Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Summorum Pontificum and reunion with the Eastern Orthodox
SummorumPontificum.net ^ | 9/23/09 | Brian Kopp

Posted on 09/23/2009 5:18:33 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Summorum Pontificum and reunion with the Eastern Orthodox

By Brian Kopp

A tantalizing headline is making its rounds in Catholic news circles: Is Catholic-Orthodox Unity in Sight?

In his Inside the Vatican Newsflash Letter #29 today, Dr. Robert Moynihan examines the implications of recent meetings between Rome and a representative of the Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow:

A fourth consideration is the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church to the world's Orthodox Churches.

It became clear last week, during a very cordial visit to Rome by a representative of the Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow, that relations between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, especially Russian Orthodoxy, at least on the surface, are much improved over the past few years.

Here are excerpts from an account of that visit I wrote for the Monday, September 21 edition of the Zenit news agency:
Recent Meeting Could Mark Turning Point

.On September 18, inside Castel Gandolfo, the Pope's summer palace about 30 miles outside Rome, a Russian Orthodox Archbishop named Hilarion Alfeyev (photo), 43 (a scholar, theologian, expert on the liturgy, composer and lover of music), met with Benedict XVI, 82 (also a scholar, theologian, expert on the liturgy and lover of music), for almost two hours, according to informed sources. (There are as yet no "official" sources about this meeting -- the Holy See has still not released an official communiqué.)

The silence suggests that what transpired was important -- perhaps so important that the Holy See thinks it isn't yet prudent to reveal publicly what was discussed.

But there are numerous "signs" that the meeting was remarkably harmonious...

In memory of the visit, Archbishop Hilarion gave the Pope a pectoral cross, made in workshops of Russian Orthodox Church...

It is especially significant, in this context, that Hilarion, Patriarch Kirill's "Foreign Minister," has some of the same deep interests as Benedict XVI: the liturgy, and music.

"As a 15-year-old boy I first entered the sanctuary of the Lord, the Holy of Holies of the Orthodox Church,” Hilarion once wrote about the Orthodox liturgy. “But it was only after my entrance into the altar that the 'theourgia,' the mystery, and 'feast of faith' began, which continues to this very day.

"After my ordination, I saw my destiny and main calling in serving the Divine Liturgy. Indeed, everything else, such as sermons, pastoral care and theological scholarship were centered around the main focal point of my life -- the liturgy."

These words seem to echo the feelings and experiences of Benedict XVI, who has written that the liturgies of Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday in Bavaria when he was a child were formative for his entire being, and that his writing on the liturgy (one of his books is entitled "Feast of Faith") is the most important to him of all his scholarly endeavors.

"Orthodox divine services are a priceless treasure that we must carefully guard," Hilarion has written. "I have had the opportunity to be present at both Protestant and Catholic services, which were, with rare exceptions, quite disappointing… Since the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council, services in some Catholic churches have become little different from Protestant ones."

Again, these words of Hilarion seem to echo Benedict XVI's own concerns. The Pope has made it clear that he wishes to reform the Catholic Church's liturgy, and preserve what was contained in the old liturgy and now risks being lost.

Hilarion has cited the Orthodox St. John of Kronstadt approvingly. St. John of Kronstadt wrote: "The Church and its divine services are an embodiment and realization of everything in Christianity... It is the divine wisdom, accessible to simple, loving hearts."

These words echo words written by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, who often said that the liturgy is a "school" for the simple Christian, imparting the deep truths of the faith even to the unlearned through its prayers, gestures and hymns.

Hilarion in recent years has become known for his musical compositions, especially for Christmas and for Good Friday, celebrating the birth and the Passion of Jesus Christ. These works have been performed in Moscow and in the West, in Rome in March 2007 and in Washington DC in December 2007.

Closer relations between Rome and Moscow, then, could have profound implications also for the cultural and liturgical life of the Church in the West. There could be a renewal of Christian art and culture, as well as of faith...

(Here is a link to the complete article: http://www.zenit.org/article-26932?l=english.)



At a superficial level, there would seem to be no relation between Vatican efforts at fostering closer unity with the Eastern Orthodox, and the subject of the rest of the Inside the Vatican Newsflash Letter #29, i.e., the impending "Perfect Storm" regarding negotiations between the Vatican and the SSPX.

However, this would be an opportune moment to review a column published more than a year ahead of Summorum Pontificum:

June 29, 2006
Archbishop Burke, Bishop Rifan comment: Will classical liturgy aid reunion with Eastern Orthodox?

By Brian Mershon

"Similarly, it must not be forgotten that from the beginning the Churches of the East have had a treasury from which the Western Church has drawn extensively in liturgical practice, spiritual tradition, and law"
Unitatis Redintegratio, November 21, 1964.

