To my Orthodox Brethren

[boughtwithaprice]

One of the best books, or analysis of the East-West divide in the faith that I have come across is this

I have titled the thread to my brethren and not friends, because I am ashamed that my flesh and my behavior in the past could hardly get me to the level of friend. As it is, we endeavor to worship the same God and have the same goal, union with God in heaven, so I wish to extend a true invitation

In reading this book, I have come to a new understanding. I would hope that my Orthodox brethren think also.

We are both part of the Church formed at Pentecost, and the hallmark of Pentecost was that Apostolic Authority went out in All of the languages of the world. If we don’t speak the same language, we do not understand each other, but the truth of our infinite God is not limited by our language and judgement as finite created beings.

I would hope that we can see through our preconceptions to reach the God we wish to worship. This is a quote from the book that I liked

“The first was briefly mentioned above vis-à-vis the development of doctrine. We will call this the ‘error of doctrine development.’ It is incorrect to think that since the eastern mind developed orthodox thought pattern x, it must become the theological plumb line for the west, the measure of its orthodoxy. Since the west did not develop the Greek thought pattern x, it is therefore heretical. That is as much as saying, “Because you do not have what we did not give you, it is your fault.”

This is because of what he have said: particular languages develop particular thought patterns unique to them. Each language can legitimately express the orthodox faith in their own thoughts through their own language. Even the terms essentia, esse, and οὐσία can all be translated into English as “essence.” But they do not mean the same thing in both traditions. Thus also with our authors, Palamas and Aquinas—both developed differing systems of deification with different thought patterns. They should be studied in their own context on their own terms, not judged unfairly by cross-cultural and anachronistic prejudices.”


In reading this, I was struck by my own guilt. I wanted there to be a black and white reason for the schism. I thought we cannot both be right, the other must be wrong.
​

I thought this book could be a starting point for real communication, as when we speak now, we do not necessarily understand each other and limit God by our judgement. Do you think this book is worth the read?

 

[jas3]

Looks interesting, although I haven't read either of the ones in the picture. Are you talking about both? I'm a little confused because you say "this book" but it looks like there are two books pictured.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Looks interesting, although I haven't read either of the ones in the picture. Are you talking about both? I'm a little confused because you say "this book" but it looks like there are two books pictured.

There is a web site that talks about them. I through it was a e version of the book. The work looks like a review of the two books pictured but I still find it interesting. I’ll post a link hope it works

https://meaningofcatholic.com/2020/10/10/palamas-aquinas-and-the-metaphysical-wordwebs-of-the-athenians/

 

[boughtwithaprice]

The other thing that I liked about the article was that it critiqued both books and took exception to the polemics.
In our conflict, each side wishes to be right and the other must ipso facto be wrong. We often say that without even trying to understand the other.

We can even see it in people that admit that there should not be a schism. We hear people say that East and west are two lungs of the Church, but do they even know what they are saying? Is it well thought out or just a slogan?

The article looks or attempts to look at the root causes. It proposes a difference in language and thought, in that even the same words have different meanings. One of the first rule of philosophy is an agreement on the definition of terms. If we use the same words but don’t agree on their meaning, is it any wonder we talk past each other?

I found the article somewhat refreshing. I would hope that my brethren would feel the same

 

[The Liturgist]

I am not really interested in the divide but in the repair of the divide, but for that to happen your church needs to get serious about certain things, especially Fiducia Supplicans. It really throws a spanner into the works when you have significant numbers of Roman Catholic bishops who actively want to perform LGBTQ+ marriages in countries such as Germany. This is why the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI has been such a disaster.

 

[jas3]

The article looks or attempts to look at the root causes. It proposes a difference in language and thought, in that even the same words have different meanings. One of the first rule of philosophy is an agreement on the definition of terms. If we use the same words but don’t agree on their meaning, is it any wonder we talk past each other?

