OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: tomowapig on November 01, 2010, 05:27:38 PM

Title: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: tomowapig on November 01, 2010, 05:27:38 PM

In another thread on this forum, I referred to the validity of sacraments in the RCC and the OC.  Unless I am misinformed, both recognize the validity of each others' sacraments.  Both recognize that the priesthood and episcopacy of the other derives from valid apostolic succession.  If this is indeed the case, why is it that Catholics will warmly welcome Orthodox Christians to worship with them *and* partake of the sacraments whereas Orthodox Christians will welcome Catholics to worship but *not* partake of the sacraments unless or until they convert?  I wonder what God makes of all that?

Any comments or thoughts about this from those of us who are not God?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Asteriktos on November 01, 2010, 05:31:51 PM
In another thread on this forum, I referred to the validity of sacraments in the RCC and the OC.  Unless I am misinformed, both recognize the validity of each others' sacraments.

You are mistaken.

Quote
Both recognize that the priesthood and episcopacy of the other derives from valid apostolic succession.

You are mistaken.

Quote
If this is indeed the case, why is it that Catholics will warmly welcome Orthodox Christians to worship with them *and* partake of the sacraments whereas Orthodox Christians will welcome Catholics to worship but *not* partake of the sacraments unless or until they convert?  I wonder what God makes of all that?

For Orthodox Christians, supposedly, communion means having the same faith. Since Catholics do not have the same faith as the Orthodox, it would be wrong to ignore the differences and commune with them.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Quinault on November 01, 2010, 05:52:50 PM
The Catholic church would allow an Orthodox to commune. But an Orthodox that actually understood the issue, and was properly catechized, would not partake of a Catholic Eucharist. We are similar, but not the same. The differences may seem slight at first glance, but the issues run deep and are very serious. There may be some Orthodox priests that allow Catholics to partake, I don't know of any personally, but I can't say it is impossible. But the general consensus would be that Catholics can not partake of an Orthodox Eucharist, they are not Orthodox.

Eastern Catholics are another issue, I don't entirely know how that would work. The Eastern Catholic church has much more in common with the Orthodox church than it does with the Roman Catholic church. I would be interested to hear more about that.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 01, 2010, 05:55:07 PM

In another thread on this forum, I referred to the validity of sacraments in the RCC and the OC.  Unless I am misinformed, both recognize the validity of each others' sacraments.  Both recognize that the priesthood and episcopacy of the other derives from valid apostolic succession.  If this is indeed the case, why is it that Catholics will warmly welcome Orthodox Christians to worship with them *and* partake of the sacraments whereas Orthodox Christians will welcome Catholics to worship but *not* partake of the sacraments unless or until they convert?  I wonder what God makes of all that?

Any comments or thoughts about this from those of us who are not God?

I would quote II Cor. "6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!...17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him," but that would be God.

I don't know what you mean by "welcome Catholics to worship."  I've invited communicants of the Vatican to come, and I wouldn't bar any to come and see, but I wouldn't (barring mixed marriages and other real life situations) suggest to anyone who believes that submission to the Vatican's supreme pontiff is necessary to make a Divine Liturgy valid and licit to make an Orthodox parish his parish, unless he was planning on embracing the Orthodox Faith.

I would go into Christ giving the Orthodox Church the authority to judge, but in the matter you bring up, it is more appropriate to bring up the responsibility of the Orthodox to guard the Holy Mysteries of His Catholic Church.

Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: tuesdayschild on November 01, 2010, 06:20:29 PM
Although the OP is specific, the thread title generic.

I am under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church rejects the validity of Anglican sacraments, but that, at least until the mid-20th century, some Orthodox bishops viewed Anglican sacraments as valid and permitted Orthodox faithful to take communion at Anglican parishes. True? Feel free to elaborate.

Does anyone know what the recent Roman Catholic invitation to Anglicans (the Personal Ordinariate) means for the Roman Catholic opinion of Anglican sacraments?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on November 01, 2010, 06:30:57 PM

In another thread on this forum, I referred to the validity of sacraments in the RCC and the OC.  Unless I am misinformed, both recognize the validity of each others' sacraments.  Both recognize that the priesthood and episcopacy of the other derives from valid apostolic succession.  If this is indeed the case, why is it that Catholics will warmly welcome Orthodox Christians to worship with them *and* partake of the sacraments whereas Orthodox Christians will welcome Catholics to worship but *not* partake of the sacraments unless or until they convert?  I wonder what God makes of all that?

Any comments or thoughts about this from those of us who are not God?

No, we don't recognize them as having Sacraments.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: mike on November 01, 2010, 07:01:55 PM
Eastern Catholics are another issue.

Why?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on November 01, 2010, 07:04:40 PM
Eastern Catholics are another issue, I don't entirely know how that would work. The Eastern Catholic church has much more in common with the Orthodox church than it does with the Roman Catholic church. I would be interested to hear more about that.

They are one church.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Fr. George on November 01, 2010, 07:49:31 PM
In another thread on this forum, I referred to the validity of sacraments in the RCC and the OC.  Unless I am misinformed, both recognize the validity of each others' sacraments.  Both recognize that the priesthood and episcopacy of the other derives from valid apostolic succession.  

I'll echo Asteriktos - your assumptions are incorrect.  We don't recognize the sacraments of the RC (using convenient, yet imperfect language) as valid per se, or "as they are, on their own, right now" - otherwise, we'd let RC priests celebrate Vespers or Liturgy in our Churches, for example.  They may be accepted once the people come into Orthodoxy, but there is some situational leeway involved in that, too (i.e. are they coming from Roman or Eastern rite?  Were they SSPX?  Were they promoting dance masses, or traditional ones?)

If this is indeed the case, why is it that Catholics will warmly welcome Orthodox Christians to worship with them *and* partake of the sacraments whereas Orthodox Christians will welcome Catholics to worship but *not* partake of the sacraments unless or until they convert?  

Asteriktos answered this well.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Fr. George on November 01, 2010, 07:52:00 PM
I am under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church rejects the validity of Anglican sacraments, but that, at least until the mid-20th century, some Orthodox bishops viewed Anglican sacraments as valid and permitted Orthodox faithful to take communion at Anglican parishes. True? Feel free to elaborate.

The only documents I've seen that allowed Orthodox Christians to go to Anglican services and participate/partake refer to situations where no Orthodox Church is reachable, at a time when there were less than half of the Orthodox Churches currently found in the US.  I don't think the situation is applicable now.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: tuesdayschild on November 01, 2010, 07:57:44 PM
I am under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church rejects the validity of Anglican sacraments, but that, at least until the mid-20th century, some Orthodox bishops viewed Anglican sacraments as valid and permitted Orthodox faithful to take communion at Anglican parishes. True? Feel free to elaborate.

The only documents I've seen that allowed Orthodox Christians to go to Anglican services and participate/partake refer to situations where no Orthodox Church is reachable, at a time when there were less than half of the Orthodox Churches currently found in the US.  I don't think the situation is applicable now.

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: FormerReformer on November 01, 2010, 09:35:36 PM
I am under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church rejects the validity of Anglican sacraments, but that, at least until the mid-20th century, some Orthodox bishops viewed Anglican sacraments as valid and permitted Orthodox faithful to take communion at Anglican parishes. True? Feel free to elaborate.

The only documents I've seen that allowed Orthodox Christians to go to Anglican services and participate/partake refer to situations where no Orthodox Church is reachable, at a time when there were less than half of the Orthodox Churches currently found in the US.  I don't think the situation is applicable now.

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

IIRC this permission was rescinded not long after after being issued due to Episcopalian/Anglican priests telling Orthodox Christians that there was no need to go to Orthodox parishes at all.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on November 01, 2010, 09:39:49 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: tuesdayschild on November 01, 2010, 11:06:09 PM
I am under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church rejects the validity of Anglican sacraments, but that, at least until the mid-20th century, some Orthodox bishops viewed Anglican sacraments as valid and permitted Orthodox faithful to take communion at Anglican parishes. True? Feel free to elaborate.

The only documents I've seen that allowed Orthodox Christians to go to Anglican services and participate/partake refer to situations where no Orthodox Church is reachable, at a time when there were less than half of the Orthodox Churches currently found in the US.  I don't think the situation is applicable now.

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

IIRC this permission was rescinded not long after after being issued due to Episcopalian/Anglican priests telling Orthodox Christians that there was no need to go to Orthodox parishes at all.

I am certain you have this in mind:

Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny on the Anglicans and Orthodox Baptism (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hawaweeny.aspx)

However, I think the Patriarch of Constantinople is said to have recognized Anglican sacraments as late as the 1930's. I cannot locate where I saw that.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: tuesdayschild on November 01, 2010, 11:17:55 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Is your preference for RCC over AC based on something specific to their sacraments or on some other (perhaps aesthetic) criteria?

I searched in vain for THGCOEC, but apparently no episcopus vagans has yet trademarked that particular acronym.  :D
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Asteriktos on November 01, 2010, 11:19:11 PM
I am certain you have this in mind:

Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny on the Anglicans and Orthodox Baptism (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hawaweeny.aspx)

However, I think the Patriarch of Constantinople is said to have recognized Anglican sacraments as late as the 1930's. I cannot locate where I saw that.

Perhaps you are thinking of this thread (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27317.msg430587.html#msg430587)...?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: tuesdayschild on November 01, 2010, 11:22:30 PM
I am certain you have this in mind:

Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny on the Anglicans and Orthodox Baptism (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hawaweeny.aspx)

However, I think the Patriarch of Constantinople is said to have recognized Anglican sacraments as late as the 1930's. I cannot locate where I saw that.

Perhaps you are thinking of this thread (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27317.msg430587.html#msg430587)...?

First, thank you.  Second, your familiarity with the content of this board frightens me.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Asteriktos on November 01, 2010, 11:29:22 PM
I am certain you have this in mind:

Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny on the Anglicans and Orthodox Baptism (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hawaweeny.aspx)

However, I think the Patriarch of Constantinople is said to have recognized Anglican sacraments as late as the 1930's. I cannot locate where I saw that.

Perhaps you are thinking of this thread (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27317.msg430587.html#msg430587)...?

First, thank you.  Second, your familiarity with the content of this board frightens me.

Lol, I just remember the conversation, so I searched for something like "Anglican Constantinople" in posts made by Irish Hermit, and it was one of the first threads that came up.  :)
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: tomowapig on November 02, 2010, 02:34:54 PM
In another thread on this forum, I referred to the validity of sacraments in the RCC and the OC.  Unless I am misinformed, both recognize the validity of each others' sacraments.  Both recognize that the priesthood and episcopacy of the other derives from valid apostolic succession.  

I'll echo Asteriktos - your assumptions are incorrect.  We don't recognize the sacraments of the RC (using convenient, yet imperfect language) as valid per se, or "as they are, on their own, right now" - otherwise, we'd let RC priests celebrate Vespers or Liturgy in our Churches, for example.  They may be accepted once the people come into Orthodoxy, but there is some situational leeway involved in that, too (i.e. are they coming from Roman or Eastern rite?  Were they SSPX?  Were they promoting dance masses, or traditional ones?)

If this is indeed the case, why is it that Catholics will warmly welcome Orthodox Christians to worship with them *and* partake of the sacraments whereas Orthodox Christians will welcome Catholics to worship but *not* partake of the sacraments unless or until they convert?  

Asteriktos answered this well.

Hmmm.....interesting.  Especially in light of the fact that my assumptions come from being told these things by both RC and OC priests.  Very "conservative" ones at that.

Let me clarify 2 things: 1) I meant to refer in the subject of my OP to RC and OC sacraments.  No more, no less.  This is, after all, the Orthodox-Catholic Discussion forum; and 2) I'm not trying to "make a point" here, just in case anyone got that impression.  I only want to learn and to clarify some things that seem pretty fuzzy to me.

In light of all that, I have some questions:
1) With the (not-so-minor) exception of the filioque, do not Catholics and Orthodox recite the same creed?  And in that creed is there not the phrase, "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church"?

2) Is a person baptized in the RC not recognized as a baptized person by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

3) Is the marriage of a couple married by a RC priest in a Catholic church not recognized as a valid marriage by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

4) Are the bread and wine that are consecrated during a RC liturgy not the Body and Blood of Christ?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And if so, are they recognized as such by the OC?

5) If I (or anyone else, for that matter) were to confess sins to Christ before a RC priest and receive absolution, am I (or whoever else) absolved in the eyes of God?  And does the OC recognize that absolution?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And also if not, if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy would he/she have to re-confess, as it were, all those sins confessed and absolved in the RC?  Either way, please explain.

I guess that's probably enough to chew on for now  :)!
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: mike on November 02, 2010, 02:52:29 PM
In light of all that, I have some questions:
1) With the (not-so-minor) exception of the filioque, do not Catholics and Orthodox recite the same creed?  And in that creed is there not the phrase, "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church"?

Yes, so...

Quote
2) Is a person baptized in the RC not recognized as a baptized person by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

He is not baptised. There are no sacraments outside the Church.

Quote
3) Is the marriage of a couple married by a RC priest in a Catholic church not recognized as a valid marriage by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

There are no sacraments outside the Church.

Quote
4) Are the bread and wine that are consecrated during a RC liturgy not the Body and Blood of Christ?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And if so, are they recognized as such by the OC?

They are bread and wine.

Quote
If I (or anyone else, for that matter) were to confess sins to Christ before a RC priest and receive absolution, am I (or whoever else) absolved in the eyes of God?  And does the OC recognize that absolution?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And also if not, if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy would he/she have to re-confess, as it were, all those sins confessed and absolved in the RC?  Either way, please explain.

There are no sacraments outside the Church. While converting all the sins are cleansed.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: tomowapig on November 02, 2010, 03:03:07 PM
In light of all that, I have some questions:
1) With the (not-so-minor) exception of the filioque, do not Catholics and Orthodox recite the same creed?  And in that creed is there not the phrase, "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church"?

Yes, so...

Quote
2) Is a person baptized in the RC not recognized as a baptized person by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

He is not baptised. There are no sacraments outside the Church.

Quote
3) Is the marriage of a couple married by a RC priest in a Catholic church not recognized as a valid marriage by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

There are no sacraments outside the Church.

Quote
4) Are the bread and wine that are consecrated during a RC liturgy not the Body and Blood of Christ?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And if so, are they recognized as such by the OC?

They are bread and wine.

Quote
If I (or anyone else, for that matter) were to confess sins to Christ before a RC priest and receive absolution, am I (or whoever else) absolved in the eyes of God?  And does the OC recognize that absolution?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And also if not, if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy would he/she have to re-confess, as it were, all those sins confessed and absolved in the RC?  Either way, please explain.

There are no sacraments outside the Church. While converting all the sins are cleansed.

I wonder if I were to ask the same questions on a Catholic discussion forum and switched around the RC and OC if someone there would reply in like manner?  You know, "There are no sacraments outside the (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic) church.  Sigh.  Never the twain shall meet?  Bigger sigh.

And I also wonder if your position would be echoed and confirmed by all the OC bishops, thus making it an "official" Church position?  Interesting.

Would I be putting words in your mouth, so to speak, if I were to conclude that you would also hold that there is NO salvation outside the Church?  Er, the Orthodox Church?  And if so, how would you *know* that?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: mike on November 02, 2010, 03:08:23 PM
Why to care what the RCs/Lutherans/Pastafarians think about us?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/non-orthodox_ch7.pdf
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: tomowapig on November 02, 2010, 03:09:25 PM
Why to care what the RCs/Lutherans/Pastafarians think about us?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/non-orthodox_ch7.pdf

But that doesn't answer my questions.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: mike on November 02, 2010, 03:18:16 PM
1. The Catholics would answer that the sacraments are valid but unworthyly given wahtever that means. I have no idea why it is important to anyone in the Orthodox Church.

2. Yes.

3. The link I posted answers it.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: tomowapig on November 02, 2010, 03:31:25 PM
1. The Catholics would answer that the sacraments are valid but unworthyly given wahtever that means. I have no idea why it is important to anyone in the Orthodox Church.

2. Yes.

3. The link I posted answers it.

Thanks for the link.  I've saved it and will read it later when I have more time.

Anyone else care to jump in and comment?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Fr. George on November 02, 2010, 03:47:13 PM
1) With the (not-so-minor) exception of the filioque, do not Catholics and Orthodox recite the same creed?  And in that creed is there not the phrase, "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church"?

Yes, we do recite the same creed.  However, as with many things, where (or, more accurately, "with whom") you recite the creed makes a big difference.

2) Is a person baptized in the RC not recognized as a baptized person by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

If you're coming into Orthodoxy, or marrying an Orthodox person, then usually the answer is "yes."  However, if you're doing neither, then it's none of our business, and it remains a matter between the person and the Holy Spirit.

3) Is the marriage of a couple married by a RC priest in a Catholic church not recognized as a valid marriage by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

If they're becoming Orthodox, then the answer is usually, "yes."  It had a "good form," but is now being sanctified by entry into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  However, if you're not becoming Orthodox, then it's none of our concern - it's between you and the Holy Spirit.

4) Are the bread and wine that are consecrated during a RC liturgy not the Body and Blood of Christ?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And if so, are they recognized as such by the OC?

Generally we're not 100% sure, but we tend toward, "no Eucharist outside the Church."  At the end of the day, we don't dictate where the Spirit cannot go, and certainly cannot be sure of every place He dwells in - all we can be sure of is His presence in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

5) If I (or anyone else, for that matter) were to confess sins to Christ before a RC priest and receive absolution, am I (or whoever else) absolved in the eyes of God?

None of us can know that - God's absolution is His business, not ours.  He said that His disciples (and, by their blessing, their successors) had the power to loose and bind - which we see as present in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church - but that doesn't restrict His ability to loose and bind; therefore, He will forgive whomever He wants, even if they're not in the Church.

And also if not, if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy would he/she have to re-confess, as it were, all those sins confessed and absolved in the RC?  Either way, please explain.

There's no "re-confess," just like there's no "re-baptize" - it either happened (in reality or in form), in which case it's not duplicated (if it took place in reality, then we'd be blaspheming the Spirit for duplicating; and if in form, then we can bless the prior act through the entry into the Church), or it didn't.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Shanghaiski on November 02, 2010, 06:08:09 PM
I am under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church rejects the validity of Anglican sacraments, but that, at least until the mid-20th century, some Orthodox bishops viewed Anglican sacraments as valid and permitted Orthodox faithful to take communion at Anglican parishes. True? Feel free to elaborate.

The only documents I've seen that allowed Orthodox Christians to go to Anglican services and participate/partake refer to situations where no Orthodox Church is reachable, at a time when there were less than half of the Orthodox Churches currently found in the US.  I don't think the situation is applicable now.

Indeed, St. Raphael of Brooklyn, after being better informed on Anglicanism by the convert priest, Fr. Nathaniel Irivine, wrote forbidding communion with Anglicans even in extremis.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 02, 2010, 07:00:14 PM
No, we don't recognize them as having Sacraments.

You mean you do not.  Not all Oriental Orthodox Churches agree with you.

http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/19940125SOCRCMarriageAgmt.html

This agreement between the Catholic Church and the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church on interchurch marriages has been prepared taking into account the following elements of the Common Declaration of Pope John Paul II and the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Zakka I Iwas of Antioch, dated 23 June 1984:

1.The common profession of faith between the Pope and the Patriarch on the mystery of the Incarnate Word;
2.The common affirmation of their faith in the mystery of the Church and the sacraments;
3.The possibility given by the declaration for a pastoral collaboration including the mutual admission of the faithful belonging to both churches to the reception of the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick for a grave spiritual need.
Having considered the above mentioned events and declaration, the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church agreed on the following considerations and norms.


As our two churches believe in and confess the mystery of the Church and its sacramental reality, we consider it our duty to specify the areas of agreement in cases of marriages between the members of our two churches.

Man and woman created in the image of God (Gen. 1: 26,27) are called to become sharers of the eternal divine communion. The sacrament of marriage is an image of this divine communion. Marital intimacy and self-effacing sharing are reflections of the deepest interpersonal sharing within the Trinitarian communion. Hence this intimate marital communion is divinely confirmed by Christ with the seal of unity and of indissolubility, and ordered toward the good of the spouses and the generation and education of the offspring.

He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh?" What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder. (Mt. 19:46).

Marriage is a great sacrament of divine communion and St Paul compares the mutual relationship of the husband and wife to the mystery of communion between Jesus Christ and his Church (cf. Eph. 5: 21-26; Tit. 2:3f; I Pet. 3: if; Rev. 18:7, 21:2). St Paul calls it a great mystery: "This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church" (Eph. 5:32). Hence we believe that the sacrament of marriage bearing the image of the eternal divine communion is also an image of the most intimate communion between the Risen Bridegroom with his Bride, the Church.

The Church is the primordial sacrament of the eternal divine communion and, through the celebration of her sacramental mysteries; she deepens her communion with the divine Spouse and enables her members to participate in the divine life.

Our two churches accept the sacredness and indissolubility of the sacramental bond of marriage and consider the conjugal relationship as an expression of the above communion and a means to achieve self effacing mutual love and freedom from selfishness, which was the cause of the fall of humanity.

In this theological perspective, taking into account the question of the marriages between the members of our two churches, we consider it a matter of our pastoral concern to provide the following directives.

Our two churches desire to foster marriages within the same ecclesial communion and consider this the norm. However, we have to accept the pastoral reality that interchurch marriages do take place. When such occasions arise, both churches should facilitate the celebration of the sacrament of matrimony in either church, allowing the bride/bridegroom the right and freedom to retain her/his own ecclesial communion, by providing necessary information and documents. On the occasion of these celebrations, the couples as well as their family members belonging to these two churches are allowed to participate in the Holy Eucharist in the church where the sacrament of matrimony is celebrated. We consider it also the great responsibility of the parents to pay special attention to impart to the extent possible and in mutual accord proper ecclesial formation to their children in full harmony with the tradition of the ecclesial communion to which they have to belong.

The agreement was drafted in November 1993 and released on January 25, 1994, after approval from Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Zakka I.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastoral Guidelines
The Pastoral Guidelines which follow the text of the Agreement state that "the pastors of both partners are bound in conscience to provide continued pastoral care to interchurch families in such a way as to contribute to their sanctity, unity and harmony."

The couples are "allowed to participate jointly in the Eucharistic celebration on special occasions when this joint celebration is socially required".

Communion at the Wedding
Reciprocity. The Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church is an autonomous church under the authority of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. It is thus one of those Eastern churches, which the Roman Catholic Church recognizes as close in faith to itself and "in possession of true sacraments, notably the priesthood and the Eucharist" (Decree on Ecumenism, n.14, 15). For this reason the bride and groom are allowed to receive communion together, whether the wedding and wedding Eucharist takes place in a Catholic church or in a Malankara Syrian Orthodox church.

Family members. This document makes explicit provision for the wider family to receive communion together at the wedding, not simply the bride and groom

Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 02, 2010, 07:11:34 PM
Eastern Catholics are another issue.

Why?

Because your Church has always treated them as a seperate issue.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Shanghaiski on November 02, 2010, 09:47:28 PM
1) With the (not-so-minor) exception of the filioque, do not Catholics and Orthodox recite the same creed?  And in that creed is there not the phrase, "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church"?

Yes, we do recite the same creed.  However, as with many things, where (or, more accurately, "with whom") you recite the creed makes a big difference.

2) Is a person baptized in the RC not recognized as a baptized person by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

If you're coming into Orthodoxy, or marrying an Orthodox person, then usually the answer is "yes."  However, if you're doing neither, then it's none of our business, and it remains a matter between the person and the Holy Spirit.

3) Is the marriage of a couple married by a RC priest in a Catholic church not recognized as a valid marriage by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

If they're becoming Orthodox, then the answer is usually, "yes."  It had a "good form," but is now being sanctified by entry into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  However, if you're not becoming Orthodox, then it's none of our concern - it's between you and the Holy Spirit.

4) Are the bread and wine that are consecrated during a RC liturgy not the Body and Blood of Christ?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And if so, are they recognized as such by the OC?

Generally we're not 100% sure, but we tend toward, "no Eucharist outside the Church."  At the end of the day, we don't dictate where the Spirit cannot go, and certainly cannot be sure of every place He dwells in - all we can be sure of is His presence in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

5) If I (or anyone else, for that matter) were to confess sins to Christ before a RC priest and receive absolution, am I (or whoever else) absolved in the eyes of God?

None of us can know that - God's absolution is His business, not ours.  He said that His disciples (and, by their blessing, their successors) had the power to loose and bind - which we see as present in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church - but that doesn't restrict His ability to loose and bind; therefore, He will forgive whomever He wants, even if they're not in the Church.

And also if not, if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy would he/she have to re-confess, as it were, all those sins confessed and absolved in the RC?  Either way, please explain.

There's no "re-confess," just like there's no "re-baptize" - it either happened (in reality or in form), in which case it's not duplicated (if it took place in reality, then we'd be blaspheming the Spirit for duplicating; and if in form, then we can bless the prior act through the entry into the Church), or it didn't.

For pastoral reasons, however, most people I know who are received into the Church, regardless if they've confessed elsewhere before, give a life confession. This medicine is also recommended by various spiritual fathers to spiritual children who were raised in the Church, especially if they have not confessed in awhile or there is spiritual need.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: mike on November 03, 2010, 06:40:10 AM
Eastern Catholics are another issue.

Why?

Because your Church has always treated them as a seperate issue.

Could you elaborate?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on November 03, 2010, 01:54:57 PM
Is your preference for RCC over AC based on something specific to their sacraments or on some other (perhaps aesthetic) criteria?

It has to do with the Roman Catholic Churches fidelity to apostolic tradition compared to the vast majority of those in the Anglican communion. When I look at the Roman Catholic Church, I see real and tangible bonds with us (apostolic succession, liturgical worship, veneration of saints and relics, Real Presence, traditional morality, etc.). When I look at the Anglicans as a whole, all I see is a huge mess of flimsy, flabby nonsense.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 03, 2010, 02:26:17 PM
Eastern Catholics are another issue.

Why?

Because your Church has always treated them as a seperate issue.

Could you elaborate?

For one thing, those which go 'Doxing (convert to Orthodoxy) are spoken as returning rather than converting.  As a body, they are in origin a schism of local Church which has united with a heretical body, thus slightly diffferent situation.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on November 03, 2010, 10:34:28 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 04, 2010, 02:21:29 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on November 04, 2010, 02:25:51 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 04, 2010, 02:26:46 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: serb1389 on November 04, 2010, 02:48:24 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion? 
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on November 04, 2010, 02:51:01 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.
Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 04, 2010, 03:23:04 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on November 04, 2010, 03:26:57 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 04, 2010, 03:28:51 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?
The answers to that question probably vary. I doubt there is a cannonical process.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Shanghaiski on November 04, 2010, 04:10:45 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?
The answers to that question probably vary. I doubt there is a cannonical process.

I would think the process would be Chrismation and Communion. God cares about the non-Orthodox person's salvation just as much, but an Orthodox priest must adhere to the discipline and tradition of the Orthodox Church in which he cannot dispense of the Holy Mysteries to those who are not joined to the Church. He is not even supposed to commune Orthodox Christians who refuse to repent of their sins.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Fr. George on November 04, 2010, 04:33:11 PM
For pastoral reasons, however, most people I know who are received into the Church, regardless if they've confessed elsewhere before, give a life confession.

Then the statement is that they didn't have a valid confession before.  As I said, there's no, "re-confession" - either their confession "didn't count," and they do it now, or it "did count" and they're not required to do so.

This medicine is also recommended by various spiritual fathers to spiritual children who were raised in the Church, especially if they have not confessed in awhile or there is spiritual need.

Personal opinion: If an Orthodox Christian is asked to "re-confess" a sin that was already confessed and absolved by an Orthodox priest or hierarch, then the request is blasphemous.  If the Orthodox Christian is asked to discuss previous sins with their new spiritual father in order for the spiritual father to have a better idea about the person's background, needs, etc. (like giving a new doctor your complete medical history), then the request is "normal" and useful.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: tomowapig on November 04, 2010, 05:09:52 PM
This discussion is very interesting, especially in it's development over the days.  I'd really like to thank everyone who has participated!!

I'd also like to add two (unrelated) comments, for what they are worth. First of all, a very good friend of mine once said that **everything** man has touched since the Fall he has managed to corrupt.  Everything.  Just look around you.  Just look at history.  All of history.  And that includes the Church.  Just re-read this thread.

Secondly, at The Judgment, at which according to the Antiochian Orthodox Divine Liturgy,we will be called upon to offer "a good defense before the awful judgment seat of the Lord" (did I get that right?), will God ask us if we were Orthodox, or Anglican, or Roman Catholic?  Will He ask us if we partook of Holy Communion from a priest that was in communion with the "correct" Church?  I wonder just *what* He will ask us.  And, speaking only for myself here, I really do not think I will have "a good defense...".  Lord have mercy on me, a sinner!
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: mike on November 04, 2010, 05:33:28 PM
The Church, according to the Creed, is Holy. Christ will ask us have we been members of Her.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: stanley123 on November 05, 2010, 01:37:38 AM
The Church, according to the Creed, is Holy. Christ will ask us have we been members of Her.
I don't see in the New Testament where Jesus has said that you have to belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church. What I read is this: Matthew 25:
[31] And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
 
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 05, 2010, 01:47:43 AM
The Church, according to the Creed, is Holy. Christ will ask us have we been members of Her.
I don't see in the New Testament where Jesus has said that you have to belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church. What I read is this: Matthew 25:
[31] And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

The Unitarian Universalists are fond of that lection.

"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." Luke 10:16
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: stanley123 on November 05, 2010, 04:23:24 AM
The Church, according to the Creed, is Holy. Christ will ask us have we been members of Her.
I don't see in the New Testament where Jesus has said that you have to belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church. What I read is this: Matthew 25:
[31] And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

The Unitarian Universalists are fond of that lection.

They also like to quote the Our Father, otherwise known as the Lord's Prayer.
In any case, I don't see here or anywhere else in the New Testament where Jesus says that He will ask you  if you are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: mike on November 05, 2010, 04:47:26 AM
In any case, I don't see here or anywhere else in the New Testament where Jesus says that He will ask you  if you are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Are you a Baptist?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: stanley123 on November 05, 2010, 05:45:47 AM
In any case, I don't see here or anywhere else in the New Testament where Jesus says that He will ask you  if you are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Are you a Baptist?
Whether I am a Unitarian, Baptist, Episcopalian, Jehovah's witness, Jew, Muslim, Hindhu  or Buddhist is irrelevant to what Jesus is quoted as saying in Matthew 25. Do you or do you not accept the words of Our Divine Lord and Savior as written in Matthew 25? Do you see that He does not say that He is going to ask anyone if they are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Can you read and do you accept what He says are His criteria for salvation?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: mike on November 05, 2010, 05:55:40 AM
Do you thinks that's all the criteria and nothing more is needed?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: stanley123 on November 05, 2010, 06:11:14 AM
Do you thinks that's all the criteria and nothing more is needed?
Let me answer your question this way:
Here is my personal opinion on the question:
I don't believe that Jesus will ask Mother Theresa why she did not become a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And for the sake of the discussion, let us suppose that she did convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Would that have affected  her status in heaven, so that she would get a better deal, so to speak? I don't see anything in the New Testament which indicates that Mother Theresa would have a higher status in heaven if she had converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Alpo on November 05, 2010, 07:28:50 AM
I don't see anything in the New Testament which indicates that Mother Theresa would have a higher status in heaven if she had converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I don't see anything in the New Testament which indicates that Mother Teresa would have a lower status in heaven if she had converted to the Baptist Church.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 05, 2010, 10:36:58 AM
The Church, according to the Creed, is Holy. Christ will ask us have we been members of Her.
I don't see in the New Testament where Jesus has said that you have to belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church. What I read is this: Matthew 25:
[31] And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

The Unitarian Universalists are fond of that lection.

They also like to quote the Our Father, otherwise known as the Lord's Prayer.

Actually, no, they do not. Too Christian. But what was your point?

Quote
In any case, I don't see here or anywhere else in the New Testament where Jesus says that He will ask you  if you are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

"I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" John 14:6.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 05, 2010, 10:47:56 AM
In any case, I don't see here or anywhere else in the New Testament where Jesus says that He will ask you  if you are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Are you a Baptist?
Whether I am a Unitarian, Baptist, Episcopalian, Jehovah's witness, Jew, Muslim, Hindhu  or Buddhist is irrelevant to what Jesus is quoted as saying in Matthew 25.

The Unitarian, Jehovah's witness, Jew, Muslim, Hindhu and Buddhist do not accept Him as Our Divine Lord and Savior and do not accept His words, and there is question about the Baptist and Episcopalian.

Quote
Do you or do you not accept the words of Our Divine Lord and Savior as written in Matthew 25?

Do you not accept the words of Our Divine Lord and Savior as written in John 3? "“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”"

Quote
Do you see that He does not say that He is going to ask anyone if they are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

I'm sorrry, where does it say that Matthew 25 is the whole of the Gospel? In the Evangelikon we have the rest of Matthew and the other three Gospels.  Unitarian Universalists like to ignore that gentle Jesus has plenty to say about hellfire, and like to blame St. Paul, the Apostle of Faith (i.e. the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church), although St. Paul doesn't take about hell at all.

Quote
Can you read and do you accept what He says are His criteria for salvation?
We do. We just read and accept what those uncomfortable with what He says are His criteria for salvation.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: tomowapig on November 05, 2010, 10:49:50 AM
I've read and heard it said that "there is no salvation outside the Church."  Now, depending upon who is saying that, "the Church" could be either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.  Or the Oriental Orthodox Church, or the Baptist Church, or the whatever Church.  I suppose the meaning here is the One Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church.  And just what does *that* consist of?  Oops, here we go again  ;D! 

I've also heard it said that if there is salvation outside the Church [and why, really, would there NOT be??], we (as in those *inside* the Church) do not know how that happens.  Which is not to day that it *cannot* happen, just that "we" don't know how it happens.  You know, "We know where the Holy Spirit *is* (as in "the Church") but we do not know where He is not."

Comments?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 05, 2010, 10:55:01 AM
Do you thinks that's all the criteria and nothing more is needed?
Let me answer your question this way:
Here is my personal opinion on the question:
I don't believe that Jesus will ask Mother Theresa why she did not become a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And for the sake of the discussion, let us suppose that she did convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Would that have affected  her status in heaven, so that she would get a better deal, so to speak? I don't see anything in the New Testament which indicates that Mother Theresa would have a higher status in heaven if she had converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Let me answer you this way.
The Agha Khan claims to be the successor of Muhammad and the manifestation of God and Lord of the Age.  He operates a vast array of philantropic endevors throughout the world. He also has moved to bring his followers more in line with more mainstream Islam.  He has even visted Mt. Athos: would he have a higher status (rather hard, as his followers pray to him as God) if he converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on November 05, 2010, 12:24:55 PM
I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources. I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible .
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: mike on November 05, 2010, 12:29:26 PM
We have many new posters who think they know what God wants.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 05, 2010, 01:07:37 PM
I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ ,

Then you are Protestant. When I learned that the teaching of His Apostles that you cannot call God Father unless you calll the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church mother, and cannot have Christ as your Head if you are not a member of that Church, His Body, I left Protestantism and embraced the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles.

From the time of Christs Ascension and until his return the Apostles and their successors the Orthodox bishops have told you are not supposed to partake of their communion. But you do what you conscience tells you, if that's what is speaking.

Quote
I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago
And the 1000 years since then.
Quote
and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

And one supreme pontiff, whose communion you have entered.

The Mormons have the same Gospels (and "another" as well) but they believe in a pluarlity of gods. On your criteria, why don't you commune with them?

Quote
I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources.
(http://www.bookofmormonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/book-of-mormon.jpg)
Quote
I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible.
(http://www.bookofmormonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/book-of-mormon.jpg)
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on November 05, 2010, 04:17:05 PM
I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ ,

Then you are Protestant. When I learned that the teaching of His Apostles that you cannot call God Father unless you calll the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church mother, and cannot have Christ as your Head if you are not a member of that Church, His Body, I left Protestantism and embraced the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles.

From the time of Christs Ascension and until his return the Apostles and their successors the Orthodox bishops have told you are not supposed to partake of their communion. But you do what you conscience tells you, if that's what is speaking.

Quote
I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago
And the 1000 years since then.
Quote
and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

And one supreme pontiff, whose communion you have entered.

The Mormons have the same Gospels (and "another" as well) but they believe in a pluarlity of gods. On your criteria, why don't you commune with them?

Quote
I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources.
(http://www.bookofmormonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/book-of-mormon.jpg)
Quote
I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible.
(http://www.bookofmormonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/book-of-mormon.jpg)

I call for unity under one church as Jesus said to love all and you find divisiveness in all you say.
I Am humbled by your attack on me and dismayed at you lack of mercy and compassion for what I meant as openness for all.

< Luke 6:42 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: tomowapig on November 05, 2010, 04:26:53 PM
Dear Sinful Hypocrite,

Welcome to the wonderful world of Orthodoxy, especially the internet version  ;D.  Yup.  One.  Holy.  And far from undivided. :'( 

But I guess that's not just Orthodoxy, is it?  Everything that isn't God, I think, is like that.  Or am I just too cynical anymore?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: stanley123 on November 05, 2010, 04:29:48 PM
I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources. I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible .

Yes. I agree with you to some extent.
There are so many beliefs that RC and EO hold in common. However, the problem is that there are a few sore points of disagreement, and my understanding is that the EO believe them to be serious and in need of clarification before any intercommunion would take place. Such as for example, the RC doctrine on the Supreme Universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. This might appear to have the effect of making the Eastern Patriarchs subservient to the Roman Pontiff in a way that was not in effect before the split which took place in 1054.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: serb1389 on November 05, 2010, 08:26:26 PM
I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ ,

Then you are Protestant. When I learned that the teaching of His Apostles that you cannot call God Father unless you calll the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church mother, and cannot have Christ as your Head if you are not a member of that Church, His Body, I left Protestantism and embraced the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles.

