www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Roman Rights and Wrongs

Roman Rights and Wrongs

January 25, 2014

What needs to change for East-West unity to happen?

Dr. Adam A. J. DeVille
Catholic World Report
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2884/roman_rights_and_wrongs.aspx

Every January for over a century now, Christians have set aside a special week to pray for unity. This week, my friend the Orthodox priest and historian Oliver Herbel posted an excellent reflection in which he upbraided his fellow Orthodox for, as he powerfully put it, “spitting in the eye of Rome” every time she makes advances towards East-West unity. Father Oliver then went on to note some changes that he and his fellow Orthodox should make to respond better to Rome’s invitations.

Let me return the favor of my gracious friend. Speaking as an Eastern Catholic who tries to help East and West understand each other, let me offer a few reflections on the kind of changes Eastern Catholics and, perforce, Eastern Orthodox, want to see in very practical ways for unity to become a closer and more realistic possibility. However, I do not want to be thought querulous, so let me dwell briefly on areas where I think Roman practice is right and needs to be encouraged:

1) Ecclesial organization: Anyone who knows anything about Orthodoxy in North America knows that one of her besetting struggles is with ecclesial disorganization. Early ecclesiology rather strictly prescribed one bishop to one city to avoid the problems of overlapping and conflicting jurisdictions. Orthodoxy still upholds this as the ideal (as does Rome), but has long struggled with making it a reality in this country. Indeed, the most recent effort to overcome this problem—the so-called episcopal assembly of all Orthodox bishops—seems this month on the verge of collapse, which is sad but not surprising.

Rome, however, has in some ways been better able (though not perfectly so) to avoid these problems and to keep Catholics of all traditions—Eastern and Western—united in certain (imperfect) regional structures. For example, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) includes Latin and Eastern bishops on full and equal terms and they regularly meet together in organized fashion twice a year, with Eastern Catholics also serving in the other committees of the USCCB. Though the USCCB (and comparable conferences around the world) are not the synods, they could and should be, as I have argued elsewhere, and they are at the very least a commendable start down that road.

2) Canonical updating: Part of the way you keep your home life organized is through periodic purges in which you force yourself to realize that sweater from 1979 no longer fits and that coffee pot from your great Aunt Hilda, who died in 1936, no longer works. The Church is no different. As we recognize that certain old canons do not adequately deal with the conditions and issues of today, we must make a choice: to ignore the canons, to abolish the canons, or to update the canons. Orthodoxy usually chooses the first option while Rome has preferred the latter two. Thus, in 1990, Rome published the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, an (imperfect) attempt to bring Eastern canon law into the 20th century and to give it some rational coherence and consistency.

3) Money: Eastern Catholics need to be frank in acknowledging the generosity of Roman institutions in many ways. For decades the Catholic Near Eastern Welfare Association has given generously to Eastern Catholics (and Orthodox!) around the world. Many Eastern communities (including my own mission parish here in Ft. Wayne) are too small to afford their own buildings, and local Roman parishes immediately open their doors and let us use their facilities for worship and fellowship without any cost to us. Other examples could be mentioned. Though we are a tiny drop in the Catholic bucket (a few millions compared to over a billion Latin Catholics in the world), we benefit from belonging to a larger, global institution in very practical ways, including these kinds of “subsidies” in which big, wealthy local churches in, say, the United States or Germany, can help small, impoverished churches in Ukraine or the Middle East and Africa. One regularly sees such subsidies given in the form of scholarships to Eastern Catholic seminarians and priests to be able to pursue advanced degrees in pontifical universities, both in the Eternal City and elsewhere.

4) Intellectual life: This latter point reminds us that the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome itself has long been one of the premier centers of Eastern theological scholarship, and not a few of today’s leading bishops and theologians in Orthodoxy (including the current Ecumenical Patriarch) have studied there. Catholic intellectuals (especially the Jesuits, including Robert Taft, Michael Fahey, Brian Daley) have long been recognized as world-class specialists in Eastern theology. Catholic-sponsored scholarly journals (including the one I edit, Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies) have long focused, either in whole or in part, on Eastern Christian scholarship, making it far more accessible than it would be if it were confined to Orthodox periodicals. And numerous Catholic universities—Loyola Marymount in Los Angeles, Dayton, Notre Dame, Fordham, Saint Paul University (Canada), CUA in Washington, and many others—have in the past (and still today) opened professorial appointments to Orthodox theologians who would be otherwise out of academic work because there are no Orthodox universities anywhere on this continent—nor in most of the rest of the world.

