The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Where does it truly stand at present?

[jwinch2]

They cannot coexist.

And yet they do.

It is actually an interesting topic, perhaps for another thread, whether Roman Catholics are actually supposed to have private Masses to begin with. Assuming Wikipedia is accurate on the subject (a dangerous assumption to be sure) it does not seem to be the case.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Mass

“Private Mass” (in Latin, Missa privata or secreta, familiaris, peculiaris),[8] which is now understood as Mass celebrated without a congregation, formerly meant Low Mass.[9][10][11] In editions of the Roman Missal earlier than that of 1962, “Missa privata” was still contrasted with “Missa solemnis”.[12] In 1960 Pope John XXIII, who in 1962 removed from the Roman Missal the section headed Rubricae generales Missalis, replacing it with his Code of Rubrics, decried use of the term “Missa privata”: “The most sacred Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated according to the rites and regulations is an act of public worship offered to God in the name of Christ and the Church. Therefore, the term ‘private Mass’ should be avoided.”[13] When applied to Low Mass in general, the word privata indicated that that form of Mass was deprived of certain ceremonies.[14]

In Low Mass incense is not used and the responses (in Latin) are given by one or more servers. Low Mass, celebrated in exactly the same way whether a congregation is present or not, was the most common form of Mass before 1969. In the 1970 edition of the Roman Missal a distinction[15] was made between Mass celebrated with a congregation and Mass celebrated without a congregation.[16] No such distinction was made in earlier (Tridentine) editions of the Roman Missal, which only distinguished between Solemn Mass and Low Mass (calling the latter Missa lecta or, as in the Rubricae generales Missalis included in pre-1962 editions, Missa privata).

My own understanding of Latin theology as it relates to the presence of the people during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not that different from what you described. The priest is offering a sacrifice on behalf of the people. The people are, as part of their full and active participation supposed to be uniting their prayers with the priest and offering up not only the gifts of bread and wine, but their lives, their hopes, dreams, sufferings, etc. to God. There is a great CD on this by Dr. John Bergsma which is called “You snooze, you lose: Why you should wake up for the offering of the gifts” which does a much better, and probably more accurate, job of explaining this than I can.

Peace,

 

[Nine_Two]

On what do you base that statement?

I know quite a few Latin Catholics, and I would say that your statement is as far as possible from the truth. Many poorly informed Latin Catholics don’t know about the Orthodox at all. Practically every other Latin Catholic I know has an extremely high opinion of the Orthodox, longs for union with them, and believes that Latin Catholicism has much to gain from such union.

There’s simply no comparison, in my experience, between the attitude of Catholics toward Orthodoxy and the attitude of Orthodox toward Catholicism–the former is overwhelmingly more positive than the latter. That doesn’t prove that Catholicism is correct–indeed, it might indicate the opposite (that Orthodoxy is more worthy of respect than Catholicism).

Edwin

Many claim to have a high opinion of Orthodox theology, but in practice a great many (certainly not all) don’t really have any respect for it.

With the Orthodox with whom I have discussed Catholicism (it isn’t a common topic), I’ve found the opposite. They may not outwardly show it, and they’ll probably never proclaim it, but they do have a certain respect for Catholicism.

As I said, this is anecdotal.

edit: To clarify, when I say respect I’m not talking about agreement. It is quite possible to respectfully disagree. I mean a treatment of equality, not theologically, but as human beings. Acceptance of disagreement, acceptance of our traditions and our right to hold to them.
While Johnnykins is an extreme example, he help illustrate the disrespect.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Actually, that’s not true. The filioque was already believed in the West even before the creed in question was formulated.

Origins of the Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed was formulated at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in AD 325 to combat Arianism, and it was expanded at the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in AD 381 to balance its coverage of the Trinity by including the Holy Spirit. It is the only creed that was promulgated by any of the seven ecumenical councils and thus it is the only creed that is truly ecumenical and universal. In the Orthodox Church, it is the only creed.

…
Some Frankish monks used the filioque clause in their monastery in Jerusalem in 807, but eastern monks disputed it as improper. Because the Frankish monks were from the west, the matter was escalated to the bishop of Rome (Pope Leo III). He approved of the sentiment, but he opposed the change in the wording. Leo arranged for the creed in its original form (without the filioque clause) to be engraved on silver tablets and he had them placed at St. Peter’s tomb.

Also, as I understand it, it was not a pope who out of nowhere planted it in the creed but a custom that had already grown in the West

Therein lies the issue. A “custom” in one part of the Christian world which altered essential theology was declared to be necessarily assented to by ALL of the Universal Church by one guy without so much as a by-your-leave to the whole rest of the church. Here’s the original Creed:

First Council of Nicea (325)

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And yet they do.

It is actually an interesting topic, perhaps for another thread, whether Roman Catholics are actually supposed to have private Masses to begin with. Assuming Wikipedia is accurate on the subject (a dangerous assumption to be sure) it does not seem to be the case.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Mass

My own understanding of Latin theology as it relates to the presence of the people during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not that different from what you described. The priest is offering a sacrifice on behalf of the people. The people are, as part of their full and active participation supposed to be uniting their prayers with the priest and offering up not only the gifts of bread and wine, but their lives, their hopes, dreams, sufferings, etc. to God. There is a great CD on this by Dr. John Bergsma which is called “You snooze, you lose: Why you should wake up for the offering of the gifts” which does a much better, and probably more accurate, job of explaining this than I can.

