|
1 members (1 invisible),
97
guests, and
20
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 |
In all seriousness For Union of Churches, Roman Catholics will have to 1. Give up Filioque 2. give up many Marian devotions - Immaculate Conception etc. 3. Papal Infallibility needs to be abandoned
Those are just a start. John, WRT "giving up" the Filioque, I assume you mean removing it from the Creed in all liturgical celebrations. The East would then reciprocate by nullifying all anathemas against the theology behind the Filioque--essentially Augustine--while Rome then withdraws any official recognition (if this ever was official) of Augustine as "Universal Theologian." Papal Infallibility needs to be explained as a derivative of the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church, based on the assumption that "one man can speak for the entire Church." Since the latter assumption would almost certainly be thrown out in any discussion of East-West reunion, this one would clearly fall as well, along with any other post-schism dogmatic definitions that can't be expressed in terms acceptable to all parties seeking union. WRT the IC, let us not forget that it has been considered an "allowable" opinion in the EOC, and that the real issue is that the RCC decided to make it a dogma. It could be allowed to stand, so long as the West ceases to regard it as essential for salvation. (What other Marian devotions were you thinking of?) Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
Do you think a better administration for the WRO in a united Church would be analogous to the Italo-Byzantines - under the Bishop of Rome but Eastern? Well, I don't know about that analogy, b/c the Byzantine Italo-Greek-Hungarian Catholic Church is sui iuris ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3 |
Aren't there two or three Italo-Greek parishes under the local bishop in or near Rome, Sicily, etc?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421 |
I personally do not want to necessarily give them up but the Orthodox have a problem with Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421 |
Is is accepted by the Orthodox but it is not defined as a specific dogma therefore they name their churches.
My understanding is that Latin Catholics must believe in the Assumption whereas the Orthodox remain silent as to the dogma.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421 |
after more research I know more about the Orthodox views of the Assumption.
As we know Mary is ingrained in all our Liturgical doxologies throughout the Liturgies of the East.
the Eastern Orthodox believe in the Assumption but because it was declared as an Assumption without DYING FIRST by Pius XII in an ex cathedra use of Papal Infallibility they have a problem with it.
Eastern Orthodox believed she DIED first (Dormition). Latin Catholics are taught she was assumed without dying (Assumption only) no death.
So it is possible that the problems are the ex cathedra Papal infallibility issue rather than the actual assumption because they believe in the assumption.
Also it is because of all our Theotokions and Bohodoricen Hymns interspersed everywhere in the Divine Liturgy and Horos that it did not need to be taught to the Orthodox and therefore was not declared a Dogma.
Immaculate Conception differences arise from views of Original Sin.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 329
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 329 |
the Eastern Orthodox believe in the Assumption but because it was declared as an Assumption without DYING FIRST by Pius XII in an ex cathedra use of Papal Infallibility they have a problem with it.
Eastern Orthodox believed she DIED first (Dormition). Latin Catholics are taught she was assumed without dying (Assumption only) no death. Pius XII leaves this point (likely intentionally) undefined in Munificentissimus Deus [ vatican.va]: 44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
I get the distinct impression that some people go out of their way looking for reasons to disagree with the other side. Such a hermeneutic of suspicion has a way of redounding against those who use it, since all Traditions have similar ambiguities, inconsistencies and lacunae.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3 |
14. Christ's faithful, through the teaching and the leadership of their pastors, have learned from the sacred books that the Virgin Mary, throughout the course of her earthly pilgrimage, led a life troubled by cares, hardships, and sorrows, and that, moreover, what the holy old man Simeon had foretold actually came to pass, that is, that a terribly sharp sword pierced her heart as she stood under the cross of her divine Son, our Redeemer. In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes. Actually, enlightened by divine grace and moved by affection for her, God's Mother and our own dearest Mother, they have contemplated in an ever clearer light the wonderful harmony and order of those privileges which the most provident God has lavished upon this loving associate of our Redeemer, privileges which reach such an exalted plane that, except for her, nothing created by God other than the human nature of Jesus Christ has ever reached this level.
15. The innumerable temples which have been dedicated to the Virgin Mary assumed into heaven clearly attest this faith. So do those sacred images, exposed therein for the veneration of the faithful, which bring this unique triumph of the Blessed Virgin before the eyes of all men. Moreover, cities, dioceses, and individual regions have been placed under the special patronage and guardianship of the Virgin Mother of God assumed into heaven. In the same way, religious institutes, with the approval of the Church, have been founded and have taken their name from this privilege. Nor can we pass over in silence the fact that in the Rosary of Mary, the recitation of which this Apostolic See so urgently recommends, there is one mystery proposed for pious meditation which, as all know, deals with the Blessed Virgin's Assumption into heaven.