5) Universal focus, universal spokesman: Say what you want about the papacy (and I have in my book, Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy) but I think no fair-minded observer can deny that the papal office remains a salutary trans-national focus for Catholics around the world, reminding all of us that we are but one part of a vast organization with a presence in huge numbers around the world. In other words, it keeps us from descending into smug little enclaves where, as St. Paul puts it, one part can say to the other, “I have no need of you.” Moreover, though not without risks, the popes are able to command instant, widespread international media attention, making it possible to get the word out immediately on any number of issues. When Pope Francis, for instance, called for a day of fasting for Christians in Syria (most of whom are Orthodox or Eastern Catholic), there were millions around the world who immediately responded. Similar calls to focus on the plight of Syrian Christians, issued by the patriarchs of Antioch and even the Ecumenical Patriarch, never have gained the same level of attention (this is not triumphalism but a simple factual observation of media habits).

I hope, in view of the foregoing litany, that I may be permitted now to note a few areas in which there is room for improvement. Indeed, let me state it as strongly and bluntly as I can: absent significant and unambiguous evidence of change—and not merely vague promissory notes with an unspecified future date—in the following areas, unity with Orthodoxy will not happen.

1) Clerical Celibacy: The whole history of much of Orthodoxy in North America would be inconceivable without the complete fiasco of Latin bishops trying to force priestly celibacy on Eastern Catholics in the early 20th century. When the Latins attempted this with staggering arrogance and insensitivity, tens of thousands of Catholics became Orthodox. Today’s Orthodox (and Eastern Catholics) need it made very clear that while we all honor celibacy highly, in the East the longstanding custom has been that parish priests are usually married while celibate priests are usually monastics. No requirement, therefore, can again be demanded of Eastern Christians whereby all seeking priestly ordination must be celibate. The East should be able to decide about a married priesthood without interference just as the West decides about a celibate priesthood without interference. The Eastern custom, as valid and ancient and “apostolic” as the West’s tradition, must be accepted on equal footing without cavil or qualification. (If the West decides to alter her tradition, it should only be changed after very careful discernment and deliberation as to the major costs—financial and administrative, inter alia—that such a change would bring. It should also be changed not because of some supposed “vocations shortage,” because a married priesthood is no guarantee of lots of priests.)

2) Local election of bishops and patriarchs: Similarly, the right of local churches to elect their own bishops, and especially their patriarchs, must be preserved. The idea that Rome, either by history or custom—or, more absurdly, “divine law”—can and must appoint all the world’s bishops is an innovation so new (emerging juridically only in 1917 with the Pio-Benedictine code of canon law) that the Cambridge historian Eamon Duffy has rightly called it a coup d’Église, unjustified by Vatican I and Vatican II. Not even Gregory VII or Pius IX in their most ultramontane moments would have dared arrogate such power unto themselves.

3) Restoration of liturgical tradition: Many Orthodox (and, again, many Eastern Catholics) are rightly scandalized at the state of the liturgy in Latin parishes today. Though we seem, thankfully, to have moved well beyond the (possibly apocryphal) clown Masses of the high 1960s, still today there is a liturgical culture too often marked by a “domestication of transcendence” (William Placher), by banality and mediocrity instead of mystery and reverence. This is inconceivable to the East where, through centuries of persecution, the liturgy was often the only thing the Church was permitted to do, and so has acquired a pride of place as theologia prima.

4) Discipline of dissenters: The fact that Catholic academics, especially so-called theologians, are permitted to teach for decades in Catholic institutions while openly dissenting from Catholic teaching does not go unnoticed in the East. Heterodoxy needs to be given a simple ultimatum: put up or shut up. The failure of bishops to show much spine here appalls many in the East who are, after all, concerned precisely about, well, orthodoxy.

