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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ByzCathCantor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dzheremi said:
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.
Click to expand...
evasion…
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.
Click to expand...
diversion
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.
Click to expand...
Still no answer…I’m stunned the O posters are ashamed of their faith to evade such a simple request.
 
johnnykins said:
Quite a bit as it turns out…and you?
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? 😃

to get from A to B was a leap…
see above
“exegesis??” my how succinct you are…I completely missed the exegesis :rolleyes: 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…

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.
Click to expand...
I have no time for people who cannot remain on topic (that is, the Relatio), but ramble on to their heart’s content like incoherent men, who are impressed by their own mastery of logical fallacies. Consider this the end of our interaction here.
 
Cavaradossi said:
I have no time for people who cannot remain on topic (that is, the Relatio), but ramble on to their heart’s content like madmen. Consider this the end of our interaction here.
Click to expand...
Never thought you’d man up and actually post a response to the request…
 
ConstantineTG said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, priests are not “required” to offer Mass daily. That’s a common misconception. Most priests choose to do so if they can, but there is no penalty, legal or otherwise, if they do not.

As for the GIRM, yes, even the Novus Ordo has “Mass without a congregation” but the presumption is that there is at least one server. The same as it was/is in the Usus Antiquior. It is (and ever was) very rare for a priest to offer Mass without even one server.
 
ConstantineTG said:
What do you mean? That Eastern Rite Catholic priests do private Liturgies?
Click to expand...
I believe what is being suggested is that the two Traditions, one being the celebration of private Mass and the second being the requirement for someone else to be present, are capable of coexisting within the Catholic Church without the world crashing down around us in the process.
 
dzheremi said:
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?
Click to expand...
:hmmm: I wonder if “appetizing” includes mloukhia? :bigyikes:

Sorry, but I just couldn’t resist injecting a note of levity here. Seems to me this thread desperately needs it. 😃
 
johnnykins said:
Never thought you’d man up and actually post a response to the request…
Click to expand...
Fine, I’ll answer your off topic question, not for your sake (for you seem to indicate that you already know the answer) but for the sake of those who are reading and who might become confused by your clever and beguiling questions. There are differing opinions on sacramental economy. The Nicodemean theory involves thinking of sacraments performed outside of the Church as being empty forms, which are filled with grace by the Church. The Russians do not typically hold to the Nicodemean theory, understanding those who are received by economy to be as sinners within the Church who are allowed to remain, even though the canons call for them to be cut off entirely (that is, the Church uses her power to bind and loose to consider schismatics as not being foreign to the Church, for the sadler of the economy of salvation). In the end, the underlying theory is unimportant, however, since the rule of faith and practice always trumps theoretical understandings (this is part of St. Basil’s understanding of the relation of tradition to theory and theology). Now quit worrying about whether we think your bread becomes the bread of life, and let’s talk about that Relatio, or end our correspondence.
 
dzheremi said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dear brother, I am glad you made this statement. Sometimes we Catholics tend to forget (or fail to appreciate) that the Orthodox tend to focus on their own spiritual concerns in their own context, and more specifically on what is “knowable”. I have heard this expression many times from Orthodox clergy when commenting on Catholic-Orthodox differences.

That statement can be take two ways. First, it can simply mean that it was never given serious consideration, because the Orthodox would not ordinarily consider communing at a Catholic Mass, and thus have not given the question serious consideration. The less irenic interpretation is that the Orthodox would never care to commune at a Catholic Mass.

