2054 project

[bpd_stl]

A modification of the Novus Ordo Missae so that it would basically be the Tridentine Mass, but with the Eucharist in both kinds and the use of vernacular and Latin together, and a one year lectionary, along with strict enforcement of the directives of Pope Pius X concerning church music, so that it would more closely resemble the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. Also, to ensure comparable liturgical excellence, it would be good to promulgate new directives after the fashion of those promulgated by Pius X mandating a return to traditional church architecture in accord with the legacy of the Roman Rite and the other liturgical rites of the RCC, and to ban certain rather ungainly modern vestments.

Novus Ordo Mass offered as the Vatican II Council Fathers intended in Sacrosanctum Concilium? God forbid it!

 

[prodromos]

We are not even at the beginning of the end, but we are at the end of the beginning.”

I just came across this quote in reference to the Battle of El Alamein. There is the ruins of a church dedicated to St Menas where there remains a fresco of St Menas with a caravan of camels which records one of his many miracles. According to the article, St Menas appeared with the camels in the German camp around midnight, just as he was depicted in the fresco, and it caused the German troops to lose their morale, understanding that the Saint was against them. The Allies subsequently defeated the Axis forces and ended their advancement into Egypt.

 

[Albion]

You 'seem' to understand much more than I wrote or even intended, though I suspect you think you know what I intended.

When I write "seem" it means that I'm holding open the possibility that I might be wrong about whatever it was. I realize that other posters like to pontificate instead.

I was actually thinking of the vast diversity of theological doctrinal opinion WITHIN Protestantism, from one extreme to the other on a whole host of spectra.

Well, yes, but there is no entity that is "Protestantism," no "Church of the Protestant Faith." So there actually is no "WITHIN" Protestantism like there is a "WITHIN" the Catholic Church or the Presbyterian Church USA, etc.

The term refers to a broad category of churches that are classified together for convenience and because they have some few but important elements in common even as they have and admit to having many differences.

I wrote "I can't think different branches of Christianity teaching incompatible 'truths' makes sense." I guess you think it does.

Of course it makes sense to admit to reality. Diversity exists.

And admitting that fact doesn't mean that it's better than the ideal.

But we don't have the ideal here and now. All we have are some parts of Christianity that claim to be the only true church. There are a number of them which do that.

I did not say the Reformation was wrong because heresy was involved. You read that in yourself.

Okay, and thanks for the clarification. I was almost certain that you'd written this: "To me it seems like too high a price in subjecting parts of the Church of Christ to falsehood. Diversity in liturgy and spirituality do make sense and enhance survival but I can't think different branches of Christianity teaching incompatible 'truths' makes sense."

 

[chevyontheriver]

Okay, and thanks for the clarification. I was almost certain that you'd written this: "To me it seems like too high a price in subjecting parts of the Church of Christ to falsehood. Diversity in liturgy and spirituality do make sense and enhance survival but I can't think different branches of Christianity teaching incompatible 'truths' makes sense."

So what part of that would a Baptist (whatever kind) or a Lutheran (whatever kind) or an Orthodox (whatever kind) disagree with even if, or particularly if, they don't agree with me? Maybe too much liturgical diversity or spiritual diversity? We're not all correct doctrinally and somebody out there is teaching falsehood. You obviously think the Catholic Church is all wrong. You say so regularly. Is teaching falsehood a good thing for the Body of Christ however you construe that Body?

 

[The Liturgist]

Novus Ordo Mass offered as the Vatican II Council Fathers intended in Sacrosanctum Concilium? God forbid it!

The problem is the Novus Ordo Missae is not what was envisaged in Sacrosanctum Concilium. In general, I agree with most of that conciliar directive (what is the correct legal term for a specific named legislative act of a Roman Catholic Church Council?). One of the very few decisions I disagree with was the bizarre decision to suppress Prime, an ancient and much loved part of the Divine Office (the liturgy of the hours). Prime, the prayer of the First Hour, is also the etymological basis for the word Primer, which to this day is a popular vernacular term for an introductory textbook.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The problem is the Novus Ordo Missae is not what was envisaged in Sacrosanctum Concilium. In general, I agree with most of that conciliar directive (what is the correct legal term for a specific named legislative act of a Roman Catholic Church Council?). One of the very few decisions I disagree with was the bizarre decision to suppress Prime, an ancient and much loved part of the Divine Office (the liturgy of the hours). Prime, the prayer of the First Hour, is also the etymological basis for the word Primer, which to this day is a popular vernacular term for an introductory textbook.

