A possible step towards unity?

[Elijahmaria]

Yes Maam. But I know of many such ocurrences from people that have witnessed it first hand from the other side. And every time this type of “allowing the truth to come out” starts on a thread…it descends quickly to vitriol. Also, it was not the purpose of this thread in the first place.

That is all.

I know.

 

[Vico]

I’m positive that my parish still asks Roman Catholics to renounce certain heresies and to recite the creed sans filioque before being christmated, and my parish is an otherwise relatively liberal Greek parish in terms of praxis. Where is this happening, where Catholics are admitted into Holy Orthodoxy with only confession and communion without even first being chrismated?

Reception of Converts in the 1906 Hapgood service book (pp. 455-56):

Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that the holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord equal spiritual power, but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince: And that the Bishop of Rome alone is his successor : And that the Bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and others are not, equally with the Bishop of Rome, successors of the Apostles?

Answer. I do.

Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Œcumenical Councils, and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils?

Answer. I do.

 

[mardukm]

Reception of Converts in the 1906 Hapgood service book (pp. 455-56):

Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that the holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord equal spiritual power, but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince: And that the Bishop of Rome alone is his successor : And that the Bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and others are not, equally with the Bishop of Rome, successors of the Apostles?

Answer. I do.

Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Œcumenical Councils, and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils?

Answer. I do.

Interesting.

NONE of these points are actually “renunciations” of the Catholic Faith.

that the holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord equal spiritual power,

Orthodox do not understand that the Catholic Church makes a distinction between the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction. The power of orders is the “spiritual power” of the episcopal order, and ALL bishops are equal in this.

but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince

I suspect the EO interpret “Prince” as a Machiavellian Prince. Well, that has nothing to do with Catholic teaching on the papacy.

And that the Bishop of Rome alone is his successor

Well, the Catholic Church does not teach that the Bishop of Rome ALONE is St. Peter’s successor. Rather, she teaches that the Bishop of Rome is the sole successor of St. Peter’s PRIMACY in the whole Church. Remember that Pope St. Gregory the Great himself taught that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are together the “See of Peter.”

And that the Bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and others are not, equally with the Bishop of Rome, successors of the Apostles?

Yes, the Catholic Church teaches explicitly that all bishops are successors of the Apostles.

Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Œcumenical Councils,

Yes, I do. The Pope of Rome is not the superior of an Ecumenical Council, but is the head bishop of the Ecumenical Council. The Ecumenical Council defined is the head bishop and his brother bishops TOGETHER, as explicitly taught by the Catholic Church.

I reject both the Absolutist Petrine and the Low Petrine EO assumption that the head bishop can be separated from the body in an Ecumenical Council.

infallible in faith,

I reject the idea that the Pope of Rome, separated from the Church, is infallible in the Faith.

notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils?

Aside from Pope Honorius, what Ecumenical Council claimed that a bishop of Rome was a heretic? I wouldn’t join a Church that makes such a blatant error of fact as part of its profession of Faith.

Is there anything else? Doesn’t seem like there is any need to renounce Catholicism in order to be Orthodox. Hence, I am Orthodox in communion with Rome.

The issue here, as usual, is not what the Catholic Church teaches, but what non-Catholics THINK she teaches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

I received two questions about this thread. If two people wrote me, others are probably wondering. I think it is intuitive and most people will feel comfortable with what I say below, but they need to see me say it to confirm we’re all on the same page. Because posters are graciously trying to work with the new debate guidelines, I want to make that as easy as possible, so I’m responding publicly.

It is acceptable to post information that adds to the discussion that is indirectly related, especially if it is responding to another post’s points. Thread drift is normal.

One or a few posts might add related information while an ongoing conversation might hijack a thread. When it is obvious that thread drift has moved into thread hijacking, please charitably offer to move the conversation into a new thread. Either the poster or a responder may offer to move a topic into its own thread. If it is dropped at that point, it is fine. If one or more continue posting on the topic you think deserves its own thread, please bring it to my attention so I can decide if it should be stopped or moved.

Example:

The thread on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is now talking about sushi. Some people are trying to discuss jelly or jam, but the sushi conversation is making things confusing. Will you please consider moving posts 13-20, 24, 27, 31-42, and 49 into a thread called “Sushi in the United States”?

