Pope (Benedict XVI) pledges to end Orthodox Rift

CNN ^ | May 29, 2005 | AP

[kosta50]

BARI, Italy (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI visited the eastern port of Bari on his first papal trip Sunday and pledged to make healing the 1,000-year-old rift with the Orthodox church a "fundamental" commitment of his papacy.

Benedict made the pledge in a city closely tied to the Orthodox church. Bari, on Italy's Adriatic coast, is considered a "bridge" between East and West and is home to the relics of St. Nicholas of Myra, a 4th-Century saint who is one of the most popular in both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Benedict referred to Bari as a "land of meeting and dialogue" with the Orthodox in his homily at a Mass that closed a national religious conference. It was his first pilgrimage outside Rome since being elected the 265th leader of the Roman Catholic Church on April 19.

[jec1ny]

You are of course right that the Orthodox liturgy has developed (mostly by things being added) over time. No Orthodox Christian with a knowledge of the Liturgy would ever question that. But the changes and development have been quite gradual and organic. There have never been the kinds of sea-changes that happened in the Western liturgy after Vatican II. Pope Benedict has written on this.

Your implied criticism of the liturgical reform mandated by Vatican II is accurate. The current Roman Rite of the mass bears little resemblance to the glorious liturgy that was celebrated for nearly 1500 years in the west. The horrible bungling of the reform of the liturgy is another reason to bemoan the "romanization" of the Christian west. The preservation of other ancient and unimpeachably orthodox (lower case "o") liturgical rites would have served as a safeguard against the introduction of the liturgical concoction that has been foisted upon us. The gradual elimination of most of the other ancient rites in the west after Trent is something else that this Pope has expressed regret over. One can never be sure but there is hope among orthodox Catholics that one of the items high on Benedict's agenda is fixing the liturgical mess.

[kosta50]

Fifty years ago no one would have believed you if you said there was even a need, let alone possibility, of the Roman Catholic Church undergoing a major change. But the fact is that the Vatican II did occur and changed everything, including doctrine.

Today most of the people don't remember the pre-Vatican II Church. Soon it will be oblivion, with only a handful of scholastics who will know it in greater detail. To an average Roman Catholic, the Church they grow up with will be the Church that always was as far as they are concerned.

What or where will the Church be in 100 years is known only to God. As to who will bend and why will be determined by politics as much as theology, as it always has.

[annalex]

Say, how do I know you're *not* Ann? :-)

I don't know. I would be content with the double procession mystery, from Ann through Alex. But then, I am Catholic...

[Agrarian]

LOL!

[Teófilo]

The flip side of your analysis of the lamentable juridictional problems caused by Constantinople's meddling (I would add our jurisdictional disunity in North America to the list--until the founding of the Greek Archdiocese in the wake of the loss of the Second Greco-Turkish War and the diaspora of the Greeks of Asia Minor--North America had canonical unity under Russia, which had evangelized the continent), is the Orthodox view of Latin ecclesiology as the 'peculiar theory that there is only one bishop on the planet'.

Christ is Amongst Us!

I wish that it were that simple. But, no, there are over 2,000 bishops in the Church. The few I know would wish you were right also.

Regarding your quote from Cyprian, he's not the only theoretician of the Petrine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome out there, and it would be unfair to build an entire argument for or against anything quoting from just one Holy Father.

As far back as I can judge, but particularly since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has been always a collegial Church. Has the ideal expanded and contracted throughout the centuries? Yes, that's the consequence of the Church being a living organism. Other ideas have fizzled, such as the political supremacy of the popes over wordly sovereigns, or the idea that the emperor at Constantinople was "the Vicar of Christ." Bad ideas that the Holy Spirit has pruned from the garden of the Church, IMHO.

-Theo

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

You still haven't told me how many Muslims converted to Christianity because of the Pope's reverence to their scriptures. From what I see it had the opposite effect.

[livius]

Different Pope now. I was appalled by the Koran kissing moment, too. But let's let JPII go - God will decide - and look ahead.

[Tantumergo]

After reading through this thread, all I can say is thank God that the unity of His Church doesn't depend on Freepers!!

We're all a load of schizobleepingphrenic nutjobs who can find more reasons to frustrate Christ's will for unity than we can to obey it.

I vote that we let the Holy Spirit sort out the mess for once - it might be quite a novel experience for all of us and He might be a tad better at it. The best we can do is simply to pray "Thy will be done, Lord.", and then pray that all the respective hierarchs and laity will be obedient to Him when He acts.

With God all things are possible, without Him we can do nothing.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Actually, it's pertinent to the discussion. Certain posters want us to deny all that we are for the sake of unity. That is a false unity. I am asking to see the fruits of that false unity.

[Teófilo]

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

I just want to respond briefly to a couple of points:

I am unaware of *anything* that indicates that the "Third Rome" moniker was the result of believing that Constantinople had fallen into heresy. I'm not sure where you would get that.