Is it truly feasible that the "freeing of the classical Roman rite of liturgy" is a small part of the Pope's overall plan for paving the way for the reuniting of the Latin Church with the separated Churches of the East?

Bishop Fernando Rifan, who heads up the Apostolic Administration of St. John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, said he believed a further liberalization of the liturgical rite of Pope St. Pius V would aid ecumenical relations with the East.

"I really think that the Traditional Latin Mass widely and freely available would be, among many other good reasons, a great benefit in the field of the true ecumenism with the Orthodox," he said. "This would be primarily because the Traditional Liturgy is much more similar to the Oriental [Eastern] rites in the aspect of the sacred, veneration, and beauty."

Bishop Rifan and his priestly society achieved full canonical recognition and regularization with the Church on January 18, 2002.

It is hoped by many traditionalists and the Holy See that the positive example of this group of priests, which offers all the sacraments exclusively according to the ancient rites, will serve as a model for other traditionalist priestly societies such as the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), to potentially reach full regularization with the Church.

Archbishop Raymond Burke, a notably obedient son of the Church, particularly with applying Pope John Paul II's request in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta to be "wide and generous" in allowing the Classical Roman liturgy for those Catholics who desire it, agrees with Bishop Rifan's assessment, but with a nuance.

"I wouldn't think that the Holy Father would be doing this simply as a strategy [for ecumenical relations with the Orthodox], but I do think it will be an effect of a restoration or in the 'reform of the reform' of the liturgy," Archbishop Burke said.

"It seems to me for the Eastern rites, and for those of the Orthodox Churches, the reform of the liturgy after the council and the concrete expression is so stripped of the transcendent, of the sacral elements, it is difficult for them to recognize its relationship with their Eucharistic Liturgies," he said.

Archbishop Burke agreed that the Eastern Churches would most likely identify more readily with the Classical Roman rite of liturgy, and its similarities with their own Divine Liturgies, than the Novus Ordo liturgy.

"It would be easier for them to see the unity, the oneness in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by a rite of the Mass, just limiting ourselves now to talking about the Holy Mass, that it was richer in those dimensions — the elements of the transcendent — the symbols of the transcendent element of Christ — Christ in action in the Mass — the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary," Archbishop Burke said.

Not A Hopeful Indicator

Dr. Alcuin Reid, author of numerous scholarly books on the Sacred Liturgy and its history, is the recent author of Organic Development of the Liturgy, which contains glowing praise in its preface written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. He affirmed that it was his opinion as a liturgical scholar, that the Novus Ordo liturgy, as practiced in the vast majority of Catholic churches, is not a hopeful indicator of eventual reunion with the East.

"I suspect that our current liturgical state does not exactly inspire confidence in them," Dr. Reid said. "The Holy Father is, no doubt, aware of this, and most probably hopes to give a sign that Rome wishes to set her liturgy in order once again, and that indeed Rome respects legitimate traditional liturgical rites."

Fr. Richard Jano is the pastor at Nativity Ukrainian Catholic Church in Springfield, Ore., an Eastern rite Catholic Church in full communion with the Holy See. As an Eastern rite priest, he has occasionally offered the Novus Ordo liturgy for area churches over the past 25 years, and he agrees with Dr. Reid's assessment.

"I think there would be some value in doing this [freeing the Classical Roman rite] as an indication of the respect the Church holds for liturgical worship that comes down to us from ancient times, and emphasizes the awe, reverence, and respectfully loving attitude that a Christian should carry into the Sacred Liturgy," he said.

"It would also illustrate the truth that the Church honors the genuine and authentic diversity of liturgies, not only in the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, but even within the Roman Church itself," Fr. Jano said.

...

Perhaps the better question is: "What is the common basis of doctrinal and moral issues for dialogue with increasingly more estranged, and increasingly less Christian sects with no valid priesthood?"

Pope Benedict XVI, able to tell "the tree by its fruits," clearly recognizes the advantage of having more than 500 priests in the SSPX in full communion. He also recognizes the accelerating number of priestly vocations produced in other traditionalist communities like the FSSP and the ICKSP. The current Pope's brand of "ecumenism" is one of Christian charity and justice, and perhaps recognizing "the signs of the times" called for so often in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath by progressives.

He also understands that a united Church, East and West, may possibly be able to save Christianity in Europe and aid in re-establishing a more Christian worldview.

How does a gesture such as freeing the Classical Roman rite of liturgy fit into prospective ecumenical relations with the Orthodox, which was the primary group emphasized in the Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio?

If the Church has abandoned (or even given the appearance of abandoning in many quarters) its own liturgical patrimony and traditional devotional traditions, how can it hope to achieve any measurable ecumenical gains with the Churches of the East?

