Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Peter_J]

I don’t think I can agree with you on this point. The Orthodox Church has Western Rite parishes, which are actually Easternized on various points and (to the best of my knowledge) ‘cleansed’ of all post-1054 Western Saints. These Western Rite parishes also fall under Eastern bishops. I fail to see how this is so much more commendable than the Union of Brest.

Moreover, the issue of the Catholic Church allowing communion to the Orthodox can (I think) not be reduced to the Union of Brest.

Well, I don’t by any means claim that Western-Rite Orthodoxy has no problems. But neither do I wish to exaggerate them – see my point that there was never a “Union-of-Brest-in-reverse” (i.e. a mass conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy has a result of proselytism).

Also, I think that your specific criticisms of WRO are rather weak. As far as I know (correct me if I’m wrong) WRO have never had any of what you would consider “post-1054 Western saints” (I assume you wouldn’t count e.g. Archbishop John (Maximovitch) of San Francisco or anyone like that) so saying that Western-Rite Orthodoxy has been “cleansed” of them is like saying that Catholicism has been “cleansed” of veneration of Martin Luther.

 

[Peter_J]

The Western-Rite isn’t comparable to the Union of Brest.

The “Western-Rite” is not a status, a Church on its own, or even a formal thing. It was never claimed to be. All it is is a set of services which were created so that convert parishes could, with the blessing of their bishops, continue to serve the liturgy in the way they are used to doing it. This is a far cry from what Brest was, or was ever meant to be.

Bottom line the Wester-Rite is only, and was only ever meant to be Orthodox worshiping in a Western manner.

Well said, but I also think this goes back to the Catholic-forum/Orthodox-forum discussion: in my experience, the way Orthodox posters on this forum speak of Eastern Catholicism and WRO is very fair, but this hasn’t been my experience elsewhere, including on an Orthodox web-discussion-forum.

 

[Anthony86]

Well, I don’t by any means claim that Western-Rite Orthodoxy has no problems. But neither do I wish to exaggerate them – see my point that there was never a “Union-of-Brest-in-reverse” (i.e. a mass conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy has a result of proselytism).

I appreciate that, but Western Rite parishes are nevertheless largely (if not exclusively) created for converts from Western Christendom, with Eastern bishops overseeing them and adapting the liturgies to Eastern sensitivities. I don’t think this should be controversial; it’s not supposed to be a value judgement.

Also, I think that your specific criticisms of WRO are rather weak. As far as I know (correct me if I’m wrong) WRO have never had any of what you would consider “post-1054 Western saints” (I assume you wouldn’t count e.g. Archbishop John (Maximovitch) of San Francisco or anyone like that)

See, for example, westernriteorthodoxuk.org.uk/western-rite-prayer-books.html

Western Rite breviaries and missals
…]
Maintains a pre-schism format but must be vetted for post-schism saints and feasts.

…]

The following two links are to the traditional Sarum Use breviary, in traditonal English. As with the others, must be vetted for post-schism feasts and saints but includes all the traditional Western Rite prayers.

Just an example.

so saying that Western-Rite Orthodoxy has been “cleansed” of them is like saying that Catholicism has been “cleansed” of veneration of Martin Luther.

That’s a flawed comparison.

 

[Peter_J]

I appreciate that, but Western Rite parishes are nevertheless largely (if not exclusively) created for converts from Western Christendom,

Yes! Orthodoxy accepts converts from other churches, just as nearly every church accepts converts from other churches.

(An exception: members of the Antiochian Orthodox Church cannot leave it and join the Syriac Orthodox Church, or vice verse, because of how good the relationship between those two churches are even though they aren’t in “full communion”. But that’s a very rare exception.)

with Eastern bishops overseeing them and adapting the liturgies to Eastern sensitivities. I don’t think this should be controversial; it’s not supposed to be a value judgement.

See, for example, westernriteorthodoxuk.org.uk/western-rite-prayer-books.html

Just an example.

That’s a flawed comparison.

