www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Ideas to Achieve Vatican - Orthodox Reconciliation

Theology is, however, the root of why the schism hasn't ended yet. The schism at first was entirely political but as I read into "Palamism" and Eastern thought on the Energy Essence distinction, it becomes obvious to me the schools of Western thought centered around "Divine Simplicity" are perhaps incompatible fundamentally with Eastern theology.

But you are right - most Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would not know about this. I find it hard to believe the super traditionalist Catholic position that all outside of the Church are going to Hell, because a pious Russian layman born in 1300 has no way of discerning over the Schism and I don't think it would prevent him from being devoted to God and seeking out righteousness and faith in the Living God Jesus Christ. Likewise, a pious French layman wouldn't discern over these issues either.

The filioque, azymes, created grace, doctrinal innovations are not fundamentally political issues. Although they have political aspects. The Church of the first millennium, whether one chooses to accept it or not, precisely did concern itself with theological issues such as: "of like essence" vs. "of one essence", "two natures in one person" vs. "one nature in one person", "two wills unmingled, equal, human and Divine" vs. "one will, human and Divine", "veneration passes to the one in the image depicted, not to the wood or stone, expressing the reality of theosis in Christ" vs. "pagan idolatry of images denying Christ".

Fr. Seraphim Rose was once asked by a Protestant minister if Fr. Seraphim thought he was headed for he'll since he didn't share the Orthodox faith. Fr. Seraphim replied," Who am I to determine whether you will or won't go to he'll?"
Having said that, I feel that most of those who are indifferent to any concept of truth, whether Orthodox, RC, or BC, are those mostly likely to abandon the faith altogether in times of persecution. I'm not saying this is good or should happen, but that's it's likely to happen.

Yes, Father, Christ is the ultimate judge of who enters heaven and hell. Not us. Many of us will be surprised with the people we meet there. If we get there ourselves, of course.

As long as it's not your own. I find your 25 Recommendations a thinly veiled form, but I'll get to those as I have time. I'll just say for now that most of the working class Catholics of the Latin rite that I know, like their girls at the altar, and a good rendition of Nearer My God at the Offertory. Few take the offered cup at communion. I'll stake my working class credentials with yours, or Steve Bannon's any day, but that's beside the point. The truth and accuracy of your assumptions in your original post are what's at stake in this thread. More later.

[quote][The filioque, azymes, created grace, doctrinal innovations are not fundamentally political issues. Although they have political aspects. The Church of the first millennium, whether one chooses to accept it or not, precisely did concern itself with theological issues such as: "of like essence" vs. "of one essence", "two natures in one person" vs. "one nature in one person", "two wills unmingled, equal, human and Divine" vs. "one will, human and Divine", "veneration passes to the one in the image depicted, not to the wood or stone, expressing the reality of theosis in Christ" vs. "pagan idolatry of images denying Christ"./quote]

Which "other" do you refer to?

Bob
Universal Moderator

Christ is in our midst!!

I find the emphasis on "traditionalist Catholics" amusing. In my part of PA, there is one church that offers the Liturgy of Pope St John XXIII. It was the last revision of the Pope Paul V Missal before the reforms of Vatican II. It is served in one church far out in the country by a priest of a religious order. Most parishes have been done over in such a way that this liturgy cannot be served in them for any number of reasons. My source is a former pastor who served as a seminary professor for many years before retirement.

There is another reason. The seminaries don't even teach Latin and haven't for decades. The priests we have are already stretched thin trying to provide Liturgy to the people who even come. I'm told that there is an underlying reason for priests not asking for permission to serve this Liturgy, even if people would ask.

Try this website to see how irregularly the Liturgy of Pope St John XXIII is served in PA.

http://www.ecclesiadei.org/masses.cfm

Bob

If one seeks reunion with the Orthodox Catholic Church, the most logical means of doing so is rediscovering ones identity the way it was when that union existed. Logic dictates that. I have addressed liberal issues with my 25 points already. So no amount of repetition is really going to rescue the day for the party of modernism and Neo-Reformation.

Any political orientation which emphasizes either a privileged, plutocratic 1% or an LGBTQ 3% at the expense of working Americans is out of touch with the needs and values of the American middle class. Gay marriage, abortion on demand, dividing Americans by race, gender, while calling for the killing of police officers, spouting hours of anti-White racist hate and wallowing in the divisive gutter of identity politics, assaulting the Bill of Rights (American civil liberties), arming misinformed/brainwashed college students to brutalize anyone engaged in free speech who is not liberal - this is not representative of working Americans and the needs of American families. It is hateful to them. It isn't American.

Truth be told, I am probably a 1960 - 1968 Democrat. Which means the Democrat party left me and most working people behind after 1968 for a liberal fringe of special interest groups: banded together to divide America with wedge issues, subvert American morals and promote a San Francisco values, limousine liberal transformation of American. With the neo Protestant reforms of Vatican II being the ecclesiastical corollary of this debased, political orientation. So people like myself, like Steve Bannon, like most of Middle Class America are frankly happy that the liberals don't stand in our ranks. We are done with being politically exploited, divided, morally compromised, bankrupted and then handed the bill for it. We reject both the liberal and conservative political establishments as unresponsive, exploitative and useless. We are about a new politics and a renewed, traditional, religious sensibility of/by/for hardworking Americans.

I think I've been clear, Bob, that the "other" are those who oppose the Orthodox and Catholic consciousness of the Church: mostly I've indicted Neo Protestant liberals and modernists. I've placed myself on the side of RC Traditionalists as an Orthodox Catholic advocate of their aspirations. Supporting them in their restoration of the Roman Catholic church. So Neo-Reformation and anti-Tradition (neo Iconoclasm) are the "other".

I hate to break it to you, Bob, but I learned Latin in high school. And it is still taught in most accredited colleges and universities. As well as in most RC seminaries. Albeit no longer the exclusive language of instruction for the last 3 years of a five year curriculum. Moreover, RC seminaries which are more traditionalist in orientation tend to be packed. While those which are Vatican II liberal/modernist tend to have enrollment (and moral) issues.