...

Cheevers said that Orthodox liturgists have always tended to cringe at the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms of the Latin Church. "Organic development in liturgy is permissible. Radical invention is not."

"The Pauline liturgy implicitly seems to move away from the clear expressions of faith about the sacramental nature of the Divine Liturgy commonly understood in the undivided church of the first millennium."

Cheevers said that a restoration of the Classical Roman rite, or so-called Tridentine rite, in the Catholic Church would probably be helpful to fostering ecumenism with the Orthodox. "It's something that Orthodox can look at and say 'we recognize this.'"

...

One of the recurring themes of Pope Benedict's writings on the recovery of the sacred in the liturgy is the positioning of the priest "toward the East" or "toward God." As an Eastern rite priest who offers all Divine Liturgies toward the East, leading his flock in worship to the heavenly Father, Fr. Jano voiced his impressions on his offering Mass "toward the people" when occasionally offering the Novus Ordo.

"On the few occasions when I have served the Mass in Roman Catholic parishes, I have been very surprised to discover how uncomfortable I am with praying to God while facing the congregation," he said. "Probably the most jarring example for me, to illustrate this point, is when I have seen Roman priests reading a prayer at Mass and gazing intently at the congregation while uttering the prayer. I've never understood this," Fr. Jano said.

"If you have something important to say to your Father, why would you stare at your brother when you're speaking to Him?"

Salutary Effects

Fr. Thomas Kocik of Somerset, Mass., and author of Ignatius Press' Reform of the Reform?, agreed that the reformed Novus Ordo liturgy is not an ecumenical breakthrough with the Orthodox.

"The Orthodox are justly disturbed not only by abuses in the post-Vatican II liturgy, but also by approved practices such as female altar servers, Mass 'facing the people' and Communion in the hand," he said. "Given the East's intense conservatism, I think the freeing of the Tridentine liturgy bodes well ecumenically, because these problematic practices are simply not standard features of the Classical Roman rite."

"The Orthodox may interpret this as evidence of a renewed seriousness in the Roman Church about the ancient maxim, 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' meaning that as we believe so we pray, and vice versa," he said. "Doctrine and worship influence each other."

...

© Brian Mershon


(A counterpoint to the thesis that Summorum Pontificum may have represented, at least in part, an ecumenical gesture towards the Eastern Orthodox can be found in an 11/14/2006 Vivificat blog post, The prospects of the Tridentine Mass in the light of the impending new indult.)

The developments in Vatican relations with both the SSPX and the Eastern Orthodox may best be understood neither through a "Hermeneutic of Continuity" nor a "Hermeneutic of Rupture," but through a Hermeneutic of Fatima:


If you were the pope, in the twilight of your career, a true son of VII, yet you could see the severe problems that have wracked the Church since VII, what would you do? If you had a deep seated fear that the Church would continue its moral decline if nothing is done, what would you do? If you truly believed the actions of the Vatican regarding Fatima were, at the time, honest and forthright, but now you had a real doubt that all was not as it seemed then, what would you do?

You would look at the most important aspects of the Message of Fatima that may not have been addressed, and you would systematically work to undo the damage.

1) Restore the TLM.

2) Propose a reconsideration and reinterpretation of VII.

3) Figure out a way to bring Russia back into the fold.

How?

1) Summorum Pontificum

2) Lift the SSPX excommunications, and task them with addressing the problems of VII. Put them directly in contact with the CDF. Let the tail (the SSPX) wag the dog (CDF.) Then let the CDF wag the Church.

3) Make real moves towards reuniting Eastern Orthodoxy, and use the Grace of that unity to fight the errors of post-Christian western decay.


This may be the interpretive key to truly understanding the "Marshall Plan" of Pope Benedict XVI.



TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Orthodox Christian; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; hilarion; pope; roc; rorc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: kosta50
The Orthodox look at the Catholic liturgy, the pantsuit nuns, the alter girls, the barren Protestant-like churches and say "What?"

I certainly agree that in this present state the Catholic Church is not ready for reunification, precisely for the reasons you outlined.

If the Pope succeeds in regularizing SSPX and restoring proper, distinctly Latin liturgy, then the road will be much clearer. At this point the best anyone can do is to build up mutual good will.

21 posted on 09/25/2009 12:09:21 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: annalex; kosta50

***I certainly agree that in this present state the Catholic Church is not ready for reunification, precisely for the reasons you outlined. ***

As do I; yet we shall discover relatively soon what our theological leaders have come up with.

