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

[ConstantineTG]

The more I learn about Orthodox theology, the farther apart I realize we are. We think that the Papacy is the only roadblock but it isn’t. It is the biggest, but not the only one. If we get past this Jupiter-sized obstacle, we are still left with other obstacles the size of Saturn, Neptune and Uranus. Anyone who says we’re close need to read more on the matter from both sides. Those who are saying we are making progress, well, if we have a billion mile journey and we take one step, that is progress. Doesn’t mean we’re close to the destination. We’re closer, relatively speaking, but we’re still a very long ways off. That is just the fact of the matter. There is so many things to discuss. It is easier for an Evangelical to reuinte with the Catholic Church than an Orthodox Church. As mentioned earlier, we have grown ontologically different. We are hardly the same faith anymore.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

ByzCathCantor, just go ahead and post an even bigger picture of derailment. Apologies for adding to the “fury,” but I had to defend our Orthodox brethren, in this instance.

No use. This has degenerated, as might be expected, into another steel cage match between Catholic and Orthodox, with an occasional moment of hope.

That said, this sub-forum has been a bit dead of late, and its good that we are at least shooting at each other once again.

Vico came closest to adding something relating to the OP, as did Gary with his reference to the news of a possible summit in Finland between the Pope and Patriarch Kirill.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders

As noted above, there is no universal stance on this issue.

I must admit that I was disappointed to read this, especially as it started out to be Q&A regarding Holy Orders. I know many of the OCA faithful and some clergy, and I do not believe this piece faithfully expresses their views on the whole. Yet, it appears on their official website …

 

[mardukm]

I provided an exegesis of the Relatio you posted. So far, absolutely none of this senseless and polemical nonsense which you have posted deals with that exegesis.

I will address your exegesis by this weekend. I think your opinion is worth considering. I actually used to hold that exact same understanding myself (“implied consent” theory).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ByzCathCantor]

And what does it matter WHAT the majority opinion is of Latin Catholics…My guess is that the majority of Catholics are only barely aware (if at all) of these efforts, and have given the matter no particular thought or study…

I still hold out some hope here for this thread.

If we can put the rocks down for a bit and start sharing some honest facts (even if they are not directly related to the OP at this point), a lot of what has been postulated or pulled from the rumor mill can be cleared up.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I still hold out some hope here for this thread.

If we can put the rocks down for a bit and start sharing some honest facts (even if they are not directly related to the OP at this point), a lot of what has been postulated or pulled from the rumor mill can be cleared up.

The honest fact is we are so far apart. It is not about ripping one another, it is just being honest as to where we are.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Considering it is the Orthodox who reject the Baptism of Catholics …

I don’t recall George Costanza being rebaptized when he converted to Latvian Orthodoxy

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The honest fact is we are so far apart. It is not about ripping one another, it is just being honest as to where we are.

Yes, there is honesty in saying that we have a long way to go, as we do, but we can be much more honest about exactly where we stand.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The honest fact is we are so far apart. It is not about ripping one another, it is just being honest as to where we are.

Yes, there is honesty in saying that we have a long way to go, as we do, but we can be much more honest about exactly where we stand.

By way of example, cross beliefs about the validity of the Eucharist has been raised here.

Is the Catholic position perfectly clear on the validity of the Holy Eucharist in Orthodoxy? How so?

Likewise, is there any real clarity on the Orthodox position? And do we really think they believe the Catholic Eucharist is symbolic only?

BTW - an intellectually honest approach considers that the answers are not as obvious as some might claim.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, there is honesty in saying that we have a long way to go, as we do, but we can be much more honest about exactly where we stand.

Where we stand is so far apart. For example, how do you reconcile the fact that the Orthodox do not believe that the Liturgy cannot be celebrated by the priest alone and the RCs advocate private Masses?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Where we stand is so far apart. For example, how do you reconcile the fact that the Orthodox do not believe that the Liturgy cannot be celebrated by the priest alone and the RCs advocate private Masses?

Regarding your example, doesn’t that quandary already exist within the Catholic Communion?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I will address your exegesis by this weekend. I think your opinion is worth considering. I actually used to hold that exact same understanding myself (“implied consent” theory).

Blessings,
Marduk

Looking forward to it.

 

[Nine_Two]

How does one know this??? I am truly curious…

It is anecdotal of course.

And what does it matter WHAT the majority opinion is of Latin Catholics…My guess is that the majority of Catholics are only barely aware (if at all) of these efforts, and have given the matter no particular thought or study…

Because I don’t want to be in Communion with those who don’t respect my faith.
[qoute]
The bottom line in all of this is that it is not up to us - laymen - either Catholic or Orthodox to make any “definitive” statements. It is up to us to trust the leaders of our respective Churches and those people directly assigned to these matters. The Holy Spirit will Guide them and resolution of the various issues will take place in God’s time, not ours. It is up to us to act in a civilized way with each other and not lord our Church over the others.

The very best thing that we can do as laymen is to embrace each other as being sincere followers of Christ and pray that our leadership will eventually be able to work though all of the various issues.

In the end it will take more than just the leadership agreeing. The laity and the entire episcopacy must follow as well.

 

[mardukm]

Where we stand is so far apart. For example, how do you reconcile the fact that the Orthodox do not believe that the Liturgy cannot be celebrated by the priest alone and the RCs advocate private Masses?

Actually, private masses are not normative at all in the Latin Church, but require at least one altar server. And it can only be done for a good and reasonable cause. In Orthodox terms, it would be regarded as an act of oikonomia. Is there something objectionable about oikonomia being exercised in the Latin Church? What is the justification for your statement that the Latin Church actually “advocates” it.

