www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West WRO if Catholics/Orthodox unite?

I have never come across such common spirituality with my RC friends and acquaintances (apart from monastics), just focal points and 'enthusiasms'... Fatima, Latin Mass Society, Medjugore, Taize, Padre Pio. I get little sense of common spiritual life and praxis. Perhaps this is very British and things are different elsewhere or perhaps even in UK cities with parishes established for national groups, eg the various Polish parishes where this is vibrant community church life.

I understand WRO are actually EO using latin liturgy, their spirituality and theology is thoroughly eastern. I read that even their rubrics have been somewhat changed to meet EO standards, so I don't see how they would fit in in the Latin Church in the event of a reunion, unless that reunion is accomplished by throwing out the window 1000 years of western theology and spirituality and that I believe has zero chances of succeeding.

There is one Eastern element (like the Kyrie), at least in the Antiochian WRO: the Constantinopolitan Epiclesis is inserted to underline the vestiges of the Western first millenium one.

What horsecrap. There was never an explicit descending epiclesis in the Roman Canon or any other Western liturgy of the first millennium. The Orthodox invented the charge that Rome suppressed the epiclesis as a reflexive response to the (equally false) charge that the Orthodox had suppressed the Filioque in the original version of the Creed.

The insertion of a Orthodox-style pre-communion prayer is another example of the "byzantinization" of the Western rite, just proving that "uniatism" is a two-way street.

While we are at it, the "Feast of the Immaculate Conception" would indeed remain on the calendar as the "Feast of the Conception of St. Anne", only moved to the 9th of September.

All these comments just reinforce my belief that the Orthodox have real problems with any form of theology or spirituality that are not explicitly Byzantine, even more than many Catholics have problems with any form of theology or spirituality that is not explicitly Roman. The best cure for this problem is for both sides to learn more about the actual (not the imagined) Tradition and practice of the Church of the first millennium.

What horsecrap. There was never an explicit descending epiclesis in the Roman Canon or any other Western liturgy of the first millennium. The Orthodox invented the charge that Rome suppressed the epiclesis as a reflexive response to the (equally false) charge that the Orthodox had suppressed the Filioque in the original version of the Creed.

It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer. For instance, the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, immediately after the recital of the words of Institution, goes on to the Anamnesis — "Remembering therefore His Passion..." — in which occur the words: "thou, the God who lackest nothing, being pleased with them (the Offerings) for the honour of Thy Christ, and sending down Thy Holy Spirit on this sacrifice, the witness of the Passion of the Lord Jesus, to manifest (opos apophene) this bread as the Body of Thy Christ and this chalice as the Blood of Thy Christ..."...Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time contained similar invocations. The Gallican Liturgy had variable forms according to the feast. That for the Circumcision was: "Hæc nos, Domine, instituta et præcepta retinentes suppliciter oramus uti hoc sacrificium suscipere et benedicere et sanctificare digneris: ut fiat nobis eucharistia legitima in tuo Filiique tui nomine et Spiritus sancti, in transformationem corporis ac sanguinis domini Dei nostri Jesu Christi unigeniti tui, per quem omnia creas..." (Duchesne, "Origines du culte chrétien", 2nd ed., Paris, 1898, p. 208, taken from St. Germanus of Paris, d. 576). There are many allusions to the Gallican Invocation, for instance St. Isidore of Seville (De eccl. officiis, I, 15, etc.). The Roman Rite too at one time had an Epiklesis after the words of Institution. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) refers to it plainly: "Quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus adveniet, si sacerdos...criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?" ("Epp. Fragm.", vii, in Thiel, "Epp. Rom. Pont.", I, 486). Watterich (Der Konsekrationsmoment im h. Abendmahl, 1896, pp. 133 sq.) brings other evidences of the old Roman Invocation. he (p. 166) and Drews (Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons, 1902, p. 28) think that several secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary were originally Invocations (see article CANON OF THE MASS). Of the essential clause left out — our prayer: "Supplices te rogamus" (Duchesne, op. cit., 173-5). It seems that an early insistence on the words of Institution as the form of Consecration (see, for instance, Pseudo-Ambrose, "De Mysteriis", IX, 52, and "De Sacramentis", IV, 4, 14-15, 23; St. Augustine, Sermon 227) led in the West to the neglect and mutilation of the Epiklesis.

Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Fortescue, A. (1909). Epiklesis. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 11, 2012 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm

The insertion of a Orthodox-style pre-communion prayer is another example of the "byzantinization" of the Western rite, just proving that "uniatism" is a two-way street.

What horsecrap.

While we are at it, the "Feast of the Immaculate Conception" would indeed remain on the calendar as the "Feast of the Conception of St. Anne", only moved to the 9th of September.

All these comments just reinforce my belief that the Orthodox have real problems with any form of theology or spirituality that are not explicitly Byzantine

even more than many Catholics have problems with any form of theology or spirituality that is not explicitly Roman. The best cure for this problem is for both sides to learn more about the actual (not the imagined) Tradition and practice of the Church of the first millennium.

just the parts that don't comport with Orthodoxy. Union would not succeed any other way.

... still trying to get used to the idea that, in a united church, WRO will be merged into the Latin Church.

One thing I'm convinced of is that in order for a genuine reunion to take place, a number of existing assumptions will have to be abandoned by all participating parties.

In all seriousness
For Union of Churches Roman Catholics will have to
1. Give up Filoque
2. give up many Marian devotions - Immaculate Conception etc.
3. Papal Infallibility needs to be abandoned

That makes it sound like all that needs to happen is for the Catholics to give up all their theological distinctives?

Yes, I can agree with that. Which then makes me wonder: which assumption will have to be abandoned, the assumption that they will be merged into the Latin Church, or the assumption that they won't be merged into the Latin Church?