I've read the article, thanks for recommending it. As for the point about linguistic differences explaining the divergence in theology, the difficulty I have with this is that at least with the filioque, the difference in language and what is meant by certain terms was addressed both before and after the schism. Before, you have the letter from St. Maximus the Confessor explaining to the Greeks that the Latins don't make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit, and after the schism there's the definition of Florence where the Spirit proceeds from the Son "according to the Greeks indeed as cause."

That's not meant to start a debate on the filioque, only to point out that the differences in language were acknowledged and, in the case of at least that one major theological difference, addressed. Maybe there's an argument to be made that they weren't adequately addressed, I don't know.

One other thing that stuck out to me about the article is that the author seems to assume that the differences in theology only arose after the fall of the western empire in the 5th century and the subsequent drop-off in communication between the Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking regions. But I would point out that the East and West were still able to find agreement on doctrines like dyothelitism and iconodulia well after this period started. I know Timothy Flanders is smart enough to take this into account, but I wish he fleshed out his ideas (or the ideas presented in the books) more fully here, because as-is, as I see it, there are two ways to read this argument:

1. "We're all saying the same thing but in different ways," which to me seems untenable in the face of historical and present interactions between the East and West, or
2. "Different languages beget different theology, but that doesn't mean we can't be in the same Church," which seems like a highly questionable line of reasoning and would call into question the legitimacy of Chalcedon and Ephesus.

That said, I pray that the schism will eventually be healed. There's a lot of work to be done on both sides before that's a realistic possibility, though.

 

[prodromos]

There is a web site that talks about them. I through it was a e version of the book. The work looks like a review of the two books pictured but I still find it interesting. I’ll post a link hope it works

https://meaningofcatholic.com/2020/10/10/palamas-aquinas-and-the-metaphysical-wordwebs-of-the-athenians/

I've only read the first couple of sections, but what seemed obvious to me to be missing from the arguments is the very same person who enabled the multilingual intercommunication on the day of Pentecost.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I've only read the first couple of sections, but what seemed obvious to me to be missing from the arguments is the very same person who enabled the multilingual intercommunication on the day of Pentecost.

That is a good observation. The Holy Spirt is not present in the words of the text, but He will come to us in the desire to truly communicate rather than remain in schism.

The author is making an observation from his human perspective and is not claiming to be the Holy Spirit Himself.

In the Catholic Catechism we are taught that there is not one soul for whom which Our Lord did not suffer and die. He draws all men to Himself. It is not His Will that we stay in schism


This article, nor we have the power to change that but maybe we could try and understand each other and pray for God to heal the schism ?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I've read the article, thanks for recommending it. As for the point about linguistic differences explaining the divergence in theology, the difficulty I have with this is that at least with the filioque, the difference in language and what is meant by certain terms was addressed both before and after the schism. Before, you have the letter from St. Maximus the Confessor explaining to the Greeks that the Latins don't make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit, and after the schism there's the definition of Florence where the Spirit proceeds from the Son "according to the Greeks indeed as cause."

That's not meant to start a debate on the filioque, only to point out that the differences in language were acknowledged and, in the case of at least that one major theological difference, addressed. Maybe there's an argument to be made that they weren't adequately addressed, I don't know.

One other thing that stuck out to me about the article is that the author seems to assume that the differences in theology only arose after the fall of the western empire in the 5th century and the subsequent drop-off in communication between the Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking regions. But I would point out that the East and West were still able to find agreement on doctrines like dyothelitism and iconodulia well after this period started. I know Timothy Flanders is smart enough to take this into account, but I wish he fleshed out his ideas (or the ideas presented in the books) more fully here, because as-is, as I see it, there are two ways to read this argument:

1. "We're all saying the same thing but in different ways," which to me seems untenable in the face of historical and present interactions between the East and West, or
2. "Different languages beget different theology, but that doesn't mean we can't be in the same Church," which seems like a highly questionable line of reasoning and would call into question the legitimacy of Chalcedon and Ephesus.

That said, I pray that the schism will eventually be healed. There's a lot of work to be done on both sides before that's a realistic possibility, though.

Thank you for reading it. I do acknowledge that there is a lot of work. The question is, is it work worth doing. I propose that it is, because God does not wish His Church to be divided.
Do we begin, or just throw up our hands and say it is impossible ?

