R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Nor did it have to as has been pointed out by Bl. John Cardinal Newman.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Wow. That was a really nice piece. Most encouraging thing I’ve seen in some time, actually.It is not Catholic teaching that the Pope is not subject to a higher authority any more than the corporate Church unless one wishes to exclude the Holy Spirit from the equation. But I do think there is hope in Orthodox-Catholic reunion on this matter. I did an extensive post about this last month while reviewing the official relatio behind Vatican I as well as a lengthy talk given by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware who is likewise optimistic.
See: Could this lead to Orthodox-Catholic unity on the papacy and beyond?
At the same time, I am aware that many Orthodox believe that “the Catholic Church has departed from the Faith of the ancient undivided Church of the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils…[and that] the Eastern Orthodox Church has preserved that Faith without corruption or change.” It will be difficult to heal old prejudices.
I do hope that others will take the time to visit your blog, read the piece and then comment on it here.
Thanks, Sam!
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Thank you so much. I actually think Pope Benedict did a lot for such ecumenical relations as we saw with the inflow of Anglican converts en masse during his papacy as well as his dispensation for married Anglican priests. I can’t help but think such things led to the first Orthodox patriarch to attend a papal installation mass in almost 1,000 years as we saw with Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew I. Sure there remains doctrine to sort, but I do see a lot of various signs that demonstrate a gravitational pull toward unity. Whether we see that in the near or far future, I think the seeds exist.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
One thing that sort of niggles at me…when I think of what might happen on the day that the documents are signed (with Fox and CNN providing full coverageThank you so much. I actually think Pope Benedict did a lot for such ecumenical relations as we saw with the inflow of Anglican converts en masse during his papacy as well as his dispensation for married Anglican priests. I can’t help but think such things led to the first Orthodox patriarch to attend a papal installation mass in almost 1,000 years as we saw with Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew I. Sure there remains doctrine to sort, but I do see a lot of various signs that demonstrate a gravitational pull toward unity. Whether we see that in the near or far future, I think the seeds exist.
), some Orthodox (and maybe some Catholics?) will not be happy. I can see some Orthodox groups or parishes splitting off from the reunited Church (just as the SSPX have separated themselves from the Catholic Church now) over what they will claim to be irreconcilable doctrinal differences.Thoughts?
D
dzheremi
Guest
I received a PM from the OP hoping that I post in this thread. Honestly, after reading Mr. Bonocore’s “reply” (if you could call it that), I am less that enthused about any discussion that might come about as a result of it. It is of no consequence to me what or who you choose to believe, Randy, but I would rather not engage Mr. Bonocore’s ideas direct, for two main reasons:
(1) He’s not actually here;
(2) He clearly does not know the first thing about the topic at hand.
One need only read the texts of the Coptic liturgy of St. Basil (which, in its core elements which remain unchanged, dates back to the 4th century), especially that of the priest’s confession before the Eucharist, to know that what Mr. Bonocore is espousing as fact is the real historical revisionism, not the ancient belief of the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox. In fact, it is even worse than that, in how blatantly and obviously biased it is toward the Chalcedonian position. I have rightfully ignored ignorant Chalcedonians on this very board for less, so how much more needs to be said of someone who is not even here, but lobs his misdirected ignorance and bile at us from afar, expecting us to apologize for what he has dreamed up in his own mind? Frankly, I have better things to do, and really anything is a better use of my time (and all of yours, too).
In closing, here is the text of the priest’s confession from the Coptic Orthodox liturgy of St. Basil. You may judge for yourself what kind of faith you see it as affirming (I will continue on believing it unmoved either way):
“Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath, that this is the life-giving body that your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Saint Mary. He made it one with his divinity without mingling, without confusion and without alteration. He witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate. He gave it up for us upon the holy wood of the cross, of his own will, for us all. Truly I believe that his divinity parted not from his humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye. Given for us for salvation, remission of sins and eternal life to those who partake of him. I believe, I believe, I believe that this is so in truth. Amen.”
God forgive Mr. Bonocore for his terrible slander of our Orthodox confession.
(1) He’s not actually here;
(2) He clearly does not know the first thing about the topic at hand.