From the time of Christs Ascension and until his return the Apostles and their successors the Orthodox bishops have told you are not supposed to partake of their communion. But you do what you conscience tells you, if that's what is speaking.

Quote
I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago
And the 1000 years since then.
Quote
and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

And one supreme pontiff, whose communion you have entered.

The Mormons have the same Gospels (and "another" as well) but they believe in a pluarlity of gods. On your criteria, why don't you commune with them?

Quote
I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources.
(http://www.bookofmormonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/book-of-mormon.jpg)
Quote
I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible.
(http://www.bookofmormonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/book-of-mormon.jpg)

I call for unity under one church as Jesus said to love all and you find divisiveness in all you say.
I Am humbled by your attack on me and dismayed at you lack of mercy and compassion for what I meant as openness for all.

< Luke 6:42 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Perhaps openness for all wasn't and isn't what you meant it to be. 
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on November 05, 2010, 09:32:46 PM
Dear Sinful Hypocrite,

Welcome to the wonderful world of Orthodoxy, especially the internet version  ;D.  Yup.  One.  Holy.  And far from undivided. :'( 

But I guess that's not just Orthodoxy, is it?  Everything that isn't God, I think, is like that.  Or am I just too cynical anymore?

Yes it is with dismay I realize that I found that out in short order.  Of course there is light in the tunnel my friend. There are many who in my parish and family who do not have much love for those others either ,so I am not so surprised.
You are a bit of sunshine in a otherwise hateful issue.Thank you tomowapig.

I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources. I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible .

Yes. I agree with you to some extent.
There are so many beliefs that RC and EO hold in common. However, the problem is that there are a few sore points of disagreement, and my understanding is that the EO believe them to be serious and in need of clarification before any intercommunion would take place. Such as for example, the RC doctrine on the Supreme Universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. This might appear to have the effect of making the Eastern Patriarchs subservient to the Roman Pontiff in a way that was not in effect before the split which took place in 1054.

I Realize that it has been a long time but it was close to being given a chance recently. There may be what we think are serious issues but I say it is worse to act as we have for so long . It may not be possible and that is why we are never able to walk as Jesus without sin. We are bickering the same as the disciples did right in front of Jesus
NIV Luke 22:
24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: stanley123 on November 05, 2010, 09:42:49 PM
Dear Sinful Hypocrite,

Welcome to the wonderful world of Orthodoxy, especially the internet version  ;D.  Yup.  One.  Holy.  And far from undivided. :'( 

But I guess that's not just Orthodoxy, is it?  Everything that isn't God, I think, is like that.  Or am I just too cynical anymore?

Yes it is with dismay I realize that I found that out in short order.  Of course there is light in the tunnel my friend. There are many who in my parish and family who do not have much love for those others either ,so I am not so surprised.
You are a bit of sunshine in a otherwise hateful issue.Thank you tomowapig.

I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources. I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible .

Yes. I agree with you to some extent.
There are so many beliefs that RC and EO hold in common. However, the problem is that there are a few sore points of disagreement, and my understanding is that the EO believe them to be serious and in need of clarification before any intercommunion would take place. Such as for example, the RC doctrine on the Supreme Universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. This might appear to have the effect of making the Eastern Patriarchs subservient to the Roman Pontiff in a way that was not in effect before the split which took place in 1054.

I Realize that it has been a long time but it was close to being given a chance recently. There may be what we think are serious issues but I say it is worse to act as we have for so long . It may not be possible and that is why we are never able to walk as Jesus without sin. We are bickering the same as the disciples did right in front of Jesus
NIV Luke 22:
24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.
I like your view on this. Thanks.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on November 05, 2010, 09:47:04 PM
I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ ,

Then you are Protestant. When I learned that the teaching of His Apostles that you cannot call God Father unless you calll the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church mother, and cannot have Christ as your Head if you are not a member of that Church, His Body, I left Protestantism and embraced the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles.

From the time of Christs Ascension and until his return the Apostles and their successors the Orthodox bishops have told you are not supposed to partake of their communion. But you do what you conscience tells you, if that's what is speaking.

Quote
I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago
And the 1000 years since then.
Quote
and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

And one supreme pontiff, whose communion you have entered.

The Mormons have the same Gospels (and "another" as well) but they believe in a pluarlity of gods. On your criteria, why don't you commune with them?

Quote
I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources.
(http://www.bookofmormonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/book-of-mormon.jpg)
Quote
I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible.
(http://www.bookofmormonresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/book-of-mormon.jpg)

I call for unity under one church as Jesus said to love all and you find divisiveness in all you say.
I Am humbled by your attack on me and dismayed at you lack of mercy and compassion for what I meant as openness for all.

< Luke 6:42 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Perhaps openness for all wasn't and isn't what you meant it to be. 

First of all I said anyone who believes in the Bible , not any mention of the book of Mormon .

Secondly we are supposed to love even our enemies. The ones  I mentioned standing up for weddings with my freinds such as Catholics are very much the same as us so they would be just neighbors who we are to love as ourselves.

Third Jesus taught us to  be meek and not puffed up like the pharisees who thought they knew better . And forgive them as you want to be forgiven.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 07, 2010, 08:56:09 PM
I call for unity under one church as Jesus said to love all and you find divisiveness in all you say.
Christ calls for Orthodox union with Him in His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Whom do you think I should listen to, you or Him?

Quote
I Am humbled by your attack on me and dismayed at you lack of mercy and compassion for what I meant as openness for all.
Sorry, I don't believe in open marriage, because Christ spoke against it, so I'm not going to stand by as someone wants to prostitute His Bride to anyone who wants a crack at her.

Quote
<< Luke 6:42 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

<<Luke 11:23>>

New International Version (©1984)
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me, scatters.

While you are straining out gnats and swallowing camels, my planks are not the issue. You take issue with Christ's radiant Church, which is without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.


First of all I said anyone who believes in the Bible , not any mention of the book of Mormon.
The Mormons believe in the Bible, just ask them. Many Muslims will tell you the same claim of theirs. Who are you to judge? Is your eye so plank free that it can see such issues clearly?

Secondly we are supposed to love even our enemies. The ones  I mentioned standing up for weddings with my freinds such as Catholics are very much the same as us so they would be just neighbors who we are to love as ourselves.
Loving our enemies means feeding them, clothing them, etc. It doesn't mean giving them the keys to our house, letting them have their way with our spouses, signing our children over to them, etc.  Just because you stand up at the wedding doesn't mean you get to share the bride with the bridegroom.

Third Jesus taught us to  be meek and not puffed up like the pharisees who thought they knew better . And forgive them as you want to be forgiven.
So you put the successors of the Apostles on the same level as the disciples of the Pharisees.  Christ expressed a diferent view on them:"you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 08, 2010, 09:58:36 AM


However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

There are many who believe as you do and thank you for having the courage to speak out!!

I have a comment:

1. If you are going to receive communion in the Catholic Church, when you do, you should then confess it as a disobedience, for in these times of schism, without the blessing of an Orthodox bishop, you are committing the sin of disobedience.  The issue will then arise as to your commitment to be obedient and you may legitimately call upon the primacy of your conscience and the salvation of your soul.   That is not a game as long as you truly desire to be obedient but also want to be obedient to the words of Jesus in the Gospels where he calls for unity in the Body of Christ.  If you believe that your Catholic brothers and sisters are closest to you in faith, and you are not alone in Orthodoxy in believing this, then for the time being the greater weight of the sin of disobedience lies in the willed perpetuation of the schism.

Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 08, 2010, 10:55:27 AM


However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

There are many who believe as you do and thank you for having the courage to speak out!!

I have a comment:

1. If you are going to receive communion in the Catholic Church, when you do, you should then confess it as a disobedience, for in these times of schism, without the blessing of an Orthodox bishop, you are committing the sin of disobedience.  The issue will then arise as to your commitment to be obedient and you may legitimately call upon the primacy of your conscience and the salvation of your soul.   That is not a game as long as you truly desire to be obedient but also want to be obedient to the words of Jesus in the Gospels where he calls for unity in the Body of Christ.  If you believe that your Catholic brothers and sisters are closest to you in faith, and you are not alone in Orthodoxy in believing this, then for the time being the greater weight of the sin of disobedience lies in the willed perpetuation of the schism.
2. Have him repent of the sin of presumption while he is at it.

But why not go to an ecclesiastiacl community that doesn't believe intercommunion is disobedience (not to mention apostacy and ignoring the words of Jesus in the Gospels and Revelation where He calls for purity and exclusive loyalty to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Body of Christ)?  The Vatican has plenty of churches here. Then he can commune to his heart's content with the Vatican and everyone else he deems to believe in the Bible: we have lots of "Bible Churches"-Baptist, Pentacostal, Evangelical, etc.-that he can commune with too. Oh, dear. Your Vatican doesn't allow that, at least not officially (though her priests used to commune me all the time when I was Lutheran). Didn't your supreme pontiff issue a "motu proprio" clarifying that?  So much for "unity" and "openness to all."

Holding the exclusive loyalty that Christ demands for the unity of His Church is never a sin, nor disobedience.  Weighed in the scales of Orthodoxy, your interpretations are found wanting.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 08, 2010, 11:02:08 AM


However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

There are many who believe as you do and thank you for having the courage to speak out!!

I have a comment:

1. If you are going to receive communion in the Catholic Church, when you do, you should then confess it as a disobedience, for in these times of schism, without the blessing of an Orthodox bishop, you are committing the sin of disobedience.  The issue will then arise as to your commitment to be obedient and you may legitimately call upon the primacy of your conscience and the salvation of your soul.   That is not a game as long as you truly desire to be obedient but also want to be obedient to the words of Jesus in the Gospels where he calls for unity in the Body of Christ.  If you believe that your Catholic brothers and sisters are closest to you in faith, and you are not alone in Orthodoxy in believing this, then for the time being the greater weight of the sin of disobedience lies in the willed perpetuation of the schism.
2. Have him repent of the sin of presumption while he is at it.

But why not go to an ecclesiastiacl community that doesn't believe intercommunion is disobedience (not to mention apostacy and ignoring the words of Jesus in the Gospels and Revelation where He calls for purity and exclusive loyalty to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Body of Christ)?  The Vatican has plenty of churches here. Then he can commune to his heart's content with the Vatican and everyone else he deems to believe in the Bible: we have lots of "Bible Churches"-Baptist, Pentacostal, Evangelical, etc.-that he can commune with too. Oh, dear. Your Vatican doesn't allow that, at least not officially (though her priests used to commune me all the time when I was Lutheran). Didn't your supreme pontiff issue a "motu proprio" clarifying that?  So much for "unity" and "openness to all."

Holding the exclusive loyalty that Christ demands for the unity of His Church is never a sin, nor disobedience.  Weighed in the scales of Orthodoxy, your interpretations are found wanting.

Which Orthodoxy?

The one which knows in its heart that there are grounds for resumption of communion today?

Or the one that will never accept resumption of communion except on its own idiosyncratic terms argued by those who belong to the true Church rather than the one holy catholic and apostolic Church?

Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 08, 2010, 11:24:46 AM


However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

There are many who believe as you do and thank you for having the courage to speak out!!

I have a comment:

1. If you are going to receive communion in the Catholic Church, when you do, you should then confess it as a disobedience, for in these times of schism, without the blessing of an Orthodox bishop, you are committing the sin of disobedience.  The issue will then arise as to your commitment to be obedient and you may legitimately call upon the primacy of your conscience and the salvation of your soul.   That is not a game as long as you truly desire to be obedient but also want to be obedient to the words of Jesus in the Gospels where he calls for unity in the Body of Christ.  If you believe that your Catholic brothers and sisters are closest to you in faith, and you are not alone in Orthodoxy in believing this, then for the time being the greater weight of the sin of disobedience lies in the willed perpetuation of the schism.
2. Have him repent of the sin of presumption while he is at it.

But why not go to an ecclesiastiacl community that doesn't believe intercommunion is disobedience (not to mention apostacy and ignoring the words of Jesus in the Gospels and Revelation where He calls for purity and exclusive loyalty to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Body of Christ)?  The Vatican has plenty of churches here. Then he can commune to his heart's content with the Vatican and everyone else he deems to believe in the Bible: we have lots of "Bible Churches"-Baptist, Pentacostal, Evangelical, etc.-that he can commune with too. Oh, dear. Your Vatican doesn't allow that, at least not officially (though her priests used to commune me all the time when I was Lutheran). Didn't your supreme pontiff issue a "motu proprio" clarifying that?  So much for "unity" and "openness to all."

Holding the exclusive loyalty that Christ demands for the unity of His Church is never a sin, nor disobedience.  Weighed in the scales of Orthodoxy, your interpretations are found wanting.

Which Orthodoxy?

This Orthodoxy:
a Romanian Orthodox priest invited a Roman Catholic priest to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy of Pentecost.

I read the news that the priest was deposed from priesthood by his bishop, for this co-celebration with a romano-catholic.
Amen! Amen! Amen!

Quote
The one which knows in its heart that there are grounds for resumption of communion today?

No, an Orthodoxy that exists outiside of rather active imaginations and misguided delusions.

Quote
Or the one that will never accept resumption of communion except on its own idiosyncratic terms argued by those who belong to the true Church rather than the one holy catholic and apostolic Church?
The True Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has and will never accept communion except only on Christ's own Orthodox terms. It's not that hard a concept to grasp: the Vatican made claims similar to the fact of Orthodox communion until its doctrinal drift "developed" its dogma away, in another scheme to hoodwink the Orthodox.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 08, 2010, 11:57:34 AM

The True Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has and will never accept communion except only on Christ's own Orthodox terms. It's not that hard a concept to grasp: the Vatican made claims similar to the fact of Orthodox communion until its doctrinal drift "developed" its dogma away, in another scheme to hoodwink the Orthodox.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Now we are down to the nub of it:  Hoodwinking!!

Good thing your hierarchs don't see it that way or we'd not be discussing anything at all.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 11, 2010, 01:37:35 PM
Eastern Catholics are another issue.

Why?

Because your Church has always treated them as a seperate issue.

Could you elaborate?

I am confused.  In this thread
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21196.msg492781/topicseen.html#msg492781
you clearly present an understanding of the issue and now act as if you have no idea what I am talking about.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 11, 2010, 01:53:09 PM

The True Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has and will never accept communion except only on Christ's own Orthodox terms. It's not that hard a concept to grasp: the Vatican made claims similar to the fact of Orthodox communion until its doctrinal drift "developed" its dogma away, in another scheme to hoodwink the Orthodox.

Given the fact that there's been an unceasing habit of intercommunion between Catholics and Orthodox regardless of how rigid the denial, one of the other, over all of the centuries since the separation hardened, I think that to claim that the Catholics are the only one with "drift" shows some sort of ignorance of reality at work, certainly an ignorance of what constitutes doctrine in the Catholic Church, some sort of denial of reality in general, and certainly, give the general "drift" of the poster, the refusal to discuss reality on any terms but that which feeds an Orthodox believer's fantasy and sincere hope for the future and one which is not shared by all Orthodox believers or hierarchs.

M.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 11, 2010, 02:15:45 PM

The True Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has and will never accept communion except only on Christ's own Orthodox terms. It's not that hard a concept to grasp: the Vatican made claims similar to the fact of Orthodox communion until its doctrinal drift "developed" its dogma away, in another scheme to hoodwink the Orthodox.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Now we are down to the nub of it:  Hoodwinking!!

Good thing your hierarchs don't see it that way or we'd not be discussing anything at all.
Your hiearchs see it that way, as well as our hierarchs. Hence why those in the East who have submitted to the Vatican are not at the "discussions."
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 11, 2010, 02:25:33 PM

The True Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has and will never accept communion except only on Christ's own Orthodox terms. It's not that hard a concept to grasp: the Vatican made claims similar to the fact of Orthodox communion until its doctrinal drift "developed" its dogma away, in another scheme to hoodwink the Orthodox.

Given the fact that there's been an unceasing habit of intercommunion between Catholics and Orthodox regardless of how rigid the denial,
What denial?  The historical record reveals the occurance of behavior for which clergy should and were deposed for.

Quote
one of the other, over all of the centuries since the separation hardened, I think that to claim that the Catholics are the only one with "drift" shows some sort of ignorance of reality at work,


Not being Orthodox, we are quite free to think anything you like, and ignore reality as much as you like, or dare. Reality won't drift in your direction therefrom, though.

Quote
certainly an ignorance of what constitutes doctrine in the Catholic Church, some sort of denial of reality in general, and certainly, give the general "drift" of the poster, the refusal to discuss reality on any terms but that which feeds an Orthodox believer's fantasy and sincere hope for the future and one which is not shared by all Orthodox believers or hierarchs.
Well, name your nameless "more conservative Orthodox clergy" who want to renounce Orthodoxy and embrace Ultramontanism, and we'll deal with them and talk.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 11, 2010, 05:24:16 PM

Given the fact that there's been an unceasing habit of intercommunion between Catholics and Orthodox regardless of how rigid the denial,
What denial?  The historical record reveals the occurance of behavior for which clergy should and were deposed for.

Now you sometimes say things which I know other Orthodox here can't really know whether what you are saying is real and true or not, so they believe you simply because you are Orthodox...but what you say here is so far from reality that is actually one of the funnier things you've said.

All of us know or know about someone or several someones who are currently communing Catholics and are not in any danger whatsoever of being deposed...and it has been like that throughout our history together and to suggest that all those who did continue to share the chalice were deposed or are going to be deposed is simply a silly statement.  Some have been, of course, but to suggest it happens to all or even most, just ain't so.

M.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: katherineofdixie on November 12, 2010, 11:48:58 AM
All of us know or know about someone or several someones who are currently communing Catholics and are not in any danger whatsoever of being deposed...and it has been like that throughout our history together and to suggest that all those who did continue to share the chalice were deposed or are going to be deposed is simply a silly statement.  Some have been, of course, but to suggest it happens to all or even most, just ain't so.


This is also anecdotal evidence, of course, but based on my experience with a couple of bishops (both GOA and OCA) any priest who knowingly communed non-Orthodox (and continued to do so) would have a lot of 'splaining to do to his Hierarch.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 12, 2010, 11:59:41 AM
All of us know or know about someone or several someones who are currently communing Catholics and are not in any danger whatsoever of being deposed...and it has been like that throughout our history together and to suggest that all those who did continue to share the chalice were deposed or are going to be deposed is simply a silly statement.  Some have been, of course, but to suggest it happens to all or even most, just ain't so.


This is also anecdotal evidence, of course, but based on my experience with a couple of bishops (both GOA and OCA) any priest who knowingly communed non-Orthodox (and continued to do so) would have a lot of 'splaining to do to his Hierarch.

I agree and the more public or flagrant it is, depending one where the jurisdictions are, the more likely it is that a priest or bishop would be disciplined.  That is also fact and I am aware of it and do not think it is a bad thing in fact.

But there are and have always been times and places where there is pretty relaxed inter-communion between canonical Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church.

My point really is that there is no monolithic rejection of the Catholic Church by Orthodoxy to date.

Rejection will either come to be universally,  or we will have to find a way to resume communion.  But this push-me, pull-you that we've done over the centuries is worse than absurd and does need to stop one way or another.

The toxicity that gets squeezed out in conversations such as some of the ones on this board is hardly spiritually healthy...On this, I think we might agree.

In Christ,

M.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 12, 2010, 12:51:16 PM

Given the fact that there's been an unceasing habit of intercommunion between Catholics and Orthodox regardless of how rigid the denial,
What denial?  The historical record reveals the occurance of behavior for which clergy should and were deposed for.

Now you sometimes say things which I know other Orthodox here can't really know whether what you are saying is real and true or not, so they believe you simply because you are Orthodox...but what you say here is so far from reality that is actually one of the funnier things you've said.

All of us know or know about someone or several someones who are currently communing Catholics and are not in any danger whatsoever of being deposed...and it has been like that throughout our history together and to suggest that all those who did continue to share the chalice were deposed or are going to be deposed is simply a silly statement.  Some have been, of course, but to suggest it happens to all or even most, just ain't so.
And throughout history there are clerics who have engaged in all sorts of vice with impunity, knowing that they were not going to be called to account by any ecclesiastical or secular authority (recent lawsuits have proved them wrong again on that last part) and evidently do not fear God. So? Pornocratia, rather than Orthodoxy, as communion is not the commonion of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I give plenty of documentation so other Orthodox, and others, can know what I say is true (your problem with official statements and documents duly notted). I would really rather not waste time supplying the documentation of vice covered by the pall, or do you insist on it?

There are areas, for instance, in Syria where intercommunion, intermarriage etc. is very common between Orthodox and those Melkites who are in submission to the Vatican, but that comes out of an "a Pox on Both Romes-Antioch first!" mentality. It hasn't transplanted as far as I have seen to the diaspora (Arab, not Orthodox): hence the directive which I have heard from the priest holding the chalice, written in the Sunday bulletin etc. of every Antiochian parish, convert or craddle, that I have been to, that communion is restricted to Orthodox members who have prepared themselves. There is something similar among those whose forebares after Brest et alia were told that the pope in the Vatican had professed the Orthodox Faith.  I understand that in some areas they use "Pravoslavni" "Orthodox" in the usage you advocate for "Catholic" here.

Such areas are few and far between, and definitely far from the reality of the totality of Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 12, 2010, 12:59:58 PM
All of us know or know about someone or several someones who are currently communing Catholics and are not in any danger whatsoever of being deposed...and it has been like that throughout our history together and to suggest that all those who did continue to share the chalice were deposed or are going to be deposed is simply a silly statement.  Some have been, of course, but to suggest it happens to all or even most, just ain't so.


This is also anecdotal evidence, of course, but based on my experience with a couple of bishops (both GOA and OCA) any priest who knowingly communed non-Orthodox (and continued to do so) would have a lot of 'splaining to do to his Hierarch.

I agree and the more public or flagrant it is, depending one where the jurisdictions are, the more likely it is that a priest or bishop would be disciplined.  That is also fact and I am aware of it and do not think it is a bad thing in fact.

But there are and have always been times and places where there is pretty relaxed uncanonical inter-communion between canonical Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church Vatican.

Uncanonical communion of the canonical Orthodox members of the Catholic Church with the Vatican. Interesting picture you paint there.

Quote
My point really is that there is no monolithic rejection of the Catholic Church by Orthodoxy to date.
Just 99%, and 100% on the canonical level.

Quote
Rejection will either come to be universally,  or we will have to find a way to resume communion.


The Holy Synod of Romania has shown us the way.

Quote
But this push-me, pull-you that we've done over the centuries is worse than absurd and does need to stop one way or another.

The Holy Synod of Romania has shown us the way.

Quote
The toxicity that gets squeezed out in conversations such as some of the ones on this board is hardly spiritually healthy...On this, I think we might agree.
It's the silly personal opinions of some being presented as object official reality, and the need to interject heavy doses of reality to prevent the contagion, that makes it so. Like chemo-therapy to stop the spread of cancer.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Erethorn on November 12, 2010, 01:03:29 PM
Ialmisry, I see you keep bringing up the Holy Sinod of Romania.

I wonder how familiar you are with the actual relations between the  Orthodox and Greek-Catholic churches in Romania.

The case of Metropolitan Corneanu, for example. I wonder if you know the exact circumstances regarding his relationship with the Orthodox Sinod, as regarding the Greek-Catholic Church.

Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 12, 2010, 01:34:11 PM
All of us know or know about someone or several someones who are currently communing Catholics and are not in any danger whatsoever of being deposed...and it has been like that throughout our history together and to suggest that all those who did continue to share the chalice were deposed or are going to be deposed is simply a silly statement.  Some have been, of course, but to suggest it happens to all or even most, just ain't so.


This is also anecdotal evidence, of course, but based on my experience with a couple of bishops (both GOA and OCA) any priest who knowingly communed non-Orthodox (and continued to do so) would have a lot of 'splaining to do to his Hierarch.

I agree and the more public or flagrant it is, depending one where the jurisdictions are, the more likely it is that a priest or bishop would be disciplined.  That is also fact and I am aware of it and do not think it is a bad thing in fact.

But there are and have always been times and places where there is pretty relaxed uncanonical inter-communion between canonical Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church Vatican.

Uncanonical Communion of the schismatic Orthodox with the Catholic Church.


You were saying?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 12, 2010, 02:42:31 PM
Ialmisry, I see you keep bringing up the Holy Sinod of Romania.

I wonder how familiar you are with the actual relations between the  Orthodox and Greek-Catholic churches in Romania.

Fairly familiar: the mother of my sons is Romanian, I've been to Romania twice, know Romanian, and I know plenty of Romanians.

The case of Metropolitan Corneanu, for example. I wonder if you know the exact circumstances regarding his relationship with the Orthodox Sinod, as regarding the Greek-Catholic Church.

Yes, but you seem to have something specific in mind:what is it?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 12, 2010, 02:46:26 PM
All of us know or know about someone or several someones who are currently communing Catholics and are not in any danger whatsoever of being deposed...and it has been like that throughout our history together and to suggest that all those who did continue to share the chalice were deposed or are going to be deposed is simply a silly statement.  Some have been, of course, but to suggest it happens to all or even most, just ain't so.


This is also anecdotal evidence, of course, but based on my experience with a couple of bishops (both GOA and OCA) any priest who knowingly communed non-Orthodox (and continued to do so) would have a lot of 'splaining to do to his Hierarch.

I agree and the more public or flagrant it is, depending one where the jurisdictions are, the more likely it is that a priest or bishop would be disciplined.  That is also fact and I am aware of it and do not think it is a bad thing in fact.

But there are and have always been times and places where there is pretty relaxed uncanonical inter-communion between canonical Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church Vatican.
Uncanonical Communion of the schismatic Orthodox with the Catholic Church.
Misquoting again I see:fixed that for you. "Schismatic Orthodox" is an oxymoron btw.

You were saying?
The doors of repentance are always open, and the Father ever waiting with open arms:
(http://pof.reonline.org.uk/pics_g_lib/ortho_altar.jpg)
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: katherineofdixie on November 12, 2010, 03:05:15 PM
But there are and have always been times and places where there is pretty relaxed inter-communion between canonical Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church.
My best guess would be that this is more of a cultural phenomenon than a theological one. Such as was mentioned certain parts of Syria. That is, it doesn't truly represent the normative practice of the Orthodox Church, and is not sanctioned but rather is essentially, thumbing one's nose at authority.

Quote
My point really is that there is no monolithic rejection of the Catholic Church by Orthodoxy to date.
Yes. There has. Of course I can only offer my own experiences and observations, FWIW.
While most Orthodox I know don't think about Catholics or the RCC from one day to the next, (and certainly don't exhibit any of the rabid anti-Catholicism that I have seen on the part of certain evangelicals and Baptists), they most assuredly do not believe that the RCC is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If they did, or believed that there were not substantive differences, they would, of course, be Catholic and not Orthodox.
The most common prevailing attitude that I have witnessed is not anger, or bitterness or holding grudges, it is an understanding that the RCC and the OC are totally different churches. I've read in more than one place that Orthodox consider the RCC and Protestant Churches two sides of the same coin, more alike than they are different, and totally different from the OC.

Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Erethorn on November 12, 2010, 04:38:59 PM
The specifics that I had in mind, regarding Metropolitan Corneanu's relationship with the bulk of Romanian Orthodox Church's hierarchy are:

1. It's a well known and documented fact that the upper echelons (and not only) of the Romanian Orthodox Church have been cooperant to the communist regime in general and to the secret police Securitate in particular.

Of these people, Metropolitan Corneanu is the among the very few who, after the fall of communism, came out and made a public confession of his colaboration with the Securitate, a public apology to the people he gave information on.

In stark contrast to Metropolitan Corneanu's attitude, the rest of the Romanian Orthodox Church hierarchy has opposed, over the years, all legislative atempts to make the Securitate files public, particulary those of high ranking Church officials.

2. The second point where Metropolitan Corneanu went in opposite directions with the rest of Romanian Orthodox Church concerns the property of the Greek Catholic Church.

As you know, the Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek Catholic, was oulawed by the communists in 1948, and all of it's posessions were given to the Orthodox Church.

Following the fall of the communist regime, the Greek Catholic Church became a legal cult again, and one would expect that the property of wich it was forcibly deposed would be returned ti it. However, 20 years later, the majority of Greek Catholic Cchurches are still being fought over in the courts of law. The orthodox simply refuse to let go, despite these churches having been built by the greek catholic.

Again, in stark conrtast to this attitude stood Metropolitan Corneanu, who, imediatelly after the fall of communism, instructed every parish priest in his eparchy to allow the rightful owners of the churches to take posesions of their property and to begin worshiping in the temples built by their fathers, including the Greek Catholic Catedral in Lugoj.

One need not be a genius to realise that such actions did not make the Metropolitan popular with the rest of the Church. As such, the episode where he dared to aproach the Body and Blood of Christ in the church of the much hated Greek Catholics was the icing on the cake.

By the way, I live 5 minutes away from the very church where the whole thing took place. To this day, acts of vandalism take place there; the Vatican Flag is often ripped from it's place, and not three months ago the main door of the church was set on fire during the night.



Ialmisry, I see you keep bringing up the Holy Sinod of Romania.

I wonder how familiar you are with the actual relations between the  Orthodox and Greek-Catholic churches in Romania.

Fairly familiar: the mother of my sons is Romanian, I've been to Romania twice, know Romanian, and I know plenty of Romanians.

The case of Metropolitan Corneanu, for example. I wonder if you know the exact circumstances regarding his relationship with the Orthodox Sinod, as regarding the Greek-Catholic Church.

Yes, but you seem to have something specific in mind:what is it?


Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on November 13, 2010, 01:54:12 AM


However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

There are many who believe as you do and thank you for having the courage to speak out!!

I have a comment:

1. If you are going to receive communion in the Catholic Church, when you do, you should then confess it as a disobedience, for in these times of schism, without the blessing of an Orthodox bishop, you are committing the sin of disobedience.  The issue will then arise as to your commitment to be obedient and you may legitimately call upon the primacy of your conscience and the salvation of your soul.   That is not a game as long as you truly desire to be obedient but also want to be obedient to the words of Jesus in the Gospels where he calls for unity in the Body of Christ.  If you believe that your Catholic brothers and sisters are closest to you in faith, and you are not alone in Orthodoxy in believing this, then for the time being the greater weight of the sin of disobedience lies in the willed perpetuation of the schism.



Thank you too, however I believe in Jesus above any priest or denomination, maybe this is what he refereed to brother against brother. The difference I see with it is that we are both on the same page as far as being Christians . There are many who are far apart from us and I make them welcome in my house as I will try to love them as myself. I see your point of obedience to my church and you may be right that I should humble myself . My issue is that in my heart I believe Jesus would attend both churches and does every week.I am going to be judged by Jesus and God , my Priest and parishioners , or the bishops will not be there.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: NicholasMyra on November 13, 2010, 02:25:39 AM
This discussion is very interesting, especially in it's development over the days.  I'd really like to thank everyone who has participated!!

I'd also like to add two (unrelated) comments, for what they are worth. First of all, a very good friend of mine once said that **everything** man has touched since the Fall he has managed to corrupt.  Everything.  Just look around you.  Just look at history.  All of history.  And that includes the Church.  Just re-read this thread.

Secondly, at The Judgment, at which according to the Antiochian Orthodox Divine Liturgy,we will be called upon to offer "a good defense before the awful judgment seat of the Lord" (did I get that right?), will God ask us if we were Orthodox, or Anglican, or Roman Catholic?  Will He ask us if we partook of Holy Communion from a priest that was in communion with the "correct" Church?  I wonder just *what* He will ask us.  And, speaking only for myself here, I really do not think I will have "a good defense...".  Lord have mercy on me, a sinner!

We are not saying that the Lord will have no mercy on any of those who were not knowingly grafted onto his Body, the Church. No limit can be placed on God's mercy. You are attacking a strawman.

You need to relax, my friend, and stop seeing exclusivism as inherently malicious.

Not everything man can touch is corruptible, let alone corrupted. Be careful, the gnostics are always trying to gain ground.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 13, 2010, 02:34:30 AM
The specifics that I had in mind, regarding Metropolitan Corneanu's relationship with the bulk of Romanian Orthodox Church's hierarchy are:

1. It's a well known and documented fact that the upper echelons (and not only) of the Romanian Orthodox Church have been cooperant to the communist regime in general and to the secret police Securitate in particular.

Of these people, Metropolitan Corneanu is the among the very few who, after the fall of communism, came out and made a public confession of his colaboration with the Securitate, a public apology to the people he gave information on.

In stark contrast to Metropolitan Corneanu's attitude, the rest of the Romanian Orthodox Church hierarchy has opposed, over the years, all legislative atempts to make the Securitate files public, particulary those of high ranking Church officials.

2. The second point where Metropolitan Corneanu went in opposite directions with the rest of Romanian Orthodox Church concerns the property of the Greek Catholic Church.

As you know, the Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek Catholic, was oulawed by the communists in 1948, and all of it's posessions were given to the Orthodox Church.

Following the fall of the communist regime, the Greek Catholic Church became a legal cult again, and one would expect that the property of wich it was forcibly deposed would be returned ti it. However, 20 years later, the majority of Greek Catholic Cchurches are still being fought over in the courts of law. The orthodox simply refuse to let go, despite these churches having been built by the greek catholic.

Again, in stark conrtast to this attitude stood Metropolitan Corneanu, who, imediatelly after the fall of communism, instructed every parish priest in his eparchy to allow the rightful owners of the churches to take posesions of their property and to begin worshiping in the temples built by their fathers, including the Greek Catholic Catedral in Lugoj.

One need not be a genius to realise that such actions did not make the Metropolitan popular with the rest of the Church. As such, the episode where he dared to aproach the Body and Blood of Christ in the church of the much hated Greek Catholics was the icing on the cake.

By the way, I live 5 minutes away from the very church where the whole thing took place. To this day, acts of vandalism take place there; the Vatican Flag is often ripped from it's place, and not three months ago the main door of the church was set on fire during the night.



Ialmisry, I see you keep bringing up the Holy Sinod of Romania.

I wonder how familiar you are with the actual relations between the  Orthodox and Greek-Catholic churches in Romania.

Fairly familiar: the mother of my sons is Romanian, I've been to Romania twice, know Romanian, and I know plenty of Romanians.

The case of Metropolitan Corneanu, for example. I wonder if you know the exact circumstances regarding his relationship with the Orthodox Sinod, as regarding the Greek-Catholic Church.

Yes, but you seem to have something specific in mind:what is it?
Orthodox Church Threatens the Catholic Minority in Romania (http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=3997&grupo=News%20%20Media&canal=News)

Using the "majority rules" communist principle, the Romanian Orthodox Church is trying to gain permanent ownership of the properties seized from the Catholic minority by the communist regime in 1948. The Catholic minority threatened is the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church, one of the Eastern Rite Churches in communion with the Pope...

____________________
Can someone more familiar with this situation chime in and say whether the story is accurate?

Define accurate.

The report is extremely biased, but if you say bottom line "is the Orthodox in a battle with the "Romanian Church united with Rome, Greek Catholic" (the official title), the answer is yes.

A fact only alluded too but not discussed is that even if you go by the Vatican figures, less than half of the Romanians "united with Rome" have gone back, although they were quite free to do so for decades now.  According to the census figures, it is even lower, only about a tenth.  The "Union of Alba-Iulia 1699-1701" (the scheme in question) was enforced by imperial decree of Leopold I, and confiscated all Orthodox properties: Orthodox communion being declared treason (this is following edict to outright exterminate the "schismatic Vlachs" i.e. the Romanian Orthodox).  When the Orthodox majority refused to sign on for decades, and began erecting their own temples and monasteries, Marie Therese sent Buccow to destroy them all.  Even then, she finally in 1759 had to recognize officially that the Orthodox didn't disappear.  Despite Imperial support, the number of those in the union began to drop.  The figure of two million is often given by church in question: the figures for that don't add up.

The "Catholic Encyclopedia" 1909 gives 1,750,000 Orthodox Romanians in Transylvania, and 1,300,000 for the Romanians under the Vatican in Hungary, the majority, but not the totality, residing in Transylvania. (the census of 1900 for Hungary (CE "Hungary"), which included Transylvania, showed "Uniat Greek 1,843,634...Orthodox Greek 2,799,846).  30 years earlier, the figures I've seen on the population of Transylvania are 31% Orthodox Romanians, 28%  the RCUwR,GC.  At the eve of the war the CE (Supp. I vol. 17, p. 385) figures for Hungary are "2,008,000 Uniat Greeks...2,004,000 Orthodox Greeks...As a result of the War about....Catholics [of whatever rite]..1,008,000 went to Rumania...since the signing of the Treaty of Versailles there are....158,000 Uniat Greeks...77,000 Orthodox Greeks [in Hungary].  On Rumania [sic] the supplement (p. 644)claims "in 1918 9,695,714 belonged to the Orthodox Church; 1,456,147 were Greek Catholic, 1,483,929 were Roman Catholic."  The figures for 1930 in Romania were 1930 Orthodox 13,108,227 (72.6), Uniate 1,427,391 (7.9) Latin 1,234,151 (6.8).  These figures comport with others I've seen elsewhere.  The Suppliment on "Fogaras" (pp. 311) states that "the Hungarians either imprisoned or interned many priests and layman, and some died during their internment."  It also elsewhere mentioned the persecusion by Communist Hungary before the Romanians overthrew Bela Kuhn.  To come up with 2 million would require a 37% increase in 30 years, whereas Romania only increased in the same period 6.6% (14,876,787 to 15,872,624: there is the problem that teh frist figure includes Bessarabia and N. Bucovina, later lost: the total without these territories was in 1930 14,280,729 (with them 18,057,028)).  These do not factor in the WWII casualties.  In other words, massive conversion or birthrate of the Romanians attatched to Fagaras, neither of which is found in the contemporary records (in fact, the opposite trend is seen), would be needed to come up with 2 million.