I think most faithful Catholics realize that the Mass proposed by the Council is not exactly what we ended up with. We got a rupture, a shock treatment in line with the 'spirit of Vatican II' but not the letter of it. Thus the slow steps of the 'reform of the reform' to step things back bit by bit. Too slow for my tastes, but then again there is something to be said for gradualism in liturgical change.

Following Vatican II, Msgr Richard Joseph Schuler, in St. Paul MN started doing liturgies as Vatican II actually intended. They were Novus Ordo, much of it in Latin, with good old music, and the priest facing the normal old direction. And it worked. It was often astounding. And it preserved normal Catholicism in one very influential parish.

Msgr. Richard J. Schuler
Monsignor Richard Schuler
New Liturgical Movement: A Tribute to Monsignor Richard J Schuler
Monsignor Richard J. Schuler (1920-2007): A Biographical Sketch | Church Music Association of America

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

• The return of all relics, icons and manuscripts previously under the care of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches to the custody of their former caretakers; substantial progress has been made in this direction, but it would be fitting to see the return of more material, such as those relics of St. Mark still in Venice, and the relics of St. Nicholas of Myra, although appeals could be made by the Roman dioceses to the Orthodox church, or exemptions made in the treaties, wherein perhaps either some relics, such as the two mentioned above, might be shared, or alternatively the churches in which they are kept shared, for if the Greek and Coptic Orthodox Churches of Alexandria for example were granted equal access rights to the Basillica of St. Mark in Venice to those held by the Patriarchate of Venice, this might be preferable to all parties, given the security situation in Egypt. But where an Orthodox church desired the return of anything taken by the Venetians or other Roman Catholic powers presently in the possession of the Roman Catholic Church, its dioceses, and religious orders, and the Sui Juris churches in communion with it, those items would need to be returned.

Can we have our Shroud back?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I think the Catholic Church could and should agree to these. Most would be wildly popular among practicing Catholics.

I have two caveats though. And some things Catholics should ask in return.

First caveat is clarification about 'toll houses' should be required before accepting 'all' Orthodox doctrine. The Orthodox have had developments along the way and this particular one should be made clear.

Second caveat is that accepting all Orthodox doctrine could not be a repudiation of Catholic doctrine. I think some Orthodox require of Catholics that we repudiate Catholic teaching and then go and get rebaptized Orthodox.

Ask, require, that the Orthodox accept Catholic baptism. And to accept the historic position of all Christianity in not allowing contraception.

And something both sides have to work on, and should do it together, is divorce, annulment, remarriage. It's a mess in practice as it is now. Both sides could benefit by making this cleaner.

As for toll-houses and other unclarified theological stuff, part of this is just how we "do" theology. There is a fair amount of opinion so that we don't even have a point-by-point catechism.

As for divorce and remarriage, we do have a procedure for that. I have no idea if the Catholic annulment and ours are simply differences in discipline or if there is more to it.

The biggest sticking point will be conservatives on both sides. "MARRIED PRIESTS?" "BAPTISM BY SPRINKLING?" "Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"

 

[chevyontheriver]

As for toll-houses and other unclarified theological stuff, part of this is just how we "do" theology. There is a fair amount of opinion so that we don't even have a point-by-point catechism.

Would it be pushing too much to expect a clarification from the Orthodox about some of that 'unclarified theological stuff'? So we can affirm that we agree with all of your theology? Toll houses seem strange.

As for divorce and remarriage, we do have a procedure for that. I have no idea if the Catholic annulment and ours are simply differences in discipline or if there is more to it.

It would be worth figuring it out. And it would be a chance to clean up the mess that is annulments and to clean up what seems to us outside of Orthodoxy as free divorce and remarriage.

The biggest sticking point will be conservatives on both sides. "MARRIED PRIESTS?" "BAPTISM BY SPRINKLING?" "Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"

Since Catholics already allow for some married priests and the conservatives haven't died because of it I think it's up to the Orthodox to see if they can recognize the baptism of Catholics. If you guys don't want to do that there really is nowhere to go. Which is why I don't think it will happen. Surprise me.

 

[J_B_]

This conversation shows why it will never happen. The beginning of the schism was Christ's Ascension ... or maybe it goes back to Mark 10 ... or 1 Kings 12 ... or Genesis 4.

 

[Albion]

This conversation shows why it will never happen. The beginning of the schism was Christ's Ascension ... or maybe it goes back to Mark 10 ... or 1 Kings 12 ... or Genesis 4.

