What is Rome to Orthodoxy?

From a comment in the below “Sailing to Byzantium.”

I agree with you also. But how do you deal with Bernadette of Lourdes, whose body is incorrupt? And with the many attested miracles associated with Lourdes? Yet that apparition styled herself as "the immaculate conception", which I gather is not accepted by Orthodox Christians. And how do you deal with the events of Fatima, in which 70,000 rain-soaked people were instantly dried after the miracle of the sun...yet that apparition refers to "the conversion of Russia" and "the reign of Pius XI"? And finally how do you deal with personages like Padre Pio, whose whole life and ministry center around obedience including reverence for the pope of Rome?

Those are the things--however slender they may seem--that give me pause.

Seraph,
In a few lines you have posed a question that volumes could be written in reply to and not be adequate. A proper reply is certainly beyond the scope of a comment here. And very likely it is beyond my poor abilities. But I will try to give you the short version of my limited thoughts on the matter. Orthodoxy focuses on what it knows and not what it does not know. Herein lays a major difference between Rome and Orthodoxy. Rome generally believes there are answers for everything and it looks for them. In Orthodoxy we simply accept that some things are. And we also accept that some things are outside our realm of knowledge and we don’t tend to worry a lot about them. This can be quite maddening to Western Christians. And as a former Roman I absolutely feel that frustration sometimes. One of the areas that is a bit gray for us is the question of the boundaries of The Church and what goes on outside them.

We know where The Church is (canonical Orthodoxy). And in some cases we can state with a fair degree of certainty where it is not (all of your various Protestant sects). And while it is true that we Orthodox have ever held that true sacramental grace belongs solely to God’s Church since the Holy Mysteries are confected in cooperation with the entire Church and the Holy Spirit, we do not claim to know with certainty where the exact bounds of The Church lie, on the one side of which are the grace of True Mysteries, and on the other side of which that grace is lacking. Nor do we claim to know what goes on outside of God’s Church.

Orthodoxy does not put limits on God’s mercy. Nor do we limit where the uncreated energies of His grace can flow or what they can do (save in the matter of sacramental grace). Even where the sacraments are concerned, we don’t claim that heterodox sacraments are completely without merit. Again we don’t know what God may choose to do or not do. We only hold that non-Orthodox sacraments do not do what the Church does. What the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church is to The Church has never been clearly defined. If asked for an opinion my guess is you will get a wide variation of answers. Indeed this is a pretty hot topic of discussion in some quarters.

Some (more than a few) will tell you that Rome is flatly heretical and has no connection to Orthodoxy and that her sacraments are without grace. Others will tell you that Rome is separated from The Church but that her heresy is not of a nature that would impede the grace of her sacraments. And still others will tell you they don’t know.

I fall mainly into the latter category but I do lean towards accepting that Rome retains the grace of true sacraments. Among the items which have moved me in that direction was Florovksy’s essay on The Limits of the Church. I intend to post that in the coming days. Another item which caused me to lean in that direction is the clear number of saints produced by the Latin Church. This last statement will be controversial among some of my Orthodox brothers and sisters, not a few of whom might take vigorous exception to my acknowledging the possibility of non Orthodox saints. Oh well. I will deal with it. Also it has been the tradition of the Russian Church when accepting converts from the Roman clergy that after Chrismation and profession of faith they were simply vested.

St John of San Francisco (my patron) once explained his view of Rome this way. Rome, he said, is like a very old and beautiful house. All of its wiring is still intact and in good order. But it’s not connected to the city power station. The policy of the Russian Church regarding the reception of Roman priests does seem to affirm that the wiring is still there in the minds of the Holy Synod. This is certainly not done for Protestants. Yet other Orthodox jurisdictions require Roman converts to be baptized. The bottom line I think here, is that there is no bottom line… yet. We are back to “I don’t know.”

As for the particulars you mentioned, mostly that also falls into the realm of I don’t know. Incorrupt saints exist in both the East and the West. I knew of many Catholic saints that were incorrupt before I swam the Bosphoros. We have them too. The incorrupt relics of my patron St. John of San Francisco lie not two hours from where I am typing. I also know the basics of some of the Marian apparitions in the western tradition. We have our own. And St. Seraphim of Sarov prophesized about the ordeal awaiting Russia long ago.

It is recorded that before he died he wrote a letter to be given to the Czar on the date of his glorification. On the day when he was canonized that letter was presented to the Holy Royal Passion Bearer Czar Nicholas II. No one knows with certainty what was in it. But Nicholas was shaken and paled after reading it. It is almost universally believed that it was a forewarning of the terrible cross that awaited the Emperor and his family. The Emperor and Empress were also warned by the Holy Fool for Christ Blessed Pasha (Parasceva) of their fate and Russia’s terrible ordeal that lay ahead. She also foretold the birth of the tragic Tsarevitch, Blessed Alexei. Of Padre Pio, he was doubtless a great and holy man. But there are many Orthodox saints who did not center their lives on the Pope. What of them?

This is not a minor question. The issue of the relationship of the Roman Church to Orthodoxy is a serious one. There are theological discussions now going on between the two churches. Are they proceeding from the perspective that Rome is a schismatic part of The Church still retaining the grace of the mysteries? Or are they proceeding from the point of view that Rome is heretical and has departed too far to retain any such grace? Or are they proceeding like me from the point of view of “I don’t know” and hoping to find out as they go along?

I am aware that the above thoughts are horribly inadequate to such a weighty question. And so I will open this up to others, Catholic or Orthodox, who may stumble onto this post. I would particularly appreciate the thoughts of some of my Orthodox brothers and sisters on this subject. Fr. Stephen Freeman, Daniel (Photius) Jones, the Ochlophobist and any others who would care to opine are invited to do so. I will ask that any discussion here please remain civil even if the topic might be one that naturally lends itself to polemics.

Under the mercy,
Ad Orientem