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
7,982
Reaction score
0
Points
36
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
23,215
Reaction score
31
Points
48
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
36,162
Reaction score
34
Points
48
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
7,982
Reaction score
0
Points
36
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
36,162
Reaction score
34
Points
48
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
36,162
Reaction score
34
Points
48
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
36,162
Reaction score
34
Points
48
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!  :)
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Mor Ephrem said:
This is more of a deal breaker, IMO (no offence, cute girls  :p):





Oh, dear God, YES! "Special ministers of the Eucharist", or whatever the exact term is for them, just have to go, whether they're kids, retirees, or anything in between. Clergy ONLY should administer Holy Communion.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,162
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
LBK said:
Oh, dear God, YES! "Special ministers of the Eucharist", or whatever the exact term is for them, just have to go, whether they're kids or retirees. Clergy ONLY should administer Holy Communion.
It was really hard to find pictures of attractive men and women distributing Communion...most of the photos were of "seasoned citizens".  "Old is gold", but at least the photos I chose were easier on the eyes.  ;)
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
biro said:
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.

ialmisry said:
biro said:
A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly.  ::) Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?  ???
evidently not.

The only archbishop waaaaay back when in Rome was the archbishop a/k/a the pope now (7th century or so, the title meandering from Alexandria-upon whom it was bestowed-through Carthage to Rome).  The other half dozen or so bishops were suffragans, who consecrated the new archbishop (a similar set up was in Alexandria, but not in Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem).  The first diocesan bishop, let alone archbishop, to be named cardinal didn't happen until 1163, when beseiged Pope Alexander III (another pope-antipope schism over the "font of unity")  let Archbishop Konrad of Mainz keep his see, although named cardinal in the college at Rome.

Not all cardinals are bishops.

Do get your facts straight.
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Mor Ephrem said:
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. 
I don't really have a dog in this fight, so it doesn't really matter what I think... but since I've never let that stop me before:

I mostly disagree with you. I understand the theology behind receiving under one species (still fully receiving Jesus), but as you say communion under both has a higher "sign value", and frankly, isn't that one of the many facets of communion- that it's a sign? To me, communing under one species is not ideal and shouldn't be the norm. Whether it should be a deal breaker, I don't know. If this was the last thing to be checked off the list in a reunion scenario and everything else was agreed on... maybe phase it out?
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,212
Reaction score
90
Points
48
Age
41
Mor Ephrem said:
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.
Every time this subject comes up (well, probably every time) I regret getting rid of the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit book by HTM. I remember (rightly, I hope) some quotes from St. Photius in the introduction, from letters he sent to the Pope of Rome, which basically said "You have your customs, like such-and-such, we have ours, why argue?" I don't know if it'd be as interesting as his comments in the Mystagogy about, for example, dealing with Fathers who possibly made errors, but I'd love to see it again.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Mor Ephrem said:
We should encourage Rome to be a better, more authentic Rome.
I heard a Greek Orthodox priest say. "We should encourage Jews to be better Jews, and Buddhist, better Buddhists." People in the pews reacted angrily when they heard that. That priest was quickly reassigned.

Instead ...

Rome needs to return to the Orthodox Church, circa 600 AD.

Only trouble is that the Orthodox Church has had it own negative renaissance and now has a New Calendar (circa 1900) and other irregularities (multiple jurisdiction in the same city), so the Orthodox Church needs to be renewed and return to its "Catholic" and "Orthodox" roots as does the Roman Catholic Church.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,162
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
ZealousZeal said:
I mostly disagree with you.
That's unfortunate because it means you're wrong.  See my sig.  :p

I understand the theology behind receiving under one species (still fully receiving Jesus), but as you say communion under both has a higher "sign value", and frankly, isn't that one of the many facets of communion- that it's a sign? To me, communing under one species is not ideal and shouldn't be the norm. Whether it should be a deal breaker, I don't know. If this was the last thing to be checked off the list in a reunion scenario and everything else was agreed on... maybe phase it out?
I think we actually agree on sign value, but disagree on how far is far enough.  For me, the most important "unification" of the Body and the Blood is in the ritual intinction.  In the Byzantine rite, I think this happens after "Holies for the holy", when a particle of the Lamb is placed within the chalice.  This precedes the Communion of the clergy.  After this, the particles for the laity are placed in the chalice and most people receive from this mixture.  But it is not so in all rites.  The Roman rite practices this intinction at roughly the same moment in the Liturgy, but without necessarily communing the faithful under both species.  In the Syriac and Coptic rites, a particle of the holy bread is placed in the chalice, and another particle is dipped into the Blood and is used to anoint the rest of the Body (which the Byzantine rite basically does when preparing the Presanctified Gifts).  After this, they can either receive both separately (Coptic) or receive what basically looks like Communion under one species but is really not (Syriac).  Whether a particular tradition habitually communes with one species or both, the gifts have been consecrated separately (death) and then reunited (resurrection), so that there is no longer two, but one.  Again, for me, this is the most important consideration.  All of our traditions allow communing under one species given specific reasons, and I think part of the reason this is acceptable is because of this rite.  

If we say that the sign value of receiving under both is important enough to impose on them independent of the above ritual notes, how should we do it?  Personally, I think this:




is a better "sign" than this:



But I wouldn't impose it on the Byzantine rite or even on my own.  I think we need to think a bit outside the box and allow some leeway in such matters.  Not that we have to worry about this coming up any time soon, but still.  

 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,162
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Asteriktos said:
Mor Ephrem said:
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.
Every time this subject comes up (well, probably every time) I regret getting rid of the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit book by HTM. I remember (rightly, I hope) some quotes from St. Photius in the introduction, from letters he sent to the Pope of Rome, which basically said "You have your customs, like such-and-such, we have ours, why argue?" I don't know if it'd be as interesting as his comments in the Mystagogy about, for example, dealing with Fathers who possibly made errors, but I'd love to see it again.
Oh, for the days when we could breathe fire against the Filioque but still be considered "liberal".  :p
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,212
Reaction score
90
Points
48
Age
41
LOL, well yes, that situation soured. At first though St. Photius was all nice about differences in liturgical customs and such. Though admittedly he had a reason to play nice as, if memory serves, he was trying to convince Rome that his elevation was justified and, hey, they just rolled differently than Rome. Though I guess Rome didn't like the elevation at all and the enforced replacement of his predecessor and such, and the custom of elevating laymen to bishops wasn't the main point, I don't think (and of course that had happened in the west as well). Anyway...
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,162
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Maria said:
Mor Ephrem said:
We should encourage Rome to be a better, more authentic Rome.
And I heard a priest say "We should encourage Jews to be better Jews, and Buddhist, better Buddhists."

I cannot agree.

Rome needs to return to the Orthodox Church, circa 600 AD.
Monothelitism?  :p

You misunderstand me, Maria.  In this hypothetical, I'm presuming that on matters of faith, Rome would have embraced the Orthodox faith.  Given that presupposition, I don't think we need to reform their Liturgy as much as we need for them to do it as it is set forth in the official liturgical books.  It's not bad, it's just not Byzantine.  

If the argument is that their Liturgy should also be restored to its AD 600 form, I think it's only fair if the Byzantine rite EO do the same with theirs.  But if they did so, the faithful might feel they walked in on the services of another religion.  People don't realise just how much that's "old" is really "new".  
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Mor Ephrem said:
Maria said:
Mor Ephrem said:
We should encourage Rome to be a better, more authentic Rome.
I heard a Greek Orthodox priest say. "We should encourage Jews to be better Jews, and Buddhist, better Buddhists." People in the pews reacted angrily when they heard that. That priest was quickly reassigned.

Instead ...

Rome needs to return to the Orthodox Church, circa 600 AD.

Only trouble is that the Orthodox Church has had it own negative renaissance and now has a New Calendar (circa 1900) and other irregularities (multiple jurisdiction in the same city), so the Orthodox Church needs to be renewed and return to its "Catholic" and "Orthodox" roots as does the Roman Catholic Church.
Monothelitism?  :p

You misunderstand me, Maria.  In this hypothetical, I'm presuming that on matters of faith, Rome would have embraced the Orthodox faith.  Given that presupposition, I don't think we need to reform their Liturgy as much as we need for them to do it as it is set forth in the official liturgical books.  It's not bad, it's just not Byzantine.  