It may be an imperfect, but then most comparisons are.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Agreed, but my point extended a little beyond that. Based on my personal experience, I’d say the anti-Catholic rhetoric among Orthodox surpasses the anti-Orthodox rhetoric among Catholics quite a bit. This is also evidenced by the fact that the Catholic communion has Churches which revere post-schism Saints and allows Orthodox to receive communion in Catholic liturgies. The reverse is not true. Given that situation, I am somewhat offended when Orthodox complain about Catholics not being sufficiently respectful. This is not meant as personal commentary on frjohnmorris, and if I overstated the case, I apologize, but this is how it appears to me.

Is anti-Anglicanism more prevalent amongst Roman Catholics than anti-Catholicism amongst High Church Anglicans? I mean, Roman Catholics, who are faithful to the teaching of their Church, after all, must tell High Church Anglicans that their holy orders are invalid and that they worship pieces of bread, and furthermore they cannot commune at the liturgies of High Church Anglicans, nor can they dispense communion to High Church Anglicans. Are we to value speaking things which please the ears above the truth?

 

[Peter_J]

Is anti-Anglicanism more prevalent amongst Roman Catholics than anti-Catholicism amongst High Church Anglicans? I mean, Roman Catholics, who are faithful to the teaching of their Church, after all, must tell High Church Anglicans that their holy orders are invalid and that they worship pieces of bread, and furthermore they cannot commune at the liturgies of High Church Anglicans, nor can they dispense communion to High Church Anglicans. Are we to value speaking things which please the ears above the truth?

Technically, we only tell them that they cannot trace valid orders back to the original Anglicans. That doesn’t rule out tracing valid orders back to Old Catholics.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Technically, we only tell them that they cannot trace valid orders back to the original Anglicans. That doesn’t rule out tracing valid orders back to Old Catholics.

I suppose that is true now. Though the ordinations of women performed by both groups does not help their case, as the Roman Church, I am sure, considers ordinations performed by women invalid, as it also considers the ordinations of women to holy orders to be invalid.

 

[Anthony86]

Is anti-Anglicanism more prevalent amongst Roman Catholics than anti-Catholicism amongst High Church Anglicans?

I wouldn’t know. Regarding Anglican Orders invalid is a pretty severe condemnation of Anglicanism, though.

Are we to value speaking things which please the ears above the truth?

No. It’d be appropriate if those dealing it out, would also not complain about ‘lack of respect’ when it is returned, though.

My whole point is that I find it inappropriate that Orthodox complain on a Catholic forum about perceived lack of respect for Orthodoxy, when it seems this alleged lack of respect is present on the Orthodox side at least as much. Again, this is not directed against frjohnmorris, but a general point. How that translates to me being “anti-Orthodox simply looking for a reason to demonize” is beyond me.

 

[Anthony86]

It may be an imperfect, but then most comparisons are.

Luther was never canonized, nor was there a Lutheran feast on the Roman calendar. ROCOR is, however, establishing a Western Rite but ‘vetting’ it for ‘post-schism saints and feasts’ (their words). How would you appreciate it if Rome were to require the Eastern Churches of our Communion to drop St. Gregory Palamas from the calendar? If Orthodox removing saints and feasts from after 1054 were as logical as Catholics not venerating Luther (as you argue), should Catholics not refrain from venerating St. Gregory Palamas? I don’t think they should, but it seems to be the logical consequence of your argument.

 

[steve_b]

If any discussion between Orthodox and Catholics gets bogged down on who did what to whom hundreds of years ago, it will not get anywhere and will prevent any reconciliation between us.

Okay. Ideally that would be great if the conversation could be contained to that alone and not go other places. Like you responding to me, I was merely responding to a poster Re: the 4th crusade. Somehow crusade, crusaders, entered the dialogue. I didn’t start it. That poster I responded to, was responding to someone elses post on crusades. Conversations go that way…right?

When I search the thread for the term “crusades”, “crusaders”, to find out when that entered the conversation, I can’t find a post that predates this post. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…4&postcount=99

Not that I’m criticizing or complaining. It’s just the way things happen…right? So it must have been important to you to bring it up
fr:

Any dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox should only deal with historical matters that have theological significance and on the doctrinal issues that still divide us.
Archpriest John W. Morris

Okay, but apparently their are still those other issues as well, that divide us (Catholic and Orthodox) that people end up talking about…true?.