I have provided links above regarding the renewed interest and intensity behind the Mass of John XXIII. Sourced links which support my emphasis on resurgent Roman Catholic traditionalism. I can provide more if necessary. I find it perplexing that you continue to discount the Roman Catholic traditionalists and claim they don't exist or that they are ignorant in your estimation. Despite the fact there is sourced material here which states otherwise. I take that as either wishful thinking and/or dismissive contempt, which comes across as unserious.

The truth is that some RC ordinaries limit the use of the traditional mass to the countryside and some inner city parishes because they fear that it will be preferred by the faithful and displace the Neo Protestant Vatican II mass of Paul VI. It won't be very hard for seminaries to once again teach a mass with a more Apostolic and devout character: after all the radical vandalism of Vatican II and its reformed emphases were pushed through all RC institutions in over a decade. And those Neo Protestant reforms were far more radical than anything I advocate. Moreover, unlike Vatican II reformation, there is extant a supportive literature behind restoration of a Catholic mass. One can still find priests who know Tridentine rubrics as well and celebrate the mass with reverence and dignity to train other priests: I believe the Chicago Archdiocese has its fair share.

In other words, arguing that the American RC church can't restore the mass because it's repressed by RC bishops fearing its resurgence who have tried to erase its viability by erasing the rudiments of its instruction is arguing my point and actually providing advocacy for RC traditionslists. You are reinforcing the fact that traditionalists are institutionally repressed, feared for the possibility their ranks will supplant the Vatican II liberals and modernists, that the dioceses intentionally limit exposure to and availability of parishes where traditionalists can pray to prop up the Vatican II mass and its accoutrement. Because it isn't preferred and not the option faithful Roman Catholics would choose if given a choice. No, it isn't because "no one will go to a Tridentine rite" parish: traditionalist parishes which are not handicapped by the bishops are more vibrant, observant, attract more people, actually, financially stable. Nearly all of parish closings for the last 30 years have been of Novus Ordo parishes who lost their congregations because the Neo Protestant reforms of Vatican II alienated their congregations generationally. Moreover, just as parishes were "adapted" structurally after Vatican II, they can be readapted to more Catholic and reverent worship after a Vatican III.

Let's put this in further perspective: Vatican II daily closes the doors of the Roman Catholic church internationally. It neither attracts Orthodox Catholics (save for unchurched and/or ecumenically minded, very rare exceptions) nor Protestants (save for Protestants uncomfortable with the "Easterness" of Orthodox Catholicism and/or fleeing an Anglican church/mainline Protestant denomination the Vatican II liberals are on a collision course to "catch up" to). My position restores the Catholic identity of the Roman Catholic church, returns it into the hands of its most devote followers and ends up accomplishing reunion with the Orthodox Catholic Church. Thus, I think I have illustrated the real dichotomy in our positions and the choice Rome has to make. I believe that the position of Roman Catholic traditionalists is on surer footing with a real prognosis for survival and recovery. Whereas, the diagnosis for Vatican II Neo Protestantism is terminal.

Christ is in our midst!!

There is no reason to return to a Liturgy served in Latin. Vernacular liturgy is the rule in the Christian East and it would have happened in the West 500 years ago had it not been for the Protestant Reformation. Part of the reason for Liturgy is evangelization and that does not happen in a language not understood by the people listening to it.

You have made the point of the difficulty of restoring a first millennium liturgical praxis by the many points you have made. There is one more thing that you don't understand about the Latin Church's tradition. We burn our liturgical books--literally--when new ones are mandated. I have been involved in this practice more than once in the last half century. I have been through four translations of our liturgical books since Vatican II ended and each time we haul all the previous books out to the burning barrel when the new ones arrive. The problem that we have on the level of the layman in the pew is that these changes jar one's prayer life. Metropolitan Anthony, an Orthodox bishop writing in England decades ago, in his books "Beginning to Pray," and "Living Prayer," makes the point that one ought to pray in the same patterns for about 30 years in order to be formed in prayer. That has become impossible. I remember well the difficulty I had in reciting prayers with my grandparents because they used an older form of English than I was taught in religious formation and I now have the same problem with my own grandchildren. What this does is derail the process of having a Christian life beyond Sunday liturgy. It is also the practical problem of seriously implementing the proposals you have made.


First of all, there is no "dichotomy" in our positions. When I look at your proposals, I look through the prism of a long life and experience of meeting people where they are--not where we would like them to be. I have served numerous families who have been hurt to the point of being damaged by all the upheaval the Catholic Church has gone through in the past half century. In fact, I have a ministry to people who have left the institutional Church as a result of it. (I have also ministered to people damaged by other Churches and communities, but that is another story.) I maintain that not all of the people who have remained are the "most devoted" followers. I also maintain that we must meet people where they are. I use the analogy of red clay flower pots like the ones one finds in a nursery. Some are large; others are tiny; still others are in between. We have all manner of faith gifts--some are large; some smaller. The jarring of the faith of people brings the Lord's warning about causing one of His "little ones" to fall.

I find it amusing that you would state that the doors of the Catholic Church are closed daily. My parish takes in a dozen or more people every Easter Vigil from an area that is dying economically. In other words, we have a net decline in overall population, but are still drawing people to what we have to offer.

I find the overzealousness of so-called traditionalists off putting in the same way I find the overzealousness of the ultra-liberals off putting. I may not really care for some of the liberalism that I encounter in my parish or diocese--or those I frequent when I travel--but I am being nourished within a community of people, like myself, who are struggling along the way to stay faithful to the Tradition we have received. I live in a parish where each person is encouraged to bring his/her talents to the service of all to build us all up--something I had not experienced prior to finding this parish. In prior parishes, I was not allowed to have any kind of role because my father was Lutheran or I was in a place where my great grandparents hadn't helped lay the cornerstone.