Yes I know we are not going to heal the schism on a web site, but maybe by God’s grace we may talk ?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I have the Summa Theologica at home, so I can refer to Aquinas. Do you have a copy of Palamas work?
Does anything stick out as worthy of discussion? These threads tend to blow up, but if we start slow and stick to one point, perhaps the discussion can be fruitful

 

[The Liturgist]

I have the Summa Theologica at home, so I can refer to Aquinas. Do you have a copy of Palamas work?
Does anything stick out as worthy of discussion? These threads tend to blow up, but if we start slow and stick to one point, perhaps the discussion can be fruitful

People sometimes equate St. Gregory of Palamas and St. Thomas Aquinas as birds of a feather because they both made some use of Aristotle, but St. Gregory of Palamas was not a systematic theologian. Rather, he was writing, and arguing at a council convened in the Church of Constantinople, in order to defend the Hesychasts of Mount Athos, such as the 12th century St. Symeon the New Theologian, whose writings we find, along with some of St. Gregory I think, in the Philokalia, which is easy to access.

By the way, as far as I am aware most Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches do venerate St. Gregory of Palamas on the second Sunday of Lent, just like the Orthodox.

 

[The Liturgist]

That is a good observation. The Holy Spirt is not present in the words of the text, but He will come to us in the desire to truly communicate rather than remain in schism.

But for that to happen, your church has to address this creeping liberalism issue. If things were as they were in 2012 before Pope Benedict resigned, I would support reunion immediately. But we have the Synod on Synodality, Fiducia Supplicans, et cetera. The Orthodox cannot risk admitting that into our communion. We cannot compromise on human sexuality, because when you compromise there, you compromise on everything else and the result is the moral relativism and irrelevance that has nearly destroyed the mainline Protestant churches, and which could, combined with the aftermath of the paedophilia scandal, potentially cause horribile damage to the Roman church.

And I am devastated to read of the recent closure of so many parishes. I pray for the Roman church. I believe it has, at least at present, sacraments that are legitimate. i want it in communion with the Orthodox.

There is also the problem of getting the majority of Eastern Orthodox to accept communion with Rome. It would do no good if we restored communion only to have more Orthodox go over to the schismatic Old Calendarist sects.

Even the reunification with the Oriental Orthodox, in which enormous strides have been made, has been beset with problems and false accusations from people like Dr. Nicholas Marinides, who almost never are members of the Middle Eastern churches which are actually involved in the dialogue, but are rather members of churches which do not have direct interaction with the Oriental Orthodox and are not in a position to discern their true Orthodoxy. I also find it strange that there is so much less criticism of the Assyrian Church of the East despite the fact that the Eastern Orthodox have been engaging in very productive dialogue with them for the past 65 years (the one church that refuses to dialogue with them is the Coptic Orthodox Church, because the Copts regard themselves as the Anti-Nestorians par excellence, which is not an idle boast by any means; their zeal for the theology of St. Cyril is admirable.

 

[jas3]

I have the Summa Theologica at home, so I can refer to Aquinas. Do you have a copy of Palamas work?

I do have a copy of his Triads, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet. I was advised to read St. Dionysius' On the Divine Names and Mystical Theology first, since St. Gregory makes heavy use of those works in his writing.

Thank you for reading it. I do acknowledge that there is a lot of work. The question is, is it work worth doing. I propose that it is, because God does not wish His Church to be divided.
Do we begin, or just throw up our hands and say it is impossible ?

I think it's worthwhile too because even before reunification may be achieved, both churches would benefit from fixing their own problems. The Orthodox, for example, need to figure out the jurisdictional situation in America; having multiple bishops over the same geographical areas is not only inefficient, it's scandalous. It gives the impression that the various patriarchates are more interested in receiving tithes from their American diaspora than in making the Church in America an effective organ of evangelization. By fixing the overlapping jurisdictions, dioceses could be smaller, like they're supposed to be, and the clergy wouldn't be spread so thin.