 

[Aramis]

St Gregory Palamas is also commemorated in the Melkite, November Menaion.

14 Nov in the Ruthenian.

 

[Cavaradossi]

My whole point is that I find it inappropriate that Orthodox complain on a Catholic forum about perceived lack of respect for Orthodoxy, when it seems this alleged lack of respect is present on the Orthodox side at least as much.

Is it disrespectful for us to teach in accordance with the Holy Fathers that there is no salvific efficacy of sacraments performed outside of the Church, or for us to say that we believe our Church for certain reasons and then to enumerate those reasons? That, to me, seems to be the extent of what the Orthodox posters here have been doing. But then there have also been some posters who have resorted to finding ways to attack the faith of the other, and it was this attitude which was originally the target of the rebukes of certain rather eminent and respectable posters here (like RyanBlack). I frankly do not think that alleged incivility elsewhere should serve as an excuse for similar incivility here.

 

[Anthony86]

Is it disrespectful for us to teach in accordance with the Holy Fathers that there is no salvific efficacy of sacraments performed outside of the Church, or for us to say that we believe our Church for certain reasons and then to enumerate those reasons?

I think it is exceedingly respectful that a Catholic forum would allow you to do so.

 

[Peter_J]

Luther was never canonized, nor did he have a feast day. ROCOR is, however, establishing a Western Rite but ‘vetting’ it for ‘post-schism saints and feasts’ (their words). How would you appreciate it if Rome were to require the Eastern Churches of our Communion to drop St. Gregory Palamas from the calendar?

I don’t think that would happen, just like I don’t think the Russian Orthodox Church would tell the Serbian Orthodox Church that it must remove one of its saints. (Of course, the Serbian Orthodox Church is Eastern, but I don’t see why would make a difference.)

When you think about it, what we’re really talking about here is one of the fundamental differences in the circumstances of ECs and WRO. There are EC patriarchs, whereas there are no WRO patriarchs (not that there *couldn’t *be there just aren’t) or autocephalous churches.

 

[Anthony86]

I don’t think that would happen, just like I don’t think the Russian Orthodox Church would tell the Serbian Orthodox Church that it must remove one of its saints. (Of course, the Serbian Orthodox Church is Eastern, but I don’t see why would make a difference.)

When you think about it, what we’re really talking about here is one of the fundamental differences in the circumstances of ECs and WRO. There are EC patriarchs, whereas there are no WRO patriarchs (not that there *couldn’t *be there just aren’t) or autocephalous churches.

No, we’re talking about a different attitude towards the post-schism period as a condition for union.

 

[Peter_J]

If Orthodox removing saints and feasts from after 1054 were as logical as Catholics not venerating Luther (as you argue), should Catholics not refrain from venerating St. Gregory Palamas? I don’t think they should, but it seems to be the logical consequence of your argument.

I told you earlier, Orthodox didn’t “remove” anyone, just like Catholics didn’t “remove” Luther from our calendars. (If a Lutheran parish became Catholic, then of course they would have to stop venerating Luther.)

 

[Anthony86]

I told you earlier, Orthodox didn’t “remove” anyone, just like Catholics didn’t “remove” Luther from our calendars.

And I provided quotes from an official ROCOR website, that the liturgies and breviaries were ‘vetted’ specifically for ‘post-schism saints and feasts’.

 

[Peter_J]

I frankly do not think that alleged incivility elsewhere should serve as an excuse for similar incivility here.

Not an excuse, no, but it does put it in perspective.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think it is exceedingly respectful that a Catholic forum would allow you to do so.

Does that then justify incivility among the posters on this forum? I should point out that one of the first posters to raise the complaint that some were acting in an uncivil manner was not Orthodox but Eastern Catholic. I for one am generally content not to complain, being a guest here, but in this case, it was not even purely Orthodox posters who felt uncomfortable with some of the rhetoric being tossed around.

 

[Peter_J]

I suppose that is true now. Though the ordinations of women performed by both groups does not help their case, as the Roman Church, I am sure, considers ordinations performed by women invalid, as it also considers the ordinations of women to holy orders to be invalid.

You are quite correct. Only someone validly ordained can validly ordain.