What Would The Catholic Church Have To Concede?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
Points
0
What doctrines, beliefs and practices would the Catholic Church have to concede in order to be reunited to the Orthodox Church?
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Doctrines?

-The Filioque

-Papal Authority in the sense that Vatican I defines that, the Pope is greater than the Ecumenical Councils and has the right to determine doctrine for the entire Church when speaking ex cathedra.

Nobody has the right to determine doctrine in the Orthodox Church.

-Purgatory as a literal place where people are burned in fire; and Indulgences. As far as I know, Indulgences got to go, but Purgatory can be 'optionalized'.

-Substitutionary atonement as an optional view of looking at the Passion and Atonement of Christ.

-Original Sin as hereditary guilt, not as a single decisive action that caused corruption of the Creation, as being an optional view.

-The Immaculate Conception as an optional view of who St. Mary is.

-The Ecclesiology of Rome with a 'head' on top and the 'body' below needs to go. The Pope would simply be a figurehead, like any other Primate of any other area of the world.

Practices?

-Resumption of fasting on Wed. and Fri. and in preparation for Eucharist according to the liturgical life of the Church.

-Baptism as immersion, and following Baptism immediate 'Confirmation' of the baptized. In other words, infants who are baptized will be confirmed immediately following.

-Paedocommunion, infants are administered the Holy Eucharist following their entry into the Church through Baptism.

-Forced Clerical Celibacy.

-Vatican II Liturgy should be sacked or reformed. Or better yet, reinstitute the Old Roman, Mozarabic, Gallician, Celtic, Ambrosian Rites of the ancient Church.

-From what I understand of the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church, only the bread and not the wine is given to members. That would not be the case in an 'Orthodox Rome'.

That's all I can think of.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
xOrthodox4Christx said:
-The Filioque

-Papal Authority in the sense that Vatican I defines that, the Pope is greater than the Ecumenical Councils and has the right to determine doctrine for the entire Church when speaking ex cathedra.

Nobody has the right to determine doctrine in the Orthodox Church.

-Purgatory as a literal place where people are burned in fire; and Indulgences. As far as I know, Indulgences got to go, but Purgatory can be 'optionalized'.

-Substitutionary atonement as an optional view of looking at the Passion and Atonement of Christ.

-Original Sin as hereditary guilt, not as a single decisive action that caused corruption of the Creation, as being an optional view.

-The Immaculate Conception as an optional view of who St. Mary is.

-The Ecclesiology of Rome with a 'head' on top and the 'body' below needs to go. The Pope would simply be a figurehead, like any other Primate of any other area of the world.

Practices?

-Resumption of fasting on Wed. and Fri. and in preparation for Eucharist according to the liturgical life of the Church.

-Baptism as immersion, and following Baptism immediate 'Confirmation' of the baptized. In other words, infants who are baptized will be confirmed immediately following.

-Paedocommunion, infants are administered the Holy Eucharist following their entry into the Church through Baptism.

-Vatican II Liturgy should be sacked or reformed. Or better yet, reinstitute the Old Roman, Mozarabic, Gallician etc. Rites of the ancient Church.

That's all I can think of.
Vatican I and Vatican II would have to go.
Actually anything post-800 A.D. might be tainted.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
By "Catholic Church," you mean the Vatican?

Visions, visionaries, and the cults that come with them.

The Episcopal Conferences have to be subsumed under their Orthodox counterparts, e.g. the Polish Episcopal Conference would have to become part of the Autocephalous Church of Poland, the Episcopal Conference of France would become part of  L'Assemblée des Evêques Orthodoxes de France (and perhaps become autocephalous) all its episcopal assemblies of Africa would come under the Pope of Alexandria.  What happens in North America would need some sorting out according to some.
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Would the Roman Church also have to accept the idea of theosis and also the Orthodox position on icons?
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,034
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Studying_Orthodoxy said:
Would the Roman Church also have to accept the idea of theosis and also the Orthodox position on icons?
The Latins teach differently on icons? I was under the impression that the teaching was the same, at least nominally.
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Studying_Orthodoxy said:
Would the Roman Church also have to accept the idea of theosis and also the Orthodox position on icons?
The Orthodox position on Icons is the Patristic and Conciliar position on Icons... so, yes.

Why wouldn't you want to restore such a beautiful Rite? Ah, those were the days.  :'(
 

WeldeMikael

High Elder
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
506
Reaction score
0
Points
0
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Studying_Orthodoxy said:
Would the Roman Church also have to accept the idea of theosis and also the Orthodox position on icons?
The Orthodox position on Icons is the Patristic and Conciliar position on Icons... so, yes.

