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

[Peter_J]

In fairness, it is both a help and a hinderance. Take the Unions of Brest and Uzhgorod, for example.

At the risk of offending the hardcore JPII-fans, I’m not 100% convinced of that. I mean, I can actually see how some people regard Brest and Uzhgorod as a hindrance only, and not a help.

Imagine if you will, Jimmy Jones has a treasure, but then his brother Johnny sneaks into his room and takes it. So we could say “That was wrong of him to do, but the good that came out of it is that, thanks to Johnny, the Jones family has the treasure” right? The problem with that thinking, of course, is that the Jones family had the treasure to begin with.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

+1

 

[TEPO]

Marriage is honorable among all, and the marriage bed is undefiled. (Hebrews 13:4)

(Sorry for the yelling font, but I think it is important.)

But then Jesus never married, and Gods not married, and in heaven we won’t be married. Sorry, I just don’t see this as being something so important that it’s worth blocking the Church from unity. Just my opinion of course.

In the case of the Catholic Church though, I believe celibacy among the priesthood is tradition with a lower case “t”. But still -I like it…

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

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.

Though we often disagree, I thank you for being one of the more sensible voices in Eastern Orthodoxy, and for educating us on matters Eastern Orthodox.

Though brother ByzCathCantor might not think our discussion is on-topic, I think you have adhered well to his request to just stick to the FACTS.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Though brother ByzCathCantor might not think our discussion is on-topic, I think you have adhered well to his request to just stick to the FACTS.

We’re making progress!

I always enjoy reading what you both have to say. Thanks for posting to this thread!

 

[jwinch2]

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 didn’t expect that the EC and EO would make a perfect comparison. My point is simply that the two views on sacramental theology are capable of existing between Churches which share communion with each other. You claimed they were not. Yet, they already do. As for the rest, I would not expect that the Orthodox would accept everything that the Eastern Catholics did. I would expect that there would need to be honest give and take on both sides of the discussion for any restoration of communion to take place.

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.

Unless you can explain how two things which are both valid cannot coexist in the Church, it seems to me that you must by definition be calling into question the validity of one of them. Since you are currently an Eastern Catholic, I assume you have no problem with the Eastern Tradition on Sacramental Theology. Therefore, if you have a concern, it is on the Western side of the equation. Perhaps there is something here I am not seeing but if you accept the validity of both, then they should be able to coexist. If they cannot coexist, there must a concern with the validity of one versus the other.

Within the Roman Church we see an example of the Jesuits and the Dominicans having significantly differing theological explanations of grace. However, the two do exist side by side and again as we see in the differences between Eastern and Western Catholics, the world has not come crashing down around us. Yet for some reason, you do not feel that the Eastern and Western Traditions on Sacramental Theology can exist side by side in the same Church. If they are both valid, then they should be able to. If not, then in my humble opinion, you have already made your decision. Again, perhaps there is something that I am not seeing here.

 

[Contarini]

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.

Well, that’s a vague claim and hard to substantiate. Since we’re both going on personal experience, the argument is probably incapable of resolution.

Here’s possibly a different way of coming at the matter, which may explain our different perceptions:

Catholics tend to minimize the differences between themselves and the Orthodox; the Orthodox tend to maximize them.

The Orthodox, then “respect” Catholicism as a coherent system which they see as fundamentally alien from Orthodoxy. Catholics tend to see the Orthodox–or rather, Eastern Christians in general–as the “second lung” which is needed for Catholicism to function with full effectiveness. I think the best example of a thoughtful Latin approach to Catholicism is this essay by Fr. Aidan Nichols.

I suppose I can see how, from your perspective, Fr. Nichols is “lacking in respect,” given his closing remarks about why the Orthodox need Catholicism. But given his high praise earlier, that strikes me as unfair.

Perhaps you can tell me whether this is, in your view, an example of a Catholic professing a high regard for Orthodoxy but actually showing a lack of respect.

I myself see almost no similarities between Fr. Nichols’ approach and that of johnnykins.

A better example of an RC approach that is somewhat similar to that of the more truculent posters on this forum would be Fr. Ray Ryland. But which of the two is more representative of Catholic thought as a whole? Clearly Fr. Nichols.

Edwin

 

[mardukm]

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?

I don’t know. I don’t see any place in Canon Law that says they are REQUIRED to do it. Can you please point it out?

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.

