Catholicism on Eastern Orthodoxy

[Abu]

twf #14
Since Vatican II,…… Collegiality and synodality have renewed vigour - the Pope as first within the college of bishops not apart from it.

Well, hardly, as Vatican I made clear, followed by Vatican II.

Further to that reality of the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., pointing out that Gallicanism was countered at Vatican I, Philip Trower in Turmoil and Truth, Ignatius, 2003, p 85-6, that Vatican I “was the culmination of a long struggle between conflicting views of how Christ intended His Church to be governed at the highest level…that the pope is not subject to the body of bishops…It was this that the First Vatican Council at last put beyond doubt.”

From Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church):
The following explanatory note prefixed to the modi of chapter three of the schema The Church is given to the Fathers, and it is according to the mind and sense of this note that the teaching contained in chapter three is to be explained and understood.

PRELIMINARY EXPLANATORY NOTE
Extract:
‘A query has been made as to what is the theological qualification to be attached to the teaching put forward in the schema The Church, on which a vote is to be taken.

‘The doctrinal commission has replied to this query in appraising the modi proposed to the third chapter of the schema The Church:

‘3. **There is no such thing as the college without its head: it is “The subject of supreme and entire power over the whole Church.” This much must be acknowledged lest the fullness of the Pope’s power be jeopardized. **The idea of college necessarily and at all times involves a head and in the college the head preserves intact his function as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the universal Church. In other words it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken together but between the Roman Pontiff by himself and the Roman Pontiff along with the bishops. **The Pope alone, in fact, being head of the college, is qualified to perform certain actions in which the bishops have no competence whatsoever, for example, the convocation and direction of the college, approval of the norms of its activity, and so on (cf. modus 18). It is for the Pope, to whom the care of the whole flock of Christ has been entrusted, to decide the best manner of implementing this care, either personal or collegiate, in order to meet the changing needs of the Church in the course of time. The Roman Pontiff undertakes the regulation, encouragement, and approval of the exercise of collegiality as he sees fit. **

‘4. The Pope, as supreme pastor of the Church, may exercise his power at any time, as he sees fit, by reason of the demands of his office. But as the Church’s tradition attests, the college, although it is always in existence, is not for that reason continually engaged in strictly collegiate activity. In other words it is not always “in full activity” (in actu pleno); in fact it is only occasionally that it engages in strictly collegiate activity and that only with the consent of the head (nonnisi consentiente capite). The phrase with the consent of the head is used in order to exclude the impression of dependence on something eternal: but the word “consent” entails communion between head and members and calls for this action which is exclusive to the head. The point is expressly stated in art. 22, par. 2 and it is explained at the end of the same article. The negative formulation “only with” (nonnisi) covers all cases: consequently it is evident that **the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed **(cf. modus 84). [My emphases].

 

[Lenten_ashes]

We’re interested but realistic. Of all the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church which ones would you be willing to renounce to make it happen? Papal Infallibility? Universal Jurisdiction? Remove and the Son from the Creed? Eliminating the unleavened wafers currently being used and replace them with leavened bread? Adding an explicit anaphora in the ordinary form of the mass? Confirmation of baptized babies immediately after Baptism? How many of these steps would you be willing to take?

If it takes renouncing truth to be unified, personally, I wouldn’t be interested.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Well there was lots of rough language used during the ecumenical councils. Lots of anathemas going everywhere. That’s just part and parcel of the polemical way these things were held in.

While that’s true, it does appear that the CC is currently more accepting of the EO than vice versa.

 

[CrucisLucia]

We’re interested but realistic. Of all the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church which ones would you be willing to renounce to make it happen? Papal Infallibility? Universal Jurisdiction? Remove and the Son from the Creed? Eliminating the unleavened wafers currently being used and replace them with leavened bread? Adding an explicit anaphora in the ordinary form of the mass? Confirmation of baptized babies immediately after Baptism? How many of these steps would you be willing to take?