My involvement depends on timing. If someone contacts me about a potential hijack and I’m able to respond quickly, I might move a post into its own thread before it takes a conversation off topic. If I read the report after the thread has moved on and I see that the off topic posts didn’t derail the thread, I will probably leave them in place. I might contact those involved to let them know it was too far off topic and should have been moved. There are certain topics that most here would recognize as instant debates of their own. These should be moved immediately so that both conversations can develop without derailing. Some leeway can be given for less contentious issues to see if they add to the conversation or become their own debate. Once it is obvious that a thread is being derailed, whether intentionally or unintentionally, please contact me.

Using this policy as an excuse to make passive aggressive comments by saying something like, “this is the way it is and I won’t discuss it with you because that would be off topic” is uncharitable and unacceptable in a debate. This is a discussion forum. If you don’t want to discuss it, don’t post it.

If you have questions, please write me privately to avoid hijacking this thread.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator

 

[Elijahmaria]

Interesting.

The issue here, as usual, is not what the Catholic Church teaches, but what non-Catholics THINK she teaches.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think you are quite right about what is in the services books as a renunciation. And I will even take it a step further. I think it is intentional. I think it is intentional because I do not think it has, at all, been the intention of most of Orthodoxy to really claim that the papal Church is in formal heresy…even with her petrine doctrine.

I think it is an insurance policy to make the convert feel as though it really is a conversion and not just a transfer of authority and to provide plausible deniability if it is ever challenged from outside.

M.

 

[carlos19]

Hi everyone, this is a great discussion. However, I must point out that from most of the discussions that I have heard or read on this subject of unification, it appears that only Roman Catholics seem to be open to this, I do not see too much interest on the Orthodox side. I hope I am not offending anyone, but it seems like the only ones that are interested in reunification is Catholics.

 

[MrPip]

I think you are quite right about what is in the services books as a renunciation. And I will even take it a step further. I think it is intentional. I think it is intentional because I do not think it has, at all, been the intention of most of Orthodoxy to really claim that the papal Church is in formal heresy…even with her petrine doctrine.

I think it is an insurance policy to make the convert feel as though it really is a conversion and not just a transfer of authority and to provide plausible deniability if it is ever challenged from outside.

M.

This makes total sense to me. Opinions of various members of Orthodox laity, some priests, and an unknown number of bishops notwithstanding, are there any documents that could be called “official” and are accepted by at least a majority of Orthodox bishops that declare the Catholic Church in formal heresy?

 

[Warrenton]

What if instead of looking for a top-down solution, Catholics and Orthodox tried for a bottom up solution? Individual Roman and Orthodox dioceses, but not entire churches having dialogue with eachother with the goal of intercommunion.

I think it more likely that it will be even more grass roots than this. It will consist of individual Catholics and Orthodox attending each other’s services. Over time, the communities will become more familiar with each other, and the errors of today will resolve in a different sensus fidei. In other words, a reverse of the process by which our divisions began.

The process is very slow, however, and cannot be rushed. Each priest must ascertain whether the prospective communicant is in full brotherhood.

As Orthodox and Catholics drift further away from the prevailing mindset of the world, we invariably drift closer together. Our differences become smaller in a relative way.

 

[Hesychios]

I think it more likely that it will be even more grass roots than this. It will consist of individual Catholics and Orthodox attending each other’s services…

I can see Roman Catholics doing this, because we can see that many who post at CAF are clamoring for a chance at receiving communion in Orthodox temples. Some are genuinely hurt when they learn there is no offer to commune.

However from my experience Orthodox do not generally feel as eager to experiment. Most have heard about, or remember, the ‘New Mass’ and many have relatives and friends who are Roman Catholics so they can have had some small exposure to Roman Catholic worship through funerals and weddings and such. In casual conversation (if the subject ever comes up) one comes away with the feeling that they are not impressed and not inspired.

I have to say that I have had even more vitriolic conversations in Eastern Catholic parishes, where the subject comes up frequently since they more often have the occasion to worship in Latin Catholic parishes (on vacations and business trips), and they are essentially welded to the Latin Catholic church.

Of course there are always a few drifters going one way or the other, sometimes these are the less religiously inclined partners in a mixed marriage, or people who were not brought up very strictly in a religious home and find Christ at a later point in life. Some more religious individuals make the change out of a serious conviction formed over a period of study and reflection, of course, but none of these seem to me of the type to ‘break down the walls’. Regardless of which way these people are headed, they are not looking back.