One need only read the texts of the Coptic liturgy of St. Basil (which, in its core elements which remain unchanged, dates back to the 4th century), especially that of the priest’s confession before the Eucharist, to know that what Mr. Bonocore is espousing as fact is the real historical revisionism, not the ancient belief of the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox. In fact, it is even worse than that, in how blatantly and obviously biased it is toward the Chalcedonian position. I have rightfully ignored ignorant Chalcedonians on this very board for less, so how much more needs to be said of someone who is not even here, but lobs his misdirected ignorance and bile at us from afar, expecting us to apologize for what he has dreamed up in his own mind? Frankly, I have better things to do, and really anything is a better use of my time (and all of yours, too).
In closing, here is the text of the priest’s confession from the Coptic Orthodox liturgy of St. Basil. You may judge for yourself what kind of faith you see it as affirming (I will continue on believing it unmoved either way):
“Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath, that this is the life-giving body that your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Saint Mary. He made it one with his divinity without mingling, without confusion and without alteration. He witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate. He gave it up for us upon the holy wood of the cross, of his own will, for us all. Truly I believe that his divinity parted not from his humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye. Given for us for salvation, remission of sins and eternal life to those who partake of him. I believe, I believe, I believe that this is so in truth. Amen.”
God forgive Mr. Bonocore for his terrible slander of our Orthodox confession.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
It must matter to you to some degree…you’ve been interacting - strongly I might add - with my posts for weeks.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I meant that whether or not you choose to believe Mr. Bonocore’s assertions are well-founded or not has no bearing on what the truth is regarding the OO (which is far from anything that Mr. Bonocore has to say, that’s for sure). I would not post in any thread on this board were it not for the fact that I am the only active poster from the OO tradition on this website, so I do feel a degree of responsibility to correct errors where I see them, but if other people want to continue to believe in them afterwards, fine. Everyone is free to do and believe whatever they want. That’s why I have an ignore list. But I have to at least try first to stand up for my faith, the same as anyone would for their own.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I would suppose there would exist resistance to reunion as well, among those who will analyze the situation themselves, and disagree with the authorities involved.One thing that sort of niggles at me…when I think of what might happen on the day that the documents are signed (with Fox and CNN providing full coverage
Thoughts?
P
Peter_J
Guest
To be honest, I’m a little doubtful as to whether there will be much more discussion.
But on the plus side, this thread has reminded me that I’ve been neglecting to check a couple of blogs that I usually read.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I would probably agree with Mr. Bonocore’s objections to Protestantism. However, I must ask you what are this man’s qualifications? Does he have a degree in history or theology, or is he simply a dedicated Roman Catholic who knows how to build a web site. His timeline shows a very basic ignorance of church history.
I noticed an article on his home page about the events at Medjugorje. I read recently that Rome and the local Catholic authorities have rejected the legitimacy of the claimed appearances of the Blessed Virgin at Medjugorje.
Fr. John
N
Nine_Two
Guest
The word “polemic” is thrown around so often on this site that I have to wonder if most people know what it means. For those I suggest they read these emails. They are the very definition of the word.
There seems no point in discussion here. There seems no place for discussion to even begin.
There seems no point in discussion here. There seems no place for discussion to even begin.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
Actually Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was the first Patriarch of Constantinople to ever attend a papal installation. It cannot be said that Eastern Orthodox are not trying to dialogue with Rome. Last moth, His Beatitude, Patriarch John X of Antioch visited the Pope. Right now in the United States the only ecumenical dialogue in which Eastern Orthodox participate is the North American Orthodox Catholic Dialogue. We have tried dialogue with Lutherans and Episcopalians, but they both reached a dead end.Thank you so much. I actually think Pope Benedict did a lot for such ecumenical relations as we saw with the inflow of Anglican converts en masse during his papacy as well as his dispensation for married Anglican priests. I can’t help but think such things led to the first Orthodox patriarch to attend a papal installation mass in almost 1,000 years as we saw with Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew I. Sure there remains doctrine to sort, but I do see a lot of various signs that demonstrate a gravitational pull toward unity. Whether we see that in the near or far future, I think the seeds exist.