However, I have always taken this statement to be reflective of the Orthodox spiritual mindset, meaning that the Orthodox focus first and foremost on their own spirituality and on the preservation and sanctity of the True Faith.
 
jwinch2 said:
I believe what is being suggested is that the two Traditions, one being the celebration of private Mass and the second being the requirement for someone else to be present, are capable of coexisting within the Catholic Church without the world crashing down around us in the process.
Click to expand...
Spot on! 👍
 
Peter_J said:
IIRC, it was a requirement once, but not since Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Not without a server it wasn’t. 🙂

I suppose I should add here that many priests did the “side altar Mass” to help satisfy the number of intentions. But in any case, at least one server was always presumed.
 
jwinch2 said:
I believe what is being suggested is that the two Traditions, one being the celebration of private Mass and the second being the requirement for someone else to be present, are capable of coexisting within the Catholic Church without the world crashing down around us in the process.
Click to expand...
Then the point has been missed. The reason for disallowing “private” Liturgies in the East is not a matter of discipline. It is not just because the Eastern bishops feel like it. The entire Eucharistic theology revolves around it as well as the Sacramental theology on the priesthood. In the Catholic Church we believe that if the priest is validly ordained, says the words correctly, uses the correct ingredients of bread and wine, and intends to do what the Church intends with the Eucharist, then there is the Eucharist. The East, it is a different thing. There is no “minister of Sacrament”. The priest’s function is to offer a Sacrifice in behalf of the people, as it was in the Old Testament. The Sacrifice is from the people, not the priest. Therefore those who offer the Sacrifice must be present. Also the turning of the bread and wine into the Eucharist is not some power granted to the priest, it is the congregation coming together that calls on Christ to be present in the Eucharist. The priest has a special function in this gathering, but everyone in the gathering makes this happen. That is why the Anaphora of the Divine Liturgy has a dialogue between priest and people and not merely just the priest and everyone else shut up and watch. When the priest says the words of institution, we respond “Amen.” At the Epiclesis someone has to say the Amens, some leave it for the Deacon (who leads the public prayers) while others have the congregation say the Amens. And the belief is that without this affirmation from the congregation, there is no Sacrament.

So tell me now, how is that compatible with one another?
 
malphono said:
Not without a server it wasn’t. 🙂
Click to expand...
I suppose I should add here that many priests did the “side altar Mass” to help satisfy the number of intentions. But in any case, at least one server was always presumed.
 
malphono said:
I suppose I should add here that many priests did the “side altar Mass” to help satisfy the number of intentions. But in any case, at least one server was always presumed.
Click to expand...
Presumed, but in reality was it followed?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Presumed, but in reality was it followed?
Click to expand...
Yes, as much then as now. Perhaps more so. School boys were often excused from class to serve. Since there are few, if any, such schools left, I’d think it’s less now than it was then.
 
ConstantineTG said:
So tell me now, how is that compatible with one another?
Click to expand...
No, the point has not been missed. I am fully aware of the differences in theology. In addition, I did not say it was a matter of discipline, I said it was a matter of Tradition, with a capital T. My point was, what was being suggested earlier by another poster is that the two can coexist. That is not the same as saying they are compatible, which I do not believe that is what the other poster meant to suggest.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the two cannot coexist side by side with one another. And yet, they already do in the Catholic Church.
 
jwinch2 said:
No, the point has not been missed. I am fully aware of the differences in theology. In addition, I did not say it was a matter of discipline, I said it was a matter of Tradition, with a capital T. My point was, what was being suggested earlier by another poster is that the two can coexist. That is not the same as saying they are compatible, which I do not believe that is what the other poster meant to suggest.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the two cannot coexist side by side with one another. And yet, they already do in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
How can it coexist when one believes what the other is doing is heretical? It coexists today because the ECs accepted what the RCs are doing. But are the EOs going to accept that? Likely not. If one side is saying, “if there is no congregation there is no Sacrament” and the other is saying, “priest can do it alone”, how can two completely opposite and incompatible beliefs coexist? Our Sacramental theology is not only different, they are completely opposite. They cannot coexist.
 
TEPO said:
Source please.:cool:
Click to expand...
I did my own research. You can read up on Sacramental theology of the Orthodox and compare it with the Catholic Sacramental theology. There is no one book source for this that I have encountered so far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top