5) The filioque: Following the statement of Rome in 1995, and the 2003 statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, as well as even more recent statements by leading Orthodox theologians such as Metropolitans Kallistos Ware and John Zizioulas, and the Orthodox historian Edward Siecienski, no serious observer today believes that, theologically, the filioque (the belief, expressed in the Nicene Creed, that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son [filioque in Latin]) is a church-dividing issue. However, the fact of its continued usage liturgically in the Latin tradition every Sunday does rankle procedurally for many Orthodox. In other words, even if both sides understand and can accept the theological meaning of the other, the fact that the Western church unilaterally altered the creed outside of the procedure of an ecumenical council remains a sore point for the East, made all the more so by the fact that recent popes have said the Greek original remains the authoritative text. If that is so, then why do liturgical translations not use the Greek as their source-text for translation, rather than the Latin with its interpolation? With careful preparation and catechesis the filioque could and should be deleted from common liturgical usage. Yes, it would be a gesture of extraordinary generosity for the Latin Church to remove the filioque from the Creed. But merely to issue a clarification on it would not, I think, be enough for most Orthodox.

6) Papal primacy and jurisdiction: Finally, we come to the major issue widely agreed to be the most important one requiring resolution before unity. I will not get into details here for I have already written an entire book on the topic. I am not being immodest when I say that of the reviews I have seen so far from serious Orthodox observers (i.e., not the illiterate cranks on Amazon who admitted they were never going to read the book but slagged it nonetheless), all of them have said my proposals could offer a way forward.
Certain Orthodox apologists writing this list would add 3, 5, 15, or 30 more items—unleavened bread, priestly beards, altar girls, statues vs. icons, and so on. No sober observer today believes these are remotely serious issues justifying continued division. Other, relatively more serious theological issues—e.g., the modern Marian dogmas, or purgatory—are, properly understood, compatible with Orthodox theology as others (see Sergius Bulgakov, The Burning Bush: On the Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God; and Emmanuel Lanne, “L’enseignement de l’Église catholique sur le purgatoire,” Irénikon 64) have shown. In the end, if unity is to have a realistic prospect in this century, Rome needs to step up to the plate and prove, by unmistakable actions and not hoary promises, that she means business on these six issues at least. Then the ball will be back in Orthodoxy’s court.

Spitting in Rome’s Eye: A Reflection on How Orthodoxy’s Sinfulness Prevents Reunion

Red River Orthodox
Orthodox Christianity in the Red River Valley and North Dakota http://holyresurrection.areavoices....s-prevents-reunion/#sthash.jNzjxIxT.dpuf
Posted on January 20, 2014

In my previous post, I mentioned some of the internal problems besetting the Orthodox Church, causing dysfunction (which I termed “implosion”). I noted how it affects the Great Commission and how our relationship with Rome is part of that larger picture (for a unified front between these truly-mega-churches would give strength in spreading the Gospel). I noted how Moscow currently rejects the Ecumenical Patriarch’s (legitimate) claim to primacy, in wanting to convoke a pan-Orthodox council and in engaging in serious dialogue with Rome. It doesn’t take a very long search for someone to see that many Orthodox Christians agree with Moscow, calling Rome heretical and, furthermore, expressing not a little invective (or at least heated rhetoric) when taking that stance.

An important factor in this is that the kind of careful historical and theological analysis (not to mention humility) that occurs within official Orthodox-Catholic dialogues is not seeping into the Orthodox groundwater. Many Orthodox prefer to dismiss Catholicism and Protestantism as two sides of the same coin, as though Orthodoxy is completely separate from them. If it weren’t for the fact that such an attitude is based on ignorance, it would be audacious in the extreme. Take, for example the North American Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. They haven’t skirted the issues that need to be addressed and yet they have produced helpful starting points, free from anti-Westernism (based, ironically, on rather Western models):

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...orthodox/orthodox-dialogue-documents.cfm

Moreover, there has been a real shift in attitude in Rome. In the early 20th c., one could still easily find anti-Orthodox attitudes and statements. Today, however, I believe Fr. Taft expresses well the currently dominant Roman Catholic view here:

“Vatican II, with an assist from those Council Fathers with a less naïve Disney-World view of their own Church’s past, managed to put aside this historically ludicrous, self-centered, self-congratulatory perception of reality. In doing so they had a strong assist from the Council Fathers of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church whose concrete experience of the realities of the Christian East made them spokesmen and defenders of that reality.”