Why wouldn't you want to restore such a beautiful Rite? Ah, those were the days.  :'(

Well, it still exists : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLeUVrcMtcw
Though I'm sure it's not the form you expected  ;D
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,981
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Studying_Orthodoxy said:
Would the Roman Church also have to accept the idea of theosis and also the Orthodox position on icons?
It already does, if it accepts what it believed prior to the schism.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,168
Reaction score
9
Points
38
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
Shanghaiski said:
Studying_Orthodoxy said:
Would the Roman Church also have to accept the idea of theosis and also the Orthodox position on icons?
It already does, if it accepts what it believed prior to the schism.
It does. It's just that some people don't do their research before they post.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,146
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Practices?

-Resumption of fasting on Wed. and Fri. and in preparation for Eucharist according to the liturgical life of the Church.

-Baptism as immersion, and following Baptism immediate 'Confirmation' of the baptized. In other words, infants who are baptized will be confirmed immediately following.

-Paedocommunion, infants are administered the Holy Eucharist following their entry into the Church through Baptism.

-Forced Clerical Celibacy.

-Vatican II Liturgy should be sacked or reformed. Or better yet, reinstitute the Old Roman, Mozarabic, Gallician, Celtic, Ambrosian Rites of the ancient Church.

-From what I understand of the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church, only the bread and not the wine is given to members. That would not be the case in an 'Orthodox Rome'.

That's all I can think of.
I don't know that I necessarily agree with all of these as stated above.  Returning to the traditional order and method of the sacraments of initiation is probably the only one I can agree with wholeheartedly.  Everything else seems to depend to a greater or lesser degree on the axiom "Byzantine = Orthodox".  
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
xOrthodox4Christx said:
-Original Sin as hereditary guilt, not as a single decisive action that caused corruption of the Creation, as being an optional view.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the phrase "hereditary guilt" but I do know that the CCC says:

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
Fr. Kimel has talked about this before, but a quick search isn't yielding the thread I'm thinking of. I will have to hunt more thoroughly.
 

lovesupreme

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
0
Points
0
All these concessions make reunion look like a distant hope.

I can see how some would argue that Eastern Rite is, at least in theory, a much more elegant way to reunite the two churches. We Orthodox would, in theory, only need to affirm papal supremacy, while keeping all of our existing practices and doctrines. Those who were or are still in the Eastern Rite know that things aren't always that way, but that's the outward intent, at least.

The other way around, the parts of the Roman Church that have been built up since basically the beginning of the schism would have to be torn down. They would, if some of these lists are to be believed, be reduced to a sort of Western Rite, with many of their previous devotions and practices stripped in order to conform with Orthodox theology.

Of course, that's probably the real cost of union.
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,981
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Mor Ephrem said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Practices?

-Resumption of fasting on Wed. and Fri. and in preparation for Eucharist according to the liturgical life of the Church.

-Baptism as immersion, and following Baptism immediate 'Confirmation' of the baptized. In other words, infants who are baptized will be confirmed immediately following.

-Paedocommunion, infants are administered the Holy Eucharist following their entry into the Church through Baptism.

-Forced Clerical Celibacy.

-Vatican II Liturgy should be sacked or reformed. Or better yet, reinstitute the Old Roman, Mozarabic, Gallician, Celtic, Ambrosian Rites of the ancient Church.

-From what I understand of the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church, only the bread and not the wine is given to members. That would not be the case in an 'Orthodox Rome'.

That's all I can think of.
I don't know that I necessarily agree with all of these as stated above.  Returning to the traditional order and method of the sacraments of initiation is probably the only one I can agree with wholeheartedly.  Everything else seems to depend to a greater or lesser degree on the axiom "Byzantine = Orthodox".  
Are not Oriental Orthodox babies baptized, chrismated, and communed in immediate succession, rather than being baptized as infants, and then chrismated and communed years later?
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,146
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Shanghaiski said:
Are not Oriental Orthodox babies baptized, chrismated, and communed in immediate succession, rather than being baptized as infants, and then chrismated and communed years later?
Yes, and not just the babies, but all who are to be baptised, regardless of age. 
 

lovesupreme

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
Shanghaiski said:
Are not Oriental Orthodox babies baptized, chrismated, and communed in immediate succession, rather than being baptized as infants, and then chrismated and communed years later?
Yes, and not just the babies, but all who are to be baptised, regardless of age.   
Hey, same here!
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
lovesupreme said:
All these concessions make reunion look like a distant hope.

I can see how some would argue that Eastern Rite is, at least in theory, a much more elegant way to reunite the two churches. We Orthodox would, in theory, only need to affirm papal supremacy, while keeping all of our existing practices and doctrines. Those who were or are still in the Eastern Rite know that things aren't always that way, but that's the outward intent, at least.

The other way around, the parts of the Roman Church that have been built up since basically the beginning of the schism would have to be torn down. They would, if some of these lists are to be believed, be reduced to a sort of Western Rite, with many of their previous devotions and practices stripped in order to conform with Orthodox theology.

Of course, that's probably the real cost of union.
I didn't mean to take it that far. I think the West should reclaim the beauty it once was, and keep the beauty that's still there. I would disagree for instance, with IalMisry on the issue of Catholic Saints.

