Amen, Amen, Amen.

Its the creeping creepy ecumeno-virus, and whatever the conscious intention, is ultimately a back-handed slap to the Orthodox.

I received that email as well. Interesting.

Would I happen to know what the blog is under discussion? If so, though the language on the blog is regrettably misleading, I think the straight up characterization given in the post may not be quite accurate.

If however, this blogodoxical blog referenced in the post is not the one I'm thinking of, please ignore my comments.

I'd like to see it, so that I can comment. I love commenting on ecumenism :))))

Clifton,

The former. ;)

I have no problem with the lung analogy, as long as we realize that one of the lungs is seriously deformed, diseased, and metastisizing.

I prefer looking at it from the perspective of the amputated lung.

When I entered the Church a few years ago, I had some very close friends who sadly decided not to come with me because they couldn’t deal with this issue, among other things. They called their version "the Tapestry Theory”.
I love how Fr. John Matusiak deals with it
in this response.

Hey guys - "good morning" from my 3rd shift brain :-) Pardon my "mass reply" to the discussion.

Jim - glad to see I wasn't the only one to get the invite! Did you accept or reject? Why for?

Yes, Clifton, that was the blog in question. I did miss (when I first looked) the "about us" page, but I saw it last night at work before I made this post. I did see your name thereon. That was a surprise as the invite made no mention of multiple writers.

My first reaction to the site was "there's nothing Orthodox here, except the blog roll". Which was true on that day in question - everything about the Pope and the RC Catechism.

So going on my impressions - what I saw and read - I posted what I posted. But I welcome corrections in my "straight up characterization".

Joseph, they do not have comments on their blog. As your apologetical writings are highly respected - certainly by this blogger! And I admit right up front you have more grace in those writings than I do. (In ecumenism, I tend to the "whap up side the head with a frying pan".) I'd love to see what you would have to say.

Josh - thank you for that link. I do rather like Fr John's reply. Of course I say that because I agree with him! I do know some who also didn't become Orthodox for this reason including my former Episcopal pastor.

Sadly, all the ones I know - including the ECUSA priest - ended up talking to much more ecumenist folks who told them it was ok if they didn't come into Orthodoxy because they were also in the Church "out there" where they were. It doesn't help when those same Orthodox people ("theologians") are often quoted by non-Orthodox as reasons for not converting.

The really ecumenical sorts make the rest of us seem like putzes when they do that - to the decrease of missionary effectiveness. This is one topic where "being on the same page" would be a great thing.

Matt - You're right about the diseased lung. To the best of my knowledge, the RCs have never been declared "without grace" as the saying goes. In other words I think they're a lot closer to Orthodoxy than any other sect.

The "metastisizing" of which you speak would be the reformation, yes? If the Patriarch of Rome is "merely" out of communion with the Church (a point I could accept) and has the fewest steps to take to come home, those who have left even the communion of Rome have left, indeed.

i came across that blog a while back, at first glance thinking i'd add it to my blogroll... (especially given the fact that it seems somewhat difficult to get other orthodox bloggers to refer to you) - nevertheless, i couldn't get past the art. ie, the 'iconography'... it just seemed odd to me. i'm an artist, have a deep deep appreciation for western religious art, but somehow the words 'orthodox' combined with the images in the top banner on the about us page just seemed - well, dissonant. and i'm not quite as anti-ecumenist as ya'll seem to be. something just "looked" odd.

what i am interested in is whether or not they allow real theological difference to - be different... ie, to let the tension stand and then address that tension. or if it will be an attempt to create an easy synthesis east & west... a topic i just wrote a bit about at my blog.

reading their "our statement", it seems like they're united more around merely "aged perspectives" (which isn't very interesting to me in and of itself with no other context) than they are around a living relationship with Holy Tradition (which must necessarily be different east vs. west).

It's interesting the way the respondents have perceived the blog thus far--though I grant you that the wording of the blog's raison d'etre can give that impression.

I have understood the Orthodox bloggers on the site to hold to the exclusivity of the Orthodox Church's claims to be the Church of Christ. But I haven't probed that assumption with them, nor, if that assumption is true (and I think it is), whether they've confronted the issue of how Rome plays into those exclusive claims. I know that the priest of the bloggers has publicly stated more than once that if Rome wants to repent and come back to the Church, the Orthodox would gladly receive them.

Perhaps it's a matter of the O-bloggers believing the RC-bloggers to be Christian if not objectively part of the Church. It would seem to me that the "mission statement" is merely trying to acknowledge the common historical origins of RC and Orthodox. But the verbage "part of the ancient faith" and "both branches of the ancient faith" does create some misconceptions if not outright problems.

I know Huw has a bit of a problem with Touchstone, but I think the blogodoxical administrator perceives the blog's mission to be similar to that of Touchstone. But the blog site does say more than Touchstone would say, it seems to me.