The Catholics, in my view, first and foremost need to fix the liturgical disaster that has resulted from the promulgation of the Novus Ordo. I see that as the primary driver - not the origin, but the driver - of the "spirit of Vatican II" that resulted in the issues @The Liturgist is referencing. Given that the liturgy is one of the most formative parts of the lives of the faithful, it's crucial that that formation instills a reverence for God and an understanding that you don't mess with the holy things. The immediate benefit for Catholics in fixing this would be hopefully a reversal of the trends of liberalization and loss of faith in the Real Presence.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

But for that to happen, your church has to address this creeping liberalism issue. If things were as they were in 2012 before Pope Benedict resigned, I would support reunion immediately. But we have the Synod on Synodality, Fiducia Supplicans, et cetera. The Orthodox cannot risk admitting that into our communion. We cannot compromise on human sexuality, because when you compromise there, you compromise on everything else and the result is the moral relativism and irrelevance that has nearly destroyed the mainline Protestant churches, and which could, combined with the aftermath of the paedophilia scandal, potentially cause horribile damage to the Roman church.

And I am devastated to read of the recent closure of so many parishes. I pray for the Roman church. I believe it has, at least at present, sacraments that are legitimate. i want it in communion with the Orthodox.

There is also the problem of getting the majority of Eastern Orthodox to accept communion with Rome. It would do no good if we restored communion only to have more Orthodox go over to the schismatic Old Calendarist sects.

Even the reunification with the Oriental Orthodox, in which enormous strides have been made, has been beset with problems and false accusations from people like Dr. Nicholas Marinides, who almost never are members of the Middle Eastern churches which are actually involved in the dialogue, but are rather members of churches which do not have direct interaction with the Oriental Orthodox and are not in a position to discern their true Orthodoxy. I also find it strange that there is so much less criticism of the Assyrian Church of the East despite the fact that the Eastern Orthodox have been engaging in very productive dialogue with them for the past 65 years (the one church that refuses to dialogue with them is the Coptic Orthodox Church, because the Copts regard themselves as the Anti-Nestorians par excellence, which is not an idle boast by any means; their zeal for the theology of St. Cyril is admirable.

I agree with your statement on sexuality. It is extremely important to maintain chastity in and out of marriage. I believe that it was Our Lady of Fatima that said souls wind up in hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason. Scripture says to fly fornication because those that commit it sin against their own body.

It is frustrating to have a leader like Pope Francis. I do not believe that he is promoting homosexuality as a moral good, but what he does do causes grave confusion and potential for abuse and misunderstanding.

It appears that the synod on synodality is formed to change Church teaching. It can be attempted to be used that way, but is that really what it means?

Pope Francis has said that fiducia supplicans is not meant to bless homosexual acts that are intrinsically disordered, but some believe that it does.


It is confusing, and God is not the author of confusion, so what is happening? I believe that we get the leaders we deserve. We can rant and rave and say we know better, but what does the scriptures teach us about synodality? It is not that the foot should rule the head, but we are many members but one body. We all have to participate in the life of the Church. We cannot stomp our feet like spoiled brats and use our leader’s confusion as an excuse to divide the body. Look what the Lord said to Solomon about this very situation



11 And Solomon finished the house of the Lord, and the king's house, and all that he had designed in his heart to do, in the house of the Lord, and in his own house, and he prospered. 12 And the Lord appeared to him by night, and said: I have heard thy prayer, and I have chosen this place to myself for a house of sacrifice. 13 If I shut up heaven, and there fall no rain, or if I give orders, and command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people: 14 And my people, upon whom my name is called, being converted, shall make supplication to me, and seek out my face, and do penance for their most wicked ways: then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins and will heal their land. 15 My eyes also shall be open, and my ears attentive to the prayer of him that shall pray in this place.
16 For I have chosen, and have sanctified this place, that my name may be there for ever, and my eyes and my heart may remain there perpetually. 17 And as for thee, if thou walk before me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and keep my justices and my judgments: 18 I will raise up the throne of thy kingdom, as I promised to David thy father, saying: There shall not fail thee a man of thy stock to be ruler in Israel. 19 But if you turn away, and forsake my justices, and my commandments which I have set before you, and shall go and serve strange gods, and adore them, 20 I will pluck you up by the root out of my land which I have given you: and this house which I have sanctified to my name, I will cast away from before my face, and will make it a byword, and an example among all nations