***If the Pope succeeds in regularizing SSPX and restoring proper, distinctly Latin liturgy, then the road will be much clearer. At this point the best anyone can do is to build up mutual good will.***

Kosta, you informed me of Tolstoy’s The Three Hermits some time ago, and I have not looked at the Church quite the same since. Alex, might I suggest that you read it (google it online) and see what you think. I agree with Kosta that the East is the product of the first millennium and the West the product of the second. There is much that is to be valued from the second millennium and much that needs to be surgically removed like necrotizing tissue.

Our Wiccan nuns and our liberation theologists must be put aside. I will not seriously address any of what is in my brother’s eye before we deal with our own log. I do admit a Papal bias, but that will not blind me to the CINOs and the pro abortion politicians.


22 posted on 09/25/2009 4:33:58 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: annalex
At this point the best anyone can do is to build up mutual good will

That goes without saying, Alex. We may disagree but not disown each other.

23 posted on 09/25/2009 6:09:24 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; annalex
Alex, might I suggest that you read it (google it online) and see what you think. I agree with Kosta that the East is the product of the first millennium

The West is the product of the first millennium too, Mark. It's just that the East change little if any in the second, ant the West became unregonizable, mostly in the last 46 years.

24 posted on 09/25/2009 6:18:10 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

***The West is the product of the first millennium too, Mark. It’s just that the East change little if any in the second, ant the West became unregonizable, mostly in the last 46 years.***

Admittedly. Now let us see if the change is simply a veneer to be stripped off.


25 posted on 09/25/2009 6:21:27 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; kosta50
I will not seriously address any of what is in my brother’s eye before we deal with our own log

No question about that. However, we still have a sororal relationship between the two Churches today; we should foster the spirit of love today. On that score, the Orthodox often disappoint. It is one thing to point out the admitted flaws in the Latin Church's fabric, -- all this "netrotizing tissue". Quite another to raise a seemingly endless series of objections, that betray a desire to stay separate regardless of what the Latin Church does.

For example, hypothetically, let us say the Latin Church proclaims everything that went on in the West after AD 1054 as a local Western theologoumenon, which is not dogmatically binding in the East, at least not unless a future ecumenical counsil in which the Orthodox participate ratifies some of it. Surely, when someone knowledgeable in the ecumenical affairs says "we are ready in two months", he must have some such radical initiative in mind.

Now, if (1) that initiative from the West comes through, and (2) the "nectrotizing tissue" is marginalized, what do you think the reaction in the East will be?

26 posted on 09/26/2009 2:32:05 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: annalex

***For example, hypothetically, let us say the Latin Church proclaims everything that went on in the West after AD 1054 as a local Western theologoumenon, which is not dogmatically binding in the East, at least not unless a future ecumenical counsil in which the Orthodox participate ratifies some of it. Surely, when someone knowledgeable in the ecumenical affairs says “we are ready in two months”, he must have some such radical initiative in mind.

Now, if (1) that initiative from the West comes through, and (2) the “nectrotizing tissue” is marginalized, what do you think the reaction in the East will be?***

Suspicious. They fear being overwhelmed by a landslide of apostate Catholic nuns, brothers, politicians and bishops. And I for one share that fear.


27 posted on 09/26/2009 3:35:00 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: annalex; MarkBsnr; Kolokotronis
For example, hypothetically, let us say the Latin Church proclaims everything that went on in the West after AD 1054 as a local Western theologoumenon, which is not dogmatically binding in the East...what do you think the reaction in the East will be?

I am pinging Kolo on this as I think this is indeed an interesting hypothetical question. I would have to correct your statement by saying not after 1054, but immediately following the Seventh Ecumenical Council (8th century AD), the last Council of the Undivided Church.

In short, one thousand years of Schism would be erased. The Pope would be the Patriarch of the West, first in honor and privilege among patriarch, but without universal jurisdiction. All Catholic dogma considered innovations by the East and rejected as such would be removed as an obstacle, including the Purgatory, Immaculate Conception and the proclamation of the Vatican I regarding papal infallibility.

The Creed would be recited without the filioque* and we would, after a millennium, once again proclaim the same faith as if the Schism never happened, just as it was recited at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Nicaea). Intercommunion would be immediately realized. The Church would continue where it left off after the Seventh Council.

*[I must add here that the Council did not recite the Nicene Creed, but a little known and never mentioned different version of the Creed which does not say the Holy Ghost "proceeds from the Father,..." but instead:

Perhaps this could become the new Creed, mutually acceptable and without controverisal statements, the authoirty being that of an Ecumenical Council that changed it legally.]

However, the conciliatory move could not be just a one-sided Latin reclassification of western dogmatic teachings. The Eastern side would also have to be ready redefine its Palamite theology as a theologoumenon.

