Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Peter_J]

Post #64 and #65 which are comnents to…

Originally Posted by Sveti Ante…

“It would be in the Orthodox Churches best interest to reunite and become in full communion with Rome. They should use the Eastern Catholic Churches as a model and become one Church as our Lord desires.”

NIne stated…

“Not even Rome thinks that’s a good model anymore. Thanks, but no thanks”.

Exactly. Please read more carefully in the future, I don’t want to continually have words put in my mouth.

(If you’re still confused, just notice that NineTwo didn’t say “Rome doesn’t even want full communion.” He said “Not even Rome thinks that’s a good model anymore.”)

 

[GaryTaylor]

Exactly. Please read more carefully in the future, I don’t want to continually have words put in my mouth.

(If you’re still confused, just notice that NineTwo didn’t say “Rome doesn’t even want full communion.” He said “Not even Rome thinks that’s a good model anymore.”)

Right, and you stated…

“I just wish more of my fellow Catholics understood that as well as you appear to. (Actually, I can think of some of your fellow Orthodox who could stand to understand that better as well … but I don’t want to harp on them as they aren’t here”

I’d like to understand where in the Catholic Church this comes from, I might have missed something important.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Post #64 and #65 which are comnents to…

Originally Posted by Sveti Ante…

“It would be in the Orthodox Churches best interest to reunite and become in full communion with Rome. They should use the Eastern Catholic Churches as a model and become one Church as our Lord desires.”

NIne stated…

“Not even Rome thinks that’s a good model anymore. Thanks, but no thanks”.

You stated…

“I just wish more of my fellow Catholics understood that as well as you appear to. (Actually, I can think of some of your fellow Orthodox who could stand to understand that better as well … but I don’t want to harp on them as they aren’t here”

I’m asking where this thinking comes from. I don’t recollect reading this anywhere? So no I didn’t put words in your mouth. I commented on the ones which came out of it.

And this is exactly how the conversation went. So just so we are clear " reunite and become in full communion with Rome" was definitely mentioned.

I never read anything from Rome such as this? Enlighten me to what I do not understand?
.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I just wish more of my fellow Catholics understood

What are “WE” Catholic’s not understanding? Since your wishing and speaking for “WE” Catholics? I think its only fair I ask? If you don’t have an answer stop the back pedaling and I’ll let this go? Especially when it becomes border line uncharitable over a simple question?

 

[frjohnmorris]

I noticed that several posts have a picture of Our Lady with a message at the bottom. I just want to make a passing observation. I recently attended a Catholic Mass at the local Catholic school. I am invited to attend special Masses there because most of the youth of my parish attend the school and several of the teachers are members of my parish. But back to the point. The order of the Mass and much of the text was almost identical to the Orthodox Liturgy, especially since the adoption of the new English translation, but one thing that I noticed was that there was no invocation of Our Lady. The Orthodox Liturgy contains many mentions of The Mother of God. There is always a hymn to Mary immediately after the consecration. It just struck me as odd that the Mass did not contain any direct invocation of Our Lady. Is that the normal Catholic practice?
There are special hymns to Mary for Feast Days, but the most commonly used invocation is
It is truly meet to bless thee O Theotokos who art all blessed and all blameless and the Mother of our God
More honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious than the Seraphim, thou who without corruption bearest God the Word and art truly Theotokos, we magnify thee.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Starrsmother]

I noticed that several posts have a picture of Our Lady with a message at the bottom. I just want to make a passing observation. I recently attended a Catholic Mass at the local Catholic school. I am invited to attend special Masses there because most of the youth of my parish attend the school and several of the teachers are members of my parish. But back to the point. The order of the Mass and much of the text was almost identical to the Orthodox Liturgy, especially since the adoption of the new English translation, but one thing that I noticed was that there was no invocation of Our Lady. The Orthodox Liturgy contains many mentions of The Mother of God. There is always a hymn to Mary immediately after the consecration. It just struck me as odd that the Mass did not contain any direct invocation of Our Lady. Is that the normal Catholic practice?
There are special hymns to Mary for Feast Days, but the most commonly used invocation is
It is truly meet to bless thee O Theotokos who art all blessed and all blameless and the Mother of our God
More honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious than the Seraphim, thou who without corruption bearest God the Word and art truly Theotokos, we magnify thee.