He made this statement in the context of the notion of “Sister Churches.” You may find it in context here:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fi...-to-rome-on-catholic-orthodox-ecumenism/

Granted, a few of the comments to that link were Roman Catholics upset by what he was saying, so it is not as though Catholics are blameless “on the ground,” but I suspect Orthodox are more likely to oppose such a statement. Certainly, in today’s climate, it is difficult to find Orthodox willing to take a position similar in humility to the statement above given by Taft. We do have scholars doing this, though, and one starting point may be the newly published Orthodox Constructions of the West. A great example may also be found in Adam DeVille’s work on this very ecumenical dialogue: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy. Somehow, we have to get these perspectives “on the ground.” A great step forward would be for our seminaries to start requiring these as reading materials. Orthodox priests often (though not always) play key roles in shaping how laity read and understand Orthodox history, theology, and piety. Humility has to start with our clergy.

Pastorally, there are good reasons for us to adopt the virtue of humility. If ever reunion could happen, it could have practical, pastoral edification in the lives of many. Recently, Fr. Stephen Freeman, a good (and popular) priest, commented on Catholics wanting communion at his parish, reducing their desire to a “Modern project.” By this, he meant they wanted communion based on what they believed to be true (that in the Orthodox liturgy it is bread and wine and also body and blood). He even emphasized the “I” when quoting them. My point here is not to engage in culture war language nor to analyze a classical versus modern dichotomy, etc. That would be a different series of posts. Rather, what I would want to interject and say is that in my experience, a lot of Roman Catholics saying such things are not saying that what matters is their intellectual ability to create something in their minds. What they are saying is that they recognize a sacramental presence in our services. Sure, many Roman Catholics in America may have a superficial faith and just feel they can take communion anywhere, but that is not always the case and indeed, many look at Orthodoxy through thoughtful eyes and gracious hearts. More than that, we have many “mixed marriages” and other situations where Orthodox-Catholic reunion could have a real healing and gracious effect. In other words, as long as we don’t disregard issues of importance (which our official dialogues have not), the humility to engage Rome willingly and openly could beget some real grace “in the pews,” if you will. At minimum, it would help us avoid reducing Roman Catholics desiring communion to some sort of modern neo-gnostic mentality.

My fellow Orthodox, let’s be honest here. With regard to Orthodox-Catholic relations the humility struggles are primarily on our side. They are evidenced in internet chatter, in parish dining halls, amongst our seminarians, publicly displayed in sermons by our clergy, and (indirectly, if nothing else) advertised for the world to see in official statements. We Orthodox sure like to talk about the virtues, the Desert Fathers, etc., but when it comes to ecumenical relations, humility too often goes out the window. I, for one, think it’s time to close that window. The sectarian draft has a real chill to it.

Are Orthodox Christians Imploding Before the Great Commission?

Red River Orthodoxy
Posted on January 16, 2014
http://holyresurrection.areavoices.com/#sthash.6QgGp4h0.dpuf

The Orthodox Church has a venerable tradition of evangelism. In many sectors of Western Christianity, it is largely unknown, despite its great success. After all, Orthodox Christianity reached Alaska somehow and Christianity has existed in Eastern Europe and Asia since times before that. Often, one looks to the work begun by Ss. Cyril and Methodios, putting the Gospel into the language of the Slavic peoples, but it was there before that. There are, of course, complications in any narrative, especially when one realizes past societies did not share all of our values, but all in all, Orthodoxy was spread and spread well. In some situations, it even spread through the work of Orthodox clergy and monastics finding creative ways to integrate with the local cultures (though flat out imperialism also occurred).

