Pope (Benedict XVI) pledges to end Orthodox Rift

CNN ^ | May 29, 2005 | AP

[jec1ny]

To change the Orthodox faith would require banning or rewriting all of this -- an impossible task. By contrast, since post-Tridentine parish practice had boiled down to the Mass alone, and so the revisionists had only to alter the one service to change the entire way that Catholics looked at worship and the faith.

I'm not sure how B16 is going to go about restoring the sense of the "given-ness" of liturgy (his term), but I will be interested to watch from the sidelines.

I am not sure exactly what form this will all take. But there has within conservative and traditionalist circles of the Catholic Church been much talk of the "reform of the reform." This is not likely to occur overnight though. The current mess has been in place for decades and it will take some time to correct it. Also I am sure that any reform of the current (Novus Ordo) Roman Rite will be undertaken in a much more thoughtful and deliberative manner then was the case in 1969 Anno Terribilus. One significant step that may come more quickly would be a much broader permission for the use of the pre-Vatican II liturgy (Tridentine Rite). Currently the permission of the local bishop is required for its use. Not surprising in the United States, enthusiasm has been somewhat in short supply among the bishops. While many now permit it's use; they do so under highly restricted circumstances. And many bishops still do not permit it at all. The liberation of ancient western liturgical rites would I think be an important step in the right direction.

[gbcdoj]

but through one [m]an came sin, and death...

We do agree. To quote Suarez: "It must be held that the Blessed Virgin was redeemed by Christ, since Christ was the univeral redeemer of the whole human race, and died for all men. ... It must be absolutely and simply confessed that the Blessed Virgin sinned in Adam. ... The Blessed Virgin sinned in Adam, from whom as if from an infected root she was born by seminal generation; this is the whole reason of contracting original sin, which is from the power of conception, unless the grace of God prevenes ... It is certain that the Blessed Virgin died at least in Adam. Just as she had life in Christ, so she was slain in Adam ... The Blessed Virgin had the merit at least of death in Adam. She truly had the death of the flesh contracted from the sin of Adam ... It should be said that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the first instant of her conception, and preserved from original sin."

I guess what I am asking is do you believe people have the tendency to sin, are people corrupted, "sinful from the womb" as David admitted?

Well, certainly you don't expect me to deny David's words, do you? We do admit concupiscence, but we do not consider it to be properly sin:

But this holy council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.

This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin. (Council of Trent, Session V, Decree on Original Sin)

Of the Blessed Virgin, we say (following St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, III q. 27 a. 3) that the law of the fomes of sin, or concupiscence, was fettered but not taken away as regards the essence in her, "by reason of the abundant grace bestowed on her in her sanctification, and still more perfectly by Divine Providence preserving her sensitive soul, in a singular manner, from any inordinate movement", until she conceived Christ: "Afterwards, however, at the conception of Christ's flesh, in which for the first time immunity from sin was to be conspicuous, it is to be believed that entire freedom from the fomes redounded from the Child to the Mother" and also that by the grace of God she was preserved from every sin, mortal and venial.

[gbcdoj]

and also that by the grace of God she was preserved from every sin, mortal and venial.

This, I might add, we share with the Orthodox. Our dispute with them on the Immaculate Conception regards not whether she sinned but whether she was sanctified at her birth. As the Patriarch of Constantinople and his suffragans wrote to Pope Leo XIII in 1895:

The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).

The claim that it was "unknown to the ancient Church" or to the "one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils" seems quite open to dispute... Apparently even Photios himself was a partisan of the doctrine.

[gbcdoj]

but whether she was sanctified at her birth

Conception, not birth! My mistake.

[Agrarian]

I find it interesting that Newman takes such a clear stance on the death of the Virgin. I had always understood that there was a strong (albeit not universal) tradition in Roman Catholicism that Mary did not die prior to the Assumption, and that she indeed could not have died, since she was without sin -- original or otherwise.

I heard a Catholic priest on Catholic television talking about this, saying that the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption was carefully worded in such a way that one could believe either the Eastern tradition that she died, or believe that she did not die, for the theological reasons mentioned.

There are still significant differences between Newman's description and Orthodox belief, but it has definite elements of interest.

[Agrarian]

One significant step that may come more quickly would be a much broader permission for the use of the pre-Vatican II liturgy (Tridentine Rite). Currently the permission of the local bishop is required for its use.

What has always fascinated me is that in order to use the Tridentine texts, one must get special permission and use Latin. From what I understand, there is no translation of the Tridentine text into the vernacular that is authorized for use.

[Cronos]

The Orthodox, who read the same fathers you do, reject those same doctrines that I do as a Protestant.

Ah, a Protester wishes to stoke the flames of the Orthodox-Catholic quarrel. No wonder your posts are blatantly wrong. For instance, in post number 98 you say unity won't happen until the RCC gets rid of the Pope. FALSE: the Orthodox agree to the idea of a Bishop of Rome, they ALSO agree to the idea of him being first among equals. They do NOT agree (and I, along with the present and previous Pope concur) to the idea that the Bishop of Rome should dictate terms to the other Patriarchs.

And on to the idea of infallibility: it is ONLY when talking about matters of doctrine and ONLY when the Pope is sitting ex-cathedra. It's the court of last resort where it is expected that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit. I can appreciate our Orthodox brethren as viewing this with suspicion as a tool that could be used by Popes to veto a decision of a council. I would also ask: when was the last time this was used?

On the matter of the 'filioque', I would note that this is mostly used in the Latin church and I do not think it is forced on the Eastern rites of the Catholic church. Not being as learned as the Church fathers, I won't presume to say much except that I think that the Spanish fathers when they added the 'And from the Son' in Latin, meant the same as the Orthodox KNOW in Greek.

Thank you Kolokotronis for the last part : In Orthodoxy, their is a pious belief, widely held for more than 1000 years, that the Theotokos was bodily assumed into heaven. Rome chose to make that dogma on its own. Since there can be no Ecumenical Council to decide this in the present Schism, Orthodoxy has chosen not to make such a proclamation, but we can believe it if we wish I didn't know that. you are also correct when you say: There will be no full reunion without a Great Council of the Whole Church. Such a Council may be able to resolve these issues in a way which will be consistent with what the Fathers taught, the consensus patrum, and be equally received and accepted by the Faithful.

However, I do believe that we need to clean up the political issues before moving on to the dogmatic. The last Pope was pretty clear about the first among equals bit. The rest of our CAtholic Clergy MUST fall in line with this -- I see no point in having Roman central control over churchs that have managed their affairs and maintained strict doctrine even under theIslamic yoke. I don't think many of the Protestant groups can say that (notable exception are the Baptists). In addition, we need to stop this East-West bickering over Serbia, Ukraine etc. and the US (viewed as the champion of the West) should support Russia (viewed as the champion of the East) --> we both have a mutual enemy to face, one which both have faced since the 7th century and which we haven't defeated.

[Cronos]

One thing that is certain, though -- any Christian from the 5th century, East or West, could land in my parish on a Sunday morning and would know what was going on. I can pretty much guarantee that the same wouldn't be true if he were to land in one of our local Catholic parishes.

Interesting. I've been to CAtholic masses in over a dozen countries, in languages ranging from Marathi to English and found the rituals intensely familiar. But, would a Catholic from an earlier century be able to recognize it? I don't know. Continuity makes a lot more sense.

[pharmamom]

You are probably right, but I have been enjoying the back and forth, as I am learning a lot about history and Orthodox theology along the way!

[Destro]

The Old Believers came about under the Mongol yoke when Russia was cut off from contact with the rest of the world and that gave rise to the 'errors' of the Old Believer's (they forgot how to properly sign the cross. The Old Believers cross themselves with two finger while the correct version is three fingers meeting to signifiy the mystery that is the Holy Trinity).

You saw almost the same thing happen to the Japanese Nagasaki Catholics (Kakure Kirishitan, or hidden Christians) who lived without contact with the West or without clergy for 200 years. Their Christianity was in error and they got many facts wrong as one can expect to happen when you lose contact with the outside world and are forced to hide the fact you are a Christian.