16. This belief of the sacred pastors and of Christ's faithful is universally manifested still more splendidly by the fact that, since ancient times, there have been both in the East and in the West solemn liturgical offices commemorating this privilege. The holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church have never failed to draw enlightenment from this fact since, as everyone knows, the sacred liturgy, "because it is the profession, subject to the supreme teaching authority within the Church, of heavenly truths, can supply proofs and testimonies of no small value for deciding a particular point of Christian doctrine."[10]
17. In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."[11]
18. What is here indicated in that sobriety characteristic of the Roman liturgy is presented more clearly and completely in other ancient liturgical books. To take one as an example, the Gallican sacramentary designates this privilege of Mary's as "an ineffable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin's Assumption is something unique among men." And, in the Byzantine liturgy, not only is the Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption connected time and time again with the dignity of the Mother of God, but also with the other privileges, and in particular with the virginal motherhood granted her by a singular decree of God's Providence. "God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb."[12]
19. The fact that the Apostolic See, which has inherited the function entrusted to the Prince of the Apostles, the function of confirming the brethren in the faith,[13] has by its own authority, made the celebration of this feast ever more solemn, has certainly and effectively moved the attentive minds of the faithful to appreciate always more completely the magnitude of the mystery it commemorates. So it was that the Feast of the Assumption was elevated from the rank which it had occupied from the beginning among the other Marian feasts to be classed among the more solemn celebrations of the entire liturgical cycle. And, when our predecessor St. Sergius I prescribed what is known as the litany, or the stational procession, to be held on four Marian feasts, he specified together the Feasts of the Nativity, the Annunciation, the Purification, and the Dormition of the Virgin Mary.[14] Again, St. Leo IV saw to it that the feast, which was already being celebrated under the title of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother of God, should be observed in even a more solemn way when he ordered a vigil to be held on the day before it and prescribed prayers to be recited after it until the octave day. When this had been done, he decided to take part himself in the celebration, in the midst of a great multitude of the faithful.[15] Moreover, the fact that a holy fast had been ordered from ancient times for the day prior to the feast is made very evident by what our predecessor St. Nicholas I testifies in treating of the principal fasts which "the Holy Roman Church has observed for a long time, and still observes."[16]
20. However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ's faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.
21. Thus St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. "It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God."[17] I don't see how anyone can argue that HH Pope Pius XII did not think the Theotokos died. He used the word death throughout the document -- I think the non-death crowd simply states that her holy death wasn't the purpose of his teaching, just the Assumption. A very hard stretch to claim so, but either way, the Pope did state "death" multiple times in his teaching.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421 |
With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" (Paul VI, Discourse, 14 December 1975; cf. Unitatis redintegratio 13-18).[2]
Last edited by haydukovich; 08/17/12 04:25 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421 |
I think this statement is what makes orthodox theologians - especially those really dedicated to fighting against the Papacy - bristle
"by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
this leads one to believe that the Pope was stating - NO DEATH -> she was assumed body and soul immediatly and that anyone who did not believe it - ALL the Eastern Orthodox / Catholic world who call it the DORMITION -> DEAD then -> assumed - are fallen away and can't come back unless they agree with him.
I think they (Orthodox)think this is a harsh Dogma.
If he meant to say she was DEAD first - why couldn't he bring himself to define exactly what he meant with such harsh consequences for most of almost half of christianity?
Last edited by haydukovich; 08/17/12 04:57 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3 |
I suppose one could interpret the teaching that way, but I don't see why anyone would - the Pope cites his recognition of the authentic teachings of both East and West. Why would he then confirm a position contrary to the East - which he already recognized and acknowledged as authentic and Apostolic - and anathematize the entire East?
"having completed the course of her earthly life" is as vague as "fallen asleep" - if you recognize "death" then it is death in poetry; if you reject it, you can find the poetic loophole you seek.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
I think this statement is what makes orthodox theologians - especially those really dedicated to fighting against the Papacy - bristle
"by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith." I don't see that. I think Orthodox would be more likely to "bristle" at, for example, Pope John Paul II's words about the desire for a union between Rome and Orthodox Christians, in this sermon [ ewtn.com].
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 17
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 17 |
There is one Eastern element (like the Kyrie), at least in the Antiochian WRO: the Constantinopolitan Epiclesis is inserted to underline the vestiges of the Western first millenium one. What horsecrap. There was never an explicit descending epiclesis in the Roman Canon or any other Western liturgy of the first millennium. The Orthodox invented the charge that Rome suppressed the epiclesis as a reflexive response to the (equally false) charge that the Orthodox had suppressed the Filioque in the original version of the Creed. The insertion of a Orthodox-style pre-communion prayer is another example of the "byzantinization" of the Western rite, just proving that "uniatism" is a two-way street. While we are at it, the "Feast of the Immaculate Conception" would indeed remain on the calendar as the "Feast of the Conception of St. Anne", only moved to the 9th of September. All these comments just reinforce my belief that the Orthodox have real problems with any form of theology or spirituality that are not explicitly Byzantine, even more than many Catholics have problems with any form of theology or spirituality that is not explicitly Roman. The best cure for this problem is for both sides to learn more about the actual (not the imagined) Tradition and practice of the Church of the first millennium. After visiting some Catholic and EO forums this has also been my impression, and that seems to me a bigger obstacle to reunion than anything else. I didn't even know the EC churches existed until I started inquiring into monastic life in my early 20s, I knew about the Maronites but I thought they were just RC of Lebanese origen.  Since then I have learned a lot about eastern Christianity and the history of the Church East and West, this knowledge has greatly enriched my life as a RC.
|
|
|
|
|