A Reply to Rev. Dr. Miltiades B. Efthimiou

Submitted April 21, 2005

At the end of his editorial, Father Miltiades writes, “conversations between Orthodox and Roman Catholics must deal with three basic issues:

1. The question of authority in the Church.
2. The relationship between Church and the faithful.
3. The ecclesiological basis of a common Christian witness.

Is there hope for reconciliation? There is, and it must be based on something that Saint Maximos the Confessor wrote back in the early centuries of Christianity: "Has a brother been the occasion of some trial for you, and has your resentment led you to hatred? Do not let yourself be overcome by this hatred, but conquer it with love. You will succeed in this reconciliation by praying to God for your brother, and by accepting his apology… and by patiently waiting until the cloud has passed."

Many hope and pray for reconciliation between our Churches. What inhibits this is so fundamental that I am often aghast as to how these “top theologians”, dance around it. What is ironic is that it is a commonality found in both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. This is simply that both Churches view themselves as the fullness of Truth, both see themselves as infallible in their theology, both believe themselves to be the True, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian worldviews center on this belief and shapes our understanding of everything. Of course, this includes how we interpret Church history. Roman Catholic historians can write convincing books, backed with “evidence”, supporting the notion that the Church Fathers always believe in the infallibility and supremacy of the Roman Pontiff. Likewise, Orthodox historians can presents an opposing argument, again backed with “evidence”. This can go on for every dogmatic difference we have.

The reality is that for there to be full union between our Churches, there must be compromise. What more, it will have to involve one Church submitting to the other.

I am a convert to Orthodoxy, having been raised Episcopalian, and educated in a Catholic High School. When deciding to leave the Episcopal Church, I knew I would either become Roman Catholic or Orthodox. I will never regret choosing Orthodoxy. I believe the Orthodox Church to be Christ’s Church and the Roman Catholic Church to be schismatic and heretical. If they are not, then we are. Many people would call such language uncharitable or hateful, but I call it reality. If the Roman Catholic Church were not heretical, then it would not have any theological differences with Orthodoxy. Yet, our theological differences are not minor. Even Patriarch Bartholomew once said that we are ontologically different, which means our understanding and experience of God differs. Our understanding of the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Mary, Divine Grace, Life After Death, Episcopal Authority, and many other important theological issues greatly differ. If the Roman Catholic Church were not schismatic, we would be in full communion with each other.

Another issue is the issue of saints. We both venerate saints. Yet, both Churches have glorified men who have anathematized each other, who have called each other schismatic, heretics, deceived, etc. For their to be union, one church would have to remove a great many names from their list of saints.

Then, why despite this, does dialogue and talks of unity and communion continue?

On the Orthodox side, I think it is out of an inferiority complex that has risen since the fall of the great Orthodox Empires. Just compare the coverage of Pope John Paul II’s death with that of Patriarch Petros of Alexandria. All over the world, people know about Pope Benedict XVI, to which the same cannot be said about Patriarchs Bartholmew or Alexis. He is not just the spiritual leader of 1.1 billion Catholics; he is also an international political figure. At the same time, any of our Orthodox Patriarchs could turn up in Middle America and they would be virtually unknown. Sure, people would stare at their robes and long beards but would probably think they were either rabbis or imams. The same would not be the case if Pope Benedict XVI showed up. Then there is the reality that there are 1.1 billion Catholics, spread across the world, compared to 300 million Orthodox Christians, often confined in certain areas of the world. Yes, Orthodoxy is certainly growing in America, Asia, and Africa but the reality is that the Roman Catholic Church is bigger, wealthier, more powerful, more influential, more visible, and more efficient. I think, sadly, it is these factors that attract our Orthodox ecclesiastical authorities to Rome.

On the Roman Catholic side, I think they are faced with a huge crisis over the direction of their Church. Popes John XXIII and Paul VI pushed them in a more “progressive”, liberal direction. Pope John Paul II really played to both the traditionalists and progressives. However, the election of Pope Benedict XVI is a definite conservative move (yet at the same time he is 78, which might mean a short papacy). Roman Catholic traditionalists respect the Orthodox Church for her more disciplined practices of piety, her traditional liturgical practices (as compared to the New Mass), and the devotion of her followers (I currently live in Russia and can confirm this!). Union between theses churches would bring an influx and traditional believers into their fold and help counteract what they see as the liturgical and theological side effects of Vatican II.

Neither really is based on love of Truth, nor the Gospels, nor the teachings of the Apostles and Church fathers. This movement for unity is based first on an unrealistic, idealistic, and deluded fantasy. Second, it is fuelled by worldly politics, political and social “correctness”, and fear of being seen as “not up with the times” or worse, as a “fundamentalist” or “fanatic”.

In the end we must ask ourselves, is it worth it? Do these current courses of action bring people closer to Christ? Has ecumenism or dialogue sanctified our culture, helped to fight social injustice, or alleviate human suffering? My own study of modern history brings me to conclude it has not.

Rather, it seems to be more of a gathering of academic theologians whose heads are in the clouds and who love nothing more in life than writing sophisticated platitudes, presenting them to their peers, receiving applause, and seeing their names in some prestigious academic-theological quarterly.



Volume 7 Number 17 - Tuesday, April 26th, 2005	A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY