Catholic and Orthodox reunion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
e.g. I do not believe a Pope has the authority to order Easterner and Orientals to abandon their traditional liturgies and use a Latin liturgy, or to cease ordaining married men. Just like I don’t believe the Pope has the authority to suppress legitimate Traditional liturgies in the Latin Church. A Mass once valid is always valid.
The Catholic Church has numerous rites…I see no reason why the Orthodox would not be allowed to retain their form of liturgy, do you?
The Pope’s supremacy really needs to be understood as limited to upholding the Faith as it has been taught always and everywhere by the orthodox (small o) bishops. His supremacy doesn’t apply to innovations.
God Bless
“Innovations” is a word that would need definition. Doctrines develop. Disciplines change. Devotions vary by locale.
 
Years ago a relative of a member of my parish who had died attend the Divine Liturgy at my Church. Because she was an Episcopalian, I would not give her Holy Communion. A few months later she came back and told me that her Episcopalian Bishop had told her that I have no right to deny her Holy Communion. I pointed out that her Episcopal Bishop has no authority over my Orthodox parish.

Archpriest John W. Morris
You did the right thing. 👍
 
With all due respect, truth is not a “grand bargain”. 🙂 How about Rome returns to proclaiming the Orthodox faith, and then She may intercommune with us. In the meantime, getting Her own liturgical house in order might be a good first baby step. 🙂
And I am constantly being called on the carpet?

KnitNut, I recently began a thread on a book by Vladimir Soloviev, a Russian Orthodox philosopher and theologian, and I posted a passage on Sts. Cassian and Nicolas that you may be interested in to read.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=832166

If you have a moment, I invite you to consider the parable and share your thoughts there.

Thanks.
 
I think that’s a very parochial view; that the Orthodox are “right” on everything, and the Catholics are “wrong” on everything. The schism is not simply Rome’s fault.

Both sides have contributed to the schism, and both sides need to adjust.

God Bless
That is probably right. The more that I read explanations of Catholic doctrine on this discussion the more I realize what we have in common. When your really get down to it most of our disagreements seem to be semantic and not really dogmatic. When you have one side speaking Greek and the other speaking Latin, it is difficult to arrive at a common understanding. We have the advantage of all speaking the same language.
I have no doubt that there was arrogance and a superior attitude on both sides. I love to discuss history, but there comes a time when one must get beyond the debates of the past and who was right and who was wrong and try to come together on common ground.

Archpriest John W. Morris
 
No it would not be beautiful, it would be arrogant and disrespectful to our Catholic brothers and sisters just as I find the idea that we Orthodox need to come home insulting and disrespectful of our venerable Churches. I can express my deep desire that Orthodoxy and Catholicism will once again come together in a mutual affirmation of the Faith of the ancient and undivided Church of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Unity on the basis of triumph of one of us over the other is not the answer. Mutual understanding is the answer. I spent several years as part of an Orthodox delegation arguing with the Lutherans over the filioque but have learned more about what it really means and the real differences from this discussion than I did during discussions with some of the best Lutheran theologians in the United States. Interestingly enough, two of them eventually left the Lutheran Church and became Catholic.

Archpriest John W. Morris
Fr. John-

I mentioned previously my preference for “big picture” principles. Here I go again. 😛

Do you counsel couples who are preparing for marriage? If so, what do you say about the “wives submit to your husbands” issue? The husband and the wife are both equal, but scripture teaches that the husband is the head of the family who listens to his wife, loves her as his own body, and seeks to please her.

Similarly, aren’t the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church equal? The have different charisms and spiritualties but a common faith. And yet, in order for the “marriage” to work, doesn’t one have to submit to the other? If Peter is the “first among equals” doesn’t this seem to suggest some sort of submission of the others to a loving head of the Church?

(And please, you already conceded previously that a re-hashing of history is not likely to bear much fruit, so let’s not question the lack or perceived lack of love demonstrated in the past.)
 
But, just as there needs to be some body with the authority to stop the Pope from innovating, or veering into heresy, the Pope needs to be able to stop the autonomous churches from doing likewise. e.g. if a Pope tried to ordain a women, the Bishops would need to stop him. But, equally, if a sui juris Church tried to ordain a woman, the Pope needs the authority to stop that.
The Holy Synods take care of this already, within each Church. It is not necessary for an outsider from Rome to unilaterally, individually hand down mandates. And if an entire Church decided to ordain women (for example) the other Churches would break off communion until the wayward Church repented and returned to Orthodoxy. There is no need for the Pope (nor the Curia) to handle matters within any Orthodox Church.
Your position on marriage makes little sense to me. Either marriage is permanent, or it’s not. The 3 marriage maximum (even in cases of death of the spouses) also makes little sense.
First, what “is” a marriage. In Orthodoxy, the priest confers the mystery (sacrament) so there’s no doubt that the couple is married. This innovation of spouses “conferring upon one another” is how Rome has danced around the issue of why this sacrament is not actually a sacrament on an individual basis…if a Church lets the couple confer, rather than a priest, there’s room to later argue that the couple “couldn’t” or “didn’t” confer. It makes me dizzy. (As an aside, this is how Rome justifies the annulment process for non-Catholics, claiming that the non-Catholic folks “conferred” something not-quite-sacramental-but-still-indissoluble. As an irony, the Catholic who confers this “non-sacrament” , eg without a dispensation/permission, merely has to fill out some paperwork to get their “get out of marriage free” card even if it’s decades later. To my knowledge, there is no additional penalty/penance beyond one confession. Talk about a double standard.)

Likewise with the annulment factories are churning them out like mad…how is it so many people have “non-conferred” their marriage after all (at least in the USA). Orthodoxy is not afraid to head-on call the spade a spade - it was a marriage. Through weakness (sin), it failed. The Church, the Hospital for sinners, recognizes the failure and allows repentance and mercy. Second/third marriages are not joyful matters, even when the first (former) spouse dies. Whereas Rome pretends that nothing ever happened, no repentance is required, everything is hunky dory.
I’m all for being quite liberal in decrees of nullity, exactly because of our society’s warped views of marriage. The petitioner should get every benefit of the doubt. But, allowing priests and bishops to pick and choose which valid marriages to dissolve, makes little sense. Forgiveness is different than being allowed to continue sinning.
I completely disagree. Marriage is marriage - if they made a bad choice, then allow them to repent the sin and perhaps they may be allowed another chance, for the benefit of their soul, according to their Church. Society’s warped view on marriage ought have little to no bearing on whether a couple is married in the eyes of their Church or not.

Edited to add - I fear this may bring the thread crashing off the rails. Please if you wish to continue a discussion of marriage, a separate thread might be better. I merely wanted to illustrate a little of the depth of the difference in theology concerning marriage in East/West. It’s not so simple as adopting the Roman practice…
 
The Catholic Church has numerous rites…I see no reason why the Orthodox would not be allowed to retain their form of liturgy, do you?

“Innovations” is a word that would need definition. Doctrines develop. Disciplines change. Devotions vary by locale.
One very big reason; the Latin Church had its traditional Liturgy (with many parts dating back to the 300’s) basically taken away for 30 years.

If I were Orthodox, I’d be terrified of what “New Liturgy” some Vatican bureaucrats would invent and impose on me.

The expression and explanation of doctrine changes, but doctrine itself can never change. The Church can not make something true in 2013 that was not true in 113.

The evolution of doctrine is really a change in how we explain it in response to new heresies. Things that were unstated, but understood, get formalized and explained because a heresy challenges the Truth. The Truth doesn’t change.

e.g. before Arius, everyone believed in the full Divinity of Christ, but it needed to be formally stated once someone influential challenged that Truth.

God Bless
 
That is probably right. The more that I read explanations of Catholic doctrine on this discussion the more I realize what we have in common. When your really get down to it most of our disagreements seem to be semantic and not really dogmatic. When you have one side speaking Greek and the other speaking Latin, it is difficult to arrive at a common understanding. We have the advantage of all speaking the same language.
I have no doubt that there was arrogance and a superior attitude on both sides. I love to discuss history, but there comes a time when one must get beyond the debates of the past and who was right and who was wrong and try to come together on common ground.

Archpriest John W. Morris
Concur fully.

Many of the “doctrinal disagreements” between Latins and Easterns, and Orientals, are pure misunderstandings based on semantics and language differences.

God Bless
 
The Holy Synods take care of this already, within each Church. It is not necessary for an outsider from Rome to unilaterally, individually hand down mandates. And if an entire Church decided to ordain women (for example) the other Churches would break off communion until the wayward Church repented and returned to Orthodoxy. There is no need for the Pope (nor the Curia) to handle matters within any Orthodox Church.
I’ll omit the marriage discussion if you fear it will derail the thread.

I may start another.

I think it is much better for there to be a mechanism for the Universal Church to discipline wayward Churches than to allow them to spin off into heresy (jeopardizing thousands of souls) and merely hoping for their repentance.

God Bless
 
And I am constantly being called on the carpet?

KnitNut, I recently began a thread on a book by Vladimir Soloviev, a Russian Orthodox philosopher and theologian, and I posted a passage on Sts. Cassian and Nicolas that you may be interested in to read.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=832166

If you have a moment, I invite you to consider the parable and share your thoughts there.

Thanks.
Thank you for the referenced thread, Randy Carson. I will try to read it this evening.
 
I think it is much better for there to be a mechanism for the Universal Church to discipline wayward Churches than to allow them to spin off into heresy (jeopardizing thousands of souls) and merely hoping for their repentance.
There is.

The Primate is stricken from the dypthychs of the other churches.

The offending church can then deal with the issue, or risk schism over the matter.
 
I’ll omit the marriage discussion if you fear it will derail the thread.

I may start another.

I think it is much better for there to be a mechanism for the Universal Church to discipline wayward Churches than to allow them to spin off into heresy (jeopardizing thousands of souls) and merely hoping for their repentance.

God Bless
The Roman Church isn’t demonstrating the kind of discipline you suggest within its own communion…I’m not exactly seeing any whips cracking with the SSPX after decades of disobedience & strife (and the anguish of thousands of souls who’ve been dragged into the dispute)? The Orthodox Synods are not afraid of bold action in our Churches - a cursory search will produce lots of examples to support this. This is why I suggest that Rome use the energy to deal with the issues within her own communion, rather than look for trouble elsewhere. I dunno, it’s a troubling issue.
 
Fr. John-

I mentioned previously my preference for “big picture” principles. Here I go again. 😛

Do you counsel couples who are preparing for marriage? If so, what do you say about the “wives submit to your husbands” issue? The husband and the wife are both equal, but scripture teaches that the husband is the head of the family who listens to his wife, loves her as his own body, and seeks to please her.

Similarly, aren’t the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church equal? The have different charisms and spiritualties but a common faith. And yet, in order for the “marriage” to work, doesn’t one have to submit to the other? If Peter is the “first among equals” doesn’t this seem to suggest some sort of submission of the others to a loving head of the Church?

(And please, you already conceded previously that a re-hashing of history is not likely to bear much fruit, so let’s not question the lack or perceived lack of love demonstrated in the past.)
I do not think that the two analogies work. I council couples considering marriage that marriage is a partnership between equals and that they must arrive at decisions together. I believe that a marriage dominated by either the husband or the wife is an unhealthy marriage. During the Orthodox marriage service the couple are crowned with the crown of martyrdom because each give of themselves for the other.
I am not going to rehash history, but although I consider the Patriarch of Constantinople the first among equals within my own Church, I certainly do not believe that the Patriarch of Antioch or the other autocephalous Churches of Orthodoxy must be submissive to His All Holiness. In fact, we Orthodox frequently disagree with the Ecumenical Patriarch on inter-Orthodox matters. He has no authority to tell anyone outside of his own patriarchate what to do. Even within his own patriarchate he is accountable and under the authority of the Holy Synod and cannot act on his own.
I do not mean to be insulting, but I honestly do not believe in the papacy as presently constituted. I do not believe that it is healthy or good to give one man as much power and authority as the Pope holds. I certainly do not believe that any human is infallible. I believe in the principle of conciliatory in Church administration and that no one in the Church should not be accountable to the higher authority of a council of his fellow Bishops and that of an Ecumenical Council representing the whole Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris
 
Do you counsel couples who are preparing for marriage? If so, what do you say about the “wives submit to your husbands” issue? The husband and the wife are both equal, but scripture teaches that the husband is the head of the family who listens to his wife, loves her as his own body, and seeks to please her.
People never quote the whole thing. 😃

Ephesians 5: 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. …] 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,

While the wife must submit to her husband, the husband must love and treat his wife just like Christ does the Church. 😉 🙂
 
One very big reason; the Latin Church had its traditional Liturgy (with many parts dating back to the 300’s) basically taken away for 30 years.

If I were Orthodox, I’d be terrified of what “New Liturgy” some Vatican bureaucrats would invent and impose on me.
Are you referring to Vat II? Did Vat II, change the liturgy for Eastern Catholics?

Back in the days when I was an altar boy I only knew the Latin Mass. I have to say, when the liturgy went to English, I had no complaints. I fully recognize the benefit of the liturgy being in Latin worldwide. No matter where in the world one went, they could follow the responses at mass when it was only Latin. But because the mass doesn’t change, even when the mass is in the vernacular, I still knew where I was in the mass, when I started in Portugal and went accross Europe to the Balkans attending mass in all those countries and languages.
 
The Roman Church isn’t demonstrating the kind of discipline you suggest within its own communion…I’m not exactly seeing any whips cracking with the SSPX after decades of disobedience & strife (and the anguish of thousands of souls who’ve been dragged into the dispute)? The Orthodox Synods are not afraid of bold action in our Churches - a cursory search will produce lots of examples to support this. **This is why I suggest that Rome use the energy to deal with the issues within her own communion, rather than look for trouble elsewhere. **
I believe that *is *what Rome does – that’s probably one of the reasons that Rome doesn’t post on this thread. 🙂
 
Are you referring to Vat II? Did Vat II, change the liturgy for Eastern Catholics?

Back in the days when I was an altar boy I only knew the Latin Mass. I have to say, when the liturgy went to English, I had no complaints. I fully recognize the benefit of the liturgy being in Latin worldwide. No matter where in the world one went, they could follow the responses at mass when it was only Latin. But because the mass doesn’t change, even when the mass is in the vernacular, I still knew where I was in the mass, when I started in Portugal and went accross Europe to the Balkans attending mass in all those countries and languages.
I can do the same thing with the Orthodox Liturgy. I watched a Divine Liturgy in Arabic that was part of the funeral rites for Patriarch Ignatius IV in Beirut on the internet last year. When His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI visited the Ecumenical Patriarch, I watched the Divine Liturgy, which was all in Greek. Both times, I knew exactly where they were because I know the ceremony and order which is the same regardless of what language is used. However, Orthodoxy has always used the language of the people.

Archpriest John W. Morris
 
First, what “is” a marriage. In Orthodoxy, the priest confers the mystery (sacrament) so there’s no doubt that the couple is married. This innovation of spouses “conferring upon one another” is how Rome has danced around the issue of why this sacrament is not actually a sacrament on an individual basis…if a Church lets the couple confer, rather than a priest, there’s room to later argue that the couple “couldn’t” or “didn’t” confer. It makes me dizzy. (As an aside, this is how Rome justifies the annulment process for non-Catholics, claiming that the non-Catholic folks “conferred” something not-quite-sacramental-but-still-indissoluble. As an irony, the Catholic who confers this “non-sacrament” , eg without a dispensation/permission, merely has to fill out some paperwork to get their “get out of marriage free” card even if it’s decades later. To my knowledge, there is no additional penalty/penance beyond one confession. Talk about a double standard.)

Likewise with the annulment factories are churning them out like mad…how is it so many people have “non-conferred” their marriage after all (at least in the USA). Orthodoxy is not afraid to head-on call the spade a spade - it was a marriage. Through weakness (sin), it failed. The Church, the Hospital for sinners, recognizes the failure and allows repentance and mercy. Second/third marriages are not joyful matters, even when the first (former) spouse dies. Whereas Rome pretends that nothing ever happened, no repentance is required, everything is hunky dory.