Well, rite and liturgy is probably the least problem in discussing the unification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. As discussed in this thread, the Catholic Church had made moves to be more friendly to the Orthodox liturgy and more similar such as the Novus Ordo. I am pleasantly surprised of this since most presentation of the Novus Ordo condemns it as liberal and modernist compared to the traditionalist Latin Rite, though it seems misused as it was different from what the Vatican II originally intended, as discussed here by other posters.

From my knowledge, Catholics seem much more accepting than the Orthodox in tolerating differences in liturgy and rite. Byzantine Rite and Eastern Rite is accepted and tolerated in the Catholic Church, as proven by the different congregations with different rites in communion with Rome, though the rite and liturgy in the Eastern Orthodox Churches in communion with each other seems very uniform.

Regarding doctrine and theology, I’ve seen several presentations say that the theological differences between Catholic and Orthodox Church are not that difficult to hurdle since there are several commongrounds, such as Peter and the Bishop of Rome being special and several traditions. Rite, liturgy, ecclesiastical authority and sacraments I believe are not that major obstacles. Though from what I can see, it is mostly Eastern Orthodox theologians who emphasize the contradiction of Catholic and Orthodox theology, in contrast to Catholic theologians who don’t see much a problem with Orthodox doctrine.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Regarding doctrine and theology, I’ve seen several presentations say that the theological differences between Catholic and Orthodox Church are not that difficult to hurdle since there are several commongrounds, such as Peter and the Bishop of Rome being special and several traditions. Rite, liturgy, ecclesiastical authority and sacraments I believe are not that major obstacles. Though from what I can see, it is mostly Eastern Orthodox theologians who emphasize the contradiction of Catholic and Orthodox theology, in contrast to Catholic theologians who don’t see much a problem with Orthodox doctrine.

The writings of some ecumenically minded RC theologians aside, the Roman post-schism dogmatic declarations are still “on the books”, and they say what they say. EO theologians aren’t making up conflicts in doctrine.

 

[twf]

Well, hardly, as Vatican I made clear, followed by Vatican II.

Further to that reality of the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., pointing out that Gallicanism was countered at Vatican I, Philip Trower in Turmoil and Truth, Ignatius, 2003, p 85-6, that Vatican I “was the culmination of a long struggle between conflicting views of how Christ intended His Church to be governed at the highest level…that the pope is not subject to the body of bishops…It was this that the First Vatican Council at last put beyond doubt.”

From Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church):
The following explanatory note prefixed to the modi of chapter three of the schema The Church is given to the Fathers, and it is according to the mind and sense of this note that the teaching contained in chapter three is to be explained and understood.

PRELIMINARY EXPLANATORY NOTE
Extract:
‘A query has been made as to what is the theological qualification to be attached to the teaching put forward in the schema The Church, on which a vote is to be taken.

‘The doctrinal commission has replied to this query in appraising the modi proposed to the third chapter of the schema The Church:

‘3. **There is no such thing as the college without its head: it is “The subject of supreme and entire power over the whole Church.” This much must be acknowledged lest the fullness of the Pope’s power be jeopardized. **The idea of college necessarily and at all times involves a head and in the college the head preserves intact his function as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the universal Church. In other words it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken together but between the Roman Pontiff by himself and the Roman Pontiff along with the bishops. **The Pope alone, in fact, being head of the college, is qualified to perform certain actions in which the bishops have no competence whatsoever, for example, the convocation and direction of the college, approval of the norms of its activity, and so on (cf. modus 18). It is for the Pope, to whom the care of the whole flock of Christ has been entrusted, to decide the best manner of implementing this care, either personal or collegiate, in order to meet the changing needs of the Church in the course of time. The Roman Pontiff undertakes the regulation, encouragement, and approval of the exercise of collegiality as he sees fit. **

‘4. The Pope, as supreme pastor of the Church, may exercise his power at any time, as he sees fit, by reason of the demands of his office. But as the Church’s tradition attests, the college, although it is always in existence, is not for that reason continually engaged in strictly collegiate activity. In other words it is not always “in full activity” (in actu pleno); in fact it is only occasionally that it engages in strictly collegiate activity and that only with the consent of the head (nonnisi consentiente capite). The phrase with the consent of the head is used in order to exclude the impression of dependence on something eternal: but the word “consent” entails communion between head and members and calls for this action which is exclusive to the head. The point is expressly stated in art. 22, par. 2 and it is explained at the end of the same article. The negative formulation “only with” (nonnisi) covers all cases: consequently it is evident that **the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed **(cf. modus 84). [My emphases].

