Posted on 09/23/2009 5:18:33 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
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.
***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.
That goes without saying, Alex. We may disagree but not disown each other.
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.
***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.
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?
***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.
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: "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son and Word, through whom all things were made, and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, consubstantial and coeternal with the same Father and with his Son who has had no beginning. The unbuilt-up, indivisible, incomprehensible, and non-circumscribed Trinity..."
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?
“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.
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.
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.
***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.
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.
Yes. Well said. I, too, think that at this point the priority in the West should be lower-case orthodoxy inside the Latin Church.
I meant to address it to you as well.
***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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.