Schism is the strange god after which many have followed. What do you think this does to the secular world? A united Church brought the Roman Empire to its knees. The Romans hated Christians and tortured them, but they could not deny the truth and say “see how they love each other”

What does the world say now? Christianity is a joke, the world laughs. Look those idiots cannot agree on anything and when you bring them together, we have to shut them up because their conversations frequently degenerate to flaming and self promotion and oppression, exactly what their Lord warned them against. Who needs that mess to solve our problems?

Yes, God still saves souls despite and in spite of the chaos, but the Word of God is blasphemed among the gentiles because of our behavior

Does God say wait until I send you decent leaders before you decide to obey Me? No! The scripture says we have to repent, do penance and seek the face of God, then He will heal our land. We need to take our eyes off the false god of schism and ask for healing. Stop the polemics that fan the flames of chaos and pray for repentance to take the difficult path of healing.

The Church is synodal in that we all have responsibility in the life of the body. We obey in spite of our leaders and God will hear from heaven. If we harden our hearts and say we won’t obey unless God sends better leaders, we can stay in schism, but don’t think to claim that such an attitude is righteous before God. Is Christ divided? God forbid

We are not going to agree by teasing out the finer points of theology. CF has been here over 22 years and that has not happened. We can however agree that the situation is dire, repent in dust and ashes to seek the face of God, and ask Him to heal us. I don’t know how He will do that, but we can all stop and wait for His answer, as He promised. If we just give up our attempts to justify the schism, not heal it ourselves, just agree that it is evil, we will be amazed at what God can do for His Church. Not my will, but thine be done

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I would however like to talk about the finer points of theology from both perspectives. Not judge between them, just talk to understand. I can endure them, but I grow tired of flames. Let’s just talk

Peace be with you all

 

[prodromos]

That is a good observation. The Holy Spirt is not present in the words of the text, but He will come to us in the desire to truly communicate rather than remain in schism.

The author is making an observation from his human perspective and is not claiming to be the Holy Spirit Himself.

In the Catholic Catechism we are taught that there is not one soul for whom which Our Lord did not suffer and die. He draws all men to Himself. It is not His Will that we stay in schism


This article, nor we have the power to change that but maybe we could try and understand each other and pray for God to heal the schism ?

I'm not sure you are seeing my point. If the Holy Spirit is present in the discussion between speakers of different languages, He is able to act as interpreter, with no confusion or loss of meaning.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianOrthodoxy/comments/p365lt
A French historian, atheist and nihilist visited Elder Porphyrios at his Hermitage in Milesi, Attica. She did not expect, being a University Professor to learn anything great from a 2nd Grade graduate, but for the sake of her friends she agreed to go.
The Elder asked the two of them to talk without the presence of others or an interpreter, which caused the question of her friends who knew that the Frenchwoman did not speak Greek at all, nor did the Elder speak French. The theological and existential discussion finally took place with the two of them alone, for quite some time.
The door opened and the atheist woman came out in tears, tears of repentance. When her friends asked her how she got along with the Elder, she replied: "But he speaks fluent French."

The same happened with a German Doctor, with a Serb, with a Romanian, with an Irishman.
When his spiritual children asked him how he knew foreign languages while he was never taught them, he replied: "I speak to them in Greek and the Holy Spirit interprets them in their minds and hearts."​

The Frenchwoman mentioned above, later became an Orthodox nun with the name Magdalene. She lived as an ascetic near the monastery of St Catherine in Sinai and fell asleep in the Lord in 2014.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think it's worthwhile too because even before reunification may be achieved, both churches would benefit from fixing their own problems. The Orthodox, for example, need to figure out the jurisdictional situation in America; having multiple bishops over the same geographical areas is not only inefficient, it's scandalous. I

It actually happened primarily because of the Communist takeover of Russia, which fractured the Russian Orthodox Church in the US into three different entities, the OCA, ROCOR and the Patriarchal parishes, and also technically a fourth in that the Antiochians simply became an autonomous church under Antioch, and then despite the attempts of the OCA to preserve ethnic unity (which it was partially successful in doing insofar as the Albanians, most Carpatho-Rusyns, the Aleuts and about half of the Bulgarians and Romanians remained with it), other jurisdictions became active, particularly the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which caused a great deal of confusion.

