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

[ConstantineTG]

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

Devotions such as saying the mass everyday is not recorded in Canon Law. The same way Religious Orders will not have their prayer rules in Canon Law.

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.

I made a big deal of a priest doing Mass by himself. I don’t know where you got that unless you are misinterpreting what I have been saying all along of havent’ been following everything I said. I know what I said and what I meant and if you didn’t get it then its not my problem. Just don’t try to twist my words. Perhaps you took one post out of context, it happens all the time. But when I post in a thread I always carry my conversation so the context can span multiple posts.

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

It is worlds apart for a priest to be doing Liturgy by himself.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

Still that belief it totally alien. A Liturgy should be a gathering, not a representation. Not just because the priest, being the priest who offers the sacrifice in behalf of the people, is a representative it does not mean that those who are represented are optional. The priest is a priest, not a lawyer.

 

[mardukm]

Devotions such as saying the mass everyday is not recorded in Canon Law. The same way Religious Orders will not have their prayer rules in Canon Law.

You insisted it was REQUIRED. It is not. You were wrong. Why keep trying to justify yourself?

I made a big deal of a priest doing Mass by himself. I don’t know where you got that unless you are misinterpreting what I have been saying all along of havent’ been following everything I said. I know what I said and what I meant and if you didn’t get it then its not my problem. Just don’t try to twist my words. Perhaps you took one post out of context, it happens all the time. But when I post in a thread I always carry my conversation so the context can span multiple posts.

Starting off by claiming that the Missa Solitaria is normative in the Latin Church kind of makes your statements rather confusing, if not hard to believe. The Missa Solitaria is not normative and never has been in the Latin Church. And you kept insisting that it was. The closest thing that might be considered normative is the Missa Privata, which has no provisions for the priest doing Mass “by himself”(he must do it at least with another person present). And you claimed that the GIRM has provisions for whatever it was you were talking about - but the GIRM has no provision for the Missa Solitaria, only the MIssa Privata. If I misinterpreted your intentions, I apologize, but you have to admit your own rhetoric was rather confused and uninformed.

It is worlds apart for a priest to be doing Liturgy by himself.

The Latin Church has historically opposed the Missa Solitaria, and today only allows it for a valid reason (read as oikonomia). So it is an exception to the rule. An exception to the rule does not invalidate the rule. If you truly understood the principle of oikonomia, you would admit the error of your statement that this distinction makes the EO and the Latin Catholics “worlds apart.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

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.

I think that’s an oversimplification. For example, did Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, and Pope Pius XII “minimize the differences” when they defined their respective dogmas? Granted, the Union of Brest certainly downplayed the differences … but the very notion that the Union of Brest was “necessary” really *maximizes *the differences.

 

[mardukm]

Still that belief it totally alien. A Liturgy should be a gathering, not a representation. Not just because the priest, being the priest who offers the sacrifice in behalf of the people, is a representative it does not mean that those who are represented are optional. The priest is a priest, not a lawyer.

That the priest represents the people before God is not “totally alien” to Orthodox belief but is part of the Orthodox Faith.

Whether the people must be physically present - well, that’s the point at issue. Still, what I stated regarding oikonomia must be considered here.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ByzCathCantor]

the third paragraph under the caption Practical Rules, taken from the Balamand Statement of the Joint Commission (1993)

1. The first step to take is to put an end to everything that can foment division, contempt and hatred between the Churches. For this the authorities of the Catholic Church will assist the Oriental Catholic Churches and their communities so that they themselves may prepare full communion between Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The authorities of the Orthodox Church will act in a similar manner towards their faithful. In this way it will be possible to take care of the extremely complex situation that has been created in Eastern Europe, at the same time in charity and in justice, both as regards Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[Cavaradossi]

That the priest represents the people before God is not “totally alien” to Orthodox belief but is part of the Orthodox Faith.

Whether the people must be physically present - well, that’s the point at issue. Still, what I stated regarding oikonomia must be considered here.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t really know about this, to be honest. The people are typically said to be represented by the chanter, not the priest. I’m not sure if any bishops today would be comfortable allowing for a priest to say a liturgy while completely alone out of economy, just as I don’t think any bishops would allow for a priest to celebrate the liturgy twice in one day or for the liturgy to be celebrated on the same altar twice in one day (this rule is strictly observed at our parish, for example).

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I don’t really know about this, to be honest. The people are typically said to be represented by the chanter, not the priest. I’m not sure if any bishops today would be comfortable allowing for a priest to say a liturgy while completely alone out of economy, just as I don’t think any bishops would allow for a priest to celebrate the liturgy twice in one day or for the liturgy to be celebrated on the same altar twice in one day (this rule is strictly observed at our parish, for example).