Nothing you quoted contradicts what I said. It remains a fact that Vatican II placed renewed emphasis on the college of bishops as a whole. It remains a fact that the Church has lived greater synodality since the Council. It remains a fact that Pope Francis has explicitly said that even more synodality is required in the life of the Church and held up the Orthodox as a model to learn from. Whether the Pope has supreme authority (and he does), is a different matter from how that authority is used in practice. The Church’s governance model has evolved over time and will continue to do so.
And in regards to what I actually said- yes there is no college without its head - but nor is there a head without a college. The authority of the bishops comes directly from Christ. Vatican II reminded us that they are not to be seen as vicars or deputies of the Pope. His authority, even when he acts in a personal manner, is rooted in the episcopal college. How could it not be? He has no fourth degree of holy orders. He is a bishop. Even if he appears to contravene the bishops of a particular time and place, for whatever reason, he must always be in harmony with the ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium by definition comprises the consistent teaching of the popes and bishops in every time and place. Vatican I says that the Pope need not necessarily actively convene a council and Obtain formal consent of the bishops (though this can and often should be done). Yet the Pope can’t contradict the ordinary magisterium, thus by definition he acts with the consent of the Church- the consistent testimony of all bishops through history.

 

[twf]

I greatly appreciate your honesty.

Have you read this agreed ecumenical reflection? usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

 

[Abu]

The supreme authority of the Pope in doctrinal teaching is known explicitly from Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4, and Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25, to be that “definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

The decisions of an Ecumenical Council can be irreformable ONLY when approved by **the Pope who needs no one, or Council, to ratify his doctrinal definitions. **As the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J. points out, for collegial infallibility:
“Their conciliar deliberations partake of the charism of infallibility….Always it is assumed that what the bishops agree among themselves has also been approved by the bishop of Rome…It must be explicit or so abundantly clear from the circumstances that the faithful can have no doubt that their bishops are in full agreement with the Vicar of Christ.”
The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 233].
[My emphases].

 

[CrucisLucia]

The writings of some ecumenically minded RC theologians aside, the Roman post-schism dogmatic declarations are still “on the books”, and they say what they say. EO theologians aren’t making up conflicts in doctrine.

What the Roman post-schism dogmatic declarations say depends on how they are read. That said, I did not say that Orthodox theologians fabricate or make conflicts in doctrine, I used the word “emphasize”, which means that Orthodox theologians are more critics, whereas Catholic theologians tend to make a more ecumenical and open-minded approach.

 

[Rohzek]

What the Roman post-schism dogmatic declarations say depends on how they are read. That said, I did not say that Orthodox theologians fabricate or make conflicts in doctrine, I used the word “emphasize”, which means that Orthodox theologians are more critics, whereas Catholic theologians tend to make a more ecumenical and open-minded approach.

It is a pretty recent development of Catholics. Whether or not Orthodox will develop such a more accommodating attitude awaits to be seen. That being said, we have developed very good terms with the Oriental Orthodox, and we will probably be unified within the century. So it isn’t like we are against any form of unity or ecumenicism. Rather, I think the differences between Orthodox and Catholics are just really that great.

 

[Rohzek]

Have you read this agreed ecumenical reflection? usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

Although the question wasn’t for me, as an Orthodox, I don’t have much issue with the statement. I wish it went into more detail, especially about the Carolingian defense of the Filioque and Maximus the Confessor’s defense of it, both of which a modern Catholic would disagree with.

A good book on this from a historical and theological perspective is the following if you’re interested in reading more up on it:

Siecienski, A. Edward. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Debate. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It is a pretty recent development of Catholics. Whether or not Orthodox will develop such a more accommodating attitude awaits to be seen. That being said, we have developed very good terms with the Oriental Orthodox, and we will probably be unified within the century. So it isn’t like we are against any form of unity or ecumenicism. Rather, I think the differences between Orthodox and Catholics are just really that great.

