|
0 members (),
1,799
guests, and
106
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,508
Posts417,509
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 17
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 17 |
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. just the parts that don't comport with Orthodoxy. Union would not succeed any other way. The union you're envisioning sounds like the Union of Brest, if you switch the roles of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. (Granted, I'm still trying to get used to the idea that, in a united church, WRO will be merged into the Latin Church.) I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from the part of my post you bolded unless you believe that is what must be done to achieve reunion i.e. just for RC to become EO. But since you mention absorption of one church by the other and if the comparison between EC and WRO is anything to go by, I think EO would fare a lot better as EC in the Post Vatican II Catholic Church than RC would as WRO, not that either has any chances. Anyway, I'm not in the least optimistic about reunion happening any time soon if ever. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 17
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 17 |
In all seriousness
For Union of Churches, Roman Catholics will have to
1. Give up Filioque
2. give up many Marian devotions - Immaculate Conception etc.
3. Papal Infallibility needs to be abandoned
Those are just a start. John, WRT "giving up" the Filioque, I assume you mean removing it from the Creed in all liturgical celebrations. The East would then reciprocate by nullifying all anathemas against the theology behind the Filioque--essentially Augustine--while Rome then withdraws any official recognition (if this ever was official) of Augustine as "Universal Theologian."Papal Infallibility needs to be explained as a derivative of the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church, based on the assumption that "one man can speak for the entire Church." Since the latter assumption would almost certainly be thrown out in any discussion of East-West reunion, this one would clearly fall as well, along with any other post-schism dogmatic definitions that can't be expressed in terms acceptable to all parties seeking union. WRT the IC, let us not forget that it has been considered an "allowable" opinion in the EOC, and that the real issue is that the RCC decided to make it a dogma. It could be allowed to stand, so long as the West ceases to regard it as essential for salvation. (What other Marian devotions were you thinking of?) Peace, Deacon Richard And who will be next in line to get the boot? Let me guess, St. Thomas Aquinas. And who will follow? St. Bonaventure? The German mystics? The Spanish Carmelites? Just to get the RCC to drop the filioque from the Creed will be a feat of epic proportions, let alone declaring it heretical. The first will certainly raise a lot of opposition, it could also cause small schisms like the SSPX. The second, well, it will probably make sedevacantism the fastest growing religion ever. I think very little will be accomplished as long as we don't really try to distinguish between heterodoxy and each other's ways of thinking and being. In the meantime we will continue talking past each other.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 17
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 17 |
after more research I know more about the Orthodox views of the Assumption.
As we know Mary is ingrained in all our Liturgical doxologies throughout the Liturgies of the East.
the Eastern Orthodox believe in the Assumption but because it was declared as an Assumption without DYING FIRST by Pius XII in an ex cathedra use of Papal Infallibility they have a problem with it.
Eastern Orthodox believed she DIED first (Dormition). Latin Catholics are taught she was assumed without dying (Assumption only) no death.
So it is possible that the problems are the ex cathedra Papal infallibility issue rather than the actual assumption because they believe in the assumption.
Also it is because of all our Theotokions and Bohodoricen Hymns interspersed everywhere in the Divine Liturgy and Horos that it did not need to be taught to the Orthodox and therefore was not declared a Dogma.
