Fr. Thomas Hopko's lecture - what do you think?

[KATHXOYMENOC]

Big "T" versus Little "t"

Essentials versus Non-essentials

A lesson from history:

Please listen to the first few minutes of this ancient recording:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6AOvStZS64

Notice how Bishop Fulton Sheen says in 1941 that the Church does not change ancient customs but holds onto them. What happened about twenty years later with Vatican II? Why were so many ancient customs tossed out all in the name of the so-called Big T versus the little unessential t?

Look at some of the changes in the Catholic Church:
(1) A new Mass with prayers being added and others discarded
(2) A new Nicene Creed
(3) Women Eucharistic Ministers
(4) Female Altar Servers
(5) A complete revision of all the seven Sacraments
(6) A complete revision of the prayers of exorcism
(7) Dropping of the prayers to St. Michael to protect us from Satan said at the end of the Mass before 1962
(8) A dramatic increase in the number of exorcisms performed in Rome within the last ten years

Have we Orthodox made changes and concessions? Yes. I will name at least three:

(1) The New Calendar was adopted around 1921. Is the Old Calendar one of those non-essentials? And doesn't the new calendar lessen the days of fasting since the Apostles Fast is affected?

(2) A few Orthodox Theologians have been discussing changing the date of Pascha as they do in the Finnish Orthodox Church so that it coincides with Western Easter. Is this another non-essential then? What will happen with the Holy Fire in Jerusalem that is calculated on the Old Calendar?

(3) The Divine Liturgy according the Greek Typica was shortened around 1920 by the removal of the Beatitudes and some of the post-communion litanies, especially the prayers for the faithful departed and the catechumens. Are these prayers then non-essential?

But the Divine Liturgy itself underwent changes and revisions and additions and deletions and changing the order of things, etc., for its first 14 centuries or so, as Dom Gregory Dix documents in his massive book, THE SHAPE OF THE LITURGY (of which I'm about 1/5 of the way through) - right? Per Dix, some of those changes may not have been the right thing to do, as they obscured some formerly clear actions and associations and things, and some of the prayers that were said by the congregants which enabled them rightfully (as they had in the past) to participate more fully in the eucharist became sotto voce prayers of the priest, making a further laity-clergy distinction during the liturgy that apparently wasn't so distinct in the early centuries. Even the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom is not today as he wrote/adapted it in his lifetime, from what I've read.

I understand that much of the impetus of Vatican II was to bring back the ancient practices which had become distorted and encrusted with centuries of medieval additions, and to bring the mass back to the people. Whether everything that has been done has been wise or wisely done is of course a matter of great contention among Roman Catholics.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I think the essentials/non-essentials discussion is very good and brings up very valid points. However, I think perhaps the following question will help re-direct the discussion. If we solved some of what Fr Thomas called "essentials" (the Pope issue for instance), then COULD we come together as one Church? The question is not "would the NEW RCC Mass be of the utmost quality?" The opinions on this will be different and is not the point. The point is... what constitues DIVISION? What makes this or group HETERODOX? Are the Greeks Heterodox because they no longer pray for the catecumens at a regular liturgy? I would hope no one would say "yes" to that question. If so, I think any of us would have a hard time taking them seriously. Is the Finnish Orthodox Pascha any less valid or special because it's not on the same day as the Holy Fire? Heh, mine isn't on the same day as the Holy Fire... I live half way across the world? The question is not if these things matter... it's if they matter so much that unity is impossible. That's the issue.

So, let's say we are one day unified with the Catholic Church. Can we still hold the opinion that their mass is impoverished although still "valid"? Sure, why not? I am not saying that that's what I am thinking, but I know many WOULD think that be that right or not. But that's not the point?

If that is the point, we are saying that the RCC has become completely perfect in all things before we can reunite. But we aren't completely perfect in all things. Sure, we need to have an understanding on dogma and what we MEAN even if we use different words and no doubt there is work to be done in that field (so uniting at THIS point would be premature... even in the mind of crazy off the cart liberal like Fr Thomas Hopko).

To be one Church means to be communing as one. If we claim the essentials and neither feels the other is a heretic (even if one feels their world view is somewhat tainted or certain traditions are very quesstionable), isn't that what is essential for unity? I mean, the russians say the Greeks are too lax and others say the Russians are too legalistic. Romanians are accused of being too ecumenistic and Americans... well.. we're a whole different animal lol.