The "Roman Catholics" were mostly Hungarian and Germans, a point that I found odd that the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" translated into Romanian was available long before the English was, in fact nearly right after the first (French) version was available.  And it was flooded in Bucharest: I saw adds and copies of it everywhere in 92-93. Now, since not only does the Vatican have a minority in Romania, its flock speaking Romanian is a minority within a minority.  Yet the Romanian CCC seemed a priority.  This, after the pope of Rome had said that if the Romanians were really Roman, they would be "Roman Catholic."

But back to the properties: when Transylvania was reunited with Romania, the RCUwR,GC was declared by the constitution to be a second Romanian church, with preference before all other faiths except the state Orthodox Church.  As such, it was highly priviledged. That however wasn't enough, and the King-himself a Latin rite communicant of the Vatican (the pope had hoped for him to be the instrument of another "union" scheme)-made an unconstitutional concordant with the Vatican which gave the RCUwR, GC a status superior to the Orthodox Church, e.g. receiving the patriomony of the Hapsburgs (stolen from the Orthodox) as its own.  This was a consitent bone of contention.

The issue now is that the RCUwR,GC is denying that anyone was ever forced into union, that the Orthodox properties were ever stolen, that the Hapsburg enriched their church at the expense of the Orthodox-ill gotten gain that the RCUwR,GC was allowed to keep under the unconstitutional concordant. And the fact that the vast majority of its former communicants see no reason to apostacize again from the Orthodox Church, despite aggressive proseltizing.


As a side note, the Vatican's Ukrainian church in Romania was allowed to go on.
On the attempt of the Vatican to conclude a union with the Romanian Orthodox Church, which resulted in the union of 1948, on terms not of the Vatican's making:
http://www.geocities.com/serban_marin/vasile2002.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19694.msg291921.html#msg291921
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341358/topicseen.html#msg341358
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23726.msg364925/topicseen.html#msg364925
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 13, 2010, 02:40:10 AM
On the attempt of the Vatican to conclude a union with the Romanian Orthodox Church, which resulted in the union of 1948, on terms not of the Vatican's making:
http://www.geocities.com/serban_marin/vasile2002.html
I see the link is not on line anymore. Marirea Dumnezeului for the way back machine!
Quote
The Apostolic Nunciature in Romania

at the Beginning of the Communist Regime

1945-1950*

 

Cristian Vasile,

“Nicolae Iorga” Institute of History,

Bucharest

 

My paper analyses the activity of the Apostolic Nunciature in Romania with a special attention to the Italian representatives of the Holy See in Bucharest, and to Romanian Italian prelates and clergymen between 1945 and 1950, pre-eminently in the lights of the Romanian Secret Services’ documents. Therefore, this study does not aim at providing a complete chronological and theoretical account of the period. It may be useful in the following introductory paragraph to sketch some of the general features of the diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Central and Eastern European countries from the Soviet-controlled area immediately after World War II.

For the Soviets, the Roman Catholic Church was an “international organization”, while the Holy See was an important ally of the American “imperialist”, facts which were unacceptable in their eyes. The Communist governments from Eastern and Central Europe sought to restrain and then even to suppress the communications between the Holy See and local Catholics, therefore the activity of the Apostolic Nunciatures from these countries began to be closely supervised even as early as 1945. In Albania the Holy See’s representatives were accused of collaboration with the Fascist occupiers and were unscrupulously driven away immediately after 1944[1]. The Holy See continued after 1944 to recognize the legal Polish authorities which remained in exile in London[2], but the Communist government from Warsaw treated more carefully the Polish Roman Catholic Church in comparison with their Central European neighbor “comrades”. Nevertheless, the Concordat was denounced by the Polish authorities in September 1945[3]. Although in Romania the Concordat - which had been ratified in 1929 - was unilaterally revoked only three years later on July 17, 1948, it was many times infringed and avoided after the Communist takeover in March 1945.

One of the most prominent Italian prelate in Romania was undoubtedly monseigneur Andrea Cassulo, the apostolic nuncio in Romania from 1936 to 1947, when he was practically forced to leave the country. After their takeover, the Romanian Communists suspected the Holy See of trying to change the Romanian religious map by converting its
p. 256
inhabitants to Roman Catholicism. Some Romanian Greek Catholic monks (former Orthodox[4]) pleaded vigorously for the religious union of Orthodox Church with Rome and their actions were sustained especially by the Prayer’s Front, a Catholic initiative animated by the Romanian Italian professor Iosif Frollo and msgr. Vladimir Ghika[5]. The Intelligence services were aware about their initiative and therefore intensified their actions for supervising of the Apostolic Nunciature and Catholic and Orthodox prelates in order to prevent the possibility of an anticommunist “alignment” of the two Christian Churches.
After 1945, the Holy See wished for an improvement of the Catholic-Orthodox relations and in this context, at the beginning of 1946, took place the visit of the apostolic nuncio Andrea Cassulo and Alexandru Theodor Cisar, archbishop-metropolit of the Latin Archdiocese of Bucharest at the Romanian patriarch Nicodim Munteanu, who was very reluctant towards the Communist regime. When the Soviet government had invited Nicodim at the end of January 1945 to attend the ceremonies connected with the election of the Russian patriarch Alexis I, the Romanian patriarch personally declined under the pretext of his great age, his uncertain health, and the winter season[6]. The patriarch’s lack of sympathy and enthusiasm for the Romanian Communist Party and Marxist ideology annoyed the officials and determined them, even from 1945, to try the intimidation and blackmail of Nicodim. Moreover, the meetings from January 1946 between patriarch Nicodim and two Roman Catholic dignitaries: Andrea Cassulo and Alexandru Th. Cisar, gave rise to many worries, the Communists feared that the two Christian Churches – rivals on previous occasions – could now create a common anti-governmental and anti-Soviet front[7]. On the contrary, the representatives of the Romanian government wanted and pleaded for the approaching between the Russian Patriarchy – a tool in the hands of the Soviet leadership – and Romanian Orthodox Church, and they exerted a constant pressure, especially on patriarch Nicodim, to accept a bilateral meeting in Romania with Alexis, the Russian patriarch. According to some sources, A. Cassulo and Alexandru Cisar gave to the patriarch an anniversary medal from the Holy Father as a sign of appreciation in the spirit of Christian love[8] and proposed him the dignity of cardinal of the East with the end to facilitate the negotiations for the union with Rome of the entire Eastern European Orthodoxy[9]. These meetings between patriarch Nicodim and the two Catholic prelates provoked the suspicion and anger of the Communist authorities. The Orthodox-Catholic discussions continued in the following months and the agents of the Romanian Secret Service (SSI) pointed out that in March 1946 patriarch Nicodim visited the Apostolic Nunciature and in front of Andrea Cassulo he kissed a Pope Pius XII medal – “an act of recognition of the Holy Father’s supremacy in the Christian world”[10], according to SSI (an obvious exaggeration). After these events, in some clerical circles reached the rumor that
p. 257
the Romanian government would like to remove Nicodim from his high ecclesiastical office and to create a “group of Church diplomats” with the aim to direct firmly the Romanian Orthodox Church towards East (i.e. Russian Patriarchy)[11]. The authorities gave a clear warning, including to the Romanian Orthodox Church during the “war criminals trial” in spring of 1946. Thus, the position of Andrea Cassulo as diplomat and of his colleagues and Orthodox interlocutors became very uncomfortable, especially when the Communist authorities tried, for political purposes, to implicate and compromise him during the Marshal Antonescu’s trial judged by a Special Court in June 1946[12]. Since msgr. Andrea Cassulo became a sort of persona non grata in Romania, the Holy See sought to avoid the worsening of the diplomatic dispute and decided in 1946, much to the regret of the Romanian Catholic community, to nominate the internuncio Gerald Patrick O’Hara, former bishop of Savannah, as successor[13]. Nonetheless, the appointment of an American prelate as Holy See’s representative in Romania generated great hopes among the Romanian Catholics concerning a firm action of the Vatican[14]. Despite the hostile messages sent by the government, Nicodim did not give up and maintained a normal relationship with the Vatican prelates in Romania, and before Andrea Cassulo’s departure the patriarch and the former nuncio had tears in their eyes[15]. In spite of the “quarantine” imposed by the Government against him, Andrea Cassulo sought to contribute to the safety of the Roman Catholic Church and maintained the contacts with the Romanian people, especially with the political and diplomatic milieus, until his departure in March 1947[16]. Another Holy See diplomat of Italian background who worked for the Apostolic Nunciature in Bucharest as secretary was Guido del Mestri de Schönberg[17]. After his expulsion from Romania he was for a long time apostolic nuncio in Germany; in 1990, he returned in Romania with the occasion of the reopening of the Apostolic Nunciature in Bucharest.
For the Communists the Romanian Catholic priests (they had about three milion faithful at that time) proved to be more hostile in comparison with the other clergy (Orthodox, Protestant etc). The Holy See maintained after the World War II the denunciation of the Communist ideology and, thus, under the influence of this decision[18], the Catholic Church in Romania (all of its rites: Latin, Byzantine and Armenian) as well as the other sister Churches from Central and Eastern Europe, forbade the adhesion of the subordinate clergymen to the Communist Parties and organizations[19]. Thus, the Roman

p. 258

Catholic Church did not give its blessing to the Communist regime, and this hostile attitude was accompanied by the support of some subordinate laymen groups - the Association of the Greek Catholic Romanians (AGRU) and the Association of the Romanian Greek Catholic Students (ASTRU)[20] - in favour of the anticommunist oppositionn. Moreover, the Secret Service’s report noted on March 1, 1946 that ASTRU (organization which supported actively the Prayer’s Front) received through the agency of msgr. Vladimir Ghika “a substantial subsidy” from the Apostolic Nunciature. Thanks to this fact, Andrea Cassulo was very interested in the activities of ASTRU, concluded the SSI report[21]. In reply, the Communist appealed to obedient organizations and even the small Catholic Italian community in Romania did not escape from the state authorities’ pressure which pleaded for “enlisting” in the Communist or pro-Communist associations. Among the major figures of the Romanian Italian community was Antonio Mantica who came in Romania in July 1913 sent by the Vatican, but approved and paid by the Italian government as priest of the Italian Catholics of Bucharest. He belonged to the diocese of Vicenza and was for a few years missionary in Sudan[22]; he remained for three decades priest of the Italian church of SS. Redentore in Bucharest[23]. After their takeover the Romanian Communists encouraged the foundation and development of the Italian Patriotic Union[24], an obedient organization which had the aim of dividing the Romanian Italian colony. Faced with this attempt of penetrating the Italian community, the Apostolic Nunciature decided to intervene and actively supported the creation of a rival association – the Catholic Italian Group, animated by padre Antonio Mantica, the priest of the Italian parish of Bucharest[25]. This Group received an significant support from the Italian Legation and from important members of the Italian colony in Romania: Valerio Ongari, Giovanni Villa and Umberto Ricordini[26].

Probably, the Romanian Communists perfidiously relied on a religious feud, as well. For instance, in Southern Bukovina the German and Hungarian Catholic population had left in 1940 and after 1944 its Catholic churches were occupied by the Orthodox faithful. The authorities had allowed Orthodox to use the Catholic churches but they deliberately neglected the property right of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Iaşi. Andrea Cassulo was concerned that the Communists might ignore sine die the Catholic properties, so he pleaded for the recognition of the property rights of the Roman Catholic Bishopric of Iaşi.

But the authorities tried to speculate every discord even within Roman Catholic Church. Some documents spoke about alleged Romanian Greek Catholic bishops’ pressures on Andrea Cassulo after 1944 for punishing mgr Aron Marton, the Romanian Hungarian bishop of Alba Iulia who was accused for his attempts to convert the Transylvanian Greek

p. 259

Catholics to Roman Catholicism during the World War II[27]. The nuncio, “a good friend of the Hungarian prelate from Alba Iulia” – as insinuated by the SSI - refused to make a decision alone and sent the case to Vatican for a resolution. However, it goes without saying that such information must be confirmed by other sources because now we hold also favorable Greek Catholic opinions on Aron Marton.

The Romanian officials just like their Soviet masters estimated that the Apostolic Nunciature in Bucharest was a sort of Intelligence Agency (or even Espionage Department of the Vatican in the Communist speech). For example, a leading Romanian Italian clergy exponent after 1944 – msgr. Andrea Iovanelli - was blamed in the spring of 1946 by the SSI for organizing an ecclesiastical, political and social Intelligence Department. According to the SSI agents, the headquarters of this “Department” was right at the Apostolic Nunciature led by an other Italian – Andrea Cassulo[28]. The Catholic priests were frequently charged for using espionage channels. After Andrea Cassulo’s departure the Secret Services blamed Gerald Patrick O’Hara and his colleagues Guido del Mestri and John C. Kirk for the continuation of the “spying activity”[29]. Such accusations were repeated in a shameful booklet entitled Vatican – a meanly tool of the warmongers, edited by the Romanian Workers’ Party[30] Publishing House which stated that “the Roman pope has in its service an entire network of agents – Catholic priests and missionaries whose job is to spy and to send regularly reports to the Vatican […]. The Vatican became the most important center of espionage and spying training from the entire world”[31]. Therefore, many clergy were injailed especially from the beginning of the summer of 1947.

Moreover, the problem of the numerous arrested priests and the precarious state of the Catholic Church were the main topics of the discussion from December, 1947 between bishop Gerald Patrick O’Hara and representatives of the Romanian government. At the end of the meeting, O’Hara did not obtain much, and he declared openly that the real truth was hidden. It is clear that the Groza government began to promote a more rigid religious policy after September 1947 and its main objective was the subordination of all Churches, the last obstacle for the Romanian Communists after the suppression of the democratic opposition and abolition of the monarchy. So, 1948, a year dominated by the East-West confrontation, brought a fundamental change in the religious policy. On February 22, 1948 a provocative Communist attack on the Catholic Church took place: in a vehement speech the Communist leader Gh. Gheorghiu-Dej enunciated the anti-Catholic policy. Shortly after, the contact between the Catholic Church from Romania and the Holy See was effectively cut off under Article 40 from the Law concerning the Religious Cults, adopted on August 4, which stated that no religious community and none of its officials may have relations with

p. 260

religious communities abroad, except with permission of the Ministry of Religious Cults and through the Ministry of External Affairs[32].

Through the agency of the Apostolic Nunciature in Bucharest the Holy See vehemently protested in 1948-1949 against the suppression of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church and condemned the violation of the religious freedom, but the Communist authorities (especially the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) decisively rejected these justified accusations as “interferences” in the internal affairs of a sovereign and independent state[33]. Moreover, repeatedly the Romanian Communists infringed the elementary diplomatic practices and conventions: they illegally denounced the Concordat and in May 1949 the diplomats’ freedom of movement was drastically restricted[34].

On December 27, 1949 padre Antonio Mantica was summoned at the Ministry of Interior headquarters where he was practically arrested for 5 days. After psychic and physical pressures he accepted to declare publicly that he would leave “spontaneously” the country and not after an expulsion decree[35]. He left Romania on February 7, 1950 and after his expulsion the Italian church S.S. Redentore remained without a priest. The internuncio O’Hara and Scammacca del Murgo, the Italian ambassador in Romania, asked father Clemente Gatti whether he accepted to be the priest of the Italian colony in Bucharest. He was enthroned on February 11, 1950 but he did not have the title of parish priest. After the banishment of the Apostolic Nunciature’s diplomats[36], Clemente Gatti also received, on January 1, 1951 an order of expulsion without any motivation. Although the Italian Legation obtained a postponement, on March 3, 1951 the Italian Ministry of External Affairs gave clear instructions to its Legation from Bucharest to demand to Clemente Gatti to leave Romania immediately[37]. Since padre Clemente Gatti refused to obey, he was arrested on March 8, 1951.

As Pedro Ramet stated, for Marxists, religious policy and nationalities policy were parts of an organic whole[38]. After 1948 a furious anti-Western campaign was unleashed in Eastern and Central Europe, whose aim was to destroy the Western cultural values perceived as decadent and depraved: British, French and Italian Institutes and Libraries were closed by the Communist governments and the citizens of Western background (French, Italian, German etc) suffered, too. Thus, the fate of the Italian and Romanian Italian clergy is not surprising.

*

As we saw the Soviets and their obedient Romanian Communists imitators considered that the Vatican policy was enslaved by the warmonger American “imperialist”

p. 261

establishment and as a proof they invoked the nomination of American apostolic nuncios in Eastern Europe: Gerald Patrick O’Hara in Romania and Patrick Hurley in Yugoslavia[39]. In this anti-Catholic and suffocating climate Andrea Cassulo’s successor Gerald Patrick O’Hara was forced to leave Bucharest on July 7, 1950[40]. He was practically expelled. It is obvious that after 1945 the Holy See tried to counteract the Soviet anti-Catholic policy but we believe that it is an exaggeration to assert that the Vatican could “exert pressure” on Romanian Orthodox Church hierarchy for religious union with Rome, as some historians recently stated[41].

The Holy See’s diplomats in Romania were even since 1945 the object of a strong distrust because the pro-Communist government began to consider the Vatican as a “bulwark against Communism”. The ideological clash between the Roman Catholic Church and the state had important political consequences. The Communists interpreted the lack of political support of the Catholic Church as forbidding Catholic priests to engage in the “democratic” policy and therefore the Catholic clergy were labeled “reactionary” and “imperialist” like their “masters” from the Vatican, and especially after 1948 they have been charged with collaboration with the American and Vatican spies, and they spent years in Communist prisons. In recent years researchers have gained acces to new archival materials which revealed the brutality and the persecutions against the Romanian Catholic clergy of all rites.

At the same time the Communist Eastern and Central European Parties tried to convince their Roman Catholic Churches to break the canonical links with the Vatican and to transform them into “National Churches”. These attempts, a prelude to a future subordination, were firmly rejected by the Catholic hierarchy. The Communist intentions were rapidly deciphered by the Catholic prelates and representatives of the Vatican in Eastern and Central Europe. For example, early in the winter of 1946, Andrea Cassulo was aware of the fact that “the Soviet government has in its view, trough the agency of a skilful action, the creation of dissident Polish Roman Catholic Church which will break its ties with the Vatican and will become, for form’s sake, an autonomous Catholic Church, but in fact a Russian Patriarchy’s subordinate” [42 ]. Unfortunately for the Roman Catholic Church, the Western allies recognized the Soviet Union’s claims to pre-eminent influence in Eastern and Central Europe, thus the Holy See had no possibility to intervene in this part of the continent.

 

For this material, permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use.

Whether you intend to utilize it in scientific purposes, indicate the source: either this web address or the Annuario. Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 4 (2002), edited by Şerban Marin, Rudolf Dinu and Ion Bulei, Venice, 2002

Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 13, 2010, 12:11:20 PM


However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

There are many who believe as you do and thank you for having the courage to speak out!!

I have a comment:

1. If you are going to receive communion in the Catholic Church, when you do, you should then confess it as a disobedience, for in these times of schism, without the blessing of an Orthodox bishop, you are committing the sin of disobedience.  The issue will then arise as to your commitment to be obedient and you may legitimately call upon the primacy of your conscience and the salvation of your soul.   That is not a game as long as you truly desire to be obedient but also want to be obedient to the words of Jesus in the Gospels where he calls for unity in the Body of Christ.  If you believe that your Catholic brothers and sisters are closest to you in faith, and you are not alone in Orthodoxy in believing this, then for the time being the greater weight of the sin of disobedience lies in the willed perpetuation of the schism.



Thank you too, however I believe in Jesus above any priest or denomination, maybe this is what he refereed to brother against brother. The difference I see with it is that we are both on the same page as far as being Christians . There are many who are far apart from us and I make them welcome in my house as I will try to love them as myself. I see your point of obedience to my church and you may be right that I should humble myself . My issue is that in my heart I believe Jesus would attend both churches and does every week.I am going to be judged by Jesus and God , my Priest and parishioners , or the bishops will not be there.

I agree with you.  There are times when righting a moral wrong means moving against a man-made law.   Hitler's Reich accomplished much evil which, at the time, was precisely legal.  The Third Reich was a legitimate government, possessed of unspeakable evil.

There's a story that circulates about an eastern Catholic bishop who said [paraphrasing] that if it is legal it is moral!!   That is not an unusual sentiment among us as Christians, and it is terrifying to me at some level.

Orthodox believers will mock the Catholic Church for her legalism and turn around and crucify one another verbally on some of the most minute points of law that I have ever seen.

So I am with you on this one, and you may well be right.  If it flies in the face of the Christ's wish that we be one, then perhaps those bishops on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox schism indeed are not exercising the legitimate authority of Christ to do as they do, which serves to prolong the schism, and if the authority is not legitimate in this case, but sinful, then you have the right of it to do as you do.

Thank you, again.

Mary
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: katherineofdixie on November 13, 2010, 01:06:03 PM
If it flies in the face of the Christ's wish that we be one, then perhaps those bishops on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox schism indeed are not exercising the legitimate authority of Christ to do as they do, which serves to prolong the schism, and if the authority is not legitimate in this case, but sinful, then you have the right of it to do as you do.

Thank you, again.

Mary

The Orthodox bishops that I know, particularly a GOA bishop that regularly participate in Orthodox-Catholic gatherings, would be delighted to welcome anyone to return home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It's simply that we disagree on where that is to be found.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 13, 2010, 01:49:47 PM
If it flies in the face of the Christ's wish that we be one, then perhaps those bishops on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox schism indeed are not exercising the legitimate authority of Christ to do as they do, which serves to prolong the schism, and if the authority is not legitimate in this case, but sinful, then you have the right of it to do as you do.

Thank you, again.

Mary

The Orthodox bishops that I know, particularly a GOA bishop that regularly participate in Orthodox-Catholic gatherings, would be delighted to welcome anyone to return home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It's simply that we disagree on where that is to be found.

In the history of the schism, that position has been sometimes less and sometimes more rigid.  It has varied from place to place as well as from time to time.  Which is why, of course, that I've said there has never been a monolithic and rigid position on either side. 

It seems to me that we are in a period of good faith dialogue.  What comes out of it, of course, is yet to be seen but if it does continue apace and improves, then all those rigid Catholic and Orthodox bishops are going to either have to schism again or find a way to relax their rigid positions...seems to me.

M.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 13, 2010, 02:32:17 PM
If it flies in the face of the Christ's wish that we be one, then perhaps those bishops on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox schism indeed are not exercising the legitimate authority of Christ to do as they do, which serves to prolong the schism, and if the authority is not legitimate in this case, but sinful, then you have the right of it to do as you do.

Thank you, again.

Mary

The Orthodox bishops that I know, particularly a GOA bishop that regularly participate in Orthodox-Catholic gatherings, would be delighted to welcome anyone to return home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It's simply that we disagree on where that is to be found.

In the history of the schism, that position has been sometimes less and sometimes more rigid.  It has varied from place to place as well as from time to time.  Which is why, of course, that I've said there has never been a monolithic and rigid position on either side.

And you still haven't distinguished that from other moral lapses of the clergy.

Btw, very odd how you challenge my authority as an Orthodox Christian to repeat the statements of the Orthodox Episcopate of the Catholic Church, but encourage "Sinful Hypocrite" in arroganting to himself the power to judge the Orthodox Episcopate of the Catholic Church because he doesn't like their statements of the Faith. But then again, maybe not odd, typical and expected.

Quote
It seems to me that we are in a period of good faith dialogue.
::)
Quote
What comes out of it, of course, is yet to be seen but if it does continue apace and improves, then all those rigid Catholic and Orthodox bishops are going to either have to schism again or find a way to relax their rigid positions...seems to me.
Or those laxidasical bishops can get together and maybe catch up with the Anglicans.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on November 13, 2010, 10:39:23 PM
If it flies in the face of the Christ's wish that we be one, then perhaps those bishops on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox schism indeed are not exercising the legitimate authority of Christ to do as they do, which serves to prolong the schism, and if the authority is not legitimate in this case, but sinful, then you have the right of it to do as you do.

Thank you, again.

Mary

The Orthodox bishops that I know, particularly a GOA bishop that regularly participate in Orthodox-Catholic gatherings, would be delighted to welcome anyone to return home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It's simply that we disagree on where that is to be found.

In the history of the schism, that position has been sometimes less and sometimes more rigid.  It has varied from place to place as well as from time to time.  Which is why, of course, that I've said there has never been a monolithic and rigid position on either side.

And you still haven't distinguished that from other moral lapses of the clergy.

Btw, very odd how you challenge my authority as an Orthodox Christian to repeat the statements of the Orthodox Episcopate of the Catholic Church, but encourage "Sinful Hypocrite" in arroganting to himself the power to judge the Orthodox Episcopate of the Catholic Church because he doesn't like their statements of the Faith. But then again, maybe not odd, typical and expected.

Quote
It seems to me that we are in a period of good faith dialogue.
::)
Quote
What comes out of it, of course, is yet to be seen but if it does continue apace and improves, then all those rigid Catholic and Orthodox bishops are going to either have to schism again or find a way to relax their rigid positions...seems to me.
Or those laxidasical bishops can get together and maybe catch up with the Anglicans.

You take it farther than it is intended. Out of context. Arrogance is your forte as my name implies my stance overall here. I have already agreed to being a hypocrite.

I am not making judgments of either as to which is better or right or wrong .I stated God loving both and Jesus attending both equally. I am subject to judgment but God said he would handle that not you or me or catholic or orthodox.I believe that it is simpler than you want to make it.

I love Jesus and he and God will judge us . I have learned much through my Greek Orthodox upbringing and I applaud and respect that , But I must not look down on Catholics or others and separate myself from them because of errors and arguments that are long ago and overdo for forgiveness and confession. I cannot be held responsible for your sins any more than you are held to mine.If we say we both believe in Jesus dying for our sins and rising on the third day , and we say the lords prayer together and have communion together and speak of the holy spirit moving within our souls together than You are the one who is lost when you find fault with that ,not me as far as what the gospels and the church teaches.I do not fear men is what Jesus said, you are all the same as me , a man to be judged by Jesus and God.
 
And he will not judge us by denomination because he said we were all to be one nation.

Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on November 14, 2010, 06:07:28 PM
You take it farther than it is intended. Out of context. Arrogance is your forte as my name implies my stance overall here. I have already agreed to being a hypocrite.

I am not making judgments of either as to which is better or right or wrong .I stated God loving both and Jesus attending both equally. I am subject to judgment but God said he would handle that not you or me or catholic or orthodox.I believe that it is simpler than you want to make it.

I love Jesus and he and God will judge us . I have learned much through my Greek Orthodox upbringing and I applaud and respect that , But I must not look down on Catholics or others and separate myself from them because of errors and arguments that are long ago and overdo for forgiveness and confession. I cannot be held responsible for your sins any more than you are held to mine.If we say we both believe in Jesus dying for our sins and rising on the third day , and we say the lords prayer together and have communion together and speak of the holy spirit moving within our souls together than You are the one who is lost when you find fault with that ,not me as far as what the gospels and the church teaches.I do not fear men is what Jesus said, you are all the same as me , a man to be judged by Jesus and God.
 
And he will not judge us by denomination because he said we were all to be one nation.

Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us.
I was really touched by reading this post. We need more people like you not only on this forum but on the internet in general. I can tell you that it woke me up and made me realize how far off my conduct is at times and how much in need of God's mercy I am. Thank you for this. Your kindness and humility is definitely a powerful witness.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: serb1389 on November 15, 2010, 04:16:38 AM
If it flies in the face of the Christ's wish that we be one, then perhaps those bishops on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox schism indeed are not exercising the legitimate authority of Christ to do as they do, which serves to prolong the schism, and if the authority is not legitimate in this case, but sinful, then you have the right of it to do as you do.

Thank you, again.

Mary

The Orthodox bishops that I know, particularly a GOA bishop that regularly participate in Orthodox-Catholic gatherings, would be delighted to welcome anyone to return home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It's simply that we disagree on where that is to be found.

In the history of the schism, that position has been sometimes less and sometimes more rigid.  It has varied from place to place as well as from time to time.  Which is why, of course, that I've said there has never been a monolithic and rigid position on either side.

And you still haven't distinguished that from other moral lapses of the clergy.

Btw, very odd how you challenge my authority as an Orthodox Christian to repeat the statements of the Orthodox Episcopate of the Catholic Church, but encourage "Sinful Hypocrite" in arroganting to himself the power to judge the Orthodox Episcopate of the Catholic Church because he doesn't like their statements of the Faith. But then again, maybe not odd, typical and expected.

Quote
It seems to me that we are in a period of good faith dialogue.
::)
Quote
What comes out of it, of course, is yet to be seen but if it does continue apace and improves, then all those rigid Catholic and Orthodox bishops are going to either have to schism again or find a way to relax their rigid positions...seems to me.
Or those laxidasical bishops can get together and maybe catch up with the Anglicans.

You take it farther than it is intended. Out of context. Arrogance is your forte as my name implies my stance overall here. I have already agreed to being a hypocrite.

I am not making judgments of either as to which is better or right or wrong .I stated God loving both and Jesus attending both equally. I am subject to judgment but God said he would handle that not you or me or catholic or orthodox.I believe that it is simpler than you want to make it.

I love Jesus and he and God will judge us .

Which Jesus is it that you are referring to?  Because I have a sneaking suspicion that we're not talking about the One of the Orthodox Church but rather some imagination or perception you have picked up from somewhere else. 

Quote
.If we say we both believe in Jesus dying for our sins and rising on the third day , and we say the lords prayer together and have communion together and speak of the holy spirit moving within our souls together

Arius, Nestorius, Appolianrius, Sabellius, Donatus, etc. etc. etc. would use the same "synchretistic" language you would, and they have been Anathematized by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Again, which Jesus is it that you are referring to? 

Quote
than You are the one who is lost when you find fault with that ,not me as far as what the gospels and the church teaches.I do not fear men is what Jesus said, you are all the same as me , a man to be judged by Jesus and God.
 
And he will not judge us by denomination because he said we were all to be one nation.

Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us.

Wow...I'm not even sure what this means.  He will not judge us by denomination BECAUSE we are all one nation?  How are we exactly one Nation when we don't even profess the same exact understanding of this "Jesus" you speak of.  As one professor of mine famously said:  Jesus Christ is not "the big boss upstairs" not just because that's a ridiculous statement but because it totally tramples on the magnificence of what His Incarnation has done for our humanity. 

I think for this very basic reason, we need to be MUCH more careful about throwing the "Jesus" word around and assuming that everyone agrees with how it is being utilized, either by you OR by me. 



Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: katherineofdixie on November 15, 2010, 11:52:00 AM
In the history of the schism, that position has been sometimes less and sometimes more rigid.  It has varied from place to place as well as from time to time.  Which is why, of course, that I've said there has never been a monolithic and rigid position on either side. 
I'd be interested in any support for this assertion. Since my understanding is that the official theological (as it were)position of both has always been clear:"There is only one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We're it and you're not."
That seems to me to be pretty monolithic and rigid. Depending on your definition of monolithic and rigid, I guess.

What individuals, both clergy and lay, choose to do, and how they choose to interpret/defy/ignore the official positions of their respective Hierarchs (for what I suspect are mostly cultural and political reasons, and not some kind of warm-fuzzy idea that we're all one, except for some pesky irrelevant historical/theological details) is another things entirely

Quote
It seems to me that we are in a period of good faith dialogue.  What comes out of it, of course, is yet to be seen but if it does continue apace and improves, then all those rigid Catholic and Orthodox bishops are going to either have to schism again or find a way to relax their rigid positions...seems to me.
There is only one way to do that - the RCC and the OC are so different that one side or the other is going to have to say that they were wrong.
How likely is that?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 15, 2010, 12:07:36 PM
In the history of the schism, that position has been sometimes less and sometimes more rigid.  It has varied from place to place as well as from time to time.  Which is why, of course, that I've said there has never been a monolithic and rigid position on either side. 
I'd be interested in any support for this assertion. Since my understanding is that the official theological (as it were)position of both has always been clear:"There is only one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We're it and you're not."
That seems to me to be pretty monolithic and rigid. Depending on your definition of monolithic and rigid, I guess.

What individuals, both clergy and lay, choose to do, and how they choose to interpret/defy/ignore the official positions of their respective Hierarchs (for what I suspect are mostly cultural and political reasons, and not some kind of warm-fuzzy idea that we're all one, except for some pesky irrelevant historical/theological details) is another things entirely

Quote
It seems to me that we are in a period of good faith dialogue.  What comes out of it, of course, is yet to be seen but if it does continue apace and improves, then all those rigid Catholic and Orthodox bishops are going to either have to schism again or find a way to relax their rigid positions...seems to me.
There is only one way to do that - the RCC and the OC are so different that one side or the other is going to have to say that they were wrong.
How likely is that?

There is a recent topic on a single Orthodox catechism on this board which would be instructive when trying to figure out what is any "official theological" position of universal Orthodoxy.

And I am sorry that you feel the way that you do but I am glad that not all Orthodox bishops join you in this approach to the resumption of communion.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: katherineofdixie on November 15, 2010, 03:09:42 PM
There is a recent topic on a single Orthodox catechism on this board which would be instructive when trying to figure out what is any "official theological" position of universal Orthodoxy.
So evidence for the assertion is that there is no Orthodox catechism?
I'm sorry, but do you really think so?


Quote
And I am sorry that you feel the way that you do but I am glad that not all Orthodox bishops join you in this approach to the resumption of communion.
I don't "feel" one way or another about this. It is a simple statement of fact: these are two totally different churches. Either the Pope is infallible or he isn't. Either he is the "first among equals" among a synod of bishops, or he isn't. Either the Creed contains the filioque or it doesn't. Etc.
Would the RCC bishops or cardinals be willing to concede that they were wrong about any of those or similar issues?
If they would, they are welcome in the OC. (And I'd be willing to bet that most Orthodox bishops feel the same way. I'd even be willing to bet that most of the RC Hierarchs would feel the same way about their particular beliefs.)

Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 15, 2010, 03:24:53 PM
There is a recent topic on a single Orthodox catechism on this board which would be instructive when trying to figure out what is any "official theological" position of universal Orthodoxy.
So evidence for the assertion is that there is no Orthodox catechism?
I'm sorry, but do you really think so?


Quote
And I am sorry that you feel the way that you do but I am glad that not all Orthodox bishops join you in this approach to the resumption of communion.
I don't "feel" one way or another about this. It is a simple statement of fact: these are two totally different churches. Either the Pope is infallible or he isn't. Either he is the "first among equals" among a synod of bishops, or he isn't. Either the Creed contains the filioque or it doesn't. Etc.
Would the RCC bishops or cardinals be willing to concede that they were wrong about any of those or similar issues?
If they would, they are welcome in the OC. (And I'd be willing to bet that most Orthodox bishops feel the same way. I'd even be willing to bet that most of the RC Hierarchs would feel the same way about their particular beliefs.)


What I think is that the conversation on the topic of catechisms says a great deal about claims to being a monolithic Orthodoxy.  I also know historically that there was not a monolithic approach to the Catholic Church on the part of Orthodoxy...as you claim there has been.

And if what you say about some of the expressions of faith between us is worthy of schism then I am surprised that Orthodoxy conducts the current dialogues between us in such bad faith and with such flagrant dishonesty.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: katherineofdixie on November 15, 2010, 03:49:13 PM
What I think is that the conversation on the topic of catechisms says a great deal about claims to being a monolithic Orthodoxy.  I also know historically that there was not a monolithic approach to the Catholic Church on the part of Orthodoxy...as you claim there has been.
Priests who knowingly choose to commune any non-Orthodox, which includes members of the RCC, are violating the canons of their Church, and if their Hierarch finds out, they will be in trouble.
How monolithic is that for you?

Quote
And if what you say about some of the expressions of faith between us is worthy of schism then I am surprised that Orthodoxy conducts the current dialogues between us in such bad faith and with such flagrant dishonesty.

Well, aside from the fact, that such a deduction from my statement requires mental zigzagging that leave me breathless, it's not bad faith and dishonesty. We're witnessing to our erring brethren and praying and hoping that they will see the light and all return to the One True Faith.

Oddly enough, though, I agree with you now. With such bad faith and poor opinions, and unsupported assertions, as demonstated, there probably isn't any hope for dialogue, and I wonder why they waste their time.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 15, 2010, 04:45:06 PM
There is a recent topic on a single Orthodox catechism on this board which would be instructive when trying to figure out what is any "official theological" position of universal Orthodoxy.
So evidence for the assertion is that there is no Orthodox catechism?
I'm sorry, but do you really think so?


Quote
And I am sorry that you feel the way that you do but I am glad that not all Orthodox bishops join you in this approach to the resumption of communion.
I don't "feel" one way or another about this. It is a simple statement of fact: these are two totally different churches. Either the Pope is infallible or he isn't. Either he is the "first among equals" among a synod of bishops, or he isn't. Either the Creed contains the filioque or it doesn't. Etc.
Would the RCC bishops or cardinals be willing to concede that they were wrong about any of those or similar issues?
If they would, they are welcome in the OC. (And I'd be willing to bet that most Orthodox bishops feel the same way. I'd even be willing to bet that most of the RC Hierarchs would feel the same way about their particular beliefs.)


What I think is that the conversation on the topic of catechisms says a great deal about claims to being a monolithic Orthodoxy.
Let's see, it was 28 apostate bishops who signed at Florence, and the rest of their Orthodox (coreligionists) rejected it. And that's not monolithic enough for you.


Quote
  I also know historically that there was not a monolithic approach to the Catholic Church on the part of Orthodoxy...as you claim there has been.
Yes, straining gnats to find exceptions to make the rule to swallow the camel.

Quote
And if what you say about some of the expressions of faith between us is worthy of schism then I am surprised that Orthodoxy conducts the current dialogues between us in such bad faith and with such flagrant dishonesty.
I have nothing to add to Katherneofdixie's treatment of the matter.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on November 15, 2010, 08:13:56 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.

That's not what I was talking about.

