www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox steps toward full communion with Rome

Dear David:

No offense taken!

Peter Mogila and others, including some Eastern Patriarchs, did sometimes bend toward Western explanations. Some attribute it to Peter the Great's Westernizing tendencies in Russia. In the Eurasian region, they attribute to the the East's turn toward the West during the Muslim occupation and persecution. But all of this is in "the latter days," the past 500 years. Find talk like that from the first 1500 years of Eastern tradition!

I'm not calling the explanation that I have posted as "consubtantiation," however others might. I don't know of any Orthodox theologian who teaches that we hold specifically to "consubstantiation." I'm bold enough to say that anything regarding the Eucharist defined by the Lutherans would probably be lacking in some way or simply say too much.

The "change" that we are speaking of when we are speaking of the consecrated bread and wine (which one cannot separate from the body and blood of Christ) is without question the greatest mystical change that occurs in the Church and one that defies full explanation. Again, the East speaks apophatically: it is not this and it is not that, but we fail when we try to say exactly what it is.

In one aspect, however, the change that occurs in baptism, marriage, monastic tonsure, or ordination can help us to understand the consecrational change that occurs to the bread and wine. They are all irresversible mystical changes about which we may speak apophatically:

We cannot "unbaptize" someone or "rebaptize" someone. It is a one-time and irreversible action invoking God's grace.

We cannot "demarry" someone, contending that no marriage ever took place. No matter how non-canonical or otherwise corrupt the circumstances, the parties were indeed married.

We cannot "demonasticize" someone. Neither has there ever been nor is there today any provision to recognize the marriage of one who has received monastic tonsure.

We cannot "deordain" someone. We have all heard that term "indellible" in association with ordination. Normally, if there is a major problem, he is simply directed not to serve any longer, although usually is invited to commune at the altar. Even in the most extreme of cases, when we "laicize" a clergyman, we never pretend that at one time he was not ordained.

We may abuse or betray all of these mysteries, by communing of His body and blood when we should abstain, by failing to die to sin and live in Christ, by being unfaithful to our spouse, by falling short of the monastic life, and by failing in our obligations as ordained clergy; but we cannot make them as if they never were.

These descriptions and comparisons all fail to adequately define what is cleary, in all of the mysteries, the unknowable workings and providence of God.

Really, you may want to review the thread titled "Bread and Wine" in the Faith and Worship Subforum. I cited several Orthodox sources that didn't meet Incognitus' standards, but that meet mine. I add to that the current article by Monk Raphael (Foshay) titled "The Body and Blood of Christ" in the newspaper "The Orthodox Church" (July/August 2004) which may be available online at www.oca.org [oca.org]

In Christ,
Andrew

Well, this thread has generated a wide variety of thoughts and comments, for which I am grateful. I would add one more, the subtle, but telling, difference between how Orthodox in communion with Rome conduct services, versus how Orthodox not in communion with Rome conduct services.

Orthodox outside Rome often have pan-Orthodox vespers during Great Lent. Priests from the local jurisdictions take part with carefully chosen prayers, readings, etc. However, they don't conduct pan-Orthodox Divine Liturgies. There are apparently too many issues or differences that interfere for that- different music, different language, different pious practices, and on and on. What I find interesting is that Orthodox with Rome are somehow able to transcend these differences and sometimes share their services, even if it may mean some portions of the service are observed by one subgroup instead of actively participated in because of lack of knowledge of the other's tradition. They respect each others' traditions, and try to understand, regardless.

Orthodox outside Rome do concelebrate Liturgy, but only one tradition is used as far as I know, that of the temple they are worshipping in. The visiting cleric subordinates his tradition to that of his host's church. All I can figure is that it has to do with their need to preserve their seperate identities.

It is a subtle difference, but a telling one.

I once visited a very interesting monastery in England under the Ecumenical Patriarch. The communities (males on one side of the road, females across the street) follow both the Greek and Russian traditions, alternating at each service: Vigil served according to Greek usage, Divine Liturgy according to Russian, etc. Responses were sung by the nuns in English, Greek and Church Slavonic, and music was mixed.

As for not mixing, IMHO it's more an issue of respecting one's host than a need to preserve identity. I don't think a Serbian priest doing something his way at a Greek Divine Liturgy whould threaten Greek 'identity', but might possibly confuse/upset parishioners. Just a thought...

Oυτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντιδα | Nemo Nos Diliget Non Curamus

Originally posted by KO63AP:

"I once visited a very interesting monastery in England under the Ecumenical Patriarch. The communities (males on one side of the road, females across the street) follow both the Greek and Russian traditions, alternating at each service....."

I suppose one could make a case for drawing a distinction between religious communities such as monasteries and convents, and regular parish communities, where this is less likely. There are, however, Antiochean parishes that have different services because their membership is multi-cultural.

"As for not mixing, IMHO it's more an issue of respecting one's host than a need to preserve identity. "

It is also one thing to make changes in the order of service unannounced and a totally different thing to advise everyone in advance of it. Visiting supply priests from other jurisdictions usually bend over backwards to follow the temple's traditions. A multi-jurisdictional service can be advertised as such with a little planning.

Dear Andrew,

Actually, the fact that St Peter Mohyla and many others of the Kyivan Baroque period were "Latinized" had nothing to do with Peter I.

It had everything to do with the strong influence of the Jesuit schools and of the desire of the Orthodox hierarchs of the day to educate their future clergy and laity in accordance with the academic achievements of the day.

Many Orthodox churchmen studied at Paris and later brought with them many Latin devotions. The "Tale of the Five Prayers" of St Dmitri of Rostov is an 'Easternization' of the devotion of 5 Our Father's and 5 Hail Mary's in honour of the Sorrows of the Mother of God.

One can find wood-carvings from this period that depict rosaries, scapulars, the Little Office of the Virgin Mary, St Bonaventure's Psalter of the Mother of God and also, would you believe, the 15 Prayers of St Brigitte of Sweden in honour of the Passion of Christ!

(THere is a site that actually has a number of these Western devotions translated into the Church Slavonic as they were published at Venice for private use by Orthodox Christians!).

St Peter Mohyla, in his earlier catechism, also insisted on the use of the term "purgatory."

When this was expunged by the Orthodox Patriarchs, Mohyla continued to disagree and insisted that the term be kept in his catechism for use within his own Metropolia.

I still say that your explanation of the Eucharistic Canon is either directly a presentation of the Lutheran Consubstantiation theory or else something that would lead one down that path.

The fact that one may or may not point to certain professors at certain Orthodox seminaries who teach this or something similar is of no consequence.

My friends in the OCA, including priests, tell me that there is definitely something rotten going on in the State of Denmark - that is what they are telling me.

In any event, perhaps I'm just not understanding you correctly as I've never had formal theological training.

Alex

I think Andrij is on the right path. It has more to do with courtesy of the host church and their liturgical norms and space as much as anything else.

On Orthodoxy Sunday, the various Orthodox churches in many cities gather together in one church. Often the largest available of whatever jurisdiction becomes the default, because of the practicality of size, etc. and since they have a larger church, pew books already present, etc. that liturgical version of the host church is often followed for those celebrations.

I agree with Alex. Moghila's penchant towards utilizing a more Jesuitical approach had as much to do with his own observations of better trained clergy and students formed in a more formal way vs. basically uneducated clergy, and not necessarily just another case of someone duped by overt "latinizations".