I have no desire to return to 1963 or 1958 or any other date. The Church is not an archaeological organization. It is a hospital for sinners; it is a group of people walking three-legged toward the Kingdom, following Christ, picking each other up and encouraging each other as we bind each other's wounds. Somehow the Holy Spirit has had something to do with where we are. For that matter, if ti were not for Vatican II, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because Rome wrote the whole of the Christian East off after the schism: I had learned that the Russian Church had only had 66 years as part of the undivided tradition before the schism. (How crazy is that?) I had my vision opened by my work with people of all Christian persuasions and of none at all in my professional life. Imagine being stretched beyond your formation by working with others at the same time you are learning that they are all outside the Church and outside salvation.

So lets cut the veiled polemics and see what vision we can see toward where we can meet down the road toward the Kingdom.

Bob

Latin was Western Europe's international language long after the Roman Empire. It was a means of communication, not a barrier; intellectuals from opposite ends of the continent with completely different native languages could correspond. Everybody comes up with a sacred language. That's what happened to Latin in the Roman Rite. Latin's also useful as a template because its meaning doesn't change. And it's pretty, the mother of Italian and Spanish. The Greek Orthodox use medieval Greek in church; the Russians Slavonic, about as close to Russian as Chaucer is to our English. The old Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible, the thous and thees of Elizabethan and Jacobean English, are that for many English-speaking Protestants.

I've heard of parishes keeping older missals even after the missal was periodically edited, which happened from St. Pius V's day until Vatican II. At some Masses I've heard the second Confiteor before Communion, which isn't in the 1962 missal.

Liberal Catholicism is dying out. The few young people who go to Mass want real religion.

Byzantine Catholicism has much potential to reach Americans who otherwise wouldn't give real Catholicism a chance. Bring the Orthodox back and that potential would be three times as much.

He is and ever shall be!

Bob,

I have answered all your points above as you have brought them up. Please take the time to review my responses so that we don't just keep repeating ourselves. Speaking past each other is not going to make my points any less salient. Nor will it make my sourced material on Roman Catholic traditionalists go away: I can provide more if you like. They are the future of Roman Catholicism.

The Roman Catholic church since Vatican II has imploded, steadily. The bleeding is not stopping; rather gangrene is setting in along with it. Vatican II has placed the Roman Catholic church into hospice care. Prior to Vatican II, the church was vibrant: parishes were growing, in the black, and Latin was not a problem: it didn't keep families away (even though I also called for the use of a dignified, uniform vernacular). You may get 12 new converts on Easter. But when a once vibrant parish which had 200 families (along with 25 or so across the country) closes that year, you are only reasserting my point: the Vatican II liberal/modernist orientation is leading the Roman Catholic church to ruin. At least, own the immediate history and decline experienced after Vatican II if you are going to champion its neo-Protestantism.

Really, Bob, my 25 points are neither as impossible nor as radical as the reformed vandalism Vatican II exacted on the Roman Catholic church. And they restore its historical Roman Catholic identity. They reunite the Orthodox Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic church. We can undo historical mistakes (The experience of Russian Orthodoxy gave her the historical memory of the Orthodox Catholic Church and its Life, witness and consciousness to fully appreciate ecclesiastical divisions with the discernment to provide real ways in which they can be overcome.) Success is within our grasp. What is wrong with success? We sure haven't seen much of it since Vatican II. Have we, Bob?

Why are you so opposed to giving RC faithful a choice between what you advocate and its legacy and the emerging Roman Catholic traditionalist majority and its devotion and piety? If you were so secure in your liberalism and modernism, you would jump at the opportunity to prove your point that Roman Catholic traditionalists are just an insignificant fringe, right? And what is wrong with authentic Roman Catholic piety as opposed to the Neo Protestant pseudo-morphosis Vatican II has closed parishes and led dioceses to financial ruin with?

Bob, there is clear cut choice: Anglican implosion and demise by continuing Vatican II OR Catholic renewal and Orthodox Catholic reunion with the type of Vatican III I propose. My option produces a Roman Catholic church reborn and vibrant with a future, with a restored and devout Roman Catholic identity. There is even a historically accurate papal primacy, Bob, in my model. The choice is between Anglican-esque implosion and secular humanist triumph or Catholic renewal and success in Christ. This really isn't that hard a choice to make.

What you have to say gets to be too much, and this old man hardly knows where to begin, but I’ll try because I find your assumptions just preposterous.

For my dear grandmother, and for that matter, my dear father, children of the nineteenth century and as working class as you’ll find, the fresh air brought into the Catholic Church by the Second Vatican Council under popes St. John XXIII and venerable Paul Vi was a welcome relief. Hardly liberal, they rejoiced at the changes that their relatively shortened lives experienced. They were distressed at the political and social upheavals that occurred at the same time. I can assure you most emphatically that the secularization, emptying of pews, rectories and monastic choir stalls that ensued in the seventies, eighties and nineties had much, much more to do with the political, social and sexual revolutions that paralleled the Council in Rome, than any changes inaugurated by that Council itself. I trust you have little real experience of how shattering to one’s faith those upheavals were. I was between twenty-one and twenty-six when three outstanding American leaders were assassinated, and a far-off war rocked the nation. Please, do not blame poor Vatican II. There are enough myths going around.

The Church of Rome is extremely ancient, having been around when the great St. Paul wrote his letter to that largely Jewish community of Christians sometime between 56 and 58 AD. This church still beats with a vitality and dynamism like no other from the ancient world and I think you know that in your heart. She has a memory of herself that far exceeds yours or mine, and her libraries are filled with scriptural, liturgical, canonical, conciliar and patristic codices beyond imagination. We Catholics call it her Patrimony. She calls herself and the churches within her communion the Catholic Church. No other church formally uses that title and the term “Roman Catholic” is never heard in her official documents. That term was coined by high church Anglicans who styled themselves English Catholic to distinguish themselves from the papists. Be that as it all may, I’d like to get down to the 25 Thesis you have tacked to the doors of this forum, and respond to them one-by-one in as best I can.



