Replies

“You ignore my point. You are experts in Orthodoxy, not Catholicism and what it teaches. Yet, you tell us our version of the symbol of faith is false? This is based upon your knowledge of Catholicism?”

I ignore nothing and do not pretend to be an expert in Roman Catholicism. Your version of the symbol of faith, however, is plainly false as you pray it. You say you mean “from the Father through the Son”, which of course is correct...but that’s not what either the English or the Latin says. Will the new rule, when dealing with Roman theology, be “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”?

“I think the matter should be left to the experts in the East, not the self-proclaimed lay experts, who are by day farmers, and by night, a budding Gregory of Nyssa...”

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.

“It appears you are saying YOU will judge what Rome is saying, no matter what the Bishops tell you (a la Florence).”

That’s not quite correct. We will listen to what the bishops say and then decide.

“I don’t think the majority of the Eastern laity is in the position to know what the West teaches without prejudice.”

We recognize what isn’t Orthodox Christianity.

“Would you care if Rome stuck its noses into your own personal issues at your parish?”

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 condescending attitude that looks down on Western Christiandom. It is unbecoming of the “People of God”... It needs to be corrected, not just for the sake of unification, but for the sake of souls. Religious pride is frowned upon, even by the Eastern Church Fathers.”

Tell that one to the partisans of the infallible “Vicar of Christ on Earth”, Jo.

“I agree with these suggestions, if the rest of your compadres will allow it.”

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. 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. 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. But, if I were in, say, Vientiane on a Sunday, I could go to Mass and communion at the Latin
Church there since there is no (or at least there didn’t used to be) any Orthodox parish there. The same would be true for you in reverse were you to find yourself in my maternal village in Greece.

“But there is really no point IF the laity already have it in their head that they, the “real” People of God, have decided that Rome is heretical and any Eastern bishop that says otherwise (after consultation and exploration of theology with Western bishops) should be sacked.”

You may well be right. But remember, what we know is what is and is not Orthodox and that’s what we react to.

“The attitude in the East that followed Florence can never bring about reunion.”

The attitude, the phronema of Orthodoxy, hasn’t changed one bit since Florence. We will look at reunion proposals the same way they were after Florence, which is to say, is what we are being asked to accept Orthodox?

Your version of the symbol of faith, however, is plainly false as you pray it. You say you mean “from the Father through the Son”, which of course is correct...but that’s not what either the English or the Latin says.

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