The bottom line is that I don’t see a groundswell of interest among Orthodox in worshiping in Roman Catholic parishes.

 

[mardukm]

The bottom line is that I don’t see a groundswell of interest among Orthodox in worshiping in Roman Catholic parishes.

I would agree with this. Of course, I’ve seen Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) who come to Church simply to receive the Eucharist (they come late, leave early). For those types, it might be very convenient to visit a Latin Catholic parish if available.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Elijahmaria]

I would agree with this. Of course, I’ve seen Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) who come to Church simply to receive the Eucharist (they come late, leave early). For those types, it might be very convenient to visit a Latin Catholic parish if available.

Blessings,
Marduk

That’s a cultural thing. You aren’t going to change that no matter where you send them. I know you know that but I thought I’d state the obvious…

 

[Elijahmaria]

The bottom line is that I don’t see a groundswell of interest among Orthodox in worshiping in Roman Catholic parishes.

Sacramental and ecclesial communion has to be about more than what people are drawn to by way of rite and ritual, and all that entails…doesn’t it?

 

[Hesychios]

Sacramental and ecclesial communion has to be about more than what people are drawn to by way of rite and ritual, and all that entails…doesn’t it?

I might agree with what you write here, perhaps we can come back to that point later forsome deeper thinking.

But that is not what I was addressing in my post. I was responding to this “It will consist of individual Catholics and Orthodox attending each other’s services…”.

I don’t see it happening, not by a long shot. Most Orthodox (not all by any means, but definitely most) have no inclination to turn off the street into a Roman Catholic parking lot even to take a look. What is being suggested here is some sort of mass action by the Orthodox laity that cannot be ignored or regulated by their own bishops.

So my position is this:
-1- Most Orthodox have no interest in asking for sacraments from Roman Catholic priests, and would only do so if they were in desperate peril and had no other options. (Perhaps many Orthodox would not seek permission from their bishop, who probably would say no anyway, but that is not what I am claiming here, they don’t really have a significant desire to anyway).
-2- If most Orthodox in north America routinely disobeyed their church rules and regularly received in Roman Catholic parishes, the RC would never even know it. They really do not know who they are passing the Holy and Sacred Mysteries to. They might mistakenly even think some of their pews are filling up again for some other reason, like better homilies. As a gesture it would be lost.

It is probably true that many Roman Catholics (probably not most) do have an interest in making an excursion to an Orthodox parish at least once and receiving communion, and would do so if their own church were to say it fulfils their Sunday obligation and is OK. In fact we know some try to receive anyway, and some posters here claim to have succeeded. But it’s not like large numbers could expect to get away with that.

Orthodox priests distribute the Holy Mysteries by name to people they know, or have been introduced to or have spoken to previously. Most of these people would be in their flock and he wiill have heard their recent confessions.

So the priest knows his parish, by name, and confessions are not anonymous.

The idea that some renegade Roman Catholics could swarm the Orthodox and take communion anyway, defying the schism, bespeaks of a lack of understanding of how it works in Holy orthodoxy. It seems to assume that Orthodox distribute the Holy Mysteries to anyone who presents themselves. I have visions of flash mobs of RC …

It’s like we cannot expect to all get free dental work by mobbing the dental offices, or free car washes by jamming the car wash parking lots, how can anyone expect to show up in Orthodox temples and just expect to be offered the Holy Eucharist?

This kind of defiance by the laity most certainly would require the collusion of the priests.

If the intention is not to receive communion, but merely to be present, I am sure they can be accomodated, but this will be a bigger problem for the Papacy than for the Orthodox, and the Papacy has bigger problems than this could ever be.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Did I ever say otherwise? Bishops are not free to act as they please if rebuked by their metropolitan (or worse their entire synod), and local synods are not free to act contrary to the wishes of a pan-Orthodox or ‘ecumenical’ council. It is primacy beyond the level of patriarchates which is a disputed concept (i.e., universal primacy and jurisdiction).

Thank you for this explanation/summary; I found it quite helpful!

For an Orthodox bishop to accept communion from or offer communion to a Papal bishop, would be virtually telling the world that whatever deviations in belief the Papacy endorses are not a big deal anymore. That would be misleading, the differences in theology are a huge deal and we owe it to ourselves and to our children to see that they are resolved first.

This is perhaps the most important disagreement today between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church: as I’m sure you know, we maintain that the only substantive doctrinal barrier to unity is the papal dogmas… and maybe only papal supremacy.