Immaculate Conception differences arise from views of Original Sin. I have always believed the Virgin Mary died and then was assumed into heaven. I have also read that most Catholic theologians think she died. A seminarian friend of mine told me a joke once about the people in a small backwater town who claimed that they had in their church, among its illustrious relics, a femur of the BVM 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 15
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 15 |
Do you think a better administration for the WRO in a united Church would be analogous to the Italo-Byzantines - under the Bishop of Rome but Eastern? Well, I don't know about that analogy, b/c the Byzantine Italo-Greek-Hungarian Catholic Church is sui iuris ... Byzantine Italo-Greek- Albanian - but, that aside, Michael is correct. The 2 jurisdictions of the Italo-Greek-Albanian Church - the Eparchies of Lungro degli Italo-Albanese en Calabria and Piana degli Albanese, together with the Territorial Abbey & Exarchic Monastery of Santa Maria di Grottaferrata of the Italo-Greeks, are indeed of the Byzantine Rite, but subject directly to Rome. However, that makes them only slightly different from other Eastern Churches sui iuris which are of less than major-archeparchial rank, All such are subject directly to Rome. The sole distinction as regards the three jurisdictions in Italy is that there was no pretense of the fact that they were suffragn to the Patriarchate of the West (when that title was still in use). They have historically represented an island of Byzantinianism within the otherwise pristinely Latin Church of the West. As to the Italo-Greico-Albanians and Italo-Greeks being sui iuris ... they are - as the term is used. In fact, since none of the three hierarchs has primatial authority, they are technically each a Church sui iuris. However, the reality is that, like all such Churches of less than metropolitan status, there is sadly little meaning to that term as applied to them. I haven't followed this thread, so I've no notion how my opinion fits into the discussion but, as regards the Western Rite, were reunion to occur, I can't see a distinction that would convince me that it should exist outside the Western (Latin) Church framework (unless it were somehow shown to merit creation of an Ordinariate, like unto that for the Anglo-Catholics). Many years, Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
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. just the parts that don't comport with Orthodoxy. Union would not succeed any other way. The union you're envisioning sounds like the Union of Brest, if you switch the roles of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. (Granted, I'm still trying to get used to the idea that, in a united church, WRO will be merged into the Latin Church.) I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from the part of my post you bolded unless you believe that is what must be done to achieve reunion i.e. just for RC to become EO. But since you mention absorption of one church by the other and if the comparison between EC and WRO is anything to go by, I think EO would fare a lot better as EC in the Post Vatican II Catholic Church than RC would as WRO, not that either has any chances. Anyway, I'm not in the least optimistic about reunion happening any time soon if ever. Hi Jvrlns. Can you clarify: I can't tell whether the "you" in your post refers to IAlmisry or to me?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
b/c the Byzantine Italo-Greek-Hungarian Catholic Church is sui iuris ... Oops, didn't even realize I had said that. Byzantine Italo-Greek- Albanian I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 17
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 17 |
I'm sorry Peter J, I should use quotes more sparingly :blush:
Yes I was referring to your comment on the part you bolded in one of my posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
I'm sorry Peter J, I should use quotes more sparingly  Yes I was referring to your comment on the part you bolded in one of my posts. No need to apologize. If anything, I probably should have used quotes more sparingly -- I quoted Ialmisry's post, which included a quote (with some bolding) from you. I guess I inadvertently gave the impression that I was replying to you rather than Ialmisry.
Last edited by Peter J; 08/19/12 01:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421 |
I would like to make the following statement
When you encounter the TRUTH - that Truth should over-ride all dogma.
In my examination of the filoque - it was introduced far too late in the history of christianity to have been a basic truth.
Same with Immaculate Conception and Infallibility of the Pope.
Ultimately THE TRUE FAITH = THE TRUTH should be examined by the believer and decisions must be made.
All too often the Western world looks at what the Eastern world needs to do to achieve union without ever looking at what the West needs to do to achieve union.
Personally the search for THE TRUTH is forcing me to look seriously at these basic issues. My biggest problem is the hierarchy of the Latin Church as problematic. In rigidity it holds a world view that is incapable of union.
I am coming to believe that Orthodox theology is what holds the True Faith and so if that is TRUE then it is the Latin Church which needs to change.
Perhaps the view that the Roman Bishops split off of Orthodoxy and not vice versa is the way to look at this problem at it's core.
====================================
The Western Rite Liturgy is ancient and with the proper changes (see Saint Tikhon) is Orthodox and Liturgically sound (errors were introduced that needed changing). It was in use prior to the great schism so therefore was just as Orthodox as the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom
==================================
Last edited by haydukovich; 08/20/12 01:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
Why, exactly, would you introduce changes into the Western liturgy that are not part of the Western Tradition? Particularly when those elements you want to change not only predate the Schism, but are older than most elements of the Byzantine liturgy?
