Posted on 09/22/2004 11:38:26 AM PDT by Vicomte13
Christ prayed for the unity of His Church. Collectively, we have made quite a hash of it. What divides us? How far are we apart, really? Is reconciliation and reunification really impossible? I don't think so.
Doctrinally, there is more that separates the liberal and conservative wings of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches than separates Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Many of the doctrinal differences that there are date back to the early centuries, but were not a bar to us all being One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for more than half of the history of Christianity.
Historical missteps, and more than a little stubbornness, divide us, but this division is unnatural and indeed unholy. We cannot simply ACCEPT it as a given. It is not what Jesus wanted of us, and we have a duty to try and put back together what He made whole but what we have sundered.
But how?
For starters, look at how very much unites us still. The Orthodox Church is Holy. The Catholic Church is Holy. Both are apostolic, in unbroken lineage back to the apostles. We share the same sacraments. We believe the same things about those sacraments. In extremis, we can give confession too and take extreme unction or viaticum from one another's priests. Because somewhere, at the bottom of it, we each really do know that it's the Latin, Russian, Greek, Syrian and Coptic rites of the same Holy catholic Church.
Indeed, within the Catholic Church proper, in union with Rome, are Byzantine and other Eastern Rite churches that are for all appearances Orthodox. That the Orthodox Liturgy of St. John Chysostom is beautiful, and sonorous, and long, should be no barrier. There is no reason that the Orthodox rite should not remain exactly as it is. Indeed, there is a very good reason to revive, in the West, the old Latin Rite of the Catholic Church: many people want it back. Why should they be denied it? The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of the Tridentine Mass were Holy and are Holy. There is no reason at all they they cannot all be practiced within a reunited Church. There is no reason for Russian Orthodoxy to cease using Slavonic, and Greek Orthodoxy to cease using Greek, just as there is no reason that Latin Rite Churches should not be able to reassume Latin if their parishoners desire it. For over a thousand years the different parts of the Church used different languages, and yet we were all one Church. Today, with the vernacular, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches use many, many, many languages. None of this diminishes their Holiness. Latin, Greek and Slavonic are not holy, they are old. And there is nothing wrong with old.
So again I ask: what really divides us? There is nothing of the liturgy of either Latin or Greek or Russian rite that would need to change were the Churches to come back into unity.
All that divides us, really, is the question of authority. It is a political question, about the office of the Pope. Cut through it all, and that is what is at the heart of it.
And this can be resolved. Indeed, the tension ALWAYS existed, and flared up at different times during the long millennium of Church unity. Our spiritual ancestors had the wisdom to settle for an arrangement of metropolitans and patriarchs, with the Bishop of Rome considered one of them, but primus inter pares at the "round table". Like the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, he sets the agenda and "assigns cases", but each preserves his dignity as a co-equal justice. In order to maintain Christian unity, it was necessary for the Pope to exercise discretion in this role. And most handled it well. It also required discretion on the part of the Eastern Patriarchs. And most handled it well. It is the contrivance of the Devil that the time arose whereby stubborn (and corrupt) Pope encountered stubborn (and beleaguered, by the Muslim invasion) eastern Patriarch, and the Schism erupted.
Surely we can repair this wound in the visible Body of Christ on Earth. Indeed, it is not really optional. It is our DUTY to attempt it.
What is it that the East wants? Surely it is not to compel the Cathedral of Notre Dame to start conducting masses in Slavonic! No. It is to be recognized in its liturgy and in its territorial area. Should Latin Rite missionaries be attempting to sieze Russia for Catholicism? No. Russia should be under the Russian Rite, subject to the Metropolitan of Moscow, sovereign in his sphere, who is in union with the Bishop of Rome. I should be able to give confession and take absolution in a seamless Church from Gibraltar to Vladivostok.
What is it that the West wants? Too much, probably. At the Council of Florence, the last moment of unity in the Church, the West acknowledged the customs of the East, and the East acknowledged "the traditional privileges of the Bishop of Rome", which is to say, primus inter pares.