Would that the Old Calendarists show as much enthusiasm for the calendar that is presently used in the civilized world as they do for the calendar that was authorized by Julius Caesar in 45 BC. Surprisingly, if they did, we might have a common Paschalia!


Perhaps Rome should abandon “Deum de Deo” as that differs from the original text of the Creed also. It is interesting that while affirming the absolute orthodoxy of the “filioque”, Rome honors and recites, on occasion, the original Greek text which she affirms as equally orthodox.


How petty of you! Azymes constitute real bread (artos), too. Ask any flat breader! Perhaps this reflects the largely Jewish origins of the ancient Roman Christian community. I think the Armenians, Catholic and Apostolic, use unleavened bread also. Do you want them to use yeast, too? Then again, what do Monophysites know?


The Mass has always been traditional, in all its forms and manifestations sanctioned by the Church. This is the implication of Pope Benedict XVI’s instruction on the extraordinary form. All the approved liturgies of the Church have had the same basic structure that has been in use as long as liturgy was formalized and perhaps before it was not. I defy you to tell me what part of the “Novus Ordo” has not been in use in some form in the Church of Rome’s history. If you’re thinking of the number of Anaphora that have been added, count the number of those used by the Copts. Even the text of the Anaphora used in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom seems to indicate that the epiklesis was a later addition, albeit, ancient and beautiful. So is the “Suplices Te rogamus”. Have you ever heard the Americanized Latin of an Irish/American priest? No thanks. By the way, it would take a monumental building plan that might bankrupt our churches so our altars could face “ad orientem”! So what if they don’t.


I’d much rather see a brotherly and sisterly embrace of Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics that paves the way for that same embrace of Latin Catholics, and Viva la difference!


If you read the prayers at the Offertory of a Roman Mass, Novus or Tridentine, I think you’ll find a beautiful prayer that expresses “deification” very beautifully as the priest adds a drop of water to the chalice. Why would anyone want to abandon “analogia entis”? It’s the only way we have of expressing the inexpressible. I think you understand that we call God “Father” by analogy, no? I always thought that the monumental St. Augustine was a Father of the Church. Apparently you do not feel that his concept of original sin passes the test of orthodoxy. Can we at least put it in the category of “theologoumena”? Well, something went wrong in all of us mortals that demanded this cleansing. I think the Latin west has done a lot of revisiting of the Eastern point of view, and takes it very seriously. St. Thomas Aquinas was asked by his students what he would like to read before passing from this life into eternity. Without hesitation he said, “All the sermons of John Chrysostom!” He knew the Consensus Patrum.


In the Latin rite parish near my home the cup is offered to everyone and I think this is the universal practice in the diocese of Portland, ME. It is my experience that few take it and that is unfortunate. Could be poor catechesis. This same diocese has, for some time,practiced the Vatican II mandated: Chrismation (Confirmation) before Eucharist. When adults are baptized at the Paschal Vigil, Chrismation follows immediately.


Why would you not let autocephalous churches practice their own liturgical discipline especially when the large number of communicants warrants extra help? Why does it bother you, or anyone else for that matter, that women act as servers at the altar?


You may find this a non sequitur, but I’ll remind you that John the Baptist danced in his mother’s womb as the one who bore his Savior approached just as King David danced as the ark of God approached Jerusalem. That same King sang in his Psalms about the shouts and claps of the people, not to mention all the cymbals and lyre accompanying this liturgical clamor. Few would deny the beauty of a cappella chanting, but need it be imposed as the universal norm.


Good grief. Why? I once heard Anglicans referred to as “proper” Catholics and their little stone chapels along the east coast are architectural gems, but must we impose this architectural snobbery?.


Again, I’ll appeal to autocephaly on this one. I think the Latin church has a right to determine her own norms for the clergy, and anyone in your Orthodox Catholic Church who finds it another religion needs to get over it.


Deacons abound in the Latin rite. Unless they are old or infirm, are quite vigorous in the exercise of their ministry.


Latin rite Catholics have their own style of worship and piety, and it need not offend anyone. The reforms inspired by the Second Vatican Council have restored the veneration of the book of Gospels among other things, so I’m a bit puzzled by your lament.


Just why Latin rite Catholics need to embrace the piety and ascesis of the Byzantine churches anymore than those of the east need to say the Rosary or wear the scapular is beyond me. Are you really upset by the practice of Benediction and Eucharistic Adoration, and opine that their elimination would be a step toward unity?


Covered that one under #11.


I think your Orthodox Catholic Church has to acknowledge the honor and esteem the pre-Schism Church accorded the Church of Rome as St. Maximos, Confessor did. If I might add a little polemic of my own, it seems things were fine before the Church of Constantinople usurped the rights and privileges of the Alexandrian Church at the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon; all in the name of its Imperial status. Long live the Copts! While I firmly believe that the Church subsists in the Catholic Church, properly so called, all the pre-Schism churches suffer ecclesiological deficiencies as a result of that schism, iMHO.


Expand your concept of Economia, and you might understand what Latins are talking about. But really, are any of these big issues today?


I think the present Bishop of Rome and bishops in union with him are working to correct this deficiency in western ecclesiology, although it has always been active in some way.


A true understanding of Papal Infallibility implies that the Bishop of Rome enjoys that infallibility that properly belongs to the Church. It is not personal, but is his by reason of his office and ministry to serve the brethren. Ultimately, it is Christ’s gift to the Church. She does have a wonderful phronema, both eastern and western, that certainly would be enhanced with a reconciliation between east and west. Quod ubique… Do you count numbers on this one?


I think we can work together on that one. It need not be a precondition


Only if it’s done as a joint venture, but I like the diversity and spirit of both. I Think they compliment the liturgical traditions of each.