I think you're right, I think I misquoted the original ditty, which I think went, "The first Rome fell into heresy, the second Rome fell to the Turks, Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will not be a fourth. No one will replace your Christian Tsardom!" The monk Filofei saod this in a panegyric to Tsar Vasili III in 1510. I stand corrected, my mistake.

You can read the whole thing here: http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mosaic/chapter8/source301.html

...There have never been the kinds of sea-changes that happened in the Western liturgy after Vatican II. Pope Benedict has written on this.

One thing that is certain, though -- any Christian from the 5th century, East or West, could land in my parish on a Sunday morning and would know what was going on. I can pretty much guarantee that the same wouldn't be true if he were to land in one of our local Catholic parishes.

I think that Christians of any age would recognize the sequence of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word and of the Eucharist, the place of the Creed, of the epiclesis and the anaphora. I don' see this structure having changed at all. The rubrics, the readings, sure, they have changed.

But so what? There are things that can be said abou not changing. Where would that leave us? It leaves us arguing about who is first in the Kingdom of Heaven, which is where the matter has stood for 1,000 years.

-Theo

[Teófilo]

Slava Isusu Christu!

You are confusing theology with customs

I'm sorry, but I don't think I am. I can tell them quite apart, thank you.

-Theo

[gbcdoj]

I am a Catholic (with Orthodox sympathies) and I think your comment strays uncomfortably close to Feenyism.

Is the Immaculate Conception not a dogma of faith? Does not heresy consist in the doubt or denial of any article of faith proclaimed by the Church? Is not formal heresy fundamentally contrary to the supernatural virtue of Faith, without which there is no salvation? St. Thomas affirms that anyone who denies even one article implicitly denies them all, by rejecting the judgment of the Church to whom it is given to interpret Holy Writ - therefore, he believes nothing but his own opinion. Feeneyism is a great error, but liberalism is its opposite and must also be rejected; the traditional belief on this matter is expressed quite well by Newman, Loss and Gain, p. 380-2:

"Then he believes himself, if we may so speak," said the priest, "and not the external word of God." "Certainly." "Well, in like manner," he continued, "do you think a person can have real faith in that which he admits to be the word of God, who passes by, without attempting to understand, such passages as 'the Church the pillar and ground of the truth'; or, 'whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven'; or, 'if any man is sick, let him call for the priests of the Church, and let them anoint him with oil'?" ... "Do you think these persons believe and practise all that is brought home to them as being in Scripture?" asked his companion. "Certainly they do," answered Charles, "as far as man can judge." "Then perhaps they may be practising the virtue of faith; if there are passages in it to which they are insensible, as about the sacraments, penance, and extreme unction, or about the See of Peter, I should in charity think that these passages had never been brought home or applied to their minds and consciences—just as a Pope's Bull may be for a time unknown in a distant part of the Church. They may be [Note] in involuntary ignorance. Yet I fear that, taking the whole nation, there are few who on this score can lay claim to faith."

[Footnote:] "Errantes invincibiliter circa aliquos articulos, et credentes alios, non sunt formaliter hæretici, sed habent fidem supernaturalem, quâ credunt veros articulos, atque adeo ex eâ possunt procedere actus perfectæ contritionis, quibus justificentur et salventur."—De Lugo de Fid., p. 169.

And I don't think anyone would call him a Feeneyite!

[gbcdoj]

The Council of Florence (Decree on Union with the Greeks) and Bl. Pius IX's bull "Ineffabilis Deus" on the Immaculate Conception.

[Agrarian]

Yes, those of us who are Orthodox students of the liturgy very much bemoan the loss of the other Western liturgies.

While the basic service books, liturgies, and texts in use in the Orthodox Church are pretty much identical, there are slight variations in different traditions and manuscripts. Also, because of the length of the services as prescribed by the Typikon, the services are generally abbreviated somewhat, and the types of abbreviations vary from tradition to tradition.

Added to this are the differences in chant tradition. Most Orthodox countries have chant traditions that have grown organically over the years, ultimately drawn from Byzantine chant (which ultimately is on a continuum with early Hebrew worship and chant.)

Here in America, there is a fair amount of eclecticism within Orthodoxy. The basic underlying tradition of my parish is Russian, but there are bits of things that have worked their way in from Greek practice, chant melodies from Carpatho-Russia and Galicia, etc...

As you say, this slight variety has a protective effect, since if one liturgy is forced from the top down, and it is lacking in traditional grounding -- then you're really in a bad way. Furthermore, any changes to the liturgy that happen organically can be examined for their theological and spiritual implications, and bishops can put a stop to the practice or correct the text after comparing it to usage elsewhere.

A committee, on the other hand, can become a law unto itself. There are places for such things, but only within the strict guidelines of examining deviations from the patristic norm -- not inventing new liturgies out of whole cloth.