While I pray for unity in this regard, I doubt that it will happen within the Century. In addition to many EO disliking (to put it mildly) differences in Liturgical practices, EO views on the episcopacy are not necessarily the same as OO. In fact, some OO are closer to union with Rome because of these and some other similarities to the Roman position.

 

[Fuerza]

Yes, and I thought I addressed some of that. Since Vatican II, inspired explicitly by the East, Rome HAS developed her doctrines, liturgies and approaches in many regards. The modern Catechism is far more “Eastern” than catechisms that came before it. Collegiality and synodality have renewed vigour - the Pope as first within the college of bishops not apart from it. In regards to the epiclesis, this WAS added to the Novus Ordo (again inspired by the East). The Novus Ordo, properly celebrated as Vatican II intended (with chant, incense, reverence and awe) is far more East friendly than the Tridentine mass… The traditional Tridentine mass does NOT have an explicit epiclesis. The Novus Ordo restores this. It also called for a more dialogue approach (responses from the congregation) and the option to use the vernacular - again explicitly inspired by the East.

In regards to the timing and order of the sacraments - sure that could change. Here’s one Latin who says PLEASE God! Restore the ancient timing and order of the sacraments in the Latin Church .

Recent Popes have said that, in regards to the primacy, the East can’t be expect to accept more than what was lived in the first millennium.

That really depends on what you consider to be an epiclesis. The Veni Sanctificator in the Offertory is a direct invocation asking the Holy Spirit to bless the gifts:

"Come Thou, Sanctifier, Almighty and Everlasting God, and bless this sacrifice which is prepared for the glory of Thy holy Name."

The Quam Oblationem is a prayer to the Father asking Him to change the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ:

"Humbly we pray Thee, O God, be pleased to make this same offering wholly blessed , to consecrate it and approve it, making it reasonable and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ."

Finall, post-consecration, we have the Supplices Te Rogamus:
**
“Humbly we beseech Thee, almighty God, to command that these our offerings be carried by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thine Altar on high, in the sight of Thy divine Majesty, so that those of us who shall receive the most sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son by partaking thereof from this Altar may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing: Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.”**

Separately these make be taken as an implicit epiclesis, but when combined they seem pretty explicit. Additionally, it should be noted that many liturgical scholars believe the addition of the explicit epiclesis in the Eastern Churches to be a later liturgical development, so stating that the OF restored it is not necessarily accurate.

With regard to some of your other points, the EF can be done in dialogue form, allowing the people to make many of the responses. I personally would have no problem with allowing the EF to be celebrated mostly in the vernacular, though I believe that the Canon and at least some of the Ordinary should remain in Latin. I would also have no issue with administering confirmation and baptism at the same time. As a matter of fact, it might even be beneficial, as I have recently learned that some of my friends were never confirmed because their families stopped practicing after first communion.

 

[CrucisLucia]

It is a pretty recent development of Catholics. Whether or not Orthodox will develop such a more accommodating attitude awaits to be seen. That being said, we have developed very good terms with the Oriental Orthodox, and we will probably be unified within the century. So it isn’t like we are against any form of unity or ecumenicism. Rather, I think the differences between Orthodox and Catholics are just really that great.

True. I have heard of recent Christological agreed statements between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. A milestone in Church History to consider.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Nothing you quoted contradicts what I said. It remains a fact that Vatican II placed renewed emphasis on the college of bishops as a whole. It remains a fact that the Church has lived greater synodality since the Council. It remains a fact that Pope Francis has explicitly said that even more synodality is required in the life of the Church and held up the Orthodox as a model to learn from. Whether the Pope has supreme authority (and he does), is a different matter from how that authority is used in practice. The Church’s governance model has evolved over time and will continue to do so.
And in regards to what I actually said- yes there is no college without its head - but nor is there a head without a college. The authority of the bishops comes directly from Christ. Vatican II reminded us that they are not to be seen as vicars or deputies of the Pope. His authority, even when he acts in a personal manner, is rooted in the episcopal college. How could it not be? He has no fourth degree of holy orders. He is a bishop. Even if he appears to contravene the bishops of a particular time and place, for whatever reason, he must always be in harmony with the ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium by definition comprises the consistent teaching of the popes and bishops in every time and place. Vatican I says that the Pope need not necessarily actively convene a council and Obtain formal consent of the bishops (though this can and often should be done). Yet the Pope can’t contradict the ordinary magisterium, thus by definition he acts with the consent of the Church- the consistent testimony of all bishops through history.

