Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[frjohnmorris]

The problem with East and West was a failure to recognize who the other was and to accept that each Church has their right to be. Differences in Church teachings were in my book all right but to these men it wasn’t. They fought over something that really needed to be done and what was that. It was simply to let the other to be. I believe at the time of these disagreements that our Church both East and West were just coming into their own makeup and what I call personality and characteristics that would make them come into their identities and eventual maturity. At the time of their disagreements are what I called very immature times that caused brothers to dislike each other. I am referring here to theological expressions and not of external political expressions. Our theologies were just coming into their own distinct expression which would take a lot more time before our “maturities” set in. I see the Church as not split up even though history and the books record it. I see it more as a development that was necessary for both our identities and our theologies to be brought forth as we see it today. In other words I do not see the Church, for instance Orthodox or Catholic as been split up rather I see because of these lack of contacts from those years that these disagreements came that our own behaviours have since steadily believe that we were split up. We believe it to be so because we are told it to be so. But in reality there is really nothing that really separates us except these lack of contacts. If anything is to be true is the more we would learn about the other the closer we would come together. In other words this so called schism in my eyes is only our own lack of who the other is. All of this (Orthodox and Catholic relationship) will end tomorrow if we will only learn about each other. Wounds will never replace the honest curiosity of knowing what God is doing in each of His Churches both Orthodox and Catholic. It is on this principal which men have failed miserably from the past and to what we need to do today if this unity is to come.

You are right about these men from the past however as I see it the right time for discovering each other is now and not back then. It was not the right time and sadly later on politically minded men made it more difficult. But the time has passed into our time when spiritually minded mature Orthodox and Catholics can discover each other for the first time and come to know each other as brothers and sisters of the same apostolic structure. Here I am referring to our Laity which now has this opportunity to know more than ever before.

I am afraid that you are being overly optimistic. You can make the argument that until the Church has officially spoken through an Ecumenical Council that there is room for pious opinion, disagreement among theologians, or what we Orthodox call theologoumena There are real issues that divide us that have to be resolved. For example, the authority of the Bishop or Rome. We can recognize a primacy of honor but not of jurisdiction. We cannot recognize papal infallibility or authority superior to that of an Ecumenical Council. Another matter would be birth control. Although there are those within the Orthodox Church, chiefly in certain monastic circles, who agree with Rome, most others do not believe that when used properly within marriage that non-abortive methods of birth control are sinful. It is just like trying to save or restore a troubled marriage. To save the marriage the couple must resolve their differences. They cannot have successful marriage if they pretend that the differences do not exist.

Archpriest John Morris

 

[chimo]

I am afraid that you are being overly optimistic. You can make the argument that until the Church has officially spoken through an Ecumenical Council that there is room for pious opinion, disagreement among theologians, or what we Orthodox call theologoumena There are real issues that divide us that have to be resolved. For example, the authority of the Bishop or Rome. We can recognize a primacy of honor but not of jurisdiction. We cannot recognize papal infallibility or authority superior to that of an Ecumenical Council. Another matter would be birth control. Although there are those within the Orthodox Church, chiefly in certain monastic circles, who agree with Rome, most others do not believe that when used properly within marriage that non-abortive methods of birth control are sinful. It is just like trying to save or restore a troubled marriage. To save the marriage the couple must resolve their differences. They cannot have successful marriage if they pretend that the differences do not exist.

Archpriest John Morris

Yes I understand what you are saying Father. I was not referring to the highest offices here but more referring to the lower offices of which the Laity are part of. If for instance the Laity begin to understand more to what Bishops have gone through and even better to come to understand East and West without too many hurdles than a real Ecumenical Council will be better equip to handle all these issues. I realise Father of the time that is necessary for the Laity to come into their own yet I have seen and witness a better movement from the Laity to better understand each other’s Churches. I believe as you do Father on these issues yet I believe these issues will be better handled when better informed Laity will understand them as well. When the Laity get more involved than these better informed Laity will become the future priests and bishops with some of them becoming a Pope and even a Patriarch and when these people finally arrive to serve the Church than it will be the right time to discuss these issues within a great Ecumenical Council from those who came to a better understanding of each other. I agree with your points Father and I believe more contacts with each other on the level from the Laity will better serve the Church into her eventual acceptance of each other.