Archpriest John W. Morris

What a lovely prayer! As a Roman Catholic, I’d never heard it before!

 

[LionHeart777]

I noticed that several posts have a picture of Our Lady with a message at the bottom. I just want to make a passing observation. I recently attended a Catholic Mass at the local Catholic school. I am invited to attend special Masses there because most of the youth of my parish attend the school and several of the teachers are members of my parish. But back to the point. The order of the Mass and much of the text was almost identical to the Orthodox Liturgy, especially since the adoption of the new English translation, but one thing that I noticed was that there was no invocation of Our Lady. The Orthodox Liturgy contains many mentions of The Mother of God. There is always a hymn to Mary immediately after the consecration. It just struck me as odd that the Mass did not contain any direct invocation of Our Lady. Is that the normal Catholic practice?
There are special hymns to Mary for Feast Days, but the most commonly used invocation is
It is truly meet to bless thee O Theotokos who art all blessed and all blameless and the Mother of our God
More honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious than the Seraphim, thou who without corruption bearest God the Word and art truly Theotokos, we magnify thee.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Just off the top of my head Father, I recall an invocation of Our Lady (and all Angels and Saints) in the Penitential Rite at the beginning of Mass. You can see here.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Just off the top of my head Father, I recall an invocation of Our Lady (and all Angels and Saints) in the Penitential Rite at the beginning of Mass. You can see here.

They did not do the Penitential Rite, the Gloria or the Creed during the Mass.
I do not know what is usual in Roman Catholic practice since we only have one form of the Divine Liturgy. It is always what you used to call High Mass. There is no Low Mass or said Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite. It is always chanted and incense is always used. During a week day Liturgy, we may use simpler music, but that is the only difference.

You should know that the Gloria comes from the Byzantine Rite Matins service. It is sung immediately before the beginning of the Divine Liturgy. so that a person who is not familure with the Byzantine Rite might think that it is part of the Divine Liturgy. Significantly, the Gloria is never omitted during Advent, Lent or Holy Week, but is not sung at the Paschal Matins. I am not sure, but I almost certain that the Gloria was added to the Latin Mass by St. Gregory the Great who spent time in Constantinople before he became Pope.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[thequietsinger]

I’d very much like the east and west churches to re-unite. From what I’ve read on the subject—and understand that I have had very little experience with the eastern churches–the original split was over a question of wording in a document proclaimed by the Pope at the time. It was pretty much over semantics–both were saying about the same thing but in different ways and the split was the result. If so, all the more reason to work for re-unification. There may be more to it than that by now after all the time that has passed, and re-unification now may be way more difficult today-- I don’t know. Let me share a little true story with you though:

The other day, a friend I game with on FB online and I were talking. She is the widow of a protestant minister and she knows that I’m Catholic. Somehow the concept of our religious differences came up and she remarked to me that she was saved by faith in Jesus alone–a common enough protestant belief. I reminded her that as a Catholic, I believe we are saved by faith AND good works. She told me that I was wrong–that this isn’t what it says in the bible. I asked her if she believed that her faith in Jesus made her act differently–in her own opinion–than if she didn’t believe. She answered me: “Of course.” So I asked her, just hypothetically, if a man were baptized, accepted God as his “personal savior” publically and then spent every weekend prowling for prostitutes, raped them, tortured them, killed them, cut up their bodies and dumped them on the side of the road, but then showed up at church on Sunday to again proclaim his faith in Jesus–if she felt that the man’s faith alone would save him from hell if he were somehow caught, sentenced to death and landed in Huntsville, Texas where the death unit is?

My friend works as a parole officer in Amarillo, Texas–which is why I made such a grisly, black and white comparison.

Anyway, she replied readily “Of course not! I think he’d go to hell!”

