If We Actually Reunited?

[JamesR]

What do you think, from both sides, the effects would have on us and what would it mean for Christianity today? It would definitely be groundbreaking, but I think that even if we did formally come under communion once more, we would still be separated on a personal level and practically function like we were both separate, since each of us have taken on our own emphasis on doctrine, way of thinking and way of governing the Churches. I think it would be more of a formal, on paper agreement rather than literally having any effect on us. I imagine that there would be many splinter groups coming from the Orthodox who would not want to accept this, and that Rome would provide the East with more wealth and probably help improve the conditions of struggling Orthodox in hostile lands. My biggest fear though would be that the overwhelming number of Roman Catholics would highly influence the East and that our way of thinking and doctrinal emphasis would eventually die out and we would become more like the West. To solve this problem, I would recommend that for the Pope, we allow the East to choose the candidate and we send an Easterner to be the Pope, to sort of balance things. Thoughts?

[J Michael]

What do you think, from both sides, the effects would have on us and what would it mean for Christianity today? It would definitely be groundbreaking, but I think that even if we did formally come under communion once more, we would still be separated on a personal level and practically function like we were both separate, since each of us have taken on our own emphasis on doctrine, way of thinking and way of governing the Churches. I think it would be more of a formal, on paper agreement rather than literally having any effect on us. I imagine that there would be many splinter groups coming from the Orthodox who would not want to accept this, and that Rome would provide the East with more wealth and probably help improve the conditions of struggling Orthodox in hostile lands. My biggest fear though would be that the overwhelming number of Roman Catholics would highly influence the East and that our way of thinking and doctrinal emphasis would eventually die out and we would become more like the West. To solve this problem, I would recommend that for the Pope, we allow the East to choose the candidate and we send an Easterner to be the Pope, to sort of balance things. Thoughts?

Oh boy....!  This oughtta be interesting. 

[witega]

I don't see how this is answerable without knowing the terms under which we have managed to unite. I mean the only realistic terms anyone has managed to come up with up to now are basically submission to the other side (Orthodox accept Papal 'univeral ordinary authority' and 'infallibility' or Rome dropping everything they've added in the last millennium) and each of those leads to some different answers. A third option, one actually acceptable to both sides, would presumably lead to a 3rd answer--but without any idea of the shape of that option, how can we know what it would result in.

[ZealousZeal]

What do you think, from both sides, the effects would have on us and what would it mean for Christianity today? It would definitely be groundbreaking, but I think that even if we did formally come under communion once more, we would still be separated on a personal level and practically function like we were both separate, since each of us have taken on our own emphasis on doctrine, way of thinking and way of governing the Churches. I think it would be more of a formal, on paper agreement rather than literally having any effect on us. I imagine that there would be many splinter groups coming from the Orthodox who would not want to accept this, and that Rome would provide the East with more wealth and probably help improve the conditions of struggling Orthodox in hostile lands. My biggest fear though would be that the overwhelming number of Roman Catholics would highly influence the East and that our way of thinking and doctrinal emphasis would eventually die out and we would become more like the West. To solve this problem, I would recommend that for the Pope, we allow the East to choose the candidate and we send an Easterner to be the Pope, to sort of balance things. Thoughts?

I think that if reunion were only to be a formal on paper thing, then true reunion wouldn't be achieved at all. We could do the "on paper" reunion today, if functioning separately is the standard. Reunion that isn't based on full agreement that the same faith is shared isn't reunion at all.

As for splinter groups coming off the Orthodox, there would almost certainly be splinter groups off the Catholics as well. I don't know, I have a hard time believing groups like Sedevacantists and the SSPX wouldn't be even more horrified, since I can't imagine a reunion that doesn't seriously address the issue of the papacy.

As for your suggestion of an Eastern candidate to be Pope, I don't like it because I don't think that's patristic at all. I think the best way to deal with the papacy in a united Church would be to eliminate the College of Cardinals, and have the Bishop of Rome be chosen the same way every other bishop is chosen.

But what do I know? I'm dogless in this fight, sitting on the fence with a sore rump.  

[Papist]

What do you think, from both sides, the effects would have on us and what would it mean for Christianity today? It would definitely be groundbreaking, but I think that even if we did formally come under communion once more, we would still be separated on a personal level and practically function like we were both separate, since each of us have taken on our own emphasis on doctrine, way of thinking and way of governing the Churches. I think it would be more of a formal, on paper agreement rather than literally having any effect on us. I imagine that there would be many splinter groups coming from the Orthodox who would not want to accept this, and that Rome would provide the East with more wealth and probably help improve the conditions of struggling Orthodox in hostile lands. My biggest fear though would be that the overwhelming number of Roman Catholics would highly influence the East and that our way of thinking and doctrinal emphasis would eventually die out and we would become more like the West. To solve this problem, I would recommend that for the Pope, we allow the East to choose the candidate and we send an Easterner to be the Pope, to sort of balance things. Thoughts?

I think that if reunion were only to be a formal on paper thing, then true reunion wouldn't be achieved at all. We could do the "on paper" reunion today, if functioning separately is the standard. Reunion that isn't based on full agreement that the same faith is shared isn't reunion at all.

As for splinter groups coming off the Orthodox, there would almost certainly be splinter groups off the Catholics as well. I don't know, I have a hard time believing groups like Sedevacantists and the SSPX wouldn't be even more horrified, since I can't imagine a reunion that doesn't seriously address the issue of the papacy.

As for your suggestion of an Eastern candidate to be Pope, I don't like it because I don't think that's patristic at all. I think the best way to deal with the papacy in a united Church would be to eliminate the College of Cardinals, and have the Bishop of Rome be chosen the same way every other bishop is chosen.

But what do I know? I'm dogless in this fight, sitting on the fence with a sore rump.  

However, the college of cardinals is protection against modernists ruling the day in Papal elections.

[Adela]

Wasn't there a book or movie called  The Shoes of the Fisherman, about a Ukrainian Catholic priest imprisoned by the Soviets, who becomes (fictitious) Pope Kiril?

The Byzantine Catholic church  might give you a clue on what would happen.  Just as the Soviets used their satellite countries to experiment with different forms of Communism, you can get a clue of sorts by watching what is done to the Byzantines.   In my mind the Byzantine Catholic church in America is being taken over by Roman Catholics who want devout liturgy but still want to maintain Roman Catholic theology.  As the ethnic folks die out, there goes the gatekeepers.  (I'm sorry if I am offending anyone.) So, you have a seeping-in of Western Saints, such as St. Therese of Liseaux and bi-ritual Priests preaching you are in mortal sin if you don't abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent, and priests not allowed to marry.

The only way to begin is if Eastern Theology is put on the same level as Western Theology by the Pope, the cardinals, the seminaries, etc.  And, you see the Byzantines not getting a hard time by staying true to their Tradition.

[ZealousZeal]

What do you think, from both sides, the effects would have on us and what would it mean for Christianity today? It would definitely be groundbreaking, but I think that even if we did formally come under communion once more, we would still be separated on a personal level and practically function like we were both separate, since each of us have taken on our own emphasis on doctrine, way of thinking and way of governing the Churches. I think it would be more of a formal, on paper agreement rather than literally having any effect on us. I imagine that there would be many splinter groups coming from the Orthodox who would not want to accept this, and that Rome would provide the East with more wealth and probably help improve the conditions of struggling Orthodox in hostile lands. My biggest fear though would be that the overwhelming number of Roman Catholics would highly influence the East and that our way of thinking and doctrinal emphasis would eventually die out and we would become more like the West. To solve this problem, I would recommend that for the Pope, we allow the East to choose the candidate and we send an Easterner to be the Pope, to sort of balance things. Thoughts?

I think that if reunion were only to be a formal on paper thing, then true reunion wouldn't be achieved at all. We could do the "on paper" reunion today, if functioning separately is the standard. Reunion that isn't based on full agreement that the same faith is shared isn't reunion at all.

As for splinter groups coming off the Orthodox, there would almost certainly be splinter groups off the Catholics as well. I don't know, I have a hard time believing groups like Sedevacantists and the SSPX wouldn't be even more horrified, since I can't imagine a reunion that doesn't seriously address the issue of the papacy.

As for your suggestion of an Eastern candidate to be Pope, I don't like it because I don't think that's patristic at all. I think the best way to deal with the papacy in a united Church would be to eliminate the College of Cardinals, and have the Bishop of Rome be chosen the same way every other bishop is chosen.

But what do I know? I'm dogless in this fight, sitting on the fence with a sore rump.  

However, the college of cardinals is protection against modernists ruling the day in Papal elections.

No snark in this question, I am truly curious: In what way? Our modern may look different than the modern of the early Church, but that threat is always there. If Christ is not absent from His Church, and the gates of hell won't prevail against it- then they won't, College or no College.

There wasn't a College of Cardinals in the undivided Church, and I think East and West will agree- it worked out pretty well for Rome that long. Heresies come from all over, the Church prevails.

[Papist]

What do you think, from both sides, the effects would have on us and what would it mean for Christianity today? It would definitely be groundbreaking, but I think that even if we did formally come under communion once more, we would still be separated on a personal level and practically function like we were both separate, since each of us have taken on our own emphasis on doctrine, way of thinking and way of governing the Churches. I think it would be more of a formal, on paper agreement rather than literally having any effect on us. I imagine that there would be many splinter groups coming from the Orthodox who would not want to accept this, and that Rome would provide the East with more wealth and probably help improve the conditions of struggling Orthodox in hostile lands. My biggest fear though would be that the overwhelming number of Roman Catholics would highly influence the East and that our way of thinking and doctrinal emphasis would eventually die out and we would become more like the West. To solve this problem, I would recommend that for the Pope, we allow the East to choose the candidate and we send an Easterner to be the Pope, to sort of balance things. Thoughts?

I think that if reunion were only to be a formal on paper thing, then true reunion wouldn't be achieved at all. We could do the "on paper" reunion today, if functioning separately is the standard. Reunion that isn't based on full agreement that the same faith is shared isn't reunion at all.

As for splinter groups coming off the Orthodox, there would almost certainly be splinter groups off the Catholics as well. I don't know, I have a hard time believing groups like Sedevacantists and the SSPX wouldn't be even more horrified, since I can't imagine a reunion that doesn't seriously address the issue of the papacy.

As for your suggestion of an Eastern candidate to be Pope, I don't like it because I don't think that's patristic at all. I think the best way to deal with the papacy in a united Church would be to eliminate the College of Cardinals, and have the Bishop of Rome be chosen the same way every other bishop is chosen.

But what do I know? I'm dogless in this fight, sitting on the fence with a sore rump.  

However, the college of cardinals is protection against modernists ruling the day in Papal elections.

No snark in this question, I am truly curious: In what way? Our modern may look different than the modern of the early Church, but that threat is always there. If Christ is not absent from His Church, and the gates of hell won't prevail against it- then they won't, College or no College.

There wasn't a College of Cardinals in the undivided Church, and I think East and West will agree- it worked out pretty well for Rome that long. Heresies come from all over, the Church prevails.

Agreed. It's just that we have quite a few modernists elements floating around.

[podkarpatska]

I don't see how this is answerable without knowing the terms under which we have managed to unite. I mean the only realistic terms anyone has managed to come up with up to now are basically submission to the other side (Orthodox accept Papal 'univeral ordinary authority' and 'infallibility' or Rome dropping everything they've added in the last millennium) and each of those leads to some different answers. A third option, one actually acceptable to both sides, would presumably lead to a 3rd answer--but without any idea of the shape of that option, how can we know what it would result in.

Since the approach of General Ulysses.S. Grant is unlikely to prevail in this 'fight' ( 'Unconditional surrender' is what Grant is famous for in his terms for the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia in the American War between the States for our non-North American friends....), the only way to hypothesize an honest answer would be to frame exactly what one would view that 'third' answer to be. Unfortunately, that "third rail" of ecumenical dialogue  (to borrow another American political term) has always proven to be reliable in providing a fatal shock to whomever so opines. ( Archbishop Zoghby, the Ravenna Statement and so on....)

Vague allusions to a 'return' to 'the' first millennial conciliar model of the Church and a mutual understanding of the Bishop of Rome as 'primus inter pares'  in first millennium terms are often heard from the academics. However, the inability to reach a consensus back then as to what exactly those things meant led us to where we are today. I am not going to even attempt to answer the OP.

[J Michael]

I don't see how this is answerable without knowing the terms under which we have managed to unite. I mean the only realistic terms anyone has managed to come up with up to now are basically submission to the other side (Orthodox accept Papal 'univeral ordinary authority' and 'infallibility' or Rome dropping everything they've added in the last millennium) and each of those leads to some different answers. A third option, one actually acceptable to both sides, would presumably lead to a 3rd answer--but without any idea of the shape of that option, how can we know what it would result in.

Since the approach of General Ulysses.S. Grant is unlikely to prevail in this 'fight' ( 'Unconditional surrender' is what Grant is famous for in his terms for the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia in the American War between the States for our non-North American friends....), the only way to hypothesize an honest answer would be to frame exactly what one would view that 'third' answer to be. Unfortunately, that "third rail" of ecumenical dialogue  (to borrow another American political term) has always proven to be reliable in providing a fatal shock to whomever so opines. ( Archbishop Zoghby, the Ravenna Statement and so on....)

Vague allusions to a 'return' to 'the' first millennial conciliar model of the Church and a mutual understanding of the Bishop of Rome as 'primus inter pares'  in first millennium terms are often heard from the academics. However, the inability to reach a consensus back then as to what exactly those things meant led us to where we are today. I am not going to even attempt to answer the OP.

Ditto that! 

[ZealousZeal]

I don't see how this is answerable without knowing the terms under which we have managed to unite. I mean the only realistic terms anyone has managed to come up with up to now are basically submission to the other side (Orthodox accept Papal 'univeral ordinary authority' and 'infallibility' or Rome dropping everything they've added in the last millennium) and each of those leads to some different answers. A third option, one actually acceptable to both sides, would presumably lead to a 3rd answer--but without any idea of the shape of that option, how can we know what it would result in.

Since the approach of General Ulysses.S. Grant is unlikely to prevail in this 'fight' ( 'Unconditional surrender' is what Grant is famous for in his terms for the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia in the American War between the States for our non-North American friends....), the only way to hypothesize an honest answer would be to frame exactly what one would view that 'third' answer to be. Unfortunately, that "third rail" of ecumenical dialogue  (to borrow another American political term) has always proven to be reliable in providing a fatal shock to whomever so opines. ( Archbishop Zoghby, the Ravenna Statement and so on....)

Vague allusions to a 'return' to 'the' first millennial conciliar model of the Church and a mutual understanding of the Bishop of Rome as 'primus inter pares'  in first millennium terms are often heard from the academics. However, the inability to reach a consensus back then as to what exactly those things meant led us to where we are today. I am not going to even attempt to answer the OP.

True.. and I wonder if it's possible if the understanding of these things was different almost immediately. Is it possible that "the West", with one apostolic See, viewed the role of the papacy always in centralized terms while "the East", with four apostolic Sees, viewed the role of the papacy always in conciliar terms... with distance between the two views gradually widening until the breaking point?

Maybe that's nonsense and I don't know, but it does seem like the first millennial model is somewhat nebulous, with both sides proof-texting the Fathers in support of their stance. It is super confusing when you're trying to pick a team.

[Peter J]

What do you think, from both sides, the effects would have on us and what would it mean for Christianity today?

To be honest, I'm a little wary anytime I hear Orthodox speaking of "If we reunite ... "

Interesting thread nevertheless.

[Wyatt]

I don't see a possible reunion anytime in the near future since the criteria for resumption of communion, from both sides, would be considered going into schism if not outright heresy by the other side.

[Schultz]

It would be like when Faith No More finally got back together and played the the Peaches and Herb classic, "Reunited"

Only we'll have better clothes.

[podkarpatska]

I don't see a possible reunion anytime in the near future since the criteria for resumption of communion, from both sides, would be considered going into schism if not outright heresy by the other side.

Huh?   Didn't you get the 'no unconditional surrender' analogy? Neither the Orthodox nor the Romans are going to pitch their tents on either the Tiber or the Bosphorus and just act as if nothing happened the past thousand years or so.

[J Michael]

I don't see a possible reunion anytime in the near future since the criteria for resumption of communion, from both sides, would be considered going into schism if not outright heresy by the other side.

Huh?   Didn't you get the 'no unconditional surrender' analogy? Neither the Orthodox nor the Romans are going to pitch their tents on either the Tiber or the Bosphorus and just act as if nothing happened the past thousand years or so.

Something happened??

[elijahmaria]

I don't see how this is answerable without knowing the terms under which we have managed to unite. I mean the only realistic terms anyone has managed to come up with up to now are basically submission to the other side (Orthodox accept Papal 'univeral ordinary authority' and 'infallibility' or Rome dropping everything they've added in the last millennium) and each of those leads to some different answers. A third option, one actually acceptable to both sides, would presumably lead to a 3rd answer--but without any idea of the shape of that option, how can we know what it would result in.

There is a different approach.  I would mean that papal primacy and supremacy be clarified so that we don't have a situation where al Misry and witega get to tell the rest of us what papal primacy and supremacy means, with elijahmaria jumping in ever few posts to say "Bunko!!"  I think that would be useful.

In the process of doing that it may be apparent to all that papal authority is an authority of service and unity.

Even now, in the west, the papal office is faced with eastern Catholic primates who do not yield one bit of their jurisdictional authority, and so far it has not been demanded of them. 

So one might grimace at all that has been done that is awful and abusive...yes.  But that need not follow into the future.  We are capable of learning from our mistakes. 

And we do have examples of primatial and papal power and authority operating in peaceful synergy.

So to me, the idea of resuming communion would mean that very little changes in Orthodoxy...in fact nothing at all changes in the operations of the various jurisdictions.

Rome would yield the Paschal calendar to the Orthodox and the Catholics would simply begin celebrating Pascha with the Orthodox.

You could go from here adding details.

M.

[biro]

A couple of people on this board would spontaneously combust.

[ialmisry]

I don't see how this is answerable without knowing the terms under which we have managed to unite. I mean the only realistic terms anyone has managed to come up with up to now are basically submission to the other side (Orthodox accept Papal 'univeral ordinary authority' and 'infallibility' or Rome dropping everything they've added in the last millennium) and each of those leads to some different answers. A third option, one actually acceptable to both sides, would presumably lead to a 3rd answer--but without any idea of the shape of that option, how can we know what it would result in.

For a start, having abolished his Patriarchate of the West, their supreme pontiff could set up autocephalous churches (a least a dozen or so) like he said before his election.

[Basil 320]

Being that he possess such unilateral authority, why doesn't His Holiness the Pope, renounce the "filioque," and the innovative doctrines of the post Great Schism, and rejoin Orthodoxy?   Such a renunciation could be his last act as Vicar of Christ.

[Alpo]

I wonder how many of you would switch churches if that happened? I'd swam the Tiber right away.

[JR]

Being that he possess such unilateral authority, why doesn't His Holiness the Pope, renounce the "filioque," and the innovative doctrines of the post Great Schism, and rejoin Orthodoxy?   Such a renunciation could be his last act as Vicar of Christ.

I don't think there would be a problem with the filioque as such as the church was against for the first 200 years.

but the more modern dogmas that was brought in is another matter, what would the Pope do, say "we renounce the dogmas and no longer believe in them"

I can't believe that the Pope would do this and admit they was wrong.

So much has changed in the last 1000 years that would make this reuniting impossible.

unless both sides just agree to disagree.... Just a thought!

[Alpo]

Would the grassroot-level Latin Catholics object the idea of infant communion? Is the idea of separate festivies for first communion culturally so strong that people would object communing infants?

[podkarpatska]

Would the grassroot-level Latin Catholics object the idea of infant communion? Is the idea of separate festivies for first communion culturally so strong that people would object communing infants?

Interesting question.

For many of you who are recent converts to our Faith, you may be unaware that upon the entry to Orthodoxy of the thousands of Slavic Greek Catholics in America during the 20th century who were the founders of what is now the OCA (the former Metropolia) and the ACROD jurisdictions, the practice of First Holy Communion was, in fact, retained for many years. Beginning in the early years and certainly by the 1950's within the Metropolia the practice was transformed into a 'First Confession' class with the cultural 'trappings' of the former event being for the most part retained by families and parishes. (If you look through old Metropolia annuals (i.e. yearbooks) First Confession pictures were common.) In ACROD the process took somewhat longer - probably as a reaction against what its founders perceived as 'Russification' by those who became Orthodox through the Metropolia but by the late 1980's infant communion was firmly established therein. In many parishes, the cultural trappings of First Confession are retained to this day. (It is interesting to note that upon the remaining Greek Catholics being forced post Vatican 2 to restore infant communion and triple immersion baptism there was little justification for retaining these Latin practices as a matter of pastoral discretion or 'economia' - hence they withered away. This impacts our Melkite brothers as well as witnessed by this wonderfully written pastoral letter of their Bishop Nicholas of Newtown who recently addressed lingering issues within his flock on this issue.  ( see: https://melkite.org/eparchy/chancery/pastoral-letter-on-infant-communion-and-first-communion-ceremonies ) His comments in response to FAQ's are a hoot as you could substitute Slovakia for the Mideast and ask the same questions regarding the practices of many of our Orthodox, yes Orthodox,  faithful there - particularly in the villages where old ways die hard.  ((By the way, his diocesan website is marvelous and provides a wealth of interesting educational material for anyone interested in Eastern Christianity - Orthodox or otherwise.))  )

I suspect this answers your question from an interesting, experiential-based pov.

[Adela]

Would the grassroot-level Latin Catholics object the idea of infant communion? Is the idea of separate festivies for first communion culturally so strong that people would object communing infants?

I think they would if the reason for changing to infant communion was presented to them by Bishops or priests they respected.  The average Roman Catholic might be accepting of this, especially since so many average Roman Catholics went along with changes that happened post Vatican II, so it could be seen as a back-to-Tradition change.   The ones that would be resistant would be ones who feel they are defending the faith against heresy, so it would have to be explained why it is not heretical.

(There was a Cake Boss episode that showed the norm for First Communions in their ethnic circle and it was quite extravagant.  Elaborate dresses and parties that were more like wedding receptions.  I wore a hand-me-down white dress and white knee socks  so this is very foreign to me.   I'm not sure how common these over-the-top First Communion parties are.  Maybe only on Reality TV shows.)

Changing to infant communion might be a good opportunity to teach/re-teach what the Eucharist really is.

[elijahmaria]

The practice of the sacraments of initiation are already quietly returning to the Roman rite.  There are some bishops who are already communing infants.

[witega]

There is a different approach.  I would mean that papal primacy and supremacy be clarified so that we don't have a situation where al Misry and witega get to tell the rest of us what papal primacy and supremacy means, with elijahmaria jumping in ever few posts to say "Bunko!!"  I think that would be useful.

Until someone actually offers a 'clarification' of papal primacy and supremacy that is acceptable to both traditional Roman Catholics like Papist and to Orthodox who understand why the Church rejected Florence as a false council, the possibility that such a 'different approach' will ever exist remains entirely speculative. It is rather like saying 'if we discover economical cold fusion, that will solve all these energy and environmental debates'. It's true a statement as far as it goes; but until somebody actually achieves the creation of something that doesn't currently exist, there's no way to prove that it ever will exist--and so the debates continue because we have to deal with what actually is rather than what might maybe someday be. "If wishes were fishes..."

[podkarpatska]

There is a different approach.  I would mean that papal primacy and supremacy be clarified so that we don't have a situation where al Misry and witega get to tell the rest of us what papal primacy and supremacy means, with elijahmaria jumping in ever few posts to say "Bunko!!"  I think that would be useful.

Until someone actually offers a 'clarification' of papal primacy and supremacy that is acceptable to both traditional Roman Catholics like Papist and to Orthodox who understand why the Church rejected Florence as a false council, the possibility that such a 'different approach' will ever exist remains entirely speculative. It is rather like saying 'if we discover economical cold fusion, that will solve all these energy and environmental debates'. It's true a statement as far as it goes; but until somebody actually achieves the creation of something that doesn't currently exist, there's no way to prove that it ever will exist--and so the debates continue because we have to deal with what actually is rather than what might maybe someday be. "If wishes were fishes..."

an excellent analogy!

[sheenj]

The practice of the sacraments of initiation are already quietly returning to the Roman rite.  There are some bishops who are already communing infants.

Interesting, do you have a source for this?

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

True reunion starts in the heart.  How can we be so presumptious as to suggest that Latins can unite if we send Orthodox to occupy the See of Saint Peter? That is not mutual respect nor reunion, that is a blatant coup!  If we unite, we will of course continue to function independently, as Orthodox jurisdictions always have.  However, we will be together in our hearts and most importantly in our prayers.  The feet never touch the face or the head, but the head always knows the feet are there securely on the ground.  We must work together in our hearts to think and feel as one while learning to mutually respect our differences as the proper functions of each relative body part.  They can't take over us, we can't take over them  Latins can't dominate Athens, and Byzantines can't dominate the Orientals, but we can all come together. This will take God's Grace, so call we can do is (A) pray for this goal, and (B) most importantly be ourselves willing to accept it when it comes.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[elijahmaria]

The practice of the sacraments of initiation are already quietly returning to the Roman rite.  There are some bishops who are already communing infants.

Interesting, do you have a source for this?

Thought I had kept a copy of the post on Irenikon but I can't find it.  There is a bishop who is starting to use the sacraments of initiation with infants in the Roman Rite.

I'll keep looking.  Also there has been a slow growing interest among Catholic laity in returning to the sacraments of initiation for infants because of the Rites of Christian Initiation for Adults.  They see it happening and then want it for their own children and grandchildren.  This has been going on for years.  20 years ago I was an very active catechist and coordinator for the Rites of Initiation in several parishes so I watched the interest growing all around me.  Now I just see reports of it.

M.

[Papist]

The practice of the sacraments of initiation are already quietly returning to the Roman rite.  There are some bishops who are already communing infants.

Interesting, do you have a source for this?

Thought I had kept a copy of the post on Irenikon but I can't find it.  There is a bishop who is starting to use the sacraments of initiation with infants in the Roman Rite.

I'll keep looking.  Also there has been a slow growing interest among Catholic laity in returning to the sacraments of initiation for infants because of the Rites of Christian Initiation for Adults.  They see it happening and then want it for their own children and grandchildren.  This has been going on for years.  20 years ago I was an very active catechist and coordinator for the Rites of Initiation in several parishes so I watched the interest growing all around me.  Now I just see reports of it.

M.

Didn't a bishop in Alaska recently reestablish the traditional order of the sacraments in his diocese?

[elijahmaria]

The practice of the sacraments of initiation are already quietly returning to the Roman rite.  There are some bishops who are already communing infants.

Interesting, do you have a source for this?

Thought I had kept a copy of the post on Irenikon but I can't find it.  There is a bishop who is starting to use the sacraments of initiation with infants in the Roman Rite.

I'll keep looking.  Also there has been a slow growing interest among Catholic laity in returning to the sacraments of initiation for infants because of the Rites of Christian Initiation for Adults.  They see it happening and then want it for their own children and grandchildren.  This has been going on for years.  20 years ago I was an very active catechist and coordinator for the Rites of Initiation in several parishes so I watched the interest growing all around me.  Now I just see reports of it.

M.

Didn't a bishop in Alaska recently reestablish the traditional order of the sacraments in his diocese?

That may be it...I went and plugged those keywords into my search engine and still didn't come up with the article that I had published on Irenikon so I expect that I deleted it accidentally.  You can try google.  I am going to get my snail mail  ...

[JamesRottnek]

This link says that the Bishop of Fargo has, and that Pope Benedict, on March 8th of this year, expressed support to the Bishop of this return to the traditional order of sacraments:

http://marknelza.blogspot.com/2012/03/bishops-restores-order-of-sacraments-of.html

According to this link, Bishop Olmstead of Phoenix did the same thing a few years ago, though I have reason to believe at least one parish may not have fully implemented this (whether or not it's the fault of the priest would be a different question), though I suppose it's always possible that Bishop Olmstead changed his mind at some point:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/ordsacinit.htm

[Michał Kalina]

(There was a Cake Boss episode that showed the norm for First Communions in their ethnic circle and it was quite extravagant.  Elaborate dresses and parties that were more like wedding receptions.  I wore a hand-me-down white dress and white knee socks  so this is very foreign to me.   I'm not sure how common these over-the-top First Communion parties are.  Maybe only on Reality TV shows.)

It's a norm in Poland.

[Timon]

I was talking to a Catholic friend of mine about the possibility of the Churches reuniting.  He said it would be the most glorious thing to happen on this earth since the resurrection of Christ.  Is that too bold?? I think I agree though.

[Papist]

I was talking to a Catholic friend of mine about the possibility of the Churches reuniting.  He said it would be the most glorious thing to happen on this earth since the resurrection of Christ.  Is that too bold?? I think I agree though.

Well, it would be almost as miraculous as the resurrection.

[Peter J]

I was talking to a Catholic friend of mine about the possibility of the Churches reuniting.  He said it would be the most glorious thing to happen on this earth since the resurrection of Christ.  Is that too bold?? I think I agree though.

I think the logic that many people follow is that reunion can only be a good thing, b/c a bad reunion would go against the indefectability of the Church and is therefore impossible. That's certainly valid logic, as far as it goes.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: If We Actually Reunited?