I was saying even if you don't have access to a particular church of your own communion, I still don't see what would be the point of taking communion in another communion.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on November 15, 2010, 08:15:14 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.

Frustrating?

Why?

He believes you would receive unto Gehenna.

He would give it to you if you would be willing to be Chrismated.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: deusveritasest on November 15, 2010, 08:16:02 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.
Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace

No, the point he is saying that if you are not in communion you cannot receive the grace of the communion.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: serb1389 on November 15, 2010, 09:34:42 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.
Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace

No, the point he is saying that if you are not in communion you cannot receive the grace of the communion.

Right, and even beyond that if we believe that communion is just Grace, then couldn't I just stand in a church and receive communion?  I mean...the Holy Spirit Blows where He Wills, right?  So that grace could be anywhere.  Is anywhere in communion?  By saying that Holy Communion is just grace you cheapen Holy Communion and what Christ did for us through His death and Resurrection. 

Plus on top of all that Holy Communion (Eucharist) is by no means just "grace":

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gp8st5bihlAC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=schmemann+eucharist&source=web&ots=s1ngPXN-eT&sig=OvJXwDQQXC5TjyeVZEdf65ZUILo#v=onepage&q&f=fal

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31134.0.html

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26730.0.html

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24608.0.html

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16008.0.html

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21259.0.html

This I think should give you a sufficient place to start and truly examining your theory of "grace"
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on November 15, 2010, 09:45:14 PM

Quote
.If we say we both believe in Jesus dying for our sins and rising on the third day , and we say the lords prayer together and have communion together and speak of the holy spirit moving within our souls together

Arius, Nestorius, Appolianrius, Sabellius, Donatus, etc. etc. etc. would use the same "synchretistic" language you would, and they have been Anathematized by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Again, which Jesus is it that you are referring to?  

Quote
than You are the one who is lost when you find fault with that ,not me as far as what the gospels and the church teaches.I do not fear men is what Jesus said, you are all the same as me , a man to be judged by Jesus and God.
 
And he will not judge us by denomination because he said we were all to be one nation.

Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us.

Wow...I'm not even sure what this means.  He will not judge us by denomination BECAUSE we are all one nation?  How are we exactly one Nation when we don't even profess the same exact understanding of this "Jesus" you speak of.  As one professor of mine famously said:  Jesus Christ is not "the big boss upstairs" not just because that's a ridiculous statement but because it totally tramples on the magnificence of what His Incarnation has done for our humanity.  

I think for this very basic reason, we need to be MUCH more careful about throwing the "Jesus" word around and assuming that everyone agrees with how it is being utilized, either by you OR by me.  




Matthew 16:18 >>NIV
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

 1 Peter 2:9 >>NIV
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

An holy nation - This is also taken from Exodus 19:6. The Hebrews were regarded as a nation consecrated to God; and now that they were cast off or rejected for their disobedience, the same language was properly applied to the people whom God had chosen in their place - the Christian church.

I read the same Gospels as you , Every version I have ever read has the same Jesus saying the same parables as you have read .
Your attempt to mock me is fine but we should be clear that there are four gospels and what christian Church does not read them? The Church's I speak of are all based on the Gospels of Matthew ,Mark, Luke, and John. And they all read the same stories as I read there.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on November 15, 2010, 10:03:38 PM
I read the same Gospels as you , Every version I have ever read has the same Jesus saying the same parables as you have read .
Your attempt to mock me is fine but we should be clear that there are four gospels and what christian Church does not read them? The Church's I speak of are all based on the Gospels of Matthew ,Mark, Luke, and John. And they all read the same stories as I read there.
There are many mockers on this forum, and it is an "Orthodox" forum. Logic...hmmmm.........
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on November 15, 2010, 10:14:07 PM
Thank you Wyatt, You are like an oasis in the wilderness. God bless you my friend.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 15, 2010, 10:21:44 PM

Quote
.If we say we both believe in Jesus dying for our sins and rising on the third day , and we say the lords prayer together and have communion together and speak of the holy spirit moving within our souls together

Arius, Nestorius, Appolianrius, Sabellius, Donatus, etc. etc. etc. would use the same "synchretistic" language you would, and they have been Anathematized by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Again, which Jesus is it that you are referring to?  

Quote
than You are the one who is lost when you find fault with that ,not me as far as what the gospels and the church teaches.I do not fear men is what Jesus said, you are all the same as me , a man to be judged by Jesus and God.
 
And he will not judge us by denomination because he said we were all to be one nation.

Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us.

Wow...I'm not even sure what this means.  He will not judge us by denomination BECAUSE we are all one nation?  How are we exactly one Nation when we don't even profess the same exact understanding of this "Jesus" you speak of.  As one professor of mine famously said:  Jesus Christ is not "the big boss upstairs" not just because that's a ridiculous statement but because it totally tramples on the magnificence of what His Incarnation has done for our humanity.  

I think for this very basic reason, we need to be MUCH more careful about throwing the "Jesus" word around and assuming that everyone agrees with how it is being utilized, either by you OR by me.  




Matthew 16:18 >>NIV
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Matthew 16:22-3
Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Quote
1 Peter 2:9 >>NIV
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

An holy nation - This is also taken from Exodus 19:6. The Hebrews were regarded as a nation consecrated to God; and now that they were cast off or rejected for their disobedience, the same language was properly applied to the people whom God had chosen in their place - the Christian church.
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And people can still be cast off and rejected for their disobedience to that Church.

2 Peter 3:16-7
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.
i.e. communion in that One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Quote
I read the same Gospels as you , Every version I have ever read has the same Jesus saying the same parables as you have read .
Your attempt to mock me is fine but we should be clear that there are four gospels and what christian Church does not read them?
Why stop there? The Mormons read them, the Muslim polemicists read them, the "higher critics" etc. read them. The Jesus seminar reads them.

Quote
The Church's I speak of are all based on the Gospels of Matthew ,Mark, Luke, and John.
Church is singular. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church confessing the Orthodox Faith.

And while you are speaking of, we are speaking for that Church.

Quote
And they all read the same stories as I read there.
As St. Peter warns us in Scripture.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 15, 2010, 10:23:19 PM
Thank you Wyatt, You are like an oasis in the wilderness. God bless you my friend.
Maybe if you hadn't wandered out of the Land of Milk and Honey, you wouldn't be lost in the wilderness in need of an oasis.

Beware of mirages.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on November 15, 2010, 11:05:04 PM
Thank you Wyatt, You are like an oasis in the wilderness. God bless you my friend.
Maybe if you hadn't wandered out of the Land of Milk and Honey, you wouldn't be lost in the wilderness in need of an oasis.

Beware of mirages.

You are the most lucky and blessed sinner ,to never feel lost in a world of hate. You are never chased out of the temple by an angry mob like Christ , maybe you are a prophet in your village?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on November 15, 2010, 11:07:09 PM
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
With what propriety can the pretended successor of Peter - the pope - undertake to expound those difficult doctrines in the writings of Paul, when even Peter himself did not undertake it, and when he did not profess to be able to comprehend them? Is the Pope more skilled in the knowledge of divine things than the apostle Peter? Is he better qualified to interpret the sacred writings than an inspired apostle was?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 15, 2010, 11:18:37 PM
Thank you Wyatt, You are like an oasis in the wilderness. God bless you my friend.
Maybe if you hadn't wandered out of the Land of Milk and Honey, you wouldn't be lost in the wilderness in need of an oasis.

Beware of mirages.

You are the most lucky and blessed sinner ,to never feel lost in a world of hate. You are never chased out of the temple by an angry mob like Christ , maybe you are a prophet in your village?
No, I"ve been threatened with death by Muslims in the Muslim world as I dare to prefer the Son of God over their "prophet." So while you have enjoyed it seems the luxury of fuzzy feelings, I've had to grap hold to the Rock on which I stand.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 15, 2010, 11:24:24 PM
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
With what propriety can the pretended successor of Peter - the pope - undertake to expound those difficult doctrines in the writings of Paul, when even Peter himself did not undertake it, and when he did not profess to be able to comprehend them? Is the Pope more skilled in the knowledge of divine things than the apostle Peter? Is he better qualified to interpret the sacred writings than an inspired apostle was?
Quote
Barnes was ordained as a Presbyterian minister by the presbytery of Elizabethtown, New Jersey, in 1825
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Barnes_(theologian)

Ordained? By whose authority? Certainly not the inspired Apostles'.

I'll let your friend Wyatt dialogue on your views of the pope based of Barnes' distortion of scripture.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on November 15, 2010, 11:56:23 PM
Thank you Wyatt, You are like an oasis in the wilderness. God bless you my friend.
Maybe if you hadn't wandered out of the Land of Milk and Honey, you wouldn't be lost in the wilderness in need of an oasis.

Beware of mirages.

You are the most lucky and blessed sinner ,to never feel lost in a world of hate. You are never chased out of the temple by an angry mob like Christ , maybe you are a prophet in your village?
No, I"ve been threatened with death by Muslims in the Muslim world as I dare to prefer the Son of God over their "prophet." So while you have enjoyed it seems the luxury of fuzzy feelings, I've had to grap hold to the Rock on which I stand.
You harbor a lot of bitterness
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 12:03:51 AM
Thank you Wyatt, You are like an oasis in the wilderness. God bless you my friend.
Maybe if you hadn't wandered out of the Land of Milk and Honey, you wouldn't be lost in the wilderness in need of an oasis.

Beware of mirages.

You are the most lucky and blessed sinner ,to never feel lost in a world of hate. You are never chased out of the temple by an angry mob like Christ , maybe you are a prophet in your village?
No, I"ve been threatened with death by Muslims in the Muslim world as I dare to prefer the Son of God over their "prophet." So while you have enjoyed it seems the luxury of fuzzy feelings, I've had to grap hold to the Rock on which I stand.
You harbor a lot of bitterness
LOL.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Erethorn on November 16, 2010, 02:34:29 AM
I've had to grap hold to the Rock on which I stand.

You stand on the Pope ?! ???
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 09:12:01 AM
I've had to grap hold to the Rock on which I stand.
You stand on the Pope ?! ???
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wUI6qYkH1wk/S2Y00udCyuI/AAAAAAAABeM/cl7GpUzUVtY/s400/St+Mark+of+Ephesus+trampling+pope.jpg)
Ialmisery, what is this icon? Can you interpret it?
St. Mark of Ephesus standing on the "Roman pope," who is combined with some imagery of the beast in Revelation.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Erethorn on November 16, 2010, 11:27:51 AM
I suppose I should take great comfort in the fact that the Catholic Church has not produced such abominations and called them holy icons.

On the other hand, if you really wanted some imagery depicting Vatican as The Great Whore and the Pope as Antichrist (or was it the Beast ?), you should look no further than the writings of Ellen White. That stuff could inspire you, perhaps take up the brush yourself.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 11:49:42 AM
I suppose I should take great comfort in the fact that the Catholic Church has not produced such abominations and called them holy icons.
In the sistine chapel (where your supreme pontiff is elected) is a Madonna trambling down Luther and Calvin with a banner "semper virgo" flying. Rather odd, as both Luther and Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of the Holy Theotokos

Quote
On the other hand, if you really wanted some imagery depicting Vatican as The Great Whore and the Pope as Antichrist (or was it the Beast ?)
I don't know. I didn't post it.

Quote
, you should look no further than the writings of Ellen White. That stuff could inspire you, perhaps take up the brush yourself.
No, I'll stick with the pillars of Orthodoxy.
(http://www.orthodoxpillars.com/photos/modified%20photos/The%20Pillars%20of%20Orthodoxy.jpg)
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: katherineofdixie on November 16, 2010, 11:53:54 AM
I read the same Gospels as you , Every version I have ever read has the same Jesus saying the same parables as you have read .
...we should be clear that there are four gospels and what christian Church does not read them? The Church's I speak of are all based on the Gospels of Matthew ,Mark, Luke, and John. And they all read the same stories as I read there.

They may all read the same stories, but they understand/interpret them (and apply their understanding) in sometimes vastly different ways. The Jesus of the Mormons, for example, and the Jesus of the JWs is not necessarily a Jesus that you would recognize.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: jnorm888 on November 16, 2010, 12:58:36 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

A number of EO believe in Toll Houses and so it would be somewhat hypocritical to attack the RC belief of Purgatory.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2010, 01:02:46 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: jnorm888 on November 16, 2010, 01:11:51 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm) (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2010, 01:51:43 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm) (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 02:12:53 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm) (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2010, 02:51:55 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm) (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on November 16, 2010, 02:54:10 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm) (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2010, 02:56:43 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm) (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Being in communion with Rome means that we are part of the same mystical body of Christ as Rome is and we can share in the sacraments with one another.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 03:04:17 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm) (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2010, 03:10:58 PM

No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  ;D
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on November 16, 2010, 03:12:14 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm) (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Being in communion with Rome means that we are part of the same mystical body of Christ as Rome is and we can share in the sacraments with one another.
I was more responding to ialmisry's definition of ultramontanism above (sorry...probably should have quoted his post instead of yours) where he said that our Sacraments are only licit if done "in his name" (in the name of the Pope). My question was when do we, as RCs, offer up the Holy Eucharist or celebrate the Sacrament of Confession, or any other Sacrament for that matter, in the name of the Pope? I don't recall the Pope's name being brought up when any of the Sacraments are celebrated save for a brief mention of him in the Mass. I know of no Sacrament that is rendered illicit by the Pope's name not being invoked.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2010, 03:13:06 PM
So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm) (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Being in communion with Rome means that we are part of the same mystical body of Christ as Rome is and we can share in the sacraments with one another.
I was more responding to ialmisry's definition of ultramontanism above (sorry...probably should have quoted his post instead of yours) where he said that our Sacraments are only licit if done "in his name" (in the name of the Pope). My question was when do we, as RCs, offer up the Holy Eucharist or celebrate the Sacrament of Confession, or any other Sacrament for that matter, in the name of the Pope? I don't recall the Pope's name being brought up when any of the Sacraments are celebrated save for a brief mention of him in the Mass.
Oh, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 03:13:16 PM
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
To take as an example, the DL that the Melkites in submission to the Vatican use:
Dear LBK,

Thank you for responding to my query. I find the topic to be very interesting.

Fr Anastasios, you wrote:

When I was an Eastern Rite Roman Catholic, our parish did not alter the liturgical texts that we lifted from Orthodoxy when we schismed.  So I think we have to be real careful where we draw the line lest the Eastern Rite Roman Catholics turn your argument right back on you.

That's easy to refute, Father. The definitive sign of an Eastern Rite Catholic is liturgical commemoration of the Pope of Rome as Supreme Pontiff. Last time I checked, this is heresy in the Orthodox Church.

While I would agree with you that such commemoration is heretical, I don't believe you can deduce that just from the liturgical deposit; the main reason we know that Roman Catholics are heretics is because they were condemned by several councils and the Fathers wrote against their false doctrines.

No, actually it is heretical on the face of it.
Quote
First, Lord, remember our Father N. Pope of Rome, our Most Blessed Patriarch N., our Father and (Arch)bishop N.  Graciously bestow them to Your Holy Churches in peace, safty, honor, health, long life, rightly dispensing the word of Your truth.
http://www.melkite.org/PDF/LITURGY2009.pdf

Now, the (arch)bishop is there because the parish exists only antimens.  The Patriarch is there, because of the Church's canonical order, of the synod of the local Church having a primate.

But the mere mention of the pope of Rome, first of all, on the face of it is an intrusion of ultramontanism, the idea that someone is above the Local Church.  Both "Rome" and "Pope" point to that:if you are not in the Patriarchate of Rome, there is no reason to be commorating him over any other primate in the diptych.  And "Pope" breaks the Word "Call no one Father," the Orthodox not falling for the Protestant trap on denying to anyone (otherwise they could not Honor your father as the commandment says, and would have to condemn scripture 1 Cor. 4:15 where St. Paul claims to be their father), but neither the error of the Vatican in claiming the title the Father, arrogating the title "pope" "dad" only to himself. In fact, since I got this from the Melkite Web site, their is the problem that the Melkite patriarch claims, and is installed by Rome to be, the patriarch of Alexandria, upon whom was bestowed the title, long before Rome took it, of "Pope."  Yet the Vatican, because of the heresies of Vatican I, denies him this title, and it doesn't appear in their liturgy.

There is a dogmatic basis for the commemoration, and the liturgical commemoration of the Vatican breaks it, making it clear that it is heresy.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2010, 03:15:15 PM
^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 03:15:51 PM

No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  ;D
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2010, 03:17:29 PM

No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  ;D
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Father H on November 16, 2010, 03:23:22 PM
No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  ;D
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
Good question.  The tea in China is both cheaper and superior to that in the US (i.e. the tea that they drink, not that which they send to the US).   But there may be a connection:  your flag may be made in China by people drinking inexpensive Chinese tea.   There you go, that is what it has to do with the price of tea in China
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 03:38:29 PM
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Being in communion with Rome means that we are part of the same mystical body of Christ as Rome is and we can share in the sacraments with one another.
I was more responding to ialmisry's definition of ultramontanism above (sorry...probably should have quoted his post instead of yours) where he said that our Sacraments are only licit if done "in his name" (in the name of the Pope). My question was when do we, as RCs, offer up the Holy Eucharist or celebrate the Sacrament of Confession, or any other Sacrament for that matter, in the name of the Pope? I don't recall the Pope's name being brought up when any of the Sacraments are celebrated save for a brief mention of him in the Mass.

That's it. Outside of the Patriarchate of the West and the pontifical DL, i.e. ones served by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, the Archbishop of Cyprus, the Catholicoi of Armenia, Georgia, Albania (Caucasian), etc. i.e. his autocephalous peers, the name of no Pope of Rome was commemorated in any  DL during the first millenium of the Church. When Isodore the Apostate of Kiev, coming back from Florence, commemorated his supreme pontiff during DL he was arrested and then expelled from the see.  All the "unions" require his commemoration. I recall in the late 80's, a crypto-Ultramontanist in Ukraine, assigned to a brand new Church (so no question of it being "stolen) commemorated supreme pontiff John Paul II and the Orthodox of the congregation immediately rose up while the other ultramontanists went on to seize the Church properties.

We can go more into that, but I don't think it necessary, e.g.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM12.HTM#5
Quote
Lateran IV c. 5. The dignity of the patriarchal sees

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord's disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord's cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.
The early Church knew nothing of any of this. No patriarch EVER received his "pallium" nor his pontifical office from the Pope of Rome, nor did ANY patriarch have to swear an oath of fidelity and obedience to the same.

Quote
I know of no Sacrament that is rendered illicit by the Pope's name not being invoked.
Neither do we, but the Vatican claims otherwise.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 03:40:05 PM

No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  ;D
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
LOL. In China, the "Catholic Patriotic Church" does not recognize the supreme pontiff, nor fly his flag.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 16, 2010, 03:41:32 PM
No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.

Yes.  We are the Body of Christ and all that is given unto us through his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is of utmost sufficiency.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2010, 03:45:03 PM

No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  ;D
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
LOL. In China, the "Catholic Patriotic Church" does not recognize the supreme pontiff, nor fly his flag.
I am aware of the Patriotic Church of China
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 03:45:27 PM
^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
To take as an example, the DL that the Melkites in submission to the Vatican use:
Dear LBK,

Thank you for responding to my query. I find the topic to be very interesting.

Fr Anastasios, you wrote:

When I was an Eastern Rite Roman Catholic, our parish did not alter the liturgical texts that we lifted from Orthodoxy when we schismed.  So I think we have to be real careful where we draw the line lest the Eastern Rite Roman Catholics turn your argument right back on you.

That's easy to refute, Father. The definitive sign of an Eastern Rite Catholic is liturgical commemoration of the Pope of Rome as Supreme Pontiff. Last time I checked, this is heresy in the Orthodox Church.

While I would agree with you that such commemoration is heretical, I don't believe you can deduce that just from the liturgical deposit; the main reason we know that Roman Catholics are heretics is because they were condemned by several councils and the Fathers wrote against their false doctrines.

No, actually it is heretical on the face of it.
Quote
First, Lord, remember our Father N. Pope of Rome, our Most Blessed Patriarch N., our Father and (Arch)bishop N.  Graciously bestow them to Your Holy Churches in peace, safty, honor, health, long life, rightly dispensing the word of Your truth.
http://www.melkite.org/PDF/LITURGY2009.pdf

Now, the (arch)bishop is there because the parish exists only antimens.  The Patriarch is there, because of the Church's canonical order, of the synod of the local Church having a primate.

But the mere mention of the pope of Rome, first of all, on the face of it is an intrusion of ultramontanism, the idea that someone is above the Local Church.  Both "Rome" and "Pope" point to that:if you are not in the Patriarchate of Rome, there is no reason to be commorating him over any other primate in the diptych.  And "Pope" breaks the Word "Call no one Father," the Orthodox not falling for the Protestant trap on denying to anyone (otherwise they could not Honor your father as the commandment says, and would have to condemn scripture 1 Cor. 4:15 where St. Paul claims to be their father), but neither the error of the Vatican in claiming the title the Father, arrogating the title "pope" "dad" only to himself. In fact, since I got this from the Melkite Web site, their is the problem that the Melkite patriarch claims, and is installed by Rome to be, the patriarch of Alexandria, upon whom was bestowed the title, long before Rome took it, of "Pope."  Yet the Vatican, because of the heresies of Vatican I, denies him this title, and it doesn't appear in their liturgy.

There is a dogmatic basis for the commemoration, and the liturgical commemoration of the Vatican breaks it, making it clear that it is heresy.[/size]
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2010, 03:47:25 PM
^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
To take as an example, the DL that the Melkites in submission to the Vatican use:
Dear LBK,

Thank you for responding to my query. I find the topic to be very interesting.

Fr Anastasios, you wrote:

When I was an Eastern Rite Roman Catholic, our parish did not alter the liturgical texts that we lifted from Orthodoxy when we schismed.  So I think we have to be real careful where we draw the line lest the Eastern Rite Roman Catholics turn your argument right back on you.

That's easy to refute, Father. The definitive sign of an Eastern Rite Catholic is liturgical commemoration of the Pope of Rome as Supreme Pontiff. Last time I checked, this is heresy in the Orthodox Church.

While I would agree with you that such commemoration is heretical, I don't believe you can deduce that just from the liturgical deposit; the main reason we know that Roman Catholics are heretics is because they were condemned by several councils and the Fathers wrote against their false doctrines.

No, actually it is heretical on the face of it.
Quote
First, Lord, remember our Father N. Pope of Rome, our Most Blessed Patriarch N., our Father and (Arch)bishop N.  Graciously bestow them to Your Holy Churches in peace, safty, honor, health, long life, rightly dispensing the word of Your truth.
http://www.melkite.org/PDF/LITURGY2009.pdf

Now, the (arch)bishop is there because the parish exists only antimens.  The Patriarch is there, because of the Church's canonical order, of the synod of the local Church having a primate.

But the mere mention of the pope of Rome, first of all, on the face of it is an intrusion of ultramontanism, the idea that someone is above the Local Church.  Both "Rome" and "Pope" point to that:if you are not in the Patriarchate of Rome, there is no reason to be commorating him over any other primate in the diptych.  And "Pope" breaks the Word "Call no one Father," the Orthodox not falling for the Protestant trap on denying to anyone (otherwise they could not Honor your father as the commandment says, and would have to condemn scripture 1 Cor. 4:15 where St. Paul claims to be their father), but neither the error of the Vatican in claiming the title the Father, arrogating the title "pope" "dad" only to himself. In fact, since I got this from the Melkite Web site, their is the problem that the Melkite patriarch claims, and is installed by Rome to be, the patriarch of Alexandria, upon whom was bestowed the title, long before Rome took it, of "Pope."  Yet the Vatican, because of the heresies of Vatican I, denies him this title, and it doesn't appear in their liturgy.

There is a dogmatic basis for the commemoration, and the liturgical commemoration of the Vatican breaks it, making it clear that it is heresy.[/size]
^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 04:19:46 PM
^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
How silly of me! I had forgot that the lex orandi lex credendi doesn't apply to those with the supreme pontiff, so those who commemorate his name need not say the filioque in their creed. I'm used to the Orthodox way of professing what we belief and believing what we profess.

So for you all:

Can.  838 §1. The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, the diocesan bishop.

§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books and review their translations in vernacular languages, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

§3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves.

§4. Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.

Can.  841 Since the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and belong to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirements for their validity; it is for the same or another competent authority according to the norm of ⇒ can. 838 §§3 and 4 to decide what pertains to their licit celebration, administration, and reception and to the order to be observed in their celebration.

Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

§3. A bishop takes canonical possession of a diocese when he personally or through a proxy has shown the apostolic letter in the same diocese to the college of consultors in the presence of the chancellor of the curia, who records the event. In newly erected dioceses, he takes canonical possession when he has seen to the communication of the same letter to the clergy and people present in the cathedral church, with the senior presbyter among those present recording the event.

§4. It is strongly recommended that the taking of canonical possession be done within a liturgical act in the cathedral church with the clergy and people gathered together.

Can. 399 §1. Every Five years a diocesan bishop is bound to make a report to the Supreme Pontiff on the state of the diocese entrusted to him, according to the form and time determined by the Apostolic See.

Can. 400 §1. Unless the Apostolic See has established otherwise, during the year in which he is bound to submit a report to the Supreme Pontiff, a diocesan bishop is to go to Rome to venerate the tombs of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and to present himself to the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 375 §1. Bishops, who by divine institution succeed to the place of the Apostles through the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, are constituted pastors in the Church, so that they are teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship, and ministers of governance.

§2. Through episcopal consecration itself, bishops receive with the function of sanctifying also the functions of teaching and governing; by their nature, however, these can only be exercised in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.

Can. 377 §1. The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those legitimately elected.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2010, 05:01:03 PM
Still don't see how this means that the Euchrist is "offered in the name of the Pope."

But hey, why bother with the facts, right? You have Latins to bash. lol


So once moe: So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 05:57:49 PM
Still don't see how this means that the Euchrist is "offered in the name of the Pope."
I'm sure you don't.
(http://coloradospringscopier.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/head-in-sand.jpg)
Quote
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University

In acting in the person of Christ the priest makes it possible for the present assembly to exercise the common priesthood of the faithful and thus to unite themselves in heart and mind to Christ, as he offers his perfect sacrifice to the Father and who allows us to share in this sacrifice.

Yet this priesthood cannot be genuinely exercised except in communion with the ministerial priesthood acting in the person of Christ and the Church. And indeed, one of the primary purposes of the ministerial priesthood is to facilitate the exercise of the common priesthood.

Without this communion the liturgy ceases, in a way, to be an act of the Church, for the concrete assembly is a manifestation of the Church, but is not the Church itself.

Thus the priest, in saying the Eucharistic Prayer alone, but in always using the first person plural, expresses this double aspect of acting in the person of Christ and of the Church. Through the priest's acting in the person of Christ, in a way Christ himself acts in the person of the Church in saying the Eucharistic Prayer.

In other words, Christ himself, as head of his body, the Church, says the Eucharistic Prayer, and says it in first person plural because while, on the one hand, only he can offer the Eucharist, he associates his whole body — all the faithful — with him in doing so.

Another consequence of this communion in the whole Church is that we are all engaged in every Mass said anywhere.

This can be seen in some elements of the prayer itself. For example, the intercessions of the first two Eucharistic Prayers contain the expression "una cum" — "together with N. our Pope and N. our Bishop" (although the same Latin expression is translated differently in the two prayers).

This "together with" is not just a praying-for but a praying-with by which we are united through the celebrating priest to the bishop and through him to the Pope and the universal Church.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 149, addresses this point:

"If the celebrant is a Bishop, in the Prayers, after the words 'Papa nostro N.' (N., our Pope), he adds, 'et me, indigno famulo tuo' (and me, your unworthy servant). If, however, the Bishop is celebrating outside his own diocese, after the words 'Papa nostro N.' (N., our Pope), he adds, 'et me indigno famulo tuo, et fratre meo N., Episcopo huius Ecclesiae N.' (me, your unworthy servant, and my brother N., the Bishop of this Church of N.).

"The diocesan Bishop or anyone equivalent to him in law must be mentioned by means of this formula: 'una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Episcopo (or Vicario, Prelato, Praefecto, Abbate)' (together with your servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop [or Vicar, Prelate, Prefect, Abbot]).

Because ecclesial unity is formed through the pope and the bishop it is not correct to extend the prayer by specifically naming priests such as "N. our pastor."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur40.htm

For a Traditionalist take on this "Should I Assist at a Mass That Names Benedict XVI in the Canon?"
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/B16inCanon.pdf

anyone further interested, look up "Una cum Mass"

Take a look at your missal. Tell me if it is approved by someone other than your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI, either directly or indirectly per those canons I posted from http:/ /www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM


Quote
But hey, why bother with the facts, right?
You don't seem bothered by the facts, and the fact that I am right.

Quote
You have Latins to bash. lol
Can. 838 — § 1. Sacrae liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet: quae quidem est penes Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, penes Episcopum dioecesanum.

 § 2. Apostolicae Sedis est sacram liturgiam Ecclesiae universae ordinare, libros liturgicos edere eorumque versiones in linguas vernaculas recognoscere, necnon advigilare ut ordinationes liturgicae ubique fideliter observentur.

 § 3. Ad Episcoporum conferentias spectat versiones librorum liturgicorum in linguas vernaculas, convenienter intra limites in ipsis libris liturgicis definitos aptatas, parare, easque edere, praevia recognitione Sanctae Sedis.

§ 4. Ad Episcopum dioecesanum in Ecclesia sibi commissa pertinet, intra limites suae competentiae, normas de re liturgica dare, quibus omnes tenentur.

Can. 841 — Cum sacramenta eadem sint pro universa Ecclesia et ad divinum depositum pertineant, unius supremae Ecclesiae auctoritatis est probare et definire quae ad eorum validitatem sunt requisita, atque eiusdem aliusve auctoritatis competentis, ad normam can. 838, §§ 3 et 4, est decernere quae ad eorum celebrationem, administrationem et receptionem licitam necnon ad ordinem in eorum celebratione servandum spectant.

Can. 381 — § 1. Episcopo dioecesano in dioecesi ipsi commissa omnis competit potestas ordinaria, propria et immediata, quae ad exercitium eius muneris pastoralis requiritur, exceptis causis quae iure aut Summi Pontificis decreto supremae aut alii auctoritati ecclesiasticae reserventur.

§ 3. Canonicam dioecesis possessionem capit Episcopus simul ac in ipsa dioecesi, per se vel per procuratorem, apostolicas litteras collegio consultorum ostenderit, praesente curiae cancellario, qui rem in acta referat, aut, in dioecesibus noviter erectis, simul ac clero populoque in ecclesia cathedrali praesenti earundem litterarum communicationem procuraverit, presbytero inter praesentes seniore in acta referente.

§ 4. Valde commendatur ut captio canonicae possessionis cum actu liturgico in ecclesia cathedrali fiat, clero et populo adstantibus.

Can. 399 — § 1. Episcopus dioecesanus tenetur singulis quinquenniis relationem Summo Pontifici exhibere super statu dioecesis sibi commissae, secundum formam et tempus ab Apostolica Sede definita.

Can. 400 — § 1. Episcopus dioecesanus, eo anno quo relationem Summo Pontifici exhibere tenetur, nisi aliter ab Apostolica Sede statutum fuerit, ad Urbem, Beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli sepulcra veneraturus, accedat et Romano Pontifici se sistat.

Can. 375 — § 1. Episcopi, qui ex divina institutione in Apostolorum locum succedunt per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est eis, in Ecclesia Pastores constituuntur, ut sint et ipsi doctrinae magistri, sacri cultus sacerdotes et gubernationis ministri.

§ 2. Episcopi ipsa consecratione episcopali recipiunt cum munere sanctificandi munera quoque docendi et regendi, quae tamen natura sua nonnisi in hierarchica communione cum Collegii capite et membris exercere possunt.

Can. 377 — § 1. Episcopos libere Summus Pontifex nominat, aut legitime electos confirmat.

Quote
So once moe: So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Hold that thought.
(http://blog.emptyhead.in/images/emptyhead.jpg)
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2010, 06:54:01 PM
Commemorating the Pope does not mean that the Eucharist is being offered in his name. Another swing and a miss for you Isa.

So, I have to ask once more: So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.

Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 16, 2010, 07:00:53 PM
Commemorating the Pope does not mean that the Eucharist is being offered in his name. Another swing and a miss for you Isa.

That's ok.  Orthodoxy offers the Eucharist in the name of the Metropolitan or Patriarch, and priests are bishop-drones.

Why crash and burn over such things?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 07:30:28 PM
Commemorating the Pope does not mean that the Eucharist is being offered in his name. Another swing and a miss for you Isa.
So, I have to ask once more: So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Quote
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University

I came across something interesting:
Quote
The priest prays first for the Church, then for the pope and diocesan ordinary by name...At the pope's name a slight inclination is made. When the Roman See is vacant, the mention of the pope is left out. In Rome the bishop's name is left out; the pope is local bishop there. The bishop must be canonically appointed and confirmed, otherwise he is not mentioned. But he need not yet be consecrated...The mention of the pope always occurs at this place. Otherwise in the Middle Ages there was a great variety in the names.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm

This is interesting as it means someone not yet consecrated but appointed and confirmed-as canons state, by the Vatican-is commemorated, as Fr. McMamara points out ""This "together with" is not just a praying-for but a praying-with by which we are united through the celebrating priest to the bishop and through him to the Pope and the universal Church."" IOW, the Vatican's fiat that the bishop elect is bishop alone links his future diocese to the Body of Christ. This contrasts starkly with the ecclesiology of Patriarch St. Ignatius, where the Catholic Church gathers around its consecrated successors to the Apostles and effect the unity of the Catholic Church through the Orthodox episcopate.

You're getting a new missal in English. In whose name is it promulgated, to "define the requirements for their validity;... competent authority...to decide what pertains to their licit celebration, administration, and reception and to the order to be observed in their celebration"?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2010, 07:42:25 PM
keep trying Isa.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 08:21:52 PM
keep trying Isa.
Found it:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/romanmissal/
Quote
Vatican issues final text of the Roman Missal, Third Edition, for the Dioceses of the United States of America
Funny, I've been to Vatican City, and I've lived in the United States of America, and the Vatican isn't any where near the USA.
Quote
The Roman Missal, Third Edition, the ritual text containing prayers and instructions for the celebration of the Mass, has been approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.  First use of the new text of the new Roman Missal will be on the First Sunday of Advent, November 27, 2011.
Pope John Paul II announced a revised version of the Missale Romanum during the Jubilee Year 2000.

Quote
1. Why was there a need for a new translation?
The Missale Romanum (Roman Missal), the ritual text for the celebration of the Mass, was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970 as the definitive text of the reformed liturgy of the Second Vatican Council.  That Latin text, the editio typica (typical edition), was translated into various languages for use around the world; the English edition was published in the United States in 1973.  The Holy See issued a revised text, the editio typica altera, in 1975.  Pope John Paul II promulgated the third edition (editio typica tertia) of the Missale Romanum during the Jubilee Year in 2000.

Quote
Mandate, Responsibilities, and Relationships
of the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship



Mandate and Goals of the Committee on Divine Worship
The committee assists the bishops of the Latin Church, both collectively and individually, in fulfilling their roles as priests and leaders of the worshiping community, especially with the translation of liturgical text and the development of guidelines for the celebration of the Mass and the sacraments. The committee addresses in a particular way prayer and worship within culturally diverse communities.

This mandate includes the following areas of responsibility:
For the Latin Church, liturgical practice within the United States, translation and adaptation of liturgical texts, sacred music, charismatic renewal, and national shrines.

Key Mission Responsibilities

Translating, adapting, reviewing, and promoting liturgical texts, especially for the Mass and the celebration of the sacraments;
Developing pastoral practices and guidelines for various liturgical questions and issues, including musical settings and adaptations for use in culturally diverse communities of the Church in the United States;
Reviewing liturgical participation aids and musical settings;
Responding to specific questions from bishops and providing information when requested to bishops and diocesan offices; and
Collaborating with USCCB Publishing in the publications of liturgical text and rituals.
Key Mission Relationships
With related committees and offices of the USCCB, especially the Committees on Doctrine and Cultural Diversity in the Church;
With dioceses and national liturgical groups with regard to guidelines and consultation;
With the Holy See;
With the body of bishops in regard to the relationship with ICEL; and
With other USCCB committees and offices that request review and consultation.
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/mandate.shtml
Quote
This is the third edition of the of the Roman Missal, which the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II  on 10 the day of the month of April 2000 on his own authority, approved, and the congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and now edited and declared published.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=la&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clerus.org%2Fbibliaclerusonline%2Fen%2Femi.htm%23bao

Unforunately, I still don't have the imprimatur of your new edition, but no doubt, it will be in the name of your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 16, 2010, 08:40:13 PM
What does any of this prove to you?

What do you think to demonstrate?

Are all of your liturgical books idiosyncratic? 

Do you offer the Eucharist in the name of the Synod?

It goes beyond absurd with you.



keep trying Isa.
Found it:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/romanmissal/
Quote
Vatican issues final text of the Roman Missal, Third Edition, for the Dioceses of the United States of America
Funny, I've been to Vatican City, and I've lived in the United States of America, and the Vatican isn't any where near the USA.
Quote
The Roman Missal, Third Edition, the ritual text containing prayers and instructions for the celebration of the Mass, has been approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.  First use of the new text of the new Roman Missal will be on the First Sunday of Advent, November 27, 2011.
Pope John Paul II announced a revised version of the Missale Romanum during the Jubilee Year 2000.

Quote
1. Why was there a need for a new translation?
The Missale Romanum (Roman Missal), the ritual text for the celebration of the Mass, was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970 as the definitive text of the reformed liturgy of the Second Vatican Council.  That Latin text, the editio typica (typical edition), was translated into various languages for use around the world; the English edition was published in the United States in 1973.  The Holy See issued a revised text, the editio typica altera, in 1975.  Pope John Paul II promulgated the third edition (editio typica tertia) of the Missale Romanum during the Jubilee Year in 2000.