Eastern Orthodox do that too:
world.greekreporter.com/2012/06/02/after-hours-private-masses-are-held-by-clergy-at-holy-sepulcher-in-jerusalem/

This website of the Western (Eastern) Orthodox also recognizes the propriety of doing private masses in extenuating circumstnaces (i.e., without a congregation):
allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/DomAugustineCustomary.pdf

The fact is, private Masses were done in the West since the 7th century, when East and West were still united. No one said anything back then. Western Orthodox obviously recognize that it is a legitimate expression of the same Faith. I think perhaps you are simply reading polemical non-Catholic works that tend to highlight differences, imposing dogmatic importance on legitimate distinctions among the Traditions.

I think perhaps you are also over-generalizing the EO sources you are reading, thinking that your sources represent the entirety of the Eastern Orthodox world, both historically and in modern times. I took note that in our discussions on the Immaculate Conception in the past, you seemed rather unaware that a few centuries even before the proclamation of the Dogma, belief in the Immaculate Conception was rather strong in the Ukranian Tradition of the Orthodox Church - the Tradition of the specific Church to which YOU belong.

I would just ask that you be more cautious and discerning about what you read from your non-Catholic sources (especially when it tries to represent Catholicism, particularly Latin Catholicism).

Btw, you are wrong on the requirement for daily Mass. The old Catholic Encyclopedia in its article on “Liturgy of the Mass” flatly states: “There is still no obligation for a priest to celebrate daily, though the custom is now very common. The Council of Trent desired that priests should celebrate at least on Sundays and solemn feasts (Sess. XXIII, cap. xiv). Celebration with no assistants at all (missa solitaria) has continually been forbidden, as by the Synod of Mainz in 813.”

If the Tridentine rules on the Liturgy held sway until Vatican 2, and Vatican 2 did not make it a requirement, from where did you get your information? Your source is perhaps anecdotal, or perhaps even non-Catholic. If the latter, again, I would advise you to be more discerning in your reading.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

I didn’t expect that the EC and EO would make a perfect comparison. My point is simply that the two views on sacramental theology are capable of existing between Churches which share communion with each other. You claimed they were not. ** Yet, they already do. **

Do you have a particular example in mind?

 

[jwinch2]

Well I don’t see the sad part of this.

I believe the central issue is that the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church is that of priestly celibacy while that of the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Church is not. Both are valid Traditions which go back to the time of the Church Fathers. As such, it is wrong, and sad, for Rome to force Eastern Catholics to adopt a discipline which is contrary to their own valid and august Tradition. It is also wrong for Roman Catholics to criticize that Tradition, whether we are talking about Eastern Catholics, those who have come into the Anglican Ordinariate, or the Orthodox Church. However, it is equally wrong for the Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, etc. to criticize a Tradition in the Roman Church which goes back to centuries prior to the schism. Our Tradition in this matter is every bit as valid and august as the Eastern one and this should be respected.

Any discussion on these type of issues is going to be problematic as long as one side of the situation comes into it with a sense of skepticism and expectation that the other is wrong and needs to be corrected. If Catholics can look at the Orthodox Church with a goal of learning something and a position of respect for the Traditions they hold, and the Orthodox Church can look to the Catholic Church with the same, then things have a chance of progressing. However, if one side or the other continues to come into the discussion with an assumption of inferiority for the Sacred Traditions of the other, then we are dead in the water.

 

[jwinch2]

Do you have a particular example in mind?

The context of this discussion goes back to much earlier in the thread on the fact that Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics have differing views on Sacramental Theology yet still manage to share communion without seeing the world come crashing down around us.

I hope that helps.

Peace of Christ,

Jason

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Celebration with no assistants at all (missa solitaria) has continually been forbidden, as by the Synod of Mainz in 813

."

Could this perhaps be what we are really talking about here, vs. private masses (celebrated for private intentions)?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Does the assistant do the responses for the congregation?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know. I don’t see any place in Canon Law that says they are REQUIRED to do it. Can you please point it out?

Canon Law is not the be-all, end-all of the Catholic Faith. There are many things Catholics do that are not in Canon Law.

Eastern Orthodox do that too:
world.greekreporter.com/2012/06/02/after-hours-private-masses-are-held-by-clergy-at-holy-sepulcher-in-jerusalem/

You do realize that when I say private Mass, I mean the priest is alone, right? Did you read the article?

“It’s amazing to feel the liturgy with no people, only the monks,”

There isn’t one priest only, there were monkS

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Could this perhaps be what we are really talking about here, vs. private masses (celebrated for private intentions)?

You do realize that when I say private Mass, I mean the priest is alone, right?

I thought there might be a misread on terminology here …

 

[dzheremi]

But then Jesus never married, and Gods not married, and in heaven we won’t be married.