[jec1ny]

What has always fascinated me is that in order to use the Tridentine texts, one must get special permission and use Latin. From what I understand, there is no translation of the Tridentine text into the vernacular that is authorized for use.

Latin was and still is the official language of the church. It has always been the tradition of the western church that Latin was the language of the mass and the sacraments. That was one of the changes that was produced by Vatican II. The council authorized the introduction of the vernacular into the liturgy. But in doing so it was specifically ordered that the use of Latin was to be preserved along with the church's rich heritage of Gregorian Chant and sacred polyphony. It would not be unfair I believe to characterize the resulting liturgical reform and the near complete abandonment of Latin as greatly exceeding the mandate of the council. That said I have no real objection to offering the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular provided a correct translation were available. Of course Roman Catholics have had for many years hand missals which translated the liturgy into English. But that actual alter missals (MISSALE ROMANUM) were always printed entirely in Latin. Oddly there are actual Tridentine Rite alter missals in English. But they are generally used by quasi and non-Catholic churches. A number of the Old Catholic Churches that follow the Mathew line use what is in some circles called the Knott Missal. This is essentially the Tridentine Rite translated into old English. Some Anglo-Catholics either use the same missal or in some cases the usage of Sarum or York. These were the pre-Reformation Catholic rites used in England. They were similar in many respects to the Roman rite but there were distinct differences as well. Following the breach between Rome and the English Church the Anglicans did away with these rites and they have subsequently become historical relics like so many of the glorious western liturgies. All of these are quite beautiful in their translations. To give you a glimpse of the rich heritage of western rite liturgical tradition I have attached some links below. There is also a wealth of information on Catholic (and some Orthodox) liturgy that can be found on the first link.

Information of the Roman and other western liturgical rites

Old Catholic Liturgies

Usage of Sarum in Latin

Usage of Sarum in English

Rite of York in English

Mozarbic Rite of Toledo Spain (in Latin)

Ambrosian Rite of Milan

[monkfan]

I don't know. I would be content with the double procession mystery, from Ann through Alex. But then, I am Catholic...

Oh no. It's gotta be "from Alex through Ann". "From Ann through Alex" is logically absurd. ;)

[A. Pole]

I don't think that the filioque issue was the reason for the Schism; it was just a convenient excuse.

I think it is a contemptuous attidude to our ancestors. They lived in the age of Faith and they have seen God - the Holy Trinity as more important that the whole creation.

Filioque or rejection of it was the fundamental thing for them. And so were the dogmas.

If the dogmas were not important then the Church would be a sham, whether united or not.

[A. Pole]

My point was that, notwithstanding the inappropriateness of dividing Orthodox and Catholics up into "real Orthodox" and "real Catholics"

I wonder if Catholics like Ted Kennedy and Orthodox like Mike Dukakis divided by their beliefs or not?

[vox_freedom]

I wonder if Catholics like Ted Kennedy ....

Do you really believe Ted Kennedy is a Catholic? LOL

[A. Pole]

Do you really believe Ted Kennedy is a Catholic? LOL

Well, both Kennedy and Dukakis are not overzealous converts. So according to some, they must be better representatives of their faiths.

[Agrarian]

Thanks for the great post and the links. I think that we may have a lot of interests in common when it comes to traditional liturgics. I liked the first link, and from that link, to an article about the Roman liturgical books. It was a very nice summary for someone who wouldn't know a breviary from a missal, although I can wax on (and have, to the boredom of many on FR) regarding details of the various Orthodox liturgical books.

Yes, I am aware that there are translations of the Tridentine rite: some of my prize possessions are some pre Vat II works that are in traditional liturgical English. I have an old Douay-Rheims, an old St. Joseph's Missal, and one of my most interesting possessions is a side by side Latin-English Psalter, translated from Hebrew!