Clifton -

Thanks for that, very much. I'd be curious to see what comes of it: I may not link it but I do get over there for a read.

My issue with the Touchstone folks, however, begins with having had my address sold... and only then moves from there into editorial/denominational policy. I knew their ecumenical position, of course, when I first linked to them.

Huw,

I didn't link to it because I'm not likely to read it. My blog roll is less of a 'prop' to other folks and more of a place for me to put blogs that I actually read. It's hard finding the time to read anything lately, so I've not put too much new up.

Mornin, Jim Dawg! I do tend to use my roll as a "shout out" to my peeps, yo.

That's why I moved dablogroll inside, yo - it was getting hekka long, so filled up wit da props.

Ouch. That hurt :-)

I used the tabbed browsing of my Firefox (and later, God Willing, my Safari) to open my reading list :-)

You all may be interested in that the blog in question has addressed the main concern noted here.

One of my primary motivations for choosing to post on Blogodoxy was to probe, comment and clarify on issues which are of interest to both Orthodox and Catholics. I have tried to design my posts in such a way that I am not back-handing the Catholics by treating their faith as inferior to that of my own. Thus far, I have made more "Catholic" posts than Orthodox because the topic of just war has found a richer treatment in the West than the East.

The reality is, however, that there are more Orthodox posting on the blog than there are Catholic. If push came to shove, I am sure the Catholic voice could be drowned out in an instant; but to what end? The Catholics are our brothers and sisters in Christ. We should all pray and look forward to the day when communion will be reestablished. In the meantime, I see no reason to not embrace them with with the same love that I would want them embrace the Orthodox with.

since they do not allow comments at blogodoxy, a question...

given the eschatalogical emphasis and nature of our faith (one that does in fact distinguish us from the west), what is the thinking behind the blogodoxy appeal to merely "ancient" faith? is it that the past is the only primary criterion of value, or or shared east-west value? why not faith of the present and of the future... holistically united in the Kingdom of God? i dont mean to snipe, and am actually curious.

i suppose i may be reacting to a general trend that seems to be occurring, where people of varios traditions are uniting along merely moral or social-political lines... ie, conservatives w/ conservatives and liberals w/ liberals, regardless of core theological differences.

that is not to say that i am disparaging blogodoxy... just curious why you all feel that the past is your primary reference point of shared value?

According to the recent post by the blog admin:

"The point of this blog is to provide a forum for Catholics and Orthodox to comment on our lives and the world from an ancient Christian perspective. It is true that we have a view of the world that is unique; that there are many common things that we share.

For me and my fellow Orthodox, the only way for the East and West to be reconciled is for the Roman Catholic Church to renounce many of the claims that have been made outside of Ecumenical Councils. This blog is not concerned with that. I'll leave it up to those in authority in both Churches, as it should be."

Don't know if that answers your question . . .

Clifton,

Thanks for posting that. But, as comments are not active on that site, I'm curious about the last statement from the blog admin.

I'll leave it up to those in authority in both Churches, as it should be.

Since has docrtrinal fidelity been left up to the hierarchs alone? He didn't say 'alone', of course, but the statement as is could certainly be interpreted in that fashion.

Huw,

Duuuuuuude! What'up wit aldat ghetto speak, yo? ;-D

I think all that Clay is affirming is that many of us converts and other lay Orthodox can assume to ourselves an authority we do not deserve. That is to say: we can err on the side of zeal without knowledge. Thus, we need be always mindful of our submission to the mind of the Church, especially as taught and guarded by her hierarchs.

I don't think, however, you should read into his statement that he is abrogating the responsibility of all the Church to maintain fidelity to the mind of the Church.

In other words, rather than anathematizing and excommunicating everyone, we simply and humbly state the truth and let God sort it out.

In any case, any sort of reunion will have to be formally ratified. It is not wrong to wait for that formal ratification.

clifton, that comment is the reason why i'm asking. "... to comment from an ancient Christian perspective."

i guess i don't entirely know what that means, especially in light of being Orthodox. eschatalogically speaking... our faith isn't merely "ancient". it is alive, present, here, living, charismatic and not merely historical. it is also future, facing the future of the Kingdom present, but also coming.

granted, there are many points of shared dialogue east/west given the realities of the past (at least pre-1054!)... but how does that interaction work given an orthodox eschatology... in the present, or re: issues of the future?

i'm really interested in where blogodoxy goes. just wondering why the past is the primary reference point.

I agree. But such ratification would have to be, well, 'catholic', yes? In which case both the laity and the hierarchs would need to be brought by the Holy Spirit to the same page. Which is not currently the case.

I guess I'm attempting to guard against either 'power to the people' and/or 'hierarchs rule' mentalities.

