1. The wound is not an ontological one, but an accidental one. We are still the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church without the Eastern Orthodox. However, we suffer the accidental loss of not being united to the particular Christians.
"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC paragraph 838)
I am presenting this to show that we do not view ourselves as in full communion with Eastern Orthodox. While the communion that does exists "lacks little" it still lacks something that does not permit a common celebration the Eucharist.
What it lacks is the mutual agreement of the hierarchs, and the consent of the faithful.
In a later clarification the Holy Father has said both east and west are wounded by the schism and that the west 'cannot complete ecclesiastical fullness in history'...I paraphrase....and that phrasing is a nod to the terms subsistit used in the Second Vatican Council. Orthodoxy does not concede that she is wounded, and so we are up against that wall.
But the fact of the matter is that we COULD concelebrate sacramentally if there were an agreement among the primates.
This is not going to hold up when it is possible to say that the Catholic Church cannot complete it ecclesiastical fullness in history...as long as, during that history, the Catholic Church is in schism from the Orthodox Church.
You go too far and are not paying close enough attention to explanatory texts. It is not that we are wounded that is essential to that statement but the fact that we cannot complete our ecclesial fullness in history. That tells me that there's been ontological damage done, in history, to the Church.
Up to now I've followed this thread fairly well, and I think I've understood most of the posts. But this one has thrown me a little bit. Would you mind explaining in simple terms what you mean by "ontological damage", and what the damage is that has been done to the Church? Also, if you could explain for this simpleton what you mean by "we cannot complete our ecclesial fullness in history" and what that fullness is, I'd really appreciate it !
Ontology is the study of existence or being or manner of being, the reality of a things is-ness. Not all reality is susceptible to the senses, thereby allowing us to speak of Eucharist as the real presence, for example.
So ontological damage is damage to the is-ness of a thing, or its manner of being, or its reality, as it is experienced by the senses, or not.
If the wound that is sustained by the Church on account of the schism, in history, is a real wound then it changes the reality of Church, or its manner of being, or its reality in history.
If the Church is wounded or damaged, in history, then it is not complete, whole, perfect as it should be as we are called to be: Ut Unum Sint.
We are without the unity indicated in the following: and in the case of Orthodoxy we are without unity with graced ecclesial bodies bearing the blessing of Apostolic Succession:http://www.cin.org/jp2ency/jp2utunu.html
In effect, this unity bestowed by the Holy Spirit does not merely consist in the gathering of people as a collection of individuals. It is a unity constituted by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion. The faithful are <one> because, in the Spirit, they are in <communion> with the Son and, in him, share in his <communion> with the Father: "Our <fellowship> is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1 <Jn> 1:3). For the Catholic Church, then, the <communion> of Christians is none other than the manifestation in them of the grace by which God makes them sharers in his own <communion>, which is his eternal life. Christ's words "that they may be one" are thus his prayer to the Father that the Father's plan may be fully accomplished, in such a way that everyone may clearly see "what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things" (<Eph> 3:9). To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father's plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ's prayer: "<Ut unum sint">.