On whatever other issues are always brought up - original sin, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the filioque, hesychasm - my own catechesis as a Latin Catholic has left me all but certain that the Orthodox who think our doctrines on these matters conflict with Orthodoxy have a highly defective understanding of Catholic teaching on them.

The Latin Catholic Archbishop Fulton Sheen put it best: “Many people hate the Catholic Church and her teachings, but I do not believe I could find five people who really hate her and her teachings for what they really are. They hate what they think are the Church and her teachings.”

Even today, a convert from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy has to make a set of renunciations. These are specific repudiations of some very basic (and as some Roman Catholics would say of paramount importance) RC dogmas.

And this underscores our disagreement over how much we disagree, for as you know, and as you have expressed bewilderment over in the past, if an Orthodox Christian converts to the Catholic Church, he or she is not required to profess faith in any additional dogmas. No one checks to see if he believes in original sin, or purgatory, or the treasury of merit, or the Immaculate Conception. Because for the most part, what all responsible Catholic theologians consider to be universally binding about such teachings - as opposed to their Latin expressions - you as an Orthodox already believe… at least, if lex orandi, lex credendi truly applies.

Interesting.

NONE of these points are actually “renunciations” of the Catholic Faith.

The issue here, as usual, is not what the Catholic Church teaches, but what non-Catholics THINK she teaches.

I was about to say precisely the same thing!

Great summaries, my brother!

It is probably true that many Roman Catholics (probably not most) do have an interest in making an excursion to an Orthodox parish at least once and receiving communion, and would do so if their own church were to say it fulfils their Sunday obligation and is OK. In fact we know some try to receive anyway, and some posters here claim to have succeeded.

Wow, that’s terrible. I apologize for their behavior, Hesychios. I hope you know - you probably do; you seem to be very well-informed on these matters - that the Catholic Church clearly forbids such sneaky, guerrilla-style abuse. It is not okay for Catholics to violate Orthodox requirements on this matter.

Because you’re right: if there’s no Catholic Mass or Liturgy around, then there is no obligation to fulfill at all - even if an Orthodox church is nearby. While the Catholic Church certainly has no problem with Catholics attending Orthodox Divine Liturgies, people who assert that doing so “fulfills one’s obligation if there are no Catholic churches available” are mistaken for the simple reason that there is no obligation if there are no Catholic churches available.

If the intention is not to receive communion, but merely to be present, I am sure they can be accomodated, but this will be a bigger problem for the Papacy than for the Orthodox, and the Papacy has bigger problems than this could ever be.

Two questions:

(1) What do you mean, “I am sure they can be accommodated”? Aren’t Catholics ordinarily welcome to come to Orthodox Divine Liturgies as long as they don’t receive Holy Communion?

(2) Why would that present “a bigger problem for the papacy than for the Orthodox [churches]”?

 

[Mickey]

I might agree with what you write here, perhaps we can come back to that point later forsome deeper thinking.

But that is not what I was addressing in my post. I was responding to this “It will consist of individual Catholics and Orthodox attending each other’s services…”.

I don’t see it happening, not by a long shot. Most Orthodox (not all by any means, but definitely most) have no inclination to turn off the street into a Roman Catholic parking lot even to take a look. What is being suggested here is some sort of mass action by the Orthodox laity that cannot be ignored or regulated by their own bishops.

So my position is this:
-1- Most Orthodox have no interest in asking for sacraments from Roman Catholic priests, and would only do so if they were in desperate peril and had no other options. (Perhaps many Orthodox would not seek permission from their bishop, who probably would say no anyway, but that is not what I am claiming here, they don’t really have a significant desire to anyway).
-2- If most Orthodox in north America routinely disobeyed their church rules and regularly received in Roman Catholic parishes, the RC would never even know it. They really do not know who they are passing the Holy and Sacred Mysteries to. They might mistakenly even think some of their pews are filling up again for some other reason, like better homilies. As a gesture it would be lost.

It is probably true that many Roman Catholics (probably not most) do have an interest in making an excursion to an Orthodox parish at least once and receiving communion, and would do so if their own church were to say it fulfils their Sunday obligation and is OK. In fact we know some try to receive anyway, and some posters here claim to have succeeded. But it’s not like large numbers could expect to get away with that.