I think the essentials/non-essentials issue here is a good question... but I don't think it's the rigth questioin.. or rather, I don't think it's what Fr Thomas had in mind when he said essentials. He is talk about what DIVIDES us.

Just my thoughts...

John

 

[Andrea Elizabeth]

If unity means open communion with Catholics, and not uniformity, then what are the ramifications?

Could it mean that we respect their Apostolic Succession in administering the Eucharist, though not all of their traditions, including the new Creed and Pope ones.

Sorry if too simplistic. I'm just wondering.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

If unity means open communion with Catholics, and not uniformity, then what are the ramifications?

Could it mean that we respect their Apostolic Succession in administering the Eucharist, though not all of their traditions, including the new Creed and Pope ones.

Sorry if too simplistic. I'm just wondering.

I think your question is great. I'm only offering opinions that I could be convinced out of... but I think you get the gist. I would just exclude the part that's bolded. Those are issues that need to be ironed out before union can happen, because they have to do wtih understanding how authority would (or would not) work in Church universal and making sure we understand the essentials of WHO God is. Catholic Church would not be able to stand by the interpretation of the Filioque that says that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son in that the Spirit ORIGINATES from the Son. This is just false and I think anyone would agree that we have to agree on WHO God is before we can claim to be one. But from what I have read here and in books, Catholics do not claim such an erroneous interpretation. I personally think the RCC would probably just get rid of the Filioque if they thought the possibility of reunion were actually real... but it's not, so why put all your cards on the table and risk more division if reunion is improbable anyway at this point.

Anyhow... even if we all agreed on that... the "pope thing" and some other issues are big deals that need to be worked out... so reunion would still be a great task though somewhat more do-able than how it is at present.

 

[Andrea Elizabeth]

I think your question is great. I'm only offering opinions that I could be convinced out of... but I think you get the gist. I would just exclude the part that's bolded. Those are issues that need to be ironed out before union can happen, because they have to do wtih understanding how authority would (or would not) work in Church universal and making sure we understand the essentials of WHO God is. Catholic Church would not be able to stand by the interpretation of the Filioque that says that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son in that the Spirit ORIGINATES from the Son. This is just false and I think anyone would agree that we have to agree on WHO God is before we can claim to be one. But from what I have read here and in books, Catholics do not claim such an erroneous interpretation. I personally think the RCC would probably just get rid of the Filioque if they thought the possibility of reunion were actually real... but it's not, so why put all your cards on the table and risk more division if reunion is improbable anyway at this point.

Anyhow... even if we all agreed on that... the "pope thing" and some other issues are big deals that need to be worked out... so reunion would still be a great task though somewhat more do-able than how it is at present.

I wonder why they're still so stuck on keeping the filique anyway. Does getting rid of it threaten their supremacy or something?

And if we don't think they mean the extreme interpretation of the filioque, then why is that such a hindrance?

I think the validity of their Eucharist despite their Apostolic Succession has been discussed elsewhere, but that also seems to be an essential thing to iron out.

I just wonder if opening communion would really threaten our protection of the True Apostolic Tradition. The Eastern Catholics have had to agree to a lot of things, like the Supremacy instead of primacy of the Pope, but we don't have to be like them. Can't we disagree, and keep the name Orthodox and keep the Tradition and open communion to baptized Catholics if there is indeed One Baptism?

 

[Oblio]

I wonder why they're still so stuck on keeping the filique anyway. Does getting rid of it threaten their supremacy or something?

Yep

It ultimately alters the orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity and changes the ecclesiology of the Church by making the Holy Trinity a hierarchical relationship with the Spirit subordinate to the Son. And if the Pope is seen as the Vicar of Christ, he is then seen as the earthly font of the Spirit, from whence flows papal infalliblity and the rest of our differences.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

I wonder why they're still so stuck on keeping the filique anyway. Does getting rid of it threaten their supremacy or something?

And if we don't think they mean the extreme interpretation of the filioque, then why is that such a hindrance?

I think the validity of their Eucharist despite their Apostolic Succession has been discussed elsewhere, but that also seems to be an essential thing to iron out.

I just wonder if opening communion would really threaten our protection of the True Apostolic Tradition. The Eastern Catholics have had to agree to a lot of things, like the Supremacy instead of primacy of the Pope, but we don't have to be like them. Can't we disagree, and keep the name Orthodox and keep the Tradition and open communion to baptized Catholics if there is indeed One Baptism?

What is the Eucharist? Is it communion with those of agreed-upon doctrine/faith, or is it communion with Christ and other members of His body?

Clark Carlton writes in his essay "A Note for Evangelicals Considering Rome":

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_carltonrome.aspx

"Evangelicals searching for the catholic tradition must understand that Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, She knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church."

If Carlton is right, then there can at present be no communion between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, because they know and worship different Christs.

On the other hand, if Carlton is wrong and Roman Catholics just have some different understandings, but worship and know the same Christ, then it does go back to my question: What is the Eucharist and what is it supposed to be - the result and declaration and sign and benefit of sharing the same faith in some very specific particulars, or the result and declaration and sign and benefit of communing with Christ and others who by the Holy Spirit and their faith are His, even if there are disagreements in some areas between and among these Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians?

 

[Andrea Elizabeth]

Yep

It ultimately alters the orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity and changes the ecclesiology of the Church by making the Holy Trinity a hierarchical relationship with the Spirit subordinate to the Son. And if the Pope is seen as the Vicar of Christ, he is then seen as the earthly font of the Spirit, from whence flows papal infalliblity and the rest of our differences.

Not to be off-topic, but do you/we not see Monarchianism (?) as heirarchichal? In that the Father is the Source and the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father?

 

[Andrea Elizabeth]

What is the Eucharist? Is it communion with those of agreed-upon doctrine/faith, or is it communion with Christ and other members of His body?

Clark Carlton writes in his essay "A Note for Evangelicals Considering Rome":

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_carltonrome.aspx

"Evangelicals searching for the catholic tradition must understand that Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, She knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church."

If Carlton is right, then there can at present be no communion between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, because they know and worship different Christs.

On the other hand, if Carlton is wrong and Roman Catholics just have some different understandings, but worship and know the same Christ, then it does go back to my question: What is the Eucharist and what is it supposed to be - the result and declaration and sign and benefit of sharing the same faith in some very specific particulars, or the result and declaration and sign and benefit of communing with Christ and others who by the Holy Spirit and their faith are His, even if there are disagreements in some areas between and among these Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians?

Good point. Christ is not subject to human invention, though the quality of relationship is. This is why we should not compromise on the Truth on our end, but if our Eucharist is the True Christ, how does someone who believes the Spirit proceeds from Him compromise our communion?

It may affect if we choose to partake of their Eucharist though. That is why the validity of their Eucharist would need to be determined. If it's the True Body and Blood as well because of their valid Apostolic Succession, then what the Pope thinks about himself shouldn't affect it, should it?

 

[nikolayalexandroff]

[deleted]

 

[nikolayalexandroff]

I agree nearly with all said by Fr. Thomas. I think he has a right to say so. An old man an old priest has a right to be a God's fool, a "yurodivy", at the end of his way.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]I’ve seen too many zealots with their slogan: “To hell them all!” Some of them are very lovely people, but I never could force myself to accepting their point of view. Why not to try once a thousand years to be Christians? Here, in Russia, I see thousands obstacles for the unity. Not the least of them is RC politics. But I think we must wish the unity.[FONT=&quot] St. Silouan [/FONT]wept[FONT=&quot] from the grief when he had thinki[/FONT]n[FONT=&quot]g about atheists[/FONT] not knowing God and prayed for them.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]At least we must not damn Roman Catholics and Protestants. He says too, that the same things are necessary and from the other side.

 

[ModernDaySpyridon]

I agree nearly with all said by Fr. Thomas. I think he has a right to say so. An old man an old priest has a right to be a God's fool, a "yurodivy", at the end of his way.I’ve seen too many zealots with their slogan: “To hell them all!” Some of them are very lovely people, but I never could force myself to accepting their point of view. Why not to try once a thousand years to be Christians? Here, in Russia, I see thousands obstacles for the unity. Not the least of them is RC politics. But I think we must wish the unity.[FONT=&quot] St. Silouan [/FONT]wept[FONT=&quot] from the grief when he had thinki[/FONT]n[FONT=&quot]g about atheists[/FONT] not knowing God and prayed for them.At least we must not damn Roman Catholics and Protestants. He says too, that the same things are necessary and from the other side.

Amen.

The most important thing that Fr. Thomas stated was that our hearts should be broken over the divisions in the church. That is primary...theological considerations are secondary.

 

[Theophorus]

What is the Eucharist? Is it communion with those of agreed-upon doctrine/faith, or is it communion with Christ and other members of His body?

