Posted on 05/29/2005 7:55:52 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
No, I am afraid it is all one way. I've never heard of this sort of uncharity among Roman Catholics at any time since the misbegotten Latin Crusade.
The rediscovery of the value of Patristics is now approaching a 165 year old phenomena among Roman Catholics. Perhaps you know the name Fr. Jaques-Paul Migne? While much of Orthodoxy was still enslaved to the Turkish barbarism, Muscovy to its Petrine inspired ignorance of the past, and the West to Scholastic-Tridentine triumphalism, Fr. Migne went about the herculean effort of preserving and cataloguing the entire corpus of Patristic thought from AD 70 up to the fateful year of AD 1453 among Greeks and AD 1216 among Latins, reintroducing all Christians to this wealth of spiritual knowledge.
Interesting! Bari is better known from the book, The Bridges of Madison County, the beginning of a steamy romance. It would be too bad if the rutuals and (relative ) sanity of the Orthodox Church was muddled up by Roman nonsense.
(From a victim of priest abuse.)
We call this concupiscence. Concupiscence is what original sin is materially in us.
Baptism remits original sin, which is the deprivation of the newborn soul of a share in the life of God. It does this by infusing grace into the soul.
The infusion of grace gives one the strength to battle our withered nature's wound of concupiscence. It does not remove that wound.
Mary never had her original sin removed. She was still a sinful human being. But, she was forgiven because of her faith in Christ, and the Holy Spirit allowed her to gradually resist and reject sin.
There are so many different opinions on this from the Orthodox, that one must wonder at what you believe!
You might be interested in how St. Thomas Aquinas treats this issue. He states that the sanctification of Mary in the womb freed her from sin by the infusion of overwhelming grace, but only fettered the actions of concupiscence within her, and that this later fault was only taken away at the Annunciation, when it was appropriate to outwardly manifest her sanctification.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/402703.htm
I'm a little late to this party, and I'm not going to read all posts, so beg pardon if mine is repetitive.
The issue on which all other issues hang is papal infallibility. A priest on EWTN, a while back, when discussing re-Union said as much.
Pope Benedict and the Orthodox Patriarchs can do as they please, as the Lord has given them the power to shepherd and lead, but let the re-Union be authentic if it's to be. Let us be in Communion. That means we believe the same things, recognize each other's Liturgies without the least bit of trouble, and on, and on, an on.
I don’t think re-writing or extricating oneself from the DofPI is the cake-walk some would propose. It has been seldom invoked, and poorly explained by those who used it unrelentingly as an anchor of union and obedience. And now to all of a sudden collapse that sail, no matter how deftly, will wreak untold havoc in the RCC, in my admittedly under-educated opinion.
Most Roman Catholic Parishes retained Sunday Vespers (and Compline) as an expected part of worship until early in the 1900's. The growth of urban Catholicism and its huge parishes and proliferation of Low Masses helped vitiate this practice.
It is when we look outside FR at the state of the Catholic Church that we realize how ill-timed the calls for unity are on our part. I don't think the Catholics in the West are in a position to contemplate unity before our own liturgical house is in order. This means that the Traditional Latin Mass should be the mainstream, the Novus Ordo should be, in my humble opinion, branched into a new rite, where it should be purified of the abuses that threaten to become a norm, so that its strength as a rite accessible to non-Catholics can be realized.
I think that greater unity that the East recognizes exists theologically. In theory, it should be possible to iron out some misconceptions regarding, the Original Sin or the Immaculate Conception, possibly even on the Filioque. Assuming the Holy Father lives up to his promise, I am sure, the East will recognize the desperate need for a strong and autocratic shepherd in the West, even if they cherish the autocephaly principle in the East. However, the West tends to expect too much from such theological agreement. We think that as soon as the differences in theology are reduced to tolerable differences of non-doctrinal opinion, we get unity. The East does not operate that way: the unity must reach the level of liturgical practice to be meaningful, and the liturgical practice fuses centuries of tradition with a disposition of the heart. On that level we are close to disunity even among ourselves.
Of course, some steps are possible, particularly on the mutual opening of the sacraments, as some have suggested on this thread. Another area is political unity in the face of dictatorial secularism.
I reiterate, the best step for unity a Catholic can make in our lifetime is to be a better Catholic. I suspect the same can be said for the Orthodox.
Kosta, Agrarian,
I am still working on the summary for the Filioque, but this is where my leanings are.
Askel,
Souls in Purgatory bump.
The Divine Liturgy of St. Peter does not have an Epiklesis (it being essentially the Roman Canon as we know it), and it was said among the Orthodox for many centuries up to the 1900's. See note 34 in the link below.
http://www.odox.net/Liturgy1-Peter.htm
But you might also wish to read more where St. John Chrysostom says of the Liturgy: "It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. 'This is my body,' he says. This word transforms the things offered." (De proditione Judae. 1.6, PG 49,380.)
As an Anglican and a Catholic, I was taught to use the two finger method you ascribe to the Old Believers. The two fingers together represented the union of Christ's divine and human natures in one person. The three fingers (thumb, pinky, and ring) clenched in unity represented the three persons of the Holy Trinity. I believe this is universal in the west among those who do not practice the ignorant whole hand method.
Again the Orthodox way is more correct because the other two lowered fingers of the Orthodox hand cross signing represent the dual nature.