Let’s see, today is October 24, 2017. Let’s start with agreeing on that. We have just passed the autumnal equinox, and the vernal equinox will be? The usual Orthodox fast (refraining from certain food types) is considered Abstinence in the west. Fasting, properly speaking, is eating less or nothing at all. Again, these things are largely regulated by church discipline and I see no reason to impose one upon the other.


Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis I have been profuse in their apologies for past wrongs. Is there anything more to be said? Perhaps the Moscow Patriarchia can apologize to Ukrainian Greek Catholics.


Only if your Orthodox Catholic Church will preserve the rights and privileges of our autocephalous Latin rite Catholics.


Have no idea what you mean on this one!

Sad, that hatred and discord dominates the liberal's heart when he is held to account for the ruin he has caused and the failure and wreckage of his anti-Catholic, incompetent, divisive liberalism. Yet it is easy to respond to certain liberal queries because they are not concerned with the concept of reunion... with what it would take to bring it about. More to the point, liberal expressions of cynicism ignore the responses given and the sources cited above (and elsewhere) which deal with the reasons as to why their Vatican II reforms are Neo Protestant excesses which are snuffing the life out of the Roman Catholic church. These tired and unproductive rejoinders intentionally miss the mark and attempt to bait sharp responses and thereby poison the wells of successful dialogue.

Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, please bear this in mind when considering liberal contributions in this exchange.

I will repeat myself in saying that anyone who refuses to recognize the identity of the Orthodox Catholic Church and reject even the notion of reunion based on Rome restoring its Catholic identity as it existed when we enjoyed a common Chalice is a person obsessed with sabotaging the prospects of that unity: a person placing his/her own reformed ideology and anti Catholic agenda above the conditions which can successfully bring reunion about.

Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, let us recognize the liberal demagoguery dividing us.

In this instance, liberals with tired arguments clutching to the utter failure of Vatican II are holding the Roman Catholic church hostage and insisting they would rather burn the Church of Rome down than successfully achieve real reunion: reunion in oneness of Faith, Catholic identity, commonality of worship and observance. Where Roman Catholics rediscover and are renewed in the fullness of their Catholic identity, observing the piety, worship and best traditions of their local church. What really has the liberal Reformers up in arms here is that we Orthodox Catholics have people in the Roman Catholic church whom we can embrace and have a successful dialogue with - the emerging majority of Roman Catholic traditionalists acting in concert with Broad Church, Tradition-minded Roman Catholics.

It follows, that the responses here from those expressing scorn and derision toward Orthodox Catholicism come from precisely the same liberals who won't take Roman Catholic traditionalism seriously and want to snuff it out. They insist on liberal, ecumenically constructed unia "and you Orthodox get with it and get your own Vatican II done and shut up!" This lack of tact is precisely the attitude on which we must focus in appreciating the positions of the liberals and their true intent, why they must be removed from the conversation and left out, left alone to pursue their San Francisco values utopias isolated from us. Sequestered from the prospects of our reunion. They seek to abort successful reunion if it means Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics achieve a common Chalice, a common Faith, a common Catholic identity, a common Catholic consciousness rooted in the Tradition of the Church and succored by the Holy Spirit.

They choose theomachy to reunion, Neo Protestant Vatican II liberalism to Catholicism.

Indeed, this liberal derision for Orthodoxy not only is offensive and perpetuates ill will, but is also being used to assert that the liberals will not relinquish their Neo Protestant control without a fight, they will rip the Roman Catholic church to pieces rather than capitalizing on a historic moment to undo over a millenium's separation of Catholic Christians. Catholics who were divided by precisely these types of demagogues obsessed with parting the Robe of Christ. Their intent bears no good will. It is a sin against charity and fraternal love. Their responses have no serious intentions of amity and reconciliation. They have no respect for Orthodox Catholics or Roman Catholic traditionalists. Because they are precisely involved in a spiritual crime, the crime of murder, feverishly endeavoring to murder the Roman Catholic church.

Fellow Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, traditionalist and broad, you have a friend in Orthodox Catholicism if you desire one. We respect who you are and seek to restore the Catholic and Apostolic identity of your local church with you. We are not interested in any other thing than in restoring and strengthening a common Catholic identity and bond with you, predicated on the notions of how that bond existed and expressed itself during the best periods of unity in the first millennium. We encourage you to seize this opportunity and reject these Neo Protestant voices of ruin, shut out the screeds and diatribes of your repression, and meet us in dialogue and encounter. We share a common adversary: anti-Catholic, Neo Protestant liberalism. The choice is clear: following the liberal, Vatican II path of ruin to a desecrated, secular humanist, immoral end or reunion in Orthodox Catholicism and renewal in the Tradition of the Church.

The liberals have magnificently stated their intent, even in this small exchange: women priests, LGBTQ agenda, abortion on demand, strip the altars, desecrate the parishes, divide and conquer, alliance with political liberalism to promote liberal, depraved social engineering, slamming the door on reunion and provoking even religious war with their opponents to maintain their power: if you are not liberal and will not accept their dominion, you are the enemy. This is the more of the same the liberals offer you. At your expense. Haven't you had enough? Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, these liberals endeavor to turn the Roman Catholic church into a spiritually desecrated Detroit - morally and spiritually bankrupt, post apocalyptic, abandoned and graffitied with the obscenities of Antichrist. Their intent is to not only dance on your graves, but on those of your Catholic descendents. Until there are no more Catholic graves...

They must be stopped. Let us work toward a unity in full awareness of who they are, their intent and the destructive nature of what they stand for. The future is ours together. If we remain divided, the day of the triumph of their liberalism (liberalism, the unclean spirit of iniquity) will only leave our children and grandchildren fighting the wars they have started and intensifying the hatreds they have used to divide us. Let us be Orthodox and Catholic Christians united. And let us stop them together.

When liberals are confronted with their failures and incompetence, they always endeavor to cite the witness of those who are not available to speak for themselves to flee the wreckage and ruin their liberalism brings about. They will not be held responsible for their failures: someone or something else is responsible or "made them do it". These people insist on maintaining their control of the Roman Catholic church at all costs. But we understand that the irresponsible can never be accepted as capable stewards of Christ's vineyard and must be removed if there are to be fruitful harvests.