The official name of the eastern Church, being Orthodox Catholic Church, would have to be dropped and replaced with simple Catholic Church, as the distinction of orthodoxy would no longer apply only to the East, as understood by the East since the western Schism; the whole Church would proclaim the same catholic and orthodox faith once again, and we would once again all be Catholics.

As for Mark's fear of being overrun by pantsuit nuns, I disagree. Since universal jurisdiction would no longer apply, the various clergy and nuns of this kind would be under the jurisdiction of local Patriarchs and Metorpolitans where they serve and would be subject to the discipline and tradition of those Patriarchates and Metropolias which may turn out to be a rude awakening for some. Eastern priests deny communion where they see fit and Orthodox nun wear habits, not pantsuits; the monastic are in monasteries; that's the idea behind taking monastic vows. Monastics are not social workers.

How "hypothetical" is your hypothetical question, Alex?

28 posted on 09/26/2009 10:54:46 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

“I am pinging Kolo on this as I think this is indeed an interesting hypothetical question.”

Thank-you. I too think its an interesting scenario. But my initial reaction was just the same as Mark’s. I know my reaction would be deep suspicion. And I would be concerned not about the Wiccan nuns, but rather the uncatechized Latin laity who might well flood into our parishes fleeing the NO liturgies and the VII mentality prevalent in so many Latin dioceses. They will come in “as of right”, not like the usual inquirer who might someday after a long period become baptised and/or chrismated. What will the modern Latin mindset do to Orthodoxy at the parish level in the West? How do we deal with the availability of Saturday liturgies in English when we are trying to explain to our children that they can’t be on that sports team that plays on Sunday morning because we go to the DL? I went through that and the oldest wasn’t on those teams, but we didn’t have any alternative to a Sunday DL. How do we deal with a hierarchy, at least in this country, which is so very, very political?

As for the theological problems, of course it would be helpful and a source of reunion if the churches believed dogmatically the exact same things, which, as you point out Kosta, brings us back to the 8th century. And of course that cuts both ways and a council can deal with the dogma/theologoumenna matter.

I can’t imagine why we would want, or agree, to change the Creed. That looks to me to be change for the sake of change. Orthodoxy doesn’t do that.

What do we do with the Orthodox parishes scattered, and they are scattered, across the central and mountain states? Can they remain under their bishops and metropolitans? Will the overwhelming dominance of the Latins and their Patriarch quickly or slowly turn us into Maronites with an unmarried clergy and a Latinized liturgy? Will a new Archbishop Ireland arise and we be left looking for a new +Alexis Toth but with no where to run? Assurances that the Latin bishops will leave us alone frankly ring hollow to me in light of the freedom those hierarchs seem to feel about intruding themselves into the affairs of other bishops’ dioceses, especially when politics is involved. The Vatican knows of these concerns; they’ve been warned about them rather continually of late I’m told and there have been some encouraging signs, but its far too soon to tell if the days of boundary crossing are over. In fact, the latest actions of Archbishop Burke and his attacks on the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston over the Kennedy funeral indicate quite the opposite.

I readily admit that my concerns are in many senses parochially American, or North American, but that’s where I live. The same concerns would apply in Western Europe.


29 posted on 09/27/2009 5:21:35 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; annalex; MarkBsnr
I hear your concerns, Kolo, and thank you for your reply. Perhaps you won't mind if I elaborate a little, based on your statements.

You say that you "would be concerned not about the Wiccan nuns, but rather the uncatechized Latin laity who might well flood into our parishes fleeing the NO liturgies and the VII mentality prevalent in so many Latin dioceses."

I really don't think so. Those who wanted to flee the NO liturgies have already done so by attending inordinary Traditional Latin Mass where it is available. Let me just say that I actually researched the number of such diocese and found they are dismally few in number compared to those offering ordinary Pauline Mass.

We may have a (false) impression that every other Catholic is a TLM Catholic because they seem to congregate here on FR, but when you compare the number of NO churches and those that offer TLM ,  either alone, or TLM and NO at different times, and actually count the number of people who attend each version of the Mass, there is no doubt that the TLM crowd makes up barely 1% of the Catholics, if that much.

Most Catholics are neither interested nor desirous to flee the comfort offered by the NO liturgy. Why in the world would they flee to the rigors of the Divine Liturgy, where (at least in theory) they have to stand for two hours, confess before communion, fast at least since midnight before communion instead of one hour prior, not have the Saturday option, not have it in English? Except for standing, they have all that in TLM which they can relate to, and sit through most of it.

I am sure there are those who are curious and they are free to come into any Orthodox church and observe the Divine Liturgy. There is no reunification needed for to do that. A few decide to convert for various reasons. I don't see that changing. Besides, who runs the church, the people or the bishop? I don't think busloads of Latins would begin arriving at parishes to take over. There is simply no evidential support for such phobia.