So I asked her, “Then you believe that a person can have faith in God, be baptized, accept Jesus as his personal savior and still go to hell, right? Why do you believe that?”

I know she somehow thought she had me on that one–as she knows Catholics don’t believe in the death penalty just for a start. She replied: “Because he went out and committed rape and murder of course–the guy is a serial killer!”

“So,” I wrote her back"Then you are saying that you believe that a man can believe in Jesus, be baptized, accept Jesus as his savior and still do something that is a great enough sin that he’d go to hell anyway, right" She agreed that this was what she believed. So I simply asked her “Then I assume that at least one reason you aren’t a serial killer is because you believe it’s a bad enough sin it would merit hell. If that is true, then your belief in Jesus tells you that if you can go to hell by acting evil, conversely you must also believe that by believing in Jesus you must choose not to act in evil ways in order not to go to hell, right?”

She agreed. “Well then,” I remarked, “You actually DO believe that faith alone is not enough to get you to heaven–that good works must happen too as a result of your believing in Jesus and not wanting to land in hell and that bad works must be avoided–and because you love Jesus and want to go to heaven you ACT in a way to get you there and avoid other acts that will cause you to go to hell, right?.” When she agreed with me I simply responded “Well then, I hate to break the news to you, but you’re on your way to being a Catholic–you just don’t know it yet!”

We laughed and she agreed–sort of–but my point is that I think many of the “break-aways” from Catholicism began as semantic arguments. Our consciences tell us all much the same thing, and If we could all set down and talk–there just might be hope for all Christians to re-unify–and the eastern churches just might be a good starting point!

You are most certainly correct. The Orthodox did not agree with having a Pope, because they felt it put a roadblock, so to speak, between them and God. They also saw no need for a higher authority to have power over them, either. Note to all this is just what I have been told by Orthodox clergy; please do not attack me if I’m wrong. I will be more than happy to say I’m wrong, myself.

I don’t want to say that the story is wonderful, exactly, but it is quite interesting! Maybe you have shown her the difference between the two, and she may start to think about it. But I do agree with you. The Eastern Churches would be a good place to start.

 

[Peter_J]

Right, and you stated…

“I just wish more of my fellow Catholics understood that as well as you appear to. (Actually, I can think of some of your fellow Orthodox who could stand to understand that better as well … but I don’t want to harp on them as they aren’t here”

I’d like to understand where in the Catholic Church this comes from, I might have missed something important.

And this is exactly how the conversation went. So just so we are clear " reunite and become in full communion with Rome" was definitely mentioned.

I never read anything from Rome such as this? Enlighten me to what I do not understand?
.

What are “WE” Catholic’s not understanding? Since your wishing and speaking for “WE” Catholics? I think its only fair I ask? If you don’t have an answer stop the back pedaling and I’ll let this go? Especially when it becomes border line uncharitable over a simple question?

GaryTaylor, you posted three times, each time directed at me, between 7:48 and 9:22 this morning, and from reading them I would guess that you’ve got a bee up your bonnet.

If you now realize that I did not say that “it would not be in the Orthodox/Catholic Churche’s [sic] best interest to reunite and become in full communion with each other” then I’m perfectly willing to let it go and trust that you aren’t going to put words in my mouth in the future; but I’m certainly not going to spend all day checking this thread to see if you have posted something that I need to respond to. If your questions are urgent, then I would recommend that you post them somewhere else.

 

[thequietsinger]

I just wish more of my fellow Catholics understood that as well as you appear to. (Actually, I can think of some of your fellow Orthodox who could stand to understand that better as well … but I don’t want to harp on them as they aren’t here.)

I’m not trying to cause trouble here, I promise, but one question. Why are you saying that we should “understand that” when in time, there is always a (not the) possibility of the Churches uniting again? Also, why would you harp on us in the first place? Just because we aren’t posting anything doesn’t mean we aren’t observing.

 

[GaryTaylor]

GaryTaylor, you posted directed at me, If you now realize that I did not say that "it would not be in the Orthodox/Catholic Churche’s

Its self eveident who said what and in response to who, here take another look. Now what is it “we” Catholics need to understand? Apparently you know something we don’t.

