-important. I was just admitting that I could know more. I never berated you for not knowing much about Orthodoxy. Please, don't be politically correct but also don't attack me personally. I write out of love and a genuine wonder as to why there is a separation and to see your views on what keeps us from talking about the issues we have been discussing. I really don't care what you or me think about Nestorius or Theodore since we will read who we will read (I like Theodore and will read Nestorius as well as Cyril) and learn from it. My concern is what keeps our churches from discussing these issues. There are some 14 or so orthodox patriarchates and there will be varying degrees of willingness to participate in such discussions--that is part and parcel of our decentralized nature. If you were to sit at table with the Russian Church's representation to the European Union you would find a man very close to COE ways of theology, but there are also those who have a more alexandrian understanding. That doesn't mean unity is not achievable, but that discussion would be richer than with Rome. Rome is all to happy to dismiss the historical/theological stuff since when you're one with Rome they own you. Who cares what a unia believed once it is in submission to the Pope. We are not like that since we don't swallow up people.
Yeah, there was a union in that we recognized each other fully and shared a communion until 612--with some probable breaks before. I am speaking of "unity" as any easter christian writer I have ever read speaks of it (I have read a few as I am a seminarian). No one looks at it like you seem to--as administrative unity--unless he's a roman catholic. Since you are not, I used it in an Eastern context. We were unified in that we considered ourselves as parts of one Body of Christ and not heretics. If there is no heresy seperating us then we are in union, but are not sacramentally demonstrating it. Re-union means we are living as sister local churches in the One body of Christ--no one over the other! Where did I say that the ORthodox must recognize the COE for it to be legit? Yeah, you were in commion with Rome and several bishops of each side intercommuned including one patriach of COE who communed post-chalcedon at Hagia Sophia.
and No the EO never "shoved decisions" down the throat of the COE. It was only gradually that commion was broken and that involved the battles between Persian Assyrians and Monophysites. When did the EO not respect COE authority in its own land? What ephesan documents where sent to the COE to sign? When? The COE wasn't forced to sign any councils; correct me if I am wrong.
Again, what I am wondering is why more capable and intelligent scholors and bishops from both sides get together to see if there is ground for cultivating between the COE and EO. With the Orthodox there is no fear of the COE's independence being threatened, but recognizing the orthodox Christianity of both parties is not only nice but simply christian.
B'sheyna o shlama
Sorry that I haven't responded earlier but finals week was upon me. I believe that there has been some misunderstanding about a few key points.
What I have written is not a "politically correct" answer at all. At no time was I being political since I have no reason to be. I am neither a bishop or a politico, but a student of Christianity from a Eastern perspective who is interested by the likely doctrinal unity between two bodies who are out of communion. I cannot tell you how real talks would proceed and must err on the side of a more hard nosed approach. If you think I am being political, it is because you overestimate how divisive the Orthodox are. Do not read Rome into Orthodoxy! We have been on seperate paths for a very long time and comparing or projecting Rome unto Orthodoxy is like doing so with the COE.
Please be more careful when reading what I wrote about the ranking of Patriarchates and do not use Roman models of heirarcy to view the Orthodox. I never said the the COE would be under or inferior to Constantinople in any way shape or form. Unity does not mean administrative unity but it means that we acknowledge that both are parts of one unified Body of Christ that cannot be broken. We take communion together and can learn from each other as brothers and manifestation of the Universal Church in each ones respective sphere of ministry. Of course, the COE would not be subject to any one patriachate nor would it be considered inferior to any one patriarchate. I wrote what I did to clarify how the "pentarchy" system is interpreted by the Orthodox. Of course the COE is beyond the pentarchy as is the patriachate of Bulgaria or Greece. The old ranking is used as a formality by the bishops of those sees and is not to be considered in a Roman sense. "First among equallys" is not a doctrinal or ecclesiological decree but a counter-statment to pro-papal supremecy guys that attempts to denote how far we are willing to go in recognizing papal honor. This is not to be applied in a manner to suggest that the COE would be considered within the system of a pentarchy. Apples and Oranges. My statements on ecclesiastical order was to clarify--with the present Orthodox context (read my words honestly here)--how each national church is fully independant and sees to the upkeep of its own household. If there were a re-union (we realize that we are in accord with the COE) between COE and Orthodox, I couldn't imagine that any power shifts or rankings would be touched. Rather, other issues aside, we would open communion by having a shared eucharist and the COE would maintain its present status. Anything short of that, I couldn't imagine. No patriach is above or bellow any other.
I began this thread because in my reading I realise that we may share a faith in a manner that no other two churches do. If that is true it is both sad and a sin that we do not act as brothers in one Universal faith. If that is true we are brothers in one faith who must demonstrate it in one communion. Since you like to read roman powerplays into my words I'll state it again: that does not infer any submission of one to the other but a mutual recognition. (yeah, that is a period)
Issues like Theodore, Nestorius, etc would only properly be examined by commissions of both bodies who address the issues as is appropriate. Paul nor Ashur cannot decide what entire churches should do unless they are deluded enough to be so arrogant. However, I think that there is ground for looking at why there is a division between the two churches. I do read up on Nestorius and am not such a jerk as to think that he is un-important. I was just admitting that I could know more. I never berated you for not knowing much about Orthodoxy. Please, don't be politically correct but also don't attack me personally. I write out of love and a genuine wonder as to why there is a separation and to see your views on what keeps us from talking about the issues we have been discussing. I really don't care what you or me think about Nestorius or Theodore since we will read who we will read (I like Theodore and will read Nestorius as well as Cyril) and learn from it. My concern is what keeps our churches from discussing these issues. There are some 14 or so orthodox patriarchates and there will be varying degrees of willingness to participate in such discussions--that is part and parcel of our decentralized nature. If you were to sit at table with the Russian Church's representation to the European Union you would find a man very close to COE ways of theology, but there are also those who have a more alexandrian understanding. That doesn't mean unity is not achievable, but that discussion would be richer than with Rome. Rome is all to happy to dismiss the historical/theological stuff since when you're one with Rome they own you. Who cares what a unia believed once it is in submission to the Pope. We are not like that since we don't swallow up people.
Quote:Wait a minute, hold on there a second. The use of the word "re-union" there is inappropriate. It's the same thing the Roman apologists attempt when they play with words like "re-establishment of communion", etc.
First of all, "re-anything" presupposes that something existed prior.
Whether or not there ever is a "re-anything" with the EO, or any other group for that matter, the fact remains that the COE has an independent Patriarchate, and that fact is not dependent on your recognition. It's a fact, whether it's "recognized" by anyone else or not.
The Church of the East, being to the east of the Roman Empire, never was in union or communion with anyone over the other side. Yes, all believers consider themselves part of the Universal Church. We proudly calls ourselves by one and the same name.
Yeah, there was a union in that we recognized each other fully and shared a communion until 612--with some probable breaks before. I am speaking of "unity" as any easter christian writer I have ever read speaks of it (I have read a few as I am a seminarian). No one looks at it like you seem to--as administrative unity--unless he's a roman catholic. Since you are not, I used it in an Eastern context. We were unified in that we considered ourselves as parts of one Body of Christ and not heretics. If there is no heresy seperating us then we are in union, but are not sacramentally demonstrating it. Re-union means we are living as sister local churches in the One body of Christ--no one over the other! Where did I say that the ORthodox must recognize the COE for it to be legit? Yeah, you were in commion with Rome and several bishops of each side intercommuned including one patriach of COE who communed post-chalcedon at Hagia Sophia.
Quote:Remember, we don't even share the same Synods. The "Ecumenical Councils" within the Roman Empire, were local to that empire's Church. We had nothing to do with them. As you had nothing to do with our "Councils."Yeah, no one disputes that. Nicaea is binding on the COE only because the Pat of the COE accepted it. They do represent to us a true definition of what it means to be a Christian and that is why we stand by them. Unlike Rome, just cause it is a council called ecumenical does not mean it will become imporatant; it must be shown to chystalise the faith in a true manner and that only happened in the centures after the council. Ephesus is not complete without Chalcedon as developed by St Maximos the Confessor. This is a deep matter for which space does not suffice here. I recommend The Church of the Ancient Councils: the Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils if you want to understand how we use councils. This is similar to how the COE made statments on christology and all, but they only hold water in how they were interpreted by the likes of Mar Babai and Mar Abdisho.
and No the EO never "shoved decisions" down the throat of the COE. It was only gradually that commion was broken and that involved the battles between Persian Assyrians and Monophysites. When did the EO not respect COE authority in its own land? What ephesan documents where sent to the COE to sign? When? The COE wasn't forced to sign any councils; correct me if I am wrong.
Again, what I am wondering is why more capable and intelligent scholors and bishops from both sides get together to see if there is ground for cultivating between the COE and EO. With the Orthodox there is no fear of the COE's independence being threatened, but recognizing the orthodox Christianity of both parties is not only nice but simply christian.
B'sheyna o shlama