"Being that the Orthodox are an apostolic Church, we do share communion."
Um, no we don't. What possible meaning of the English verb "to share" could you have in mind?
"To my knowledge, an Orthodox person can receive communion at a Latin Mass."
Not if he doesn't want to get reprimanded and possibly excommunicated, he doesn't. And out of respect for that, the U.S. Catholic bishops have requested that Orthodox Christians respect the disciplines of the Orthodox Church and not commune in Catholic parishes.
"The same is not the case for a Latin coming to an Orthodox Liturgy, as you point out. And this is because we don't approach the Trinity in the exact same way?"
I don't make Orthodox practices. I'm just reminding you of what they are, and pointing out that in the hothouse atmosphere of FR with talk of this theoretical "One Church" -- that inexplicably isn't in communion with itself -- this fact gets forgotten. I hate to be the fly in the ointment, but it has to be said.
"There is a difference between de fide declarations and common, yet undefined teachings. Our differences are not based on Eastern Orthodox/Latin Catholic flouting of dogmatic declarations made at Nicea or Chalcedon."
You are attempting to boil down Christianity to a lowest common denominator. And how does this differ, really, from the Protestant lowest-common-denominator contention that they are all Christians and part of the one Body of Christ, even though they disagree on lots of things that I for one see as being pretty significant? Does the fact that our lowest common denominator includes bishops and prayers to the Theotokos make it somehow qualitatively different? You know good and well that Orthodoxy has historically never accepted this.
"I don't know if that is correct - as what would be the purpose of a third state of existence if we died and went to immediate heaven or hell? What does the Orthodox envision for this third "place"?"
For the most part, the answer is "we don't know, and neither does anyone else." As to the purpose, why does it have to have a purpose? Is there really any "purpose" to the soul being separated from the body, and remaining in an unnatural state of separation until it is reunited with the body after the general resurrection? It is *all* unnatural, and to speak of "purpose" doesn't make sense to me.
We know that spiritual growth takes place during this intermediate state, through the prayers of the Church -- and for those who are in a state of separation from God, there is an alleviating of suffering, according to some fathers, through the prayers of those on earth. We don't know much beyond that.
"The Church has ALWAYS had this power."
I'd like to see the pre-schismatic patristic references that speak of the Church granting plenary indulgences to the departed, freeing them from purgatory, and categorically stating that *all* of the time in purgatory has been bypassed. I'm not saying that they don't exist -- perhaps they do, since I make no claim to have read everything. I'd just like to see them.
"Again, you are incorrect in your assumptions. Being in a state of schism is NOT a separation from the Body."
No, I'm not incorrect. What definition of the word "schism" are you referring to, when saying that it is not a separation?
People who don't share something are really sharing it -- schism is not separation? This is casuistry. Or maybe just wishful thinking. Or maybe we need to start using an OED.
"Thus, it is imperative that we try to understand WHAT the other is saying when they formulate that the Divine uncreated Energies come to man but not the Divine Essence... Or when the West talks about created Grace."
Agreed.
"But remaining stubbornly entrenched in your idea of what Catholics believe..."
I've said little about what Catholics believe -- and when I have, I've tried to put in caveats to the effect that I may not be expressing it in a way that you as a Catholic would agree with what I have said. When I articulate something in a way that you disagree with, then we can hammer it out...
What I *am* stubbornly entrenched in is a sense of reality -- in describing what *is.* Saying 100 times that the Orthodoxy and Catholicism comprise one Church will not make it so. Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. The consensus view since the Schism from the Orthodox side is that we aren't -- at least not in the sense that we would call "one." Most traditional but cautious Orthodox would prefer to leave the relationship largely undefined. My objection is not so much that we aren't arguing about whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy is really the Church. My objection, which I have kept to myself for some time, is that it is being repeatedly and categorically stated on this thread that we are One Church, when this by no means a shared view.
I am happy to rejoice in every point of agreement that we find, and happy every time that I come to a clearer understanding of Catholic belief, and happy every time I can communicate clearly Orthodox beliefs to the best of my ability. But again, this is a quite different matter.