Post #64 and #65 which are comnents to…

Originally Posted by Sveti Ante…

“It would be in the Orthodox Churches best interest to reunite and become in full communion with Rome. They should use the Eastern Catholic Churches as a model and become one Church as our Lord desires.”

NIne stated…

“Not even Rome thinks that’s a good model anymore. Thanks, but no thanks”.

You stated in response to NInes response to Sveti Ante.

“I just wish more of my fellow Catholics understood that as well as you appear to. (Actually, I can think of some of your fellow Orthodox who could stand to understand that better as well … but I don’t want to harp on them as they aren’t here”

I’m asking where this wishful thinking comes from. I don’t recollect reading this anywhere? So no I didn’t put words in your mouth.

I commented on the ones which came out of your mouth. Namely your agreement with Nine who commented on. Sveti Ante.

Really its very simple, and I see your still back-pedaling.

So tell us what do Catholic’s need to understand according to “you” in relation to your above conversation?

 

[Nine_Two]

And this is exactly how the conversation went. So just so we are clear " reunite and become in full communion with Rome" was definitely mentioned.

I never read anything from Rome such as this? Enlighten me to what I do not understand?
.

The Eastern Catholic model is what I was talking about - Sui Juris churches that are ultimately under Rome. Obviously Rome still wants full communion.

Beyond the powers of the pope, I think the greatest stumbling block is deciding just what “reunion” is. We both mean entirely different things when we talk about it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Eastern Catholic model is what I was talking about - Sui Juris churches that are ultimately under Rome. Obviously Rome still wants full communion.

Beyond the powers of the pope, I think the greatest stumbling block is deciding just what “reunion” is. We both mean entirely different things when we talk about it.

Nine I love you bro, he walked out on that limb all by himself. I understand where your at.

 

[frjohnmorris]

You are most certainly correct. The Orthodox did not agree with having a Pope, because they felt it put a roadblock, so to speak, between them and God.

That is not exactly correct. The Orthodox do not agree with having just one Pope would be more accurate because the title Pope is the Latin equivalent to the Greek title Patriarch. The difference is that we believe that each local Church should govern its own internal affairs. Thus before 1054 there was not just one Pope, but 5, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Rome had a primacy of honor, but not jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs. Rome also was subject like all other Bishops to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and was recognized as having great prestige, but not infallibility. As the Orthodox Church grew into new areas such as Russia, when the local Church became able to manage its own affairs, it became an independent or autocephalous Church with its own Patriarch. Today there are about 15 autocephalous Orthodox Churches, each administering their own internal affairs. Each local Orthodox Church is governed by the council of Metropolitans who meet in council and make the decisions necessary to administer the Church. The Primate, who is usually, but not always, called a Patriarch presides over the Holy Synod of Council of Metropolitans of the local Church and must abide by the will of the majority of the Holy Synod. However, when it comes to doctrinal matters each local Church is accountable to the other local Churches. No local Church can change to doctrine of the Church. Nor can anyone else, for that matter. That means if a local Church lapses into heresy the other local Churches call for it to return to the teachings of the Church or break communion with it until it repents and returns to the correct Orthodox Faith. If necessary the Patriarch of Constantinople can call and preside either himself or through his representative over a Pan Orthodox Council made up either of all the Primates of the local Churches or of their representatives. We call these Pan Orthodox Councils. They are the modern equivalent to an Ecumenical Council. We also have what we call autonomous Churches, which are Churches that are self-governing, but still under the authority of the Patriarch and Holy Synod of an autocephalous Church. For example the North American Antiochian Archdiocese is an autonomous Church. That means that we manage our own affairs and elect our own diocesan Bishops here in America. We only have to refer to the Patriarchate and Holy Synod when we have to choose an new Primate who is called the Metropolitan…Every two years we have an Archdiocesan Convention consisting of the Pastors and representatives of each parish and mission with the number of delegates determined by the size of the parish. This Convention approves the budget for the Archdiocese and elects a Board of Trustees to administer the temporal affairs of the Archdiocese between meetings of the Convention. When we need a new Bishop, the names of each priest who meets the qualifications are placed on a ballot and the delegates to the convention vote. The names of the top three winners are submitted to the Local Synod of Bishops, who elect one of the three to the Episcopate. However, if we need to choose a new Metropolitan (Primate) we submit the names to the Holy Synod and Patriarch of Antioch who choose one of the three to be the new North American Metropolitan. We have a similar arrangement in each parish. A yearly meeting of the adult members of the parish approves the budget for the parish and elects a Parish Council that administers the temporal affairs of the parish. I manage the spiritual affairs of the parish, and meet with the Parish Council, which cannot interfere in spiritual or doctrinal matters, but I cannot spend any money that is not approved by the Council.

