Orthodoxy’s Divisions Offer Glimmers of Hope for Healing With Catholicism

[Michie]

COMMENTARY: Despite the lamentable developments in Ukraine and beyond in 2022, it’s possible 2023 could herald long-desired ecumenical breakthroughs.

Just as the disruption of war can create new circumstances favorable to peace — consider how the first Iraq war led to the Oslo peace process — so, too, can ecclesial conflicts create new circumstances for unity. At the end of 2022, divisions in global Orthodoxy have rarely been so deep. That paradoxically offers new possibilities for ecumenical progress.

The Russian Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow, Kirill, is widely considered a compromised figure, held in exceedingly low esteem both in the Christian Church and the world for his support of Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine. He has been formally sanctioned by several states, an astonishing development for the most important patriarch by population in Orthodoxy; some half of all Orthodox Christians are in Russia. And yet their patriarch is now persona non grata in much of Europe and North America.

Patriarch Kirill, even before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022, was a man of fractured communion. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople — styled primus sine paribus (first without equals) amongst the patriarchs — had recognized in 2019 an “autocephalous” (independent) Orthodox Church in Ukraine, no longer subject to Moscow. In response, Kirill broke off communion with Bartholomew, in effect excommunicating him.

Even prior to that, in 2016 Kirill and the Russian Orthodox Church boycotted the Pan-Orthodox Council — a meeting akin to an ecumenical council for Catholics — that had been in preparation for decades.

Continued below.

Orthodoxy’s Divisions Offer Glimmers of Hope for Healing With Catholicism

COMMENTARY: Despite the lamentable developments in Ukraine and beyond in 2022, it’s possible 2023 could herald long-desired ecumenical breakthroughs.

www.ncregister.com

 

[narnia59]

I've long thought if any reunification with Orthodoxy happened it would come in pieces. They can't agree to do anything as a unified group.

But unfortunately the Orthodox leadership have spent centuries convincing their faithful that we are heretics. It's a necessary answer to why not Catholic. Much of that in my experience has been because they distort Catholic teaching (the below article on Purgatory exemplifies that). So even if the leadership can come to agreement that our doctrinal issues are really not as great as they've been made to seem, I'm not sure how their leadership would ever be able to bring their faithful along to the table. It would certainly take a mighty act of the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox View of Purgatory Is Surprisingly Catholic

Many Orthodox believe that their tradition rejects purgatory, but is this true? Take a look at what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

www.catholic.com

 

[Bob Crowley]

Personally I'm more interested in the Protestant-Catholic divide and how to overcome it. I've had experience in both camps, having been Protestant and now Catholic (atheist before either). In some ways if there was a large wide spread revival and God made it very clear that He wanted the Catholic and Protestant churches to reunify, I think atheists would have fewer problems joining the Catholic Church than Protestants as they wouldn't be carrying the distortions some Protestants have about the Catholic Church.

I've had virtually no experience of the Orthodox Church, having attended one single baptism ceremony in a Greek Orthodox church years ago and it was all Greek to me. And that's it.

I'm also not familiar with their Byzantine history and different traditions of state and church. I don't really have a sense of it.

Being Australian, our historical heritage is tied up with the Western Churches, initially Anglicanism while Catholicism was banned in the early days of settlement. And of course there were the various other Protestant churches. I presume Scottish settlers were largely responsible for the Presbyterian Church for example.

Orthodoxy doesn't have a large footprint in our cultural traditions, although there are Orthodox Churches and congregations here and there.

But my thoughts on Catholic-Protestant unity are conjecture.

As far as Orthodox-Catholic unity is concerned, I think that God would have to raise up a Catholic, ex-Orthodox prophet and I think he'd have to be Russian. It's the strongest Orthodox Church by far. I think Moscow believes it has inherited the Byzantine Constantinoplean mantle, so any major movements would have to include the Russian Church, or it wouldn't go very far.

I can't see it happening either under Kirill, or while Putin is in charge of Russia.

Again that's conjecture.

