Posted on 12/09/2008 5:52:09 AM PST by TexConfederate1861
Quite easily, just like you can say many different prayers yet remain Orthodox Christian throughout.
The current Catechism is the most complete explanation of Catholic faith, plus there were minor formulaic problems with Baltimore Catechism, but the dogmatic changes, if any, are driven by councils, not by issuing catechisms. Why do I feel like I am talking to the “doctor” all of a sudden?
No, it's not. However, you are entitled to your non-expert opinion - which is the entire gist of my posts: to alert the Easterns that they think they know what we mean when we say "from the Father and the Son", when they do not.
And therein, Jo, lies the rub. It WILL be left to the People of God to decide, not hierarchs whose skulls, it is said, pave the floor of Hell.
Yes, I'm sure there are no Eastern laity in hell, since religious pride is not a sin in the East, but an indication of lay holiness, apparently...
Excuse my sarcasm. It is tiring hearing this again how the "people of God" must decide. Not sure where you Scriptural warrant IS for that. I don't recall Moses or Paul running things past the Jews or the Corinthians first... This is a sign of the times, not apostolic teachings.
We will listen to what the bishops say and then decide.
Considering the animosity, the decision has already been made, just as after Florence.
We recognize what isn’t Orthodox Christianity.
That's grand. And THAT'S the point! WE MUST BECOME ORTHODOX! You deny it and claim it in the next paragraph. Before any reunion is accepted, it must be an Orthodox settlement. No compromise. Everything back to 1000 AD. We both know that is impossible. For both of us.
When are you going to accept the fact that ALL Christian means of expression do not depend upon the "Orthodox interpretation"?
We’d cut them off! The Latins simply quake, which, now that I think of it, would be a good thing in the matter of clown Masses.
The Lord said to have the faith of a child, not act childish.
Under stand that the sort of intercommuion I am speaking of is quite literally pursuant to “economia”. There would need to be a substantial reason for the intercommunion.
Quite literally, we don't need each other. The Romans offered an olive branch out of recalling the command of Christ "that all should be one". But beyond that, I am not sure what the East has to offer the West, practically speaking, at least here in the US. Perhaps in other countries, I do not know. But as I said before, the Orthodox are a novelty here, sort of like the guy who rides around town in a SMART car, those little itty bitty cars that look like a circus car... It is a wonderful liturgy because it is different and foreign, which instills more awe and wonder than the ordinary and mundane. But in the end, the Eastern churches are not universal, they are national. The union is more for the sake of our Lord and Savior.
Paddy O’Brien couldn’t come over to my Greek Orthodox parish and receive communion because there are 7 or 8 Roman Catholic parishes within 15 minutes of my parish.
You know that is not true. Even if there were no Catholic Churches at all there, a Catholic cannot receive communion at an Orthodox Church, unless that has changed very recently, or maybe if he is dying. This is the sort of thing I am talking about, the subtle arrogance from the East.
Similarly, if I were in Athens I couldn’t properly go to the Latin parish there and receive communion as there are dozens of Orthodox Churches there.
The front of our missal tells us that Orthodox MAY come to receive communion, but it is SUGGESTED they receive at their own community. Catholic priests would not refuse communion to an Orthodox. That is not the case the other way around. When you view such things from our point of view, Kolo, maybe you can begin to understand why the West is wondering about the East's motives.
You may well be right. But remember, what we know is what is and is not Orthodox and that’s what we react to.
No one is asking you to put that aside, my brother. We ask that we give some leeway to the fact that we may annunciate the faith a bit differently. We view things differently, we analyze and prioritize differently. We have endured different histories and cultural movements. Culture's relationship to God are not universal. Definitions of faith, by NECESSITY, may be different, since symbols of faith MUST speak to the people.
What needs to be said and decided upon are "what are the essentials of our faith"? In what areas are there NO room for compromise? What areas of the faith can be expressed in ways that differ but still maintain our underlying key beliefs?
I am of the mind that when we speak about the Godhead, we shouldn't really think we can know very much at all. God's revelation of Himself is VERY limited, and the East and West have long traditions of theology that recognizes that we do NOT know God!
A union would be great for Christianity as a whole, but we certainly are not going to go back 1000 years in time and become Eastern. Orthodoxy is not the "guideline" of the faith before the Schism. Orthodoxy is not the measure we will use in any such discussions. We are going to have to accept that there is room in the Catholic faith for Eastern and Western views. Orthodoxy will have to grant that the Latins had particulars that the East didn't care for BEFORE the Schism. That has not changed. Until the laity in the East accepts that, anything the Eastern bishops bring back will just be more "traitorous heresy".
I think the reunion hinges upon the typical lay Eastern more than on any other group, Western, theologian, or bishop. It will depend upon how open they are to listening, rather than dictating.
Regards
What makes you think the Catechism takes away from devotion,fasting etc..?
All of this can still be done,Kolo.