Therefore one major difference is that the Orthodox Church is more democratic and the faithful play a much larger role in the administration of the Church than they do in the Roman Catholic Church. However, no one can change the doctrine or moral teachings of the Orthodox Church. They can clarify things when some new issues comes up but can never override the dogmatic decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

I hope that this clarifies matters

Archpriest John W. Morris

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[thequietsinger]

thequietsinger;11240318:

You are most certainly correct. The Orthodox did not agree with having a Pope, because they felt it put a roadblock, so to speak, between them and God.

That is not exactly correct. The Orthodox do not agree with having just one Pope would be more accurate because the title Pope is the Latin equivalent to the Greek title Patriarch. The difference is that we believe that each local Church should govern its own internal affairs. Thus before 1054 there was not just one Pope, but 5, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Rome had a primacy of honor, but not jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs. Rome also was subject like all other Bishops to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and was recognized as having great prestige, but not infallibility. As the Orthodox Church grew into new areas such as Russia, when the local Church became able to manage its own affairs, it became an independent or autocephalous Church with its own Patriarch. Today there are about 15 autocephalous Orthodox Churches, each administering their own internal affairs. Each local Orthodox Church is governed by the council of Metropolitans who meet in council and make the decisions necessary to administer the Church. The Primate, who is usually, but not always, called a Patriarch presides over the Holy Synod of Council of Metropolitans of the local Church and must abide by the will of the majority of the Holy Synod. However, when it comes to doctrinal matters each local Church is accountable to the other local Churches. No local Church can change to doctrine of the Church. Nor can anyone else, for that matter. That means if a local Church lapses into heresy the other local Churches call for it to return to the teachings of the Church or break communion with it until it repents and returns to the correct Orthodox Faith. If necessary the Patriarch of Constantinople can call and preside either himself or through his representative over a Pan Orthodox Council made up either of all the Primates of the local Churches or of their representatives. We call these Pan Orthodox Councils. They are the modern equivalent to an Ecumenical Council. We also have what we call autonomous Churches, which are Churches that are self-governing, but still under the authority of the Patriarch and Holy Synod of an autocephalous Church. For example the North American Antiochian Archdiocese is an autonomous Church. That means that we manage our own affairs and elect our own diocesan Bishops here in America. We only have to refer to the Patriarchate and Holy Synod when we have to choose an new Primate who is called the Metropolitan…Every two years we have an Archdiocesan Convention consisting of the Pastors and representatives of each parish and mission with the number of delegates determined by the size of the parish. This Convention approves the budget for the Archdiocese and elects a Board of Trustees to administer the temporal affairs of the Archdiocese between meetings of the Convention. When we need a new Bishop, the names of each priest who meets the qualifications are placed on a ballot and the delegates to the convention vote. The names of the top three winners are submitted to the Local Synod of Bishops, who elect one of the three to the Episcopate. However, if we need to choose a new Metropolitan (Primate) we submit the names to the Holy Synod and Patriarch of Antioch who choose one of the three to be the new North American Metropolitan. We have a similar arrangement in each parish. A yearly meeting of the adult members of the parish approves the budget for the parish and elects a Parish Council that administers the temporal affairs of the parish. I manage the spiritual affairs of the parish, and meet with the Parish Council, which cannot interfere in spiritual or doctrinal matters, but I cannot spend any money that is not approved by the Council.

