Author Topic: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?  (Read 1270 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,931
  • Glub Glub Glub.
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #45 on: February 16, 2015, 04:00:02 PM »
Here's perhaps, a more interesting question...

What would happen to the Eastern Catholic Churches under an Orthodox Rome?

Would they be given their own Patriarchs? Or would they all have to be under the authority of the Latin Patriarch or Melkite Patriarchs? Could such an arrangement lead to some internal conflict with some of the minority rites?
"Your children shall become the head, but you... will become the tail of the Church; therefore your judges will be those who have always preserved the Catholic Faith... they will be the Orthodox and true Catholics since they have never accepted heretics... but have remained zealous for the True Faith." (Western Bishops' Response to Pope Vigilius)

Online Rhinosaur

  • Homo Vivius
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 414
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #46 on: February 16, 2015, 04:13:55 PM »
Here's perhaps, a more interesting question...

What would happen to the Eastern Catholic Churches under an Orthodox Rome?

Would they be given their own Patriarchs? Or would they all have to be under the authority of the Latin Patriarch or Melkite Patriarchs? Could such an arrangement lead to some internal conflict with some of the minority rites?

I think that the best thing would be too allow them to choose.  If they want to stay under Rome, fine.  If they want to join another patriarchate, fine.  If they want their own patriarch, fine.

One thing I will say is that if the pope became Orthodox, all (now former) Roman Catholics should stay under his jurisdiction unless some churches want to switch.  It would not be fair to the people in certain dioceses to shove them off to jurisdictions like Constantinople or Antioch.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,937
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #47 on: February 16, 2015, 04:21:34 PM »
There's something about the question posed which troubles me, but I can't quite put my finger on it....

To simple?
No bumper sticker answer?
Tons have already been written about/around/against such?

*whoosh*
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #48 on: February 16, 2015, 05:50:42 PM »
The principle aspect of Roman monastic praxis that is or at least appears counter to Orthodox approaches is the emphasis on ecstatic experiences and the imagination in prayer.  On fatheralexander.org and orthodoxinfo.com, admittedly both traditionalist sites opposed to any attempt at reconciliation (IMO the attempt itself is worthwhile, but reconciliation should be on our terms), there exist comparisons of the lives of Abba Sisoes and Francis of Assisi that are highly informative. 

Strictly speaking, the Franciscans are not a monastic order.  When considering "Roman monastic praxis", I'm not sure I see anything incompatible with Orthodox monasticism.  Liturgical prayer, work, fasting, silence, prayer of the heart, the spiritual father, etc. are all part of both forms of monasticism. 

Quote
Also, can the Orthodox in Union with Rome really suffer the superstitious use of the miraculous medal and the scapulars?
   

How are you defining superstition?

Quote
...then you have traditionalists like the Rorate Caeli blog and Latin Mass priests starting up new Purgatorial Spcieties, already with thousands of souls "enrolled", and celebrating Requiem Masses on Nov 1 "for the poor forgotten souls" complete with black palls with frightening real human skulls and crossbones at the base (see Fr Zeds blog wdptrs), and this really seems unorthodox to me in the extreme.  Yes we pray for the dead, even those in Hell based on St. Macarius, but the specifics of purgatory and spooky requiem masses (although with lovely music and black vestments) seem in opposition to our approach towards this vital form of prayer, vital in that it benefits the living as much as those awaiting resurrection.

Prayer for the departed, whether by name (when we have names) or without them, is also a part of our Orthodox tradition. 

What's wrong with Requiem Masses?

Nothing is wrong with Requiem Masses, but the specific intent centering around Purgatory.  I love Requeim Masses and at the same time regard Purgatory as a distortion of Patristic teachings regarding the state of the soul after death.  So a requiem mass is fine, but a requiem mass whose sole purpose is to accomplish something specific regarding those in purgatory is a reflection of this Scholastic distortion of the Patristic view.  Now granted, it might well help those who have died; I am a supporter of prayers for the dead, but I'm against purgatory.

Also, I love black vestments and am entirely untroubled by the Great Schema, unlike Mor, I was only a little creeped out when I first saw one, quickly got over it and grasped the meaning, and never thought it looked Satanic, but I don't fault Mor for thinking that about it as the Great Schema is definitely spooky looking.  I first saw it on wikipedia when doing some reading years before I became Orthodox.  What I do object to is the gratuitous and unnecessary display of human remains.  Fr. Zed celebrated a requiem mass in which the pall used over the thing they place in lieu of the body at General Requiems featured a real human skull and crossbones in the Pirate Flag pattern, and not of a departed saint.  This IMO is unacceptable and grotesque, just like the displaying of the embalmed but not incorrupt body of St. John XXIII for decades before his canonization in a glass coffin.  He wasn't a saint and his embalmed body wasn't incorrupt, according to the church itself, so why display it?  So the faithful can watch it rot, albeit very slowly?

The display of incorrupt or semi incorrupt relics on the other hand I do not object to, although in a few cases I'm not sold as to their incorruption (the blackened skin of St. John Maximovitch comes to mind, although a priest told me it turned black because on finding it incorrupt they washed the body in wine, so I take his word for it, although I do confess not entirely understanding the point of doing something to incorrupt remains that makes them look corrupt).

Now, regarding the miraculous medal and certain scapulars, some of them are worn with the idea that if you die wearing them, you will avoid purgatory (the brown scapular); I forget what the miraculous medal does, but these are generally based on Marian apparitions, and my chief criticism of Roman spirituality is that their discernment process for Marian apparitions is not sufficiently robust.  It does exist, which is why Our Lady of Amsterdam and of Medjugorje have not been formally approved by the CDF (although the new Archbishop of Amsterdam unlike his predecessors is trying to reopen the case), but it does not seem sufficiently robust by Orthodox standards.  I believe the late Bishop Alexander Mileant included on his website material specifically addressing this point and in particular Our Lady of Fatima.  But what makes the brown scapular et cetera superstitious is the specific assurances that come with them, I.e. wear this and bypass Purgatory.  Tjese objects become fetishes, their  use justified on the flimsiest of evidence, apparitions of Jesus or Mary often to a single monastic or layman which would never be accepted in the Orthodox Church.  And their use is incompatible with the Orthodox understanding of what happens to the soul after death, regardless of whether or not one believes in the Aerial Toll Houses, for instance.  But let's say one does; why is it then that in Orthodoxy we lack any kind of equivalent scapular or medallion to allow us to bypass the toll houses?  And furthermore, if these scapularrs have the effect that is claimed, and some Popes have believed in them, why not order them issued to all the laity gratis at baptism?