Could it be, as many have observed, that the Orthodox simply cannot accept any theology, spirituality or liturgical usage that is not explicitly Byzantine? History is replete with examples of the Orthodox trying to "byzantinize" other Churches--the Armenians, the Copts, the Syrians, and now the Latins--which is just as bad as Roman attempts to latinize Eastern Catholics. Ecclesial imperialism is always an extension of cultural and political imperialism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776 Likes: 24
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776 Likes: 24 |
Coming from Orthodoxy some years ago, my wife and I were surprised that we were the only ones venerating icons when we first entered a Greek Catholic church. There were no beeswax tapers to buy; just banks of red and blue vigil lights. Evenly spaced on the walls were the Stations of the Cross. When "Svaht, svaht..." was sung everyone dropped to their knees and we sheepishly followed on the comfortable kneelers in our pew. My impression is that these "latinizations" have come from these congregations themselves and their pastors for whatever reason, and have not been imposed by any Roman source, be it the Vatican or zealous Latin prelates. I think Stuart is too quick to blame Rome for a heavy-handedness that is just not there. People get used to things, and it's amazing how they persist nearly forty-eight years after "Orientalium Ecclesiarum" was promulgated. The subtle anti-Orthodox sentiments we've felt towards our reverences have left us a bit puzzled, and I am convinced that they have another source quite distinct from any western influences.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
People get used to things, and it's amazing how they persist nearly forty-eight years after "Orientalium Ecclesiarum" was promulgated. Don't forget Orientalium Dignitas (1894). That prohibited latinizations too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
I think Stuart is too quick to blame Rome for a heavy-handedness that is just not there. People get used to things, and it's amazing how they persist nearly forty-eight years after "Orientalium Ecclesiarum" was promulgated. I think that Fr. Robert Taft's essay Liturgy in the Life of the Church is a useful corrective. This essay was originally written as an address to the assembled Eastern Catholic hierarchs of North America and Australia during a meeting with Cardinal Silvestrini, then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. In it, he lays the blame for ongoing latinization squarely on the bishops: Some Eastern Catholic clergy see their history as a progress from schism and spiritual stagnation into a life of discipline, renewal and restored religious practice in the Catholic communion. For this group, the adoption of certain Latin—they would say “Catholic”—devotions and liturgical uses is a sign of this new identity. Such attitudes reflect an interior erosion of the Eastern Christian consciousness, a “latinization of the heart” resulting from a formation insensitive to the true nature of the variety of traditions within the Catholic Church.
Others, while not denying their commitment to the Catholic communion nor underestimating the obvious spiritual benefits it has brought to their Churches, see themselves as Orthodox in communion with Rome, distinguished from their Orthodox Sister Churches in nothing but the fact of that communion and its doctrinal and ecclesial consequences. They see the Latinisms that have crept into their tradition as a loss of identity, an erosion of their heritage in favor of foreign customs with which they can in no way identify themselves. For some, latinization is a sign of their identity, for others its negation, and both are right, because they perceive themselves differently.
Underlying these issues, of course, is the more serious question of Rome’s credibility: is the Holy See to be believed in what it says about restoring the Eastern Catholic heritage? The morale of some of the younger Eastern Catholic clergy has of late been deeply affected by this cul-de-sac: they feel mandated to do one thing by the Holy See, and then are criticized or even disciplined by their bishop if they try to obey.
The problem, as usual, is one of leadership, without which the hesitant or reluctant have no one to follow. What is needed is not just discipline and obedience, but also clergy education loyal to the clear policy of the Church on this question, and prudent pastoral preparation. This is the only way out of the vicious cycle that has been created: the proposed reforms are resisted because the clergy and the people are not prepared to accept them—yet some Church leaders do little or nothing to prepare the people for a renewal that the leaders themselves do not understand or accept. Taft's conclusion was even more blunt: Of course, no one can expect every Eastern Catholic Church leader to know all this history. What one can expect of them, however, is that they trust the leadership of the supreme universal magisterium of the Catholic Church in its indications for this renewal and to do what they are told. The supreme magisterium’s policies for our liturgical renewal may not always meet with understanding and agreement, but they should at least meet with obedience. Otherwise, what can we possibly mean when we say Eastern Catholic? But unless the liturgical restoration is accompanied by an interior renewal of the Eastern Christian ethos and spirit, it will remain little more than ritualism. As the late Archbishop Joseph Tawil wrote in his Christmas message of 1970, we must have “the courage to be ourselves”.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576 |
It is probably unrealistic to expect these two Churches to "unite" and why can't they just make life easier for everyone concerned and accept each other's sacraments, which they really have been doing anyway out of necessity or as the Greeks say "ekonomia". The Body and Blood of Christ is more important than the man-made separation of the two Churches. Honestly does any theological argument mean anything to the average Catholic or Orthodox Believer who is not educated in these finer points of the Faith that divide rather than unite? It seems that only the converts to either Church bother to educate themselves about this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
It is probably unrealistic to expect these two Churches to "unite" Agreed, but underlying that unrealistic is the fact that such a union would be undesirable from the Orthodox p.o.v. (Although one could also look at it the other way, and say that a union that would be acceptable to the Orthodox would be unacceptable from the Catholic p.o.v.)
|
|
|
|
|