Now, if there were deep and abiding spiritual and doctrinal divides, such as there are between the Catholic Church and, say, the Anglican Communion or the various Protestant Churches, reunification would be out of sight. Primus inter pares would lead directly to Papal interference. But the Orthodox and the Catholic are each so doctrinally close that there need not be ANY real interference in the West by the East, or the East by the West. Indeed, it would immeasurably help the post-Vatican II Western Church to have a Vatican III at which the Metropolitan of Moscow and the Patriarch of Constatinople and their affiliated Bishops, and the Eastern Cardinals, sat, spoke, voted. The Church needs the counterweight of Orthodox Tradition to offset some of the less propitious "modernizing" elements that have run unchecked in parts of the West.
For its part, much of Eastern Orthodoxy is subject to, and under the thumb of, Islam. And abused. We see this right now even in secular Turkey. There is no religious voice on earth more powerful than Rome. And no other religion has its own seat in the United Nations. The lot of Eastern Christians would be bettered by having the full weight of Western Christianity brought to bear within the Church.
I do not believe that this is a pipe dream. Reuniting the Pentecostals and Rome might be, but bringing Moscow, Constantinople and Rome together again at the same round table should not be. It is what Jesus intended from the beginning. What God has joined, let no man sunder. With God, everything is possible. There is nothing that goes on in Orthodox Churches that would not be able to continue in unity with the West, and nothing that goes on in Latin Churches that would have to stop to be in Union with the East.
Perhaps the fears of the East would be quelled if the Patriarchs were favored for election to the Papacy.
Just a thought.
Yes it is.
NYer, I though theosis is equivalent to Catholic "santification." I may be confusing it with Calvinsits, though.
Theosis is a life-long process -- a "maximalist approach to salvation," of consciously becoming Christ-like.
Ping...sorry I didn't include you on this one.
But then how do you explain newly formulated dogmas (beliefs)? The original Church did not "know" the dogma of Papal infallibility or of Imamuclate Conception or of the Purgatory.
The Seventh. The Orthodox Church is still the same Church theologically. We recognize the Church to be that of the East and the West when both were part of One, not after the split.
Yes! This "unknowability", acknowledged in the West, is more fully developed in the East. All reality is enveloped in a sense of Mystery - some things may never be figured out.
This is seen in Maronite liturgical tradition in a very interesting way in the Monday weekday text. The memorial for this day is that of the Angels. In the Opening Prayer, the Celebrant prays:
O Eternal One,
though you are concealed from the angels in heaven,
you willed to assume a human body from mortal Adam.
Grant that we may join in the worship
of the heavenly choirs
and give you thanks and praise ...
Strange as it may seem at first to say that God is "concealed from the angels,", the Divine Liturgy is stating the essential truth about God, preserved so strongly in Eastern Tradition: God's fundamental unknowability, God's hiddenness. Even to the angels - who are, after all, creatures - God, the Infinite One, cannot ever be fully known. Yet, as the prayer recognizes, God has mysteriously shared something of the Godhead with us. With the angels, we become adorers of the Mystery.
Captivated By Your Teachings
Uniatism is a very sore subject with the Orthodox.
For purposes of clarification, "uniatism" implies union, that is, with Rome. Such union was one-sided in that it meant a union on Western - Latin Church - terms. Practically speaking, this meant the loss of some authentically Eastern liturgical customs and disciplines.
Even for the Maronite Church, not considered Uniate because of the tradition that it never broke communion with Rome, the pressure to conform to a Latin norm, caused deep scars.
Vatican Council II recognized that a high price was paid by the Eastern Catholic Churches in terms of latinization. The Council directed that the process of coming into communion of the Churches needs to be done differently in these days of ecumenism and that the terms "uniatism" and "Uniate" must never again be used. This attitude has strongly been endorsed by Pope John Paul II in messages to Catholics as well as in dialog with the Orthodox.