 

[frjohnmorris]

In addition to Rome the West has two other Patriarchs. Venice, and Lisbon. Of course these positions hold no power and they simply go before other Archbishops (but not cardinals) in processions. Though I’m not sure anything would have to change here - there are a few Churches with multiple patriarchs, and it is up to them to decide how responsibilities are divided up.

The Eastern Patriarchs always recognized the authority of the Patriarch of the West to administer his own Patriarchate. They also recognized the Bishop of Rome as the senior Bishop of the Church as first among equals. That was never the issue. The issue was that they never recognized the authority of the Pope to exercise jurisdiction outside of his own Patriarchate, to claim authority to unilaterally define doctrine or to claim that he is not subject like all other Bishops to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. If Rome would return to the same status it had in the age of the Ecumenical Councils, the issue would be resolved.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Aramis]

In fairness, you’re comparing a rushed Divine Liturgy to a regular Mass. Typically the Divine Liturgy is a fair bit longer than the Mass, which is what I think the point was.

I’m sure even the Coptic Liturgy (I’ve never attended) could be done much faster if it was desired.

Still, I find that somewhat sad that they do them so quickly. Shortly after I converted to Orthodoxy I went to my mother’s church (United Church of Canada). It was over in about 30 minutes. I was left with a feeling of “That’s it?”

Not a particularly rushed liturgy - the pastor talked fast, too. The typical village liturgy of St John is about 1:15:00.

Then there’s the spoken version of the DL of St. John… 30 minutes. An abuse, by current sensibilities… but still.

The nominal text of the Roman Mass is not much shorter than the nominal text of the DL of St. John, and the Roman doesn’t allow for much overlap between assigned people’s text and the Priest’s, while the DL of St John rubrically requires it.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Not a particularly rushed liturgy - the pastor talked fast, too. The typical village liturgy of St John is about 1:15:00.

Then there’s the spoken version of the DL of St. John… 30 minutes. An abuse, by current sensibilities… but still.

The nominal text of the Roman Mass is not much shorter than the nominal text of the DL of St. John, and the Roman doesn’t allow for much overlap between assigned people’s text and the Priest’s, while the DL of St John rubrically requires it.

It is certainly an abuse to have a spoken version of the Orthodox Liturgy. I have never heard of such a thing. It is certainly not normal in the Orthodox Church. I cannot imagine how my people would react, much less my Bishop if I did not chant the Divine Liturgy. It is true that the rubrics frequently indicate that a Priest is to pray his prayers “quietly” while the choir or chanters are singing. However there is an increasing tendency for the Priest to pray many prayers out loud after the choir or chanters have finished. I started doing this about a year ago a the request of the members of my parish. On Sunday, I pray most of the Anaphora (Canon) and some of the other prayers out loud. However, for a feast day Evening Divine Liturgy, I pray them quietly while the chanters are singing. Naturally it would be unthinkable to serve the Orthodox Liturgy or most other services without incense. However, I use Anthonite incense, which is much milder than the incense that I have tried from a local Catholic supply store. I think that the difference is that larger chunks of incense burn more slowly and are less harsh than the smaller grains used by Roman Catholics. The difference is that I do not put the incense on the charcoal. The altar server does a minute or so before I am supposed to cense, so that the censer is already smoking when it is handed to me. I have seen Catholic cense on TV. It seems to me that the Latin method is much more complex than our method. I simply swing the censer 3 times on each side of the Holy Table.