Orthodox priests distribute the Holy Mysteries by name to people they know, or have been introduced to or have spoken to previously. Most of these people would be in their flock and he wiill have heard their recent confessions.

So the priest knows his parish, by name, and confessions are not anonymous.

The idea that some renegade Roman Catholics could swarm the Orthodox and take communion anyway, defying the schism, bespeaks of a lack of understanding of how it works in Holy orthodoxy. It seems to assume that Orthodox distribute the Holy Mysteries to anyone who presents themselves. I have visions of flash mobs of RC …

It’s like we cannot expect to all get free dental work by mobbing the dental offices, or free car washes by jamming the car wash parking lots, how can anyone expect to show up in Orthodox temples and just expect to be offered the Holy Eucharist?

This kind of defiance by the laity most certainly would require the collusion of the priests.

If the intention is not to receive communion, but merely to be present, I am sure they can be accomodated, but this will be a bigger problem for the Papacy than for the Orthodox, and the Papacy has bigger problems than this could ever be.

Great post!

 

[jwinch2]

I could see some good coming out of greater interaction between Catholic and Orthodox Christians at the local level, but do not see any potential for anything too official terms of “coming into communion” with each other. As already mentioned, that sort of thing would probably create far more problems than it would be worth.

However, I would see nothing wrong with a Catholic parish and an Orthodox parish having joint prayer session, dinners, doing works of charity together, etc. Certainly there are very important issues we agree on in terms of life, rights of Christian conscience, etc. I have a difficult time seeing any potential for harm in that and probably quite a bit of good could come from it.

 

[Aramis]

I am pretty sure Roman Catholic (by that I mean Latin Catholic) dioceses are not authorized or empowered to engage in this sort of thing on their own.

Actually, they are allowed, but with some regulations in place. Various national councils have published ecumenical directories making clear the allowances and who is to participate how in such dialogues.

The Lutheran-Catholic dialogues in the US occurred in various dioceses for many years; the net result is a whole lot of Lutherans who would become Catholics if they could keep their distinct ritual praxis… and a few Catholics who became Lutherans. Such dialogues were not grass-roots efforts - they reported to the USCCB via the local bishops.

And, as shown by Mar Bawai Soros, the Chaldean Bishop dialogued with him and his clergy, resulting in their corporate reception along with 1000 families. Handled locally right up until the final discussions of Mar Bawai’s specific role in the Chaldean Church - which was handled at the patriarchal level.

 

[Hesychios]

Two questions:

(1) What do you mean, “I am sure they can be accommodated”? Aren’t Catholics ordinarily welcome to come to Orthodox Divine Liturgies as long as they don’t receive Holy Communion?

That is what I have meant.

Of course they are welcome to attend. I had to put this in as a clarification, because everything else I wrote assumed that the visitors would be hoping to take communion, but that is not actually what the other poster said, he said “It will consist of individual Catholics and Orthodox attending each other’s services…” which is not exactly asserting that they would want to take communion.

Perhaps a better way of saying that would have been “all visitors are welcome, the more the better”.

(2) Why would that present “a bigger problem for the papacy than for the Orthodox [churches]”?

In the context of the suggestion that the people could end the schism through a grass roots effort, I think that the Papacy would be very concerned over the fact that a large number of their faithful were attending the Orthodox churches as some sort of demonstration, protest or expression of interfaith solidarity. I would expect a reaction of some sort.

For Orthodox, it would be a matter of carrying chairs from the parish hall into the nave.

 

[Cavaradossi]

That is what I have meant.

Of course they are welcome to attend. I had to put this in as a clarification, because everything else I wrote assumed that the visitors would be hoping to take communion, but that is not actually what the other poster said, he said “It will consist of individual Catholics and Orthodox attending each other’s services…” which is not exactly asserting that they would want to take communion.

Perhaps a better way of saying that would have been “all visitors are welcome, the more the better”.

In the context of the suggestion that the people could end the schism through a grass roots effort, I think that the Papacy would be very concerned over the fact that a large number of their faithful were attending the Orthodox churches as some sort of demonstration, protest or expression of interfaith solidarity. I would expect a reaction of some sort.

For Orthodox, it would be a matter of carrying chairs from the parish hall into the nave.

Chairs? Nah, instead it would provide the perfect excuse for removing any remaining pews in the interest of saving space.

 

[Mickey]

Chairs? Nah, instead it would provide the perfect excuse for removing any remaining pews in the interest of saving space.