Fr. John
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I checked out the article you are referring to and it (a) appears not to be written by Bonocore and (b) argues that Medjugorje is false beyond doubt,
P
prodromos
Guest
Origines Ecclesiasticæ: The Antiquities of the Christian Church by Joseph Bingham
Fourthly, we are to observe upon this head, That so long as the people continued to make oblations of bread and wine, the elements for the use of the eucharist were usually taken out of them ; and by consequence, so long the bread was that common leavened bread, which they used upon other occasions ; and the use of wafers and unleavened bread was not known in the church till the eleventh or twelfth centuries, when the oblations of common bread began to be left off by the people. This will seem a great paradox to all who look no further than the schoolmen, and only read their disputes with the Greeks about leavened and unleavened bread, which are fierce enough on both sides, and have little of truth on either : as commonly such disputes evaporate into smoke, and end in bitter and false reproaches ; the Greeks terming the Latins Azymites, for consecrating in azymis, that is, unleavened bread ; and the Latins, on the other hand, charging the Greeks with deviating from the example of Christ, and the practice of the ancient church. I will not enter into the detail of the arguments on both sides, which belongs not to this place ; but only acquaint the reader, that now the most wise and learned men in the Roman church, who have more exactly scanned and examined this matter, think fit to desert the schoolmen, and maintain, that the whole primitive church, and the Roman church herself for many ages, never consecrated the eucharist in any other but common and leavened bread.
Click on the link to read the sources cited
New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden and Thomas J. Green
The requirement of unleavened bread is for liceity. In the early centuries, both Eastern and Western Churches used leavened bread for the Eucharist, but in the eighth and ninth centuries the use of unleavened bread became the general custom in the West. In keeping with the scope of the Code, the canon properly addresses only the practice of the Latin Rite.
P
prodromos
Guest
Read page 217-218 and 238 of The Church’s Liturgy By Michael Kunzler. This is the first volume published in English of a series of International Handbooks of Catholic Theology under the general editorship of Cardinal Christoph Schnborn, Archbishop of Vienna.
The Church’s Liturgy By Michael Kunzler (page 217-218)
The main information you want is in section 3.6.2. The “Fruits of the Earth and Work of Human Hands”, at the bottom of page 217, but there is also relevant information just prior to that
The Church’s Liturgy By Michael Kunzler (page 238)
Read section 3.8.3. The Fraction, Agnus Dei and Commingling.
It speaks of the West’s former traditional use of leavened bread for the eucharist.
Primary Readings on the Eucharist
This goes into the reason why the West introduced unleavened bread for the eucharist around the 800’s
Fr. Joseph Jungman – in his book The Mass of the Roman Rite – states that:
"In the West, various ordinances appeared from the ninth century on, all demanding the exclusive use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. A growing solicitude for the Blessed Sacrament and a desire to employ only the best and whitest bread, along with various scriptural considerations – all favored this development.
Fr. Jungman goes on to say that,
“. . . the opinion put forward by J. Mabillon, Dissertatio de pane eucharistia, in his answer to the Jesuit J. Sirmond, Disquisitio de azymo, namely, that in the West it was always the practice to use only unleavened bread, is no longer tenable” [Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, page 33]
Now, the fact that the West changed its practice and began using unleavened bread in the 8th and 9th century – instead of the traditional leavened bread – is confirmed by the research of Fr. William O’Shea, who noted that along with various other innovative practices from Northern Europe, the use of unleavened bread began to infiltrate into the Roman liturgy at the end of the first millennium, because as he put it,
“Another change introduced into the Roman Rite in France and Germany at the time * was the use of unleavened bread and of thin white wafers or hosts instead of the loaves of leavened bread used hitherto” [Fr. William O’Shea, The Worship of the Church, page 128].*
Moreover, this change in Western liturgical practice was also noted by Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus in his book, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, because as he said:
“The Eucharistic bread has been unleavened in the Latin rite since the 8th century – that is, it is prepared simply from flour and water, without the addition of leaven or yeast. . . . in the first millennium of the Church’s history, both in East and West, the bread normally used for the Eucharist was ordinary ‘daily bread,’ that is, leavened bread, and the Eastern Church uses it still today; for the most part, they strictly forbid the use of unleavened bread. The Latin Church, by contrast, has not considered this question very important.” [Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, page 162]
The Church’s Liturgy By Michael Kunzler (page 217-218)
The main information you want is in section 3.6.2. The “Fruits of the Earth and Work of Human Hands”, at the bottom of page 217, but there is also relevant information just prior to that
The Church’s Liturgy By Michael Kunzler (page 238)
Read section 3.8.3. The Fraction, Agnus Dei and Commingling.
It speaks of the West’s former traditional use of leavened bread for the eucharist.