Speaking of, I believe I read the other day that the at the so-called '8th' Ecumenical Council was a loan Orthodox dissenter. (I've forgotten his name...) thus making it less than ecumenical. Just a side note with no real bearing on this discussion. :)

That's a good question. I think the bloggers would reply that it's not an ancient perspective for antiquity's sake, but rather the apostolic mind of the Church lived today. Note the subtitle to the blog: "x, y, and z in the ancient faith--blogged."

But it might be a good post to bring up to the fellow bloggers.

And I'll have to start remembering to leave comments on my posts open.

thanks for answering. i'll be curious to see what you all do with the question if posted. thx clifton!

The hero of the "8th ecumenical counsel" was St. Mark of Ephesus.

Wow. This took off while I slept! Thanks guys for the discussion. I'm coming in late (a reality with third shift and a shared computer). I'm not avoiding the discussion - just catching up!

First I need to note that some of the posts over at Blogodoxy now offer comments. Others do not. An improvement!

I thank them for the discussion and clarifications! I do welcome anything that would bring others into the Church - and as I've noted here, in an earlier comment, my attempts at ecumenical dialogue tend away from graceful words and towards a (verbal) thwap upside the head. Discussion is better, I think: people who are knocked out may be easily used to fill up a pew, but they fail stand up at all as for an eastern service.

My concerns (as have been stated by others here and as have been noted as well over there) was that to say the RCC is "another branch" fails to note that the "branch" is in error - according to Orthodoxy.

More importantly leaves the rest of us looking like putzes to say otherwise. The discussion can be like talking about sexuality with a non-Christian: they will say, "Well, you know, other churches let us do X, Y, and Z. Why don't you?" Unless everyone is on the same page the witness of everyone is harmed. (I realize that, more importantly than blogs, the same could and should be said regarding a good many of our clergy and hierarchs.)

In this - and other ecumenical matters (per a discussion on this blog on another post) I've been praying to come to the same point that my Patron did:

I make this apology for the Anglicans whom as Christian gentlemen I greatly revere, that the loose teaching of a great many of the prominent Anglican theologians are so hazy in their definitions of truths, and so inclined toward pet heresies that it is hard to tell what they believe. The Anglican Church as a whole has not spoken authoritatively on her doctrine. Her Catholic-minded members can call out her doctrines from many views, but so nebulous is her pathway in the doctrinal world that those who would extend a hand of both Christian and ecclesiastical fellowship dare not, without distrust, grasp the hand of her theologians, for while many are orthodox on some points, they are quite heterodox on others.

And what St Raphael said about Anglicans 100 years ago is equally true of all non-Orthodox folks today. Some within other organizations are seeking to follow Christ and yet not a few are involved in "pet heresies" of those organizations - be those the issues of Biblical Authority among the Anglicans, the issues of Tradition's Authority among the Evangelicals, or the issues of Scholasticism and Barlaamism and the Filioque among the Romans. Additionally, as an Orthodox person I'm trying to avoid, per Jim, the 'power to the people' errors of the Protestants (and no few bloggers of all stripes ) as well as 'hierarchs rule' of the ultramontanists of all traditions.

I'm not fit to judge if a person is a Christian or not. That means I can not say yea or nay. I'm a sinner, and I pray that what I say is within the teaching of the Church - although I refer that to my own spiritual Father for his definition. When I look around the Church I know what a Christian is to look like and believe. With those outside the Church, I refer back to St Raphael and ask for his prayers.

I think it important that neither the Church nor Rome has attempted to create a parallel jurisdiction in either Rome or Constantinople: they are waiting for the return and that's good.

I'm quite happy to pray for all and witness to those who can handle working with what tiny part of maturity I've managed to be given by God's grace. The original post noted that I feel odd, at times, when I sense need to watch my own back.

"where there is no bishop, there is no church."
So the quote goes from St. Ignatious of Antioch (if my memory serves me).

As an Orthodox blogger on blogodoxy.com I'd love to clarify our relationship with the Catholics, but I can't. So, instead I'll offer some thoughts.

As far as I know, the Eastern Orthodox Church has never replaced the Patriarch of Rome. Why is this? Since he is "the first among equals," it seems that it would be prudent to install someone who, at a very minimum, is in communion with us. It seems clear to me that the Orthodox Church still honors the Roman Catholics as the Church. No, not the "One True" Church, but a church in error (heresy).

The Roman Catholic Church left the other ancient sees a millenium ago. And we await her return. There will be no compromise. We will never accept the infallibility of the Pope, the heresy on which all subsequent heresy(including protestant) rests. But she is not regarded the same as the protestants (including Anglicans) who have no church (as defined above).

The conversation which we enter in blogodoxy is modeled by the holy men of Rome and Constantinople last year. We aren't concelebrating the Eucharist, we are merely talking...and waiting.

