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.
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.