Vatican II and Reconciliation with the Orthodox

[RomanRevert]

Having read several of the threads regarding the Orthodox view of the Roman Catholic Church, I wondered how relations between our Churches were before and after Vatican II with the changes in the Mass, etc. My opinion on this particular issue is that Vatican II was a tremendous step backwards in the goal of reunification because of the loss of much of the sacredness and mystery of the Mass and the introduction to much of the new thinking that is going on in the Church. Granted, on paper, the creeds and dogmas of the Church have not changed, but I fear that in practice, they have. That being said, how interesting it is that the fruits of the Council were a blow to one of its main objectives, ecumenism. This is a shame considering we are so close in belief to the Orthodox - and it should be they with whom we earnestly seek to reunify - and yet, we seem more intent on the protestants who increasingly have little if any common ground with us. I would be particularly interested in hearing from our Orthodox brothers on this issue.

Thank you.

 

[dbacks5439]

Heracleides of the Eastern Christianity forum addressed this and I wholeheartedly agree. He says that the Catholic Church should get our house together and then talks can continue. Think about it, would you invite the President to come over to your house when it is messy? Absolutely not. However, one should not discredit the Eastern Catholic churches, such as the Byzantine Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Heracleides of the Eastern Christianity forum addressed this and I wholeheartedly agree. He says that the Catholic Church should get our house together and then talks can continue. Think about it, would you invite the President to come over to your house when it is messy? Absolutely not. However, one should not discredit the Eastern Catholic churches, such as the Byzantine Church.

I actually glad to see that the unamous opinion on another thread was in favor of the Tridentine Mass in English (or whatever) than the NO in Latin.

 

[jco2004]

Having read several of the threads regarding the Orthodox view of the Roman Catholic Church, I wondered how relations between our Churches were before and after Vatican II with the changes in the Mass, etc. My opinion on this particular issue is that Vatican II was a tremendous step backwards in the goal of reunification because of the loss of much of the sacredness and mystery of the Mass and the introduction to much of the new thinking that is going on in the Church. Granted, on paper, the creeds and dogmas of the Church have not changed, but I fear that in practice, they have. That being said, how interesting it is that the fruits of the Council were a blow to one of its main objectives, ecumenism. This is a shame considering we are so close in belief to the Orthodox - and it should be they with whom we earnestly seek to reunify - and yet, we seem more intent on the protestants who increasingly have little if any common ground with us. I would be particularly interested in hearing from our Orthodox brothers on this issue.
Thank you.

Well, as a Catholic inquirer into Orthodoxy, I completely disagree. Before Vatican II, the anathemas of 1054 were in place, Catholic ecclesiology was virtually devoid of any notion of collegiality of bishops with the pope (Leo XIII’ Satis Cogitum defined “communion” of bishops with the pope as simply “obedience” by bishops of the pope), the normative mass (the Tridentine) contained no epiclesis of the Holy Spirit (as, of course, it still doesn’t), and Vatican statements on Orthodoxy were of the tone of Pius XI’s “come home you sons of Photius”. Most Orthodox theologians have noted with approval the more patristic ecclesiology and pneumatology of such Vatican II- influencing RC theologians as Yves Congar, and indeed the 1992 Catechism.
I think that a lot of Orthodox who are enamored with pre-Vatican II Catholicism have not thought the matter through. Joe