Actually, it has to come later. The first Christians were not separated into rival denominations; that is something that only developed in time when different groups went different ways on issues that were not even perceived when the church was beginning (Pentecost). So the disunity which we all are saying is regrettable cannot be said to have started with the Ascension.

 

[zippy2006]

I largely agree, other than the "to do more" part...which is a bit vague. IMHO opinion, the single most important thing in my imaginary 2054 Project is for the reigning pope to fully recognize the autocephalous status of both the Orthodox & Eastern Catholic churches...seeing his Primacy as a visible symbol of Unity and one of fraternal Charity and to settle intractable disputes within these churches that need a 3rd party.

How could recognizing a church as autocephalous be compatible with the universal papal jurisdiction defined at Vatican I?

In post #6 Prodromos claimed that the Catholic Church would have to renounce papalist dogmas. Sure... but dogmas are like bones that the body grows around. When a bone has given shape to a body over many years the body itself begins to take the same shape, and it is all but impossible to correct skeletal issues after long periods of time have passed.

I do accept that in some way the Reformation was necessary, an opinion shared with pope Benedict XVI.

Do you know where he said that, Chevy?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Do you know where he said that, Chevy?

I have had a dickens of a time trying to find it. The closest I have come so far is from a 2020 post in the Catholic Thing by Gunnar Gunderson where a letter to the Theologische Quartalschrift is quoted without reference.

"But if the poison of hostility is slowly removed from the divisions [of Christians], and if, through mutual acceptance diversity leads no longer to mere impoverishment but rather to a new wealth of listening and understanding, then during the transition to unity division can become a felix culpa, a happy fault, even before it is completely healed."

What I remember reading is that the Reformation was a 'tragic necessity'. Not necessary in terms of God's original plan, but made necessary by the failures of the personnel of the Church at that time, and perhaps one could see it as simply necessary to spur the reforms of the council of Trent and the Counter-reformation.

In any event, one can say some bad came out of the Reformation and some good things too. The article I quoted from, Retconning the Reformation, is a dandy of an article, and a homage to Anglicanorum Coetibus.

Retconning the Reformation - The Catholic Thing

 

[zippy2006]

I have had a dickens of a time trying to find it. The closest I have come so far is from a 2020 post in the Catholic Thing by Gunnar Gunderson where a letter to the Theologische Quartalschrift is quoted without reference.

"But if the poison of hostility is slowly removed from the divisions [of Christians], and if, through mutual acceptance diversity leads no longer to mere impoverishment but rather to a new wealth of listening and understanding, then during the transition to unity division can become a felix culpa, a happy fault, even before it is completely healed."

What I remember reading is that the Reformation was a 'tragic necessity'. Not necessary in terms of God's original plan, but made necessary by the failures of the personnel of the Church at that time, and perhaps one could see it as simply necessary to spur the reforms of the council of Trent and the Counter-reformation.

In any event, one can say some bad came out of the Reformation and some good things too. The article I quoted from, Retconning the Reformation, is a dandy of an article, and a homage to Anglicanorum Coetibus.

Retconning the Reformation - The Catholic Thing

Very interesting, thank you!

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Since Catholics already allow for some married priests and the conservatives haven't died because of it I think it's up to the Orthodox to see if they can recognize the baptism of Catholics. If you guys don't want to do that there really is nowhere to go. Which is why I don't think it will happen. Surprise me.

Morning Chevy,
I completely missed this. The general rule of thumb for those coming into the EO churches is
Non-Christians and non-Nicene Christians - baptism
Nicene Christians - chrismation / confirmation
Catholics and other with apostolic succession - repudiation of errors

There might be some individual exceptions to the rule.

One thing I was wondering about was what is the role of the Pope for non-Latin rite Catholics? As I think we had discussed, I've heard from Eastern Rite Catholics a sense of being second-class citizen in the Latin rite.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I admit upfront that this is a fantasy of mine: but hear me out. 1054 AD is the "official" date of the formal schism between the Sees of Rome & Constantinople. However, the estrangement between East & West had been occurring long before that, certainly by the time of the rise of the Carolingians in the late 8th century.

There is much we Catholics & Orthodox have in common, as well as a lot we have in differences. However, I think the commons outweigh the differences, which is why any slightest disagreement between us means so much. Also, it's just straight up politics & ego.

Hypothetical Question: let's set the date of formal Reunion at 2054. What would have to happen on both sides to make this happen?