And coming in "as of right" would mean what? That the church would distribute communion to those improperly prepared? My God! Isn't that what most Greek, OCA and Antiochan churches are already doing? Everyone in the church receives communion!

How could all these people have gone to confession the night before? When I asked an OCA priest how many communions does one get for one confession, 20,30, 500...he looked at me indignantly but never answered. Yet in his church, it's a mass communion every Sunday, and people are happily chatting while waiting in line.

And fasting...cream cheese bagels during Great Lent in the coffee shop (even the priest was munching on one). When I asked one of the volunteers "Is this fasting food?" she laughed me off saying "We are not monks." And I said "Well, we are not fasting either."  It's this kind of hypocrisy that drove me away from the Church, Kolo, and once my eyes were opened I only saw more and more of it.

Last time I was in the Serbian church on the Feast of St. Nicholas (Nativity Fast period), the priest was blessing Slava bread that was obviously glazed with eggs.  The Orthodox talk the talk but they don't always walk the walk, Kolo.

And what to say of people showing greater veneration to Theotokos during the liturgy then for God, as I wrote about some time ago? Idolatry, nothing short of that. Or who gets to carry the icons when we walk around the church? The one who donated the most money to the church! What about those poor ones who may give two pennies but that's all they have?! Pharisees, Kolo, shame on them!

And speaking of dispensation for St. Patrick's day for Catholics, the OCA regularly gives dispensation for Thanksgiving, so what's the difference? I could go on, and on, but I think I made my point.

I can’t imagine why we would want, or agree, to change the Creed. That looks to me to be change for the sake of change. Orthodoxy doesn’t do that.

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves why did the Seventh Ecumenical Council change the Creed? As I said, no one ever mentions that it was, let alone the reason.

What do we do with the Orthodox parishes scattered, and they are scattered, across the central and mountain states?

Obviously, jurisdictionally, things would not and could not change. I would imagine the hierarchs would have the wisdom to put that in the reunion agreement. Jurisdictional issues are alive and well among Orthodox parishes as well. The Monastery in Ft. Myers, FL, comes to mind where the Greek bishop took the monastery to court and, according to the abbess of the monastery, lied under oath.

There are even fist fights at Mt. Athos over attempt by the Ecumenical Patriarch to assert his authority there, not to talk about Greek and Armenian monastics swinging at each other in Jerusalem. There are territorial issues I read about every day in Serbian churches in Serbia, where one bishop wants something done one way and the Patriarchy interferes, with the help of the government, just as in Greece, or where bishop(s) routinely ignore the decisions of the Synod.

I think Alex's hypothetical question cuts into the core of this reunification game. If it's not jurisdictional, then it is theological, but if you eliminate both, then it is the laity, the liturgy, dispensations, anything is cited as the reason(s) why reunification is not a good option...he is right, we will always look for a reason to railroad any attempt because, despite all the talk to the contrary, the Orthodox would accept Catholics only if they became Orthodox, and the Vatican would like the Orthodox to turn into "Uniates" at the very least, probably preferably more into Maronites.

Perhaps the Latins have not properly thought this over. Currently, Eastern Churches make up only 1% (1 in 100) of the Catholic Community of approximately 1.2 billion people (on paper). If reunion were to occur today, the Eastern element would jump to 25% (1 in 4). This would significantly change the makeup of the Church as the Vatican knew it for the last 1,000 years.

I am not sure the Vatican would be comfortable with that either. Perhaps desires for marriage obscure problems that come with it.

30 posted on 09/27/2009 10:02:18 AM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; annalex; MarkBsnr

I can’t say as I agree with all you have said, but we’ve been through all that before. Here’s the money quote, at least for me:

“...we will always look for a reason to railroad any attempt because, despite all the talk to the contrary, the Orthodox would accept Catholics only if they became Orthodox, and the Vatican would like the Orthodox to turn into “Uniates” at the very least, probably preferably more into Maronites.”

