www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Possible Next step in the road to reconcilliation

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

I guess the milieu in which much of this reconstruction occurred was during a time when Uniates were returning to Orthodoxy.

They had to "reconstruct" their Eastern traditions with great sensitivity and patience from the Orthodox Churches in that process.

Alex

Yes, that patience is very important. In Kosice I remember being surprised by the Latinisation of the Orthodox after the most recent forceful incorporation of Orthodox and Greek Catholics in one Church. A priest told me that it was going to take a long time to re-Byzantinise the Orthodox! Slowly, slowly... and above all -patience.

Spasi Khristos -
Fr Mark.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

There were, of course, Latin borrowings by Orthodox over the years, but moreso in the Kyivan and Nikonian Churches than among Old Ritualists.

St Tikhon of Zadonsk had his "stations of the Cross" in his cell, and St Seraphim and others prayed the "Rule of the Mother of God" which is akin to the Rosary.

But, of course, they said that these devotions came to Orthodoxy first!

Alex

Theodore,
Wakey Wakey this has be in effect for years now as far as the Latin Church is concerned.
Now for the road to reconcilation....well that is another matter.
If the Orthodox would receive Latins to communion within their Chruches now that would be a big step, and one that Rome would have absolutely no problem with.

Stephanos I

I always understood communion to be a visible show of unity with the Church and Her beliefs. So, whilst I can somewhat understand the wishes of Catholics and some Protestants (i.e. Lutherans and Anglicans) to be allowed to partake in the communion, I oppose it principally because THERE are disagreements over beliefs - and certainly, I do not subscribe to the view that these can be glossed over easily just to ensure that we can all commune. In the case of Protestants, it is more problematic because there is a great divergence in belief - how could we allow people who do not believe in the Ressurection, or the Virgin Birth, or what occurs during the Divine Liturgy, to partake of our celebration because to do so, would in my opinion, constitute making a mockery of our history and traditions. In the case of Catholics, there is a large grey area because we do share a common heritage; however, in the same extent (albeit to a lesser degree), there is disagreement because as threads here have shown, there is divergence, not convergence (oh dear, I sound like Gordon Brown...) over beliefs.

Anton

Dear Anton

That brings up an interesting question. Does the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church each have a valid Eucharist?

If they do, then intercommunion is not already possible, by definition, it is already happening.

If both Myseries are True, A Catholic and an Orthodox each consume the One True Body of our Savior. Not an "Orthodox Jesus, or a 'Catholic' Jesus, but the exact same Jesus.

Remember, it is the Holy Spirit who chooses how much intercommunion is possible. If the Spirit places the Body and Blood of our Savior on an Altar, the Spirit has then deemed the offering worthy.


What really needs to be decided on the Orthodox side, is IF the Catholic possess a True Mystery.

If it is, intercommunion is already happening.

If not, it never will.


In the case of Anglicans, Luterans and the like, again a close examination of their Eucharist is in order.

For points you outlined in your post, it would seem that their Eucharist is lacking both Intent and a valid Sucession. So, most likely the Spirit graces their Altar with Blessings, but not Eucharist.

(note: I am not a professional theologian, nor do I play one on TV. Take all my theological rablings with a grain of salt, tequilla and a lime)

Well, from the Orthodox POV, the argument is never regarding who has "valid" sacraments, (a distinction rather foriegn to Orthodoxy) but rather, who holds the orthodox faith.

So, if indeed the Holy Spirit decides these things (I think this is oversimplification of the issue at hand) we must also remember that God's Spirit is "the Spirit of Truth" (Jn 14:17, 15:26, 16:13; I Jn 4:6). For an Orthodox Christian, there can never be union at the altar before there is union in faith. The eucharist is the greatest expression of oneness and unity - oneness with God Himself and oneness with each other (c.f. Jn 17 and Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom).

Orthodoxy has been very clear to teach that practicing this "game" of who has valid sacraments, or who has the Holy Spirit, is rather pointless. In certain ways, it is normative practice for most baptized Trinitarian Christians to enter the Orthodox faith without receiving a specifically Orthodox baptism (because there is one baptism, meaning, in one sense, that baptism is only performed once - there are other meanings also). But this has less to do with judgments on the validity of heterodox Trinitarian baptism as it is a faith in the power of reception by Chrismation. (We might also point out that as heterodox Christians move farther and farther away from the Orthodox faith, it seems that the tolerance for heterodox Trinitarian baptism is quickly diminishing.) Same in the Russian Orthodox Tradition, where Catholic priests are recieved by vesting, not ordination (this is not the case in many other Orthodox churches).