Quote
Mandate, Responsibilities, and Relationships
of the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship



Mandate and Goals of the Committee on Divine Worship
The committee assists the bishops of the Latin Church, both collectively and individually, in fulfilling their roles as priests and leaders of the worshiping community, especially with the translation of liturgical text and the development of guidelines for the celebration of the Mass and the sacraments. The committee addresses in a particular way prayer and worship within culturally diverse communities.

This mandate includes the following areas of responsibility:
For the Latin Church, liturgical practice within the United States, translation and adaptation of liturgical texts, sacred music, charismatic renewal, and national shrines.

Key Mission Responsibilities

Translating, adapting, reviewing, and promoting liturgical texts, especially for the Mass and the celebration of the sacraments;
Developing pastoral practices and guidelines for various liturgical questions and issues, including musical settings and adaptations for use in culturally diverse communities of the Church in the United States;
Reviewing liturgical participation aids and musical settings;
Responding to specific questions from bishops and providing information when requested to bishops and diocesan offices; and
Collaborating with USCCB Publishing in the publications of liturgical text and rituals.
Key Mission Relationships
With related committees and offices of the USCCB, especially the Committees on Doctrine and Cultural Diversity in the Church;
With dioceses and national liturgical groups with regard to guidelines and consultation;
With the Holy See;
With the body of bishops in regard to the relationship with ICEL; and
With other USCCB committees and offices that request review and consultation.
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/mandate.shtml
Quote
This is the third edition of the of the Roman Missal, which the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II  on 10 the day of the month of April 2000 on his own authority, approved, and the congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and now edited and declared published.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=la&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clerus.org%2Fbibliaclerusonline%2Fen%2Femi.htm%23bao

Unforunately, I still don't have the imprimatur of your new edition, but no doubt, it will be in the name of your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2010, 09:28:08 PM
What does any of this prove to you?

What do you think to demonstrate?

Are all of your liturgical books idiosyncratic?  

Do you offer the Eucharist in the name of the Synod?

It goes beyond absurd with you.



For some reason Isa wants us to be ultramontanists. I am not sure as to why.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 on November 16, 2010, 09:50:39 PM
As the most Ancient and Orthodox of Churches (the Acoe's third Patriarch Mar Abris was a relative of Jesus, it was custodian of the most ancient Icon of Christendom the one you constructed all your icons from , Peter came to it first in Seleukia according to King Abgar's letters to Narses, and built the first physical building of a church for it, and Saint Thaddeus evangelized it first than anybody else, the Assyrian Queen Helena of Adiabene ruled all Jews outside Jerusalem which were the first Christians, ie: apostle of the circumcised) the Assyrian Church of the East believes that it is against the command "Let the little Children come to me" not to give the Eucharist to other Christians baptized in the name of Trinity and thinks this argumentation is all flawed and minimalistic, if only you all would read a book on the state of the Church prior to the first council of Ephesus and all the groups in a phone book which appeared after that date you would see what I am talking about.

I am profoundly troubled by reading the things Orthodox are saying on Roman Catholics here - unleavened bread...then why don't you use Holy Malka which was given by Saint John to all the Churches as the proper form of leavening? Why did you allow tyrants to say this was superstition and not preserve this tradition? You accuse the Latins of doing this, apply the same standard. "Ultramontanism"...then why does your "ecumenical Patriarch" call himself first among equals and tried to take over or hand over to his subjects foreign churches as "canonical territories"  (ie: the ROC managed to convince one small Assyrian Church to join it and bulldozed the oldest liturgy in the world and subsituted it for Saint John Chrysostom's liturgy, that is wrong). Your Bishops also changed the definition of what a Bishop is! According to your reasoning you cannot consecrate the Host or perform sacraments as well (not that I believe this)! The whole talk on "the Greek says this" in particular makes me troubled, the most ancient semitic Churches (Syriac Orthodox, Maronites, ACOE) hold as their canonical text the Aramaic which our Lord spoke. You think this text was lost, you are wrong and the refusal to give up on this text by the said Church's proves my point (it was by the way forbidden to teach Greek in first century palestine to pious Jews). Purgatory...then why did Mark of Ephesus according to Fr. Popovich supposedly teach that God placed you in Hell until prayers and liturgy being celebrated for the deceased fished you, payed you out (sounds like purgatory to me, and I haven't even gone into tollhouses and such which emphasize even more the pay aspect). The True belief of the ancient Church (making use of the ancient language and culture of our Lord) we have preserved can be read in the last few chapters of the Book of the Bee by Mar Shleimon of Basra. You call the RCC heterodox for having 21 councils it calls ecumenical but you have 7 and the Oriental Orthodox have only 3, and the ACOE only agreed to Nicea, Constantinople I (2). You say those who prevented their beliefs from being corrupted are "Nestorian" but you give the benefit of a doubt on so called heresy to those who's "Pope" gave you a Saint (Flavian). Ylou know what I'm talking about. Is this not wrong? Why do you blame others for the same mistakes you commit ? Pull the plank out of your own eyes O Pharisees ! Thank God your hierarchs can see all this and decide prudently.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 16, 2010, 09:58:47 PM
As the most Ancient and Orthodox of Churches (the Acoe's third Patriarch Mar Abris was a relative of Jesus, it was custodian of the most ancient Icon of Christendom the one you constructed all your icons from , Peter came to it first in Seleukia according to King Abgar's letters to Narses, and built the first physical building of a church for it, and Saint Thaddeus evangelized it first than anybody else, the Assyrian Queen Helena of Adiabene ruled all Jews outside Jerusalem which were the first Christians, ie: apostle of the circumcised) the Assyrian Church of the East believes that it is against the command "Let the little Children come to me" not to give the Eucharist to other Christians baptized in the name of Trinity and thinks this argumentation is all flawed and minimalistic, if only you all would read a book on the state of the Church prior to the first council of Ephesus and all the groups in a phone book which appeared after that date you would see what I am talking about.

I am profoundly troubled by reading the things Orthodox are saying on Roman Catholics here - unleavened bread...then why don't you use Holy Malka which was given by Saint John to all the Churches as the proper form of leavening? Why did you allow tyrants to say this was superstition and not preserve this tradition? You accuse the Latins of doing this, apply the same standard. "Ultramontanism"...then why does your "ecumenical Patriarch" call himself first among equals and tried to take over or hand over to his subjects foreign churches as "canonical territories"  (ie: the ROC managed to convince one small Assyrian Church to join it and bulldozed the oldest liturgy in the world and subsituted it for Saint John Chrysostom's liturgy, that is wrong). Your Bishops also changed the definition of what a Bishop is! According to your reasoning you cannot consecrate the Host or perform sacraments as well (not that I believe this)! The whole talk on "the Greek says this" in particular makes me troubled, the most ancient semitic Churches (Syriac Orthodox, Maronites, ACOE) hold as their canonical text the Aramaic which our Lord spoke. You think this text was lost, you are wrong and the refusal to give up on this text by the said Church's proves my point (it was by the way forbidden to teach Greek in first century palestine to pious Jews). Purgatory...then why did Mark of Ephesus according to Fr. Popovich supposedly teach that God placed you in Hell until prayers and liturgy being celebrated for the deceased fished you, payed you out (sounds like purgatory to me, and I haven't even gone into tollhouses and such which emphasize even more the pay aspect). The True belief of the ancient Church (making use of the ancient language and culture of our Lord) we have preserved can be read in the last few chapters of the Book of the Bee by Mar Shleimon of Basra. You call the RCC heterodox for having 21 councils it calls ecumenical but you have 7 and the Oriental Orthodox have only 3, and the ACOE only agreed to Nicea, Constantinople I (2). You say those who prevented their beliefs from being corrupted are "Nestorian" but you give the benefit of a doubt on so called heresy to those who's "Pope" gave you a Saint (Flavian). Ylou know what I'm talking about. Is this not wrong? Why do you blame others for the same mistakes you commit ? Pull the plank out of your own eyes O Pharisees ! Thank God your hierarchs can see all this and decide prudently.

Indeed. 

And thank you for this perspective.

Mary
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 10:12:02 PM
What does any of this prove to you?
Nothing I didn't already know.

Quote
What do you think to demonstrate?
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.

Quote
Are all of your liturgical books idiosyncratic?
No, they promulgated on authority of the local Holy Synod.  

Quote
Do you offer the Eucharist in the name of the Synod?
Right now in the name of the Metropolitan (Philip). Until his realease and the vacancy of the Diocese, our bishop (Mark) also.

No antimens with the required signature of the bishop, NO Eucharist.

Quote
It goes beyond absurd with you.

What is absurd is denying the obvious.  The Vatican's canons explicitly put the power "to approve or define the requirements for their validity" of the sacraments" into the lap of your supreme pontiff.  The Roman missal (and the Byzantine, etc. equivalents) are promulgated on his authority. As a sedevantist puts it very well:
Quote
In the many discussions which have taken place over the past fifteen years about the vacancy of the papal see since the time of the Vatican II “popes,” there has always been a “bottom line” which occurs in the Te Igitur of the Mass, which is the first prayer of the Canon. It is the passage in this prayer which requires the priest to pray for the reigning pope and bishop of the diocese in which the Mass if offered. If you pick up your missal, and turn to the Canon, you will see the phrase we are presently talking about: “...which in the first place we offer up to Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to protect, unite and govern throughout the world, together with Thy servant N. our Pope, N. our Bishop, and all true believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.” In Latin the phrase together with is rendered by una cum. Because the rubrics instruct the priest to leave out the name of the pope or bishop if the see is vacant, i.e., when a pope dies and the new pope is not elected, the mention or non-mention of the name by the priest is a litmus test for the priest’s position about John Paul II and the New Church. If he thinks that John Paul II is the true Pope, successor of Saint Peter, then he must place his name in the Canon. If, on the other hand, he does not hold him to be a true Pope, but a false one, then the priest must not mention his name in the Canon. So this little phrase in the Mass, una cum, says it all: is he or isn’t he the Pope?

The position of the Society of Saint Pius X is quite clear: he is, and if you do not agree, then get out. If I am not mistaken, they take an omission of the name to be a schismatic act. This they maintain despite the fact that they seem to admit a gray area in the speculative order; many of them openly speak about doubt concerning John Paul II’s papacy. Fr. Schmidberger even stated that the Fraternity was not in communion with the ConciliarChurch which identifies itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ. How such non-communion would not include John Paul II is mysterious. How can they be so emphatic about breaking communion with the conciliarists, and yet at the same time insist that priests declare themselves in communion with the head of the conciliarists?

Actions speak louder than words, and the appearance of the odious name in the Canon of the Mass is an action which clearly states that the Fraternity is in communion with the ConciliarChurch.

What if, however, you are not in communion with the NewChurch, but the only traditional Mass available to you is one in which a public declaration of communion with the Heresiarch is made? Is it licit to attend such a Mass?
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=46&catname=12

you might want to argue with his holiness:
Quote
Pope Benedict XIV

“But whatever can be said about this controverted point of ecclesiastical learning, it is sufficient for us to be able to affirm that the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff in the Mass as well as the prayers said for him in the Sacrifice are considered to be, and are a certain declarative sign, by which the same Pontiff is recognized as the head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the Successor of Saint Peter, and becomes of profession of a mind and will firmly adhering to Catholic unity; as Christian Lupus correctly indicates, writing on the councils (Tom. 4. Editionis Bruxell. pag. 422): This commemoration is the supreme and most distinguished kind of communion.” Nor is this any less proven by the authority of Ivo Flaviniacensis (in Chronicle, p. 228) where it reads: “Let him know that he separates himself from the communion of the whole world, whoever does not mention the name of the Pope in the Canon, for whatever reason of dissension; nor [by the authority of] the well-known Alcuin, who, in his book De Divinis Officiis (chap. 12) wrote this: “ It is certain, as Blessed Pelagius teaches, that those who, for whatever reason of dissension, do not observe the custom of mentioning the name of the Apostolic Pontiff in the sacred mysteries, are separated from the communion of the whole world.” This fact is further proven by a more severe statement of the Supreme Pontiff Pelagius II, who held the Apostolic throne in the sixth century of the Church, and who in his letter contained in the Labbeana Collectio Conciliorum (Tome 5, col 794 sq. and col 810)left this in writing concerning our subject: I am shocked at your separation from the whole Church, which I cannot tolerate; for when blessed Augustine, mindful of Our Lord’s words which placed the foundation of the Church in Apostolic Sees, says that he is in schism whosoever shall separate himself from the authority of or communion with those who preside in these same Sees, and who does not publicly profess that there is no other Church than that which is established in the pontifical roots of the Apostolic Sees, how can you not esteem yourselves to be cut off from the communion of the whole world, if you withhold the mention of my name in the sacred mysteries, as is the custom, in whom, though unworthy, you see at the present time the strength of the Apostolic See through the succession of the episcopate?”
The last part is actually how it works, the Orthodox diptychs, as it seems even the Vatican's authorities admit:
Quote
Fr. William J. O’Shea, S.S., D.D.

ˆ”There is one official who symbolizes and represents the unity of the Church in each diocese, and who has been placed there by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God: that is the bishop. Originally only the local bishop was mentioned: papa once meant any bishop, but was later restricted to the pope. Outside Rome the words “et antistite nostro N.” were added to avoid confusion; our Canon now prays both for the symbol and center of unity in the Church at large and in each diocese in particular. “Et omnibus...fidei cultoribus” is an ancient addition which refers not to the faithful but to the other bishops throughout the world, who are real “cultores fidei”: “maintainers of the catholic, apostolic and orthodox faith.” The faith is designated by its ancient titles: it is catholic, for the whole world; apostolic, coming from them and resting upon their teaching; orthodox, the true faith.[
William J.O’Shea, S.S., D.D.,The Worship of the Church (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1958) p. 393.

I got the above quotes from the sedevantist site, but least you dismiss on that basis, here is the fuller version of your supreme pontiffs' words, taken from EWTN
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/B14EXQUO.HTM
Quote
EX QUO (On the Euchologion)  
Pope Benedict
 
Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on 1 March 1756.
To the Archbishops, Bishops and Other Clerics, Secular and Regular, of the Greek Rite Who Enjoy Favor and Communion with the Apostolic See.

Venerable Brothers and Beloved Sons, We Give You Greeting and Our Apostolic Blessing.

Ever since We first became Pope, We have proven Our fatherly love in embracing in Christ Our beloved eastern clergy and people, the Uniates as they are called, who are in agreement with Us and are free from the stain of schism. We have made every attempt to induce the schismatics to abandon their errors and join Us in Catholic unity. We do not intend to recall here all the measures We took for this purpose since the records of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith are filled with Our decrees on this subject and everyone can refer to Our apostolic letters and constitutions on eastern affairs in the volumes of Our Bullarium. Our present purpose is to inform you that the work of correcting the Greek Euchologion is now completed. It has already been printed by the press of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith following a lengthy scrutiny of every detail and most careful correction.

Consequently We exhort you to set aside previous editions which have been found to contain too many different errors, and to use this edition in sacred rites...

Four Admonitions

8. At the beginning of this most recent edition four admonitions are to be found. We want to explain briefly to you in this letter the reasons for the presence of these remarks.

First Admonition-Commemoration of Pontiff in the Mass

9. The first admonition is thus expressed: "It must be known that the priests who will use the Euchologion should be acquainted with the ecclesiastical canons of the holy Fathers and the Constitutions of the Catholic Church in order that they may avoid obvious mistakes in administering the divine Sacraments and performing their other duties. Therefore where commemorations are customarily made in the sacred liturgy, the Roman Pontiff should be first commemorated, then one's own bishop and patriarch, provided they are Catholic. But if either or both of them are schismatic or heretic they should by no means be commemorated." Certainly this is in full agreement with the decrees passed at the meeting of the Congregation on May 1, 1746, which We approved and confirmed. The following question was raised at that meeting: "whether the name of the supreme pontiff should be put into the prayers said by priest and deacon at the Offertory as well as in the other prayers, that is, For the supreme pontiff N." This response was given to that question: "In the instruction which is to be added at the start of the Euchologion, Greek priests should be advised to make a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and of their bishop or archbishop if he is in union with the Roman Catholic Church, and moreover a rubric should be put in the margin of the Liturgy referring them to the instruction." For it seemed best to add in this manner such matter as was missed in the text of the Euchologion itself.

This Practice is Long-Standing

10. We have Ourselves dealt with the commemoration of the Roman pontiff in the sacrifice of the Mass, and with the antiquity of this practice in Our treatise De Sacrificio Missae, sect. I, n. 219. But since the publication of this book, the same subject has been treated with many extraordinary observations by Dominicus Georgius (who in his lifetime was Our dear sacristan) in his De Liturgia Romani Pontificis, vol. 3, chap. 3, no. 14, where he writes: "It has ever been customary in the Catholic Church to recite the name of the Roman pontiff during the sacred mysteries." In no. 22 he adds: "All the ancient testimonies and the oldest copies of the sacred canon agree concerning the name of the supreme pontiff." Indeed, that such a commemoration had been made in the Mass is shown by the Ambrosian Liturgy, the Mozarabic Mass, and the Latin Mass which the Lutheran Flaccus Illyricus copied from one ancient manuscript and published. So also does the most ancient Liturgy which is found in the old manuscript on the Sacraments of the Roman Church which was published by Venerable Cardinal Thomasius. Finally, this is also shown in all the sacred canons of the Mass, whether printed or written by hand, as the prelate Niccolo Antonelli amply shows in the long and learned dissertation which he wrote as a necessary part of his duty as Secretary of the Congregation for the Correction of the Euchologion; he had it printed when a dispute on this subject arose among the Cardinals and Consultors. A reprint of this can also be I found in the Appendix to the old Lateran Monastic Missal in the Collectio Liturgica, vol. 1, made by Fr. Emanuele de Azevedo.

11. So far the testimonies mentioned relate to the Latin Church. As regards the Greek Church, Cardinal Bona says that it is not known whether in the early centuries it recalled the Roman pontiff in the sacrifice of the Mass: "But whether in the first centuries Orthodox Greece commemorated the Roman pontiff is unclear" (Rer. Liturgicar, bk. 2, chap. 11, no. 3). Moreover Isaac Habertus admits that among the records of the early age, he has found none to establish that it was customary in the Oriental Church to commemorate the Roman pontiff during the celebration of Mass: "I could wish it was done and if it had been done I would approve of it, but even so I do not read that it was done." But he says that the name of the Roman Pontiff had been added to that of the Patriarch in the time of Pope Nicholas I, that is about 858, since the following words are found in several ancient copies of the Holy Liturgy of John Chrysostom: "Long be the days of most holy Nicholas the universal pope" (Observationes ad Pontificale Graecorum, pt. 8, observ. 12).

But Antonelli, whom We have praised, argues in his dissertation that it was customary in the Greek Church to commemorate the Roman Pontiff during Mass long before the period assigned by Habertus. He proves his point especially by the fact reported by Nicephorus in his in Historia Ecclesiast., bk. 16, chap. 17, where he depends on the testimony of a more ancient and serious historian, Basilius Cilix. Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, a supporter of the Eutychian heresy, prevailed on the emperor Zeno to publish his ill-fated edict, the Henoticon, which rendered void the definition of the holy Council of Chalcedon which opposed the heresy of Eutyches. When Pope Felix III could not ignore this and therefore deprived Acacius of communion, he had the audacity in the year of the Lord 484 to erase the name of the Roman pontiff Felix from the sacred diptychs in a new and hitherto unheard-of excess of rashness. For this reason the memory of Acacius was then condemned. The Greek church accepted this condemnation in the time of Pope Hormisdas and Emperor Justin, although the two predecessors of Hormisdas, Anastasius 11 and Symmachus, had failed to win this acceptance. So in the great church of Constantinople (whose example was doubtless followed by the other lesser churches of the east) the name of the Roman pontiff was in the sacred diptychs; therefore it must be asserted that he was prayed for by name during the celebration of Masses. Acacius is described as the first to erase this name and his deed was on this account particularly punished since, without any precedent, he committed a new sort of outrage till then unheard of, even though in former times there had been no lack of offense and disagreements between the Roman pontiffs and the bishops of the imperial city. It is thus abundantly proved that long before the time of Acacius and so in the early centuries, the name of the Roman pontiff was written in the sacred diptychs of the Greeks and thus it was customary to pray for him during the celebration of Mass.
Then, as now, the names of all the autocephalous bishops are commorated in the ditpychs of their peers: despite what he goes on to say, the four patriarchs were commemorated by the Pope of Rome.
Quote
But however it may be with this disputed point of ecclesiastical learning, it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: "This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion" (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition). This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: "Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world" (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: "It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world" (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).

Pope Pelagius II who held the Apostolic See in the sixth century of the Church gives this weightier statement on Our present subject in his letter: "I am greatly astonished at your separation from the rest of the Church and I cannot equably endure it. For Augustine, mindful that the Lord established the foundation of the Church on the Apostolic sees, says that whosoever removes himself from the authority and communion of the prelates of those sees is in schism. He states plainly that there is no church apart from one which is firmly established on the pontifical bases of the Apostolic sees. Thus how can you believe that you are not separated from the communion of the whole world if you do not commemorate my name during the sacred mysteries, according to custom? For you see that the strength of the Apostolic See resides in me, despite my unworthiness, through episcopal succession at the present time" (Labbe, Conciliorum Collectione, vol. 5, col. 794f and 810). This letter of Pelagius has also been used by St. Agobard, the great archbishop of Lyons, in his treatise De comparatione utriusque regiminis. This is printed in the in Magna Bibliotheca Patrum (vol. 14, p. 315, no. 21, Lyons) and was reissued by Balutius with other writings of this saint (col. 2, p. 49).

13. Moreover it suffices Us to be able to affirm without peril that at whatever time the practice of praying by name for the Roman pontiff at Mass was finally accepted by the Greek Church, this practice was definitely in force in Greek churches many centuries before schism broke out, and was only broken off after the fatal separation. A letter dated 1053 of Peter, patriarch of Antioch, to Michael Cerularius, the well-known reviver of the Photian schism, survives. This letter is published in Greek and Latin by Joannes Baptista Cotelerius in the second volume of his Monument. Eccles. Graec. Michael had said that he was surprised that Peter of Antioch himself as well as the bishops of Alexandria and Jerusalem mentioned the Roman pontiff in the sacred diptychs (p. 140 of the above-mentioned volume). But Peter most sharply rebuked the rashness of the maddened man in showing that both at Antioch and at Constantinople, the commemoration of the Roman pontiff had never been omitted up to his time: "Of these matters I too am an unexceptionable witness, as are the many others who with me hold high office in the Church, that in the time of Lord John (patriarch of Antioch), the Pope at Rome, also called John, was included in the sacred diptychs. Furthermore, when I came to Constantinople forty-five years ago I found that under Patriarch Sergius the Pope was mentioned at holy Mass along with the other Patriarchs."

It is said in addition that no discussions on restoring unity were ever begun without the acceptance of the prior condition that the commemoration of the Roman pontiff should be included in the sacred liturgy, nor was a union which had been agreed on regarded as complete until the previous condition had actually been put into effect. The clear result of all this is that the Latin and Greek churches agree in recognizing and affirming that the commemoration implies a profession of due subjection to the Roman pontiff as head of the Church, and of a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church. On the other hand the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism.

14. When Michael Palaeologus, Emperor of Constantinople, in 1263 and thereafter, affirmed his desire to return in company with his Greek subjects to unity and concord with the Roman Church, Urban IV aptly proposed the condition "that in sacred ceremonies from the diptychs, the name of the Pope should be commemorated together with the four patriarchs" (Nicetas, bk. 5, chap. 2). And when thereafter the negotiation of this union was again undertaken by Emperor Michael and Patriarch Giovanni Vecco and was seriously debated at the General Council of Lyons held in the year of the Lord 1274, the Pope, Blessed Gregory X, with the agreement of the assembled council fathers, first proposed several indispensable conditions for the effective negotiation of union. The first of these was "that the Pope be included in the diptych with the other four patriarchs and commemorated during the holy services" (Nicetas, as above). And Pachymeres (bk. 5, chap. 22) testifies that this condition was accepted by the Greeks and carried out in practice: "There were two immediate results of this arrival of the ambassadors who brought back word that peace had been made on the strength of the previous agreements: the deposition of the Patriarch and the public commemoration of the Pope in holy services."

15. His son Andronicus succeeded Michael Palaeologus as emperor, and was so extreme a supporter of the schism which had been condemned that he allowed his father's body to be buried beyond the sacred precinct because he had attempted to establish a union of the Greek Church with the Latin. Because the emperor could hardly hope for success in his intended revival of the schism while the Catholic patriarch, Giovanni Vecco, was leader of the church at Constantinople, he imposed as patriarch a certain Joseph who was tainted with the stain of heresy. As a result affairs began to deteriorate and a sincere reconciliation of the churches was no longer possible. Finally, at the meeting of the General Council of Ferrara, later transferred to Florence, in the year 1434, after proper deliberations of the issues by the Greek and Latin fathers, the wall of division was cast down which had for so long kept the one church apart from the other. To attest to everyone the reality of the enacted union John Palaeologus, emperor of the Greeks, gave orders that the name of the Pope be replaced in the sacred diptychs, as is testified even by the schismatic author Sylvester Sguropolus in his Historia Concilii Flor., sess. 10. chap. 2. Afterwards when the decree of established union had been brought to Philotheus, patriarch of Alexandria, he was careful to state in his answer to Pope Eugenius IV that he had also decided that the commemoration of the Roman pontiff in the sacrifice of the Mass should be placed before that of the other patriarchs: "Hence in company with our Egyptian bishops and other clergy, we decided that everywhere in all of Christ's churches during the sacrifice of the Mass, we should commemorate Your Blessedness before the other Patriarchs, as is provided for in the sacred canons." This passage may be found in the collection of the transactions of the Council of Florence made by Cardinal Justinianus (pt. 2, collect. 22, p. 323).

16. Constantine was the Greek emperor after John Palaeologus. When he sent ambassadors to Nicholas V to beseech help for his faltering fortunes, he was careful to profess that he would make every effort to implement as fully as could be desired the harmony which was agreed on at Florence, and that consequently he would see to it that the name of the Roman pontiff was restored to the sacred diptychs. This is attested by Ducas in his Historia Byzantina: The emperor had already sent to Rome to request reinforcements with the additional purpose of strengthening the harmony achieved at Florence and of having the Pope's name proclaimed from the sacred diptychs during the liturgies of the great church." The Pope showed himself ready to give him as much aid as he could and continued at the same time to exhort him to promulgate the decree of the union which had been agreed on at the Council of Florence. He urged him to see to it that the name of the Roman pontiff "was proclaimed in the diptychs and that the whole Greek church prayed for him expressly and by name, as was the former practice of men who were pleasing to God, both patriarchs of Constantinople and emperors" (Raynaldus, Annales, 1451 A.D., no. 2).

17. This is all We want to say on the first part of the first Admonition which deals with the obligation of celebrants to pray for the pope in the sacrifice of the Mass. Nothing further is to be added except that even before this Admonition, Catholic Greek Oriental bishops were careful to decree this very measure in their synods. We Ourselves did not neglect the publication of such suitable decrees for Italian Greeks. In 1720, a provincial synod was held at Zamoscia on the order of Pope Clement XI, under the presidency of Hieronymus Grimaldus. He was then the archbishop of Edessa and nuncio of the Apostolic See in the kingdom of Poland; later, he was raised to the honor of the Cardinalate by Pope Clement XII. In the decrees of this synod, which were confirmed after proper investigation by Pope Benedict XIII, the following words are found under the heading de fide Catholica: "For the same reason" - that is, to remove all suspicion of schism - "and to show a sincere union of the members with their head, it has decided and commanded under penalties to be applied at the judgment of the Ordinary that wherever a Roman pontiff is to be commemorated, especially at the Offertory of the Mass, it should be made in clear and definite words which can signify none other than the universal Bishop of Rome."

In agreement with this view are the fathers of the Synod of Lebanon which occurred in 1736 under the presidency of Joseph Simonius Assemanus, a prelate of the Roman curia and an Apostolic envoy. In the decrees of this council too, under the heading de Symbolo Fidei, ejusque professione, no. 12, these words are found: "Let us not neglect to repeat the commemoration of the most holy Roman pontiff, both in Masses and in the divine services, before the name of the most reverend lord patriarch, as has hitherto been our custom." After the strictest investigation, We confirmed this council with Apostolic authority, as may be seen in Our constitution Singularis (Bullarium, vol. I, no. 31). Peter Arcudius in his work de Concordia Ecclesiae Occidentalis et Orientalis, bk. 2, chap. 39, offers an admonition for Latin bishops with Greeks living in their dioceses to zealously impel them to commemorate the Roman pontiff in the Mass, to banish the last shade of suspicion of any inclination to schism: "The Latin bishops should see to it that the Greek priests subject to them are in Catholic unity and recognize the Supreme Pastor, and according to the ancient custom solemnly pray for him" in the sacrifice of the Mass - the subject under discussion in this passage. In agreement with this most just admonition, the following provision was made in Our constitution issued for the Italian Greeks, Etsi Pastoralis (Bullarium, vol. 1, 57, sect. 9, no. 4): "Next a commemoration should be made of the Supreme Roman Pontiff and of the Local Ordinary in Masses and divine services."
and, in contrast to the unconsecrated bishop elect confirmed by the Vatican's fiat, no consecrated bishop is to be commemorated if he does not submitt to the Vatican (called 'schismatic') or teach the Vatican's dogmas (called 'heretical'):
Quote
First Admonition-Commemoration of Bishop and Patriarch

18. Now follows the second part of this first admonition which, as was mentioned above, obliges the Greek priest during Mass, after praying for the Roman pontiff, to pray for his own bishop and his patriarch if they are Catholic. For if either is or both are schismatic or heretic, a commemoration should not be made.

21. Turning now to the Greeks, We consider first the Italian Greeks. These are entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the Latin bishop in whose diocese they live, in accordance with constitution 74, Romanus Pontifex, of Our predecessor, Pope Pius IV. This is to be found in volume two of the Bullar. Rom. and We have discussed it at length in Our treatise De Synodo Dioecesana, bk. 2, chap. 12, of the most recent Roman edition. Therefore these Italian Greek priests, in offering the sacrifice of the Mass, are required to follow the Latin practice and commemorate the Roman Pontiff and the local bishop. They should never commemorate eastern bishops or patriarchs even if they are Catholic, since these possess no jurisdiction in Italy and the adjacent islands, as has been discussed in Our constitution Etsi Pastoralis (Bullarium, vol. 1, const. 57, sect. 9 no. 4).

Of course in the Dictatus of Pope St. Gregory VII (can. 10) we find the dictum: "That the name of the Pope alone be pronounced in the church." This Dictatus is included in the collections of the councils (Royal Parisian, vol. 26; Labbe, vol. 6, pt. 1). Still We are well aware that there is a vigorous debate among scholars as to whether this is an authentic work of the holy pontiff or rather a forgery. Indeed Fr. Mabillon in his treatise De Studiis Monasticis has ranked this among the more difficult questions which professors of Church history can engage in solving. But laying aside this problem also - as to whether the Dictatus Papae is an authentic work of St. Gregory VII - the real and pertinent meaning of the Canon quoted is not that in the Latin Church the name of the diocesan bishop be removed from the Canon of the Mass, but that the name of Oriental Patriarchs should not be included there.

The Patriarchs indeed professed their agreement with the condition, that the name of the Roman Pontiff should be replaced in the Liturgy and that prayers should be offered for him in all the churches of the east, if in turn the Pope would consent to their names being pronounced in the Canon of the Mass by Latin priests of the Roman Church and of the other churches in the Patriarchate of Rome. Lupus wisely notes: "Purposing to abandon his schism, Michael (Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople) tried to have his name inscribed on the Roman tablets and he promised to restore the name of the Pope to the tablets of all of his churches. But Leo (Pope Leo IX) would not consent: for the reciprocal pronouncement of the names of Patriarchs was practiced only among the equal sister sees of the eastern patriarchs, but never by the Roman see. For this see is not only sister but also mother and head of the eastern sees and so has never pronounced any other name than the bishops" (ad Concilia, pt. 4, p. 437, Brussels edition). He continues in this way on the following page: "The names of the eastern patriarchs have never been pronounced by the Roman church nor for that matter by any Latin church."
An outright contradiction of himself, let alone a lie.
Quote
22. The foregoing discussion relates to the Italian Greeks. But as regards the rest of the Greeks and Orientals, the admonition in the preface of the Euchologion, which We are now considering, by no means prevents them from commemorating their metropolitans and patriarchs during the Mass, but merely forbids this if they should be schismatic or heretic. It is beyond dispute that the commemoration of patriarchs in the prayers of the Mass is an ancient custom in the Greek church. Theodorus Balsamon in his de Patriarcharum juribus has written: "It is established that in every church of God, whether on the Euphrates or on the edge of the Ocean, the names of the patriarchs are mentioned together." Goarius cites this as the established practice that in the Greek liturgy the priest prays for all the bishops and for the metropolitan (in Notis ad Rituale Graecorum, p. 63). Meratus, after establishing the fact that We mentioned earlier, that in the Latin church a commemoration of the archbishop is not made in the Mass even during a vacancy in a suffragan church, adds that: "This however is not the practice of the Greeks and other Orientals. These name the patriarch and the metropolitan" (in notis ad Gavantum, vol. 1, p. 539, Roman edition).

This practice is not absolutely forbidden to them in the admonition in question, but only in the cases when the metropolitan or patriarch is schismatic or heretic. This is in accordance with rules which were established and accepted before the correction of the Euchologion was undertaken. When this practice was dealt with in the Congregation of the Holy Office in 1673, the following decree was published: "At the General Congregation of the Holy Office on June 7, 1673, the question was posed whether a priest in the town of Lebanon during Mass might name the patriarch of the Armenians, who is schismatic, with the purpose of praying for him. The petition for this concession was made with great urgency in order by this means to attract that people to a greater friendship for the Latins. The Sacred Congregation responded that it could not be done and should be utterly forbidden. In the same Congregation on June 20, 1674, there was read a letter of the nuncio at Florence written on April 10, 1674, sent to the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and forwarded by this Congregation to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It was decided that a reply should be sent to the nuncio informing him that on the subject of prayer in the liturgy for the patriarch of the Armenians, the Sacred Congregation abided by its decrees published in 1673, that is, that it could not be done and should be utterly forbidden."

23. In harmony with this decision is another very similar decree of the Congregation on the corrected edition of the Coptic Missal made in 1732. Among other disputed questions the following was proposed: "Whether, and in what way, the words in which the priest commemorates the patriarch, bishop, etc. are to be corrected." This was the answer which was given: "A rubric should be placed at the beginning of the missal to advise and inform the priest on points relating to the celebration of Mass. Here should be placed a special rubric on the commemoration of the Roman pontiff as well as of the patriarch and bishop, provided that they are in union with the Roman Church. This rubric should be consulted in its own place." Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligur. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19. But the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass. This fully accords with the ancient practice, as may be seen in Estius in 4. Sententiar., dist. 12, sec. 15. For that purpose it is sufficient to beseech to lead back the wanderers to the way of salvation and to the bosom of holy Mother Church, as is expounded by Sylvius, in 3. part. D. Thomae, vol. 4, quest. 83, art. 1, qu. 9.

Here is the teaching of St. Thomas himself in 4. Sent., dist. 18, quest. 2, art. 1, in answer to the first difficulty: "Prayer can be offered for the excommunicated, although this should be done apart from prayers which are offered for members of the Church." This does not necessarily involve a confusion of the Church's laws which exclude from the roster of its faithful followers the names of those who have cut themselves off from it. In forbidding public prayers to be offered for them, the Church definitely rules out commemorating them in the celebration of Mass. Very relevant is the view of Ven. Card. Bellarmine: "Someone will ask whether at the present time it is permissible to offer the sacrifice of the Mass for the conversion of heretics or the infidels. The reason for doubt is that the entire liturgy of the Latin church, as it is now performed, relates to the faithful, as is clear from the prayers of the offertory both before and during the canon. I answer that I consider it permissible, provided that no addition is made to the Mass, but the sacrifice is applied to the conversion of the infidels or heretics only by the intention of the priest. For this is the practice of pious and learned men, with whom we cannot disagree, and it is not forbidden by the Church" (Controversarium, vol. 3, bk. 6, de Missae, chap. 6).
contrast this with the commemoration of infidel rulers:
Quote
27. But among the Oriental peoples this practice of commemorating the king in the sacred liturgy is common, as may be seen in the Liturgies of the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians and Syrians. But if it should be asked how it can be endured where it is certain that the kings for whom they pray and whom they commemorate in the liturgy are infidels, Ven. Card. Bellarmine would reply (as in fact he replied in the chapter quoted above) that it is by no means forbidden by the nature of the object, as theologians say, to pray during Mass even for infidels since the sacrifice of the Cross has been offered for all men. And of course St. Thomas teaches that although St. Augustine wrote in his work de origine Animae that the sacrifice is offered only for those who are members of Christ, his statement must be understood to include both those who are already members of Christ and those who are able to become such (in 4. Sentent., dist. 12, quest. 2, art. 2, quest. 2, to the fourth). Therefore, the Cardinal adds that the whole question should be assessed in terms of what the Church has forbidden: "It is certain from the nature of the object that if the Church has not prohibited it, it is permissible to offer prayers for those men (i.e., the infidels)." Although there is such a prohibition against the excommunicated and so against heretics and schismatics, there is none against infidels and these are not bound by excommunication. This is enough, he says, to allow commemoration of them during Mass and even the offering of the sacrifice for them in accordance with the evident tradition in this matter and with the apostolic constitution. "But someone may ask whether it is permissible if the king is an infidel as in Greece, where the Turk is ruler, and as in India, Japan and China where pagans rule, for priests there to offer prayers expressly for the king. I answer that I consider it permissible provided that the king is not excommunicated as are heretic kings, but is a pagan. For this tradition, this constitution, is apostolic, as I showed just above. To my knowledge there is no clear prohibition of this by the Church." A useful addition to the present discussion is the text of Tertullian: "We offer sacrifice for the health of the Emperor but we offer it to our God and his in the prayerful way commanded by God. For God the Creator of the whole world has no need of honor or of anyone's blood" (ad Scapulam, chap. 2).

Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 on November 16, 2010, 10:25:33 PM
"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity."
-Ecclesiastes 1:2
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 16, 2010, 10:27:34 PM
The Catholic Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.


Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 11:04:21 PM
Welcome back Rafa!
As the most Ancient
That would be Jerusalem, followed by Antioch, followed by Cyprus.

Quote
and Orthodox of Churches

Ephesus decided otherwise.

Quote
(the Acoe's third Patriarch Mar Abris was a relative of Jesus, it was custodian of the most ancient Icon of Christendom the one you constructed all your icons from , Peter came to it first in Seleukia according to King Abgar's letters to Narses, and built the first physical building of a church for it, and Saint Thaddeus evangelized it first than anybody else, the Assyrian Queen Helena of Adiabene ruled all Jews outside Jerusalem which were the first Christians, ie: apostle of the circumcised) the Assyrian Church of the East believes that it is against the command "Let the little Children come to me" not to give the Eucharist to other Christians baptized in the name of Trinity and thinks this argumentation is all flawed and minimalistic, if only you all would read a book on the state of the Church prior to the first council of Ephesus and all the groups in a phone book which appeared after that date you would see what I am talking about.
The Assyrian Church of the East is wrong.

"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them;"-St. Justin Martyr, 1st Apology, 66.

Quote
I am profoundly troubled by reading the things Orthodox are saying on Roman Catholics here - unleavened bread...then why don't you use Holy Malka which was given by Saint John to all the Churches as the proper form of leavening? Why did you allow tyrants to say this was superstition and not preserve this tradition?

Can you be more specific on whom you are calling "tyrants"?

And no, St. John gave noting to the gnostic ecclesiastical communities, nor the Ebionites,etc.

Quote
You accuse the Latins of doing this, apply the same standard. "Ultramontanism"...then why does your "ecumenical Patriarch" call himself first among equals and tried to take over or hand over to his subjects foreign churches as "canonical territories"  (ie: the ROC managed to convince one small Assyrian Church to join it and bulldozed the oldest liturgy in the world and subsituted it for Saint John Chrysostom's liturgy, that is wrong).
The EP had nothing to do with that, and the Assyrians were repenting of Nestorius' error. But as for myself I would have preferred the Liturgy of Mari and Addai (which, btw, as we have gone over before, is old but not the oldest DL) to be corrected and continued in use.

Quote
Your Bishops also changed the definition of what a Bishop is!

You refering to the antics in North America in the Sole Ruled Archdiocese?  It won't stand: it's not standing now. Otherwise I don't know what you are talking about.

Quote
According to your reasoning you cannot consecrate the Host or perform sacraments as well (not that I believe this)!
You mean the laity? Of course we can't consecrate the Eucharist etc. without an Orthodox bishop or a priest he sends.

Quote
The whole talk on "the Greek says this" in particular makes me troubled, the most ancient semitic Churches (Syriac Orthodox, Maronites, ACOE) hold as their canonical text the Aramaic which our Lord spoke.

No, they use the Syriac Peshitta. Our Lord spoke the related Aramaic We've been over this too.

Quote
You think this text was lost, you are wrong and the refusal to give up on this text by the said Church's proves my point (it was by the way forbidden to teach Greek in first century palestine to pious Jews).

The Talmud has plenty of Greek loans in it, the Dead Sea Scrolls include Greek scrolls, many synagogues, including Palestine have Greek inscriptions etc.. We went over that. You are adapting the late Jewish polemics against the LXX, when the Church was baptizing myriads of Hebrews.

Quote
Purgatory...then why did Mark of Ephesus according to Fr. Popovich supposedly teach that God placed you in Hell until prayers and liturgy being celebrated for the deceased fished you, payed you out (sounds like purgatory to me, and I haven't even gone into tollhouses and such which emphasize even more the pay aspect). The True belief of the ancient Church (making use of the ancient language and culture of our Lord) we have preserved can be read in the last few chapters of the Book of the Bee by Mar Shleimon of Basra. You call the RCC heterodox for having 21 councils it calls ecumenical but you have 7 and the Oriental Orthodox have only 3, and the ACOE only agreed to Nicea, Constantinople I (2).

Because you took the deposed heretic Nestorius as your doctor.

Quote
You say those who prevented their beliefs from being corrupted are "Nestorian" but you give the benefit of a doubt on so called heresy to those who's "Pope" gave you a Saint (Flavian). Ylou know what I'm talking about. Is this not wrong?
No.
Quote
Why do you blame others for the same mistakes you commit ? Pull the plank out of your own eyes O Pharisees ! Thank God your hierarchs can see all this and decide prudently.
yes, we have been over the decision of the Romanian Orthodox Church concerning Met. Nicolaie Corneau
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 11:05:45 PM
What does any of this prove to you?

What do you think to demonstrate?

Are all of your liturgical books idiosyncratic?  

Do you offer the Eucharist in the name of the Synod?

It goes beyond absurd with you.



For some reason Isa wants us to be ultramontanists. I am not sure as to why.
just calling a spade a spade, so it doesn't act like a fish hook.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 on November 16, 2010, 11:08:24 PM
no matter the disagreements....always good to see my old pal Isa!!!!  ;D
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 16, 2010, 11:13:29 PM
What does any of this prove to you?

What do you think to demonstrate?

Are all of your liturgical books idiosyncratic?  

Do you offer the Eucharist in the name of the Synod?

It goes beyond absurd with you.



For some reason Isa wants us to be ultramontanists. I am not sure as to why.
just calling a spade a spade, so it doesn't act like a fish hook.

Your twisted understanding of Catholic teaching is the barb...not the teachings themselves.

You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 16, 2010, 11:57:01 PM
What does any of this prove to you?

What do you think to demonstrate?

Are all of your liturgical books idiosyncratic?  

Do you offer the Eucharist in the name of the Synod?

It goes beyond absurd with you.



For some reason Isa wants us to be ultramontanists. I am not sure as to why.
just calling a spade a spade, so it doesn't act like a fish hook.

Your twisted understanding of Catholic teaching is the barb...not the teachings themselves.

You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.
It is interesting on how we are told how much superior the Vatican is because it has a "magisterium," but then hue and cry is raised when we quote the documents that "magisterium" produces.  All the while we are told that only the "magisterium" can speak with authority, by those who continue to refuse to offer anything but their personal spin.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 on November 17, 2010, 12:03:12 AM
Quote
The Assyrian Church of the East is wrong.

Impossible!!!

The Holy ACOE had Jesus's relative Mar Abris as it's third Patriarch. Can a good tree bear bad fruit? Respect our Lord's relative in the flesh at the very least and cease these vanities of attempting to say the oldest Church in the world (that of Persia and Babylon, Jerusalem's line was broken and only re-established later by Greek Bishops who colonized the area, Antioch was severed after Ephesus and influenced in it's theology by Western Churches, Cyprus Greek) is somehow wrong. Peshitta is used by all Middle East semitic Churches, not Greek which tried to supplant it under Rabbulah and Philoxenus the forgers. The Gates of Hell shall never triumph over the Church established by Christ, the darkness which can be felt of certain heresies and doctrines of demons never approached it in the East where all Salvation proceeds from !
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 12:23:09 AM
Quote
The Assyrian Church of the East is wrong.

Impossible!!!

The Holy ACOE had Jesus's relative Mar Abris as it's third Patriarch.
He is not the present patriarch.

Quote
Can a good tree bear bad fruit?
We're not talking about that tree, nor its fruit.

Quote
Respect our Lord's relative in the flesh at the very least

Matthew 12:46 While He was still speaking to the people, behold, His mother and His brothers stood outside, asking to speak to Him. 47 Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." 48 But He replied to the man who told Him, "Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?" 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother, and sister, and mother."

Quote
and cease these vanities of attempting to say the oldest Church in the world (that of Persia and Babylon, Jerusalem's line was broken and only re-established later by Greek Bishops who colonized the area,
No, they went to Pella.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19811.msg334770/topicseen.html#msg334770
The throne of St. James, the Brother of God, remains forever, in fullment of the covenant to the ancestor of God, David.

Quote
Antioch was severed after Ephesus and influenced in it's theology by Western Churches,
Antioch is still Orrthodox. I've been to the Patriarch's own Cathedral.

Quote
Cyprus Greek) is somehow wrong.
Age doesn't bring infallibility, and the ACE isn't the oldest church.  It is the oldest one to be anathematized which still survives.

Quote
Peshitta is used by all Middle East semitic Churches,

That's not even true of the Syriac ones, let alone the Arab and Ethiopian.

Quote
not Greek which tried to supplant it under Rabbulah and Philoxenus the forgers.

We have plenty of Greek texts centuries before St. Rabbulah and Philoxenus. In fact, all the oldest manuscripts are all in Greek.

Quote
The Gates of Hell shall never triumph over the Church established by Christ,

Indeed it hasn't and we aim to keep it that way.

Quote
the darkness which can be felt of certain heresies and doctrines of demons never approached it in the East where all Salvation proceeds from !
The far east was infested with Nestorianism, not to mention gnostics.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 on November 17, 2010, 12:44:50 AM
Mar Abraham (5th Patriarch after Mar Abris who was actually 4th forgive me) was a relative of the Virgin, and Mar Yaʿqob after him descended from Mar Yosip the Carpenter (Joseph, Jesus's adoptive father on earth). Obey Christ's relatives in the flesh our Orthodox Assyrian Patriarchs when they say you stray! Obey the Blessed Virgin :

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Vladimirskaya.jpg/401px-Vladimirskaya.jpg)

Donot trust in the darkness of Egypt which made you a saint (Flavian) ! Donot obey false history !

Quote
We have plenty of Greek texts centuries before St. Rabbulah and Philoxenus. In fact, all the oldest manuscripts are all in Greek.

The most corrupt! Made when Arianism was the "orthodoxy"! Under the standar bearer of the Arians Eusebius of Caesarea! Witness this abomination :

(http://www.peshitta.org/images/vaticanus.jpg)

Quote
No, they went to Pella.

Say that to King Abgar who wrote to the King of Persia Narses his relative to receive Peter. We have physical proof that the oldest "Church" is in Seleukia-Ctsephon. Indisputable. Of course the first Church was with Adam and Eve, I merely refer to the building we call a church.

 
Quote
Antioch is still Orrthodox. I've been to the Patriarch's own Cathedral.

Greek "Rum" Cathedral. The Vatican also has 4 or so Patriarchs in Antioch.

Quote
That's not even true of the Syriac ones, let alone the Arab and Ethiopian.

Try snatching that Peshitta away from the SOC, Maronites, or the ACOE. Just try...

Quote
The far east was infested with Nestorianism, not to mention gnostics.

Salvation proceeds from the East. Your gnosticism is a sacrament (Holy Malka) and the Heroic Nestorius was falsely condemned for defending the immutability of the Divine nature.

Quote
Age doesn't bring infallibility, and the ACE isn't the oldest church.  It is the oldest one to be anathematized which still survives.

No authority to anathematize Christ. Oldest Church, please prove me to the contrary. Abgar wrote while Christ the bridegroom was still with us and Edessa was the first evangelistic center after Jerusalem (and Christ's relatives ruled the Holy ACOE).
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 17, 2010, 12:58:07 AM
Rafa,
Good to see you back my brother.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 on November 17, 2010, 12:59:35 AM
Good to see you papist! Hope I can chat with all of you some more if possible...
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Salpy on November 17, 2010, 01:01:11 AM
Welcome back, Rafa.   :)
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 on November 17, 2010, 01:11:38 AM
Good to see you Salpy!
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: katherineofdixie on November 17, 2010, 10:38:03 AM
You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.

Oh, puh-leeeeze.

Get over yourselves. I say this with love.
 ;)

Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 11:21:59 AM
Mar Abraham (5th Patriarch after Mar Abris who was actually 4th forgive me) was a relative of the Virgin, and Mar Yaʿqob after him descended from Mar Yosip the Carpenter (Joseph, Jesus's adoptive father on earth). Obey Christ's relatives in the flesh our Orthodox Assyrian Patriarchs when they say you stray! Obey the Blessed Virgin :

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Vladimirskaya.jpg/401px-Vladimirskaya.jpg)

I do, and confess her as Theotokos and Mother of God.

It is odd, given the Nestorianism of the ACE, to place such emphasis on the Desposynoi, the Lord's Brethren according to the Flesh, who put the Patriarchate of Jerusalem on the solid basis on which it stands.

Quote
Donot trust in the darkness of Egypt which made you a saint (Flavian) !
"Out of Egypt I have called My Son...Blessed be Egypt My People"

The Lighthouse of Pharos, has fallen, but the Divine Light of Popes SS. Athanasius and Cyril still shines forth from Alexandria.

Quote
Donot obey false history !

Never do.

Quote
We have plenty of Greek texts centuries before St. Rabbulah and Philoxenus. In fact, all the oldest manuscripts are all in Greek.

The most corrupt! Made when Arianism was the "orthodoxy"! Under the standar bearer of the Arians Eusebius of Caesarea! Witness this abomination :

(http://www.peshitta.org/images/vaticanus.jpg)
We went over that.
Isa, entire libraries exist on the Jacobite "God has blood" versus the "Messiah has" blood argument of the COE.

Its not a "Jacobite" argument.  It's an Orthodox one, based on the texts the Apostles gave us, in Greek.

Quote
This one went on for a LONG time before the COE won the argument.

360 (the latest date of Sinaiticus) doesn't give you that much time, particularly as the Peshitta postdates it.

Quote
The priests of the COE are more qualified to debate this. If I can't appeal to Eastern Syriac which was untampered by the  Monophysites (nobody here is a monophysite hopefully before I am warned) this will be difficult. Its like debating someone on the bible but only being able to cite the Quran. I already showed that someone tampered with Hebrews 1:3 in Vaticanus,

No, someone made a mistake in it, and it was corrected.

You have made it rather difficult, as your text has no history that you claim, and hence no corroboration that isn't cherry picked.

Quote
I see no reason why the same people who tried doing that wouldn't try to doctor Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28. Also Sinaiticus had a story of a saint scribbled on its back. To this day the COE doesn't throw out books with its holy symbol on it or recycle manuscripts, it places them in libraries or burns them.

Thereby destroying the "evidence."

I don't recall ever seeing such a claim that books aren't recycled, as I've seen the opposite in ancient manuscripts.  I don't have specifics on the Nestorian case, as I wouldn't have thought, until now, worth noticing.  I'll look around.

Quote
No, they went to Pella.

Say that to King Abgar who wrote to the King of Persia Narses his relative to receive Peter. We have physical proof that the oldest "Church" is in Seleukia-Ctsephon. Indisputable. Of course the first Church was with Adam and Eve, I merely refer to the building we call a church.
Read Acts.

Refresh my about this "physical proof."

Quote
Antioch is still Orrthodox. I've been to the Patriarch's own Cathedral.
Greek "Rum" Cathedral.
"In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek..."

Quote
The Vatican also has 4 or so Patriarchs in Antioch.
And a Chaldean Catholicos in Iraq.

Quote
That's not even true of the Syriac ones, let alone the Arab and Ethiopian.
Try snatching that Peshitta away from the SOC, Maronites, or the ACOE. Just try...
Why would I? They use the Arabic, as do those in the parts of Syria which still speak Aramaic (Aramaic, not Syriac:Malula etc.)

Quote
The far east was infested with Nestorianism, not to mention gnostics.
Salvation proceeds from the East.
From the Virgin of Jerusalem, not the Whore of Babylon.

Quote
Your gnosticism is a sacrament (Holy Malka)
Apostolic yeast has nothing to do with gnosticism as far as I know.

Quote
and the Heroic Nestorius was falsely condemned for defending the immutability of the Divine nature.

He was justly deposed for denying the Incarnation.

Quote
Age doesn't bring infallibility, and the ACE isn't the oldest church.  It is the oldest one to be anathematized which still survives.

No authority to anathematize Christ.
Christ anathematized Nestorius.

Quote
Oldest Church, please prove me to the contrary.

Read Acts. Chapter 1.

Quote
Abgar wrote while Christ the bridegroom was still with us and Edessa was the first evangelistic center after Jerusalem
No, that would be Antioch.

Quote
(and Christ's relatives ruled the Holy ACOE).
His relatives according to the flesh died out before the ACOE came into existence with its Nestorian creed.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 17, 2010, 12:12:26 PM
You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.

Oh, puh-leeeeze.

Get over yourselves. I say this with love.
 ;)


Oh, puh-leeeeeze
Get off your high horse. "I say this with love"
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 12:14:41 PM
You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.

Oh, puh-leeeeze.

Get over yourselves. I say this with love.
 ;)



I recognize that Orthodox moral teaching is relative, but for us ALL false witness is evil.

So forget it!!  with love.... ;)
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 12:23:13 PM
You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.

Oh, puh-leeeeze.

Get over yourselves. I say this with love.
 ;)



I recognize that Orthodox moral teaching is relative, but for us ALL false witness is evil.
LOL. Do you include the False Decretals under that rubric?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 12:27:42 PM
You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.

Oh, puh-leeeeze.

Get over yourselves. I say this with love.
 ;)



I recognize that Orthodox moral teaching is relative, but for us ALL false witness is evil.
LOL. Do you include the False Decretals under that rubric?

It is enough to deal with what is here before us.

You are tagged this morning.

You bear false witness.

Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 12:31:09 PM
The Catholic Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
That she does.

As for the Vatican, it offers its masses for "the Holy Father," through his authority, by the power of "the Petrine office." Or so it claims.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: katherineofdixie on November 17, 2010, 12:31:52 PM
You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.

Oh, puh-leeeeze.

Get over yourselves. I say this with love.
 ;)



I recognize that Orthodox moral teaching is relative, but for us ALL false witness is evil.


Yes, yes, we know the drill by now. Orthodox = evil.  Roman Catholic = noble, good and true.

So much for discourse and debate.

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 12:32:02 PM
You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.

Oh, puh-leeeeze.

Get over yourselves. I say this with love.
 ;)



I recognize that Orthodox moral teaching is relative, but for us ALL false witness is evil.
LOL. Do you include the False Decretals under that rubric?

It is enough to deal with what is here before us.

You are tagged this morning.

You bear false witness.
So you claim, but can't offer proof. Now that's false witness.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 12:37:03 PM
Quote
St. John the Merciful: We Ought Never Commune From Heretics
Another thing the blessed man taught and insisted upon with all was never on any occasion whatsoever to associate with heretics and, above all, never to take Holy Communion with them, 'even if', the blessed man said, 'you remain without communicating all your life, if through stress of circumstances you cannot find a community of the Catholic Church. For if, having legally married a wife in this world of the flesh, we are forbidden by God and by the laws to desert her and be united to another woman, even though we have to spend a long time separated from her in a distant country, and shall incur punishment if we violate our vows, how then shall we, who have been Joined to God through the Orthodox faith and the Catholic Church - as the apostle says: "I espoused you to one husband that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ" [2 Cor 11:2] - how shall we escape from sharing in that punishment which in the world to come awaits heretics, if we defile the Orthodox and holy faith by adulterous communion with heretics?'

'For communion', he said, 'has been so called because he who has communion has things in common and agrees with those with whom he has communion. Therefore I implore you earnestly, children, never to go near the oratories of the heretics in order to communicate there.'
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/st-john-faster-we-ought-never-commune.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/john-almsgiver.html
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 12:45:12 PM
The Catholic Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
That she does.

Yes.  The liturgies in my Church are offered to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit. 

You apparently have a different system through the Synod, I think you said.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 12:46:34 PM
You want to put fear in the heart of anyone who has any desire to see the Catholic Church as something other than a blood curdling monstrosity.

You present a disembodied arm and call it the Body.

It is the worst kind of false witness.  I call it as I see it: It is evil.

Oh, puh-leeeeze.

Get over yourselves. I say this with love.
 ;)



I recognize that Orthodox moral teaching is relative, but for us ALL false witness is evil.


Yes, yes, we know the drill by now. Orthodox = evil.  Roman Catholic = noble, good and true.

So much for discourse and debate.

Have a nice day.

How does it feel to have others define you for yourself?...eh?...and to do it with love  :)
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 12:48:41 PM
The Catholic Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
That she does.

Yes.  The liturgies in my Church are offered to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.  

You apparently have a different system through the Synod, I think you said.
no,  but we in the Catholic Churhc do have a different system than that of the Vatican as described by your supreme pontiff, quoted at length above.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 17, 2010, 12:50:26 PM


Yes, yes, we know the drill by now. Orthodox = evil.  Roman Catholic = noble, good and true.


That's funny, because the opposite assertion is what we see around here all the time.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 17, 2010, 12:51:50 PM
The Catholic Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
That she does.

Yes.  The liturgies in my Church are offered to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.  

You apparently have a different system through the Synod, I think you said.
no,  but we in the Catholic Churhc do have a different system than that of the Vatican as described by your supreme pontiff, quoted at length above.
You have become Catholic? That is wonderful. When did you come into communion with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 12:56:47 PM
The Catholic Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
That she does.

Yes.  The liturgies in my Church are offered to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.  

You apparently have a different system through the Synod, I think you said.
no,  but we in the Catholic Churhc do have a different system than that of the Vatican as described by your supreme pontiff, quoted at length above.

Not by much is it different.  You don't sign off on your liturgical translations.  Your priest and parish do not.  Your bishop does not.   The synod, without the Patriarch, does not.

You only ever show part of an image and say to your confreres "See the distortion?..."

Yes.  We see the distortion and you create it using bits and pieces of the truth.  

It is false witness and false witness is an evil act and only can have evil as its outcome.

In Christ,

Mary
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 01:18:04 PM
The Catholic Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
That she does.

Yes.  The liturgies in my Church are offered to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.  

You apparently have a different system through the Synod, I think you said.
no,  but we in the Catholic Churhc do have a different system than that of the Vatican as described by your supreme pontiff, quoted at length above.
You have become Catholic? That is wonderful. Whend did you come into communion with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI?

Your supreme pontiff Benedict XIV exposion on the import of the commemoration we fully agree with. (It's a shame you do not). As such, no DL which comemorates "His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI" is a eucharist of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It is interesting that you do not commemorate a supreme pontiff when the office is vacant, and to commemorate someone when the office is vacant would seem to be as bad as commemorating the wrong guy.  When the office of primate of an autocephalous Orthodox Church is vacant, the Holy Synod of that Church is commemorated.  That we do not commemorate the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of the West is telling.

Of course, Rome is in the diptychs, as Bishop Siluan of Rome commemorates the Patriarch of Bucharest and All Romania.

So no, unfortunately "His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI" providing the basis for the Ultramontanist communion of its heretical ecclesiatical community which is communicated not by consecration of bishops by the Holy Spirit but by appointment of them by the Vatican (does heretical communion have an ontological reality?) and acceptance of office of supreme pontiff, he is not in Catholic communion.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 17, 2010, 01:20:04 PM
The Catholic Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
That she does.

Yes.  The liturgies in my Church are offered to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.  

You apparently have a different system through the Synod, I think you said.
no,  but we in the Catholic Churhc do have a different system than that of the Vatican as described by your supreme pontiff, quoted at length above.
You have become Catholic? That is wonderful. Whend did you come into communion with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI?

Your supreme pontiff Benedict XIV exposion on the import of the commemoration we fully agree with. (It's a shame you do not). As such, no DL which comemorates "His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI" is a eucharist of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It is interesting that you do not commemorate a supreme pontiff when the office is vacant, and to commemorate someone when the office is vacant would seem to be as bad as commemorating the wrong guy.  When the office of primate of an autocephalous Orthodox Church is vacant, the Holy Synod of that Church is commemorated.  That we do not commemorate the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of the West is telling.

Of course, Rome is in the diptychs, as Bishop Siluan of Rome commemorates the Patriarch of Bucharest and All Romania.

So no, unfortunately "His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI" providing the basis for the Ultramontanist communion of its heretical ecclesiatical community which is communicated not by consecration of bishops by the Holy Spirit but by appointment of them by the Vatican (does heretical communion have an ontological reality?) and acceptance of office of supreme pontiff, he is not in Catholic communion.
How can the Catholic Pope not be Catholic? Silly you. You are always so confused about reality.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: katherineofdixie on November 17, 2010, 01:31:10 PM


Yes, yes, we know the drill by now. Orthodox = evil.  Roman Catholic = noble, good and true.


That's funny, because the opposite assertion is what we see around here all the time.

Although I think it's more "ironic" than "funny." Perhaps it's just because I'm a relative whippersnapper in the culture wars around these parts, but I haven't observed (YMMV, of course) what you describe.
To charge someone with bearing false witness and being evil (and by extension an entire Church) based on an internet discussion does seem to be a little over the top.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 01:34:40 PM


Yes, yes, we know the drill by now. Orthodox = evil.  Roman Catholic = noble, good and true.


That's funny, because the opposite assertion is what we see around here all the time.

Although I think it's more "ironic" than "funny." Perhaps it's just because I'm a relative whippersnapper in the culture wars around these parts, but I haven't observed (YMMV, of course) what you describe.
To charge someone with bearing false witness and being evil (and by extension an entire Church) based on an internet discussion does seem to be a little over the top.


I am sorry you feel that way.  But it is an evil to distort another person's reality in order to insist that it is, in itself, a distortion.  You walk away believing that you've accomplished something and that your hands are clean.  But they are not and all that has been accomplished is an evil act.

If Orthodox faithful have to lie about the Catholic Church to make Orthodoxy true...well...where do you suppose that will lead?

 
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 17, 2010, 01:34:44 PM


Yes, yes, we know the drill by now. Orthodox = evil.  Roman Catholic = noble, good and true.


That's funny, because the opposite assertion is what we see around here all the time.

Although I think it's more "ironic" than "funny." Perhaps it's just because I'm a relative whippersnapper in the culture wars around these parts, but I haven't observed (YMMV, of course) what you describe.
To charge someone with bearing false witness and being evil (and by extension an entire Church) based on an internet discussion does seem to be a little over the top.

Elijah didn't say that Isa or the EO Church were evil. She said that Isa's actions (bearing false witness) were evil. Do you deny that bearing false witness is a sin?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: podkarpatska on November 17, 2010, 01:36:27 PM
Like is the case on most of the threads on Orthodox-Catholic Discussion, I question what any of the back and forth here has to do with the original topic of the OP. ISTM that this happens with most questions posted here. Sorry if I am out of line in complaining.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 01:45:21 PM
The Catholic Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
That she does.

Yes.  The liturgies in my Church are offered to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.  

You apparently have a different system through the Synod, I think you said.
no,  but we in the Catholic Churhc do have a different system than that of the Vatican as described by your supreme pontiff, quoted at length above.

Not by much is it different.  You don't sign off on your liturgical translations.  Your priest and parish do not.  Your bishop does not.

Actually, the bishop does. I remember some adjustments being made in the Diocese of the Midwest in the Holy Week and Paschal liturgical translations a decade or so ago.

Quote
The synod, without the Patriarch, does not.

The Metropolitan with the Holy Synod does.  It doesn't involve the Patriarch or the Holy Synod of Antioch, as they do not speak English as their language, and the Archdiocese has autonomy/self rule on these issues. Btw, on Arabic texts, we adopt the ones approved back home.

The Ecumenical Patriarch is not involved at all.

Quote
You only ever show part of an image and say to your confreres "See the distortion?..."

You don't even show part of an image. You tell us to trust your word on what it looks like, we don't need to see it with our own eyes. We are supposed to walk by your faith, not our sight.

The links are provided. If they want to see more, they are quite free. That included your confreres, if they want to open their eyes.

Quote
Yes.  We see the distortion and you create it using bits and pieces of the truth.  

Just mustard seeds. But is funny you say bits and pieces, given the complaints on the length of my posts.

Quote
It is false witness
So you keep saying and won't start proving.

Quote
and false witness is an evil act
Then commence with providing the evidence and proof of your accusations.  Otherwise
Quote
and only can have evil as its outcome.


Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 01:45:50 PM
Like is the case on most of the threads on Orthodox-Catholic Discussion, I question what any of the back and forth here has to do with the original topic of the OP. ISTM that this happens with most questions posted here. Sorry if I am out of line in complaining.

You are not out of line at all.  I don't think Katherine of Dixie is out of line either for that matter.

It is the nature of this Forum and what is tolerated and what is not.  There is indeed room for improvement.

M.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on November 17, 2010, 01:55:24 PM
It would be nice if ialmisry could actually post a coherent thought instead of just posting a large wad of quotes every time we ask him to explain something.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on November 17, 2010, 01:55:24 PM
As the most Ancient and Orthodox of Churches (the Acoe's third Patriarch Mar Abris was a relative of Jesus, it was custodian of the most ancient Icon of Christendom the one you constructed all your icons from , Peter came to it first in Seleukia according to King Abgar's letters to Narses, and built the first physical building of a church for it, and Saint Thaddeus evangelized it first than anybody else, the Assyrian Queen Helena of Adiabene ruled all Jews outside Jerusalem which were the first Christians, ie: apostle of the circumcised) the Assyrian Church of the East believes that it is against the command "Let the little Children come to me" not to give the Eucharist to other Christians baptized in the name of Trinity and thinks this argumentation is all flawed and minimalistic, if only you all would read a book on the state of the Church prior to the first council of Ephesus and all the groups in a phone book which appeared after that date you would see what I am talking about.

I am profoundly troubled by reading the things Orthodox are saying on Roman Catholics here - unleavened bread...then why don't you use Holy Malka which was given by Saint John to all the Churches as the proper form of leavening? Why did you allow tyrants to say this was superstition and not preserve this tradition? You accuse the Latins of doing this, apply the same standard. "Ultramontanism"...then why does your "ecumenical Patriarch" call himself first among equals and tried to take over or hand over to his subjects foreign churches as "canonical territories"  (ie: the ROC managed to convince one small Assyrian Church to join it and bulldozed the oldest liturgy in the world and subsituted it for Saint John Chrysostom's liturgy, that is wrong). Your Bishops also changed the definition of what a Bishop is! According to your reasoning you cannot consecrate the Host or perform sacraments as well (not that I believe this)! The whole talk on "the Greek says this" in particular makes me troubled, the most ancient semitic Churches (Syriac Orthodox, Maronites, ACOE) hold as their canonical text the Aramaic which our Lord spoke. You think this text was lost, you are wrong and the refusal to give up on this text by the said Church's proves my point (it was by the way forbidden to teach Greek in first century palestine to pious Jews). Purgatory...then why did Mark of Ephesus according to Fr. Popovich supposedly teach that God placed you in Hell until prayers and liturgy being celebrated for the deceased fished you, payed you out (sounds like purgatory to me, and I haven't even gone into tollhouses and such which emphasize even more the pay aspect). The True belief of the ancient Church (making use of the ancient language and culture of our Lord) we have preserved can be read in the last few chapters of the Book of the Bee by Mar Shleimon of Basra. You call the RCC heterodox for having 21 councils it calls ecumenical but you have 7 and the Oriental Orthodox have only 3, and the ACOE only agreed to Nicea, Constantinople I (2). You say those who prevented their beliefs from being corrupted are "Nestorian" but you give the benefit of a doubt on so called heresy to those who's "Pope" gave you a Saint (Flavian). Ylou know what I'm talking about. Is this not wrong? Why do you blame others for the same mistakes you commit ? Pull the plank out of your own eyes O Pharisees ! Thank God your hierarchs can see all this and decide prudently.
What a fascinating and thought provoking post. I would love to read up more on your Church.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 02:06:07 PM
It would be nice if ialmisry could actually post a coherent thought instead of just posting a large wad of quotes every time we ask him to explain something.

The purpose of it is to accuse and obfuscate rather than explain and clarify.  You have also noted by now that there are very clear language issues, so one would not care to make that even more apparent by trying to compose original note, etc.

As I said earlier, if it is necessary for Orthodox believers to distort the realities of Catholic life and ecclesiology then that cannot but speak badly for Orthodoxy.  Is Orthodoxy really that weak?  I don't think so but apparently there are those who are afraid.

Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on November 17, 2010, 02:48:53 PM
The senseless bickering and one upmanship here is exactly what Christ will judge you a sinner over, not what church you prayed to God in.

< Matthew 23:27 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 02:56:05 PM
The Catholic Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
That she does.

Yes.  The liturgies in my Church are offered to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.  

You apparently have a different system through the Synod, I think you said.
no,  but we in the Catholic Churhc do have a different system than that of the Vatican as described by your supreme pontiff, quoted at length above.
You have become Catholic? That is wonderful. Whend did you come into communion with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI?

Your supreme pontiff Benedict XIV exposion on the import of the commemoration we fully agree with. (It's a shame you do not). As such, no DL which comemorates "His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI" is a eucharist of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It is interesting that you do not commemorate a supreme pontiff when the office is vacant, and to commemorate someone when the office is vacant would seem to be as bad as commemorating the wrong guy.  When the office of primate of an autocephalous Orthodox Church is vacant, the Holy Synod of that Church is commemorated.  That we do not commemorate the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of the West is telling.

Of course, Rome is in the diptychs, as Bishop Siluan of Rome commemorates the Patriarch of Bucharest and All Romania.

So no, unfortunately "His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI" providing the basis for the Ultramontanist communion of its heretical ecclesiatical community which is communicated not by consecration of bishops by the Holy Spirit but by appointment of them by the Vatican (does heretical communion have an ontological reality?) and acceptance of office of supreme pontiff, he is not in Catholic communion.
How can the Catholic Pope not be Catholic? Silly you. You are always so confused about reality.
I'm not the one confused.
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Being in communion with Rome means that we are part of the same mystical body of Christ as Rome is and we can share in the sacraments with one another.
thereupon proceeded the latest tirade
My question was when do we, as RCs, offer up the Holy Eucharist or celebrate the Sacrament of Confession, or any other Sacrament for that matter, in the name of the Pope? I don't recall the Pope's name being brought up when any of the Sacraments are celebrated save for a brief mention of him in the Mass.
Oh, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Still don't see how this means that the Euchrist is "offered in the name of the Pope."

But hey, why bother with the facts, right? You have Latins to bash. lol


So once moe: So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Commemorating the Pope does not mean that the Eucharist is being offered in his name. Another swing and a miss for you Isa.

So, I have to ask once more: So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
keep trying Isa.
Found it:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/romanmissal/
Quote
Vatican issues final text of the Roman Missal, Third Edition, for the Dioceses of the United States of America
you might want to argue with his holiness:
Quote
EX QUO (On the Euchologion)  
Pope Benedict
 
Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on 1 March 1756.
To the Archbishops, Bishops and Other Clerics, Secular and Regular, of the Greek Rite Who Enjoy Favor and Communion with the Apostolic See.

It is said in addition that no discussions on restoring unity were ever begun without the acceptance of the prior condition that the commemoration of the Roman pontiff should be included in the sacred liturgy, nor was a union which had been agreed on regarded as complete until the previous condition had actually been put into effect. The clear result of all this is that the Latin and Greek churches agree in recognizing and affirming that the commemoration implies a profession of due subjection to the Roman pontiff as head of the Church, and of a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church. On the other hand the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism.
and, in contrast to the unconsecrated bishop elect confirmed by the Vatican's fiat, no consecrated bishop is to be commemorated if he does not submitt to the Vatican (called 'schismatic') or teach the Vatican's dogmas (called 'heretical'):
Quote
First Admonition-Commemoration of Bishop and Patriarch

18. Now follows the second part of this first admonition which, as was mentioned above, obliges the Greek priest during Mass, after praying for the Roman pontiff, to pray for his own bishop and his patriarch if they are Catholic. For if either is or both are schismatic or heretic, a commemoration should not be made.
^So then Papist, you don't have a meaningful question to your supreme pontiff's answer? That's what I thought.

So to answer your question "How can the Catholic Pope not be Catholic?" The Catholic Pope is Catholic
(http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/03S8625beGedC/610x.jpg)

(http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/07yIe2a2Cw5Hs/610x.jpg)
The original Pope, given that title before Rome appropriated it to itself.

And it is just that, only a title, just like Patriarch, Metropolitan and Archbishop in the Catholic Church. It carries dogmatic implications neither in the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church nor the Orthdoox episcopacy.

Yes, I'm aware the Vatican has twisted the definition of self-absorbition into defining Catholicism as submission to its supreme pontiff, but we stick with the definition that St. Ignatius and all the Fathers used:
Quote
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Not the bishop nominated by some supreme pontiff (who nowhere appears), but the local bishop consecrated by the Orthodox episcopate to unite his flock into the unity of the Catholic Church. The unity of the Catholic Church depends neither on communion with Pope Benedict XVI of Rome nor acknowledging the Orthodox bishop of Rome, Siluan, as Pope.

So, as you supreme pontiff Benedict taught, the head of your ecclesiastical community, being in schism from the Catholic Church and teaching heretical dogmas contrary to the Orthodox Faith, should by no menas be commemorated during the divine services.  If follows from that, that their should be no sharing of sacraments.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 03:07:02 PM
The senseless bickering and one upmanship here is exactly what Christ will judge you a sinner over, not what church you prayed to God in.

< Matthew 23:27 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
Go try to pass a counterfeit $100 bill at the bank and tell us how "the senseless bickering and one upmanship" goes.

<<John 4:33>>
"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know."