Spending to much time on free republic is worthless in comparison to reading the Catechism,dear brother
The Serbian Church is in deep trouble with internal divisions and is infected with the same disease as the rest of the Serbian society—trying to be something they are not. Do they not know that there is nothing worse than an imitation, except a bad imitation?
Can you imagine how stupid it would look if Americans tried to imitate Mexicans? Or Mexicans Americans? Or Greeks Swedes? Or Hungarians Spaniards? Then you can imagine what it looks like when Serbs try to be anything other than Serbs.
How can a people know more about others if they know nothing abut themselves? If you think the Vatican brings back a knee-jerk reaction to Croatia, Ustasha, WWII, the same ignorant knee-jerk reaction exists with the Croatian alphabet being peddled as "Serbian Latin."
I read Serbian media and I can tell you the Serbs are illiterate even though they claim to have perfectly [sic] phonetic alphabet. Serbs would be better off being preoccupied with learning how to read and write their own language, choose one alphabet (preferably one that connects them to their otherwise rich culture), decide on spelling rules, and grammar, before they preoccupy themselves with worldly matters.
Why, reading Serbian newspapers is like reading half distorted English half Serbian. If the paper has to choose between a maloletnik or a teenager, they will pick the latter (spelled tinejdzer!), as long as it's foreign (anything foreing is better, right?). That's really being Serbian!
Your vladika Gligoriye from Trebinye is a nut. He and a handful of younger bishops is pushing for liturgical reforms and the saddest thing is that he is supported by the secular politicians (probably people like that traitor s.o.b. Chedo Yovanovich and the people gathered around the Quisling B92 "progressives").
It's all part of deconstructing Serbia my friend, and promises of EU are part of it. So, if I were you (meaning Serbs in Serbia), I would take a long and hard look who you are first, decide who want to be and then worry about who others are. My friendly, and brotherly advice.
The litrugy is more than just rayers. There is no comparison.
Nor will you - but that would be because it would be sinful. I'm not worried about your verbal attacks. I have not said anything about your person. I am sorry if the truth hurts. The fact is that the lay Easterns will determine whether there is a reunion or not. THEY decide what is heresy and what is Orthodoxy. And considering the quickness of the animosity, the old bitterness remains.
Regards
You mean Catholic Catechism taught all along that heaven and hell are states of the soul and not real places?
“Spending to much time on free republic is worthless in comparison to reading the Catechism,dear brother”
I’d suggest reading the Fathers, sfa, and the graduals and collects and secrets, the Kontakia and Troparia and Apolitykia and maybe the Daily Office, but your point about FR is well taken.
We do the prayers. Christ does the Eucharist.
And I submit that not only the experst on the Latin side did not know what εκπορευομαι (ekporeuomai) meant but they didn't even bother to translate it correectly.
There are things about Vatican II that was violated and misinterpreted,some probably pompously and others maybe out of ignorance.
Take for instance the use of Latin,the Vatican Council actually ordered the use of Latin
Here is some excerpts of what Vatican II actually says
Article 36. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
Article 54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be alloted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to readings and the “common prayer,” but also, as local condition may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this constitution. Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. And whenever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this constitution is to be observed.
Article 63. Because the use of the mother tongue in the administration of the sacraments and sacramentals can often be of considerable help to the people, this use is to be extended according to the following norms: a) The vernacular language may be used in administering the sacraments and sacramentals, according to the norm of Art. 36. b) In harmony with the new edition of the Roman Ritual, particular rituals shall be prepared without delay by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22 of this constitution. These rituals, which are to be adapted, also as regards the language employed, to the needs of the different regions, are to be reviewed by the Apostolic See and then introduced into the regions for which they have been prepared. But in drawing up these rituals or particular collections of rites, the instructions prefixed to the individual rites on the Roman Ritual, whether they be pastoral and rubrical or whether they have special social import, shall not be omitted.
Article 101. In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of the vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly.
Exactly, I made that point already. We are supposed to believe that simple farmers, based on their readings of the "Aquinas Daily", in Latin, knew exactly what the Latins believed and rejected it out of hand, because the Bishops were so daft that they were TRICKED - I think that was the word used - into accepting an "un-Orthodox" position. Naturally, these farmers got together in a number of local synods and overruled their bishops.
Hey, if they want to believe that fantasy, that's fine. The truth of the matter is that the East hated the West and REFUSED to accept ANY explanation the bishops had. Moscow was not about to be "ruled by those Papists". Nor were the Byzantines, who earned their bread and butter by lambasting Latins. The people had heard how terrible and heretical the West was that there really was NO chance of reconciliation at Florence, no matter what the Emperor and some of the Bishops tried to explain.
If that situation has not changed, there will be no reconciliation, because the Easterns have told us THEY are in charge of determining heresy or Orthodoxy. As we see, animosity is still within their blood towards us. We will never get a fair hearing - nor do will they even offer to sit down and listen. Kosta has already said that. With such attitudes permeating throughout the East, union is not going to happen, unless we start speaking Greek and paint icons and have our priests get married and take up the Byzantium rites.