The bottom line is, intercommunion is not happening, even if somehow, in some way, Orthodox Christians give tacit recognition to certain Catholic sacraments. True intercommunion will only be acheived through agreement on matters pertaining to the faith.

Priest Thomas

Fr. Thomas, bless me a sinner.

Do Orthodox Christians give tacit recognition to certain Catholic sacraments, namely the Eucharist?

May the Lord God bless you!

No, in my opinion. The examples of Baptism, and priestly Ordination (only in the case of the Russian Orthodox Church) are the only examples I can think of in which, it could be argued that Orthodox Christianity does this, since it does not require baptism of Catholic converts (the Jerusalem Patriarchate permits an Orthodox (re)baptism, I think) and priestly ordination is not done for a Catholic priest enetering the Russian Orthodox Church, or her daughters, such as the Orthodox Church in America. However, the latter practiced developed in a particular political climate (i.e. Peter the Great). Therefore, the argument for tacit recognition of Cathoilc sacraments can be argued either way.

Priest Thomas

Therefore, at this time, we cannot state our approval of Eucharist sharing with Catholics or Protestants.

Axios

Orthodoxy has been very clear to teach that practicing this "game" of who has valid sacraments, or who has the Holy Spirit, is rather pointless.

I recall that during the azymite controversy, the Greek Church claimed that the Latin Eucharist was "invalid" because unleavened bread was used for the liturgical celebration. Unleavened bread made the mass consacration invalid. (defective "matter")

It had been said that the Latin Baptism was invalid because it was not done by triple immersion but by pouring.

Then, much later, it was said that the Eucharist of the Latins also had a defect of form, since theirliturgy did not have a very clear and explicit Byzantine-like epiclesis.

Or am I wrong?

Today, few leaders of the Orthodox Churches, unless they are from ultraconservative jurisdictions, would state that the Eucharist is invalid in the latin church because of these differences in the way they are performed.

(I doubt that a Baptism performed by the Baptist sect by immersion is better than a Latin one performed by pouring, given the fact that the first one is an heretical sect whose errors are enormously graver than those of the Latin Church)

(We might also point out that as heterodox Christians move farther and farther away from the Orthodox faith, it seems that the tolerance for heterodox Trinitarian baptism is quickly diminishing.)

This is another thing which has been discused recently, now that in many Roman parishes, the way Baptism is performed differs and the rule stating that the water must touch the skin is not done propperly, while in other places where immersion is used the explicit phrase "father, son ... spirit" is changed by more "adorned" forms.

Same thing goes for the Eucharist, but now that Pope John Paul II is going to stop all the abuses in the sacraments, the Roman Church will move toward Orthodoxy and this will always be good for the Ecumenical dialogue.

If I'm not mistaken no women have chimed in on the subject. For over a 1000 yrs the hierarchs can't resolve this it should come from a grass roots level.If a 1000 yrs ago women were put in charge of healing the brokeness we would be united.

Nicky's baba

Dear Nicky's Baba,

I agree.

Men tend to be so, well, retentive when it comes to these issues . . .

Alex

This discussion illustrates why I stay in communion with Rome, in spite of all the nightmares we have to endure.

It has always seemed to me that some of the Orthodox are at least as domineering as the worst of the Latins. Use OUR liturgy or it's not valid (e.g. leavened bread required).

It reminds me of what I DON'T like about the Latin church: the fabrication of requirements not discussed at any of the Ecumenical Councils. To say that the Holy Spirit will just ignore unleavened bread seems to me to be one the most improbable of all propositions.

I'm not sayng the Latin church has been better, but from where, besides prejudice, does this theory come? I'm certain that some rather elegant excuses have been developed, but I just can't imagine Christ in heaven saying that it's a great thing for the body to be divided because someone won't use yeast.

I still think that the steps toward reconcilliation we've all made, such as the lifting of the anathemas and other of local impact, would have been impossible without the recent, more liberal Popes in Rome.

This time, I am sure that Pope John Paul II has the best intentions and shows that in his attitude toward the Orthodox Churches, even if his Bishops sometimes dissobey his orders. He has been extremely tolerant in the case of the Unia, for example, withdrawing his support to them in order to encourgae the Ecumenical dialogues with the Orthodox.

On the other side, the conduct of many Orthodox leaders, showing any excuse to avoid any serious dialogue such as thgat of the Cruzades and events of the remote past, is very dissapointing. Maybe someday Orthodoxy will regret this. It is probable that in the future, the Popes in Rome will be conservative or old fashioned, they will most likely not be as Ecumenical as this one, and would not be open to dialogue.