 

[zippy2006]

I've long thought if any reunification with Orthodoxy happened it would come in pieces. They can't agree to do anything as a unified group.

But unfortunately the Orthodox leadership have spent centuries convincing their faithful that we are heretics. It's a necessary answer to why not Catholic. Much of that in my experience has been because they distort Catholic teaching (the below article on Purgatory exemplifies that). So even if the leadership can come to agreement that our doctrinal issues are really not as great as they've been made to seem, I'm not sure how their leadership would ever be able to bring their faithful along to the table. It would certainly take a mighty act of the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox View of Purgatory Is Surprisingly Catholic

Many Orthodox believe that their tradition rejects purgatory, but is this true? Take a look at what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

www.catholic.com

A good Catholic voice in this area is Fr. Christiaan Kappes, who is a wonderful scholar, and who I believe is bi-ritual. There was a recent thread in the Orthodox forums on the Immaculate Conception (link). In that video Craig Truglia--who is a fairly low-level figure on par with Michael Lofton or William Albrecht--takes a shot at Kappes at 1:22:36 (link). His argument is flat-footed, and it is the sort of thing you often find from Orthodox who are prima facie opposed to Catholicism.

I was recently listening to Kappes on that issue, and had drafted a response to that thread (until I realized that it is not in a dialogue forum). Part of the draft was as follows:

For a quick taste of Kappes on Eastern criticisms of the Immaculate Conception check out <this link>. The part I have in mind is less than eight minutes long, and runs from 1:25:58 – 1:33:30. His conclusion is salutary, “I think that my own sense is – on this debate – until we can admit that there’s a good point of reference for talking about what original sin and what original justice is, […] I don’t think that we can have a fruitful discussion.” This seems correct to me, for my engagements with Orthodox on this issue seem to indicate that their definition of original sin is too slippery to make way for fruitful dialogue.

Another long online interview with Kappes can be found <here>. His academia.edu page can be found <here>.

(I should in the same breath mention a sound Orthodox apologist, Seraphim Hamilton, who is not at Kappes level, but is very good and very charitable. Fr. Josiah Trenham is also helpful, particularly in relation to Protestantism.)

 

[Light of the East]

Craig Truglia is a convert who has convert zeal. Unfortunately, I think he should do what I have been told to do, sit down, shut up, and learn to be Orthodox, which takes at least five years after you are chrismated into the Church. I am working on doing that myself, not always succeeding, but trying. I am not Orthodox, I am learning. Craig appears to think he has arrived.

 

[Michie]

Craig Truglia is a convert who has convert zeal. Unfortunately, I think he should do what I have been told to do, sit down, shut up, and learn to be Orthodox, which takes at least five years after you are chrismated into the Church. I am working on doing that myself, not always succeeding, but trying. I am not Orthodox, I am learning. Craig appears to think he has arrived.

Whatever. Our journey is a personal one. Seemed you think you’ve arrived as well.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Personally I'm more interested in the Protestant-Catholic divide and how to overcome it. I've had experience in both camps, having been Protestant and now Catholic (atheist before either). In some ways if there was a large wide spread revival and God made it very clear that He wanted the Catholic and Protestant churches to reunify, I think atheists would have fewer problems joining the Catholic Church than Protestants as they wouldn't be carrying the distortions some Protestants have about the Catholic Church.

I've had virtually no experience of the Orthodox Church, having attended one single baptism ceremony in a Greek Orthodox church years ago and it was all Greek to me. And that's it.

I'm also not familiar with their Byzantine history and different traditions of state and church. I don't really have a sense of it.

Being Australian, our historical heritage is tied up with the Western Churches, initially Anglicanism while Catholicism was banned in the early days of settlement. And of course there were the various other Protestant churches. I presume Scottish settlers were largely responsible for the Presbyterian Church for example.

Orthodoxy doesn't have a large footprint in our cultural traditions, although there are Orthodox Churches and congregations here and there.

But my thoughts on Catholic-Protestant unity are conjecture.