Btw, the "dead men's bones" we are full of-the relics of the saints upon which we celebrate our sacraments, are quite clean.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 03:10:03 PM
http://www.usccb.org/seia/steps-towards-reunited-church.shtml

10.  One Body.  In his Commentaryon the 17th Chapter of St. John’s Gospel,St. Cyril of Alexandria argues that the unity of the Church, modeled on the unity of Father and Son and realized through the gift of the Spirit, is primarily formed in us through the Eucharist in which the disciples of Jesus share: 

    For by liturgically blessing (eulogōn) those who believe in him into a single body – namely, his own – through sacramental participation, [Christ] has made them completely one body with himself and with each other.  Who, after all, could divide, or alienate from natural unity with one another, those who are bound through the one holy body into unity with Christ?  For if ‘all of us partake of the one loaf’ (1 Cor 10.17), all of us are formed into one body.  It is impossible to divide Christ.  That is the reason that the church is called the Body of Christ, and we are individually his members, as Paul understands it.  For since we are all united with Christ through his holy Body - which we take, one and undivided, into our own bodies - we owe our own limbs more to him than to ourselves…
    How, then are we all not clearly one [Cyril goes on to ask] in each other and in Christ?  For Christ is himself the bond of unity, existing at the same time as God and as a human being…. And all of us who have received one and the same Spirit – I mean the Holy Spirit – are blended together, in a certain way, with each other and with God… For just as the power of his holy flesh forms those to whom it comes into a single body, in the same way, I believe, the one Spirit of God, who dwells in all of us undivided, brings us all to a spiritual unity (Comm. on John 11.11 [ed. Pusey 2.735-737]).


Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action; but conscience also calls us to move beyond complacency in our divisions, in the power of the Spirit and in a longing for the fullness of Christ’s life-giving presence in our midst.  The challenge and the invitation to Orthodox and Catholic Christians, who understand themselves to be members of Christ’s Body precisely by sharing in the Eucharistic gifts and participating in the transforming life of the Holy Spirit, is now to see Christ authentically present in each other, and to find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, and towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, that will reveal us as his disciples before the world. 
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 17, 2010, 03:13:10 PM
The Catholic Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
That she does.

Yes.  The liturgies in my Church are offered to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.  

You apparently have a different system through the Synod, I think you said.
no,  but we in the Catholic Churhc do have a different system than that of the Vatican as described by your supreme pontiff, quoted at length above.
You have become Catholic? That is wonderful. Whend did you come into communion with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI?

Your supreme pontiff Benedict XIV exposion on the import of the commemoration we fully agree with. (It's a shame you do not). As such, no DL which comemorates "His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI" is a eucharist of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It is interesting that you do not commemorate a supreme pontiff when the office is vacant, and to commemorate someone when the office is vacant would seem to be as bad as commemorating the wrong guy.  When the office of primate of an autocephalous Orthodox Church is vacant, the Holy Synod of that Church is commemorated.  That we do not commemorate the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of the West is telling.

Of course, Rome is in the diptychs, as Bishop Siluan of Rome commemorates the Patriarch of Bucharest and All Romania.

So no, unfortunately "His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI" providing the basis for the Ultramontanist communion of its heretical ecclesiatical community which is communicated not by consecration of bishops by the Holy Spirit but by appointment of them by the Vatican (does heretical communion have an ontological reality?) and acceptance of office of supreme pontiff, he is not in Catholic communion.
How can the Catholic Pope not be Catholic? Silly you. You are always so confused about reality.
I'm not the one confused.
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Being in communion with Rome means that we are part of the same mystical body of Christ as Rome is and we can share in the sacraments with one another.
thereupon proceeded the latest tirade
My question was when do we, as RCs, offer up the Holy Eucharist or celebrate the Sacrament of Confession, or any other Sacrament for that matter, in the name of the Pope? I don't recall the Pope's name being brought up when any of the Sacraments are celebrated save for a brief mention of him in the Mass.
Oh, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Still don't see how this means that the Euchrist is "offered in the name of the Pope."

But hey, why bother with the facts, right? You have Latins to bash. lol


So once moe: So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Commemorating the Pope does not mean that the Eucharist is being offered in his name. Another swing and a miss for you Isa.

So, I have to ask once more: So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
keep trying Isa.
Found it:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/romanmissal/
Quote
Vatican issues final text of the Roman Missal, Third Edition, for the Dioceses of the United States of America
you might want to argue with his holiness:
Quote
EX QUO (On the Euchologion)  
Pope Benedict
 
Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on 1 March 1756.
To the Archbishops, Bishops and Other Clerics, Secular and Regular, of the Greek Rite Who Enjoy Favor and Communion with the Apostolic See.

It is said in addition that no discussions on restoring unity were ever begun without the acceptance of the prior condition that the commemoration of the Roman pontiff should be included in the sacred liturgy, nor was a union which had been agreed on regarded as complete until the previous condition had actually been put into effect. The clear result of all this is that the Latin and Greek churches agree in recognizing and affirming that the commemoration implies a profession of due subjection to the Roman pontiff as head of the Church, and of a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church. On the other hand the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism.
and, in contrast to the unconsecrated bishop elect confirmed by the Vatican's fiat, no consecrated bishop is to be commemorated if he does not submitt to the Vatican (called 'schismatic') or teach the Vatican's dogmas (called 'heretical'):
Quote
First Admonition-Commemoration of Bishop and Patriarch

18. Now follows the second part of this first admonition which, as was mentioned above, obliges the Greek priest during Mass, after praying for the Roman pontiff, to pray for his own bishop and his patriarch if they are Catholic. For if either is or both are schismatic or heretic, a commemoration should not be made.
^So then Papist, you don't have a meaningful question to your supreme pontiff's answer? That's what I thought.

So to answer your question "How can the Catholic Pope not be Catholic?" The Catholic Pope is Catholic
(http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/03S8625beGedC/610x.jpg)

(http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/07yIe2a2Cw5Hs/610x.jpg)
The original Pope, given that title before Rome appropriated it to itself.

And it is just that, only a title, just like Patriarch, Metropolitan and Archbishop in the Catholic Church. It carries dogmatic implications neither in the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church nor the Orthdoox episcopacy.

Yes, I'm aware the Vatican has twisted the definition of self-absorbition into defining Catholicism as submission to its supreme pontiff, but we stick with the definition that St. Ignatius and all the Fathers used:
Quote
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Not the bishop nominated by some supreme pontiff (who nowhere appears), but the local bishop consecrated by the Orthodox episcopate to unite his flock into the unity of the Catholic Church. The unity of the Catholic Church depends neither on communion with Pope Benedict XVI of Rome nor acknowledging the Orthodox bishop of Rome, Siluan, as Pope.

So, as you supreme pontiff Benedict taught, the head of your ecclesiastical community, being in schism from the Catholic Church and teaching heretical dogmas contrary to the Orthodox Faith, should by no menas be commemorated during the divine services.  If follows from that, that their should be no sharing of sacraments.

You still haven't provided any evidence that the Eucharist is offered in the name of the Pope. Sorry Isa. No dice. Your failure at EO apologetics and anti-Catholics attacks is monumental.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 03:15:44 PM
It would be nice if ialmisry could actually post a coherent thought instead of just posting a large wad of quotes every time we ask him to explain something.

The purpose of it is to accuse and obfuscate rather than explain and clarify. 
The purpose of it is to substantiate and document, making it clear what your magisterium explicitely teaches and explaining its implications.

Quote
You have also noted by now that there are very clear language issues, so one would not care to make that even more apparent by trying to compose original note, etc.
Alll we have gotten are "original notes": nothing, besides your posting of Fr. Lev's article on the IC,  but personal opinion rather than official statements.

Quote
As I said earlier, if it is necessary for Orthodox believers to distort the realities of Catholic life and ecclesiology
Of course, being Orthodox, we preserve the realities of Catholic life and ecclesiology. That you cannot cite your magisterium to back you up isn't our problem.

Quote
then that cannot but speak badly for Orthodoxy.
and the running away from "magisterial" statements: what does that say?

Quote
Is Orthodoxy really that weak?

Orthodoxy founded the universe. Is the Vatican's statements over the centuries so weak that you fear to cite them?

Quote
I don't think so but apparently there are those who are afraid.
You all are the ones afraid of citing your magisterium. Obviously, we don't have that fear.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 03:18:18 PM
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI

34. That this Mystical Body which is the Church should be called Christ's is proved in the second place from the fact that He must be universally acknowledged as its actual Head. "He," as St. Paul says, "is the Head of the Body, the Church. [43] He is the Head from whom the whole body perfectly organized, "groweth and maketh increase unto the edifying of itself." [44]

35. You are familiar, Venerable Brethren, with the admirable and luminous language used by the masters of Scholastic Theology, and chiefly by the Angelic and Common Doctor, when treating this question; and you know that the reasons advanced by Aquinas are a faithful reflection of the mind and the writings of the holy Fathers, who moreover merely repeated and commented on the inspired word of Sacred Scripture.

36. However for the good of all We wish to touch on this point briefly. And first of all it is clear that the Son of God and of the Blessed Virgin is to be called the Head of the Church by reason of His singular pre-eminence. For the Head is in the highest place. But who is in a higher place than Christ God, who as the Word of The Eternal Father must be acknowledged to be the "firstborn of every creature? [45] Who has reached more lofty heights than Christ Man, who, though born of the Immaculate Virgin, is the true and natural Son of God, and in virtue of His miraculous and glorious resurrection, a resurrection triumphant over death, has become the "firstborn of the dead?" [46] Who finally has been so exalted as He, who as "the one mediator of God and men" [47] has in a most wonderful manner linked earth to heaven, who, raised on the Cross as on a throne of mercy, has drawn all things to Himself, [48] who, as the Son of Man chosen from among thousands, is beloved of God beyond all men, all angels and all created things? [49]

37. Because Christ is so exalted, He alone by every right rules and governs the Church; and herein is yet another reason why He must be likened to a head. As the head is the "royal citadel" of the body [50] -- to use the words of Ambrose -- and all the members over whom it is placed for their good [51] are naturally guided by it as being endowed with superior powers, so the Divine Redeemer holds the helm of the universal Christian community and directs its course. And as to govern human society signifies to lead men to the end proposed by means that are expedient, just and helpful, [52] it is easy to see how our Savior, model and ideal of good Shepherds, [53] performs all these functions in a most striking way.

http://www.usccb.org/seia/steps-towards-reunited-church.shtml

10.  One Body.  In his Commentaryon the 17th Chapter of St. John’s Gospel,St. Cyril of Alexandria argues that the unity of the Church, modeled on the unity of Father and Son and realized through the gift of the Spirit, is primarily formed in us through the Eucharist in which the disciples of Jesus share: 

    For by liturgically blessing (eulogōn) those who believe in him into a single body – namely, his own – through sacramental participation, [Christ] has made them completely one body with himself and with each other.  Who, after all, could divide, or alienate from natural unity with one another, those who are bound through the one holy body into unity with Christ?  For if ‘all of us partake of the one loaf’ (1 Cor 10.17), all of us are formed into one body.  It is impossible to divide Christ.  That is the reason that the church is called the Body of Christ, and we are individually his members, as Paul understands it.  For since we are all united with Christ through his holy Body - which we take, one and undivided, into our own bodies - we owe our own limbs more to him than to ourselves…
    How, then are we all not clearly one [Cyril goes on to ask] in each other and in Christ?  For Christ is himself the bond of unity, existing at the same time as God and as a human being…. And all of us who have received one and the same Spirit – I mean the Holy Spirit – are blended together, in a certain way, with each other and with God… For just as the power of his holy flesh forms those to whom it comes into a single body, in the same way, I believe, the one Spirit of God, who dwells in all of us undivided, brings us all to a spiritual unity (Comm. on John 11.11 [ed. Pusey 2.735-737]).


Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action; but conscience also calls us to move beyond complacency in our divisions, in the power of the Spirit and in a longing for the fullness of Christ’s life-giving presence in our midst.  The challenge and the invitation to Orthodox and Catholic Christians, who understand themselves to be members of Christ’s Body precisely by sharing in the Eucharistic gifts and participating in the transforming life of the Holy Spirit, is now to see Christ authentically present in each other, and to find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, and towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, that will reveal us as his disciples before the world. 
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 03:18:41 PM
http://www.usccb.org/seia/steps-towards-reunited-church.shtml

10.  One Body.  In his Commentaryon the 17th Chapter of St. John’s Gospel,St. Cyril of Alexandria argues that the unity of the Church, modeled on the unity of Father and Son and realized through the gift of the Spirit, is primarily formed in us through the Eucharist in which the disciples of Jesus share: 

    For by liturgically blessing (eulogōn) those who believe in him into a single body – namely, his own – through sacramental participation, [Christ] has made them completely one body with himself and with each other.  Who, after all, could divide, or alienate from natural unity with one another, those who are bound through the one holy body into unity with Christ?  For if ‘all of us partake of the one loaf’ (1 Cor 10.17), all of us are formed into one body.  It is impossible to divide Christ.  That is the reason that the church is called the Body of Christ, and we are individually his members, as Paul understands it.  For since we are all united with Christ through his holy Body - which we take, one and undivided, into our own bodies - we owe our own limbs more to him than to ourselves…
    How, then are we all not clearly one [Cyril goes on to ask] in each other and in Christ?  For Christ is himself the bond of unity, existing at the same time as God and as a human being…. And all of us who have received one and the same Spirit – I mean the Holy Spirit – are blended together, in a certain way, with each other and with God… For just as the power of his holy flesh forms those to whom it comes into a single body, in the same way, I believe, the one Spirit of God, who dwells in all of us undivided, brings us all to a spiritual unity (Comm. on John 11.11 [ed. Pusey 2.735-737]).


Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action; but conscience also calls us to move beyond complacency in our divisions, in the power of the Spirit and in a longing for the fullness of Christ’s life-giving presence in our midst.  The challenge and the invitation to Orthodox and Catholic Christians, who understand themselves to be members of Christ’s Body precisely by sharing in the Eucharistic gifts and participating in the transforming life of the Holy Spirit, is now to see Christ authentically present in each other, and to find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, and towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, that will reveal us as his disciples before the world. 
OOOoooo! A quote! Let me first get over the shock before replying.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 17, 2010, 03:20:43 PM
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI

34. That this Mystical Body which is the Church should be called Christ's is proved in the second place from the fact that He must be universally acknowledged as its actual Head. "He," as St. Paul says, "is the Head of the Body, the Church. [43] He is the Head from whom the whole body perfectly organized, "groweth and maketh increase unto the edifying of itself." [44]

35. You are familiar, Venerable Brethren, with the admirable and luminous language used by the masters of Scholastic Theology, and chiefly by the Angelic and Common Doctor, when treating this question; and you know that the reasons advanced by Aquinas are a faithful reflection of the mind and the writings of the holy Fathers, who moreover merely repeated and commented on the inspired word of Sacred Scripture.

36. However for the good of all We wish to touch on this point briefly. And first of all it is clear that the Son of God and of the Blessed Virgin is to be called the Head of the Church by reason of His singular pre-eminence. For the Head is in the highest place. But who is in a higher place than Christ God, who as the Word of The Eternal Father must be acknowledged to be the "firstborn of every creature? [45] Who has reached more lofty heights than Christ Man, who, though born of the Immaculate Virgin, is the true and natural Son of God, and in virtue of His miraculous and glorious resurrection, a resurrection triumphant over death, has become the "firstborn of the dead?" [46] Who finally has been so exalted as He, who as "the one mediator of God and men" [47] has in a most wonderful manner linked earth to heaven, who, raised on the Cross as on a throne of mercy, has drawn all things to Himself, [48] who, as the Son of Man chosen from among thousands, is beloved of God beyond all men, all angels and all created things? [49]

37. Because Christ is so exalted, He alone by every right rules and governs the Church; and herein is yet another reason why He must be likened to a head. As the head is the "royal citadel" of the body [50] -- to use the words of Ambrose -- and all the members over whom it is placed for their good [51] are naturally guided by it as being endowed with superior powers, so the Divine Redeemer holds the helm of the universal Christian community and directs its course. And as to govern human society signifies to lead men to the end proposed by means that are expedient, just and helpful, [52] it is easy to see how our Savior, model and ideal of good Shepherds, [53] performs all these functions in a most striking way.

http://www.usccb.org/seia/steps-towards-reunited-church.shtml

10.  One Body.  In his Commentaryon the 17th Chapter of St. John’s Gospel,St. Cyril of Alexandria argues that the unity of the Church, modeled on the unity of Father and Son and realized through the gift of the Spirit, is primarily formed in us through the Eucharist in which the disciples of Jesus share: 

    For by liturgically blessing (eulogōn) those who believe in him into a single body – namely, his own – through sacramental participation, [Christ] has made them completely one body with himself and with each other.  Who, after all, could divide, or alienate from natural unity with one another, those who are bound through the one holy body into unity with Christ?  For if ‘all of us partake of the one loaf’ (1 Cor 10.17), all of us are formed into one body.  It is impossible to divide Christ.  That is the reason that the church is called the Body of Christ, and we are individually his members, as Paul understands it.  For since we are all united with Christ through his holy Body - which we take, one and undivided, into our own bodies - we owe our own limbs more to him than to ourselves…
    How, then are we all not clearly one [Cyril goes on to ask] in each other and in Christ?  For Christ is himself the bond of unity, existing at the same time as God and as a human being…. And all of us who have received one and the same Spirit – I mean the Holy Spirit – are blended together, in a certain way, with each other and with God… For just as the power of his holy flesh forms those to whom it comes into a single body, in the same way, I believe, the one Spirit of God, who dwells in all of us undivided, brings us all to a spiritual unity (Comm. on John 11.11 [ed. Pusey 2.735-737]).


Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action; but conscience also calls us to move beyond complacency in our divisions, in the power of the Spirit and in a longing for the fullness of Christ’s life-giving presence in our midst.  The challenge and the invitation to Orthodox and Catholic Christians, who understand themselves to be members of Christ’s Body precisely by sharing in the Eucharistic gifts and participating in the transforming life of the Holy Spirit, is now to see Christ authentically present in each other, and to find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, and towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, that will reveal us as his disciples before the world. 
Thank you for sharing this Elijah Maria.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 17, 2010, 03:21:32 PM
http://www.usccb.org/seia/steps-towards-reunited-church.shtml

10.  One Body.  In his Commentaryon the 17th Chapter of St. John’s Gospel,St. Cyril of Alexandria argues that the unity of the Church, modeled on the unity of Father and Son and realized through the gift of the Spirit, is primarily formed in us through the Eucharist in which the disciples of Jesus share: 

    For by liturgically blessing (eulogōn) those who believe in him into a single body – namely, his own – through sacramental participation, [Christ] has made them completely one body with himself and with each other.  Who, after all, could divide, or alienate from natural unity with one another, those who are bound through the one holy body into unity with Christ?  For if ‘all of us partake of the one loaf’ (1 Cor 10.17), all of us are formed into one body.  It is impossible to divide Christ.  That is the reason that the church is called the Body of Christ, and we are individually his members, as Paul understands it.  For since we are all united with Christ through his holy Body - which we take, one and undivided, into our own bodies - we owe our own limbs more to him than to ourselves…
    How, then are we all not clearly one [Cyril goes on to ask] in each other and in Christ?  For Christ is himself the bond of unity, existing at the same time as God and as a human being…. And all of us who have received one and the same Spirit – I mean the Holy Spirit – are blended together, in a certain way, with each other and with God… For just as the power of his holy flesh forms those to whom it comes into a single body, in the same way, I believe, the one Spirit of God, who dwells in all of us undivided, brings us all to a spiritual unity (Comm. on John 11.11 [ed. Pusey 2.735-737]).


Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action; but conscience also calls us to move beyond complacency in our divisions, in the power of the Spirit and in a longing for the fullness of Christ’s life-giving presence in our midst.  The challenge and the invitation to Orthodox and Catholic Christians, who understand themselves to be members of Christ’s Body precisely by sharing in the Eucharistic gifts and participating in the transforming life of the Holy Spirit, is now to see Christ authentically present in each other, and to find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, and towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, that will reveal us as his disciples before the world. 
OOOoooo! A quote! Let me first get over the shock before replying.
What would be more shocking is if you were to actually engage the text, rather than play liguistic acrobatics.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 03:23:03 PM
ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

3. The Church was born of the paschal mystery. For this very reason the Eucharist, which is in an outstanding way the sacrament of the paschal mystery, stands at the centre of the Church's life. This is already clear from the earliest images of the Church found in the Acts of the Apostles: “They devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (2:42). The “breaking of the bread” refers to the Eucharist. Two thousand years later, we continue to relive that primordial image of the Church. At every celebration of the Eucharist, we are spiritually brought back to the paschal Triduum: to the events of the evening of Holy Thursday, to the Last Supper and to what followed it. The institution of the Eucharist sacramentally anticipated the events which were about to take place, beginning with the agony in Gethsemane. Once again we see Jesus as he leaves the Upper Room, descends with his disciples to the Kidron valley and goes to the Garden of Olives. Even today that Garden shelters some very ancient olive trees. Perhaps they witnessed what happened beneath their shade that evening, when Christ in prayer was filled with anguish “and his sweat became like drops of blood falling down upon the ground” (cf. Lk 22:44). The blood which shortly before he had given to the Church as the drink of salvation in the sacrament of the Eucharist, began to be shed; its outpouring would then be completed on Golgotha to become the means of our redemption: “Christ... as high priest of the good things to come..., entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Heb 9:11- 12).

4. The hour of our redemption. Although deeply troubled, Jesus does not flee before his “hour”. “And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour?' No, for this purpose I have come to this hour” (Jn 12:27). He wanted his disciples to keep him company, yet he had to experience loneliness and abandonment: “So, could you not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation” (Mt 26:40- 41). Only John would remain at the foot of the Cross, at the side of Mary and the faithful women. The agony in Gethsemane was the introduction to the agony of the Cross on Good Friday. The holy hour, the hour of the redemption of the world. Whenever the Eucharist is celebrated at the tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem, there is an almost tangible return to his “hour”, the hour of his Cross and glorification. Every priest who celebrates Holy Mass, together with the Christian community which takes part in it, is led back in spirit to that place and that hour.

“He was crucified, he suffered death and was buried; he descended to the dead; on the third day he rose again”. The words of the profession of faith are echoed by the words of contemplation and proclamation: “This is the wood of the Cross, on which hung the Saviour of the world. Come, let us worship”. This is the invitation which the Church extends to all in the afternoon hours of Good Friday. She then takes up her song during the Easter season in order to proclaim: “The Lord is risen from the tomb; for our sake he hung on the Cross, Alleluia”.

5. “Mysterium fidei! - The Mystery of Faith!”. When the priest recites or chants these words, all present acclaim: “We announce your death, O Lord, and we proclaim your resurrection, until you come in glory”.

In these or similar words the Church, while pointing to Christ in the mystery of his passion, also reveals her own mystery: Ecclesia de Eucharistia. By the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost the Church was born and set out upon the pathways of the world, yet a decisive moment in her taking shape was certainly the institution of the Eucharist in the Upper Room. Her foundation and wellspring is the whole Triduum paschale, but this is as it were gathered up, foreshadowed and “concentrated' for ever in the gift of the Eucharist. In this gift Jesus Christ entrusted to his Church the perennial making present of the paschal mystery. With it he brought about a mysterious “oneness in time” between that Triduum and the passage of the centuries.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 03:25:21 PM
ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

3. The Church was born of the paschal mystery. For this very reason the Eucharist, which is in an outstanding way the sacrament of the paschal mystery, stands at the centre of the Church's life. This is already clear from the earliest images of the Church found in the Acts of the Apostles: “They devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (2:42). The “breaking of the bread” refers to the Eucharist. Two thousand years later, we continue to relive that primordial image of the Church. At every celebration of the Eucharist, we are spiritually brought back to the paschal Triduum: to the events of the evening of Holy Thursday, to the Last Supper and to what followed it. The institution of the Eucharist sacramentally anticipated the events which were about to take place, beginning with the agony in Gethsemane. Once again we see Jesus as he leaves the Upper Room, descends with his disciples to the Kidron valley and goes to the Garden of Olives. Even today that Garden shelters some very ancient olive trees. Perhaps they witnessed what happened beneath their shade that evening, when Christ in prayer was filled with anguish “and his sweat became like drops of blood falling down upon the ground” (cf. Lk 22:44). The blood which shortly before he had given to the Church as the drink of salvation in the sacrament of the Eucharist, began to be shed; its outpouring would then be completed on Golgotha to become the means of our redemption: “Christ... as high priest of the good things to come..., entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Heb 9:11- 12).

4. The hour of our redemption. Although deeply troubled, Jesus does not flee before his “hour”. “And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour?' No, for this purpose I have come to this hour” (Jn 12:27). He wanted his disciples to keep him company, yet he had to experience loneliness and abandonment: “So, could you not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation” (Mt 26:40- 41). Only John would remain at the foot of the Cross, at the side of Mary and the faithful women. The agony in Gethsemane was the introduction to the agony of the Cross on Good Friday. The holy hour, the hour of the redemption of the world. Whenever the Eucharist is celebrated at the tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem, there is an almost tangible return to his “hour”, the hour of his Cross and glorification. Every priest who celebrates Holy Mass, together with the Christian community which takes part in it, is led back in spirit to that place and that hour.

“He was crucified, he suffered death and was buried; he descended to the dead; on the third day he rose again”. The words of the profession of faith are echoed by the words of contemplation and proclamation: “This is the wood of the Cross, on which hung the Saviour of the world. Come, let us worship”. This is the invitation which the Church extends to all in the afternoon hours of Good Friday. She then takes up her song during the Easter season in order to proclaim: “The Lord is risen from the tomb; for our sake he hung on the Cross, Alleluia”.

5. “Mysterium fidei! - The Mystery of Faith!”. When the priest recites or chants these words, all present acclaim: “We announce your death, O Lord, and we proclaim your resurrection, until you come in glory”.

In these or similar words the Church, while pointing to Christ in the mystery of his passion, also reveals her own mystery: Ecclesia de Eucharistia. By the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost the Church was born and set out upon the pathways of the world, yet a decisive moment in her taking shape was certainly the institution of the Eucharist in the Upper Room. Her foundation and wellspring is the whole Triduum paschale, but this is as it were gathered up, foreshadowed and “concentrated' for ever in the gift of the Eucharist. In this gift Jesus Christ entrusted to his Church the perennial making present of the paschal mystery. With it he brought about a mysterious “oneness in time” between that Triduum and the passage of the centuries.


and by extension

Quote
9. The Eucharist, as Christ's saving presence in the community of the faithful and its spiritual food, is the most precious possession which the Church can have in her journey through history. This explains the lively concern which she has always shown for the Eucharistic mystery, a concern which finds authoritative expression in the work of the Councils and the Popes. How can we not admire the doctrinal expositions of the Decrees on the Most Holy Eucharist and on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass promulgated by the Council of Trent? For centuries those Decrees guided theology and catechesis, and they are still a dogmatic reference-point for the continual renewal and growth of God's People in faith and in love for the Eucharist. In times closer to our own, three Encyclical Letters should be mentioned: the Encyclical Mirae Caritatis of Leo XIII (28 May 1902),5 the Encyclical Mediator Dei of Pius XII (20 November 1947)6 and the Encyclical Mysterium Fidei of Paul VI (3 September 1965).7

The Second Vatican Council, while not issuing a specific document on the Eucharistic mystery, considered its various aspects throughout its documents, especially the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium and the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 03:29:09 PM
ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

3. The Church was born of the paschal mystery. For this very reason the Eucharist, which is in an outstanding way the sacrament of the paschal mystery, stands at the centre of the Church's life. This is already clear from the earliest images of the Church found in the Acts of the Apostles: “They devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (2:42). The “breaking of the bread” refers to the Eucharist. Two thousand years later, we continue to relive that primordial image of the Church. At every celebration of the Eucharist, we are spiritually brought back to the paschal Triduum: to the events of the evening of Holy Thursday, to the Last Supper and to what followed it. The institution of the Eucharist sacramentally anticipated the events which were about to take place, beginning with the agony in Gethsemane. Once again we see Jesus as he leaves the Upper Room, descends with his disciples to the Kidron valley and goes to the Garden of Olives. Even today that Garden shelters some very ancient olive trees. Perhaps they witnessed what happened beneath their shade that evening, when Christ in prayer was filled with anguish “and his sweat became like drops of blood falling down upon the ground” (cf. Lk 22:44). The blood which shortly before he had given to the Church as the drink of salvation in the sacrament of the Eucharist, began to be shed; its outpouring would then be completed on Golgotha to become the means of our redemption: “Christ... as high priest of the good things to come..., entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Heb 9:11- 12).

4. The hour of our redemption. Although deeply troubled, Jesus does not flee before his “hour”. “And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour?' No, for this purpose I have come to this hour” (Jn 12:27). He wanted his disciples to keep him company, yet he had to experience loneliness and abandonment: “So, could you not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation” (Mt 26:40- 41). Only John would remain at the foot of the Cross, at the side of Mary and the faithful women. The agony in Gethsemane was the introduction to the agony of the Cross on Good Friday. The holy hour, the hour of the redemption of the world. Whenever the Eucharist is celebrated at the tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem, there is an almost tangible return to his “hour”, the hour of his Cross and glorification. Every priest who celebrates Holy Mass, together with the Christian community which takes part in it, is led back in spirit to that place and that hour.

“He was crucified, he suffered death and was buried; he descended to the dead; on the third day he rose again”. The words of the profession of faith are echoed by the words of contemplation and proclamation: “This is the wood of the Cross, on which hung the Saviour of the world. Come, let us worship”. This is the invitation which the Church extends to all in the afternoon hours of Good Friday. She then takes up her song during the Easter season in order to proclaim: “The Lord is risen from the tomb; for our sake he hung on the Cross, Alleluia”.

5. “Mysterium fidei! - The Mystery of Faith!”. When the priest recites or chants these words, all present acclaim: “We announce your death, O Lord, and we proclaim your resurrection, until you come in glory”.

In these or similar words the Church, while pointing to Christ in the mystery of his passion, also reveals her own mystery: Ecclesia de Eucharistia. By the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost the Church was born and set out upon the pathways of the world, yet a decisive moment in her taking shape was certainly the institution of the Eucharist in the Upper Room. Her foundation and wellspring is the whole Triduum paschale, but this is as it were gathered up, foreshadowed and “concentrated' for ever in the gift of the Eucharist. In this gift Jesus Christ entrusted to his Church the perennial making present of the paschal mystery. With it he brought about a mysterious “oneness in time” between that Triduum and the passage of the centuries.


and by extension

Quote
9. The Eucharist, as Christ's saving presence in the community of the faithful and its spiritual food, is the most precious possession which the Church can have in her journey through history. This explains the lively concern which she has always shown for the Eucharistic mystery, a concern which finds authoritative expression in the work of the Councils and the Popes. How can we not admire the doctrinal expositions of the Decrees on the Most Holy Eucharist and on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass promulgated by the Council of Trent? For centuries those Decrees guided theology and catechesis, and they are still a dogmatic reference-point for the continual renewal and growth of God's People in faith and in love for the Eucharist. In times closer to our own, three Encyclical Letters should be mentioned: the Encyclical Mirae Caritatis of Leo XIII (28 May 1902),5 the Encyclical Mediator Dei of Pius XII (20 November 1947)6 and the Encyclical Mysterium Fidei of Paul VI (3 September 1965).7

The Second Vatican Council, while not issuing a specific document on the Eucharistic mystery, considered its various aspects throughout its documents, especially the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium and the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium.

and then by further extension

Ut unum sint

9. Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21). This unity, which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ's mission. Nor is it some secondary attribute of the community of his disciples. Rather, it belongs to the very essence of this community. God wills the Church, because he wills unity, and unity is an expression of the whole depth of his agape.

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.10 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, thecommunion 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".

10. In the present situation of the lack of unity among Christians and of the confident quest for full communion, the Catholic faithful are conscious of being deeply challenged by the Lord of the Church. The Second Vatican Council strengthened their commitment with a clear ecclesiological vision, open to all the ecclesial values present among other Christians. The Catholic faithful face the ecumenical question in a spirit of faith.

The Council states that the Church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him", and at the same time acknowledges that "many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism towards Catholic unity".11

"It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church".12

11. The Catholic Church thus affirms that during the two thousand years of her history she has been preserved in unity, with all the means with which God wishes to endow his Church, and this despite the often grave crises which have shaken her, the infidelity of some of her ministers, and the faults into which her members daily fall. The Catholic Church knows that, by virtue of the strength which comes to her from the Spirit, the weaknesses, mediocrity, sins and at times the betrayals of some of her children cannot destroy what God has bestowed on her as part of his plan of grace. Moreover, "the powers of death shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18). Even so, the Catholic Church does not forget that many among her members cause God's plan to be discernible only with difficulty. Speaking of the lack of unity among Christians, the Decree on Ecumenism does not ignore the fact that "people of both sides were to blame",13 and acknowledges that responsibility cannot be attributed only to the "other side". By God's grace, however, neither what belongs to the structure of the Church of Christ nor that communion which still exists with the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities has been destroyed.

Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.

To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them. For this reason the Second Vatican Council speaks of a certain, though imperfect communion. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium stresses that the Catholic Church "recognizes that in many ways she is linked" 14 with these Communities by a true union in the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 03:41:25 PM
You still haven't provided any evidence that the Eucharist is offered in the name of the Pope. Sorry Isa. No dice. Your failure at EO apologetics and anti-Catholics attacks is monumental.
Your canons promulagated by your supreme pontiff (and posted here by me here), the liturgics promulgated by your supreme pontiffs (and posted by me here), and the interpretation by your supreme pontiff Benedict XIV (and posted by me here), are clear enough for any reader to look. As your supreme pontiff told those of us who submitted to him
Quote
the commemoration implies a profession of due subjection to the Roman pontiff as head of the Church, and of a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church. On the other hand the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism
Quote
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University

...the intercessions of the first two Eucharistic Prayers contain the expression "una cum" — "together with N. our Pope and N. our Bishop" (although the same Latin expression is translated differently in the two prayers). This "together with" is not just a praying-for but a praying-with by which we are united through the celebrating priest to the bishop and through him to the Pope and the universal Church.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 149, addresses this point:...Because ecclesial unity is formed through the pope...
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 03:46:13 PM
http://www.usccb.org/seia/steps-towards-reunited-church.shtml

10.  One Body.  In his Commentaryon the 17th Chapter of St. John’s Gospel,St. Cyril of Alexandria argues that the unity of the Church, modeled on the unity of Father and Son and realized through the gift of the Spirit, is primarily formed in us through the Eucharist in which the disciples of Jesus share: 

    For by liturgically blessing (eulogōn) those who believe in him into a single body – namely, his own – through sacramental participation, [Christ] has made them completely one body with himself and with each other.  Who, after all, could divide, or alienate from natural unity with one another, those who are bound through the one holy body into unity with Christ?  For if ‘all of us partake of the one loaf’ (1 Cor 10.17), all of us are formed into one body.  It is impossible to divide Christ.  That is the reason that the church is called the Body of Christ, and we are individually his members, as Paul understands it.  For since we are all united with Christ through his holy Body - which we take, one and undivided, into our own bodies - we owe our own limbs more to him than to ourselves…
    How, then are we all not clearly one [Cyril goes on to ask] in each other and in Christ?  For Christ is himself the bond of unity, existing at the same time as God and as a human being…. And all of us who have received one and the same Spirit – I mean the Holy Spirit – are blended together, in a certain way, with each other and with God… For just as the power of his holy flesh forms those to whom it comes into a single body, in the same way, I believe, the one Spirit of God, who dwells in all of us undivided, brings us all to a spiritual unity (Comm. on John 11.11 [ed. Pusey 2.735-737]).


Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action; but conscience also calls us to move beyond complacency in our divisions, in the power of the Spirit and in a longing for the fullness of Christ’s life-giving presence in our midst.  The challenge and the invitation to Orthodox and Catholic Christians, who understand themselves to be members of Christ’s Body precisely by sharing in the Eucharistic gifts and participating in the transforming life of the Holy Spirit, is now to see Christ authentically present in each other, and to find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, and towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, that will reveal us as his disciples before the world. 
OOOoooo! A quote! Let me first get over the shock before replying.
What would be more shocking is if you were to actually engage the text, rather than play liguistic acrobatics.
I've already done that, e.g.:
The last part is actually how it works, the Orthodox diptychs, as it seems even the Vatican's authorities admit:

Then, as now, the names of all the autocephalous bishops are commorated in the ditpychs of their peers: despite what he goes on to say, the four patriarchs were commemorated by the Pope of Rome.

and, in contrast to the unconsecrated bishop elect confirmed by the Vatican's fiat, no consecrated bishop is to be commemorated if he does not submitt to the Vatican (called 'schismatic') or teach the Vatican's dogmas (called 'heretical'):

Quote
"The names of the eastern patriarchs have never been pronounced by the Roman church nor for that matter by any Latin church."
An outright contradiction of himself, let alone a lie.

contrast this with the commemoration of infidel rulers
engage =/= rubberstamp
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 04:17:20 PM
MYSTERIUM FIDEI

EUCHARISTIC MYSTERY IN SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

26. For the joy and edification of everyone, We would like to review with you, Venerable Brothers, the doctrine on the Mystery of the Eucharist that has been handed down, and that the Catholic Church holds and teaches with unanimity.