Clark Carlton writes in his essay "A Note for Evangelicals Considering Rome":

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_carltonrome.aspx

"Evangelicals searching for the catholic tradition must understand that Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, She knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church."

If Carlton is right, then there can at present be no communion between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, because they know and worship different Christs.

On the other hand, if Carlton is wrong and Roman Catholics just have some different understandings, but worship and know the same Christ, then it does go back to my question: What is the Eucharist and what is it supposed to be - the result and declaration and sign and benefit of sharing the same faith in some very specific particulars, or the result and declaration and sign and benefit of communing with Christ and others who by the Holy Spirit and their faith are His, even if there are disagreements in some areas between and among these Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians?

This is the issue. The Pope thing and ecclasitical authority, and its legitimacy become relevant when directing us towards true unity. A man can claim bishop or pope status all day along, but when the ecclesiastical authority leaves behind the unity made posssible by Christ and His grace at the chalice and elsewhere, he has dethroned himself.

X's examples of differences within the Orthodox tradition only demonstrate that uniformity does not equal unity. The examples I gave above are not intended as a legalistic approach to the chalice, but were meant to demonstrate the gulf that seperates us and our views of the Eucharist.

Let's pick one issue: infant communion. Behind this ?"essential"? is a vast difference in theology and concept. It gets to the core of what is, and how we view, communion and its purpose, how we view salvation, how we view original sin or rather, how we view the human condition. This one thing does not divide, nor is that the purpose of sacraments and rubrics. The sacraments have a form that is a manifestation of a shared truth by the faithful. The sacraments "are" unity.

It is not based on a zealot fudamentalism born out of fear or pride, but the sacraments are "the uniting" element. One does not have to be a slave to uniformity in practice, which is not the issue.

The desire for unity is a pang that we all feel, but the greatest desire should be for truth. For it is in truth that unity abides.

19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Yep

It ultimately alters the orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity and changes the ecclesiology of the Church by making the Holy Trinity a hierarchical relationship with the Spirit subordinate to the Son. And if the Pope is seen as the Vicar of Christ, he is then seen as the earthly font of the Spirit, from whence flows papal infalliblity and the rest of our differences.

I am willing to be corrected on this by a catholic but this is what I have come to understand regarding the Filioque from a Catholic POV.

From what I understand, our "proceed" is very different from what their "proceed" means. This is precisely because our understanding is based on the original greek version of the word (which I don't have handy) that necessarily implies that the Spirit ORIGINATES (from the Father). Meanwhile, in the West, the translation into did not carry on this implication and simply meant that the Father can give the Spirit as can the Son. This is true. While the Father is the only ORIGINATOR (or Source) of the Spirit, the Son can just as well give out the Holy Spirit as He did in the Scriptures.

Please, OBOBers, correct me where I am wrong or misinterpreting.

Now, this is not to say that therefore it was perfectly fine that the West added the Filioque unilaterally (seemingly under pressure from CharlesMagne). it wasn't. For one, the Creed that was meant to be Catholic (Universal) no longer was but just simply... changed and two, original meaning was lost. So although it still can be interpreted to express right doctrine, the West added the Filioque at the expense of other doctrine confirming the Godhead of the Father. It's no longer confirmed in that part as it is if we look at the true meaning of the Orthdoox Creed. That is a problem. But is it divisive? We can yell and scream "You shouldn't have done that... you bad guys!!!!!" "That wasn't fair, that was uncanonical!"... but for what purpose? Again, I ask... is this truly meant to be a DIVISIVE issue? or is it merely a problem that needs to be worked out? I would suggest it's the latter. Families have problems all the time and I think this is a problem we coudl work out AS A FAMILY. But as it stands, there are a few things standing in our way of becoming a family once again (namely the Pope issue).

I would ask you this.... Does the Catholic Church DENY that the Father is the Godhead and Source of the Trinity? If so, show me where they explitly deny this. I imagine a Catholic could show me various references that show they not only do NOT deny this but rather affirm this (if not, then Houston, we have a problem). Do we deny that the Christ has relayed the Spirit at certain times and so this is an eternal QUALITY (not that he does this eternally but that he can always function in this way)? I don't think so.

So, on this issue, where do we really disagree? I think you, Andrea, really ask some good questions.