Peace,

I have a longer list of conflicts between the Sacramental Theology of East and West. And to think I haven’t delved deep enough into it. The Eastern Catholic approach certainly is no precedent for the Orthodox. Not because the ECs accepted Western theology to not be heretical, it doesn’t mean the EO would.

 

[TEPO]

On what do you base that statement?

I know quite a few Latin Catholics, and I would say that your statement is as far as possible from the truth. Many poorly informed Latin Catholics don’t know about the Orthodox at all. Practically every other Latin Catholic I know has an extremely high opinion of the Orthodox, longs for union with them, and believes that Latin Catholicism has much to gain from such union.

There’s simply no comparison, in my experience, between the attitude of Catholics toward Orthodoxy and the attitude of Orthodox toward Catholicism–the former is overwhelmingly more positive than the latter. That doesn’t prove that Catholicism is correct–indeed, it might indicate the opposite (that Orthodoxy is more worthy of respect than Catholicism).

Edwin

Your last sentence seems to suggest that Catholicism longs for what what Orthodoxy has, which may “indicate” that Orthodoxy may be both “more worthy of respect” as well as possibly being “correct”. But if this were true, then how are we to explain the Catholic Church’s position on ecumenism toward the Protestant branches of Christian catholics? Surely we couldn’t then also assume that the Church longs for what the Anglicans, Episcopalians and Lutherans have? Or can we??? Yes, or can we. Possibly, I think, we can.

 

[TEPO]

Let’s face it. Everyone of us here longs for at least one aspect of something that one of these other catholic or Catholic Churcs has.

That should indicate something… To us all.

 

[Peter_J]

Why would the Orthodox have any particular opinion regarding whether or not Catholic sacraments “have grace” or not?

You ask a good question. Likewise, I’m not really sure why Pope Leo XIII felt it was incumbent on him to settle the question of Anglican orders.

 

[TEPO]

With the Orthodox with whom I have discussed Catholicism (it isn’t a common topic), I’ve found the opposite. They may not outwardly show it, and they’ll probably never proclaim it, but they do have a certain respect for Catholicism.

Exactly what part/s about Catholicism might they respect?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Why would the Orthodox have any particular opinion regarding whether or not Catholic sacraments “have grace” or not?

Another take on this, the member Churches of the Joint Commission have indeed explored these questions in considering the requirements for restoration of full communion.

Baptism was raised in this thread. By way of example, in the formal report of the Joint Commission from the Bari, Italy session in 1987 (the fourth plenary session and second devoted to the topic of “Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church”), the group focused on potential “defect” of Baptism relating to the Creed, or profession / symbol of faith used. They commented and jointly concluded as follows:

1. From earliest times there has been joined to the administration of baptism a formulation of faith by means of which the local church transmits to the catechumen the essential content of the doctrine of the Apostles. This “symbol” of the faith enunciates in compact form the essentials of the apostolic tradition, articulated chiefly in the confession of faith in the Holy Trinity and in the Church. When all the local churches confess the true faith, they transmit, in the rite of baptism, this one faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, at different times and in different places, the formulation has been expressed differently as circumstances required, using terms and propositions which were not identical from one formulary to another. All, however, respected the content of faith. The eastern church in its baptismal rite uses the Niceo-Constantinopolitan creed. Faithful to its own tradition, the western church conveys to the catechumen the text called “The Apostles Creed.” This diversity of formulas from one church to another does not in itself indicate any divergence about the content of the faith transmitted and lived.

While the Filioque was not expressly mentioned, it is clearly a difference of historically noted consequence that undeniably exists between the two forms of the Creed cited. Yet, the Joint Commission concluded that the use of these variant forms in the baptismal rite “does not in itself indicate any divergence about the content of the faith transmitted and lived”.

 

[TEPO]

I have a longer list…

That’s wonderful. Maybe you could share at least one aspect of something you’ve heard about what the Orthodox may have indicated in regards to what is good about Catholicism.

 

[jwinch2]

I have a longer list of conflicts between the Sacramental Theology of East and West. And to think I haven’t delved deep enough into it.

A while back you had a thread where you were struggling with the idea of remaining Catholic versus becoming Orthodox. Frankly, if you truly believe what you have written then you must have made your decision. Please understand, I am not trying to judge you as you must go where you believe God is leading you. But the fact remains that I don’t see how one can be Catholic and not accept the sacramental theology of the Pope as valid.

Regardless, despite the differences that you see, we still have communion between Eastern and Western Catholics and as I noted before, the world has not yet come crashing down.

The Eastern Catholic approach certainly is no precedent for the Orthodox.

We’ll have to agree to disagree I guess. Many seem to think that is can help to pave the way for stronger ties going forward. Some have made similar statements about the Western Rite Orthodox in that perhaps Orthodox Christians who see their faith expressed in Western terms can begin to be less suspicious of Western Christianity and more understanding of our Tradition.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Eastern Catholic approach certainly is no precedent for the Orthodox.