If the argument is that their Liturgy should also be restored to its AD 600 form, I think it's only fair if the Byzantine rite EO do the same with theirs.  But if they did so, the faithful might feel they walked in on the services of another religion.  People don't realise just how much that's "old" is really "new".  
I fixed my quoted material as I had edited it while you were typing your response.

Their Vatican II liturgy is abysmal. I went through the changes of Vatican II, and they were awful.


 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,162
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Maria said:
Their Vatican II liturgy is abysmal. I went through the changes of Vatican II, and they were awful.
I'm not a big fan of the reformed Liturgy, even when done by the book.  That said, every year the number of people for whom the pre-Vatican II Church was a real, lived experience (if now only a memory) decreases, making it harder to "return".  Unless the old Mass experiences a global renaissance due to the work of the various Latin Mass groups, I think any reunion would involve dealing with the "new Mass".  Better to focus on better celebration than on dumping it and replacing it with something no one has done for over a thousand years. 
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Mor Ephrem said:
That's unfortunate because it means you're wrong.  See my sig.  :p
I'm an alpaca in a Pilgrim hat. Your argument is invalid.

I think we actually agree on sign value, but disagree on how far is far enough.  For me, the most important "unification" of the Body and the Blood is in the ritual intinction.  In the Byzantine rite, I think this happens after "Holies for the holy", when a particle of the Lamb is placed within the chalice.  This precedes the Communion of the clergy.  After this, the particles for the laity are placed in the chalice and most people receive from this mixture.  But it is not so in all rites.  The Roman rite practices this intinction at roughly the same moment in the Liturgy, but without necessarily communing the faithful under both species.  In the Syriac and Coptic rites, a particle of the holy bread is placed in the chalice, and another particle is dipped into the Blood and is used to anoint the rest of the Body (which the Byzantine rite basically does when preparing the Presanctified Gifts).  After this, they can either receive both separately (Coptic) or receive what basically looks like Communion under one species but is really not (Syriac).  Whether a particular tradition habitually communes with one species or both, the gifts have been consecrated separately (death) and then reunited (resurrection), so that there is no longer two, but one.  Again, for me, this is the most important consideration.  All of our traditions allow communing under one species given specific reasons, and I think part of the reason this is acceptable is because of this rite.
This is interesting to hear and is definitely something to think about. I'm still bugged by receiving the host on its own, but it's too late for me to come up with a coherent argument for why. I will ponder it.   

If we say that the sign value of receiving under both is important enough to impose on them independent of the above ritual notes, how should we do it?
Hold the chalice to their open mouths like a mama bird to its babies?
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Mor Ephrem said:
ZealousZeal said:
If we say that the sign value of receiving under both is important enough to impose on them independent of the above ritual notes, how should we do it?
Hold the chalice to their open mouths like a mama bird to its babies?
They use chalices?!
Yes, at any given mass, there may be four or more communion "stations" where people receive first a host in their hands, and then at another station they are offered the chalice. Accidents do happen as people bump into one another. It can be chaotic.

I am so glad that I am an Orthodox Christian. [sigh of relief]
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,212
Reaction score
90
Points
48
Age
41
Studying_Orthodoxy said:
What doctrines, beliefs and practices would the Catholic Church have to concede in order to be reunited to the Orthodox Church?
Here is a list of commonly (and a couple not-very-commonly) mentioned differences/problems that I wrote down about 9 months ago, and my current thoughts on them:

Development of Doctrine - Still working through this one, and probably will be doing so for years to come. From what I've read I think the concept (just in theory/principle) could be outlined in such a way that it would probably be acceptable to the Orthodox. A more obvious problem IMO is in the application and doctrines that are said to fall under this development. Cardinal Newman, for example, mentions the filioque as an example of it. Now if the Catholics could get the Orthodox to move closer to their position (rather than the other way around), I think it would significantly lessen how much theological jungle needs to be worked through, but I can't imagine that ever happening.