The closest that anything has been said to my knowledge was the reference to "sister churches" in the Balamand
Agreement -- a hotly controversial document in the Orthodox world (and not particularly well-loved by Eastern Catholics, either, for different reasons.) Here are the comments of the head of what is by far the largest Orthodox Church in the world, Patriarch Alexey, on that agreement:
"As far as the "Balamand Agreement" is concerned—this was a working document produced by a mixed theological commission, aimed, first of all, at curbing the proselytizing activity of Uniates. This text was never given dogmatic significance. Unfortunately, the document did not prove to be an obstacle for the Catholics in imposing Unia and continuing their expansion to the East."
It does no good to pretend that many, and probably the great majority, of Orthodox Christians today do not hold to the "One Church" view -- disagreeable as you may find this fact.
Part of coming to understanding involves honesty with ourselves and each other about where we are. I don't intend to belabor this point, but it needs to be said. It would be my hope that we could at a minimum follow Kosta's suggestion in a recent post that we can agree that there can only be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, then saying, "I think it is wise to leave it at that."
When we receive the elements of the Eucharist, we are receiving Jesus Christ. That is one of many concepts that we "share".
Not if he doesn't want to get reprimanded and possibly excommunicated, he doesn't.
That's the Orthodox bishops' decision, not Rome.
You are attempting to boil down Christianity to a lowest common denominator. And how does this differ, really, from the Protestant lowest-common-denominator contention that they are all Christians and part of the one Body of Christ, even though they disagree on lots of things that I for one see as being pretty significant?
Again, I ask you, what de fide statements are ignored by either Church? Do we both have valid sacraments, meaning the same thing? Do we equally confect the Eucharist? Do we have ministrial priests? Do we share the same baptism? The same loaf? We are part of the Body of Christ, both the Orthodox and the Catholics. There is not two bodies. We both are apostolic churches. Protestantism does not share any of these above EXCEPT the one baptism. I think your comparision is way off mark.
For the most part, the answer is "we don't know, and neither does anyone else."
That didn't seem to prevent people at Nicea and Chalcedon from making statements about the ESSENCE of God, which you say no one can know anything about... The fact of the matter is that when the Church gets together in a properly convoked Ecumenical Council, it is guided by the Spirit of truth. Thus, such things as the infallible doctrine of Purgatory, while not completely definied, has been based on the Tradition of the Church, as well as deeper study of Scriptures, as well as the prompting of the Spirit.
What definition of the word "schism" are you referring to, when saying that it is not a separation?
Our communities are separated in worship proper, but we still are united in Christ as part of His Body.
I'd like to see the pre-schismatic patristic references that speak of the Church granting plenary indulgences to the departed.
Indulgences are granted to the living, AFTER confession and one's sins have been absolved. Do you or do you not agree that the Church provided for "punishment" for the serious sins of a Christian? Was this punishment earning forgiveness that was already given? What was the purpose of this punishment? It is pretty clear that the idea is already there, even if we don't see the words "purgatory" or "plenary indulgences".
As to the Fathers who write about this third state, they are plentiful. Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Cyril, Basil, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Jerome, John Crysostom - that is just up to 400 AD. They all mention that some sort of purgation occurs in the next life, in line with the pre-Christian belief in this third state of existence. Prayers for the sake of the dead have efficiency. This has been an ever constant concept among the Fathers. Now, a little thought logically leads to "Purgatory", as prayers are not useful to those in Hell, nor are they needed for those in heaven. And "nothing unclean shall enter heaven".
My objection, which I have kept to myself for some time, is that it is being repeatedly and categorically stated on this thread that we are One Church, when this by no means a shared view.
Brother, there is no salvation outside the Church. With your definition of Church, either EVERY Catholic or EVERY Orthodox, ALL Protestants, and ALL other non-Christians are going to hell. Are you willing to categorically state that? If so, your definition of "Church" differs from the Fathers. Before 300 AD, the Church accepted as valid the Baptism of heretics and schismatics. If so, then anyone properly baptized is a member of the Church, even if in a very limited fashion.
Regards