Therefore one major difference is that the Orthodox Church is more democratic and the faithful play a much larger role in the administration of the Church than they do in the Roman Catholic Church. However, no one can change the doctrine or moral teachings of the Orthodox Church. They can clarify things when some new issues comes up but can never override the dogmatic decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

I hope that this clarifies matters

Archpriest John W. Morris

Archpriest John W. Morris

Thank you so much for posting that! It has really cleared up some of the things that previously didn’t make sense to me.

 

[Peter_J]

The Eastern Catholic model is what I was talking about - Sui Juris churches that are ultimately under Rome. Obviously Rome still wants full communion.

Not that this is a competition (or is it? ) but I beat you there … I posted the following this morning at 7:37:

Exactly. Please read more carefully in the future, I don’t want to continually have words put in my mouth.

(If you’re still confused, just notice that NineTwo didn’t say “Rome doesn’t even want full communion.” He said “Not even Rome thinks that’s a good model anymore.”)

(emphasis added) Of course, conversely we could say “Even the Orthodox don’t propose that the Western-Rite Orthodox should be the model for a future union between Rome and Orthodoxy” … although I admit that the parallel is rather weak, since the Orthodox never really did push for that as the model.

Beyond the powers of the pope, I think the greatest stumbling block is deciding just what “reunion” is. We both mean entirely different things when we talk about it.

Alright, that’s fair enough I suppose. Nevertheless, the fact that Rome is no longer trying to bring about a new Union-of-Brest-type-union is a very important step forward.

Have a good afternoon.

P.S. You may have seen this quote before cool but even so, I think it bears repeating:
“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”

• the Balamand Statement

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not that this is a competition (or is it? ) but I beat you there … I posted the following this morning at 7:37:

(emphasis added) Of course, conversely we could say “Even the Orthodox don’t propose that the Western-Rite Orthodox should be the model for a future union between Rome and Orthodoxy” … although I admit that the parallel is rather weak, since the Orthodox never really did push for that as the model.

Alright, that’s fair enough I suppose. Nevertheless, the fact that Rome is no longer trying to bring about a new Union-of-Brest-type-union is a very important step forward.

Have a good afternoon.

P.S. You may have seen this quote before cool but even so, I think it bears repeating:
“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”

• the Balamand Statement

Please carefully listen Peter EVERYONE Knows who said what. We “ALL” want to know what YOUR talking about. Please try to follow this conversation, you haven’t answered this, not where this comes from in the Catholic Church or what “WE” need to understand.

YOUR STATEMENT “I just wish more of my fellow Catholics understood that as well as you appear to. (Actually, I can think of some of your fellow Orthodox who could stand to understand that better as well … but I don’t want to harp on them as they aren’t here”

What are YOU talking about? YOU? I don’t what to talk about what Nine said, about how you think I’m mad, about he said, she said, about how many posts I made today and the rest of the nonsense you reverted to. I want to know WHAT you mean and WHERE you get this from?

I’m giving YOU a chance to get honest, and I already gave you a chance to step out., You chose to continue this instead of defining and defending YOUR statement!. Very SIMPLE! So I guess we will be here for the duration. Again YOUR words. …

“I just wish more of my fellow Catholics understood that as well as you appear to. (Actually, I can think of some of your fellow Orthodox who could stand to understand that better as well … but I don’t want to harp on them as they aren’t here”

What do YOU wish us fellow Catholics to understood? .Why is this important to you. And where do you get this from?

That’s why its called CAF and the question for you to “ANSWER” …is in your court. Its what YOU said, no-one else.

 

[malphono]

Not that this is a competition …

Please carefully Peter …

Guys … please … not that it makes any difference, but you’re giving me a headache! Now even I’m confused.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Guys … please … not that it makes any difference, but you’re giving me a headache! Now even I’m confused.

Fair enough, I’m out. Course I suspect I’ll be dragged back in but again.