“Please understand that saying it and REALLY BELIEVING IT is two different things.”
Jo, most of us really do believe it, though our parish priest says its a species of pride. Religous pride, as you say, is an extremely dangerous sentiment and almost always ends up in Pharisaical attitudes. I sincerely dounbt, however, that when +John Chrysostomos prayed before receiving the Eucharist, “I believe, O Lord, and I confess that thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” he was being Pharisaical and prideful. Most faithful Orthodox Christians try to emulate +John Chrysostomos’ faith and self knowledge before “...partaking of Thy Holy Mysteries.”
“But when you say “Orthodoxy”, I presume you mean the Latin version of it?”
Exactly, though in point of fact there is only one Orthodoxy. It was here and there expressed differently in the East and the West even 1000 years ago. But that said, no Orthodox Christian can or would gainsay the Church of Rome of those days which truly and virtually alone saved Orthodoxy from vicious heresies. We remember that as much as we remember Florence and the sack of Constantinople, Jo.
“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.”
There is no point in denying that there is hatred in the East for the West. There is, much of it born of sad history from long ago, but frankly a good measure of it is truly modern. The social, cultural and moral depravity of the West has infected to a degree almst all areas of the Christian East and while that materialistic, hedonistic depravity attracts some in the East, it repels many more. The Roman Church fairly or unfairly is seen as the overwhelmingly dominant religious force in the West. Protestantism isn’t really even on the radar. As such, Rome is either seen as a failed Church because of the state of the society around it or, and this is something I hear all the time from monastics especially down in Greece, the Church of Rome is part and parcel of the depravity as witnessed by the destruction of the liturgy and, maybe not so surprisingly, of Western monasticism. To the extent that Orthodox people blame Rome to an extent for the disease of Western secularism, it is hated and very, very feared.
“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.”
I was talking about very recent (30-40 years ago) talks between the Monophysites and the Orthodox. What that has lead to could be a model for what might happen between Rome and the Eastern Churches.
“No, we don’t see it as a “means towards communion”. If so, we’d also let the Protestants in.”
No you wouldn’t. Aside from a very few Lutherans, their Eucharistic theology is illicit.
“We continue to call the Orthdox a valid Church with valid sacraments and rites.”
As we do with Rome.
“We can celebrate the Eucharist together because we ARE Church, although we have differences of opinions that keep us from TOTAL reunion.”
Not at this point because we have not determined, even provisionally, that we likely believe the same things in all dogmatic areas. If we had reached that conclusion, we would have intercommunion by economia or perhaps even as it exists de facto in Lebanon (and here and there even in No. America) among the Orthodox, the Melkites and the Maronites.
“...your view of this seems to require more strict unity.”
Yes, that’s fair though I don’t think we need an Ecumenical Council for intercommunion by economia.
“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.”
Of course we are aware of it and of women’s rights. But The Church is not a creature of “today” and it is guided by the Holy Spirit not the Zeitgeist! As for the role of women and the Eucharist, we are all fully aware of the history of female deacons and their role in The Church. The Church of Greece has determined to reestablish that order under the traditional conditions, with the traditional blessings and for the traditional purposes...and they, by virtue of their offikion, will certainly be able to handle the holy vessels and the Holy Mysteries. These deaconesses will not be some random lady from the community, however, who will go home to the husband and kids or grandchildren after the liturgy. Jo, lay people have no authorization to handle the holy vessels or the Holy Mysteries. That was the universal practice before Vatican II except perhaps for reception of communion in the hands.
“The extraordinary case is not denied, however.”
Of course not. A number of Orthodox here on FR discussed once if they would receive communion, indeed seek it out, from a Latin priest if they were “in extremis”. Everyone said Yes and without hesitation. But as we lawyers say, “Hard cases make bad law”. “In extremis” is just that.
There was no reception of the host in the hand before Vatican II. It was strictly forbidden.
Apropos deaconesses, they are not ordianed, just tonsured. They must be 40 years of age or older, widowed or single.
Jo, most of us really do believe it, though our parish priest says its a species of pride. Religous pride, as you say, is an extremely dangerous sentiment and almost always ends up in Pharisaical attitudes.
It is a difficult thing to judge in oneself, my friend. I think it usually takes another person, an advisor or friend to make mention of it, and by God's grace, they look in-ward and agree. This sort of self-delusion (I'm better than Catholics because...) is very difficult to admit to, especially when one has a tagline about the purity of their religious system...
Exactly, though in point of fact there is only one Orthodoxy. It was here and there expressed differently in the East and the West even 1000 years ago.