Primary Readings on the Eucharist
This goes into the reason why the West introduced unleavened bread for the eucharist around the 800’s
Fr. Joseph Jungman – in his book The Mass of the Roman Rite – states that:
"In the West, various ordinances appeared from the ninth century on, all demanding the exclusive use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. A growing solicitude for the Blessed Sacrament and a desire to employ only the best and whitest bread, along with various scriptural considerations – all favored this development.
Code:
"Still, the new custom did not come into exclusive vogue until the middle of the eleventh century. Particularly in Rome it was not universally accepted till after the general infiltration of various usages from the North" [Joseph Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, pages 33-34]“. . . the opinion put forward by J. Mabillon, Dissertatio de pane eucharistia, in his answer to the Jesuit J. Sirmond, Disquisitio de azymo, namely, that in the West it was always the practice to use only unleavened bread, is no longer tenable” [Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, page 33]
Now, the fact that the West changed its practice and began using unleavened bread in the 8th and 9th century – instead of the traditional leavened bread – is confirmed by the research of Fr. William O’Shea, who noted that along with various other innovative practices from Northern Europe, the use of unleavened bread began to infiltrate into the Roman liturgy at the end of the first millennium, because as he put it,
“Another change introduced into the Roman Rite in France and Germany at the time * was the use of unleavened bread and of thin white wafers or hosts instead of the loaves of leavened bread used hitherto” [Fr. William O’Shea, The Worship of the Church, page 128].*
Moreover, this change in Western liturgical practice was also noted by Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus in his book, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, because as he said:
“The Eucharistic bread has been unleavened in the Latin rite since the 8th century – that is, it is prepared simply from flour and water, without the addition of leaven or yeast. . . . in the first millennium of the Church’s history, both in East and West, the bread normally used for the Eucharist was ordinary ‘daily bread,’ that is, leavened bread, and the Eastern Church uses it still today; for the most part, they strictly forbid the use of unleavened bread. The Latin Church, by contrast, has not considered this question very important.” [Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, page 162]
P
Peter_J
Guest
Fair enough. For our part, we have had significant dialogues with both of those groups – though naturally we value our dialogue with you guys (and with the Oriental Orthodox for that matter) even more highly.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Did you read the article on Medjugorje, Father? I think not.
First, it was not authored by Mark Bonocore. Second, it was written by someone who was, at one time, a supporter of Medjugorje but who has come to recognize the problems surrounding these alleged appearance of Mary. The Catholic Legate linked to the writer’s site in support of the Catholic Church’s position. Your notation of this link on the Catholic Legate’s website suggests two things:
- It appears that without actually following the link and reading the article, you assumed that it would be pro-Medjugorje and jumped at the chance to besmirch Mark Bonocore’s reputation by connecting him to something discredited by the Church. More on this in a moment.
- If true, then your lack of objectivity in a simple matter such as this seriously undermines your credibility as a PhD and professor of history for if you have approached Catholic-Orthodox history with the same presuppositions you have just displayed, why would anyone be able to trust your claims regarding Church history? Haven’t you just proved the very point that Mr. Bonocore raised in his second email posted above?
Second, the Roman Catholic Church interprets the command against bearing false witness as a broad prohibition against misrepresenting the truth in one’s relation with others.
It appears that you have either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented Mr. Bonocore’s position with regard to Medjugorje. There does not appear to be any reason for you to have mentioned the Medjugorie article at all unless you were seeking to discredit Mr. Bonocore personally by demonstrating that he is associated with other discredited events.
I hope this is not the case, and that you have not committed a sin against your brother in Christ in a public forum - in which case a public apology would be in order. No, I have intentionally chosen words and phrases such as “it appears”, and “if true” because I do not wish to speak with certainty regarding your motivations. I’m simply pointing out how things look from where I sit.
I look forward to your clarifications.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not that *you’ve *ever made such a horrendous mistake in your life, I’m sure.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
I admit that I only glanced at the article, because I only have so much time and was asked to respond to the Timeline. I looked at his site and saw the article and did not take the time to read it, because I had my mind on responding to his timeline. We all make mistakes. That one mistake does not negate the points that I made in my response to the Timeline. You are right, I should have read the entire article and thought about it before I jumped the gun and wrote something.
Fr. John
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
Be fair. I merely mentioned the article and the report that Medjugorje was not recognized by the Catholic Church. I did not use the article to criticize Mr. Bonocore. Upon second though I should not have mentioned it, but there is no reason to make such a big deal out of it.
Fr. John
- Status