That said, this issue in my view is less of a problem now than it was during the Cold War since we have the association of canonical Orthodox bishops, and ROCOR is no longer canonically isolated. There exists extreme ecumenical cooperation between the OCA and the AOCNA, and between ROCOR and the Serbians, and between the OCA and the Romanians and the Bulgarians, and all of the above collectively are able to work with the EP despite some aspects of GoArch that some people find frustrating. And likewise the Oriental Orthodox have an association of canonical Oriental Orthodox bishops. This allows for ecclesiastical authority and legitimacy to be validated. It is also not entirely without precedent for multiple bishops to synodically control a region.

So really what we have is the relic of a geopolitical nightmare caused by the evil tyrant Lenin. Many people think Stalin was worse than Lenin - and they are not wrong in that Stalin killed more people. But it was Lenin who created Stalin, it was Lenin who began the brutal persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church including the inhumane treatment of Patriarch St. Tikhon (who was previously the undisputed leader of the Orthodox Church in North America together with his deputy St. Rafael Hawaheeny of Brooklyn), and the murder of Orthodox clergy, even clergy whose views were somewhat problematic received a crown of martyrdom as they were still in good standing, for example, St. Pavel Florensky (who co-authored the Sophianist error with Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov, which was condemned by ROCOR as heretical and if I recall the Metropolia, which is what the OCA was called until it received autocephaly during D’etente in 1970) classified it as erroneous, but Bulgakov was part of the Paris emigre community that was not a part of ROCOR; it was also Lenin who wickedly killed the entire Romanov family including the innocent children such as St. Alexis and St. Anastasia.

So jurisdictionally there are larger problems in Eastern Orthodoxy at the moment, such as the schisms in Estonia and Ukraine, but we do have I would regard an extreme moral responsibility to repair the schism caused by Lenin, as a means of rebuking that evil man. And we should also campaign to the government of Russia to have his body removed from grotesque public display (Lenin wanted to be cremated anyway, apparently, but the Orthodox Church is correctly opposed to cremation). The Orthodox Church must take on a position of rejecting all aspects of what the Soviets called “Marxist-Leninist Thought” because of the extreme evil that it caused and inflicted on the world, contributing not only to the direct persecution of Orthodox Christians in lands that fell under Communist control, but also contributing to the destabilization of the Middle East leading to the persecution of Orthodox Christians in that land also.

However the evil of Lenin, who is an antichrist in the same way Nero was an anti-Christ (it is probable that the number 666 was intended to encode Nero’s name in the Apocalypse of St. John, which is fitting since he initiated the brutal Roman persecution of Christians) is no match for the glorious power of Christ our Savior, the incarnate Word of God who trampled down death by death, and the Holy Spirit who is everywhere present and fills all things, protecting us from evil, who reign together with our Heavenly Father who is unoriginate and infinitely good, three persons in one God, united in perfect love for all time.

So as a new member of the Orthodox church, please do not despair over the jurisdictional issue. It does cause some frustrations, yes, but when I first joined it bothered me more than it should have. I then came to realize that ecclesiastical politics can be a nasty distraction and we have to trust in the functioning of the Holy Spirit within the Church to resolve these differences. In the history of Orthodoxy there have been countless temporary schisms, and the situation in North America with overlapping jurisdictions is not even a full-blown schism, but rather a canonical anomaly.