As far as Orthodox-Catholic unity is concerned, I think that God would have to raise up a Catholic, ex-Orthodox prophet and I think he'd have to be Russian. It's the strongest Orthodox Church by far. I think Moscow believes it has inherited the Byzantine Constantinoplean mantle, so any major movements would have to include the Russian Church, or it wouldn't go very far.

I can't see it happening either under Kirill, or while Putin is in charge of Russia.

Again that's conjecture.

Gotta keep on praying.

Well, it started first with the Coptics, the EO, then Lutherans, Calvin, Zwigli then King Henry ...
So if we came back together the way we splintered, the Coptics should be first.

But outside of that intriguing possibility, I just keep praying and offering it up at Mass.

I've attended a wedding at the EO.
I even 'accidentally' attended Pascha [Easter] at their Church but honestly the outside said Eastern Catholic so it was news to me when I was told I couldn't receive Communion because I was Catholic and not Orthodox.

 

[Light of the East]

Whatever. Our journey is a personal one. Seemed you think you’ve arrived as well.

Seems like you didn't even read what I wrote, did you?

 

[abacabb3]

Kappes' thesis is thoroughly addressed in an article in a Romanian journal, "Original Sin in the Byzantine Dormiton Narratives." It can be downloaded here: Original Sin in The Byzantine Dormition Narratives


Kappes' thesis sounds quite intricate, but it has two fundamental errors. First, it imposes scholastic views of anthropology. Second, it does not identify what the Byzantine anthropology was and where the Theotokos fits into the scheme. These errors are rather crucial. The same was pointed out about Kappes' intellectual predecessor, fr jugie, by Columbia professor Constantine Tsirpanlis. So it is an old, repeated error and sadly people who have not read up on the topic go down the rabbit trail but don't notice right at its very beginning it's going the wrong way. After all, if the question is whether the Byzantine worldview incorporated the Immaculate Conception in some way, as a matter of first principles, isn't it necessary to identify Byzantine anthropology instead of presuming upon a foreign one, and then reading statements on the Theotokos in light of that specific anthropology and not another?

For Orthodox Christians, this is not a matter decided by academic theologians. Every recent saint (John Maximovitch, paisios), those not yet canonized (Sysoev, Staniloae), and recent councils (Constantinople 1895) are all explicitly against the Immaculate Conception. So Orthodox must as a matter of conscience reject it. However, intellectually speaking, Tsirpanlis and others have thoroughly refuted that in the earlier Orthodox world that the doctrine had any adherents in any shape or form, but rather the opposite.

 

[abacabb3]

A good Catholic voice in this area is Fr. Christiaan Kappes, who is a wonderful scholar, and who I believe is bi-ritual. There was a recent thread in the Orthodox forums on the Immaculate Conception (link). In that video Craig Truglia--who is a fairly low-level figure on par with Michael Lofton or William Albrecht--takes a shot at Kappes at 1:22:36 (link). His argument is flat-footed, and it is the sort of thing you often find from Orthodox who are prima facie opposed to Catholicism.

I was recently listening to Kappes on that issue, and had drafted a response to that thread (until I realized that it is not in a dialogue forum). Part of the draft was as follows:



Another long online interview with Kappes can be found <here>. His academia.edu page can be found <here>.

(I should in the same breath mention a sound Orthodox apologist, Seraphim Hamilton, who is not at Kappes level, but is very good and very charitable. Fr. Josiah Trenham is also helpful, particularly in relation to Protestantism.)

I think the above reply will interest you.

 

[RileyG]

I have deep respect and love for the Orthodox Church, but this doesn't surprise me.

 

[RileyG]

Craig Truglia is a convert who has convert zeal. Unfortunately, I think he should do what I have been told to do, sit down, shut up, and learn to be Orthodox, which takes at least five years after you are chrismated into the Church. I am working on doing that myself, not always succeeding, but trying. I am not Orthodox, I am learning. Craig appears to think he has arrived.