Purgatory - The Orthodox position is possibly closer to the Catholic position than some realize, but there are still crucial differences, including how specific we can be about such things, the manner in which the cleansing (assuming it happens) is performed, and when and where this would take place. I'm not familiar enough with the history and exact formulation of the doctrine (besides blurb-style descriptions) to know how easily something could be worked out.

Papal Infallibility - I consider the idea of infallibility in itself (regardless of who or what it is applied to) to be largely meaningless. Nonetheless, as for others... the Orthodox aren't going to accept anything like papal infallibility. Even if it was somehow packaged with an Ecumenical Council or some vague "mind of the Church," I still don't think the Orthodox would accept it. Now, a possible test scenario: would the Pope ever accept the idea that a council could be valid even if he and Rome completely opposed it? How would such a thing be resolved? (This goes into papal supremacy I suppose as well). Then again, when it comes to Councils, I'm not sure that Orthodox theology has a foolproof method to put forward as an alternative.

Papal Supremacy - I think the main problem here is that both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. That sort of makes things difficult. Many would identify the papal issues as the main ones I guess.

Original Sin - I'm not sure what the difference is. I've read the books and blogs and so forth. I've certainly read statements from western authors (both pre and post schism--whenever that was) that made me think "woh, that's not at all what seems correct". Still, I've also seen lots that makes me wonder if this is not simply a matter of waters being muddied by disagreements among theologians, or more often apologetic/polemic disputes exaggerating things.

Filioque - I don't see the Orthodox accepting it. Admittedly, some Orthodox theologians have already said it's not a significant issue. But I don't think the rank and file Orthodox would accept anything less than significant movement on the part of Rome, and perhaps even a complete rejection of it. Maybe I'm being pessimistic.

Salvation - Theories of atonement and all that. I dunno, to be honest. By coincidence I recently ordered a volume of Anselm's major works. When I think of all the ways that salvation is spoken of--that it must be spoken of in a great variety of ways just to start to approach some kind of understanding--I wonder if again this is just an issue of exaggeration.

Mind vs. Spirit - Or scholasticism vs. mysticism, or intellect vs. activity, or eastern mind vs. western mind, or culture vs. law, or... well you get the idea. It seems to me that there were differences between "east" and "west" from early on, and snowballing as time moved on. Priestly celibacy and sexuality generally seem to be examples, so that while the gap between practices/understandings are sometimes made to be more than they are... still, I think there were indeed clear areas of divergence. I don't think it's a major issue, though, nor do I think Rome needs to "ascertain an Orthodox phronema and throw off the darkness of it's rationalism," or however you want to put it.

Immaculate Conception - Was it Khomiakov who said it was a great answer to a non-existent problem? That about sums it up: the Orthodox don't see that it's needed, while the Catholics consider it very important as an answer or explanation. Not sure what to do or how far Catholicism would move on this...?

Divorce/Contraception - Some apparently consider these very important. I've even read several people say that it was major or even decisive factors in going to Rome rather than Orthodoxy. Frankly I find that dumbfounding.

Bible Canon - No one cares about this, except me I guess, but I do wonder about how insistent the Catholics are on their particular canon. Or whether they will be ok with the Orthodox having multiple canons (especially if the Oriental Orthodox are included in that).

Created Grace, Supererogatory Works, Essence/Energies, etc. etc. - Well the list goes on, unfortunately. Or is it unfortunate that we multiply problems when they don't exist? I dunno. I have explored so little of this stuff, to be honest. It's one of those "the more you know, the more you realize you don't know" things I guess.
 

IoanC

Archon
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
2,468
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I see The RC as estranged from the truth. It's not so much that they have to concede, but they have to genuinely embrace Orthodoxy, and this, ultimately, is not something that can be accomplished through a mechanical change/conversion (perhaps in large numbers, too), but through an illuminative and transformative process.
 

BTRAKAS

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
North Royalton, Ohio
In connection with the well stated Reply No. 1:

Vatican II authorized distribution of both elements of the Roman Catholic Holy Communion to the faithful and the clergy.  Currently, the "Blood," is offered to the laity as an option, from a glass goblet from what I've seen, and, as with the unleavened bread consecrated as the "Body," it is distributed by clergy and laity; laity who do not even wear robes to separate their human iniquity from the sanctity of the Sanctuary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top