Re-enactment at Heart of Doctrine

27. It is a good idea to recall at the very outset what may be termed the heart and core of the doctrine, namely that, by means of the Mystery of the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Cross which was once carried out on Calvary is re-enacted in wonderful fashion and is constantly recalled, and its salvific power is applied to the forgiving of the sins we commit each day." (12)

28. just as Moses made the Old Testament sacred with the blood of calves, (13) so too Christ the Lord took the New Testament, of which He is the Mediator, and made it sacred through His own blood, in instituting the mystery of the Eucharist. For, as the Evangelists narrate, at the Last Supper "he took bread, and blessed and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body, given for you; do this for a commemoration of me. And so with the cup, when supper was ended, This cup, he said, is the new testament, in my Blood which is to be shed for you." (l4) And by bidding the Apostles to do this in memory of Him, He made clear that He wanted it to be forever repeated. This intention of Christ was faithfully carried out by the primitive Church through her adherence to the teaching of the Apostles and through her gatherings to celebrate the Eucharistic Sacrifice. As St. Luke is careful to point out, "They occupied themselves continually with the Apostles' teaching, their fellowship in the breaking of bread, and the fixed times of prayer." (l5) The faithful used to derive such spiritual fervor from this practice that it was said of them that "there was one heart and soul in all the company of the believers." (16)

New Offering of the New Testament

29. Moreover, the Apostle Paul, who faithfully transmitted to us what he had received from the Lord, (17) is clearly speaking of the Eucharistic Sacrifice when he points out that Christians ought not take part in pagan sacrifices, precisely because they have been made partakers of the table of the Lord. "Is not this cup we bless," he says, "a participation in Christ's Blood? Is not the Bread we break a participation in Christ's Body? . . . To drink the Lord's cup, and yet to drink the cup of evil spirits, to share the Lord's feast, and to share the feast of evil spirits, is impossible for you." (18) Foreshadowed by Malachias, (19) this new oblation of the New Testament has always been offered by the Church, in accordance with the teaching of Our Lord and the Apostles, "not only to atone for the sins and punishments and satisfactions of the living faithful and to appeal for their other needs, but also to help those who have died in Christ but have not yet been completely purified." (20)
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 17, 2010, 04:36:56 PM

MYSTERIUM FIDEI

CHRIST SACRAMENTALLY PRESENT IN THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

34. The few things that We have touched upon concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass encourage Us to say something about the Sacrament of the Eucharist, since both Sacrifice and Sacrament pertain to the same mystery and cannot be separated from each other. The Lord is immolated in an unbloody way in the Sacrifice of the Mass and He re-presents the sacrifice of the Cross and applies its salvific power at the moment when he becomes sacramentally present— through the words of consecration—as the spiritual food of the faithful, under the appearances of bread and wine.

Various Ways in Which Christ is Present

35. All of us realize that there is more than one way in which Christ is present in His Church. We want to go into this very joyful subject, which the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy presented briefly, (30) at somewhat greater length. Christ is present in His Church when she prays, since He is the one who "prays for us and prays in us and to whom we pray: He prays for us as our priest, He prays in us as our head, He is prayed to by us as our God" (31); and He is the one who has promised, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them." (32) He is present in the Church as she performs her works of mercy, not just because whatever good we do to one of His least brethren we do to Christ Himself, (33)but also because Christ is the one who performs these works through the Church and who continually helps men with His divine love. He is present in the Church as she moves along on her pilgrimage with a longing to reach the portals of eternal life, for He is the one who dwells in our hearts through faith, (34) and who instills charity in them through the Holy Spirit whom He gives to us. (35)

36. In still another very genuine way, He is present in the Church as she preaches, since the Gospel which she proclaims is the word of God, and it is only in the name of Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, and by His authority and with His help that it is preached, so that there might be "one flock resting secure in one shepherd." (36)

37. He is present in His Church as she rules and governs the People of God, since her sacred power comes from Christ and since Christ, the "Shepherd of Shepherds," (37) is present in the bishops who exercise that power, in keeping with the promise He made to the Apostles.

38. Moreover, Christ is present in His Church in a still more sublime manner as she offers the Sacrifice of the Mass in His name; He is present in her as she administers the sacraments. On the matter of Christ's presence in the offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass, We would like very much to call what St. John Chrysostom, overcome with awe, had to say in such accurate and eloquent words: "I wish to add something that is clearly awe-inspiring, but do not be surprised or upset. What is this? It is the same offering, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul. It is the same one that Christ gave to His disciples and the same one that priests now perform: the latter is in no way inferior to the former, for it is not men who sanctify the latter, but He who sanctified the former. For just as the words which God spoke are the same as those that the priest now pronounces, so too the offering is the same." (38) No one is unaware that the sacraments are the actions of Christ who administers them through men. And so the sacraments are holy in themselves and they pour grace into the soul by the power of Christ, when they touch the body. The Highest Kind of Presence.

These various ways in which Christ is present fill the mind with astonishment and offer the Church a mystery for her contemplation. But there is another way in which Christ is present in His Church, a way that surpasses all the others. It is His presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is, for this reason, "a more consoling source of devotion, a lovelier object of contemplation and holier in what it contains" (39) than all the other sacraments; for it contains Christ Himself and it is "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments." (40)
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 17, 2010, 04:53:45 PM
You still haven't provided any evidence that the Eucharist is offered in the name of the Pope. Sorry Isa. No dice. Your failure at EO apologetics and anti-Catholics attacks is monumental.
Your canons promulagated by your supreme pontiff (and posted here by me here), the liturgics promulgated by your supreme pontiffs (and posted by me here), and the interpretation by your supreme pontiff Benedict XIV (and posted by me here), are clear enough for any reader to look. As your supreme pontiff told those of us who submitted to him
Quote
the commemoration implies a profession of due subjection to the Roman pontiff as head of the Church, and of a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church. On the other hand the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism
Quote
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University

...the intercessions of the first two Eucharistic Prayers contain the expression "una cum" — "together with N. our Pope and N. our Bishop" (although the same Latin expression is translated differently in the two prayers). This "together with" is not just a praying-for but a praying-with by which we are united through the celebrating priest to the bishop and through him to the Pope and the universal Church.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 149, addresses this point:...Because ecclesial unity is formed through the pope...
And the documents don't say that Eucharist is offered in the name of the Pope. The are offered in communion with him and the all of the Bishops, but not in his name, as if the Pope is the only real priest. I really don't understand why you are being dishonest.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 on November 17, 2010, 05:14:52 PM
As the most Ancient and Orthodox of Churches (the Acoe's third Patriarch Mar Abris was a relative of Jesus, it was custodian of the most ancient Icon of Christendom the one you constructed all your icons from , Peter came to it first in Seleukia according to King Abgar's letters to Narses, and built the first physical building of a church for it, and Saint Thaddeus evangelized it first than anybody else, the Assyrian Queen Helena of Adiabene ruled all Jews outside Jerusalem which were the first Christians, ie: apostle of the circumcised) the Assyrian Church of the East believes that it is against the command "Let the little Children come to me" not to give the Eucharist to other Christians baptized in the name of Trinity and thinks this argumentation is all flawed and minimalistic, if only you all would read a book on the state of the Church prior to the first council of Ephesus and all the groups in a phone book which appeared after that date you would see what I am talking about.

I am profoundly troubled by reading the things Orthodox are saying on Roman Catholics here - unleavened bread...then why don't you use Holy Malka which was given by Saint John to all the Churches as the proper form of leavening? Why did you allow tyrants to say this was superstition and not preserve this tradition? You accuse the Latins of doing this, apply the same standard. "Ultramontanism"...then why does your "ecumenical Patriarch" call himself first among equals and tried to take over or hand over to his subjects foreign churches as "canonical territories"  (ie: the ROC managed to convince one small Assyrian Church to join it and bulldozed the oldest liturgy in the world and subsituted it for Saint John Chrysostom's liturgy, that is wrong). Your Bishops also changed the definition of what a Bishop is! According to your reasoning you cannot consecrate the Host or perform sacraments as well (not that I believe this)! The whole talk on "the Greek says this" in particular makes me troubled, the most ancient semitic Churches (Syriac Orthodox, Maronites, ACOE) hold as their canonical text the Aramaic which our Lord spoke. You think this text was lost, you are wrong and the refusal to give up on this text by the said Church's proves my point (it was by the way forbidden to teach Greek in first century palestine to pious Jews). Purgatory...then why did Mark of Ephesus according to Fr. Popovich supposedly teach that God placed you in Hell until prayers and liturgy being celebrated for the deceased fished you, payed you out (sounds like purgatory to me, and I haven't even gone into tollhouses and such which emphasize even more the pay aspect). The True belief of the ancient Church (making use of the ancient language and culture of our Lord) we have preserved can be read in the last few chapters of the Book of the Bee by Mar Shleimon of Basra. You call the RCC heterodox for having 21 councils it calls ecumenical but you have 7 and the Oriental Orthodox have only 3, and the ACOE only agreed to Nicea, Constantinople I (2). You say those who prevented their beliefs from being corrupted are "Nestorian" but you give the benefit of a doubt on so called heresy to those who's "Pope" gave you a Saint (Flavian). Ylou know what I'm talking about. Is this not wrong? Why do you blame others for the same mistakes you commit ? Pull the plank out of your own eyes O Pharisees ! Thank God your hierarchs can see all this and decide prudently.
What a fascinating and thought provoking post. I would love to read up more on your Church.

http://www.amazon.com/Church-East-Illustrated-Assyrian-Christianity/dp/184511115X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290028202&sr=1-1-spell

http://www.aina.org/books.html

and may our Lord's Relatives and his Apostles the Holy Patriarchs of the Church guide you in your reading.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on November 17, 2010, 05:35:44 PM
The senseless bickering and one upmanship here is exactly what Christ will judge you a sinner over, not what church you prayed to God in.

< Matthew 23:27 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
Go try to pass a counterfeit $100 bill at the bank and tell us how "the senseless bickering and one upmanship" goes.

<<John 4:33>>
"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know."

Btw, the "dead men's bones" we are full of-the relics of the saints upon which we celebrate our sacraments, are quite clean.

If I worship at a Catholic Church one day and the next I worship the same God and his son Jesus at the Orthodox Church , you who condemn that is the counterfeit bill or you will see that when you are judged by your divisiveness . Jesus said "Blessed are the Peacemakers , and the Meek".

Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on November 17, 2010, 05:45:15 PM
Thank you Wyatt, You are like an oasis in the wilderness. God bless you my friend.
Maybe if you hadn't wandered out of the Land of Milk and Honey, you wouldn't be lost in the wilderness in need of an oasis.

Beware of mirages.

You are the most lucky and blessed sinner ,to never feel lost in a world of hate. You are never chased out of the temple by an angry mob like Christ , maybe you are a prophet in your village?
No, I"ve been threatened with death by Muslims in the Muslim world as I dare to prefer the Son of God over their "prophet." So while you have enjoyed it seems the luxury of fuzzy feelings, I've had to grap hold to the Rock on which I stand.

You know I had not made a point of it but you brought it up here that the reason you are that way is you have to deal with Muslims all around you. Forgive them and try not to become bitter as we all have our tests. I can say that this came to me as to why you are so adamant when I saw the Arab Orthodoxy by your Profile,but did not want to disrespect your ethnicity before you brought it up, but as I grew up in Greek orthodoxy near Chicago and we are not taught or exposed to such vehement disagreements or nonacceptance of our neighbors beliefs.Jesus said to love our neighbors as ourselves is what you seem to need help on as far as trying a little more, as we all fail.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 06:11:16 PM
http://www.usccb.org/seia/steps-towards-reunited-church.shtml

10.  One Body.  In his Commentaryon the 17th Chapter of St. John’s Gospel,St. Cyril of Alexandria argues that the unity of the Church, modeled on the unity of Father and Son and realized through the gift of the Spirit, is primarily formed in us through the Eucharist in which the disciples of Jesus share: 

    For by liturgically blessing (eulogōn) those who believe in him into a single body – namely, his own – through sacramental participation, [Christ] has made them completely one body with himself and with each other.  Who, after all, could divide, or alienate from natural unity with one another, those who are bound through the one holy body into unity with Christ?  For if ‘all of us partake of the one loaf’ (1 Cor 10.17), all of us are formed into one body.  It is impossible to divide Christ.  That is the reason that the church is called the Body of Christ, and we are individually his members, as Paul understands it.  For since we are all united with Christ through his holy Body - which we take, one and undivided, into our own bodies - we owe our own limbs more to him than to ourselves…
    How, then are we all not clearly one [Cyril goes on to ask] in each other and in Christ?  For Christ is himself the bond of unity, existing at the same time as God and as a human being…. And all of us who have received one and the same Spirit – I mean the Holy Spirit – are blended together, in a certain way, with each other and with God… For just as the power of his holy flesh forms those to whom it comes into a single body, in the same way, I believe, the one Spirit of God, who dwells in all of us undivided, brings us all to a spiritual unity (Comm. on John 11.11 [ed. Pusey 2.735-737]).


Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action; but conscience also calls us to move beyond complacency in our divisions, in the power of the Spirit and in a longing for the fullness of Christ’s life-giving presence in our midst.  The challenge and the invitation to Orthodox and Catholic Christians, who understand themselves to be members of Christ’s Body precisely by sharing in the Eucharistic gifts and participating in the transforming life of the Holy Spirit, is now to see Christ authentically present in each other, and to find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, and towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, that will reveal us as his disciples before the world. 
OOOoooo! A quote! Let me first get over the shock before replying.
Now back to this.

Going over the original document, my first question was whether this was a joint statement, or the Vatican's participants.  Going into that might get this thread even more off the issue of sharing sacraments, so I might tackle that elsewhere.

As for what was quoted, we of course to not object to Pope St. Cyril's quote, but it is off point: he is speaking about the unity of the Church, not reuniting Churches (plural). Which underlines what is the crux of the problem "now to see Christ authentically present in each other." No Orthodox Church should be in the business of viewing ecclesiastical communities not in communion as the authentic body of Christ.  Hence a waste of time and effort about agreements about the validity of the Vatican's sacraments: "Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action."

"find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, and towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, that will reveal us as his disciples before the world." The emphasis on "structures of leadership" have been the undoing of all the "unions." Bishops can sign agreements, but the Orthodox Faithful know that the patriarchs under the Vatican receive the pallium from there to reflect its theology, that the Vatican's priests cannot marry and know that a whole theology has been built up to justify that, that the Vatican's infants cannot be chrismated and whole theology has been built up to justify that, etc.  (Prevous issues, like language, use of unleavened bread, etc. have been mooted somewhat). Then the whole Vatican II Novus Ordo and its abuse.

At point efforts would be better rewarded in coordinating common action from what is common in faith, e.g. against abortion, redefinition/devaluation of marriage, charities etc. and see if or when that leads to Church structure.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 17, 2010, 06:22:33 PM
The senseless bickering and one upmanship here is exactly what Christ will judge you a sinner over, not what church you prayed to God in.

< Matthew 23:27 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
Go try to pass a counterfeit $100 bill at the bank and tell us how "the senseless bickering and one upmanship" goes.

<<John 4:33>>
"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know."

Btw, the "dead men's bones" we are full of-the relics of the saints upon which we celebrate our sacraments, are quite clean.

If I worship at a Catholic Church one day and the next I worship the same God and his son Jesus at the Orthodox Church , you who condemn that is the counterfeit bill or you will see that when you are judged by your divisiveness . Jesus said "Blessed are the Peacemakers , and the Meek".
it is not divisieness to point out that chasm.

Jesus said "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters."

Either the pope of Rome is the source of the church's unity, or he's not. Either the Orthodox Episcopate has preserved the Catholic Church or it hasn't.

Only one name can fit in the diptych. If you went into one wife day and the next day another wife, no matter how much you loved both, you would be an adulterer.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: podkarpatska on November 17, 2010, 10:44:04 PM
The senseless bickering and one upmanship here is exactly what Christ will judge you a sinner over, not what church you prayed to God in.

< Matthew 23:27 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.

Well said.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: stanley123 on November 18, 2010, 01:23:04 AM
]

http://www.amazon.com/Church-East-Illustrated-Assyrian-Christianity/dp/184511115X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290028202&sr=1-1-spell

http://www.aina.org/books.html

and may our Lord's Relatives and his Apostles the Holy Patriarchs of the Church guide you in your reading.
Thanks for these links. The second link is especially good and all of the books are available online. 
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: stanley123 on November 18, 2010, 01:41:38 AM
... Bishops can sign agreements, but the Orthodox Faithful know that the patriarchs under the Vatican receive the pallium from there to reflect its theology, that the Vatican's priests cannot marry and know that a whole theology has been built up to justify that, that the Vatican's infants cannot be chrismated and whole theology has been built up to justify that, etc.  (Prevous issues, like language, use of unleavened bread, etc. have been mooted somewhat). Then the whole Vatican II Novus Ordo and its abuse.

At point efforts would be better rewarded in coordinating common action from what is common in faith, e.g. against abortion, redefinition/devaluation of marriage, charities etc. and see if or when that leads to Church structure.
Some of your points are well taken, but a few seem off. For example, there are exceptions to allowing married men as priests in the RCC, even though celibacy is the rule, and of course, generally, priests are not allowed to marry after ordination.  Also, Greek Catholic or Eastern Catholic, or Byzantine Catholic  infants are chrismated by the priest at the time of the baptism, when the infant also receives the Holy Mysteries, so perhaps you are speaking of the Latin or Roman Church where chrismation, or confimation, is given to young teens. But the Greek Catholic priests are in communion with  the Vatican.
BTW, I am not sure what name you are associating to the Greek Catholics, or Byzantine Catholics, since you have insisted on using the name Catholic for the Orthodox Church only.   
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 18, 2010, 02:07:52 AM
... Bishops can sign agreements, but the Orthodox Faithful know that the patriarchs under the Vatican receive the pallium from there to reflect its theology, that the Vatican's priests cannot marry and know that a whole theology has been built up to justify that, that the Vatican's infants cannot be chrismated and whole theology has been built up to justify that, etc.  (Prevous issues, like language, use of unleavened bread, etc. have been mooted somewhat). Then the whole Vatican II Novus Ordo and its abuse.

At point efforts would be better rewarded in coordinating common action from what is common in faith, e.g. against abortion, redefinition/devaluation of marriage, charities etc. and see if or when that leads to Church structure.
Some of your points are well taken, but a few seem off. For example, there are exceptions to allowing married men as priests in the RCC, even though celibacy is the rule, and of course, generally, priests are not allowed to marry after ordination.  Also, Greek Catholic or Eastern Catholic, or Byzantine Catholic  infants are chrismated by the priest at the time of the baptism, when the infant also receives the Holy Mysteries, so perhaps you are speaking of the Latin or Roman Church where chrismation, or confimation, is given to young teens. But the Greek Catholic priests are in communion with  the Vatican.
BTW, I am not sure what name you are associating to the Greek Catholics, or Byzantine Catholics, since you have insisted on using the name Catholic for the Orthodox Church only.   
I know of infants who have been refused chrismation, either by Latinization or no priest of their rite available, and know of even more children (again either from Latinization or going to a Latin rite church because that is the only place for their Sunday obligation available) refused communion.  The refusal to commune infants by the Latins would be an immediate signal to the Orthodox that we are not of one mind in sacramental terms, upon which would come questions about the Latin theology of confirmation (it is not exactly the same, there being no affirmation of baptism aspect to it in Orthodoxy), the practice of communing children before confirmation, etc.  It is things like this which would raise doubts in the minds of the Orthodox, no matter what the bishops signed.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Rafa999 on November 18, 2010, 03:07:40 AM
Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: katherineofdixie on November 18, 2010, 10:42:02 AM
Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 18, 2010, 11:05:06 AM
Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

I do believe that we are slowly moving in that direction and I think you will see it come in a rush if we resume communion with Orthodoxy in the foreseeable future.

Everyone has horror stories about their Church.  That is no reason not to stay and work for what we know is the right thing.  It should not be an excuse to quit or be raised to anger.  Anger kills all holiness.

M.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 18, 2010, 11:08:25 AM
Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

Dear Katherine

The same way that the Orthodox do not want their traditions to be tampered with, so to do the Latins/Romans not want their traditions to be uprooted by someone from outside.

What happened with the Uniate Churches was a terrible thing.  Many have learned very hard lessons.  Some are not so agreeable, just as there are some in Orthodoxy who remain rigid. 

We don't break down those barriers successfully by throwing rocks, verbal or material.

In Christ,

Mary

PS:  I really do enjoy your contributions.  You seem honest and real and I love that!!
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 18, 2010, 11:41:10 AM
Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chris mation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?

Dear Katherine

The same way that the Orthodox do not want their traditions to be tampered with, so to do the Latins/Romans not want their traditions to be uprooted by someone from outside.

What happened with the Uniate Churches was a terrible thing.  Many have learned very hard lessons.  Some are not so agreeable, just as there are some in Orthodoxy who remain rigid. 

We don't break down those barriers successfully by throwing rocks, verbal or material.

In Christ,

Mary

PS:  I really do enjoy your contributions.  You seem honest and real and I love that!!
I agree. I think that moving in the direction of chrismating and communing infants is a good idea, but I think that this transformation needs to be an organic one, otherwise some of the faithful who do not understand that this is the ancient practice of the Catholic Church might be scandalized.
Also, because Priestly celibacy has become part of the spirituality of the Latin priesthood, even if we were to allow for married priests, I think that celibacy should still be encouraged in most cases.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 18, 2010, 11:42:23 AM
... Bishops can sign agreements, but the Orthodox Faithful know that the patriarchs under the Vatican receive the pallium from there to reflect its theology, that the Vatican's priests cannot marry and know that a whole theology has been built up to justify that, that the Vatican's infants cannot be chrismated and whole theology has been built up to justify that, etc.  (Prevous issues, like language, use of unleavened bread, etc. have been mooted somewhat). Then the whole Vatican II Novus Ordo and its abuse.

At point efforts would be better rewarded in coordinating common action from what is common in faith, e.g. against abortion, redefinition/devaluation of marriage, charities etc. and see if or when that leads to Church structure.
Some of your points are well taken, but a few seem off. For example, there are exceptions to allowing married men as priests in the RCC, even though celibacy is the rule, and of course, generally, priests are not allowed to marry after ordination.  Also, Greek Catholic or Eastern Catholic, or Byzantine Catholic  infants are chrismated by the priest at the time of the baptism, when the infant also receives the Holy Mysteries, so perhaps you are speaking of the Latin or Roman Church where chrismation, or confimation, is given to young teens. But the Greek Catholic priests are in communion with  the Vatican.
BTW, I am not sure what name you are associating to the Greek Catholics, or Byzantine Catholics, since you have insisted on using the name Catholic for the Orthodox Church only.   
I know of infants who have been refused chrismation, either by Latinization or no priest of their rite available, and know of even more children (again either from Latinization or going to a Latin rite church because that is the only place for their Sunday obligation available) refused communion.  The refusal to commune infants by the Latins would be an immediate signal to the Orthodox that we are not of one mind in sacramental terms, upon which would come questions about the Latin theology of confirmation (it is not exactly the same, there being no affirmation of baptism aspect to it in Orthodoxy), the practice of communing children before confirmation, etc.  It is things like this which would raise doubts in the minds of the Orthodox, no matter what the bishops signed.
I actually agree with you that this practice should be changed in the Latin Church and we need to be more senstive to the needs of Byzantines and Orientals who must attdent Latin Churches because of there might not be Eastern Churches nearby.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 18, 2010, 11:43:26 AM
Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?
It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Wyatt on November 18, 2010, 03:00:08 PM
Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?
It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.
I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: stanley123 on November 18, 2010, 04:16:27 PM
Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?
It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.
I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.
Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 18, 2010, 04:18:01 PM
Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?
It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.
I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.
I agree. It doesn't really make much sense to isolate Baptism and Chrismation.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 18, 2010, 04:18:34 PM
Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?
It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.
I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.
Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.
I definitely don't think it should be a Church dividing issue. We  have much bigger fish to fry.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on November 18, 2010, 04:41:21 PM
Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?
It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.
I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.
Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.
That's the point. It's not a disciplinary practice.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 18, 2010, 04:53:04 PM
Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?
It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.
I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.
Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.
I definitely don't think it should be a Church dividing issue. We  have much bigger fish to fry.

Actually it is one of the greater fish, in my own estimation.

It is one where most clergy and bishops in the Roman rite see the sense of and the need for change, but we are so locked into the expression of "process" in these sacraments that we will just not bother with the fact that they have become sacraments in search of a theology in some very unavoidable ways.

How many people in Roman rite parishes notice that there is a seconding anointing with holy chrism in the Baptismal ritual that surrenders the baptizand to the Holy Spirit?  How many people realize THAT is the vestigial confirmation from when the three sacraments of Initiation were given in right order?

As a catechist I will tell you that it is a very difficult thing to do to try to explain that anointing without calling it a chrismation/confirmation...and once that slips out then what do we do with the sacrament of confirmation [called damnably the "sacrament of choice"] administered 10-17 years later.  It is madness and really needs to be stopped.  

However many dioceses have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars developing "Programs and Materials" for this sacrament of choice...

Very disturbing.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Papist on November 18, 2010, 05:01:24 PM
Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?
It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.
I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.
Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.
That's the point. It's not a disciplinary practice.
Yes, it is disciplinary. We Latins need to fix it. But it's still disciplinary.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: elijahmaria on November 18, 2010, 05:09:09 PM
Seem's like Isa has a valid point with the issue of Chrismation (why not give infants communion in the Latin rite?)

That's what has always concerned (or perhaps I should say, confused) me. Either priests can marry or they can't. Either infants can be communed or they can't. And so on. There is theology to support either position, so why is it ok for one group of people and not ok for another?
It's not that there is theology to support both postions, but there is traditional practice to support both positions. Though I tend to side with the Eastern practice on this matter.
I think the Eastern practice sounds better as well. The order in which the faithful receive the Sacraments in the Latin Church at the moment seems somewhat messed up. First you receive Baptism (so far so good), then you make your first Confession when you reach the age of reason (still okay), then you receive first Eucharist (uh...what? no Confirmation yet), then after having Communed for several years you receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. At least if you are a Catechumen in our Church you receive the Sacraments in the proper order since Catechumens are always baptized AND confirmed before receiving the Holy Eucharist.
Personally, I prefer the Roman practice of confirmation in the early teens. But I don;t see  how a disciplinary practice such as that could seriously be a Church dividing issue.
That's the point. It's not a disciplinary practice.
Yes, it is disciplinary. We Latins need to fix it. But it's still disciplinary.

Let's be a little more flexible than this.  Not everything falls out into neat categories of doctrinal and disciplinary.   That works at some level for convenience sake but now and then we need to take things as they come to us pastorally and theologically.

This particular issue of the sacraments of Initiation has been one that the Roman rite and ritual have been working on for quite a while and it needs to be worked on a little more aggressively so that our practice comes closer to our theology.   Our episcopate knows that.  It is not a secret to the clergy who've been trying to teach sacramental theology all their lives.  I guess we have some priest still trying to learn it...but that's another story.  It is an issue of theology.

Do I think it is Church dividing?  No.  Particularly since we do have the second anointing in the Baptismal ritual, and why it was retained there...But that leaves us effectively with eight sacraments while we call them seven. 

I don't think that is worthy of schism.

M.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: ialmisry on July 10, 2017, 11:14:56 PM


Yes, yes, we know the drill by now. Orthodox = evil.  Roman Catholic = noble, good and true.


That's funny, because the opposite assertion is what we see around here all the time.

Although I think it's more "ironic" than "funny." Perhaps it's just because I'm a relative whippersnapper in the culture wars around these parts, but I haven't observed (YMMV, of course) what you describe.
To charge someone with bearing false witness and being evil (and by extension an entire Church) based on an internet discussion does seem to be a little over the top.


I am sorry you feel that way.  But it is an evil to distort another person's reality in order to insist that it is, in itself, a distortion.  You walk away believing that you've accomplished something and that your hands are clean.  But they are not and all that has been accomplished is an evil act.

If Orthodox faithful have to lie about the Catholic Church to make Orthodoxy true...well...where do you suppose that will lead?
Just a convenient place to put something that reminded me about this thread and the posts on the Vatican Bull "Ex Quo": at 14:20 where he goes on about every sacrifice of the mass having to have to be made in union with their supreme pontiff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzfvWmxyPz4
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Almost_Orthodox on July 11, 2017, 12:47:00 PM
This discussion is very interesting, especially in it's development over the days.  I'd really like to thank everyone who has participated!!

I'd also like to add two (unrelated) comments, for what they are worth. First of all, a very good friend of mine once said that **everything** man has touched since the Fall he has managed to corrupt.  Everything.  Just look around you.  Just look at history.  All of history.  And that includes the Church.  Just re-read this thread.

Secondly, at The Judgment, at which according to the Antiochian Orthodox Divine Liturgy,we will be called upon to offer "a good defense before the awful judgment seat of the Lord" (did I get that right?), will God ask us if we were Orthodox, or Anglican, or Roman Catholic? Will He ask us if we partook of Holy Communion from a priest that was in communion with the "correct" Church?  I wonder just *what* He will ask us.  And, speaking only for myself here, I really do not think I will have "a good defense...".  Lord have mercy on me, a sinner!

Such arguments and imprecations of others is why I lean very much towards apokatastasis and God's love being bigger than the corrupt manner in which mankind has treated both the Church and God's truth as revealed in Holy Scripture.

If my salvation is dependent upon finding just the right Church, just the right doctrines, just the right everything, then not only am I screwed to  wall dead, but such finesse in my opinion utterly lacks grace.  Furthermore, if this really IS God's standard (rather than the acts of charity which are a result of our theosis and growth into Christ as shown in Matthew 25: 33-46) then I find it deeply - DEEPLY - troubling that God would allow any heresy at all if our souls welfare depends on having 100% truth.

It this is the case, that one MUST find the 100% truth, and if I am God (I know...bad words for any human being to utter) then the first time a heretic opens his mouth to utter untruth he gets hit with a 100KV bolt of lightening and ushered out of this world where his rancid musings cannot destroy souls.

I find this whole discussion, while informative and interesting, nonetheless highly depressing.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Almost_Orthodox on July 11, 2017, 12:49:38 PM
The Church, according to the Creed, is Holy. Christ will ask us have we been members of Her.

Where does it say that in Scripture?

Where does it say that in Matthew 25: 33-46?

Where does St. Paul say that in Romans 2: 13-16.

I trust God's love is bigger than that.  Much bigger and much more forgiving than both Latin and Orthodox Traddies, who sit on the sidelines tossing theo-grenades at each other while the majority of us dummies try to figure it out the best we can.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 11, 2017, 12:57:47 PM
The Church, according to the Creed, is Holy. Christ will ask us have we been members of Her.

Where does it say that in Scripture?

Where does it say that in Matthew 25: 33-46?

Where does St. Paul say that in Romans 2: 13-16.

I trust God's love is bigger than that.  Much bigger and much more forgiving than both Latin and Orthodox Traddies, who sit on the sidelines tossing theo-grenades at each other while the majority of us dummies try to figure it out the best we can.

Yeah, that's definitely not found in the words of our Lord or the Apostles. However, it is implied a few places that He'll ask of church leaders how they've treated the flock.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Almost_Orthodox on July 11, 2017, 01:19:14 PM
In Galatians 5,  St. Paul states that those who foment schism will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

I don't know who is to blame for keeping this schism going for 1000+ years, but someone is going to be in deep kimchee at the Judgment.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Iconodule on July 11, 2017, 01:20:19 PM
Deep kimchee sounds heavenly.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Porter ODoran on July 11, 2017, 01:40:46 PM
In Galatians 5,  St. Paul states that those who foment schism will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

I don't know who is to blame for keeping this schism going for 1000+ years, but someone is going to be in deep kimchee at the Judgment.

Quote from: Gal 5.19ff
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these:
  • adultery
  • fornication
  • uncleanness
  • lasciviousness
  • idolatry
  • witchcraft
  • hatred
  • variance
  • emulations
  • wrath
  • strife
  • seditions
  • heresies
  • envyings
  • murders
  • drunkenness
  • revellings
and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

I think to fall into these categories of judgment, one would have actively to be making one's life one of pursuing schism. And I think 1,000 years later, it would be hard to assign that judgment to any individuals without seeing the heart.

However, I do appreciate your post for the sense of urgency it brings and the value it places on union. I'm rather sure that's how Christ feels about it as well.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 11, 2017, 02:03:01 PM
Deep kimchee sounds heavenly.

+1
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Diego on July 11, 2017, 11:43:54 PM
If it counts for anything, the Roman Church allows Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church to commune, but ALSO says those persons should respect the discipline of their own Churches. They will permit Anglicans, Lutherans, and Old Catholics to commune in extreme circumstances, such as near death issues, on a case-by-case basis. Missouri Synod technically allows only itself and the 35 or so Churches with whom we are in communion to commune. But some Pastors will permit believers in the Real Presence to commune, namely, any Lutheran, Anglican, OO, EO, RCC, Assyrian Church, Old Catholic, or Polish National Catholic. This is tolerated, as long as it is not advertised too loudly, due to the odd tension in our Church between top-down rule from St. Louis v. the odd congregational polity that has been a hallmark of our Church. That odd tension has always been, well, kind of messed up. Most Churches are either top-down, OR congregational,  but I have never known one other than our own that is BOTH! Its a bit frustrating for me, coming from the Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic traditions, both of which are top-down traditions.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: WPM on July 12, 2017, 12:05:37 AM
Its a white communion wafer you receive as the body of christ.
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: Father H on July 12, 2017, 01:23:32 AM
This discussion is very interesting, especially in it's development over the days.  I'd really like to thank everyone who has participated!!

I'd also like to add two (unrelated) comments, for what they are worth. First of all, a very good friend of mine once said that **everything** man has touched since the Fall he has managed to corrupt.  Everything.  Just look around you.  Just look at history.  All of history.  And that includes the Church.  Just re-read this thread.

Secondly, at The Judgment, at which according to the Antiochian Orthodox Divine Liturgy,we will be called upon to offer "a good defense before the awful judgment seat of the Lord" (did I get that right?), will God ask us if we were Orthodox, or Anglican, or Roman Catholic? Will He ask us if we partook of Holy Communion from a priest that was in communion with the "correct" Church?  I wonder just *what* He will ask us.  And, speaking only for myself here, I really do not think I will have "a good defense...".  Lord have mercy on me, a sinner!

Such arguments and imprecations of others is why I lean very much towards apokatastasis and God's love being bigger than the corrupt manner in which mankind has treated both the Church and God's truth as revealed in Holy Scripture.

If my salvation is dependent upon finding just the right Church, just the right doctrines, just the right everything, then not only am I screwed to  wall dead, but such finesse in my opinion utterly lacks grace.  Furthermore, if this really IS God's standard (rather than the acts of charity which are a result of our theosis and growth into Christ as shown in Matthew 25: 33-46) then I find it deeply - DEEPLY - troubling that God would allow any heresy at all if our souls welfare depends on having 100% truth.

It this is the case, that one MUST find the 100% truth, and if I am God (I know...bad words for any human being to utter) then the first time a heretic opens his mouth to utter untruth he gets hit with a 100KV bolt of lightening and ushered out of this world where his rancid musings cannot destroy souls.

I find this whole discussion, while informative and interesting, nonetheless highly depressing.

You don't have to be that depressed.  The discussion died in 2010, so it really was not that "hoppin'".    You don't have to lean toward apokatastasis.  Some people are evil.  Period.  Go volunteer at a serious prison and get access to really bad people.  You would change your mind.  You are driving yourself crazy with the scrupulosity of people who don't matter.  God's love is bigger than our imaginations but God's justice is equally bigger than our imagination.  There can be no love without justice.  You are worried about dogma.  Official Orthodox dogma (I am a professor of dogma at an Orthodox seminary), holds that the Church is concerned about its own order (and thus has responsibility for temporal judgment, as Scripture says), but God alone holds eternal judgment.  You are too worried (remember the Lord's words:  "Have no anxiety about tomorrow, for sufficient unto this day is the evil thereof").  Relax.  Go with God's nudging.  Ignore nonsense from others.  God loves you.  You love Him.  Rejoice in this, and let the Spirit blow you where He will.       
Title: Re: Sharing sacraments?
Post by: beebert on July 12, 2017, 05:00:22 AM
This discussion is very interesting, especially in it's development over the days.  I'd really like to thank everyone who has participated!!

I'd also like to add two (unrelated) comments, for what they are worth. First of all, a very good friend of mine once said that **everything** man has touched since the Fall he has managed to corrupt.  Everything.  Just look around you.  Just look at history.  All of history.  And that includes the Church.  Just re-read this thread.

Secondly, at The Judgment, at which according to the Antiochian Orthodox Divine Liturgy,we will be called upon to offer "a good defense before the awful judgment seat of the Lord" (did I get that right?), will God ask us if we were Orthodox, or Anglican, or Roman Catholic? Will He ask us if we partook of Holy Communion from a priest that was in communion with the "correct" Church?  I wonder just *what* He will ask us.  And, speaking only for myself here, I really do not think I will have "a good defense...".  Lord have mercy on me, a sinner!

Such arguments and imprecations of others is why I lean very much towards apokatastasis and God's love being bigger than the corrupt manner in which mankind has treated both the Church and God's truth as revealed in Holy Scripture.

If my salvation is dependent upon finding just the right Church, just the right doctrines, just the right everything, then not only am I screwed to  wall dead, but such finesse in my opinion utterly lacks grace.  Furthermore, if this really IS God's standard (rather than the acts of charity which are a result of our theosis and growth into Christ as shown in Matthew 25: 33-46) then I find it deeply - DEEPLY - troubling that God would allow any heresy at all if our souls welfare depends on having 100% truth.

It this is the case, that one MUST find the 100% truth, and if I am God (I know...bad words for any human being to utter) then the first time a heretic opens his mouth to utter untruth he gets hit with a 100KV bolt of lightening and ushered out of this world where his rancid musings cannot destroy souls.

I find this whole discussion, while informative and interesting, nonetheless highly depressing.

You don't have to be that depressed.  The discussion died in 2010, so it really was not that "hoppin'".    You don't have to lean toward apokatastasis.  Some people are evil.  Period.  Go volunteer at a serious prison and get access to really bad people.  You would change your mind.  You are driving yourself crazy with the scrupulosity of people who don't matter.  God's love is bigger than our imaginations but God's justice is equally bigger than our imagination.  There can be no love without justice.  You are worried about dogma.  Official Orthodox dogma (I am a professor of dogma at an Orthodox seminary), holds that the Church is concerned about its own order (and thus has responsibility for temporal judgment, as Scripture says), but God alone holds eternal judgment.  You are too worried (remember the Lord's words:  "Have no anxiety about tomorrow, for sufficient unto this day is the evil thereof").  Relax.  Go with God's nudging.  Ignore nonsense from others.  God loves you.  You love Him.  Rejoice in this, and let the Spirit blow you where He will.     
Nor is there any justice without love.