Unfortunately, in today’s era, we have additional complications. Indeed, if one looks around the world, one might suspect our current narrative runs something along the lines of implosion. I dare say such a suspicion would not be so far from the truth. Here are some current examples:

http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/...ox-bishops-in-north-and-central-america/

The link above shows that ethnocentricism is alive and well (ROCOR exists to serve Russians abroad) and also shows that a good number of bishops do not want unity–they do not want to restructure dioceses, which would be required for administrative unity to happen. Why is this important? Well, because Orthodoxy has a LOT of problems and a lot of issues to address: we haven’t yet fully come to terms with modernity, we duplicate institutions (like seminaries), we are very inefficient in our current diocesan structure, etc. These might seem like minor problems to some people, but once one starts to think on the ripple effects, one realizes they are not minor at all and they do impact the mission of spreading the message of God’s love and holiness as his will for humanity. Furthermore, I must say, it is sinful not to work together with your brother and sister in Christ to your utmost ability. And yet, we Orthodox fall well short of that. We definitely are missing the mark.

Or, take this:

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350694?eng=y

One might wonder how this affects the great commission. Isn’t this just internal debate about whether to dialogue with Rome? Well, it is internal debate, but one that also affects whether we are about the Great Commission. Internet chatter in support of Moscow has been rather sectarian, from what I’ve seen. I won’t link to such discussions or call out anyone. That’s not fair, but my read of it is that it has been sectarian. It comes from some basic mistakes: primacy is wrong (no, sorry, it’s not–just abusive forms of it); primacy led Rome into heresy (again, no, it did not–theological differences between Eastern and Western Christianity arose from factors other than Rome’s bishop being considered “first among equals” and this is a slippery slope fallacy if I ever heard one anyhow). Sectarian infighting diverges energy best spent engaging the world around us. Dialoguing with Rome is important and in light of the decreased Christian presence in Europe, getting Rome and Orthodoxy on the same page is not a bad thing and can help in spreading the Gospel.

But those are not all. Take an honest look at Orthodoxy in many places across America. There are some areas where we were once strong but have dwindled in size–significantly so. We tend to emphasize the influx of converts in the 1980s and 1990s and my own recent book highlighted the importance of converts to Orthodoxy. (http://www.amazon.com/Turning-Tradi...1-spell&keywords=turnin+to+tradition). Despite this, in many parishes we have maybe 20-30 people showing up trying to maintain large physical structures. Many a time, it is possible to see pictures of hierarchical liturgies, where the bishop visits and there seems to be as many attending clergy as there are people “in the pews”! This is a problem and the longer Orthodoxy denies this, the more it will continue to implode.

Of course, this is not all. We have priests who do not take advantage of the gifts of their flocks. The priest does not need to be the one teaching every adult education lesson. Nor does he even have to give every single sermon. Many of our parishes have very talented, gifted teachers and speakers, who are committed to Christ. Yet, in far too many parishes, you wouldn’t know that. We also like to pride ourselves on our Orthodoxy, and poo poo the moral failings of some of our hierarchy and clergy (unless it makes the news and then we’re forced to bend over backwards to explain it away). That is to say, we still fear transparency and accountability (but this is part of fearing modernity).

Ultimately, all of this overlaps and works together for a “perfect storm.” It is difficult to produce strong social outreach and ministry if jurisdictions are spending $ duplicating efforts. It is difficult to engage the poor neighborhoods around our parishes (at least the ones that didn’t flee to the suburbs) when we focus on trying to look as much like an imagined 17th c. Russian Cathedral or 12th c. Hagia Sophia as we can. It is difficult to have the time and money and energy engaging non-Orthodox and creating relationships and alliances if we’re committed to fighting over whether we should even engage them. it is difficult to unite if we prefer to turn blind eyes to serious moral misdeeds amongst our clergy and hierarchy.