Why am I writing this way? I am hoping that our Eastern brothers will begin to sense the truth of their position. Because if we leave things as they are, union is not happening. We need to start a grass-roots opening of the minds in the East - an acceptance to listen to supposed brothers in Christ. We need to stir the pot and let them see the vanity and pride of being close-minded.
I am now going to back off from the sarcasm (it was a planned exercise), hoping that my Eastern brothers will examine themselves and their demands and give us a fair hearing.
Brother in Christ
You mean to tell me that no Catholic Catechims ever taught hell was a real place as the Bible says?
Tell me why did the Catholic laity go along with any of this if they knew it was wrong? Or are they really just “sheep?”
Popes can say the darndest things, just like your bishops.
When you fire a shot across my bow, just what do you expect?
As I said earlier, I am not in favor of reunion, nor will I be until the Pope is Primus Inter Pares, and the un -Orthodox is gone.
I'm not sure the laity may have known it was wrong,Kosta.
Remember,there were no computers and easy access to information . The documents of Vatican II are enormous.
Perhaps some liberal Bishops and clergy are at fault,especially in the usa?
I do believe Pope Benedict XVI is working restore some of the error.
“Yes, I’m sure there are no Eastern laity in hell, since religious pride is not a sin in the East, but an indication of lay holiness, apparently...”
Oh, no, Jo you’ve got that one really wrong. We are, I assure you, the chief among sinners and we know it.
“That’s grand. And THAT’S the point! WE MUST BECOME ORTHODOX! You deny it and claim it in the next paragraph. Before any reunion is accepted, it must be an Orthodox settlement. No compromise. Everything back to 1000 AD. We both know that is impossible. For both of us.”
Jo, if you want reunion with the East, you do need to return to the Orthodoxy the West was a champion of during the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence. No one is saying you need to become Greeks or Arabs or Slavs anymore than I am Ethiopian because we have Ethiopian parishioners in my parish. From that point, without all the theological innovations of the past 1000 years, we can discuss what is dogma and what is theologoumenna. The only point I think will be truly difficult to deal with is any form of dogmatic universal infallibility for the Pope. The other issues really should be resolvable by a council.
“Quite literally, we don’t need each other.”
Indeed we don’t, but Jo, you’ve completely misunderstood what I was saying. Let me try it this way. Since the Council of Chalcedon there has been a schism with the Oriental Orthodox and the Copts and the Armenians over the nature of Christ and thus both you Latins and we Orthodox, accepting the formulas of the 4th Ecumenical Council, call them who do not accept those formulas “Non-Chalcedonians” or “Monophysites”. Late in the last century it was decided that likely the perceived differences didn’t really exist but rather were the result of how concepts came out in different languages. As a result, though our bishops are not in communion with theirs, we can receive communion in their churches and they in ours, but only by permission of the bishops and under certain circumstances, usually that there is no Orthodox church within a reasonable distance. This practice is contrary to the usual practice that communion between bishops is a necessary precondition to the reception of communion by the clergy and people in each other’s churches. The Latin Church, as I understand it, views the common reception of communion with the Orthodox as a means towards communion among the bishops, we view it as a sign that communion among the bishops already exists (except in economia cases)which as between Orthodoxy and Rome does not yet, de jure, exist.
“But beyond that, I am not sure what the East has to offer the West, practically speaking, at least here in the US.”
I think you are absolutely right. I think I can safely say that there are very, very few American Roman Catholics who would want to live their lives as Orthodox Christians...and vice versa. In fact, most Orthodox Christians I know are frankly scared to death that what has happened to the Roman Church might happen to us if there were to be a reunion. We have enough problems of our own.
“You know that is not true. Even if there were no Catholic Churches at all there, a Catholic cannot receive communion at an Orthodox Church, unless that has changed very recently, or maybe if he is dying. This is the sort of thing I am talking about, the subtle arrogance from the East.”
Like I said, you misunderstood what I was saying. Is that because you don’t view the reception of communion the same way I do? I’ve found it fascinating that the Roman Church has such different regard for the Eucharist; lay women handing it out, carrying around chalices, using it as a tool to create communion where there is none.
“Catholic priests would not refuse communion to an Orthodox. That is not the case the other way around.”
Right on both counts. In fact many priests make an announcement prior to communion that it is reserved for Orthodox Christians, properly prepared by fasting and confession and leading their lives according to the teachings of the Church. We are, as you know, directed not to receive communion anywhere but in an Orthodox Church (except when by economia. Rome knows this so why do you offer the Eucharist to Orthodox Christians? That is so irritating. You won’t see that up here. To his credit, the local Latin ordinary had that removed from the misselettes when we complained. Actually, it was causing a problem with loon Roman Catholics (you know the type, the sort who see Panagia in nuclear mushroom clouds are are compelled to tell everyone about it) showing up at our parish and others demanding communion.
“I think the reunion hinges upon the typical lay Eastern more than on any other group, Western, theologian, or bishop.”
You are absolutely correct.
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.