  I appreciate Rome's return to synodality and concurrent deemphasizing of ultramontanism. Unfortunately, so long as the doctrines of papal supremacy and infallibility remain on paper, there can be no union. The possibility of Rome reasserting a strong view of papal supremacy still exists. Reinterpreting Papal Supremacy to give it a more conciliar tone is a nice gesture but the Pope still retains the power to unilaterally impose his will upon the entire Church. I hope Rome returns to the teaching regarding papal authority articulated by one section of the council of Constance. It's too bad this section was abrogated after the Great Schism. Perhaps if it had been retained, the schism between East and West would have been over by now.

The Council of Constance–“Legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic Church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members”

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Well, rite and liturgy is probably the least problem in discussing the unification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. As discussed in this thread, the Catholic Church had made moves to be more friendly to the Orthodox liturgy and more similar such as the Novus Ordo. I am pleasantly surprised of this since most presentation of the Novus Ordo condemns it as liberal and modernist compared to the traditionalist Latin Rite, though it seems misused as it was different from what the Vatican II originally intended, as discussed here by other posters.

 Some good things came out of Vatican II with respect to the liturgy such as celebration in the vernacular. I know the Vatican II fathers intended the liturgy to be celebrated reverently but it also opened the door to changes that make Orthodox uncomfortable for good reasons. First, Vatican II broadened the use of other instruments besides the organ (which Orthodox have no problem with). The guitar gives the liturgy a casual, folksy atmosphere that undermines the sense of the sacred that gives rise to reverence. While I was in RCIA, most Catholics told me this was just a matter of taste (a modernist way of thinking about music). Contemporary Catholicism seems to be under the sway of aestheticism.

Aestheticism reduces Beauty to the subjectively satisfying and in so doing does violence to Beauty’s objective character. The great Roman Catholic philosopher Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand writes about this a lot in response to the liturgical innovations of the 60s and 70s. Two of his quotes are particularly relevant with regards to the liturgy.

“In every page of the liturgy there lives the awareness of value. The continual praise in the liturgy would lose all meaning were we to deny the existence of value. What would the meaning of the term gloria in the passage: Gratias animus tibi propter magnam gloria tuam–‘We give thanks to Thee for They great glory’–if no other importance [something that calls forth an affective response] exists than the subjectively satisfying?”

“Aestheticism is a perversion of the approach to beauty. The aesthete enjoys beautiful things as one enjoys good wine. He does not approach them with reverence and with an understanding of the intrinsic value calling for an adequate response, but as sources of subjective satisfaction merely. Even if he has a refined taste and is a remarkable connoisseur, the aesthete’s approach cannot possible do justice to the nature of beauty”.

This view has become so damaging that it is a problem now within Orthodoxy in the west. Converts approach the liturgy like it is an opera. After the novelty wears off, boredom ensues.

 

[Abu]

twf #26
His authority, even when he acts in a personal manner, is rooted in the episcopal college. How could it not be? He has no fourth degree of holy orders. He is a bishop
Yet the Pope can’t contradict the ordinary magisterium, thus by definition he acts with the consent of the Church- the consistent testimony of all bishops through history.

The errors here, based on a false interpretation of Vatican II, are well revealed by none other than the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J. He points out that “Another seedbed of confusion has been a lack of clarity, also at times consciously induced, between the infallibility of the bishops apart from the Pope and the infallibility of the bishops totally dependent on the pope.”