Is the future necessarily bleak? Do Orthodox just all want to implode? I don’t think so. I think there are bright spots, such as FOCUS (social outreach we do) or various theologians critiquing the the superficial anti-Westernism that often passes for theological profundity in Orthodox circles (sadly). There are also some very committed priests who realize being a priest is not just about wearing fancy vestments and imitating a picture of an imagined past. Rather, they are pastors, who seek to facilitate the gifts of their flocks and do work on the ground. Many are selfless, subsidizing their local parishes by working full time or part time jobs themselves (or having wives who do).

Moreover, non-Orthodox churches have similar problems. I am not saying Orthodox are the worst in all these categories. We very well may be, but that’s not my point. My point is that we have these problems, we have this implosion, going on. Frankly, I think the first step we need to do is own up to them. Do an AA sort of thing: “Hi, we are Orthodox, and we’re more messed up then we have even admitted to this point.” That’s step one. It also fits with the Great Commission. Many potential converts come to our parishes with their own views of an imagined, glorious past, with rose colored glasses clouded with incense. One of the best things we could do for them, would be to adopt honesty and discuss the beauty of the Orthodox faith in the midst of the sinfulness of Orthodoxy institutionalized.
- See more at: http://holyresurrection.areavoices.com/#sthash.6QgGp4h0.dpuf

Very thoughtful and well stated. There is much here for each of us to discuss with God in our prayers.

Well, I give. For years I've been arguing against Catholics who say that "We could be reunited if only it weren't for the pridefulness [or sinfulness] of the Orthodox." and the like, but I guess those Catholics were right after all. [Linked Image]

They're not wrong about the sins of the Orthodox. Of course, they need to look in the mirror and acknowledge that the sins of Catholics are no less involved than the sins of non-Catholics in creating and sustaining the current divisions among Christians.

As a former Roman Catholic who left the modernist Roman Church with its watered down theology and Protestantized "liturgy" and eventually converted to Orthodoxy, I can tell you that Roman Catholics and Orthodox do not think alike. I taught the Catholic faith on a number of different levels, and I had read more than most on the beliefs and practices of Eastern Orthodoxy and I thought I understood the issues that divide the two Churches. I gave the same overly simplistic answers for resolving those issues that I have read on these pages and on other forums. But I now know that I had no idea what Orthodoxy was about. There is a substantially different mindset and that is what really divides Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Catholics are taught that there are no theological issues preventing inter-communion between Catholics and Orthodox except that the Orthodox refuse to accept the authority of the Pope. That's where the argument originates that it's all just a matter of Orthodox pride and vanity. They are taught that in all other ways our beliefs are identical or nearly so. Which is just as well since the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholics have no idea what Catholicism teaches either. In fact, most priests have no idea what the Catholic Church teaches on any number of issues. And how could they since those beliefs have been substantially changed in modern times? I assure you this is not hyperbole. I have experienced this for years in a number of painful ways. At the same time, I'm not angry at the Roman Catholic Church and I have no axe to grind. But I have experienced both sides of these issues from the inside.

As one who was a very knowledgeable and devout Catholic, nothing could please me more than the reunion of the original One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. But as an Orthodox today, nothing scares me more. Any reunion with Rome would bring with it the modernist agenda that has ravaged the Roman Church. It is a disease that would infect the Orthodox Church in the same way. The Catholic Church truly needs a massive infusion of Apostolic Christianity; it needs a return to Tradition. But having denied its own tradition why would we think they would respect ours any more? Let them resolve their own crisis and stabilize their own liturgy and then we could really have a meaningful discussion.

I thought it was just me. I loved your forum. I am a Luthern turned Roman and now am Eastern Catholic. I came back with my husband and family to his roots. I love the Divine Liturgy and the Traditions of the the Church. It places God where He belongs front and center of our World and Lives. There is no mistaking this is the worship of Almighty God and not the "dance of the people" that is taking place in the Roman Rite. I have observed the changes over the the last 40 years and how it has evolved into the worship of Man not God. I am saddened by this but out of obediance to the faith I went along for the ride but never really happy. The Theotokas does not have her place there and sin doesn't exist for most people. Renee Harris GTJC

Renee,

While I'm aware that "liturgical dance" was a popular idea in the RCC back in the 1970s, my impression is that it never really caught on. However, while I don't see that as the main problem with the contemporary RC liturgical usage, there definitely are some problems.