Archpriest John Morris

 

[Aramis]

It is certainly an abuse to have a spoken version of the Orthodox Liturgy. I have never heard of such a thing. It is certainly not normal in the Orthodox Church. I cannot imagine how my people would react, much less my Bishop if I did not chant the Divine Liturgy. It is true that the rubrics frequently indicate that a Priest is to pray his prayers “quietly” while the choir or chanters are singing. However there is an increasing tendency for the Priest to pray many prayers out loud after the choir or chanters have finished. I started doing this about a year ago a the request of the members of my parish. On Sunday, I pray most of the Anaphora (Canon) and some of the other prayers out loud. However, for a feast day Evening Divine Liturgy, I pray them quietly while the chanters are singing. Naturally it would be unthinkable to serve the Orthodox Liturgy or most other services without incense. However, I use Anthonite incense, which is much milder than the incense that I have tried from a local Catholic supply store. I think that the difference is that larger chunks of incense burn more slowly and are less harsh than the smaller grains used by Roman Catholics. The difference is that I do not put the incense on the charcoal. The altar server does a minute or so before I am supposed to cense, so that the censer is already smoking when it is handed to me. I have seen Catholic cense on TV. It seems to me that the Latin method is much more complex than our method. I simply swing the censer 3 times on each side of the Holy Table.

Archpriest John Morris

Rev. Fr,

The Roman method is very similar to the Orthodox method, and there are literally dozens of different incense blends in use. The local Roman cathedral has at times used the same incense as the local Orthodox cathedral - in part because, due to a miscalculation in shipping times, they purchased some from the gift shop; they borrowed some from the Cathedral, as well, due to a shipping error at another time.

The roman incensing is three swings, three times each for the celebrant and the gifts, one time for each side of the altar. The TLM adds some circular swings, too; that’s not current norm. Instead of bells, the chain is held mid-chain, and the back allowed to hit the censor. But yes, the priest or deacon is the one to place the incense upon the coal. And, in the absence of a deacon, the subdeacon (if the TLM) or even a server incenses the celebrant… But the use of incense is not required in current Roman practice.

As for the spoken DL, it’s a Ukrainian thing - I’ve seen evidence of it for both UOC-KP and UGCC. It’s not actually a violation of the Rubrics St. John included. And it’s no more of an abuse than the Antiochians and Greeks allowing organs. (St. John was pretty vague with the rubrics - unlike the west.)

Then again, the optional ektenie add a considerable block of time (10-20 min) if all are taken, optional commemorations in the ektenie can add several minutes…

 

[frjohnmorris]

Rev. Fr,

The Roman method is very similar to the Orthodox method, and there are literally dozens of different incense blends in use. The local Roman cathedral has at times used the same incense as the local Orthodox cathedral - in part because, due to a miscalculation in shipping times, they purchased some from the gift shop; they borrowed some from the Cathedral, as well, due to a shipping error at another time.

The roman incensing is three swings, three times each for the celebrant and the gifts, one time for each side of the altar. The TLM adds some circular swings, too; that’s not current norm. Instead of bells, the chain is held mid-chain, and the back allowed to hit the censor. But yes, the priest or deacon is the one to place the incense upon the coal. And, in the absence of a deacon, the subdeacon (if the TLM) or even a server incenses the celebrant… But the use of incense is not required in current Roman practice.

As for the spoken DL, it’s a Ukrainian thing - I’ve seen evidence of it for both UOC-KP and UGCC. It’s not actually a violation of the Rubrics St. John included. And it’s no more of an abuse than the Antiochians and Greeks allowing organs. (St. John was pretty vague with the rubrics - unlike the west.)

Then again, the optional ektenie add a considerable block of time (10-20 min) if all are taken, optional commemorations in the ektenie can add several minutes…

Antiochians did at one time allow organs, but we have moved away from that a long time ago back to the correct Orthodox tradition of a’capella singing. I believe that the word a’capella actually means as in the chapel. I object to organs, because I have been to Protestant services where the organ is so loud that one cannot hear the words of the hymns. We Orthodox express our faith by the words of the hymns and do not allow anything to overcome the text of the hymns.
There is no question that the undisputed tradition of the Orthodox Church is a fully sung Liturgy. It can actually be done in the same time that it takes to read the litanies, if the choir does not use an elaborate setting for the responses.
I did not mean my comment on non Antonite incense as a criticism. It was merely an observation. I have used incense made by Orthodox monks that is awful. Once I bought some incense advertized as the best incense available. I used during the Matins. When one of my adult servers came into the altar, he said that it smells like road kill here. I never used that incense again. But, yes we hold the censer with one hand not both hands. We have bells on the censer, except during Lenten services.

