Liturgy and Union
Posted by Karl (December 1, 2006 at 10:50 am)
I provide you two links today: first, Patriarch Bartholomew’s wonderful homily on the feast of St. Andrew. Then see Amy Welborn’s trenchant comments, which I quote here:
The homily was on liturgy - its definition and power. The homily, whether purposefully or not, highlights a division between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy less frequently noted than issues of papal authority and other questions of ecclesiology and theology.
Many folks, with only a superficial understanding of either or both churches, sees relatively formal liturgies, the importance of Eucharist and male priests and thinks, “So? What’s the big difference?” A lot, particularly since the Second Vatican Council. The salient question is…why would the Orthodox want to “reunite” (whatever that would mean), or more dramatically, be in any sense under the authority of a structure in which the theology of liturgy, as it’s been lived out on the ground, has turned into a free-for-all?
My comments may be equally as trenchant.
SMART Orthodox want nothing to do with reunion with Rome UNTIL She cleans up Her Koran kissin’, Assisi apostacizin’, clown masssin’, God denyin’ bishop mess that She has become. Who in their right mind would want any part of that????
Many Orthodox also look at the relationship between the Latin Church and the Byzantine Catholic Church, which was supposed to operate upon a sui juris principle, and see a complete lack of understanding of our Liturgical rubrics and our rights to act with a certain amount of administrative independence from Rome (for instance, in the issue of the married clergy in the East).
If I were an Orthodox bishop, I would be waiting to see the Latin Patriarch issue some SERIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINE AND CHANGES before reunion would be anywhere on my radar.
Brother Ed
Comment posted December 11th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
I think the real gap between the Orthodox and Catholics is a psychological one: that is, the sense among the Orthodox that there are two distinct faiths here and not two expressions of one faith. This sense arises most prominently in the context of liturgy.
The reforms called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium would have brought us closer together by addressing some serious issues with the traditional Latin Rite liturgy. I am afraid the failed reform under Paul VI has driven us further apart.
Having worshipped in the Byzantine Rite for the last 8 months, I feel this gap myself. This is not a question of abuses of the new rite or heterodoxy since I previously attended a very sound, orthodox parish. It is the sense that they, priests and lay people alike, just do not understand what is supposed to happen Sunday morning, why they are there and what they ought to be doing. All I see is a kind of bargain basement liturgical minimalism - a mixture of functionalism, entertainment and pious sentimentality.
Comment posted December 12th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Brother Ed and Mr. Williams have pretty much given very negative feelings about re-unification. In like manner, I received an e-mail reply from the gifted Orthodox writer, Frederica Mathewes-Green, with the same response to the question. It’s almost like because there’s problems that the desire and execution of union isn’t worth it. At the Last, Mystical Supper there was unity among the apostles in the Blessed New Covenant Eucharist until the Master was captured and began His life-giving Passion. We have got to get over this defeatism. I saw two modern day apostles get back with each other last month and I for one will not give up. A thousand years of separation is not of God. St. John Chrysostom, pray for us.
Comment posted January 24th, 2007 at 11:23 pm