Now regarding Roman monasticism, the main difference centers around the striving for ecstatic experiences, apparitions and so on, the frequent occurrence of stigmata, and other visions (from which devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary is based), which have been allowed to influence the dogma of the church.  The Philokalia specifically warns against this approach; it warns against the use of the visual imagination in prayer, which Catholics do when meditating on the mysteries associated with each decade of the Rosary, and it warns against seeking visions, because the devil will exploit this desire and provide false ones.  Why was St. Francis the first person since (possibly) the Apostle Paul to be a stigmatic?  Why didn't earlier saints like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Anthony, Macarius, John Cassian, Augustine, Benedict, Scholastica, Columba, Gregory Dialogos, Columba, Isaac the Syrian, John Damascene or Patrick receive these marks?  And correct me if I'm wrong, but why have no Orthodox, Eastern or Oriental, received them since?  Yet Rome has since Francis produced a steady stream of stigmatics, most recently Padre Pio, who was accused of using ammonia to keep naturally caused wounds disinfected and unhealed, although the church rejected that claim and I am willing to accept it as having an unnatural explanation.

Now this is not to say everything in Catholic monasticism is bad.  Certainly the basic pattern of Benedictine monasteries and their derivatives (Cistercian, Trappist), and Carmelite deserts, is identical to the Orthodox model, and the Carthusians are a bit like idiorythmic monks on Mount Athos, albeit with lay brothers to support them.  This in the medieval times allowed Cathusian choir monks to focus on copying manuscripts, which was at the time vital and laborious work well suited to a monastic, and Carthusians also grow their own vegetables in their private gardens.  I bitterly lament the great schism occurred just before the time of St. Bruno as I love the Carthusian model.  I also admire St. Dominic, although not what is order did after his death in the Inquisition.  But the Dominican insistence on Orthodoxy appeals to me; they have often acted as a restraining force on the excesses I described earlier and throughout much of the history of the church, especially in recent times, the Holy Office, or CDF as it is now known, has sounded like a voice of reason.  But in perusing the history of the OP, setting aside the inquisition, one can still find a lot to object to, like Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologica, which defines Scholastic theology in the same way that John Damascene defines Patristic Orthodoxy (at least from a Chalcedonian perspective, but a local Coptic church uses a prayer written by him on a printed laminated card as a Post Communion prayer, and there's not a lot in his Exact Exposition that an OO would object to), and this work unfortunately became the main reference for Catholic theology.

So if reunion occurs, I feel as though a priority would be the reform of Roman monasticism chiefly by seeking to stamp out striving for visions, the veneration of stigmata, and so on, by requiring the Philokalia along with the Ladder of Divine Ascent to be the training manuals for every monk; in my opinion they are much more important than the Rule of St. Benedict (parts of which are out of date; the corporal punishment of monastics by their superior is completely unacceptable, if not utterly contemptible, in the context of contemporary monasticism).
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,937
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #49 on: February 16, 2015, 05:55:25 PM »
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,746
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #50 on: February 16, 2015, 06:58:33 PM »
Here's perhaps, a more interesting question...

What would happen to the Eastern Catholic Churches under an Orthodox Rome?

Would they be given their own Patriarchs? Or would they all have to be under the authority of the Latin Patriarch or Melkite Patriarchs? Could such an arrangement lead to some internal conflict with some of the minority rites?
I thought the idea was for Eastern Catholic Churches to be reabsorbed into their mother churches if reunion were to occur.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,746
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #51 on: February 16, 2015, 06:58:57 PM »
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Online Rhinosaur

  • Homo Vivius
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 414
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #52 on: February 16, 2015, 07:00:14 PM »
Here's perhaps, a more interesting question...

What would happen to the Eastern Catholic Churches under an Orthodox Rome?

Would they be given their own Patriarchs? Or would they all have to be under the authority of the Latin Patriarch or Melkite Patriarchs? Could such an arrangement lead to some internal conflict with some of the minority rites?
I thought the idea was for Eastern Catholic Churches to be reabsorbed into their mother churches if reunion were to occur.

Define 'mother church.'  I highly doubt, for example, that the Ukrainian Uniates will ever submit to Moscow any time soon.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 07:00:34 PM by Rhinosaur »

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,931
  • Glub Glub Glub.
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #53 on: February 16, 2015, 07:08:35 PM »
Here's perhaps, a more interesting question...

What would happen to the Eastern Catholic Churches under an Orthodox Rome?

Would they be given their own Patriarchs? Or would they all have to be under the authority of the Latin Patriarch or Melkite Patriarchs? Could such an arrangement lead to some internal conflict with some of the minority rites?
I thought the idea was for Eastern Catholic Churches to be reabsorbed into their mother churches if reunion were to occur.

Define 'mother church.'  I highly doubt, for example, that the Ukrainian Uniates will ever submit to Moscow any time soon.

I also imagine that the Byzantine Rite Patriarch of Antioch would be liked by the Syrian and Chaldean Rite Churches. Same with the Byzantine Rite Patriarch of Alexandria with relation to Ethiopian and Coptic Rites. Also, there are Latin Rite Catholics who are leftovers from the Crusader period and missionary activities which probably wouldn't like going under the Jersualem Greek Patriarchate. There are other such instances, such as the Armenians and the Georgian Patriarchate.

So, that's what I mean when such an arrangement could lead to internal conflict.
"Your children shall become the head, but you... will become the tail of the Church; therefore your judges will be those who have always preserved the Catholic Faith... they will be the Orthodox and true Catholics since they have never accepted heretics... but have remained zealous for the True Faith." (Western Bishops' Response to Pope Vigilius)

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,289
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #54 on: February 16, 2015, 07:40:42 PM »
There's something about the question posed which troubles me, but I can't quite put my finger on it....

To simple?
No bumper sticker answer?
Tons have already been written about/around/against such?