“Among the community of believers only the hierarchy, under the Pope, is divinely authorised to determine infallible truth. And between the hierarchy and Pope, he is normative for them, not they for him. They are infallible if they agree with him. He can teach infallibly, without in the same way, depending on them.

“Not only are some equating the possession of the truth with the right to decide what is the truth, but they are obscuring the role of the papacy in the exercise of the Church’s teaching authority.

“Episcopal collegiality means many things, not least of which is the bishops authority to instruct the faithful in the ways of salvation. Indeed whenever the bishops agree among themselves on any point of doctrine and so teach the faithful they are teaching infallibly.

“But, this agreement among the hierarchy is truly collegial and therefore truly infallible only if, and when, and to the extent to which their teaching is approved by the Pope, at least implicitly.

“His confirmation of their teaching is what gives the faithful the assurance of being taught the truth.

“Moreover, he can do what they cannot do. He can make a decision, and proclaim a doctrine without either prior dependence on their consensus or subsequent approval from the hierarchy.

“When he thus teaches, ex cathedra as we say, the Holy Spirit insures that a substantial part of the hierarchy will accept his teaching. But their acceptance is not a necessary condition for his exercise of infallibility.”
The Teaching Church In Our Time, in How infallible is The Teaching Church, Fr John A Hardon S.J., Daughters of St Paul, 1978, p 111-114].

 

[wmscott]

We’re interested but realistic. Of all the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church which ones would you be willing to renounce to make it happen? Papal Infallibility? Universal Jurisdiction? Remove and the Son from the Creed? Eliminating the unleavened wafers currently being used and replace them with leavened bread? Adding an explicit anaphora in the ordinary form of the mass? Confirmation of baptized babies immediately after Baptism? How many of these steps would you be willing to take?

So I am going to ask and it is not meant to be snarky, just want to know. With the things you have cited here, doesn’t these things listed pretty much sum up what separates the two churches? and if so which items would be negotiable?

 

[CrucisLucia]

Some good things came out of Vatican II with respect to the liturgy such as celebration in the vernacular. I know the Vatican II fathers intended the liturgy to be celebrated reverently but it also opened the door to changes that make Orthodox uncomfortable for good reasons. First, Vatican II broadened the use of other instruments besides the organ (which Orthodox have no problem with). The guitar gives the liturgy a casual, folksy atmosphere that undermines the sense of the sacred that gives rise to reverence. While I was in RCIA, most Catholics told me this was just a matter of taste (a modernist way of thinking about music). Contemporary Catholicism seems to be under the sway of aestheticism.

Aestheticism reduces Beauty to the subjectively satisfying and in so doing does violence to Beauty’s objective character. The great Roman Catholic philosopher Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand writes about this a lot in response to the liturgical innovations of the 60s and 70s. Two of his quotes are particularly relevant with regards to the liturgy.

“In every page of the liturgy there lives the awareness of value. The continual praise in the liturgy would lose all meaning were we to deny the existence of value. What would the meaning of the term gloria in the passage: Gratias animus tibi propter magnam gloria tuam–‘We give thanks to Thee for They great glory’–if no other importance [something that calls forth an affective response] exists than the subjectively satisfying?”

“Aestheticism is a perversion of the approach to beauty. The aesthete enjoys beautiful things as one enjoys good wine. He does not approach them with reverence and with an understanding of the intrinsic value calling for an adequate response, but as sources of subjective satisfaction merely. Even if he has a refined taste and is a remarkable connoisseur, the aesthete’s approach cannot possible do justice to the nature of beauty”.

This view has become so damaging that it is a problem now within Orthodoxy in the west. Converts approach the liturgy like it is an opera. After the novelty wears off, boredom ensues.

On point, worship is not to be treated to be made like entertainment but as proper worship to God.

 

[truthseeker32]

On point, worship is not to be treated to be made like entertainment but as proper worship to God.

If I hadn’t seen the context of your response, I would have assumed it is a criticism of post-Vatican II Catholic liturgies that seem more concerned with appeasing the contemporary masses than conveying the rich symbolism and worship that was found in the pre-Vatican II Mass and is still found in Eastern liturgy. To describe Eastern liturgy as “entertaining” is silly.