Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

Orthodoxinfo.com ^ | 1848 | Various

[kosta50]

The East rightly suspects that as a whole Catholicism is modernist and slouches toward liturgical Protestantism. Unless significant progress has been made here toward liturgical propriety, the suspicion won't go away

You said it exactly, Alex. Your rational but fraternal approach is welcome. I would like to add that, in addition to fear that we will catch the Vatican-II disease if we get to close, we want some kind of a guarantee that the Vatican II will not resurrect with another pope.

After all, the Tridentine Council ended with a prohibition against any change at any time, for all times. It lasted but 500 years. If the Latin Church cannot respect the infallible statements and absolute prohibitions of their own councils, why am I not surprised they ignored the earlier Councils and their prohibitions, and added the filioque.

How can we trust you?

[jo kus]

First of all, I appreciate you keeping your head during this.

Jo, most of us really do believe it, though our parish priest says its a species of pride. Religous pride, as you say, is an extremely dangerous sentiment and almost always ends up in Pharisaical attitudes.

It is a difficult thing to judge in oneself, my friend. I think it usually takes another person, an advisor or friend to make mention of it, and by God's grace, they look in-ward and agree. This sort of self-delusion (I'm better than Catholics because...) is very difficult to admit to, especially when one has a tagline about the purity of their religious system...

Exactly, though in point of fact there is only one Orthodoxy. It was here and there expressed differently in the East and the West even 1000 years ago.

I think it is more accurate to say there is one "faith", an idea that exists in the mind of the Church about something that cannot necessarily be put entirely into words that future men will not find some better way of saying it. Remember, we are dealing with mysteries, and we DO grow in knowing them as we further reflect on them. Basing our faith on a formula sounds backwards to me. I think the formula is meant to express our faith. No?

The social, cultural and moral depravity of the West has infected to a degree almst all areas of the Christian East and while that materialistic, hedonistic depravity attracts some in the East, it repels many more.

Yes, it has. Popes have tried to fight against the invasion of modernism and liberalism - but the temptation is incredible. When men are comfortable with their lives, why call upon God? Why worship a God when "I am a self-made man"? I am sure you know the thinking. Coupled with the culture problems in the United States and Europe, God is not a large part of people's lives. It is difficult. Popes speak against it, some bishops bravely forge on, but many bishops, as you say, will soon be paving the road to hell. Christ Himself said that the head servants are responsible to the Master, and clearly, many of our Western Bishops are not doing there job.

I really am happy that Eastern culture is less effected by this heresy. We are not so lucky here.

The Roman Church fairly or unfairly is seen as the overwhelmingly dominant religious force in the West. Protestantism isn’t really even on the radar.

Well, from there, maybe, but here, "Protestantism" itself is seen as a "church", as well. They are indeed a force on the "Religious right" who often are our allies in political issues. We are on the same side on many cultural issues. I do speak with many of them on these forums and we try to put our differences aside sometimes because we realize we are going to sink or swim together, culturally speaking, since God Himself is the issue. Removing Him from the public forum, removing His Law from judicial judgments, etc. We are indeed a pagan society, for all intents and purposes. We need another Paul. Or perhaps some Christian martyrs to wake the sleepy Western up.

As such, Rome is either seen as a failed Church because of the state of the society around it or, and this is something I hear all the time from monastics especially down in Greece, the Church of Rome is part and parcel of the depravity as witnessed by the destruction of the liturgy and, maybe not so surprisingly, of Western monasticism.

Ah, well that's too bad Rome is blamed for cultural depravity, because the Pope has been issuing warnings and encyclicals and teaching about the dangers of Modernism since the 1800's. Perhaps the Church wasn't taken seriously at the time - almost a "faith vs reason" battle (which was the OTHER feature of Vatican 1 that you probably didn't know about). Society has pitted faith vs. reason while the Church has said they are not mutually exclusive. The Fundamentalists have largely co-opted that with their literal reading of Genesis 1, etc... I hope that the East learns to realize that Rome has been fighting this.

I was talking about very recent (30-40 years ago) talks between the Monophysites and the Orthodox. What that has lead to could be a model for what might happen between Rome and the Eastern Churches.

Oh, I believe we had this conversation before regarding the Eastern Rite Catholics, and Pope John Paul 2's comments about them being a "bridge". You disagreed then. I can see how the Coptics would be a better example, and I believe they are more "neutral" if you will.

Not at this point because we have not determined, even provisionally, that we likely believe the same things in all dogmatic areas. If we had reached that conclusion, we would have intercommunion by economia or perhaps even as it exists de facto in Lebanon (and here and there even in No. America) among the Orthodox, the Melkites and the Maronites.

That is certainly your perogative. This is a matter that must be decide by particular bishops, as they determine what is "enough" to be in communion to share in the Eucharist. It is a judgment call, I guess. There is not a checklist that you would go through. Perhaps the Creed? However, that is fraught with danger, as a lot of Protestants say THEY believe the Creed, as well - and they have different meanings when they say certain words. We have already determined that. I am not sure the Orthodox and the West has fully explored that yet...

These deaconesses will not be some random lady from the community, however, who will go home to the husband and kids or grandchildren after the liturgy. Jo, lay people have no authorization to handle the holy vessels or the Holy Mysteries. That was the universal practice before Vatican II except perhaps for reception of communion in the hands.

There are a number of Catholics who feel the same way here. I can understand both points of view, my friend. I am more fairly flexible on this issue. I leave it to higher authority.

A number of Orthodox here on FR discussed once if they would receive communion, indeed seek it out, from a Latin priest if they were “in extremis”. Everyone said Yes and without hesitation. But as we lawyers say, “Hard cases make bad law”. “In extremis” is just that.

Well, that is good to hear. I have no problem viewing ourselves as the "younger brother", as I have said before to you - I am not too proud. Younger brothers DO, however, appreciate being treated with respect, rather than disdain and indifference.

Thanks again for your patience and attention.

Brother in Christ

[kosta50]

Thank you for sharing that. This is the first Novus Ordo Mass (judging from the vestments) I have seen where the priest is facing the East. My understanding that too is arbitrary!

But, this only makes me see the Catholic Church as an amalglam of "anything goes" Anglican-like community (except of course "ordained" women and married, practicing, homosexual or otherwise, bishops).

You say mine are extreme examples. I posted links a to a well made Catholic documentary that leaves no doubt these exceptions are quite common, as they are deeply un-Catholic.

Statistics show that Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated in some 15 parishes in the entire state of Florida, of which 5 are SSPX parishes. I would really be curious to see if anyone collected more data on other parishes and how they do their Mass. It is my understanding some groups tried and are known as the "liturgical gestapo."

It still doesn't address the issue of why should we trust you and what do you really have to offer us? You speak of "our "disobedience" to the Church. With all due respect, you made me laugh. Your side has much less obedience to the Church then we do. Your only criterion is that we kiss the Pope's feet. Let me tell you something: never. Maybe one day we will kiss his hand that holds the Eucharist; his feet never.

I can't trust a Church that decided to ditch its 1,400 year old liturgical tradition so it can be indistinguishable from the Protestant heretics.

What exactly do you want us in the East to do and why?

[kosta50]

This sort of self-delusion (I'm better than Catholics because...) is very difficult to admit to, especially when one has a tagline about the purity of their religious system...

Didn't even have the courtesy to include me while making sly remarks about my tagline? My tagline is a fact, not my opinion. It is a fact because our divine liturgy was implemented by and reflects the same faith the Church had when it canonized the Bible. If you don't think the Church had pure faith in those days, that is your prerogative, but if you accept the Bible on the authority of that Church then you are contradicting yourself.

Let me just say that I think many of you can only wish to have a 1,700 year old unbroken liturgical tradition and the faith of the Church that canonized the Bible because then none of your circus I have been showing you (and there are much worse examples that I will never show) would have never allowed it, and your sheepish laity would have never followed.

[kosta50]

Popes speak against it, some bishops bravely forge on, but many bishops, as you say, will soon be paving the road to hell. Christ Himself said that the head servants are responsible to the Master, and clearly, many of our Western Bishops are not doing there job.

Oh I don't buy that. Pope Benedict XVI is being very effective in making changes and repairing the house broken. If he can do it why couldn't John Paul II do it? Simple: he didn't see the need for it.

Most of these abuses appeared and flourished on his watch. I realize that he is popular with the post Vatican II generation, but facts are facts. He could have stopped it just as BXVI seems capable of stopping it.

And herein lies the problem. The Catholic Church is what the Pope is. And we have no guarantee what it will be tomorrow, with the next Pope.

To refresh your memory, JPII knew everything that was going on because much of it was taking place right in front of his eyes!

No comment is necessary.

[kosta50]

Younger brothers DO, however, appreciate being treated with respect, rather than disdain and indifference

They have to earn it, like everyone else. If they behave in a disrespectful manner, why should they get any respect?

[annalex]

They are bishops in apostolic succession, but not popes.

[annalex]

If the Latin Church demonstrates that the excesses and abuse, liturgical and otherwise, that occurred post Vatican II, are corrected, then that would be a reason to trust us. At this point I understand the hesitation completely.

[Kolokotronis]

“Oh, I believe we had this conversation before regarding the Eastern Rite Catholics,...”

Not the same thing at all, Jo. What’s going on in Lebanon is almost 100% culturally based. When its seen here in the States, it is also culturally based to the extent that some Maronites and many Melkites feel much more affinity, in a religious culture way, with Orthodox here than with Roman Catholics.

What I am positing is what has gone on, even in my own parish, with Copts and Armenians. What we see there in intercommunion is purely based in religion.

“Well, from there, maybe, but here, “Protestantism” itself is seen as a “church”, as well. They are indeed a force on the “Religious right” who often are our allies in political issues. We are on the same side on many cultural issues. I do speak with many of them on these forums and we try to put our differences aside sometimes because we realize we are going to sink or swim together, culturally speaking, since God Himself is the issue. Removing Him from the public forum, removing His Law from judicial judgments, etc. We are indeed a pagan society, for all intents and purposes.”

Jo, all niceties aside, with the exception of some Lutherans and some C.S. Lewis style Anglicans, Protestantism is heresy. The fruit of the weed of heresy is always the same. All we have to do is look around to see it.

“Ah, well that’s too bad Rome is blamed for cultural depravity, because the Pope has been issuing warnings and encyclicals and teaching about the dangers of Modernism since the 1800’s.”

Indeed the Popes have. Modernism has been condemned; Americanism as a species of materialistic Modernism has been too and rightly so. The problem is that The Western Church failed to curb Modernism and the East has a somewhat inflated concept of the power of Rome.

“The Fundamentalists have largely co-opted that with their literal reading of Genesis 1, etc... “

Your allies in the culture wars!

“I am more fairly flexible on this issue.”

The canons and the Fathers aren’t. You see, here’s an example of what we find objectionable in the Western Church. You are flexible about something which is nearly as disgraceful, liturgically, to us (and would have been to you 50 years ago) as the clown masses and vestal virgins are. Can you imagine what the reaction to Eucharettes would be in an Orthodox temple?

[Petrosius]

You say mine are extreme examples. I posted links a to a well made Catholic documentary that leaves no doubt these exceptions are quite common, as they are deeply un-Catholic.

No matter how well made, it does not reflect what is truly the norm. While regrettably the examples shown do exist, they are none the less very uncommon. The producer of that video has a particular axe to grind and is exaggerating what the normal worshipper encounters to discredit the validity of the entire Novus Ordo. I would describe your typical parish Mass more as bland than offensive. Would that more of the Masses be like the video in the link that I gave. Despite the real shortcomings of the Novus Ordo compared to the TLM, I would hazard to guess that you would agree that the Mass in the video is a valid and dignified liturgy.

You speak of "our "disobedience" to the Church. With all due respect, you made me laugh. Your side has much less obedience to the Church then we do.

If you look again at my post you will see that I was referring to the disobedience of Catholics.

Your side has much less obedience to the Church then we do. Your only criterion is that we kiss the Pope's feet. Let me tell you something: never. Maybe one day we will kiss his hand that holds the Eucharist; his feet never.

The Patriarch was not required to kiss the feet of the Pope at Ferrara/Florence. Nor is it even a part of the present papal protocol, so why bring it up? Constantly bringing up past offenses rather than addressing the present situation only serves to rub salt into the wound and is against our Lord's admonition to forgive one another.

[kosta50]

If the Latin Church demonstrates that the excesses and abuse, liturgical and otherwise, that occurred post Vatican II, are corrected, then that would be a reason to trust us. At this point I understand the hesitation completely

That would be a step forward, but not a reason to trust you. What guarantee do we have that the next pope will not take the Church in some other direction? How can you trust someone who ignores his own statements deemed infallible and trashes 1,400 years of his own holy tradition in exchange for something that even the Protestants didn't stoop down to?