I completely disagree. Marriage is marriage - if they made a bad choice, then allow them to repent the sin and perhaps they may be allowed another chance, for the benefit of their soul, according to their Church. Society’s warped view on marriage ought have little to no bearing on whether a couple is married in the eyes of their Church or not.

Edited to add - I fear this may bring the thread crashing off the rails. Please if you wish to continue a discussion of marriage, a separate thread might be better. I merely wanted to illustrate a little of the depth of the difference in theology concerning marriage in East/West. It’s not so simple as adopting the Roman practice…
You are bringing up some interesting questions which deserve further discussion.
 
I can do the same thing with the Orthodox Liturgy. I watched a Divine Liturgy in Arabic that was part of the funeral rites for Patriarch Ignatius IV in Beirut on the internet last year. When His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI visited the Ecumenical Patriarch, I watched the Divine Liturgy, which was all in Greek. Both times, I knew exactly where they were because I know the ceremony and order which is the same regardless of what language is used. However, **Orthodoxy has always used the language of the people. **

Archpriest John W. Morris
Just for some comic relief perhaps, we have a newly ordained priest in the local Greek Orthodox Cathedral parish here and he is by custom celebrating Orthros and Divine Liturgy for these 40 days following his ordination, which I’ve been blessed to be able to attend about half the days so far. After Liturgy one day the first week of these services a woman who had been chanting in the kliros early in the service laughed and said “I told them ‘We have a Greek lady here we should use Greek’. I would have chanted in English if I’d known you were English speaking” she apologized with a laugh. I might have been the only person in the pews that day at that time. (A mystery to me because they always do chant mainly in Greek there in my experience, LOL) I can’t imagine what made her think I was Greek, except I was dressed all in black so maybe I looked like her yiayia. 😃

In the “diaspora” the language of which people in the parish can be a question. 🙂 I live in an area that is very diverse (various parishes in the Latin Church in this diocese offer Mass on a regular basis in 40 languages) and I’ve worshiped in a fair number of Orthodox parishes here. There are in some cases a significant number of parishioners in these parishes who are not speakers of the language in which much or most of the Liturgy is sung. Apart from converts, there are around here a number of Eritreans in ROCOR, Greek and OCA Orthodox parishes, probably in others as well but those are the three Churches I am most familiar with here. Of those only the OCA here has a significant amount of English, The two Greek Orthodox parishes, the Cathedral and the proto-cathedral, I’ve been in here have a mixture usually, part chanted in Greek, part chanted in English, Gospel in both. (Caveat: in the Greek Church this is not on Sundays, I am really never in a Greek Church on a Sunday, so Sundays may have more English, tho I doubt they use Tigrinya or Arabic then either.) The ROCOR Cathedral is now celebrating a 7:30AM Divine Liturgy in English the last Sunday of every month. And there are plenty of Orthodox who do argue that many Russians in the Russian Churches using Slavonic don’t understand the Slavonic, and Greeks in the Greek Church don’t understand the Greek. I heard a ROCOR nun say it made her cry the first time she was in the Liturgy in English because she understood it in such a different way. But that is another topic. 🙂
 
Are you referring to Vat II? Did Vat II, change the liturgy for Eastern Catholics?

Back in the days when I was an altar boy I only knew the Latin Mass. I have to say, when the liturgy went to English, I had no complaints. I fully recognize the benefit of the liturgy being in Latin worldwide. No matter where in the world one went, they could follow the responses at mass when it was only Latin. But because the mass doesn’t change, even when the mass is in the vernacular, I still knew where I was in the mass, when I started in Portugal and went accross Europe to the Balkans attending mass in all those countries and languages.
No, Vatican II reaffirmed the primacy of Latin in the Latin Rite.

I’m referring to one particular Archbishop, and a suspect committee, who defied Vatican II and decided to completely rupture the organic development of the Latin rite that had been going on for 1600 years, and impose an radically different creation on the Latin Church.

The vernacular is far less upsetting than the major changes to the theology of the Mass. A Tridentine Mass in the vernacular would be much, much better. Although, I think it would be better to leave the ordinary in Latin, and have the propers in the vernacular.

Just to note, I think the Novus Ordo is 100% valid, just an inferior Mass to the TLM, or the many traditional Eastern and Oriental Liturgies.

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top