Prior to Vatican II, there were much greater social upheavals than the Vietnam War and the profligate spirit of Woodstock: WWI, Versailles, Prohibition, The Great Depression, WWII, Communist revolutions, etc. Yet the pre Vatican II church (the faithful of the time the liberals would have you believe were fleeing) built most of its modern infrastructure, its parishes, doubled and in some instances tripled its membership, not only came out of the Great Depression in the black but built more schools, parishes, hospitals, monasteries, orphanages. Now the liberals since Vatican II have overseen the closure of 33 - 50% of those same institutions, saw a 50 - 75% reduction in the number of Catholic faithful and presided over archdioceses once millions in the black to now being millions in the red and bankrupt. Dioceses mortgaging rectories and turning convents into coffee houses, parochial schools into social services buildings. Apostasy and ruin is rampant today because of the liberal, Neo Protestant spirit of Vatican II. This is their Neo Protestant, Vatican II "success" story. Adolph Hitler wasn't as grave a shock to Catholicism as the assassination of RFK. That is their excuse for their failures. This is how they try to gloss over their Neo Protestant assault on the Roman Catholic church. A neo Reformation which alienated the faithful and put the Roman Catholic church in hospice care.

Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, don't you deserve accountability and competent administration of your church? You are hardworking, good, honest and moral people. Surely, you can identify anti-Catholic incompetence, mismanagement, misappropriation and a failed, administrative model. Surely you understand that maintaining this model is ruinous to the future of Roman Catholicism, that it is terminal and sacrilegious.

Liberals are always at war with historical facts. These facts discredit them as frauds.They end up calling their incompetence into question. They threaten the survival of their failed ideology. An ideology they prefer to Catholic Truth.

Vatican II liberals would have you believe that Orthodox Catholicism is an alien Faith. That our intent is to reform you or "Byzantinize" you by undoing their Neo Reformation and encouraging you to restore your Roman Catholic piety and identity. That when we write about our intent to forge reunion predicated on affirmation of a common Catholic identity, predicated upon your rediscovery of your local history, your local identity, and your patrimony that these Vatican II Neo Protestants have defaced, vandalized, endeavored to deprive you of... That somehow we - and not they - are the Protestants nailing theses to the doors of your cathedrals. We are cast as malefactors. As criminals. As schismatics. As Protestants. For endeavoring to join with you to end their Neo Reformation and call for an end to masses taken out of the backs of Protestant hymnals. For standing with you to rebuke moral relativism. For inviting you to a common Catholic identity to a certain Catholic reality of reunion in one Chalice.

Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, it is clear who are the real Protestants.

Let us just look at one Vatican II liberal, factually inaccurate slander to underscore our common identity with historical truth. It was asserted that "no one else is called 'Roman Catholic' or uses the term to ecclesiastically refer to oneself" to drive a wedge between us. The fact of the matter is that in the Middle East even today, it is still witnessed that Easter Orthodox Christians are referred to as "Roman Catholics". Because Byzantium saw its identity as Roman. And we Orthodox hold our Faith is Catholic. This identity of ours we have maintained since before the schism, from the very beginning. There were Roman Catholics in the East already in the era of the Holy Emperor Constantine the Great. Long before the Oxford Movement in the British Empire. St. Ignatios of Antioch referred to our Church as Catholic perhaps before it was even referred to as such in Rome. Because of historical circumstances, such as the Crusades, the title "Roman Catholic" fell into disuse amongst some Orthodox Catholics. But not all. This is an important fact to consider when confronting liberal disinformation.

Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, we seek to share a common Catholic identity and unity with you. We have not repudiated the Catholic Faith ever. We have been faithful to it the entire time of our estrangement from you. Our intent with reunion is to share a common Orthodox and Catholic identity with you as we shared prior to the Schism and reinforce it in the Tradition in the contemporary context. We seek to reunite with you in one Church, in one Chalice.

From this point, it is necessary to go into the Vatican II, Neo Protestant replies to the twenty-five points offered to encourage reunion. At the outset, it has to be considered that the liberals' chief point is trying to tear down the necessity for Roman Catholics to rediscover their Catholic identity and how it expressed itself when we were united in one Chalice. Their intent is to maintain an architecture of schism to keep us from sharing a common Catholic Faith and identity. All to cynically save the Neo Protestant failure and vandalism of Vatican II. That should be taken as a sign of liberal desperation. A sin against Church unity. A lack of Christian charity.

The issue of the Paschalion and Calendar Reform was taken up in a thread devoted to that topic. In that thread, Reformed Calendar zealotry was exposed for its frauds, its traffic in epithets, its sins against the anemnesis of the Church, its war with historical facts and canonical realities, how a unifying calendar reform can be brought about. In short, the Council of Nicea anathemized the use of any alternate paschalions to the one it put in place. Therefore, sharing a common Paschalion with the Orthodox Catholic Church will restore fidelity to the Council. Assisting to rediscover unity as it existed between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics prior to the Schism.

The Filioque was dealt with above in this thread as directly implying Trinitarian modalism, which is an overthrow of the Triadology of Nicea and Constantinople. A Triadology rejected by the Patristic Consensus and the Catholic mind (phronema) of the Church. Moreover, both Nicea and Constantinople rejected additions to the Creed and anathemized them. The Creed was originally recited in the West without the filioque when Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics were united in one Church. Therefore, it must go.

Moreover, "True God of True God" is part of the text of the Nicene Creed.