The Fathers of Vatican II emphasized that the Liturgy, properly understood, is an action of the priest and the faithful together, each having their own proper role. It is fairly easy to see how the Byzantine Divine Liturgy reflects this, whereas the RC Mass still tends to come off as a show, with the faithful as the audience.

The problem with presenting the Liturgy as a "show," is that it becomes so hard to perceive the holiness/transcendence/awseomeness of God, that it is almost an implicit denial of this dimension. The old RC Liturgy did a good job of reflecting God's holiness, but not His closeness, whereas the new RC Liturgy does the opposite. The Byzantine Liturgy is much more balanced in this respect, and is therefore a better expression of the Christian Faith. However, to say that the RC Liturgy "has evolved into the worship of Man not God" is a serious charge, and for the most part, I think, unwarranted.

In other words, while I agree with your basic premise, I think that in the interst of charity, it's important not to overstate our grievances. Charity is what we're all about, and it is charity alone that will enable us to overcome the divisions that now exist.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Given that they come from entirely different traditions, I would say that it's impossible for Roman Catholics and Orthodox to "think alike." However, thinking differently is not the same as believing differently.

This issue was addressed in the OP--we would like to hear your thoughts on what was said there.

This sounds like an interesting topic to discuss in its own thread.

OK, I see where this is a valid concern. However, I would hasten to point out that the most effective antidote to modernism--or to any other heresy, for that matter--is genuine faith. Genuine faith comes from God and unites us to God. Doctrinal statements are useful for nurturing and cultivating that faith, but they are no substitute for it. Human nature, however, tends to cling to a notion of faith which is really a mere allegiance to institutions and adherence to doctrinal formulas. Some people who have this kind of faith are quick to embrace any "new" teaching that comes along, while others will cling doggedly to the external aspect of these formulas (I'm thinking here of the Pharisees, as portrayed in the Gospels), and reject anything that sounds different to them--even if God Himself were to teach it.

Some very good points were brought out in the OP, and I was disappointed at the lack of discussion afterwards. Thanks for keeping this thread going.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Thank you for sharing the Blog with us, the essay presented was interesting, although I prefer not to critique it, but Fr.Oliver's blog, along with the participation of Adam Deville and others is really interesting and refreshing from the usual polemic that is out there in the ether. Thanks!

[quote=Epiphanius][quote=renee harris]There is no mistaking this is the worship of Almighty God and not the "dance of the people" that is taking place in the Roman Rite.[/quote]
Renee,

While I'm aware that "liturgical dance" was a popular idea in the RCC back in the 1970s, my impression is that it never really caught on.

If you think that, here are a few You Tube videos you might find interesting:
July 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aLLsJa9xYY
June 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my89A3zFOvM
Dec 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6x5cfeiZTA
May 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwVcfv8r2qU
June 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diKu6G1nSSI
Jan 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyMYt75toLg
Easter 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ5KbCuox3g

And those are only a few of the many that have been video recorded. And those are relatively few compared to the many that weren't recorded and put on You Tube.

[quote=Epiphanius][quote=AgiosAnthrwpos]As a former Roman Catholic who ... converted to Orthodoxy, I can tell you that Roman Catholics and Orthodox do not think alike ... There is a substantially different mindset and that is what really divides Catholicism and Orthodoxy.[/quote]
Given that they come from entirely different traditions, I would say that it's impossible for Roman Catholics and Orthodox to "think alike." However, thinking differently is not the same as believing differently.

But the way we think definitely influences the way we believe. If I think that I am the "official teaching authority of the Church" then of course I am entitled to unilaterally change what is believed, as has happened multiple times throughout the Church's history.

[quote=AgiosAnthrwpos]Catholics are taught that there are no theological issues preventing inter-communion between Catholics and Orthodox except that the Orthodox refuse to accept the authority of the Pope. That's where the argument originates that it's all just a matter of Orthodox pride and vanity.[/quote]
This issue was addressed in the OP--we would like to hear your thoughts on what was said there.