Pope John XXIII had a great regard for the Eastern Churches, stemming from his assignment in Constantinope for many years. Because of this regard, John wished to see the completion of a law code for the East. This led to the promulgation of the "Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches". In this Decree, the Council clearly stated the equality of all the ancient Traditions of the Church, East and West. It also acknowledge the need for these Eastern Churches to reform what was needed, so these living Churches could be a more authentic witness to their ancient Eastern heritages. Here is a sampling of the Decree:
PRESERVATION OF THE SPIRITUAL HERITAGE OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES
5. History, tradition and abundant ecclesiastical institutions bear outstanding witness to the great merit owing to the Eastern Churches by the universal Church.(5) The Sacred Council, therefore, not only accords to this ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage the high regard which is its due and rightful praise, but also unhesitatingly looks on it as the heritage of the universal Church. For this reason it solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls.
ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM
there was quite an uproar in this country about married Uniate priests, with Rome trying to outlaw married Ukranian Catholic priests.
I believe the tradition of the Eastern Churches preserves the practice of ordaining married men to Holy Orders. Nearly half of Maronite presbyters in Lebanon, are married. In 1929, Rome imposed celibacy on secular/diocesan priests outside of the Eastern Church homelands, particularly in the Americas and Australia. This is beginning to change. Certain Eastern Catholic Churches have begun to ordain married men in the US, to "test the waters". You may recall a story that made headline news several weeks ago. A Ukrainian Catholic Church in CT, was destroyed by a leaking propane tank. That Ukrainian pastor is married.
Apologies for such a long read ... I'm not very good at condensing information :-)
You are all forcing me to go back to those difficult passages of the Maronite Patriarch - the ones that hurt my brain - and read through them and really try to understand them. I've said about all there is to say about the mindset of the West. It is rationalistic, and naturalistic, and scientific and practical - and therefore the otherworldly religion of Christ, in the West, tends to be focused on the practical otherworldly (two words that seem strange in juxtaposition): the Sacraments. This is why I, a simple Western Catholic, think that sharing the Lord's Table with our Eastern brethren is more important than anything else. I am sure that in the presence of the mystery of God's sacraments, our differences will seem less important, and think that sacramental communion is the whole game.
But that's as far as I've gone here, and I've said it over and over enough times that there's no mystery there or very deep thought either, and it isn't hard to see.
Conversely, what the patriarch wrote was very deep thought, and very hard for me to see easily. My eyes glazed over. But it's not really fair for me to talk about seeing God behind the rocks and stars and hills and asking you in the East to try and see through the eyes of the West for a moment, and sympathize (while not becoming one of us), if I am unwilling to walk across the aisle, sit down, and apply my mind to what you have offered.
What I have offered is difficult for you to drink, because it is very close on the shelf to things that are repugnant. I understand that.
What you have offered is difficult for me to drink, because it is hard and I am lazy. But I am going to go ahead and make the effort, and I won't post any more comments here until I have done so, and - dictionary in hand - really figured out what the Patriarch was saying and what he meant. Then I will have walked for a mile in your moccassins, and will perhaps understand better. Maybe I will even feel what it is that you feel. Since it is True, and it all comes from God, I don't doubt but that I will. So, now I will shut up and take my medicine, and get back to you all in a day or two once I have done so.
It's only fair.
Again, using the Maronite tradition to address this question, here is the explanation.
Although the Fathers of the early Church, including St. Ephrem, attest to the reality of the soul's need for purification after death, the widely known term purgatory is not explicitly stated in the Scriptures. The term comes from Western Tradition, and did not even appear until the 11th century at the earliest. Since the 16th century the Catholic Church officially teaches that the departed stand in need of purification from whatever keeps them from full union with the Trinity in the Kingdom and is wisely silent about further details. Remember that what is being described is a state of the soul, not a place.
Catholics believe that no new truths have been given by anyone but Jesus, the full Revealer of God's Truth; yet, the explanation of this revelation grows and develops, according to our historical time and growth in knowledge and as the Holy Spirit allows us to see these things afresh.
Good morning! and thank you again for reading through the texts that I posted.
Please allow me to clarify a misperception that you have about me. I am a Roman Catholic, born and raised in that tradition. The Maronite Catholic Church is where I have migrated on my faith journey. All of these Eastern teachings are just as new to me as they are to you. Coming from the Latin tradition, the Eastern experience has been overwhelmingly spiritual.