For all the talk flowing from the Vatican or Damascus or Moscow or Constantinople that Uniatism is a rejected form of potential union, still we see exactly that from all sorts of non-Latin, but in communion with Rome, sources. Just today there is posted here an article about a “Russian Catholic” parish in NY which “converted” Russians into communion with Rome and sees itself as an example of what a future union between Rome and Russian Orthodoxy would look like.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2349530/posts

I am absolutely convinced that’s what is in store for us if there is a reunion. Would we do the same? I don’t know. I tend to doubt it, not because we are any holier than the Latins but because our history among the Latins is instructive. Aside from a few odd parishes following the “Western Rite”, Orthodoxy does not have a history of coming into an area where Rome predominates and setting up Orthodox parishes which run NO or even Tridentine masses. In some measure I think this is because we have a pretty good idea of who we are and as importantly who we are not. A cruel history taught us its lessons well, Kosta. It simply not worth it to us to pretend we are something we are not nor is there some pressing need to make other people be “us”. I have observed a number of times on this forum that our church is open to anyone. If people want what we have, they can have it. If, having looked for a short or long period, they reject Orthodoxy, well, that’s alright and we offer them another cup of cafe and perhaps a piece of baklava. I have never once heard an Orthodoxer lecture any inquirer on the terrible sin of schism, etc. Simply put, so far as I can see, Orthodoxers don’t care if Latins remain Latins. That they do so is no insult to us. The opposite doesn’t seem to be true. We are not hounding or subverting Latins into Orthodoxy.

Now perhaps it is among our many failings that we are not so fervid for reunion as the Latins. It probably is, but perhaps the Latins should think twice about letting a bunch like us into their church. In the meantime they should rest assured that virtually no Orthodoxer loses sleep at night worrying that Latins won’t “go to heaven”, notwithstanding their claimed concern for us.

I suggest that all this talk of reunion simply stop. We have much in common, certainly enough to make a powerful witness of The Faith to the world. A secular or pagan world isn’t concerned about the filioque, or our respective ecclesiologies, or created or uncreated grace, the IC, purgatory or who is primus inter pares and what that means in practice. I suggest that if Rome stops “lusting” after the Orthodox churches and simply makes it clear that it wants nothing from us but to work together to, perhaps, actually save the West, maybe we could accomlish something.


31 posted on 09/27/2009 12:12:09 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; kosta50

***Now perhaps it is among our many failings that we are not so fervid for reunion as the Latins. It probably is, but perhaps the Latins should think twice about letting a bunch like us into their church. In the meantime they should rest assured that virtually no Orthodoxer loses sleep at night worrying that Latins won’t “go to heaven”, notwithstanding their claimed concern for us.

I suggest that all this talk of reunion simply stop. We have much in common, certainly enough to make a powerful witness of The Faith to the world. A secular or pagan world isn’t concerned about the filioque, or our respective ecclesiologies, or created or uncreated grace, the IC, purgatory or who is primus inter pares and what that means in practice. I suggest that if Rome stops “lusting” after the Orthodox churches and simply makes it clear that it wants nothing from us but to work together to, perhaps, actually save the West, maybe we could accomlish something.***

I think that we do need something further of a bond, maybe not blood brother unification, but something more than what we have. We think of the Orthodox as more insular and clannish - that brings with it both good and bad.

But what I am personally after is a strong ally and example of Orthodoxy. We need the very model of Orthodoxy. I was conversing with one late 60s member of our parish who is very active and is our cantor and the conversation fell to the movement of the Church back towards Orthodoxy. I said that the bishop would make a powerful statement about his commitment to orthodoxy by having us push the altar against the east wall and putting the tabernacle in the center and holding Mass in Latin. He stated that he would leave.

And he just might; but he did admit later in the conversation that the other churches (he was Calvinist, born in Geneva and converted later in life) had marshmallow for doctrine and weren’t worth joining anyway.


32 posted on 09/27/2009 1:49:23 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; annalex; MarkBsnr
is right, we will always look for a reason to railroad any attempt because, despite all the talk to the contrary, the Orthodox would accept Catholics only if they became Orthodox,

This is exactly my point, Kosta. While we can discuss various concerns raised in your 27-29, that is not the reason I posted the hypothetical in 26. My point was simply that while the Latin Catholics love the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox do not love us back. Even if the Catholic Church unilaterally abolished everything she created since 8c onward for the sake of the commandment to be one, the Orthodox would still find something or other, like Sunday football, to be utterly, utterly!-- unacceptable.

My further point is, it does not have to be this way. Indeed, the talk of rushing headlong into reunion is counterproductive and only serves to scare both sides. Instead, I hope, we are entering a period where the Orthodox presence grows in the West, and therefore the Orthodox and the Catholics grow accustomed to each other, for the first time in many centuries, as having common goals, and common, for the most part, theology.

The greatest dividing factor is nor filioque or even Vatican I. The greatest dividing factor is friction along the European and Middle-Eastern fault lines. In America, at least, they should not be allowed to dominate.

33 posted on 09/27/2009 5:09:13 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
what I am personally after is a strong ally and example of Orthodoxy. We need the very model of Orthodoxy. I was conversing with one late 60s member of our parish who is very active and is our cantor and the conversation fell to the movement of the Church back towards Orthodoxy. I said that the bishop would make a powerful statement about his commitment to orthodoxy by having us push the altar against the east wall and putting the tabernacle in the center and holding Mass in Latin.