This is why I believe unification will never happen. We are so afraid that the True Faith depends on every little detail taht if ANYTHING is conceded on, we cease to be the Church until it is just left to a small skete in the NorthWest part of Mt. Athos. We are so paranoid because 1) we converts seek comfort in the idea that we have all of the answers and that there is one answer, one basic rite, one way to think about the world that anything different threatens this world view we've concocted for ourselves or 2) we cradle Orthodox and we just will not forget the past and will not actually forgive and forget until we love that we can constantly hold past atrocities over the head of the Catholic Church like masters hold a whip over their slaves and no apology or returned relics will ever be enough because it's not the relics we want, it's revenge. That's what I see. We have to ask ourselves seriously... Do we want unity in Truth, or do we want complete assimilation/humiliation (depending on the point of view)? I am not saying we are ready to reunite. And perhaps the Pope thing will never be solved. But we will never know unless we truly desire it and create a new generation that is equally aware of the good we orthodox and catholics hold in common justas they are of the few (although important) issues that still divide us.

Again, the question is: What is divisive? Not, what is a problem? Nor what is ideal. Families ALWAYS have problems... always. The Church was never without them and the Church was never in an ideal state. What do we call a church that exiles and nearly kills one of the greatest Church fathers (My patron Saint)?

I am so glad I read that article. Fr Thomas really called it home for me personally and helped me concentrate on OUR faults rather than just constantly assuming that it's just those silly Catholics. It's us silly orthodox that stand in the way of any possible Unity between East and West.

Anyway, those are JUST my thoughts on the matter. I do not claim these to be the orthodox POV and I am completely willing to be convinced to change my POV with truth and logic (and love).

God bless,

John

PS: neat thread...

 

[Xpycoctomos]

What is the Eucharist? Is it communion with those of agreed-upon doctrine/faith, or is it communion with Christ and other members of His body?

Clark Carlton writes in his essay "A Note for Evangelicals Considering Rome":

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_carltonrome.aspx

"Evangelicals searching for the catholic tradition must understand that Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, She knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church."

I have a hard time agreeing with this. I mean, we may as well be talking about Hindus if this is how we feel.

If Carlton is right, then there can at present be no communion between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, because they know and worship different Christs.

On the other hand, if Carlton is wrong and Roman Catholics just have some different understandings, but worship and know the same Christ, then it does go back to my question: What is the Eucharist and what is it supposed to be - the result and declaration and sign and benefit of sharing the same faith in some very specific particulars, or the result and declaration and sign and benefit of communing with Christ and others who by the Holy Spirit and their faith are His, even if there are disagreements in some areas between and among these Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians?

I like your fair handed approach to topics. You're a better man than I I would say it is neither. I think we disagree on some particulars and that one POV can even be more thorough than the other and have both sides be Orthodox (capital O). The early Church had it's different schools and they had their own weaknesses and strengths. No doubt from our POV the Catholic Church's world view has it's weaknesses. But there I am sure that ours does too. But even that doesn't matter. This isn't equal oportunity. Maybe one side will be stronger overall than the other if we were to reunite... but would that necesitate division? No. If I have a brother that is weaker than I am and less articulate... does that make him less my brother (notice, I am not saying that either side is less articulate.. though I could probably play advocate on either side of the coin)? of course not.

So, it's not a matter of Orthodox Communing with Non-Orthodox. If we are communing together, we are all Orthodox.

john

 

[Xpycoctomos]

The desire for unity is a pang that we all feel, but the greatest desire should be for truth. For it is in truth that unity abides.

I like this. Thanks Theophorus.

John

PS: Your little CF guy there gives me the heeby Jeebies.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

I have a hard time agreeing with this. I mean, we may as well be talking about Hindus if this is how we feel.



I like your fair handed approach to topics. You're a better man than I I would say it is neither. I think we disagree on some particulars and that one POV can even be more thorough than the other and have both sides be Orthodox (capital O). The early Church had it's different schools and they had their own weaknesses and strengths. No doubt from our POV the Catholic Church's world view has it's weaknesses. But there I am sure that ours does too. But even that doesn't matter. This isn't equal oportunity. Maybe one side will be stronger overall than the other if we were to reunite... but would that necesitate division? No. If I have a brother that is weaker than I am and less articulate... does that make him less my brother (notice, I am not saying that either side is less articulate.. though I could probably play advocate on either side of the coin)? of course not.

So, it's not a matter of Orthodox Communing with Non-Orthodox. If we are communing together, we are all Orthodox.

john

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

FYI - When I wrote Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians, I was extending beyond Roman Catholics to include Protestants who by the Holy Spirit and faith in Him belong to Jesus. This admittedly fuzzies the line.

