Hello Tomasz,
Peace Hesychios,
I think it does, it shows that the Church of God under Rome is trully capable of unifying most Christians of the world.
Interestingly enough, if Papal claims to authority were actually true, history shows very clearly that the church shattered under the Popes of Rome! They could not hold the thing together time and again.
The office of the Papacy tends to have a divisive effect upon Christianity.
For me to become a member of an Orthodox Church would require rejecting my own Western heritage and adopting Eastern norms.
Why? There are western rite Orthodox.
Before the great schism the whole west was Orthodox, it can be again.
This is not true for yourself and other non-Catholic Christians when it comes to communion with the Pope.
Communion with the Pope?
Historically, the Latin church has a very poor track record with eastern Christians. Actually highly abusive until recent decades. We don’t need to go into this here, it would further derail the thread, but I had to address your assertion, which I see as false.
This is not true. Many disagreements were mentioned at the unitive Councils, i.e. Florence. The Western Church accepted the Eastern rites uses of leavened bread, their rejection of fire in purgatory, and other issues that I can’t delve into because I don’t know enough!
You also seem to have largely misunderstood what I wrote.
NO eastern Catholic may say “I don’t believe in Purgatory”, not one. This, in spite of the fact that many of these Particular churches do not even teach it!
Yet it is common for Latin Catholics to challenge Orthodox theology (for example, deny the reality of Theosis as a means to salvation). This in spite of the fact that several Eastern Catholic churches teach this theology. A double standard.
If a Pope today proclaims a dogma it is binding upon the Eastern Catholics, even though it makes no sense whatever according to their own theological system. A case in point would be the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, it makes no sense in Byzantine theology yet no Byzantine catholic may object to it or deny it (even though it cannot be understood by them).
If a genuine reunion were to take Councils would necessarily have to occur to discuss our differences. I understand, and certainly the Western Church understands that different tradtions and understandings have spawned from the deposit of faith. An adoption of dogma in your own understanding, in your own terms, and fitting your personal theology will have to take place, in my opinion.
This sounds like indifferentism to me. Perfect for Protestants but unnatural and improper for an Apostolic church.
The fact is, the only theological problems there are between Holy Orthodoxy and the Papal Communion are later introductions from the West. The answer to the problem is for the Latin church to abandon it’s inventions and return to the Orthodox beliefs of it’s own predecessors.
I do not expect this to happen although I do pray for it. Since it has not happened yet I take that as an indication the Papacy does not want unity badly enough.
But this is all wishful thinking as long as Christians are not really set on unifying.
What does unity mean to you?
Again, this is not true.
The Roman rite itself is divided into an Extraordinary form and Ordinary form.
Bzzzzt!
WRONG
The “Roman” Rite (do you mean Latin Particular church perhaps?) is not divided along such lines. You are speaking of two forms of the same liturgical expression. The church does not see this as a division in the Rite.
Likewise the Church has accepted many movements from within her that have adopted certain practices resembling protestant forms of worship, such as the Charismatic movement.
Not an example of a division in the Roman Rite. Although it may be an example of liturgical abuse. That’s hard for me to say.
Anyway, this should encourage some Protestants.
When many Anglicans reunited with Rome the Church permitted the use of the Anglican rite.
This is not another Rite, it is a variant usage, and only permitted on a temporary basis (NOT permitted in England!). The Sarum form is still an example of the Latin liturgical rite.
Did you know that once the original pastor retires the parish must give up the Anglican Use form?
Other forms of the Roman rite include: Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Bragan, Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian.
Yes, Latin rite. These are all variant usages different only by minor custom. The east has such as well, they are sometimes called Recensions.
All this proves the Latin Church’s acceptance of diversity, even within it’s own rite.
The usages you list here are all very old, and the real ones (Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Bragan,) have been discouraged by the church so long they are all on the point of extinction. These originated as separate and distinct rites, indeed as autonomous churches, but have been so Latinized over time they bear only minor resemblance to their original forms. The church does not admit them to be outside of the Latin Rite, and the people who attend these Masses are not registered as members of another Rite or Particular church.
The others are not rites in any real way, they are customary differences in the Mass celebrated by religious orders, allowed because they were over two hundred years old by the time of Trent. No new such usages are allowed and they are not allowed to spread or be celebrated outside of the religious orders.
*
Glory to Jesus Christ!*