Already in Apostolic times, there were Holy Canons which forbad the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, forbad it as Judaizing, condemned the Armenians for their use of azymes: Rome at this time used Prosphora and Popes of Rome, many of them Saints, condemned the Armenian practice. Were those holy Popes wrong? The use of azymes in the place of Prosphora denies the Christological reality of Christ as "the Leaven of Life". In the Old Testament, God instructed the Holy Prophet Moses to tell the Children of Israel to prepare unleavened bread as the "bread of haste", for they fled Pharaoh in haste. Anticipating the fulfillment of God's Covenant which would come with the Advent of the Messiah. Thus, the Passover Bread of Haste became the Paschal Bread of fulfillment, the Eucharist, in Christ Jesus. It is because of this fact New Testament Evangelists use the word "artos", leavened bread, in the place of the word "azymes", unleavened bread, to describe the Bread used at the first Eucharist at the Mystical Supper. Christ is the Leaven of Life and the Bread He consecrated as His Body was leavened by Him. To use unleavened bread, therefore, in the Eucharist is to deny that Christological dimension emphasizing the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Reemphasizing the necessity of reunion, when Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics shared a common Catholic identity and unity. We all used Prosphora. Therefore, it is appropriate theologically and canonically for us all to use it again.

I have gone into the development of the Roman mass above. No, a rite which is nothing more than a divine service taken out of the back of a Protestant hymnal is not a valid, Catholic rite. This has nothing to do with divergent anaphoras or lack of fundamental understanding of the development of the Roman (or Byzantine) rite. Novus Ordo is a fundamental overthrow of the Eucharistic rite of the Roman Catholic church. It is the triumph of Protestant Reformation and Reformed liturgics: even Cranmer would cringe at it. Cromwell would approve of the Novus Ordo. When Lutheran and Anglican Eucharists are more in fidelity to Apostolic Eucharistic worship than this Neo Protestant mockery, that underscores how divorced it is from the Catholic Tradition of the Church. The faithful seek a more Apostolic alternative. The days of Novus Ordo are coming to an end.

The issue of the epiklesis was also dealt with above in this thread where it was clearly illustrated that the Roman rite had a strong epiklesis and that St. Nicholas Cavasilas' point was asserted as a personal opinion of a theologian who wasn't as familiar with the Roman rite as later liturgists.

Both of these points, Novus Ordo and the epiklesis, again underscore the premise that the logical course of action for Roman Catholics to pursue in establishing reunion is to rediscover and restore their Catholic identities which they shared with Orthodox Catholics when we shared unity and one Chalice.

Yet again, the issue of Latin, as well as dignified, liturgical vernacular has been addressed above in this thread: the majority of Roman Catholics would not oppose either alternative. Roman Catholic traditionalists seek to have dignified liturgical language restored. Why shouldn't they have that choice? What gives liberals the authority to dictate their Neo Protestant impiety to them as the rule of faith?

As far as ad orientem worship is concerned, that also was gone over above. The mass isn't a magic show and a priest isn't a paid performer. He is a shepherd of the People of God leading them in worship. Canonically that worship is called for ad orientem (or ad apsidem). And that had been a rubric of the Roman rite for centuries. Moreover, it is absurd to say that celebrating in front of an altar, which can be pushed back to the altar piece if one desires, will bankrupt parishes. Orthodox Catholic churches have never undergone any such financial hardship. Moreover, many, if not most, Roman Catholic parishes were constructed for ad orientem worship, where liberal Bishops literally required parishes to take out loans after Vatican II to remodel their churches to accommodate Neo Protestant, Vatican II practice. The liberals weren't so concerned with the financial costs of moving the altar then. Not at all! They bankrupted many a parish in the fifty+ year onslaught of Vatican II. So the cynicism is frankly appalling.

Unia has been rejected by Rome: Rome states unia is an inappropriate means to promote church unity. The history of unia is something which discourages Orthodox Catholics from pursuing dialogue with Rome. By encouraging Byzantine Catholics to either return to their Orthodox Mother churches or fully adopt the Roman rite or adopt a textually divergent rite with a Romano-Byzantine ordo, that helps to resolve the impediments unia causes to Orthodox Catholic - Roman Catholic reunion. It also provides ways for Byzantine Catholics to be accepted by Orthodox Catholics and be welcomed as brethren without hostility, finally closing the door on centuries of estrangement. Thus, I am actually promoting Byzantine Catholic - Orthodox Catholic rapprochement.

Theosis is understood as participating in the uncreated energies of God transfiguring humanity in Christ by purification, illumination, deification. In a direct relationship with God. This an affirmation of Orthodox and Catholic christology, soteriology and anthropology.

Analogia entis or the idea of created grace as a creature passing in and out of time to impart grace to the faithful overthrows christology and the Orthodox and Catholic understanding of justification. It flirts with monophysitism, suggesting Christ's perfection of human nature is subsumed in His Divinity and made unapproachable, alien to us, by His ascent into heaven and seating at the Right Hand of God the Father. So He must send creatures in time to impart His grace to us: He can't do it by His own uncreated actions, energies. This is a denial of the salvation of humanity wrought by the God-man. It is a nominalism which separates Christ from His Church, error.

Blessed Augustine's idea of original sin holds that we are responsible for the sins of Adam and differs from the Orthodox Catholic understanding that original sin imparted mortality to mankind but did not pass on guilt, which every person bears only in the sins he has committed. Thus there is the Patristic Consensus. Then there are errors some of the Saints made. Such errors which obscure and contradict the teaching of the Church can't be taken as theologoumena.

Universal practice of Communion in both species, administered to all baptized infants and converts, where Baptism, Chrismation, Eucharist are observed in the rite of reception was the practice of the Roman Catholic church when it shared unity with the Orthodox Catholic Church: this practice should be restored as Rome rediscovers its Catholic identity.

The Church forbids the practice of women's ordination: flirtation with hierofeminism overthrows the Catholic identity of the Priesthood, desacralizes it, and throws the charisma of priestly ordination into sacrilegious ambiguity.

The Patristic Consensus mandates acapella singing in Catholic worship. Blessed Augustine condemns instrumented, musical accompaniment as "raucous, vulgar, imitation of the pagans". Thomas Aquinas condemns musical instrumentation as inappropriate and calls for acapella worship in the Church. Why would someone insist on something divisive which is foreign to Catholic worship and stands in the way of Orthodox Catholic - Roman Catholic reunion?