Archpriest John Morris

 

[Peter_J]

In addition to Rome the West has two other Patriarchs. Venice, and Lisbon. Of course these positions hold no power and they simply go before other Archbishops (but not cardinals) in processions. Though I’m not sure anything would have to change here - **there are a few Churches with multiple patriarchs, **and it is up to them to decide how responsibilities are divided up.

Really? That’s news to me. How many churches have multiple patriarchs?

 

[MorEphrem]

Really? That’s news to me. How many churches have multiple patriarchs?

Perhaps he’s referring to the Patriarch-Catholicos dynamic.

 

[malphono]

Perhaps he’s referring to the Patriarch-Catholicos dynamic.

Couldn’t be … then , again, who knows? The only ones who actually have that are the OO (Armenians and SOC, IIRC).

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t think such a model would work either way.

Yes, that’s my point too. Or, alternatively, my point is that a number of Catholics want ECism to be the model for a future Orthodox-Catholic reunion, and expect the rest of us to be okay with that … yet they themselves would certainly not be okay with Western-Rite Orthodoxy as the model for a future Orthodox-Catholic (or should I say, Catholic-Orthodox) reunion.

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps he’s referring to the Patriarch-Catholicos dynamic.

Oh, okay.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Orthodox are so stubborn and set in their ways that they won’t even consider the Catholic teachings.

I thought that it was the other way around. Actually, there could be reunion tomorrow if the Roman Catholic Church would show a little flexibility in its hardline teachings and agree to the way the Church was before 1054. After all, it was the RCC which started the schism in the first place by excommunicating Cerularius in 1054. And it did not help when the RC crusaders looted and sacked Constantinople in the fourth Crusade. How many innocent and pure and religious Orthodox nuns were raped by these Catholic crusaders at that time? How much loot and gold were stolen from the Orthodox Churches and brought into Catholic Churches in the west where they remain even today?

 

[tdgesq]

I would question whether it matters much if they do or not … Cardinal Humbert died over 900 years ago, so his excommunication by the Patriarch of Constantinople is pretty much academic.

Then struck the pope’s name from the diptychs, at least according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. For something that doesn’t matter much, people sure do bring it up a lot.

 

[Tomdstone]

Then struck the pope’s name from the diptychs, at least according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. For something that doesn’t matter much, people sure do bring it up a lot.

It may not matter much to you or the the RCC, but it is important to others.

 

[Peter_J]

I thought that it was the other way around. Actually, there could be reunion tomorrow if the Roman Catholic Church would show a little flexibility in its hardline teachings and agree to the way the Church was before 1054.

In my opinion, both this claim and its reverse (i.e. that there could be reunion tomorrow if the Orthodox would show a little flexibility) are 100% pure fantasy. Reunion is nowhere near as easy one-side-or-the-other needing to show a little flexibility.

 

[tdgesq]

It may not matter much to you or the the RCC, but it is important to others.

I think you may have missed my earlier posts. It does matter to me, and in my opinion, also matters to the RCC.

 

[Tomdstone]

In my opinion, both this claim and its reverse (i.e. that there could be reunion tomorrow if the Orthodox would show a little flexibility) are 100% pure fantasy. Reunion is nowhere near as easy one-side-or-the-other needing to show a little flexibility.

I believe that you are wrong there. If the RCC agreed to go back to the way the Church was before 1000 AD, I believe that you could have reunion. That would mean only a few things like abandoning papal supremacy and infallibilty (Vatican I), the Immaculate Conception, the filioque, purgatory and celibacy for priests. And a few other small things like making the sign of the cross correctly as do the Orthodox
having only icons in Churches, not statues.
However, the RCC is refusing to go back to the way the Church was before 1000, and this is the roadblock that is defeating any idea of a reunion which Our Lord wants and had asked for in Scripture.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think you may have missed my earlier posts. It does matter to me, and in my opinion, also matters to the RCC.

i apologise if I misunderstood. Sometimes in internet arguments, i get it wrong, which I did in this case.

 

[tdgesq]

i apologise if I misunderstood. Sometimes in internet arguments, i get it wrong, which I did in this case.

No worries. This is the second time today I’ve tried to agree with someone, only to be interpreted as doing the exact opposite. The common denominator seems to be me.