The notion of a Divine Liturgy served by priest alone is not consistent with Byzantine praxis. In parishes served by married priests, the presence of the priest’s wife is sufficient. I’ve shared this before in addressing this subject in other threads (goes to your reference to the chanter) - if I show up for a weekday liturgy scheduled for a private intention, in particular, our priest will normally remark that “we have a quorom” (so long as I agree to stay, of course, if no one else shows up ).

 

[Julia_Mae]

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.

Depends what they tell you when you go through RCIA. I had it explained to me, more as it was in earlier history: first among equals. Not Supreme Commander.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Why Sadly? Didn’t our Lord say “others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it” Matt 19:12

Wouldn’t you agree that this refers to priestly celibacy?

I don’t. It refers to people, including women, renouncing marriage as part of a call to holiness. He didn’t say anyone should or must, but noted that it happens.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I don’t. It refers to people, including women, renouncing marriage as part of a call to holiness. He didn’t say anyone should or must, but noted that it happens.

Well put - it refers to the calling to monastic life, men and women alike

 

[Julia_Mae]

But then Jesus never married…

We actually don’t know that. The Church will not say “Jesus never married.” Not today, USCCB had a spokesman talking about it during the whole DaVinci Code hoo-rah.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Canon Law is not the be-all, end-all of the Catholic Faith.

Especially since any Pope can rewrite it at any time any way he wishes.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Depends what they tell you when you go through RCIA. I had it explained to me, more as it was in earlier history: first among equals. Not Supreme Commander.

You do know that Pastor Aeternus clearly states that anyone who says that the Pope is merely First Among Equals is anathemized, right?

 

[Peter_J]

You do know that Pastor Aeternus clearly states that anyone who says that the Pope is merely First Among Equals is anathemized, right?

“the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum”

• Cardinal Newman

 

[ConstantineTG]

“the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum”

• Cardinal Newman

Where is this coming from? I’d like to read the entire text.

 

[Vico]

Not correct - not since the “new” CIC of 1983, and actually, for most, not since shortly after vatican II.

Roman priests are forbidden to say mass without at least one other present except as an economia. (CIC 906)

Now, it was true of the Roman Church for several centuries, but it hasn’t been normative for 30 years.

Even in the 1917 cannon law it was to be assisted by at least one to respond. CIC (1917) Canon 813.

CIC (1983) below:

Can. 904 Remembering always that in the mystery of the eucharistic Sacrifice the work of redemption is continually being carried out, priests are to celebrate frequently. Indeed, daily celebration is earnestly recommended, because, even if it should not be possible to have the faithful present, it is an action of Christ and of the Church in which priests fulfil their principal role.

Can. 906 A priest may not celebrate the eucharistic Sacrifice without the participation of at least one of the faithful, unless there is a good and reasonable cause for doing so.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Even in the 1917 cannon law it was to be assisted by at least one to respond. CIC (1917) Canon 813.

But does the Church deny the validity of such Mass? See, there is a difference between, “no you cannot do that” and “no that is impossible”. Even the Eucharist outside of a Mass, the Catholic Church does not deny it is possible. Canon Law says one must not, under any circumstance, consecrate outside of a Liturgy. But where does the Church says this is invalid? Per Church teaching as long as a priest says the words of institution on bread and wine correctly, and with the intention of the Church, that the Sacrament is valid. But from the Orthodox perspective the Eucharist is inseprable from the Divine Liturgy. You cannot have the Eucharist without at least doing the entire Anaphora and with a gathered people (that is, one person and a priest at least).

 

[Ghosty]

But does the Church deny the validity of such Mass? See, there is a difference between, “no you cannot do that” and “no that is impossible”. Even the Eucharist outside of a Mass, the Catholic Church does not deny it is possible. Canon Law says one must not, under any circumstance, consecrate outside of a Liturgy. But where does the Church says this is invalid? Per Church teaching as long as a priest says the words of institution on bread and wine correctly, and with the intention of the Church, that the Sacrament is valid. But from the Orthodox perspective the Eucharist is inseprable from the Divine Liturgy. You cannot have the Eucharist without at least doing the entire Anaphora and with a gathered people (that is, one person and a priest at least).

The Orthodox Churches don’t say that such Liturgies are invalid either, so far as I kn(w. They’re simply not allowed, and not part of the tradition; there is no rule on validity one way or another. If I may be so bold, you seem to be taking a very legalistic approach to this subject.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

But does the Church deny the validity of such Mass? See, there is a difference between, “no you cannot do that” and “no that is impossible”. Even the Eucharist outside of a Mass, the Catholic Church does not deny it is possible. Canon Law says one must not, under any circumstance, consecrate outside of a Liturgy. But where does the Church says this is invalid?

Canon law, as already quoted, says it is not permitted, so perhaps the Mass would be valid, but not licit.