We’ll have to agree to disagree I guess. Many seem to think that is can help to pave the way for stronger ties going forward.

In fairness, it is both a help and a hinderance. Take the Unions of Brest and Uzhgorod, for example. While on the surface they may have seemed to guarantee a certain existence of largely autonomous Churches in union with Rome, the modern reality is quite different. The Orthodox are quite keenly aware of this, and it presents a more or less permanent cautionary note in the dialogue between the Churches.

Yet, the specific example that generated this sidebar topic is sort of non sequitur, as divergence of accepted practice already exists in the Catholic Church.

 

[jwinch2]

In fairness, it is both a help and a hinderance. Take the Unions of Brest and Uzhgorod, for example. While on the surface they may have seemed to guarantee a certain existence of largely autonomous Churches in union with Rome, the modern reality is quite different. The Orthodox are quite keenly aware of this, and it presents a more or less permanent cautionary note in the dialogue between the Churches.

Yet, the specific example that generated this sidebar topic is sort of non sequitur, as divergence of accepted practice already exists in the Catholic Church.

If I am understanding you accurately, there are political and human realities which have made the relationship between East and West difficult in the Catholic Church. That is not surprising. The Church is Holy, we aren’t.

Yet as you note, even with those difficulties, we do manage have to have communion. I can go to an Eastern Catholic parish and receive the sacraments validly and licitly and you can go to a Roman Catholic parish and do the same. God’s reality trumps ours.

+Pax

 

[ByzCathCantor]

If I am understanding you accurately, there are political and human realities which have made the relationship between East and West difficult in the Catholic Church. That is not surprising. The Church is Holy, we aren’t.

Yet as you note, even with those difficulties, we do manage have to have communion. I can go to an Eastern Catholic parish and receive the sacraments validly and licitly and you can go to a Roman Catholic parish and do the same. God’s reality trumps ours.

Yes, indeed, and those realities have direct implications for the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

Peace be with you!

 

[jwinch2]

Yes, indeed, and those realities have direct implications for the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

Well, I guess the good news is that models work in more than one way. They can show the process which has already been taken, but they can also show the potential pitfalls of a given process so that they next time things can go more smoothly.

Peace be with you!

Peace,

 

[TEPO]

Well, I guess the good news is that models work in more than one way. They can show the process which has already been taken, but they can also show the potential pitfalls of a given process so that they next time things can go more smoothly.

I don’t know how you were able to squeeze that bit of information out of that highly in-depth and detailed conversation (which was way over my head), but I do thank you for the translation.

 

[TEPO]

Time to study up on the history of the Eastern Catholic Churches… Which is surely going to take a while, especially for me because unfortunately I’m way behind.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Time for me to study up on the history of the Eastern Catholic Churches… Which is surely going to take a while, especially for me because unfortunately I’m way behind.

Best way is to attend the services.

Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Church (San Diego, CA)

A beautiful church and parish family.

 

[TEPO]

Best way is to attend the services.

Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Church (San Diego, CA)

A beautiful church and parish family.

I’m for sure going to.

 

[ConstantineTG]

A while back you had a thread where you were struggling with the idea of remaining Catholic versus becoming Orthodox. Frankly, if you truly believe what you have written then you must have made your decision. Please understand, I am not trying to judge you as you must go where you believe God is leading you. But the fact remains that I don’t see how one can be Catholic and not accept the sacramental theology of the Pope as valid.

Regardless, despite the differences that you see, we still have communion between Eastern and Western Catholics and as I noted before, the world has not yet come crashing down. We’ll have to agree to disagree I guess. Many seem to think that is can help to pave the way for stronger ties going forward. Some have made similar statements about the Western Rite Orthodox in that perhaps Orthodox Christians who see their faith expressed in Western terms can begin to be less suspicious of Western Christianity and more understanding of our Tradition.

If I will become Orthodox, I need to be fully informed, right? That is why I am trying to learn as much as I can. I haven’t made any choice, but in my studies I have found that the gap is wider than we would admit. I just cannot get it in my mind how one would fit into the other. Like I said, they are not only different, they are polar opposites. If the solution is as simple as, “the Eastern Catholic have made it work, surely the Orthodox will accept the same things the ECs did,” then we wouldn’t have a schism today. Fact is, the ECs accepted the Papacy and everything that went along with it. The Orthodox will not accept the Papacy as defined in the Second Millennium, nor will agree to anything without the revocation of Pastor Aeternus. So it is not a fair comparison between the ECs and the EOs.

I have never claimed the Pope’s Sacramental Theology as invalid. Can you point me to where I said that in this thread? All I am saying is that the beliefs are incompatible, one does not fit with the other. I myself have not made a decision whether I personally will view one as invalid. I am just saying that the very fundamental understanding of almost everything about the faith is different. Let me put it this way, the EO and OO have more things in common than the EO and RC. And yet the EO and OO still haven’t achieved full communion. So don’t hold your breath for the EO and RC.