Same with Catholicism. It can take a lifetime to learn.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Kappes' thesis is thoroughly addressed in an article in a Romanian journal, "Original Sin in the Byzantine Dormiton Narratives." It can be downloaded here: Original Sin in The Byzantine Dormition Narratives


Kappes' thesis sounds quite intricate, but it has two fundamental errors. First, it imposes scholastic views of anthropology. Second, it does not identify what the Byzantine anthropology was and where the Theotokos fits into the scheme. These errors are rather crucial. The same was pointed out about Kappes' intellectual predecessor, fr jugie, by Columbia professor Constantine Tsirpanlis. So it is an old, repeated error and sadly people who have not read up on the topic go down the rabbit trail but don't notice right at its very beginning it's going the wrong way. After all, if the question is whether the Byzantine worldview incorporated the Immaculate Conception in some way, as a matter of first principles, isn't it necessary to identify Byzantine anthropology instead of presuming upon a foreign one, and then reading statements on the Theotokos in light of that specific anthropology and not another?

For Orthodox Christians, this is not a matter decided by academic theologians. Every recent saint (John Maximovitch, paisios), those not yet canonized (Sysoev, Staniloae), and recent councils (Constantinople 1895) are all explicitly against the Immaculate Conception. So Orthodox must as a matter of conscience reject it. However, intellectually speaking, Tsirpanlis and others have thoroughly refuted that in the earlier Orthodox world that the doctrine had any adherents in any shape or form, but rather the opposite.

What does the Greek word Kecharitōmenē mean?


It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this state.[

 

[abacabb3]

What does the Greek word Kecharitōmenē mean?


It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this state.[

That really is not a response to what I wrote.

 

[prodromos]

That really is not a response to what I wrote.

Pretty perfectly encapsulates the scholastic view of anthropology though, doesn't it.

 

[WarriorAngel]

That really is not a response to what I wrote.

If she was already in a state of Grace - aka permanent state of Baptism - complete with innocence from the original sin - and remains in a state of not sinning - then indeed her conception was not clouded by original sin.

 

[abacabb3]

If she was already in a state of Grace - aka permanent state of Baptism - complete with innocence from the original sin - and remains in a state of not sinning - then indeed her conception was not clouded by original sin.

That's not a response. You are imposing your own logic on a foreign worldview. This was exactly what I faulted kappes' for doing.

 

[WarriorAngel]

That's not a response. You are imposing your own logic on a foreign worldview. This was exactly what I faulted kappes' for doing.

Or OTOH - your faulted interpretation and logic - whereas we understand the Immaculate Conception which not only was it time we understood the full nature of what St Gabriel said but Our Lady appeared to Lourdes and called herself the Immaculate Conception.
St Bernadette was not scholarly nor did she personally know or understand the Pope was decreeing this.

Heaven not only inspired the understanding, but backed it up by a Vision of our Lady.

 

[abacabb3]

Or OTOH - your faulted interpretation and logic - whereas we understand the Immaculate Conception which not only was it time we understood the full nature of what St Gabriel said but Our Lady appeared to Lourdes and called herself the Immaculate Conception.
St Bernadette was not scholarly nor did she personally know or understand the Pope was decreeing this.

Heaven not only inspired the understanding, but backed it up by a Vision of our Lady.

The OP is about healing our divisions. A poster here takes issue with Orthodox allegedly not appreciating the similarities between EO and RC on Mariology and points to Kappes' research as proof. I take issue with Kappes because he fails to appreciate what Orthodox anthropology is and demands EO understand their own Mariology through the pens of scholastic, Latin anthropology. You then demand as Kappes does that I do the same with you.


How are we to have union if you will not appreciate our own theological inheritance and judge our own theological understandings according to it?

 

[WarriorAngel]

The OP is about healing our divisions. A poster here takes issue with Orthodox allegedly not appreciating the similarities between EO and RC on Mariology and points to Kappes' research as proof. I take issue with Kappes because he fails to appreciate what Orthodox anthropology is and demands EO understand their own Mariology through the pens of scholastic, Latin anthropology. You then demand as Kappes does that I do the same with you.


How are we to have union if you will not appreciate our own theological inheritance and judge our own theological understandings according to it?

Yet the EO understands the use of Kecharitomene?