I think it is more accurate to say there is one "faith", an idea that exists in the mind of the Church about something that cannot necessarily be put entirely into words that future men will not find some better way of saying it. Remember, we are dealing with mysteries, and we DO grow in knowing them as we further reflect on them. Basing our faith on a formula sounds backwards to me. I think the formula is meant to express our faith. No?
The social, cultural and moral depravity of the West has infected to a degree almst all areas of the Christian East and while that materialistic, hedonistic depravity attracts some in the East, it repels many more.
Yes, it has. Popes have tried to fight against the invasion of modernism and liberalism - but the temptation is incredible. When men are comfortable with their lives, why call upon God? Why worship a God when "I am a self-made man"? I am sure you know the thinking. Coupled with the culture problems in the United States and Europe, God is not a large part of people's lives. It is difficult. Popes speak against it, some bishops bravely forge on, but many bishops, as you say, will soon be paving the road to hell. Christ Himself said that the head servants are responsible to the Master, and clearly, many of our Western Bishops are not doing there job.
I really am happy that Eastern culture is less effected by this heresy. We are not so lucky here.
The Roman Church fairly or unfairly is seen as the overwhelmingly dominant religious force in the West. Protestantism isn’t really even on the radar.
Well, from there, maybe, but here, "Protestantism" itself is seen as a "church", as well. They are indeed a force on the "Religious right" who often are our allies in political issues. We are on the same side on many cultural issues. I do speak with many of them on these forums and we try to put our differences aside sometimes because we realize we are going to sink or swim together, culturally speaking, since God Himself is the issue. Removing Him from the public forum, removing His Law from judicial judgments, etc. We are indeed a pagan society, for all intents and purposes. We need another Paul. Or perhaps some Christian martyrs to wake the sleepy Western up.
As such, Rome is either seen as a failed Church because of the state of the society around it or, and this is something I hear all the time from monastics especially down in Greece, the Church of Rome is part and parcel of the depravity as witnessed by the destruction of the liturgy and, maybe not so surprisingly, of Western monasticism.
Ah, well that's too bad Rome is blamed for cultural depravity, because the Pope has been issuing warnings and encyclicals and teaching about the dangers of Modernism since the 1800's. Perhaps the Church wasn't taken seriously at the time - almost a "faith vs reason" battle (which was the OTHER feature of Vatican 1 that you probably didn't know about). Society has pitted faith vs. reason while the Church has said they are not mutually exclusive. The Fundamentalists have largely co-opted that with their literal reading of Genesis 1, etc... I hope that the East learns to realize that Rome has been fighting this.
I was talking about very recent (30-40 years ago) talks between the Monophysites and the Orthodox. What that has lead to could be a model for what might happen between Rome and the Eastern Churches.
Oh, I believe we had this conversation before regarding the Eastern Rite Catholics, and Pope John Paul 2's comments about them being a "bridge". You disagreed then. I can see how the Coptics would be a better example, and I believe they are more "neutral" if you will.
Not at this point because we have not determined, even provisionally, that we likely believe the same things in all dogmatic areas. If we had reached that conclusion, we would have intercommunion by economia or perhaps even as it exists de facto in Lebanon (and here and there even in No. America) among the Orthodox, the Melkites and the Maronites.
That is certainly your perogative. This is a matter that must be decide by particular bishops, as they determine what is "enough" to be in communion to share in the Eucharist. It is a judgment call, I guess. There is not a checklist that you would go through. Perhaps the Creed? However, that is fraught with danger, as a lot of Protestants say THEY believe the Creed, as well - and they have different meanings when they say certain words. We have already determined that. I am not sure the Orthodox and the West has fully explored that yet...
These deaconesses will not be some random lady from the community, however, who will go home to the husband and kids or grandchildren after the liturgy. Jo, lay people have no authorization to handle the holy vessels or the Holy Mysteries. That was the universal practice before Vatican II except perhaps for reception of communion in the hands.
There are a number of Catholics who feel the same way here. I can understand both points of view, my friend. I am more fairly flexible on this issue. I leave it to higher authority.
A number of Orthodox here on FR discussed once if they would receive communion, indeed seek it out, from a Latin priest if they were “in extremis”. Everyone said Yes and without hesitation. But as we lawyers say, “Hard cases make bad law”. “In extremis” is just that.
Well, that is good to hear. I have no problem viewing ourselves as the "younger brother", as I have said before to you - I am not too proud. Younger brothers DO, however, appreciate being treated with respect, rather than disdain and indifference.
Thanks again for your patience and attention.
Brother in Christ