"The Divine Liturgy of St. Peter does not have an Epiklesis (it being essentially the Roman Canon as we know it), and it was said among the Orthodox for many centuries up to the 1900's. See note 34 in the link below"
Never heard of it. The link seems to indicate it may have been some sort of Old Believer Liturgy. The other two mentioned, that of St. James and St. Mark are of course well known though very rarely prayed.
"But you might also wish to read more where St. John Chrysostom says of the Liturgy: "It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. 'This is my body,' he says. This word transforms the things offered." (De proditione Judae. 1.6, PG 49,380.)"
Hermann, most of us Orthodox can quote +John Chrysostomos nearly chapter and verse. We know Who does the consecrating at the Divine Liturgy. My comment was direced to various Roman commentaries wherein it is advanced that the priest stands in the place of Christ in the Liturgy.
It appears on the whole probable that the general introduction of our present larger cross (from brow to breast and from shoulder to shoulder) was an indirect result of the Monophysite controversy. The use of the thumb alone or the single forefinger, which so long as only a small cross was traced upon the forehead was almost inevitable, seems to have given way for symbolic reasons to the use of two fingers (the forefinger and middle finger, or thumb and forefinger) as typifying the two natures and two wills in Jesus Christ. But if two fingers were to be employed, the large cross, in which forehead, breast, etc. were merely touched, suggested itself as the only natural gesture. Indeed some large movement of the sort was required to make it perceptible that a man was using two fingers rather than one. At a somewhat later date, throughout the greater part of the East, three fingers, or rather the thumb and two fingers were displayed, while the ring and little finger were folded back upon the palm. These two were held to symbolize the two natures or wills in Christ, while the extended three denoted the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. At the same time these fingers were so held as to indicate the common abbreviation I X C (Iesous Christos Soter), the forefinger representing the I, the middle finger crossed with the thumb standing for the X and the bent middle finger serving to suggest the C. In Armenia, however, the sign of the cross made with two fingers is still retained to the present day. Much of this symbolism passed to the West, though at a later date.
Aelfric (about 1000) probably had it in mind when he tells his hearers in one of his sermons: "A man may wave about wonderfully with his hands without creating any blessing unless he make the sign of the cross. But if he do the fiend will soon be frightened on account of the victorious token. With three fingers one must bless himself for the Holy Trinity" (Thorpe, "The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church" I, 462).
You are exactly right. There never was a "Byzantine Empire" -- this term was invented in recent centuries by a French historian, I believe. Orthodox have always considered themselves to be Roman, as you say -- even to this day, especially in the Middle East. It is the origin of the term "Rum Orthodox."
Fr. John Romanides, in his "Franks, Romans, and Feudalism", goes out of his way to make this point, and he paints the struggles from the 8th to 13th centuries not as ones betweeen East and West, but between Christian Romans (East and West) and the new Frankish political entity, which understood the power of exploiting the Church to achieve its ends.
One can agree or disagree with his analysis, but one will never look at that time period again if one reads this work.
If you read through the text, you will find the Liturgy in service books from Greek monasteries, and with commentaries written on it from earlier on before the Old Believer schism.
Hermann, most of us Orthodox can quote +John Chrysostomos nearly chapter and verse. We know Who does the consecrating at the Divine Liturgy. My comment was direced to various Roman commentaries wherein it is advanced that the priest stands in the place of Christ in the Liturgy.
"The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words"
Those words of St. John neatly summarize the Roman belief.
I happen to like Fr. Romanides works, even while disliking his occasional polemics.
"This issue of Filioque WAS THE CAUSE of the Schism."
I must respectfully disagree. That is an extremely simplistic approach to a very complicated question regarding the scandalous division between the eastern and western branches of Christianity. A detailed discussion on the origins of the great schism is beyond the scope of a post or even a short essay. That said there is an excellent article which I believe provides some good background on the issues which lead to the schism and contribute to its perpetuation.
http://www.arimathea.co.uk/schism.htm
Thanks for the post. BTW, I am Protestant, not Orthodox.
'The nastiness cuts both ways.'
"No, I am afraid it is all one way. I've never heard of this sort of uncharity among Roman Catholics at any time since the misbegotten Latin Crusade."
As a Catholic I would have to say that you may wish to brush up on your history of the church in eastern Europe Our church has used force and other unpleasant means as late as the 19th century to supress the Orthodox faith in territory then under Catholic rule. In fairness the reverse is also true and that as late as the supression by the Soviet Union under Stalin (with the full cooperation of the Russian Church) of Ukrainian Rite Catholics. Both sides have a long history of injustice towards the other. If we are all going to point fingers at each other and recite the litany of wrongs committed by the other side we will still be at it come the final judgement. Charity and a true desire for justice requires admission of wrong where it has been done, and forgiveness where one has been offered apology.
In Bulgarian historical writings the Bysantine Greeks are always referred to as the Romei (Romeoi).
Hermann, why is it everytime you show up on these threads you want to play onemanship? Orthodox people ask questions and get, as I did from Theofilo, a concise and polite answer and then you come in with an attitude which quite honestly bespeaks precisely the kind of triumphalism and "submit, submit, submit" attitude we've heard from Rome for hundreds of years. What exactly was your point in bringing up some Liturgy which on Google has exactly 15 hits and none in Greek? In fact there are only 113 in any language, most of which have nothing to do with Liturgy. In any event this Liturgy is refered to as an Old Sarum usage from England. Thus far we've had a fine and enlightening discussion here. Please don't poison the well. Mostof us here have no problem with disgreeing on various points. Our purpose is to try to understand each others' beliefs in some apparently fine but in fact rather basic areas, not win debating points.
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.