Romanesque and stave church architecture was observed by the Western church prior to the Schism. It naturally accommodates restored Roman Catholic worship. Its emphasis is to end the ugly, Neo Protestant, modernist, airplane hanger architecture of Vatican II. To restore the beauty of Roman Catholic houses of worship.

Cassocks, clerical headgear, beards present Catholic Priests in the appropriate appearance of alter Christus. Christ had a beard. So too the Holy Apostles. So too Bishops, Priests and Deacons from Apostolic times. Clerical garb shows respect for clerical offices, and the historical garb of the churches expresses a means for the faithful of any given local church to identify clergy, show them due respect, and have a means of receiving the ministrations of the Church thereby. So observing the Catholic norms of priestly appearance is proper to all local churches, East and West.

While married Priests will help to end the scandals and distrust which have arisen in parishes since Vatican II: the faithful shouldn't have to worry about their sons when they serve at the altar. Married Priests are better equipped to understand the needs of families and couples. Rome had married Priests and Deacons when she shared unity with the Orthodox Catholic Church. So restoring this practice will help Rome in recovering its Catholic identity.

The role of the diaconate in serving the Mass and at other services, in the handling of the Eucharist and in service to parishes has been lost over time: this should be restored with the abolition of such things as Eucharistic ministers.

A monastic episcopate would be an episcopate living the angelic life and more faithfully capable of shepherding priests, deacons, the faithful in devotion and piety and fidelity to the Church.

The veneration of Holy Relics, the Cross, the Gospel, Icons, etc. is called for by the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Unfortunately, especially since the Neo Protestant reforms of Vatican II, this reverence and piety has been lost in most Roman Catholic parishes. Restoring it would promote a common piety and reverence with Orthodox Catholics and affirm the Triumph of Orthodoxy at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Common prayer and piety in such devotions as the Jesus Prayer and the Akathist Hymn/Salutations will act as a bridge between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics during the process of reunion. Where the encounter between the faithful of both churches will come to confirm the common Catholic identity of both. Pre Schism Roman Catholic piety including pilgrimages to pre Schism shrines, veneration of pre Schism Saints, practices such as lectionary divina, chaplets, and the Psalter or Breviary, will be precious gifts Roman Catholics can again learn to cherish from the Church and share with their Orthodox Catholic coreligionists. Making reunion real and more seamless.

Recognition of the identity of the Orthodox Catholic Church and respecting it is the only way to bring reunion about: no ecumenical contrivances and/or more clever approaches to unia will bring reunion about.

A common eschatology and soteriology was shared by the Roman Catholic church and Orthodox Catholic Church when we were united: these are essentials of a common Catholic identity which when restored enable reunion.

Conciliarity has been the ecclesiological model of the Church since the Day of Pentecost. Restoring it will help correct ecclesiological issues of past centuries. In this way, a structure of reunion can come into being to oversee it in an Orthodox and Catholic manner.

The Mind of the Church has been understood to be expressed as one, as a Catholic affirmation of Faith. Spoken by the clerics, monastics and faithful of the Church who have spoken in the Holy Spirit by Divine Illumination. It is a charisma of the Church and the Orthodox and Catholic understanding of historical magisterium. Not limited to ex cathedra pronouncements of the papal office.

The Orthodox understanding of divorce and remarriage was shared by the Roman Catholic church prior to the Schism. Restoration of it will aid pastorally in restoring divorced Roman Catholics to Communion and help promote healthier models of marital unity. In the Orthodox Catholic Church, marriage is seen as lasting beyond the death of spouses, where the two become one flesh, one being, one person, being transfigured in Christ, aiding in each others salvation, aspiring to live the angelic life. Divorce is authorized, as it was when we were one, on the grounds of adultery, abandonment/neglect, abuse, selling of one's wife into prostitution/sexual immorality. Restoration to Communion after divorce follows Confession and a period of penance.

A common lectionary and liturgical calendar will enhance anemnesis, promote one Catholic identity, and promote scriptural and liturgical unity in piety, study, devotion and observance between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics.

Personages such as Josaphat Kuntsevich are hateful reminders of an unfortunate past who should be forgotten in the process of reunion. Where contrived ethnophyletisms and the spokesmen of division are not accorded a means to sabotage reunion. Final apologies and moving forward will simply close the book on the past and reconcile us as one Orthodox Catholic Church.

Rome affirming conciliarity in papal primacy by constructing a framework where archdioceses can mature to autocephaly will enable the reunited Orthodox Catholic Church and Roman Catholic church to once again affirm a united, historical standard and recognition of Petrine primacy.

The anathemas of Pope Pius X of liberalism, modernism and Freemasonry are most appropriate to renew today in the Roman Catholic church in light of the wreckage and havoc these movements have wrecked on Roman Catholicism since Vatican II. Ignoring the temptations on the right to sedevacantism and ultramontanism are also key to establishing reunion. Reunion is the achievement we are called to: taking into account and correcting the mistakes of the past.

Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, as you now realize liberal Neo Protestantism is not at all receptive to the prospect of us sharing a common Catholic identity and consciousness and reuniting in one Church, Catholic and Orthodox. It should be clear now that the twenty five points I brought up seek to restore the Catholic identity of the Western Church and restore Roman Catholic Apostolic practice. I am an Orthodox Catholic advocate for Roman Catholic traditionalism. I believe that reunion is achievable in an honorable and dignified encounter where we rediscover our past unity in one Chalice, give it a modern context, and move forward from there as one People of God, one Body of Christ, one Eucharist, one Church.

Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, let's band together and overcome the obstacles in our way and live as one Orthodox Catholic Church in Christ's Love. Tomorrow is a day to celebrate. Let it be a day of Resurrection. Let us be illumined by the Feast. Death has been trampled down by death! Christ is in our midst! Christ is risen!