*whoosh*

So you do know my thought process!
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 07:41:19 PM by LenInSebastopol »
Mark 14:36
God is with us, understand O' ye nations, and submit yourselves, for God is with us

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,746
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #55 on: February 16, 2015, 07:43:35 PM »
Here's perhaps, a more interesting question...

What would happen to the Eastern Catholic Churches under an Orthodox Rome?

Would they be given their own Patriarchs? Or would they all have to be under the authority of the Latin Patriarch or Melkite Patriarchs? Could such an arrangement lead to some internal conflict with some of the minority rites?
I thought the idea was for Eastern Catholic Churches to be reabsorbed into their mother churches if reunion were to occur.

Define 'mother church.'  I highly doubt, for example, that the Ukrainian Uniates will ever submit to Moscow any time soon.
I'm not sure if I remember correctly or not, but is "U-word" allowed on this forum?

Anyway, you do bring up a good point. There has been a lot of history since those Eastern Catholic groups came into communion with Rome, so returning to their mother churches might be highly problematic in some instances.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,659
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #56 on: February 16, 2015, 08:29:07 PM »
The principle aspect of Roman monastic praxis that is or at least appears counter to Orthodox approaches is the emphasis on ecstatic experiences and the imagination in prayer.  On fatheralexander.org and orthodoxinfo.com, admittedly both traditionalist sites opposed to any attempt at reconciliation (IMO the attempt itself is worthwhile, but reconciliation should be on our terms), there exist comparisons of the lives of Abba Sisoes and Francis of Assisi that are highly informative. 

Strictly speaking, the Franciscans are not a monastic order.  When considering "Roman monastic praxis", I'm not sure I see anything incompatible with Orthodox monasticism.  Liturgical prayer, work, fasting, silence, prayer of the heart, the spiritual father, etc. are all part of both forms of monasticism. 

Quote
Also, can the Orthodox in Union with Rome really suffer the superstitious use of the miraculous medal and the scapulars?
   

How are you defining superstition?

Quote
...then you have traditionalists like the Rorate Caeli blog and Latin Mass priests starting up new Purgatorial Spcieties, already with thousands of souls "enrolled", and celebrating Requiem Masses on Nov 1 "for the poor forgotten souls" complete with black palls with frightening real human skulls and crossbones at the base (see Fr Zeds blog wdptrs), and this really seems unorthodox to me in the extreme.  Yes we pray for the dead, even those in Hell based on St. Macarius, but the specifics of purgatory and spooky requiem masses (although with lovely music and black vestments) seem in opposition to our approach towards this vital form of prayer, vital in that it benefits the living as much as those awaiting resurrection.

Prayer for the departed, whether by name (when we have names) or without them, is also a part of our Orthodox tradition. 

What's wrong with Requiem Masses?

Nothing is wrong with Requiem Masses, but the specific intent centering around Purgatory.  I love Requeim Masses and at the same time regard Purgatory as a distortion of Patristic teachings regarding the state of the soul after death.  So a requiem mass is fine, but a requiem mass whose sole purpose is to accomplish something specific regarding those in purgatory is a reflection of this Scholastic distortion of the Patristic view.  Now granted, it might well help those who have died; I am a supporter of prayers for the dead, but I'm against purgatory.

But the Requiem Mass says nothing at all about purgatory. 

Quote
Now, regarding the miraculous medal and certain scapulars, some of them are worn with the idea that if you die wearing them, you will avoid purgatory (the brown scapular); I forget what the miraculous medal does, but these are generally based on Marian apparitions, and my chief criticism of Roman spirituality is that their discernment process for Marian apparitions is not sufficiently robust.  It does exist, which is why Our Lady of Amsterdam and of Medjugorje have not been formally approved by the CDF (although the new Archbishop of Amsterdam unlike his predecessors is trying to reopen the case), but it does not seem sufficiently robust by Orthodox standards.  I believe the late Bishop Alexander Mileant included on his website material specifically addressing this point and in particular Our Lady of Fatima.  But what makes the brown scapular et cetera superstitious is the specific assurances that come with them, I.e. wear this and bypass Purgatory.  Tjese objects become fetishes, their  use justified on the flimsiest of evidence, apparitions of Jesus or Mary often to a single monastic or layman which would never be accepted in the Orthodox Church.  And their use is incompatible with the Orthodox understanding of what happens to the soul after death, regardless of whether or not one believes in the Aerial Toll Houses, for instance.  But let's say one does; why is it then that in Orthodoxy we lack any kind of equivalent scapular or medallion to allow us to bypass the toll houses?  And furthermore, if these scapularrs have the effect that is claimed, and some Popes have believed in them, why not order them issued to all the laity gratis at baptism?

IIRC, you can't just put on a brown scapular as if it is a talisman.  You have to have been given it by a priest through the proper rite, and this includes the adoption of a certain spiritual plan we might liken to a rule of prayer: the Office or Rosary every day and/or fasting, etc.  So is it "Wear this and be saved"?  Or is it "Wear this as a reminder that you have committed yourself to a more intentionally Christian way of life and live your life that way and, if you are faithful, you will not be condemned"? 

Quote
Now regarding Roman monasticism, the main difference centers around the striving for ecstatic experiences, apparitions and so on, the frequent occurrence of stigmata, and other visions (from which devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary is based), which have been allowed to influence the dogma of the church. 

What Roman monasticism do you see this in? 

Quote
And correct me if I'm wrong, but why have no Orthodox, Eastern or Oriental, received them since?  Yet Rome has since Francis produced a steady stream of stigmatics, most recently Padre Pio, who was accused of using ammonia to keep naturally caused wounds disinfected and unhealed, although the church rejected that claim and I am willing to accept it as having an unnatural explanation.

There is at least one (Oriental) Orthodox who allegedly received the stigmata and associated phenomena.  I'm not sure if she is still alive or not, but she leads a quiet enough existence that many have never heard of her. 

Quote
So if reunion occurs, I feel as though a priority would be the reform of Roman monasticism...by requiring the Philokalia along with the Ladder of Divine Ascent to be the training manuals for every monk; in my opinion they are much more important than the Rule of St. Benedict (parts of which are out of date; the corporal punishment of monastics by their superior is completely unacceptable, if not utterly contemptible, in the context of contemporary monasticism).