That would rock. Hopefully someday.

Humility, love, forgiveness, understanding, and peace. That is what it would take, I think.

I hope that all Christians can come Home someday. I am seeing more and more Protestant Christians begin to question Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, and reading the Early Church Fathers, so that’s good!

 

[chevyontheriver]

Morning Chevy,
I completely missed this. The general rule of thumb for those coming into the EO churches is
Non-Christians and non-Nicene Christians - baptism
Nicene Christians - chrismation / confirmation
Catholics and other with apostolic succession - repudiation of errors

There might be some individual exceptions to the rule.

Is that your rule of thumb, your bishop's particular rule of thumb, or one particular patriarchate's rule of thumb, or does it apply to all of Orthodoxy? Because I have heard it many ways, and there is a strong sense among many Orthodox that there can be no valid sacraments at all among the non-Orthodox, so Catholic baptisms are nothing at all. I think you need to get all the Orthodox using the same rule of thumb. And then let us know. It would be helpful if it was more than a 'rule of thumb' too.

One thing I was wondering about was what is the role of the Pope for non-Latin rite Catholics? As I think we had discussed, I've heard from Eastern Rite Catholics a sense of being second-class citizen in the Latin rite.

Eastern Rite Catholics are not 'in' the Latin Rite. They are their own rites and they have their own canon law. They sometimes feel overwhelmed by the Latin rite and many in the Latin rite don't know anything about the many other Catholic rites within the Catholic Church. And that problem is perpetuated by those who refer to 'the RCC' as the Catholic Church as if we were all Roman Catholics. The RCC myth is an Anglican invention that many Catholics and Protestants have bought into, and it totally leaves the other rites in the cold. But they are as Catholic as the Latin rite. They have the same pope, who acts not as their patriarch but just as their pope.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

The OCA guideline is described above. Trying to find the Greek version (we don't make things easy to research).... sigh. Heck we can't even decide on which translation of the liturgy to use. I think there are 4-5 of them out there at this point. I almost prefer a Greek liturgy because I know the Greek will be consistent. As a former LCMS Lutheran where order was paramount, the Greek are haphazard about everything!

Some of the confusion is that we have a fairly disrupted history and jurisdictional problems especially in the Americas. Constantinople was under Ottoman rule until 1922, so they tracked one way. The Russians kind of took the lead in the Americas until the Russian Revolution. Then you had Greek immigration in the 1950s and that set the clock back to the "Old Country".

 

[chevyontheriver]

The OCA guideline is described above. Trying to find the Greek version (we don't make things easy to research).... sigh. Heck we can't even decide on which translation of the liturgy to use. I think there are 4-5 of them out there at this point. I almost prefer a Greek liturgy because I know the Greek will be consistent. As a former LCMS Lutheran where order was paramount, the Greek are haphazard about everything!

Some of the confusion is that we have a fairly disrupted history and jurisdictional problems especially in the Americas. Constantinople was under Ottoman rule until 1922, so they tracked one way. The Russians kind of took the lead in the Americas until the Russian Revolution. Then you had Greek immigration in the 1950s and that set the clock back to the "Old Country".

Does the OCA speak for Orthodoxy? Do they even speak for Orthodoxy in America? I think I heard it from American Orthodox people, multiple ones, that my baptism was no good. And some who would accept it, and some who start speaking of 'economia' as a 'solution'. Who can say from the Orthodox perspective? I mean I'm not worried if a whole bunch of Orthodox people reject my baptism, but reunion ain't going nowhere until you guys can tell us with one voice what's what.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Does the OCA speak for Orthodoxy? Do they even speak for Orthodoxy in America? I think I heard it from American Orthodox people, multiple ones, that my baptism was no good. And some who would accept it, and some who start speaking of 'economia' as a 'solution'. Who can say from the Orthodox perspective? I mean I'm not worried if a whole bunch of Orthodox people reject my baptism, but reunion ain't going nowhere until you guys can tell us with one voice what's what.

We've got a bunch of fairly uneducated idi... uhhh I mean, people who shouldn't be speaking on behalf of the church. My priest told me that a few years ago, during our Greek festival, that one parishioner started chasing people out of the church who were there for church tour because "they were desecrating the church by being in it!!!"

The only voices that really count are the bishops.

Ah... found this from Archmandrite Ambrosius from the OCA church published in 1997: HTC: Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church - Chapter 4

Everyone but the Greeks follows the 3-tier system. The Greeks chrismate all Christian converts.