I'm sorry, Deacon Richard, but I am still basically a newbie on here and I don't know what the OP is referring to.

[quote=AgiosAnthrwpos]... the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholics have no idea what Catholicism teaches ... In fact, most priests have no idea what the Catholic Church teaches on any number of issues. And how could they since those beliefs have been substantially changed in modern times?[/quote]
This sounds like an interesting topic to discuss in its own thread.

I'm game if you want to start it. Most Catholics have been told and still believe that nothing of the Catholic faith was changed by Vatican II, so maybe we should begin there. Most Catholics also believe that Vatican II mandated eliminating Latin in the Mass, turning the priest and the altar around to face the people, taking out the communion rails, and receiving communion in the hand. In fact, Vatican II mentioned none of those things.

[quote=AgiosAnthrwpos]Any reunion with Rome would bring with it the modernist agenda that has ravaged the Roman Church. It is a disease that would infect the Orthodox Church in the same way.[/quote]
OK, I see where this is a valid concern. However, I would hasten to point out that the most effective antidote to modernism--or to any other heresy, for that matter--is genuine faith. Genuine faith comes from God and unites us to God. Doctrinal statements are useful for nurturing and cultivating that faith, but they are no substitute for it. Human nature, however, tends to cling to a notion of faith which is really a mere allegiance to institutions and adherence to doctrinal formulas. Some people who have this kind of faith are quick to embrace any "new" teaching that comes along, while others will cling doggedly to the external aspect of these formulas (I'm thinking here of the Pharisees, as portrayed in the Gospels), and reject anything that sounds different to them--even if God Himself were to teach it.

While the points you make are certainly true, equally true is the Latin maxim usually summarized as "lex orandi, lex credendi" or "the law of prayer is the law of belief." In other words, the way we pray or worship directly affects the way we believe. The converse is true as well, what we believe affects how we pray and worship. Since the introduction of the very ambiguous Novus Ordo Mass which was modeled after a Protestant worship service, Catholic belief has gotten very ambiguous as well. They have lost regard for the time honored Tradition of the Church, either that of the Universal Church before the Great Schism or that of Roman Catholicism following the Schism. Most Catholics, including clergy, act as though the Church began in the 1960s.

While genuine faith is indeed the antidote to modernism, how do you teach genuine faith? Genuine faith is ignited in the heart by the Holy Spirit Who moves as He wills. But what we can teach and maintain is the Church's Sacred Tradition which can open the heart and make it receptive to the movement of the Spirit.

What is "modernism", other than a loaded pejorative for "Stuff I Don't Like"?

OK, I can concede this.


I don't know if you're referring to Unam Sanctam among these "multiple times," but I find the case of Unam Sanctam to be particularly interesting because it really seems to confirm the validity of the Orthodox tradition that a council's teaching (or any other official teaching, for that matter) cannot be considered dogmatic until it has been universally accepted among the faithful.

In the case of Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII *really* intended to make a dogmatic statement about his political authority (reading the whole 2 pages of the document makes this fairly clear). However, *nobody* at the time took it seriously, and it was quickly forgotten *until* the Protestant Reformation came along. (Of course, in order to use it as a weapon against the Protestants, it was necessary to ignore its political character--no longer relevant to the situation--completely.)


No problem, "OP" stands for "original post" (or "opening post"); the expression is used on a lot of internet forums. In this case, there were actually three posts starting off the discussion.


The problem here is that none of the four liturgical disciplines you mention here (liturgical language, position of the priest, layout of the santuary and procedure for distribution of Holy Communion) constitutes a dogmatic teaching. You might argue (as many have) that the discipline reflects the teaching, and that these changes in practice constitute an implicit denial of dogmatic teaching, but there remains at least a certain amount of doubt as to the validity of these charges.

(Also, it's no secret that Vatican II changed a number of non-dogmatic teachings, notably Religious Liberty and Ecumenism.)


While I agree with the sentiments you express here, I would caution against making such broad accusations ("Most Catholics," etc.), as they are difficult to substantiate and contribute more to "vain disputations" than to real discussion.


Peace,
Deacon Richard