What Would The Catholic Church Have To Concede?

[LBK]

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

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]

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]

By "Catholic Church," you mean the Vatican?

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

Especially those "seers" from Medjugorje.

AFAIK Medjugorje is not considered an approved apparition anyway. (http://www.askacatholic.com/_WebPostings/Answers/2013_04APR/2013AprWhatsTheChurchsViewOnMedjugorje.cfm

 

[ialmisry]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

I mostly disagree with you.

That's unfortunate because it means you're wrong.  See my sig.  

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]

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". 

 

[Asteriktos]

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]

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?  

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]

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?  

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]

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. 

 

[username!]

Let's not make this about the mass, we have a thread ongoing on that

 

[ZealousZeal]

That's unfortunate because it means you're wrong.  See my sig.  

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?

 

[Mor Ephrem]

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?!

 

[Maria]

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]

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]

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]

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.