“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.
Please understand that saying it and REALLY BELIEVING IT is two different things. I am not saying anything vs. your own personal devotion and attitude towards being a sinner. However, when a person in general, remain unnamed, has a condescending attitude, it is an act of not knowing themselves, self-delusion, not "knowing themselves as chief among sinners". That can very easily become Pharisaical, don't you agree? Religious pride is a dangerous thing, and I think a few of my brothers (not you) need to be alerted to that danger they place their souls in, despite their rigid adherence to their liturgy and so forth. God desires mercy not sacrifice. I believe some of my brothers of the East are a bit condescending towards whom they say are their brothers.
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.
I believe I can say that the West does desire union for the sake of Christ. But when you say "Orthodoxy", I presume you mean the Latin version of it? The term can be confusing. WHOSE "Orthodoxy"? That is the question. We believe the Spirit guides the Church and CONTINUES to, regardless of whether there is unification or not. Did Paul believe the Spirit had left Corinth despite the schisms and dissensions? Not the Body. Thus, our separation did not necessarily retire the Spirit. As such, Counciliar documents need to be at least LOOKED at. It appears you are refusing even that. Is it not possible that the West has indeed CONTINUED its own Patristic developments?
From that point, without all the theological innovations of the past 1000 years, we can discuss what is dogma and what is theologoumenna.
Kolo, my wise friend, that is ALL we ask, that they be examined WITH AN OPEN MIND. Now, the problem I see, my friend, is that we are being pre-judged by the Eastern laity. This hatred of the West seems to be very shallowly buried under the surface if I am able to stir it so quickly. I would think that any new union effort would yield the SAME results as at Florence, IF the Eastern laity had the same attitude. That is what I am seeing here. I hope this is not prevalent throughout the East, but I fear it is indicative of the attitudes towards the West.
Think about it. If the Eastern laity has an underlying disgust and condescenscion towards the Western Church (as we see here), then ANY agreement on what is opinion and what is infallible can not HOPE to reach agreement in Eastern synod, since the Eastern laity will not have it. Not because of theology, my friend - as you have admitted, most Easterns don't know Western theology - but because of the distrust and condescenscion barely disguised under the surface. Unless the West became fully Eastern, I fear the Easterns won't have it. The Eastern bishops would be sacked and another "Florence excuse" will be devised by revisionist historians to appease the conscience of some Easterns.
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.
Yes, I believe that after the Greeks had left Florence, there were further discussions with these smaller churches as the Armenians and Copts, and it appears that there was some closer ties developed after language problems were overcome.
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.
No, we don't see it as a "means towards communion". If so, we'd also let the Protestants in. The Sacrament is indeed the sign of our communion that ALREADY exists. WE recognize that the East is closer to us, close enough to say a communion exists at the Eucharistic level. We continue to call the Orthdox a valid Church with valid sacraments and rites. We can celebrate the Eucharist together because we ARE Church, although we have differences of opinions that keep us from TOTAL reunion. I think we see that we have the same view on the Eucharist and that you have valid rites and priests, etc, so you can receive here - but your view of this seems to require more strict unity.
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.
I pray that Modernism doesn't creep in over there. It is a life and death struggle, probably one of the most pernicious heresies we have ever faced. This is not some esoteric definition on the relationship of Christ to the Father. Even Arians believed in God and had their own worship of the Father, etc... This is a TOTAL either/or. Modernism strips the supernatural from life. This cannot help but remove God from one's life. How is the spiritual life maintained under this attack? Our culture here is in serious trouble, my friend. Pray that you are not subjected to it. And pray for us that we may overcome, with God's help. Recreational sex, contraception and abortion is destroying the minds of the faithful.
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.
That is because you are not aware of culture's pressure on such matters over here. Woman's rights are here to stay. It is difficult to deny their accusations when they cannot do something that WAS perfectly lecit to do long time ago - take the Eucharist to those who were sick. There is no Tradition or theological idea that I am aware of that would prevent women from handling the Eucharist already consecrated. Priests, different story. He is "Christ personified". But sacramental theology does not prevent women from taking the Eucharist, as a disciple of Christ, to others, including within the Liturgy itself. Traditionalists don't like it, but I am not aware of any theological reasons why this is not acceptable. Does Christ not want women bringing Him to other people?
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.
The statement in the Missal is like you said. It strongly suggests Orthodox go to Orthodox Liturgy to receive. The extraordinary case is not denied, however. It doesn't suggest that Orthodox can come in regularly, nor is there any suggestion of evangelizing Orthodox away. I am aware of the type of Catholic you speak of, but I try to be open minded, as it is not my place to judge other's walk in the Lord.
“I think the reunion hinges upon the typical lay Eastern more than on any other group, Western, theologian, or bishop.” - You are absolutely correct.
To earn the trust of our Eastern brothers, I think we are going to have to clean up our own house a bit. This doesn't reflect on our doctrines, but on the Liturgical abuses that have crept into Divine Worship in the mis-implementation of Vatican 2. Our bishops need to grow some balls and act like defenders of the faith, rather than corporate CEO's. We do indeed need to work against the heresy of Modernism that has infiltrated Catholic colleges and seminars. We see the signs already that this is happening. All we can do is pray that God will draw us to Him and the East will see this progress and begin to trust us more. Until then, I don't see how the Eastern laity will allow union. Look at the posts from some of your brothers!
The West needs to clean up their Liturgy and the East needs to recall what love is.
Brother in Christ