Benedict lays out a plan for praying the entire Psalter in one week, but leaves it to the discretion of the monastery/abbot whether to use that plan or adopt one of their own, insisting merely on the weekly praying of the full Psalter.  I doubt he was more committed to corporal punishment than to the Psalms, and I doubt any abbots are beating their monks.  But it's not like you can't find such things in Orthodoxy.     
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 08:29:39 PM by Mor Ephrem »
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet.  He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants.  But he really isn't around anymore.


Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,937
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #57 on: February 16, 2015, 08:36:43 PM »
*stuff*

At some points here you should notice you are simply treading on the holy Fathers, schism or not. For example, on March 14th, your Church and mine will sing:

Quote
By your ascetic labors, God-bearing Benedict,
You were proven to be true to your name.
For you were the son of benediction,
And became a rule and model for all who emulate your life and cry:
"Glory to Him who gave you strength!
Glory to Him who granted you a crown!
Glory to Him who through you grants healing to all!"

Yet just in general it is irreverent of us to condemn the spiritual experiences of ancient Christians of apostolic faith without very good grounds (grounds so sound they cannot be found in any individual man, by the way). The fact of the Schism does not relieve us of the basic rules of charity and piety.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 08:41:25 PM by Porter ODoran »
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #58 on: February 16, 2015, 09:33:45 PM »
I don't object to the text of the Latin Rite requiem mass in any respect Mor, but find it sumptuous and elegant, and have many recordings of it set by the great Western composers.

Rather, the Roman church has the concept of mass intentions, whereby a mass is offered for the benefit of a single or group of individuals; we do similiar things in the Eastern churches, for example, in the Byzantine Rite the offering of prosphora and the commemorations in the liturgy of preparation, and other equivalents (a Syriac priest mentioned to me prayers at the altar although I don't know precisely how they work in the Oriental rites).  I have no objection to the idea of mass intentions.

However, the specific masses in question are offered for the relief of named souls in purgatory who are members of purgatorial societies, or on Nov. 1st, for all "poor souls" who have suffered in purgatory a long time.  Prior to the Counter Reformation, and possibly thereafter, wealthy individuals would even endow chantries, to ensure a full time priest was employed just to offer requiem masses with their release from purgatory as the intention.   In any case where the mass intention involves the release from purgatory, as opposed to simply commissioning a requiem mass for the departed, this is a contradiction of Orthodox doctrines, and purgatorial societies, where acts of merit are accumulated by, and masses said for, the members, sometimes involving money and invariably using the tables you can find in old Missals, Douay Rheims bibles and so on about how many days an indulgence a specific act grants, that is to say, you pray the rosary and you acquire merit to remit X number of days in purgatory, this is contrary to the teaching of the Orthodox churches.   And the institution of chantries should be viewed as abhorrent.  So this specifically is what I am opposed to: all practices specifically centered around the doctrine of purgatory and ways of obtaining a release therefrom before serving ones allotted time eithe through ones own actions or the actions of the living on the part of the deceased.  I am however a supporter of prayer for the dead, and believe it has benefits.  But purgatory if I recall was specifically mentioned by Pope Shenouda in his work Comparative Theology as an incompatibility between the Roman and Oriental churches, and is also rejected at least in its traditional interpretation by the Eastern Orthodox. 

 My own theory is that purgatory came about because earlier ideas about the fate of the soul after death, like the aerial toll house concept, were so frightening, but it quickly became abused itself, and thus Protestantism caught on in part because in its rejection of Purgatory it made Christianity still less frightening.  But that's just my idea.

Now as for what aspects of Roman monasticism involve this sort of dangerous visual, ecstatic prayer we are warned about by St. Symeon the New Theologian, I would call your attention to the Little Flower, Catharine of Sienna, and indeed, perhaps to an extreme extent, Francis of Assisi.  I have yet to study Theresa of Avila or John of the Cross, although I came across one EO writer who said that for him to write a book about life in "Imitation of Christ" was the height of prelest and impiety; but I disagree; this to me is polemic nitpicking.  But my approach is to use the Philokalia as the standard of monasticism, so what accords with it and the recommendations contained therein passes muster.  The rule of St. Benedict aside from the Corporal Punishment bot is fine, and indeed in the time he wrote it Sr. Benedict could,we'll have faced circumstances where such corporal punishment might even be needed; recall the very large number of unwanted children who,were dumped on the the monasteries and convents, and the possibility of a monk losing his marbles.  Corporal punishment was a last resort, to be used in lieu of expelling someone from the monastery if they were mentally incapable of understanding the implications of such an expulsion (and thus at risk of starving or dying of exposure outside the monastery, especially if a child or senile or mentally handicapped).   So St. Benedict included that rule as an act of mercy.  But obviously in the modern the age where no one is in the monastery against their rule, and children are not admitted to religious orders, spanking monks is out of the question.   So as an obsolete provision or dead letter law it should be removed from those copies of the Rule issued to monks lest some sadistic,or abusive abbot try to implement it (and such abbots exist, see the tragedy at Holy Transfiguration Monastery which has caused such scandal in HOCNA in recent years and which must've been a horrible blow to those who stuck with that monastery after they left ROCOR following an investigation for the same in 1986).  As a rule you don't want abbots to have too much abusive or coercive power or they can setup mini-cults, and not everyone with homosexual inclinations is able to suppress them or be delivered from them as happened with Fr. Seraphim Rose.

Which takes us to another thorny issue: it is widely rumored that there are a number of closeted but practicing homosexuals in the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church.  In fact Pope Franxis even confirmed their existence with the famous "Who am I to judge?" remark.  But an Orthodox patriarch is required to judge such cases.  The ancient canons require priests who commit adultery, fornication or sodomy to be deposed, and in fact disqualify individuals guilty of such sin from the priesthood.  They also prohibit anyone who has been the recipient of homosexual acts amounting to sodomy from entering the priesthood, regardless of the circumstances (although this should in modern times surely be waived in the case of victims of childhood sexual abuse).  So in any event, for the Roman church to enter into communion with the Orthodox, it must in theory identify and depose all homosexual clergy, and all clergy who have committed formication,,especially since ordination to the subdiaconate.  Needless to say given the current media climate, such a purge would not be well received.  And we know there are closet gays in some of our churches, although I daresay not as many. 

Another issue is the large number of pro-Vatican II, pro Novus Ordo, pro priestess, pro homosexual clergy and religious in the Roman Church.  As long as the LCWR, for example, even exists, no reunion should be contemplated.  On the whole, these people are far more dangerous than the Rorate Caeli reading, brown scapular wearing, purgatorial society set, who are simply trying to be pious and faithful Catholics and are adhering to the slightly deformed Christianity of the Schoolmen, as outlined in the Summa of Thomas Aquinas; a faith more alike Orthodoxy than unlike it.  But the Nuns on the Bus, and people like Cardinal Dolan appear to desire a church that is exactly like the ECUSA, only larger and with slightly more Gregorian chant.  And this is a gravely deformed form of Christianity, I'd not to say a grotesque, neo-Gnostic parody of it.  As Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev pointed out, the ordination of women bishops in the Church of England has made ecumenical dialogue with them a purely academic exercise, and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware basically has said as much, but going back to the ordination of women by the ECUSA in 1979.  In like manner, if the Roman church goes down that road, and it might, we can have nothing to do with them.

We can, through creative theology, reinterpret the Scholastic faith of Rome and cause the Summa to be readable in the context of Orthodoxy.  But a church that ordains women to the priesthood and diaconate, engages in syncretic worship,with other religions, some of it blasphemous, in violation of the ancient canons, and that marries and ordains homosexuals, we can't work with.  So for now we should be supporting the Rorate Caeli set even though there is an incompatibility as I have outlined in terms of approaches to contemplative prayer, prayer to the dead (purgatory vs. our beliefs), and so on.
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,659
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #59 on: February 16, 2015, 09:38:26 PM »
Now as for what aspects of Roman monasticism involve this sort of dangerous visual, ecstatic prayer we are warned about by St. Symeon the New Theologian, I would call your attention to the Little Flower, Catharine of Sienna, and indeed, perhaps to an extreme extent, Francis of Assisi.  I have yet to study Theresa of Avila or John of the Cross...

None of these are examples of Roman monasticism.
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet.  He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants.  But he really isn't around anymore.


Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,200
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #60 on: February 16, 2015, 09:42:46 PM »
Here's perhaps, a more interesting question...

What would happen to the Eastern Catholic Churches under an Orthodox Rome?

Would they be given their own Patriarchs? Or would they all have to be under the authority of the Latin Patriarch or Melkite Patriarchs? Could such an arrangement lead to some internal conflict with some of the minority rites?
I thought the idea was for Eastern Catholic Churches to be reabsorbed into their mother churches if reunion were to occur.

That's the plan as I understand it.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,937
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #61 on: February 16, 2015, 09:50:05 PM »
Which takes us to another thorny issue: it is widely rumored that there are a number of closeted but practicing homosexuals in the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church.  In fact Pope Franxis even confirmed their existence with the famous "Who am I to judge?" remark.  But an Orthodox patriarch is required to judge such cases.

I am sorry, but at this point you're just stooping to slander. The Roman Catholic stance on homosexual behavior is perfectly clear and no more open to discredit than our own. I have a question: How is someone so avidly against the church of Rome as to perpetuate the baser descriptions of them that you do also so avid to participate in a thread on Reunion?
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,931
  • Glub Glub Glub.
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #62 on: February 16, 2015, 10:11:24 PM »
Here's another question, how would the liturgical abuse or some of the more deviant liturgical practices that afflict the Roman Church be addressed by an Orthodox Rome?
"Your children shall become the head, but you... will become the tail of the Church; therefore your judges will be those who have always preserved the Catholic Faith... they will be the Orthodox and true Catholics since they have never accepted heretics... but have remained zealous for the True Faith." (Western Bishops' Response to Pope Vigilius)

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #63 on: February 16, 2015, 10:20:45 PM »
Now as for what aspects of Roman monasticism involve this sort of dangerous visual, ecstatic prayer we are warned about by St. Symeon the New Theologian, I would call your attention to the Little Flower, Catharine of Sienna, and indeed, perhaps to an extreme extent, Francis of Assisi.  I have yet to study Theresa of Avila or John of the Cross...

None of these are examples of Roman monasticism.

Perhaps I should have said Roman asceticism, although Catherine of Sienna was enclosed and in a convent, albeit one attached to a mendicant order.  But surely enclosed nuns even if they are of mendicant orders are monastic. I can't think of any Benedictines who went off the reservation in this regard; there is Thomas Merton but his problems were an unhealthy preoccupation with Buddhism that his abbot in retrospect should have checked.
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #64 on: February 16, 2015, 10:45:31 PM »
Which takes us to another thorny issue: it is widely rumored that there are a number of closeted but practicing homosexuals in the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church.  In fact Pope Franxis even confirmed their existence with the famous "Who am I to judge?" remark.  But an Orthodox patriarch is required to judge such cases.

I am sorry, but at this point you're just stooping to slander. The Roman Catholic stance on homosexual behavior is perfectly clear and no more open to discredit than our own. I have a question: How is someone so avidly against the church of Rome as to perpetuate the baser descriptions of them that you do also so avid to participate in a thread on Reunion?

I ama proponent of reunion and love the Roman church, the good parts of it.  The Tridentine mass, some aspects of the monastic tradition, the other Western Rite liturgies.  But we have to understand how the Roman church has changed since it left Orthodoxy.  Now in my opinion, the conservative Roman church as represented in modern times by Raymond Cardinal Burke, Pope Emeritus Benedict, and indeed Pope St. John Paul II, is very close to Orthodoxy.  The problems surrounding their approach to mysticism, purgatory and scholastic theology can and should be repaired, and the Orthodox have the right tools for the job, namely, the four volumes of the Philokalia, which I suggest you purchase ASAP (I disagree vehemently with the late Metropolitan Anthony Bloom that the Philokalia shouldn't be read by laymen but only by monks, as does Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, who draws on it heavily in The Orthodox Way, in the chapter God as Prayer, another book you should snap up).

But the fact of the matter is there are a number of gay priests in the Roman church.  And it was when asked about them that Pope Francis said "Who am I to judge?"  And this is completely unacceptable from an Orthodox standpoint.  The Pope is responsible for his church, and if we effect reunion with him, would also be the Primus inter pares of Orthodox bishops.  So we need a pope like Benedict XVI, who cracked down on pro-gay priests in the archdiocese of San Francisco by appointing Archbishop Cordileone, an arch-traditionalist (before his arrival, there was a Catholic Church in SF so known for the number of gays in its congregation that the priest, rather than denying them communion as would be proper, made an inappropriate joke about the devotion "Hail Holy Queen."  This is a fact, it's on the record.  We can't do business with people like that, and I don't think we can safely do business with Pope Francis.  We need to pray that when he's gone, a more traditionalist Pope in the vein of Benedict XVI replaces him so we can move forward.

I desperately want reunion, before 2054.  And there is great sanctity in the Roman church.  On the basis of personal experience I have reason to believe that, in the traditional Latin mass at least, the Eucharist is valid, and effectually served, even if in only one species.  And the priest that day radiated as much holiness as one would expect from any Orthodox priest.  In fact the only ecumenical reconciliation I care about more than that with Rome is reconciliation between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians. 

The problem with the Roman church is there is a large contingent of liberal clergy and religious who openly decry the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, the ordination of women, even abortion.  Ever heard of Nuns on the Bus?  Go to Rorate Caeli, Fr. Z's Blog, or liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com, as these websites represent the conservative Catholics who I support.  Then you will see that I am in no respect slandering the Church of Rome, which is as dear to me as any outside the Orthodox Church, and which I could even see myself joining under certain conditions (and Orthodox can join via confession rather than RCIA), but speaking the truth of a serious infection within the church: active groups of far left clergy who are bent on remaking the Roman Catholic Church in the image of the ECUSA, the Union of Utrecht, and other "Progressive" liturgical denominations.  And I am opposed to them.  And we can't reunite with Rome until Rome deals with them, because if we did, they might reunite with the similiar but much weaker left wing in the Orthodox Church. represented by the likes of Fr. Robert Arida and the group of Finnish clergy who signed a petition calling for the Finnish church to accept homosexual unions, and create a serious problem, which could do severe damage and cause a schism.  So for that reason we must pray that Pope Francis in his modernism proves to be all mouth and trousers, and that his successor is a traditionalist like Benedict who at the same time wants to do business with us.
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #65 on: February 16, 2015, 10:49:44 PM »
Here's another question, how would the liturgical abuse or some of the more deviant liturgical practices that afflict the Roman Church be addressed by an Orthodox Rome?

It has to be stopped by Rome before we can reunite.  So we have to pray that it is.  And in so doing, join our prayers with those of many millions of traditionalist Catholics who are the main victims of it.
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,937
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #66 on: February 16, 2015, 10:52:06 PM »
Your posts seem misshapen to me -- in that you're willing to admit (to put it mildly) the presence in the Roman church of uniquely modern Western difficulties (and remember they are at least four times our numbers; and should they have as few difficulties?), but you are unwilling to admit that the Holy Spirit may have worked uniquely in them in answer to that uniquely-difficult milieu.
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #67 on: February 16, 2015, 11:19:01 PM »
On the contrary, I believe that God has not abandoned the Roman church.   But we must judge a tree by its fruits, right?  And the Roman church during the crusades and Inquisiton behaved far worse than any Orthodox Church, ever.  The Nikonian schism or the violent quarrels between Assyrians, Miaphysites and Byzantines pale in comparison.  So we have to look for a cause, to diagnose what caused this malfunction.  And what is noticeable is the difference between Orthodox Patristic theology and Scholastic theology, and this ecstatic mysticism that many Orthodox commentators have categorized as prelest.  And of course the universal ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope and his infallibility.  Numbers 1 and 2 can be fixed, slowly, once reunion occurs.  No. 3 has to be addressed in order for reunion to occur.

But the other problem, groups like LCWR, which managed to survive a canonical visitation by the Congregation for Religious against expectations and despite repeatedly violating the instructions of the Visitor, that advocate a Modernist agenda that would turn the Roman church into a larger version of the Episcopal Church, must be suppressed by Rome before we can safely reunite with them.  Because reunion with Rome means the Pope replaces the Ecumenical Patriarch or the Coptic Pope as the Primus inter pares of the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox respectively.  And in the Eastern church at least, the Patriarch of Rome has a number of privileges under IiRC canon 28 of Chalcedon, which devolved to the Ecumenical Patriarch following the Great Schism, but which presumably would return to the Pope.  So when we re enter into communion with Rome, we must be sure that the Roman Church can be trusted to exercise these powers in accordance with Orthodox principles.

This primarily means the suppression of all liberal activist groups in the church, the suppression of the Novus Ordo mass in its present form, and much stricter canonical disciple.

Canon law is by the way another tricky subject.  The Eastern Orthodox use the Pedalion, which was compiled in the 18th century, but dating primarily from the first Millenium, augmented as needed by episcopal directives on a diocesan basis.  The Roman Code of Canon Law dates from 1983.  It's much more comprehensive but also more complex, meaning far more canonists, or "canon lawyers" are involved, especially due to the Roman ban on the remarriage of divorced persons and the demand this creates for annulment proceedings.  There is a separate Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches.  But the legalistic approach is IMO a weakness; a Roman might counter their more comprehensive law is more up to date and relevant, whereas I would counter the ancient canons of the Apostle's and the Councils are sufficient for all but a few cases, as sin hasn't changed much since Roman times.  The ancient canons depose or excommunicate a priest who acts as a pimp; surely the same approach is valid today.  However this isn't an obstacle to reunion, provided it is understood that the Orthodox Churches so not become subject to Roman Canon Law including the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches, and that the Pope in exercising the judicial powers now held by the Ecumenical Patriarch would follow the Pedalion according to Orthodox jurisprudence and not Roman canon law.

But let me stress this again: I want reunion to happen, and I believe the Roman church needs us.  Our liturgical conservativism and our Philokalia and monasticism, and our conciliar polity, are the solutions to the problems that afflict the Roman church.  If the Orthodox Church is the Ark of Salvation, then the Romans are adrift in a lifeboat, and it is our Christian duty to come alongside and rescue them.
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #68 on: February 16, 2015, 11:31:47 PM »
So just to clarify, to the extent the Roman Church differs from the Orthodox Church, I do not believe it to be the work of the Holy Spirit in cases where that difference is condemned by Holy Tradition.

So the Romans differ from us in having Mendicant Orders.  But we have Hieromonks and Archimandrites who serve in a similiar way.  And I see nothing wrong with the idea of Friars.m or the idea of a multitude of religious orders; the Orthodox lack these, but different monasteries even on Mount Athos have different rules; the Monastery in the UK founded by Elder Sophrony is different from many other cenobitic Orthodox monasteries in that in place of several of the canonical hours they recite the Jesus Prayer collectively.  So this is fine.

But the Philokalia is undeniably a part of Holy Tradition, at least for the Eastern Orthodox, and the Roman Catholics pray the Rosary in a manner that seems to violate its instructions.  So in that case, where the divergence is contrary to Orthodox praxis, I reject that it is the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

In addition, Orthodox ecclesiology is clear that the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  The Roman Catholics, although I love them, are to use a Vatican II term, "separated brethren"; they have in the past been anathematized by the Orthodox and regarded as heretics.  As we move closer to reconciliation, progress is being made to resolving some of these differences, but we must remember the example of St. Mark of Ephesus, who did torpedo a premature reunion on largely Roman terms to preserve the Orthodox faith.  We cannot compromise Orthodox doctrine to achieve reconciliation.  But we can use theological techniques of which Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Pope Emeritus Benedict are masters, to reinterpret erroneous doctrines so that Orthodoxy is preserved and reunion accomplished, at least up to a point.

But as a member of the Orthodox Church, I do not think it would be proper for me to say that the Holy Spirit is responsible for any difference between the Roman and Orthodox churches; it might just as well be the devil. And for that matter I don't know for sure if their sacraments are efficacious based on personal experience; a demon could have upset my stomach and then left me as I was communed in order to lead me into prelest.  But Indo hope and pray that Roman Sacraments work and that the Holy Spirit is active in the Roman Church and guiding them towards a glorious reunion with us.
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,931
  • Glub Glub Glub.
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #69 on: February 16, 2015, 11:37:48 PM »
On the contrary, I believe that God has not abandoned the Roman church.   But we must judge a tree by its fruits, right?  And the Roman church during the crusades and Inquisiton behaved far worse than any Orthodox Church, ever.  The Nikonian schism or the violent quarrels between Assyrians, Miaphysites and Byzantines pale in comparison.  So we have to look for a cause, to diagnose what caused this malfunction.  And what is noticeable is the difference between Orthodox Patristic theology and Scholastic theology, and this ecstatic mysticism that many Orthodox commentators have categorized as prelest.  And of course the universal ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope and his infallibility.  Numbers 1 and 2 can be fixed, slowly, once reunion occurs.  No. 3 has to be addressed in order for reunion to occur.

But the other problem, groups like LCWR, which managed to survive a canonical visitation by the Congregation for Religious against expectations and despite repeatedly violating the instructions of the Visitor, that advocate a Modernist agenda that would turn the Roman church into a larger version of the Episcopal Church, must be suppressed by Rome before we can safely reunite with them.  Because reunion with Rome means the Pope replaces the Ecumenical Patriarch or the Coptic Pope as the Primus inter pares of the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox respectively.  And in the Eastern church at least, the Patriarch of Rome has a number of privileges under IiRC canon 28 of Chalcedon, which devolved to the Ecumenical Patriarch following the Great Schism, but which presumably would return to the Pope.  So when we re enter into communion with Rome, we must be sure that the Roman Church can be trusted to exercise these powers in accordance with Orthodox principles.

This primarily means the suppression of all liberal activist groups in the church, the suppression of the Novus Ordo mass in its present form, and much stricter canonical disciple.

Canon law is by the way another tricky subject.  The Eastern Orthodox use the Pedalion, which was compiled in the 18th century, but dating primarily from the first Millenium, augmented as needed by episcopal directives on a diocesan basis.  The Roman Code of Canon Law dates from 1983.  It's much more comprehensive but also more complex, meaning far more canonists, or "canon lawyers" are involved, especially due to the Roman ban on the remarriage of divorced persons and the demand this creates for annulment proceedings.  There is a separate Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches.  But the legalistic approach is IMO a weakness; a Roman might counter their more comprehensive law is more up to date and relevant, whereas I would counter the ancient canons of the Apostle's and the Councils are sufficient for all but a few cases, as sin hasn't changed much since Roman times.  The ancient canons depose or excommunicate a priest who acts as a pimp; surely the same approach is valid today.  However this isn't an obstacle to reunion, provided it is understood that the Orthodox Churches so not become subject to Roman Canon Law including the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches, and that the Pope in exercising the judicial powers now held by the Ecumenical Patriarch would follow the Pedalion according to Orthodox jurisprudence and not Roman canon law.

But let me stress this again: I want reunion to happen, and I believe the Roman church needs us.  Our liturgical conservativism and our Philokalia and monasticism, and our conciliar polity, are the solutions to the problems that afflict the Roman church.  If the Orthodox Church is the Ark of Salvation, then the Romans are adrift in a lifeboat, and it is our Christian duty to come alongside and rescue them.

I think the world needs a unified Christendom, whether it's the Orthodox, Roman or Miaphysite communions, all of them have a lack somewhere that the other Church has. Liturgical purity, diversity, orthodoxy, orthopraxy, Church government, monasticism, influence, number of adherents, Evangelism, social justice movements etc.

Furthermore, it's our Lord's wish that all be one in Him. (John 17:21) Whether or not we like it, we have to engage in some form of Ecumenism to that end. Now, I think that Ecumenism means dealing with real differences and agreeing on confessing 'one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism' (Eph. 4:5) and not by painting over them and believing they don't exist.

That, I think, is the real danger. That's sort of unfortunately, what I fear the Roman Church has been doing since it began it's Ecumenical endevour. I think it believes that, as long as it can get the Orthodox, Miaphysites, Nestorians, and Protestants to accept the "Papal Primacy" (by which, they mean it's infallible, supreme monarchy,) then it doesn't matter what the actual differences are between them.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 11:40:32 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
"Your children shall become the head, but you... will become the tail of the Church; therefore your judges will be those who have always preserved the Catholic Faith... they will be the Orthodox and true Catholics since they have never accepted heretics... but have remained zealous for the True Faith." (Western Bishops' Response to Pope Vigilius)

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #70 on: February 16, 2015, 11:40:15 PM »
I agree entirely.
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Online Rhinosaur

  • Homo Vivius
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 414
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #71 on: February 17, 2015, 04:39:18 AM »
I disagree that the liberal wings of the Catholic Church are universally toxic.  While there is much about them that is unacceptable, they could prove an important counterweight to some of the more heavily reactionary elements of the Roman Church.  I'm not talking about regular Traditionalists but Sedevacantists and other fringe but visible wings that are so wrapped up the in legalistic minutia and small-t traditions of the Church that they lose touch with its overall message.  Also, while an Orthodox Rome would have to clean up its Liturgy, not everything about Vatican II was bad; most specifically, the allowance for the use spoken language for Mass.  There are some conservative Catholics who seem to think that Latin is the official language of heaven and that the use of any other language during Mass will bring about the Apocalypse.  Again, in ecumenical debates, liberals could balance this out.  On the whole conservatives could put a break on liturgical abuse and the attempted adoption of non-Christian beliefs while liberals could be a break against hyper-Romanism and legalism.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,220
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #72 on: February 21, 2015, 07:34:38 PM »
If, sometime in the future, the Catholic Church were able to fully reunite with the Orthodox Church, how much would it change in terms of practice and appearance?  We all know the theological issues that need to be worked out as well as the need for the Novus Ordo Mass to be seriously reformed.  With that aside, what about things like:

- Vestments (priestly robes, headgear, collars).  From what I've seen, there's nothing all that scandalous about Catholic vestments.
- Practice for electing the pope (e.g., voting procedure, colored smoke)
- Official statements/events (e.g., Urbi et Orbi, World Youth Day)
- Architecture (Would classic Catholic architecture such as the Gothic style be alright?  What about more Protestant-looking buildings or modernist designs?)
- Beards for clergy (I understand that being bearded isn't required but would there be pressure on Roman clergy to become bearded?)
- Monastic orders (Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, etc.)
- Stations of the Cross
- Sculpture as iconography and veneration of post-Schism saints (I understand this gets more into issues of theology and the saints issue is particularly thorny)

Reverse uniatism, anyone?
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline mike

  • The Jerk
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,078
  • Scarecrow is watching you
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Makurian Orthodox
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #73 on: February 22, 2015, 08:47:05 AM »
Reverse uniatism, anyone?

We are not bribing you, neither start persecuting so not really.

Offline mike

  • The Jerk
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,078
  • Scarecrow is watching you
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Makurian Orthodox
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #74 on: February 22, 2015, 11:44:27 AM »
http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=11220

Apparently we are all *forbidden epithet removed* already.

But I have to say I like the sound of "World Orthodoxers".

*Used in a non-warnable manner so don't bother reporting.


"Used in a non-warnable manner"... Without any clear explanation of how you're using the U-word according to its historic definition in an academic discussion, your mere statement that you're using it "in a non-warnable manner" does not make the manner of its use non-warnable. In fact, your statement can be seen as an act of brazen defiance of forum rules, which makes your post even MORE warnable. Therefore, you are receiving a stern warning to not do this again. If you wish to appeal this warning, please send me a PM.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: February 22, 2015, 11:56:32 PM by PeterTheAleut »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,937
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #75 on: February 22, 2015, 12:00:18 PM »
Reverse uniatism, anyone?

Excellent point.
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,408
  • Faith: Catholic
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #76 on: Today at 04:41:34 PM »
Couldn't one just look to how Western Rite Orthodoxy currently is in order to ascertain how an "Orthodox Roman Church" would look?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,496
« Last Edit: Today at 09:18:18 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,496
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #78 on: Today at 09:20:23 PM »
Couldn't one just look to how Western Rite Orthodoxy currently is in order to ascertain how an "Orthodox Roman Church" would look?
Yes and no. How the rest of the Patriarchate of the West would be organized would remain to be seen.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,659
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #79 on: Today at 09:26:21 PM »
I'm just curious: is there an Orthodox Bishop of Rome? 
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet.  He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants.  But he really isn't around anymore.


Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 836
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #80 on: Today at 09:39:56 PM »
Not a canonical one.  The Orthodox as a courtesy in fact have, along with the Roman Catholics, generally avoided creating bishoprics in Western Europe that overlap in name with existing Roman Catholic or Anglican bishophrics.  Thus the Greek Orthodox ordinary in the UK is the Metropolitan of Thyateira, assisted by the suffragan or "auxiliary" Metropolitan of Diokleia, who we all know and love so well.   The Greek Orthodox have a Metropolis of Italy, Malta and San Marino.

There is or was an Old Calendarist Bishop of Aqueila, which used to be a very important see in the Western Church before losing its distinction to Venice.

But I don't think any of the canonical churches want to have a Bishop of Rome for the obvious harm this would do to ecumenical relations.  Or even Archbishops of Canterbury or York, however much the disaffected Anglicans among us would rejoice at that thought.
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Online Volnutt

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,278
  • Lunacy loves company
  • Faith: Might become Orthodox
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #81 on: Today at 09:47:22 PM »
Couldn't one just look to how Western Rite Orthodoxy currently is in order to ascertain how an "Orthodox Roman Church" would look?
Yes and no. How the rest of the Patriarchate of the West would be organized would remain to be seen.

*Quixotically praying for an autocephalous Irish Orthodox Church in my lifetime*
« Last Edit: Today at 09:47:39 PM by Volnutt »
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline biro

  • Excelsior
  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,861
  • Leave me alone, I was only singing
    • Alaska Volcanoes
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: What would an Orthodox Roman Church look like?
« Reply #82 on: Today at 10:06:17 PM »
Couldn't one just look to how Western Rite Orthodoxy currently is in order to ascertain how an "Orthodox Roman Church" would look?
Yes and no. How the rest of the Patriarchate of the West would be organized would remain to be seen.

*Quixotically praying for an autocephalous Irish Orthodox Church in my lifetime*

Sigh, I know.  :'(
He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

--

And if I seem a little strange, well, that's because I am