It is also much less of a problem as far as the canons of the ancient church are concerned than the unilateral supremacy and infallibility and universal jurisdiction claimed by the Pope of Rome, which is contradicted by canons 6 and 7 of Nicaea, and also by the historical record (for example, St. Irenaeus dissuading St. Victor from trying to intervene in the Corinthian church, and St. Damasus being unable to dislodge the illegitimate Arian bishop George who had been installed in place of St. Athanasius and who was tyrannical in his heretical misrule of the Church of Alexandria, and the remarks made by Pope St. Gregory DIologos concerning universal jurisdiction. It is imperative that the Roman church repent of this as part of the process of reunfication.

 

[RileyG]

I am not really interested in the divide but in the repair of the divide, but for that to happen your church needs to get serious about certain things, especially Fiducia Supplicans. It really throws a spanner into the works when you have significant numbers of Roman Catholic bishops who actively want to perform LGBTQ+ marriages in countries such as Germany. This is why the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI has been such a disaster.

The Church in Germany is rather a disaster right now



Lord have mercy on them

 

[Frank Robert]

I am not really interested in the divide but in the repair of the divide, but for that to happen your church needs to get serious about certain things, especially Fiducia Supplicans. It really throws a spanner into the works when you have significant numbers of Roman Catholic bishops who actively want to perform LGBTQ+ marriages in countries such as Germany. This is why the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI has been such a disaster.

Someone may have gotten that wrong and may have replaced "blessing" with marriage.

On March 11, 2023, the Synodal Path with support of over 80% of German Roman Catholic bishops called for blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples in German Roman Catholic dioceses.​

Pope Francis is insistent that the blessings can not be preformed as part of a marriage ceremony nor give that impression.

The Vatican has insisted that the blessings for same-sex couples are not of the “union” but for the people who request them.

“I don’t bless a ‘same-sex marriage,’ I bless two people who love each other and I also ask them to pray for me,” he told priest Don Vincenzo Vitale, who conducted the interview.

The Catholic Church welcomes all people including "lgbtq+" and does not view homosexual orientation as being sick or a crime. Same sex sins are treated the same as any sexual sins outside of a valid marriage.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I'm not sure you are seeing my point. If the Holy Spirit is present in the discussion between speakers of different languages, He is able to act as interpreter, with no confusion or loss of meaning.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianOrthodoxy/comments/p365lt ​

​

A French historian, atheist and nihilist visited Elder Porphyrios at his Hermitage in Milesi, Attica. She did not expect, being a University Professor to learn anything great from a 2nd Grade graduate, but for the sake of her friends she agreed to go.​

The Elder asked the two of them to talk without the presence of others or an interpreter, which caused the question of her friends who knew that the Frenchwoman did not speak Greek at all, nor did the Elder speak French. The theological and existential discussion finally took place with the two of them alone, for quite some time.​

The door opened and the atheist woman came out in tears, tears of repentance. When her friends asked her how she got along with the Elder, she replied: "But he speaks fluent French."​

​

The same happened with a German Doctor, with a Serb, with a Romanian, with an Irishman.​

When his spiritual children asked him how he knew foreign languages while he was never taught them, he replied: "I speak to them in Greek and the Holy Spirit interprets them in their minds and hearts."​

The Frenchwoman mentioned above, later became an Orthodox nun with the name Magdalene. She lived as an ascetic near the monastery of St Catherine in Sinai and fell asleep in the Lord in 2014.

Ok those are anecdotes of which I do not doubt the veracity, but it is not what we are seeing in discussion between East and West at this point.
Since we do not, we must ask why?

Could it be that God does not want communication or is it that we do not? From scripture we know that God does not force Himself in. He says behold, I stand at the door and knock, if any man opens the door, I will come in.

If our mind is not open to communication and our hearts are hard, we would not expect the Holy Spirit to open or soften them. God gives us free will and we must be willing
The alternative is as already stated, deny that the schism is evil and adamantly remain therein.

You seem to be saying that you do not sense the Holy Spirit when you read the article. That may be true, but whose will is keeping Him away?
The answer can only come from self examination. None of us here has the authority to tell you