Another protective effect for us is that we have adopted the full monastic cycle as the norm. Of course, no parish does the full monastic cycle, but most parishes at least have Vespers and/or Matins in some form. Most Russian Churches read the 3rd and 6th hours before Liturgy. Our parish's cycle is Vespers and Compline on Saturday night, Midnight Office, Matins, and Liturgy on Sunday morning. Vespers is very well attended, and attendance is generally considered to be, along with frequent confession, a part of preparation for receiving Communion. Compline is chanted during confessions, so those waiting for confession hear it. Usually only the priest and the reader is there for the chanting of the Midnight Office early in the morning, and folks drift in during Sunday morning Matins (it, like Liturgy, is about 1 1/2 hours.) The sheer volume of the texts (the Orthodox service books take up about 20 volumes of text for a year's worth of services) means that there is a lot of repetition and recapitulation and restatement of belief. And there are no "options" in the services -- there is just the one set of texts, one anaphora for a given liturgy (and one can't choose which Liturgy to use -- this is prescribed.)

To change the Orthodox faith would require banning or rewriting all of this -- an impossible task. By contrast, since post-Tridentine parish practice had boiled down to the Mass alone, and so the revisionists had only to alter the one service to change the entire way that Catholics looked at worship and the faith.

I'm not sure how B16 is going to go about restoring the sense of the "given-ness" of liturgy (his term), but I will be interested to watch from the sidelines.

[SaltyJoe]

Faith, my friend. Stick around, the end of time hasn't happened yet. Many are lost to false prophets, but even if a 1,000 should fall at your right side that shouldn't case a loss of Hope.

[gbcdoj]

("Where the bishop is, there is the catholic church," St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote. The 'Chair of Peter' is the episcopate, not the Papacy--as the context and second edition of St. Cyprian's De Unitate make clear.)

I must protest in favor of St. Cyprian. Although it is true that he identifies the cathedra Petri and the episcopal chair, it is also true that he viewed Rome as being "the chair of Peter" in a unique way and as holding a primacy among the churches as Peter held among the apostles:

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source (ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est); and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access (ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum). (Letter 54:14, To St. Cornelius)

The "whence priestly unity takes its source" may be reasonably linked with what he says in the two different versions of the De Unitate: "The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one" and "yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one".

[gbcdoj]

Please show me where ORIGINAL sin is ever removed, ie...our sinful nature.

But it may be said, How does this enable us to say that she was conceived without original sin? If Anglicans knew what we mean by original sin, they would not ask the question. Our doctrine of original sin is not the same as the Protestant doctrine. "Original sin," with us, cannot be called sin, in the mere ordinary sense of the word "sin;" it is a term denoting Adam's sin as transferred to us, or the state to which Adam's sin reduces his children; but by Protestants it seems to be understood as sin, in much the same sense as actual sin. We, with the Fathers, think of it as something negative, Protestants as something positive. Protestants hold that it is a disease, a radical change of nature, an active poison internally corrupting the soul, infecting its primary elements, and disorganizing it; and they fancy that we ascribe a different nature from ours to the Blessed Virgin, different from that of her parents, and from that of fallen Adam. We hold nothing of the kind; we consider that in Adam she died, as others; that she was included, together with the whole race, in Adam's sentence; that she incurred his debt, as we do; but that, for the sake of Him who was to redeem her and us upon the Cross, to her the debt was remitted by anticipation, on her the sentence was not carried out, except indeed as regards her natural death, for she died when her time came, as others. All this we teach, but we deny that she had original sin; for by original sin we mean, as I have already said, something negative, viz., this only, the deprivation of that supernatural unmerited grace which Adam and Eve had on their first formation,—deprivation and the consequences of deprivation. Mary could not merit, any more than they, the restoration of that grace; but it was restored to her by God's free bounty, from the very first moment of her existence, and thereby, in fact, she never came under the original curse, which consisted in the loss of it. (John Henry Newman, Letter to Dr. Pusey, p. 47-49)

[Kolokotronis]

"I think that Christians of any age would recognize the sequence of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word and of the Eucharist, the place of the Creed, of the epiclesis and the anaphora."

I have searched in vain for the epiclesis in the NO rubrics. I understand that the Roman Church has taught that at the consecration the priest stands in the place of Christ. Does this explain the apparent absence of an epiclesis? In the Orthodox Divine Liturgy is is clearly expressed that it is the prayer of the priest and people that God, through the Holy Spirit:

"Priest (in a low voice):
Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.

And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.

(He blesses the holy Bread.)

Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen.

Priest (in a low voice):
And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.

(He blesses the holy Cup.)

Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen.

Priest (in a low voice):
Changing them by Your Holy Spirit.

(He blesses them both.)

Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen. Amen. Amen."

What am I missing?

[rwfromkansas]

but through one can came sin, and death...

I guess what I am asking is do you believe people have the tendency to sin, are people corrupted, "sinful from the womb" as David admitted?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

"The Faith of the Early Fathers" by William Jurgens (3 volumes)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0814604323/002-8946974-6642418?v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0814610072/002-8946974-6642418?v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0814610218/qid=1117497741/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-8946974-6642418?v=glance&s=books&n=507846