Ransom,

The hero of the "8th ecumenical counsel" was St. Mark of Ephesus.

Thanks!

Well, I've been out with my wife nearly the whole day and have missed much of the debate surrounding the emergence of Blogodoxy. I have to say that I'm delighted on one hand, as I wanted this site to provoke discussion. On the other hand, though, I find myself saddened by the way that some of my fellow Orthodox brothers have spoken. The word "ecumenicist" is thrown around as if it were something that was found on the bottom of our shoe. I will say this - there is a type of ecumenicist that we, as Orthodox should not tolerate, namely, the type that wishes to compromise the faith that has been passed down to him in the name of unity. There is another type of ecumenicism - that which was present at the Seven Ecumenical Councils. This is a lofty goal that we hope, by the grace of God, will return to us.

I am sensing that we are being categorized in the former, which is unfortunate but most likely due to the poor wording of my goal statement. I changed it as soon as I realized the problem. The truth is that I do pray for reunion of the East and West, but you will never find me uttering the Filioque, nor professing belief in Papal infallibility. I believe that the Roman Church will return to us, to the fullness of the faith.

I do not see how it is productive referring to them as a cancer! The fact is that, aside from the large differences between us, we DO share, to an extent, a common ancient Christian perspective. We both give our ancestors a vote, meaning we both give credence to the words of the saints and martyrs who have died for our faith (more-so than even our own). Generally, our presuppositions are millennia old, rather than decades old. We both believe that church authority is passed down through apostolic succession (although just where that chain has been compromised we disagree on). This is the “ancient” of Blogodoxy. If you see no value in this then I can expect you will not read us, and will even encourage others not to. But I, along with all of the other Catholic and Orthodox contributors to the site, see a value in what we are doing. When and if there is reunion someday, it will, no doubt, have started with dialogue between both churches.


P.S. Huw, I enjoy reading your site very much. With regards to comments on Blogodoxy, I will encourage our other contributors to keep their comments open so that this discussion can continue on our site, if needed.

Yo! Huw hommie dawg. You godson think it Fuh-Nee! how you be talkin like you all down wit you bad self.

The word "ecumenicist" is thrown around as if it were something that was found on the bottom of our shoe. I will say this - there is a type of ecumenicist that we, as Orthodox should not tolerate, namely, the type that wishes to compromise the faith that has been passed down to him in the name of unity. There is another type of ecumenicism - that which was present at the Seven Ecumenical Councils. This is a lofty goal that we hope, by the grace of God, will return to us.

Personally, I'm not sure about the bottom of the shoe thing: there are those who read "plays well with others" as "teaches others are the same as he is". There are those who read "tries to tell the truth" as "refuses to play well with others". Personally, rather than cause confusion, I'd rather be tagged "refuses to play well with others". It's not my actions or judgment that will bring about their conversion. What will bring about conversion is not dialogue, but prayer. For only God can bring people home. Still, discussion, qua discussion, can of course be used of God. I'm not writing off that venue - although as noted several times, it's not my strong point! What is better is living: we can discuss similarities and differences forever, but bringing them to Liturgy, and living a holy life will bring folks home.

Of course, you have to decide if they need to come home first. In my book it is the answer to this question which indicates if one merely plays well with others or has deeper goals. Merely playing well with others is the sort of thing I'd call "bottom of the shoe ecumenism". Yes, it compromises the faith as you note - by saying nearly none of it is important enough to draw lines around. St Maximos the Confessor, speaking for the entire Tradition of the Church in reflecting the heresies of his day - even to the point of a living martyrdom, is the sort of Ecumenist I'd like to be, although I'm not worthy or capable of it at all.

On your second point, I was taught that the Ecumenical Councils were called so because they were accepted by the whole Church. As such more recent councils are, in fact, ecumenical as well. As Jim noted in an earlier comment it's going to take an action of the hierarchy that is supported by the whole church for any kind of homecoming to happen. That's why the P of C isn't the "leader" of Orthodoxy. He can't decide one day to do something and the rest of us have to follow. IE he's not the Pope and he can be wrong and we needn't follow him when he's wrong.

It is interesting to "aspire to that sort of Ecumenism". I think all anyone can do (certainly all bloggers can do) is offer up what we have and see if the Holy Spirit moves others to follow - as were the 8th and 9th Ecumenical Councils: (8) Constantinople 879 and (9) Constantinople 1341. We can, of course, also be rejected as was the council of Florence.

Regarding your PS: I think it very important to have comments open save in rare cases of incivility or outright crappiness. Another reason I didn't link: with comments closed it looked as if you were inviting us all to watch your conversation rather than participate. Thank you very much for your compliments.

By your prayers...

Update - silly spell-check. I meant, of course "accepted" not "excepted". Sigh. Typing. Look around doxos:sarx for a good laugh.