Yes. Well said. I, too, think that at this point the priority in the West should be lower-case orthodoxy inside the Latin Church.

34 posted on 09/27/2009 5:12:15 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

I meant to address it to you as well.


35 posted on 09/27/2009 5:13:04 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: annalex

***The greatest dividing factor is nor filioque or even Vatican I. The greatest dividing factor is friction along the European and Middle-Eastern fault lines. In America, at least, they should not be allowed to dominate.***

Huzzah!!!! What a great statement. I would take it further, though. I did not move to the US until 1990 and therefore take a more world-wide view of things. These lines should not be allowed to dominate in the Church anywhere in the world. The Church is the Church of Jesus Christ; the USCCB needs major spanking and admonishment for their sins. The old saying is that the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. To this day, as much now as it was then, that saying is valid.


36 posted on 09/27/2009 7:07:20 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr
My point was simply that while the Latin Catholics love the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox do not love us back

You sound like my younger daughter. If I don't approve of what she does it means I don't love her, I am the bad guy. Love does not always mean approval.

The Orthodox simply do not approve of Latin ways. They see their Faith as a narrow path and not one wide enough to accommodate all sorts of things outside of the Holy Tradition.

The Orthodox approach to reunification is like that story of the Prodigal Son. They do not condemn but they will not approve either. That doesn't mean they don't love you. And if the Catholics decides to return to being Orthodox again, as the Orthodox believe they were, they will accept them. The Orthodox are just less compromising, that's all.

Look, the East was the source of all sorts of heresies and schisms in the first millennium. In fact, the Undivided Church is almost an oxymoron, because almost half of the time between the Council of Chalcedon until the Great Schism was spent in some sort of non-communion between the Constantinople and Rome!

During those times, the Latin approach was exactly the same the Orthodox take today. Rome was not willing to compromise Eastern innovations. That's why +Maximos the Confessor and +John Chrysostomos sought refuge in Rome, and that's why so many Roman Popes are Orthodox saints.

One pope, Honrouis I, a single exception in the first millennium, apparently knew of a festering heresy in Constantinople, and while he never subscribed to it, he apparently allowed it and for that he was condemned by the Sixth Council as a heretic and cursed by all subsequent popes being enthroned until much after the Great Schism.

Rome was the guardian of Orthodoxy until it got itself mixed up with Franks (who were themselves iconoclastic heretics and extreme puritans), and until Rome succumbed to Frankish demands, although not without resistance.

37 posted on 09/28/2009 8:12:51 AM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr
But I purposely eliminated doctrinal disagreements in my hypothetical. The outcome was the same. This points to disapproval (if that's the word) on a visceral, elemental level, rather than a natural and healthy desire for orthodoxy. Hence, I used the word love, in the hopes that it would not be understood in some childish or sentimental way.

You yourself said it best: "If it's not jurisdictional, then it is theological, but if you eliminate both, then it is the laity, the liturgy, dispensations, anything is cited as the reason(s) why reunification is not a good option".

38 posted on 09/28/2009 12:19:33 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr
But I purposely eliminated doctrinal disagreements in my hypothetical. The outcome was the same. This points to disapproval (if that's the word) on a visceral, elemental level, rather than a natural and healthy desire for orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy is not just doctrinal, Alex. It's the way of life, a culture. Ignoring the doctrinal, an Orthodox will look at the Wiccan nuns or the NO liturgy and say "That's not Orthodox. That's unrecognizable!" and walk away. They will do the same thing if they happen to be in an Anglican church or a at a Lutheran service. They will find very little or nothing in common with them. That's not lack of love. It's just lack of Orthodoxy.

39 posted on 09/28/2009 2:49:33 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr

I think, you are glossing over one important distinction.

It is quite correct that sometime an ostensibly Catholic Mass is offered that is unrecognizable to any serious Catholic. On this we have no disagreement. In fact it was my first comment on the thread, that the Novus Ordo mass has to be reformed, at a minimum, that Ad Orientem posture is adopted, alter girls disallowed, etc. Every serious Catholic has a list of things that are an absolute must for our own sake, let alone for any reunification.

On the other hand, that will not make Latin Mass Orthodox in the sense of bearded priests, golden robes, iconostasis, leavened Eucharist, and so forth: it will remain distinctly Latin.

So that is the distionction. I have a feeling that the Orthodox speak of the former — because it is hard to disagree on the former, but they really mean the latter. This betrays a lack of good will, — lack of love. This is why the reunion is not possible in this generation.


40 posted on 09/28/2009 6:47:39 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson