Pope Francis and Tradition
#11
I have a question: do EO, RR, Coptic, etc. View all sacraments given by each as valid?
If a RC marriage is considered valid by EOC, and vice versa, then it seems that there would be little conflict.
Aren't all in an apostolic line, and therefore valid?
Does it really matter if we are Coptic, orthodox, roman rite catholics?
I'm not asking so as to stir the pot, I'm genuinely curious as to why we still maintain division in the body of Christ.
Reply
#12
Those who are in schism from the Pope are severed from the visible body of Christ, even if they he valid sacraments.
Reply
#13
(08-11-2013, 07:53 AM)Cetil Wrote:
(08-11-2013, 07:46 AM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-11-2013, 07:35 AM)Cetil Wrote:
(08-11-2013, 05:50 AM)Pro Tridentina (Malta) Wrote: What I still can't fathom about Pope Francis is his appreciation of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy which is still traditional. Since he's also ecumenically minded, he should remember (or be informed  :) ) that the Orthodox were/are in favour of Summorum Pontificum:

http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com...morum.html

A very good point, and he does seem to grasp the problem at least in part: "In the Orthodox Churches they have kept that pristine liturgy, so beautiful. We have lost a bit the sense of adoration. They keep, they praise God, they adore God, they sing, time doesn’t count. God is the center, and this is a richness that I would like to say on this occasion in which you ask me this question. Once, speaking of the Western Church, of Western Europe, especially the Church that has grown most, they said this phrase to me: “Lux ex oriente, ex occidente luxus.” Consumerism, wellbeing, have done us so much harm. Instead you keep this beauty of God at the center, the reference. When one reads Dostoyevsky – I believe that for us all he must be an author to read and reread, because he has wisdom – one perceives what the Russian spirit is, the Eastern spirit. It’s something that will do us so much good. We are in need of this renewal, of this fresh air of the East, of this light of the East."
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/201...gXKHWrn-1s

C.

Perhaps he's looking to unite first, then change the Liturgy (to the Orthodox Liturgy).

Not sure how I feel about that idea. 

I think realistic chances of union are extremely slim to none. No matter how flexible he is the Orthodox still look down their noses at us;  I am thinking of Bartholomew's address at Georgetown University in 1997, sometimes known as the "friends, brothers, heretics" speech. Not going to happen.

C.

Francis speaks of the beauty of the Orthodox liturgy, when in fact they stole the eastern rites from the Eastern Catholic Churches, when they became schismatic "Churches."

His love of the eastern liturgy is a small sign of hope though.
Reply
#14
(08-11-2013, 01:12 PM)PurposefulMother Wrote: I have a question: do EO, RR, Coptic, etc. View all sacraments given by each as valid?
If a RC marriage is considered valid by EOC, and vice versa, then it seems that there would be little conflict.
Aren't all in an apostolic line, and therefore valid?
Does it really matter if we are Coptic, orthodox, roman rite catholics?
I'm not asking so as to stir the pot, I'm genuinely curious as to why we still maintain division in the body of Christ.

The main difference is of course that they don't obey the pope.  It would not be sufficient for them to accept the pope as a nominal leader, they would have to accept his infallibility and other prerogatives.  They would have to accept that the Catholic Church was all along the one true Church, founded by Christ, and that they had broken away in schism.  In apostolic succession yes, but broken from Christ. They would have to accept the necessity of Catholic dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception; and the truth of the Filioque.  (The real issue is that they reject the obscure but crucial and sublime doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from both the Father and the Son. "filioque".  The real issue is not that they leave out the words - the Church did the same at one time - but that they deny the truth)

Here is an article about other theological differences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Ort...Conception
Reply
#15
As a former Orthodox, my view is that, short of Divine intervention, the chances of Union are zip, zilch, nada. Even if the Hierarchs declared Union, as was done after the Council of Florence, the Orthodox laity would rise up in rebellion and there would be another schism.

However, if His Holiness just wants the Eastern Liturgy, let him decree it. It's already Catholic and is already celebrated every day in the Eastern Catholic Churches!
Reply
#16
(08-12-2013, 05:14 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: However, if His Holiness just wants the Eastern Liturgy, let him decree it. It's already Catholic and is already celebrated every day in the Eastern Catholic Churches!

Doubtful, i.m.o., that he would want that.  He seems too enculturated in the N.O.  Not to say he's not reverent.  But for him to introduce yet another liturgical change, direction, or option for the Roman Church would seem not his priority at present.  I don't even think liturgy is a priority with him at all.

Back to the OP:
I also wonder if he even has a handle on the purpose and passion behind genuine traditionalism, aside from 'separatism,' or, narrowly, "restoration."  Or whether he does understand the level of ignorance among the laity about what V2 did and did not decree.  Setting aside the ambiguities, the vague generalities, and the "ecumenical" title of it:  the central driving dynamic is the misunderstanding that V2 cancelled the previous 1900+ years of universally applicable Sacred Tradition and essentially declared "infallibly" New Church.  Probably 50% of today's Catholics believe this decisively or tentatively -- all ages, young to old.

Not only do we believe as we pray, do we believe as we practice, but we believe as we are not taught.  The mere absence of any teaching about Sacred Tradition has had a profound impact on the consciousness of modern Catholics, and i.m.o. that is a greater crisis, even, than the abuses within the N.O. Mass.  I am not making this up.  One can go to other forums and see that consciousness in action.  It is most often manifested as a statement that something which is not explicitly now taught to laity (due to weak catechesis or any other reason) must have been cancelled by V2.  It is also manifested in statements that doctrine must be repeated and republished in the current year, or in a current Pope's reign, for it to be valid and enforceable.  Otherwise, it, too, is extinct.
Reply
#17
I don't understand those people that seem to praise the Orthodox Liturgy (which I do agree is beautiful and praiseworthy) but yet resist any signs and symbols of continuity and tradition in the Latin Church's liturgy and resist the TLM.

This praise just rings hollow and seems like pandering, because they know the Orthodox would have a holy war if anyone tampered with their liturgy like the modernists did to the Latin liturgy.

I think that the traditionalists should get the ear of the Orthodox and get them to tell Rome that the Novus Ordo is an abomination and needs to be cleaned up before any possible reconciliation can come about.

How one can look at the Orthodox rites and at the Novus Ordo and say they are both equally valid and beautiful expressions of the same sacrifice is completely incomprehensible.
Reply
#18
(08-12-2013, 11:14 AM)winoblue1 Wrote: I think that the traditionalists should get the ear of the Orthodox and get them to tell Rome that the Novus Ordo is an abomination and needs to be cleaned up before any possible reconciliation can come about.

How one can look at the Orthodox rites and at the Novus Ordo and say they are both equally valid and beautiful expressions of the same sacrifice is completely incomprehensible.

Yes, maybe the Church hierarchy would listen to the Orthodox on this manner.  Clearly they aren't listening to their own.
Reply
#19
Judging from the things I've read on Orthodox forums, the Novus Ordo (in their eyes) is just one more confirmation that we're heretics and not at all the true faith. And that's not even for the worst types of NO Masses - just the Rite itself. It's scary what the new Mass has done in this regard.
Reply
#20
(08-12-2013, 01:17 PM)Basilios Wrote: Judging from the things I've read on Orthodox forums, the Novus Ordo (in their eyes) is just one more confirmation that we're heretics and not at all the true faith. And that's not even for the worst types of NO Masses - just the Rite itself. It's scary what the new Mass has done in this regard.

Do you know what their specific problem is with the rite per se? From their perspective it should actually be an improvement on the TLM since it has an explicit epiclesis.  Objections to the rite itself, except for maybe the permission for ad populum, in my experience usually comes from former trad Catholics (or those online trying to covert trad Catholics).  I do know many EO think it's bad by the very fact that it was a new or radically amended rite that was promulgated.  Of course, the answer to that is if the Church could prmulgate and amend rites in the past, then, if it is the same Church, it can now.  The fact that they claim their Churches no longer have the same powers that they admit the Church before the schism had, is telling as to whether their group is that same Church.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)