It is a common experience for many people to be seekers. Human beings long for something deeper in life, something that they sense, the world cannot give, something other than the material dimension of their existence. Honest seekers, throughout the ages, have come to the conclusion that what they seek is beyond themselves. We find ourselves on a journey of faith. In this yearning, the seeds of faith are sown.
Understanding the truths of the Faith may take different paths. In the Western tradition of the Church, since the Middle Ages, one well known path of doing theology has been summarized in the phrase, "faith seeking understanding." The Eastern tradition, on the other hand, recognizes that all reality is enveloped in a sense of Mystery.
Perhaps a good analogy would be that of a multi-faceted diamond, each facet representing a different tradition within the one Catholic Church. Each one radiates light, but together sparkle brilliantly.
You have done us all a great honor by posting this thread. Who could have imagined that one week later, we would still be exploring our differences, with brotherly love. Thank you!
As promised, I have more carefully read through the Maronite priest's (I incorrectly identified him earlier as a Patriarch) review of the Catechism, and sat in his seat for awhile.
And I agree with every word.
Except one, and that is only because I cannot make sense of it: "hypostasis". Help?
"And I agree with every word.
Except one, and that is only because I cannot make sense of it: "hypostasis". Help?"
Oh, you Western English speakers! :) Without going into a discussion of Platonism, Stoicism, Gnosticism (yup, Gnosticism), Dionysius of Rome, Arianism, and St Athanasius, lets just say for our puposes that it means the same thing as "persona" in Latin and refers to one of the three "Persons" of the Holy Trinity. It is intimately connected with that other great Greek word "Ousios", which is found in one of my favorite words "Omoousios". Does this help?
I wrote: "And I agree with every word. Except one, and that is only because I cannot make sense of it: 'hypostasis'. Help?"
Kolokotronis responded: "Oh, you Western English speakers! :) Without going into a discussion of Platonism, Stoicism, Gnosticism (yup, Gnosticism), Dionysius of Rome, Arianism, and St Athanasius, lets just say for our puposes that it means the same thing as "persona" in Latin and refers to one of the three "Persons" of the Holy Trinity. It is intimately connected with that other great Greek word "Ousios", which is found in one of my favorite words "Omoousios". Does this help?"
I reply:
Does that help? ...Uhhhh...
Omoousios?
Did I have that once between the Saganaki, the Tzaziki, the Moussaka and the Baklava? Or is my memory too blurred by the Ouzo and the Mavrodaphne?
Hypostasis.
As near as I can tell, "hypo-" is a prefix meaning "under".
And "stasis" is a noun meaning, well, "stasis" (maybe "stability")?
I doubt that the Maronite monsigor meant that Trinity is less than stable (what? Split personality disorder?)
I am sure that's not what "hypostasis" means.
You say it means "persona". So, God the Father is a hypostasis of God, and God the Son is a hypostasis of God, and God the Holy Spirit is a hypostasis of God. Is that usage correct?
Is the relationship: hypostasis is to persona what concupiscience is to lust?
I'm probably getting warm (maybe?) but I'm probably not there.
But "Ousios"? And "OMOOUSIOS"???
Oh dear.
It was a SHAMROCK, not a clover!
The three stylized petals of the fleur-de-lys also echo the idea.
I think I get it.
Query: if the Greek words are the best, and since the textus receptus of the New Testament was all in Greek, and the Septuagint Old Testament used by the Apostles was also entirely in Greek, why doesn't the whole Church just use Greek as the ecclesial language?
We'd still have to translate the concepts, of course, but wouldn't there be a true Catholicism of liturgy if everyone used Greek in all Christian services?
By the way, how can I get an Orthodox Bible? (In modern English, please.)
There are a few more books in there: 3 and 4 Maccabees, I believe an Esdras or two.
Actually, he is a Byzantine priest ... my 'Maronite' references seem to be posing confusion. No problem actually, since both are Eastern Rite; the differences are only in the liturgy.
