As I ask questions of the TLM crowd online, I'm being referred to the way things were prior to Vatican 2, and I'm unearthing more and more similarities between the Orthodox and Catholic churches in this way. It is making me see just how it really was One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic church. I think the use of the word "Catholic" in the creed is rather unfortunate, as it is currently associated with the Roman Catholic Church, and not with the intended universality of the church.
Speaking of universality, though... I'm also noticing how many differences there are from diocese to diocese, between countries, etc. Certain feasts are celebrated on different days depending on country. Bishops decide for their own diocese if the Tridentine Mass will be available. These are just two recent examples. And immediately I start to wonder... what about universality?
Then I think of the Novus Ordo Mass, celebrated in the vernacular, and how I've attended Mass in Poland and the US, and it really is a different experience. Even from parish to parish within the US, with the level of freedom each pastor has to implement different features of the NO Mass in different ways, it can be a quiet, reflective experience, or a rowdy, festive experience. The music can be different. The interior of the church can be very different. The length, style, and content of the homily can be very different. It's basically anyone's guess what Mass will look like on any given Sunday, in any given Novus Ordo church.
And again I ask myself, what about that universality? Does having a Pope and a Catechism really provide that universality? What is universality, anyway, when it comes to the Christian Church? Is it about aesthetics? Faith? Practices? Morals? All of the above?
And I am reminded of the Orthodox church. I think of how they have managed to stay much more in line with both ancient expressions of Divine Liturgy and modern expressions of DL from church to church, all without the presence of a "unifying" head or catechism. How is that even possible? They have always used the local language in their worship, and yet there are enough embodied elements that are not verbal that express that universality. There can only be one explanation for that: the head of the Orthodox church is Christ Himself.
But why hasn't the Orthodox church called any councils since the Great Schism? Rome claims it's because they need the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) to do so. But does calling a council necessarily make it valid? What if the Orthodox are communicating that there cannot be further councils unless and until East and West are reunited into the one original Christian church? What if they are being honest and humble about what they can and cannot do on their own, without that one original patriarchate (Rome) that broke away from the ancient church?
What if it's not at all evidence of their not being the original church, but rather the opposite? What if the fact that Rome continues to call councils as if the Great Schism was of no consequence is actually nothing to boast about? What if it's essentially arrogant to claim that they are the one, true church with or without the East? The East likewise claims to be maintaining the Tradition and beliefs and practices of the ancient church from before the split, but perhaps by their not calling further councils, they are pointing to the very deep wound that was created when Rome left their unity?
Maybe we've been looking at it all wrong. Maybe it's not a matter of if East left West or if West left East, if it was the Orthodox church that split from the Catholic church or vice versa, but rather that the two split from something that was united and that something therefore no longer exists.
Maybe their reunification is precisely what will signal the end times, when Christ's original, ancient, one, holy, universal, and apostolic church once more exists as it once did.
No comments:
Post a Comment