Yes, and many saints did not marry, either. And many did. We’re not talking about personal choice here. We’re talking about whether or not there’s anything wrong with having married priests. I do not believe there is. The Latin Church believes differently, and have for a long time. So be it, but in the context in which it was brought up (Latins forcing their own particular disciplines on their Eastern compatriots), I have to stick up for the equally apostolic tradition of married clergy that exists in the East.

Sorry, I just don’t see this as being something so important that it’s worth blocking the Church from unity. Just my opinion of course.

I absolutely agree.

In the case of the Catholic Church though, I believe celibacy among the priesthood is tradition with a lower case “t”. But still -I like it…

Good.

 

[mardukm]

The priest’s function is to offer a Sacrifice in behalf of the people, as it was in the Old Testament.

Same in the Latin Catholic Church. Perhaps it is expressed differently liturgically, but this theological reality is there, and it is purely polemic to claim it is not.

The Sacrifice is from the people, not the priest.

Same in the Latin Catholic Church. That is why laity bring up the gifts to the altar. It is a sign of the sacrifice from the people.

Therefore those who offer the Sacrifice must be present.

I have heard that in the Latin theology, the priest represents not only Christ, but the people as well. So the people are present in the priest (as well as the necessary altar server, btw). So the theology is there, but the expression is simply different.

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.

Why is the Preparation of the GIfts private?

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.

How long were you a Latin Catholic, and you did not know you were expected to participate in your heart and mind and soul fully in the Mass - not just “shut up and watch.” I am not Latin Catholic nor was I raised Latin Catholic, but now I go to Latin Catholic Masses here in the Philippines, and I have ALWAYS been told by priests who I have asked that we are expected to have our heart, mind and soul totally focused on the Eucharist during the Mass. Really, that’s not participation? It is obviously expressed in a different way in the Latin Catholic Church, but to think that there is no participation by laity in the anaphora is very mistaken. I was told by two different Latin Catholic priests on two different occasions that when the consecration occurs, those who are present must be in direct eye contact with the altar as a sign of one’s participation in the Sacrifice (the objection to “private mass” is met by the theology that the priest represents the people).

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.

You should know that the action of the Latins to bow and kneel at the consecration is exactly identical in purpose to the Amen of the Greeks after the epiclesis. The Latin ACTION (if not in word) demonstrates the attitude that “this is the will of the Lord.”

So tell me now, how is that compatible with one another?

So basically, the theological foundations are still very similar - if not the same - and the main objection is the level and manner of expression of the participation of the liaty? So Is that it? That really makes us “worlds apart?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Canon Law is not the be-all, end-all of the Catholic Faith. There are many things Catholics do that are not in Canon Law.

Just because they do it does not mean it is REQUIRED. So your point was still – well – wrong.

You do realize that when I say private Mass, I mean the priest is alone, right? Did you read the article?

“It’s amazing to feel the liturgy with no people, only the monks,”

There isn’t one priest only, there were monkS

Strange. You made a big deal about the participation of the laity in the Mass (to which I just responded), you made a big deal about the GIRM making provision for “private Masses” (which indeed is a provision for the Missa Privata and not the Missa Solitaria), and NOW you claim you have been talking about the MIssa Solitaria all along? Veeeeery strange.

In any case, if you are NOW claiming you were referring to the Missa Solitaria when you used the phrase “private masses,” then you should admit that you were greatly mistaken when you claimed that private masses are normative in the Latin Church.

In any case, the notion that the priest can also represent the people during Mass confounds any claim that the theological foundations of the Latin Catholic Missa Privata or Missa Solitaria is “worlds apart” from the EO concepts.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Does the assistant do the responses for the congregation?

I read in an article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia (though for the life of me I can’t remember each one as I searched and read so many articles during my investigation of this topic) that one of the main purposes of requiring at least one altar server is to maintain the intergrity of the Liturgical words during the responses (where the plural is used). So the answer to your question would be “yes.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

In any case, the notion that the priest can also represent the people during Mass confounds any claim that the theological foundations of the Latin Catholic Missa Privata or Missa Solitaria is “worlds apart” from the EO concepts.

Btw, brother ConstantineTG, though you probabaly have not been to a Latin Mass in a while, perhaps you remember that during the LIturgy of the Eucharist, the personal plural first and third person pronouns are used during the Prayers (“We celebrate…”; “We offer you…”; etc.). So do not be so quick to believe your non-Catholic sources when they say that the theological foundations of the Latin Catholic Mass is “far apart” from those of the EO. The priest is required to do this even during a Missa Privata (though in a Missa Privata there are other liturgical actions and words that are done to reflect that the priest is physically by himself). The priest represents the people during the Mass. The people are considered to be present through the priest.

Blessings,
Marduk