One of the things that your links put me on the hunt for was a Roman breviary, and I found this on-line:

The Roman Breviary

As a chanter in the Orthodox Church, the daily office is my liturgical bread and butter. I can't imagine not making use of it. While I have spent many years studying the Orthodox liturgical services, and am passably familiar with modern Western liturgics, this is the first time I've had the opportunity to browse through a Roman breviary. It has whetted my curiosity to learn more about the ancient services in the West. At first glance, it would seem to be very closely similar to the Orthodox cycle of services -- it appears that the Psalter is read through weekly in its entirety, just as in the Orthodox cycle. I knew these cycles were kept in many Roman monasteries in the past, but thought that the existence of services of the liturgical cycle (other than the mass) in parish use had died out long ago. I was surprised to find something of this detail on the web. It goes without saying that if one hopes to have these texts spiritually shape a people, they must be able to understand them. The language must be appropriate, IMHO (i.e. not the kind of thing found in the modern English NO liturgies), but the vernacular can be beautiful, understandable, correct, and transforming -- all at the same time.

You mention also Gregorian chant -- I don't think that enough emphasis is put on traditional chant forms. I, of course, am prejudiced in this regard, but I again am deeply connected with chant, and view text and chant as an organic whole, and feel that it is one of the things that most viscerally connect us to the Church of the ages. No, it will never be exactly the same as what it was like in the past -- it mutates and develops organically. We at our parish sing a Tone 1 Kievan sticheron melody just slightly differently from everyone else at this or that point, and 20 years from now, will sing it slightly differently still, I would imagine. It molds to the text, is shaped a bit by a community's "musical vernacular," and becomes a part of a living community's language of prayer.

There is of course a problem with regard to Western chant forms -- the lack of living continuity, since various polyphonic forms and musical instrumentation have largely displaced these chants, making much Western church music into a sacred art form, rather than liturgical chant. There are plenty of recordings of Gregorian and other Western chants around -- but they have the feel of antiquarianism and academic treatises all too often.

Anyway, all very fascinating, and obviously a topic close to my heart. If there is one Latin phrase that we Orthodox believe, it is the old "Lex orandi, lex credendi est."

[kosta50]

I can tell them quite apart, thank you

I seriously doubt that. The basic makeup of the Church (ecclesiology) is based on theology, but the various customs, rites, length of service, etc. is not.

The Apostles were equal amonst themselves, with Peter being prominent among them but not their boss or chief; not a single Apostles answered to him, asked permission from him. Thus the organizational structure of the early Church was that of equality among Apostles and the bishops they ordained. The Pope did not "rule" the entire Church, as is commonly believed in the West.

He did rule his own Patriarchate, but he had no jurisdiction over other patriarchates; only indispensible preeminence of honor when it came to Ecumenical Councils and questions of faith. This was determined based on what the NT says and also on Imperial Decree.

That is not what divides us. What divides us is not ecclesiology, because how you run things in Rome is irrelevant to the Orthodox. What is not irrelevant is that when we walk into a Roman Catholic Church we are not in the same Church as ours -- not because you cross the other way, or because you use Latin on occasion, but because you don't profess the same faith as we do.

Our absence of communion with the Pope is not based on his presumed infallibility when speaking ex-cathedra on matter of faith, but the presumption that other patriarchate have to buy into that!

EP's interference into the MP's jursidiction is an interference, yet despite all that the Orthodox Church survives in "unity through diversity" not by accpeting everyone's customs but by sticking to the theological and ecclesiastical principles as they were formulated by the early Church.

[Teófilo]

Christ is amongst us! What am I missing?

You're missing this:

http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Docs/EP1-4.htm

-Theo

[Teófilo]

I think it is a contemptuous attidude to our ancestors. They lived in the age of Faith and they have seen God - the Holy Trinity as more important that the whole creation.

Contemptous? No. Dismissive, yes. The anti-Filioque argumentation only became fixed in the Orthodox consciousness, after the Schism, not before. Before there was openness for discussion and reconciliation.

You're the one showing contempt. Don't we live in an age of faith ourselves. I mean, I don't give a zilch about what the world of unbelief thinks; we too live in an age of faith. The New Testament and the Patristic Age is not over. Our living of the faith counts for something.

-Theo