If the Eucharist is the vestiges (i.e., the eating of the sacrifice part, but now without the fellowship meal part) or sign of a communal sacrificial ritual meal, then IMO it's restricted to those who belong to the deity to whom the sacrifice is offered (in this case, He is at the same time the one offered and the one offered to and the one doing the offering - as well as the one reciprocating by offering Himself to the offerers). To have communion with Him, one must be in communion/relationship to Him. By saying that "we know where the Holy Spirit is; we don't know where the Holy Spirit is not," it seems to me that the Orthodox church recognizes that there are those in communion with Christ who are not in communion with the Orthodox church. Is the church wrong to bar them from communing at the Orthodox Eucharist should such persons be present at the Divine Liturgy?

 

[kamikat]

Could it mean that we respect their Apostolic Succession in administering the Eucharist, though not all of their traditions, including the new Creed and Pope ones.

Sorry if too simplistic. I'm just wondering.

The Creed issue is a small one. If you ask most Catholics, including priests, you will find that it doesn't matter to them. The big issue is the Pope issue. If he is who he claims to be, the Vicar of Christ and God's representative on Earth, then he has the power and authority to change the faith, to add to the faith as he is led to do by the Holy Spirit. This is why unity and inter-communion can only occur if he renounces those titles. He can not be the Vicar of Christ and God's representative on Earth and only have that apply to his dominion, ie the Catholics. As the papal office is today, he can not be just another patriarch in the Eastern Orthodox sense. No unity can occur until the pope renounces those titles.

kamikat

 

[Xpycoctomos]

If the Eucharist is the vestiges (i.e., the eating of the sacrifice part, but now without the fellowship meal part) or sign of a communal sacrificial ritual meal, then IMO it's restricted to those who belong to the deity to whom the sacrifice is offered (in this case, He is at the same time the one offered and the one offered to and the one doing the offering - as well as the one reciprocating by offering Himself to the offerers). To have communion with Him, one must be in communion/relationship to Him. By saying that "we know where the Holy Spirit is; we don't know where the Holy Spirit is not," it seems to me that the Orthodox church recognizes that there are those in communion with Christ who are not in communion with the Orthodox church. Is the church wrong to bar them from communing at the Orthodox Eucharist should such persons be present at the Divine Liturgy?

This is a very different Question. For communion, it is not just taht we recognize the same God, it is that we recognize that we are one Church. First of all we have to agree on WHAT the Church is. Protestants and Orthodox don't. So that's a HUGE wall to get over... one that is generally gotten over individually (ie conversion). As with Catholics nad Orthodox, we do agree that the Church is visible, one and Catholic (we just don't agree one where that Earthly Church is lol). So, in this way, we are working towards the same goal. to be one Church (and we know this is the same goal becuase we understand the word "Church" in the same way). When protestants say "to be one Church" that is entirely different than what we mean.

That's ONE of the main reasons why we as Orthodox are so strict about not intercommuning - becuase we believe the Church is visible.

Also, pay attention to the words you used in your post:

"we know where the Holy Spirit is; we don't know where the Holy Spirit is not,"

That means we KNOW the Holy Spirit is in the Visible Church, but cannot say WHERE he is outside of the Church. It is not ours to say this. The Baptists are not one with us on earth. That is not to say we won't see them in heaven. But they just aren't. It's none of our business. Our Business is worshipping God and welcoming others into the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: the Orthodox Church. And they are (or should be) welcome to join.

What I was saying was simply that If we reunite with the Catholic Church, we are now not talkinga bout orthodox and Non-Orthdoox communing together (this is an impossibility for the Orthdoox) but if we commune together that necessarily means that we are ALL Orthodox (they are western and we are Eastern - but all of us are Orthdoox in such an example). Perhaps we still have a lot of important details to work out but we see eachother as complete brothers in Christ fighting for the same Goal and learning from eachother as one family.

John

 

[lionroar0]

From what I understand, our "proceed" is very different from what their "proceed" means. This is precisely because our understanding is based on the original greek version of the word (which I don't have handy) that necessarily implies that the Spirit ORIGINATES (from the Father). Meanwhile, in the West, the translation into did not carry on this implication and simply meant that the Father can give the Spirit as can the Son. This is true. While the Father is the only ORIGINATOR (or Source) of the Spirit, the Son can just as well give out the Holy Spirit as He did in the Scriptures.

You are correct.

Peace