[trisham]

The Patriarch was not required to kiss the feet of the Pope at Ferrara/Florence. Nor is it even a part of the present papal protocol, so why bring it up? Constantly bringing up past offenses rather than addressing the present situation only serves to rub salt into the wound and is against our Lord's admonition to forgive one another.

*********************

Amen.

[Petrosius]

How can you trust someone who ignores his own statements deemed infallible and trashes 1,400 years of his own holy tradition in exchange for something that even the Protestants didn't stoop down to?

And should the Eastern church be held in constant suspicion because of their past stints with Arianism and Iconoclasm?

[kosta50]

Despite the real shortcomings of the Novus Ordo compared to the TLM, I would hazard to guess that you would agree that the Mass in the video is a valid and dignified liturgy

Without a doubt. But it is not a norm. It is part of the rainbow of "norms" practiced across the Catholic spectrum. So, which is the norm? Obviously, depends where you are! That's not what catholic means, and you know that.

That's precisely why the Council of Trent made the TLM mandatory with very few exceptions within the Latin Rite.

If you look again at my post you will see that I was referring to the disobedience of Catholics. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

The Patriarch was not required to kiss the feet of the Pope at Ferrara/Florence. Nor is it even a part of the present papal protocol, so why bring it up?

It was a illustration to make a point of submission to the ope as the "supreme" being in the Church. He is the elder patriarch to us. Not a ruler. That's never going to change.

Constantly bringing up past offenses rather than addressing the present situation only serves to rub salt into the wound and is against our Lord's admonition to forgive one another

I agree. No need to dig up the past. Let's just have the list of what the Catholic Church wants form us in order to make reunion possible. And what does the Catholic Church offer in return to make it worth our consideration.

The past is water under the bridge. I really don't care what was done because no one can fix it. Let's hear what we can do, how and why.

[kosta50]

And should the Eastern church be held in constant suspicion because of their past stints with Arianism and Iconoclasm?

That's a fair question. I think the roles are reversed. We were bad at one time and then we cleaned up our act thanks to the blessed orthodox popes of Rome. I think we learned our lessons more than 1000 years ago and should get some credit on good behavior.

Are you ready to vouch for a loan for the next 1,000 years?

I think we would be much better of if we put all the cards on the table and say this is what I am willing to offer and this is what I am willing to accept, and this is why.

[Petrosius]

[The pope] is the elder patriarch to us. Not a ruler. That's never going to change.

But it has changed! While I would not characterize the popes in the first millennium as rulers, they were, even in the East, more that just the elder patriarch. The councils themselves are filled with examples of the popes being addressed as the shepherd of the entire church. Protestations by the Orthodox to the contrary will not change the historical facts.

[kosta50]

While I would not characterize the popes in the first millennium as rulers, they were, even in the East, more that just the elder patriarch

But that means a lot in the East! He is like the father to the younger brothers. He is ultimately responsible for all of them.

The councils themselves are filled with examples of the popes being addressed as the shepherd of the entire church

In a conciliar manner, yes. In fact he is the medium of conciliar unity.

Protestations by the Orthodox to the contrary will not change the historical facts

The Orthodox will treat him as they have before the Schism. A Patriarch has a lot of pull. The eldest patriarch of course has a lot more pull. But the Orthodox will not agree for the pope to pronounce dogma by bypassing the Synod. The General Synod has to infallibly approve. and he infallibly proclaims it.

[Petrosius]

But that means a lot in the East! He is like the father to the younger brothers. He is ultimately responsible for all of them.

Perhaps this could be spelled out more completely. To the Western ear Primus inter pares gives the impression of nothing more than precedence in protocol, somewhat like how the Archbishop of Baltimore would be treated among the American bishops. It also seems to imply the denial of a specific Petrine office distinct from the office of patriarch.

[annalex]

What guarantee do we have that the next pope will not take the Church in some other direction?

The guarantee is that the Church as a whole is infallible. She may be tempted but she won't fall as a whole. It is the prayer of Christ specifically for St. Peter that he may not fall and once converted, confirm his brethren (Lk 22:32). It is a matter of faith, of course.

You also exaggerate the negative role of the past popes. None of them had an evil intention; most abuse occurred by the faithless clergy against the backdrop of rising neo-paganism. Some frivolity for sure was tolerated, and it is very regrettable, but no pope "took the Church in the wrong direction", at least not permanently -- provided, indeed, that the new movement toward liturgical orthodoxy is sustained. At this moment it looks very good. I firmly believe that the worst is behind us.

[TexConfederate1861]

Whatever.