Except one, and that is only because I cannot make sense of it: "hypostasis". Help?
You are probably referring to this paragraph from "Eastern Catholic View of the Catechism".
"From the Greek East have come the two most fundamental dogmas of Christianity: God as a Trinity of three Persons sharing a single nature, namely, divinity; and the hypostatic unionof two natures, human and divine, in the divine Person of God's Son, the Word-made-flesh (no. 422-86)
From the Catholic Encyclopedia ...
A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, "Mund.", IV, 21). It occurs also in St. Paul's Epistles (II Cor., ix, 4; xi, 17; Heb., i, 3:iii, 14), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nicæa (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine (De Trin., V, 8) avers that he sees no difference between them. The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin) (Denzinger, ed. Bannwart, 148). They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united. For further explanation and bibliography see: INCARNATION; JESUS CHRIST; MONOPHYSITISM; NATURE; PERSON.
Look on the bright side of this discussion. Your Greek vocabulary has grown significantly, in the one week since you posted this thread. All of this underscores the profound heritage of faith that has been passed down to us through the centuries. This is yet one more example of the error in 'sola scriptura' . To understand the Bible, it is necessary to understand its 'source code', i.e., the languages of those periods in history. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches have spent 2,000 years developing that understanding. How truly awesome is "our" heritage!
Theosis is a life-long process -- a "maximalist approach to salvation," of consciously becoming Christ-like.
Well, I must confess that my understanding of this word is lacking. Off to the catholic encyclopedia and this is what turns up.
Theosophy is a term used in general to designate the knowledge of God supposed to be obtained by the direct intuition of the Divine essence. In method it differs from theology, which is the knowledge of God obtained by revelation, and from philosophy, which is the knowledge of Divine things acquire by human reasoning. It is often incorrectly confounded with mysticism, for the latter is properly the thirst for the Divine, the aspiration for the invisible, and hence a natural manifestation of the religious sentiment. By intuition or illumination the initiated Theosophists are considered to be in harmony with the central principle of the universe. This knowledge of the secret forces of nature of the true relation between the world and man frees them from the ordinary limitations of human life, and gives them a peculiar power over the hidden forces of the macrocosm. Their exceptional faculties are alleged as experimental proof of their superior science: they are the only guarantee of the truth of their teaching. They are said to transmit this truth by way of revelation. Thus theosophy appeals to tradition but not in the Christian sense.
FULL TEXT ... and it is most intriguing!
vs
"Sanctification" which is "Holiness". Once again, drawing from the catholic encyclopedia ...
(A.S. hal, perfect, or whole). Sanctitas in the Vulgate of the New Testament is the rendering of two distinct words, hagiosyne (1 Thess., iii,13) and hosiotes (Luke, i, 75; Eph., iv, 24). These two Greek words express respectively the two ideas connoted by "holiness" viz.: that of separation as seen in hagios from hagos, which denotes "any matter of religious awe" (the Latin sacer); and that of sanctioned (sancitus), that which is hosios has received God's seal. Considerable confusion is caused by the Reims version which renders hagiasmos by "holiness" in Hebrews 12:14, but more correctly elsewhere by "sanctification", while hagiosyne, which is only once rendered correctly "holiness", is twice translated "sanctification".
I never cease to be amazed at the depth of understanding that comes through interpretation of ancient languages. Language has always been a personal passion. I speak French and Italian but stand in awe of those who reach back through the ages to study the ancient languages from the past.
You don't see a contradiction in this? Someone help me here please. Growth in knowledge of what? Faith? Sicence? How did our secular knowledge of science improve our knowldge of faith?
Since the 16th century the Catholic Church officially teaches that the departed stand in need of purification ... what is being described is a state of the soul, not a place
I never implied that the Purgatory is a "place" any more than to imply that Heaven or Hell is a "place." The important thing is that the Church didn't teach it as dogma for fifteen centuries. So, that means that the early Church teachings were either deficient and incomplete or that somehow the state of lesser knowldge of the world did not necessitate such teaching.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.