Orthodox also celebrate Divine Liturgy without a congregation in monastic settings. There is nothing inherently theologically objectionable about private Masses. What is your rationale for saying it is so objectionable that it would merit the statement “it makes us worlds apart.” I hope you can respond.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[johnnykins]

What do you know of sacramental economy? Do you think that Nicodemos’ theory has the final word in Orthodoxy? Have you read any Orthodox theologians on this subject, or are you merely feigning knowledge?

Quite a bit as it turns out…and you?

That is all very incorrect. Surely unless you are completely unfamiliar and ignorant of these issues, you would know that the theory of a need for ‘ex post laity approval’ only appeared in Russia in perhaps the nineteenth century. It is a completely unnecessary theory, and many in Orthodoxy have criticized it. Your argument uses flawed logic, a variant of the false dichotomy. You pretend that by showing receptionism to be untrue, you can prove Florence to be true, but this is a logical fallacy, because there is the possibility that both can be untrue.

Actually it is what happened…unless you prefer to go with the Scholarius sold Christianity down the tubes to the Turks to get named Patriarch theory. I figured you wouldn’t want to go there.
What would I know?

I included a link.

to get from A to B was a leap…

Again, I ask, how much have you read on the topic of sacramental economy? Nicodemos is not the end all be all.

see above

I provided an exegesis of the Relatio you posted. So far, absolutely none of this senseless and polemical nonsense which you have posted deals with that exegesis.

“exegesis??” my how succinct you are…I completely missed the exegesis Fora are such wonderful places to fully explain such things…You made a limited statement…so did I…That’s the nature of these fora. Hardly an exegesis…

If you cannot interact with me as an individual, but instead take out your aggression against the Orthodox in general upon me, then I will have nothing to do with you. If you are unwilling to deal with my exegesis of the Relatio, then at least have the courtesy to cease your misdirecting polemics for the benefit of those of us who are interested in an academic and eirenic discussion.

No aggression…just factual. Answer: do the Monks on Mount Athos hold the sacraments of the Catholics to have Grace or lack Grace? What is your position? All I’m looking for is honesty from you on these postings…not equivocation or rants about “exegesis” after a 10 line response.

I believe it was Harry Truman who said, “I don’t give 'em hell. I just tell the truth and they think it is hell.”

BTW I like the spelling of irenic with the “e”…very nice touch; very continental.

 

[Contarini]

They do, however, seem to represent the majority of Latin Catholics.

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

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually, private masses are not normative at all in the Latin Church, but require at least one altar server. And it can only be done for a good and reasonable cause. In Orthodox terms, it would be regarded as an act of oikonomia. Is there something objectionable about oikonomia being exercised in the Latin Church? What is the justification for your statement that the Latin Church actually “advocates” it.

Orthodox also celebrate Divine Liturgy without a congregation in monastic settings. There is nothing inherently theologically objectionable about private Masses. What is your rationale for saying it is so objectionable that it would merit the statement “it makes us worlds apart.” I hope you can respond.

Blessings,
Marduk

It is normative. All priest are required to say Mass once a day and if they don’t have a congregation, how do you think they do that? In the times when the Tridentine Mass was the only form of Mass, priests regularly say private Masses, even when there is another Mass going on. Even the GIRM has the instructions on how to do Mass without a congregation.

And it doesn’t matter if it happens once a year or everyday. The problem is that it happens. In the Eastern Sacramental theology, there is no Eucharist if there is no congregation. At least with the Orthodox. I do not speak for the non-Chalcedonians, I have not read much about them.

As for monastic settings, no. That is why monks organized themselves into monasteries, so they can have Liturgy with a congregation. Mind you that you only need one person other than the priest. The promise of Christ is “whenever two or three people are gathered.” He never said, “one” though. Even from Scripture we see that Eucharistic celebrations are “gatherings”. There can’t be a gathering of one.

 

[dzheremi]

Why would the Orthodox have any particular opinion regarding whether or not Catholic sacraments “have grace” or not? They’re not receiving them, so it doesn’t matter. What’s next…should we have to provide some sort of definitive statement on whether or not what you had for dinner last night would be appetizing to us? It’s enough that you mind your own church and eat your own food. If you come to our house (~ embrace our faith) then we will worry about your nourishment, because then and only then will we eat at the same table. Outside of that, such speculation is really a waste of time and energy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Regarding your example, doesn’t that quandary already exist within the Catholic Communion?

What do you mean? That Eastern Rite Catholic priests do private Liturgies?

 

[johnnykins]

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

What I believe you are trying to describe is projection. Indeed, most Catholics, anecdotally, seem to have a much more warm and accepting view of the Orthodox than vice versa. Whenever one calls an Orthodox poster here on some weird, extreme or mythic understanding of history - you get called anti-Orthodox…or some such. If a Catholic produces official explanations of Catholic positions and the O posters here don’t like it…they simply say it’s not true or it’s not what they say it means. The O posters will go on at length about the unchanging nature of Orthodoxy and then complain when it is described a ossified or sclerotic - never willing to accept the downside with the up. As you quite perceptively note, “[t]hat doesn’t prove Catholicism is right…” Actually it probably doesn’t prove much of anything at all except that the Orthodox are less inclined to re-union. The reasons could be anything from a minority siege mentality, to ethnic division, to theological divergence, to a pathological historical mythology, to any other number of things.

Catholics, too, have to watch out for these things…Hell, Catholics don’t believe Episcopalians have a valid Eucharist. But, we do believe Episcopalians are Baptized