Mor Ephrem said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Practices?

-Resumption of fasting on Wed. and Fri. and in preparation for Eucharist according to the liturgical life of the Church.

-Baptism as immersion, and following Baptism immediate 'Confirmation' of the baptized. In other words, infants who are baptized will be confirmed immediately following.

-Paedocommunion, infants are administered the Holy Eucharist following their entry into the Church through Baptism.

-Forced Clerical Celibacy.

-Vatican II Liturgy should be sacked or reformed. Or better yet, reinstitute the Old Roman, Mozarabic, Gallician, Celtic, Ambrosian Rites of the ancient Church.

-From what I understand of the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church, only the bread and not the wine is given to members. That would not be the case in an 'Orthodox Rome'.

That's all I can think of.
I don't know that I necessarily agree with all of these as stated above.  Returning to the traditional order and method of the sacraments of initiation is probably the only one I can agree with wholeheartedly.  Everything else seems to depend to a greater or lesser degree on the axiom "Byzantine = Orthodox". 
Which ones would you disagree with?
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,146
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Mor Ephrem said:
I don't know that I necessarily agree with all of these as stated above.  Returning to the traditional order and method of the sacraments of initiation is probably the only one I can agree with wholeheartedly.  Everything else seems to depend to a greater or lesser degree on the axiom "Byzantine = Orthodox". 
Which ones would you disagree with?
Let's do this in order:

xOrthodox4Christx said:
Practices?

-Resumption of fasting on Wed. and Fri. and in preparation for Eucharist according to the liturgical life of the Church.
We need to accept that customs and disciplines in the Orthodox West were different from those in the East even before the schism, and so we cannot just impose our way on them, we need to let them be themselves.  I don't know what about the preparation for the Eucharist I would recommend changing except the length of the pre-communion fast: even three hours seems so little, but one hour? 

I suppose we could insist on Wednesday and Friday fasting in terms of putting it on the books again, but let's be real: how many Orthodox follow these fasts?  And when they do, how strictly do they follow them?  Just putting them back on the books may be enough of an accomplishment, but let's not pretend that they will suddenly start to fast because we said so when our say so isn't enough for our own people. 

And this is besides the fact that fasting on Saturdays, forbidden in the East, was an ancient custom in Rome according to Pope Leo I.  In another thread, we couldn't figure out when the West dropped Wednesdays, so who's to say that definitely is a post-schism development?       

I don't know if it's worth fighting over this.

-Forced Clerical Celibacy.
It's not forced because no one is forced to become a cleric.  Celibacy is one of the requirements they seek when considering who is a qualified candidate for ministry in their Church.  That is a matter of discipline, not doctrine, and they have made enough exceptions in the West to at least draw attention to its disciplinary nature.  Since they do not say celibacy is intrinsic to priesthood in any doctrinal sense, and it is not required out of hatred for marriage (which would be uncanonical), I think this is another matter in which it is probably best not to meddle in their internal affairs.  If they want to take the opportunity of a reunion to remove this requirement, that's fine, but to make this a condition of reunion is silly IMO. 

-Vatican II Liturgy should be sacked or reformed. Or better yet, reinstitute the Old Roman, Mozarabic, Gallician, Celtic, Ambrosian Rites of the ancient Church.
In most cases I'm familiar with, the regions which had their own rites (Milan, Toledo, Paris, etc.) did not have the Roman rite imposed on them, but accepted it voluntarily (same with some of the religious orders, e.g., the Discalced Carmelites).  Where these rites are still in use, they are restricted to their regions or orders, whether modified post-Vatican II or not.  If they have it, let them use it.  But if they don't have it and are happy with the Roman rite, I don't think we need to impose on them a rite which hasn't been used in so long. 

Regarding reform or abolition of the Vatican II rites, again, I think it is best not to meddle as long as the rite is orthodox.  Who is in the best place to make liturgical decisions for the Church of Rome?  Her synod or Russia's?  As long as the rite is orthodox and a basically reverential celebration can be ensured, with violations dealt with adequately, I don't see why we should interfere.  We should encourage Rome to be a better, more authentic Rome. 

-From what I understand of the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church, only the bread and not the wine is given to members. That would not be the case in an 'Orthodox Rome'.
Since the intinction is done ritually at the Agnus Dei, I don't think Communion under one species is necessarily a big deal.  The shift in practice occurred for historical reasons that, to my knowledge, did not involve heresy, and has basically become an immemorial tradition.  Communion under both species has a higher "sign value", and is preferable, but not a non-negotiable deal breaker. 

This is more of a deal breaker, IMO (no offence, cute girls  :p):





 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,146
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
lovesupreme said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Shanghaiski said:
Are not Oriental Orthodox babies baptized, chrismated, and communed in immediate succession, rather than being baptized as infants, and then chrismated and communed years later?
Yes, and not just the babies, but all who are to be baptised, regardless of age.   
Hey, same here!
Hey, another filthy heretic!  :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top