OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 11:58:36 PM

Title: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 11:58:36 PM
Originally posted on the Prayer Forum


I believe He is present in all these churches (they are Apostolic).

I wonder if it would help at all to know that the Orthodox Church actually does not regard God as being present in the Roman church in the same way that He is present within herself (Pentecostal indwelling) and actually does not view it as "Apostolic" in the same sense either?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: LittleFlower on April 03, 2011, 01:55:12 AM
I believe He is present in all these churches (they are Apostolic).

I wonder if it would help at all to know that the Orthodox Church actually does not regard God as being present in the Roman church in the same way that He is present within herself (Pentecostal indwelling) and actually does not view it as "Apostolic" in the same sense either?

Do the Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church has a real Eucharist? (because I do).
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: deusveritasest on April 03, 2011, 02:05:42 AM
I believe He is present in all these churches (they are Apostolic).

I wonder if it would help at all to know that the Orthodox Church actually does not regard God as being present in the Roman church in the same way that He is present within herself (Pentecostal indwelling) and actually does not view it as "Apostolic" in the same sense either?

Do the Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church has a real Eucharist? (because I do).

Well, for one, the Orthodox believe that they are the Catholic Church.

And no, most do not believe that the Roman church has a real Eucharist.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: LittleFlower on April 03, 2011, 02:13:34 AM

Well, for one, the Orthodox believe that they are the Catholic Church.

And no, most do not believe that the Roman church has a real Eucharist.

I think we should all at least respect each other, or the two churches will never be reunited. Please don't call us the "Roman" church because we wouldn't call you the "Greek" church or the "Russian" church, but the Orthodox church. :(

What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?
God bless
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: deusveritasest on April 03, 2011, 02:25:09 AM
I think we should all at least respect each other, or the two churches will never be reunited.

What makes you think that I don't respect you?

Please don't call us the "Roman" church because we wouldn't call you the "Greek" church or the "Russian" church, but the Orthodox church. :(

I'm not really Orthodox. I'm just someone considering becoming Orthodox.

You probably shouldn't call them Orthodox, because from a Romanist perspective they are either heretics or schismatics and either way are not really within the Orthodox Church (the Orthodox Church of the Fathers is the Roman church from a Romanist perspective).

I refer to your church as the Roman church because I do not believe that it is the church that the Fathers called the Catholic Church

What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?

Perhaps they have (God is everywhere and works where He wills). But I don't believe that they have received the Real Presence of His Body and Blood and I would tell them that if it seemed sharing my opinion was significant at the time.
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Lent2010/images/warnwarn.gif) You know better than to post stuff like this on the Prayer Forum. This is a board reserved for prayer, not for commentary, especially NOT for your anti-Catholic polemic. For desecrating the Prayer Forum in this way, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 3 weeks. If you think this action wrong, feel free to appeal it to either Veniamin or Fr. George.

- PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Basil 320 on April 03, 2011, 04:35:54 AM
Let's keep in mind that the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church* has never met in synod to address the developments and innovations of Roman Catholicism since the 13th century, except for synods of primates that were more specifically examining the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas and the Gregorian Calendar.  Some Orthodox clergy and saints have addressed their opinions of modern Catholicism.  But, because the Roman Catholic Church is not Orthodox, the Orthodox Church does not consider Roman Catholicism to possess the fullness of faith, neither does it consider its sacraments as valid for Orthodox Christians, especially the Holy Eucharist, but that doesn't mean that the Orthodox Churches don't respect the holiness and presence of God in this Apostolic, Trinitarian Faith.  There are some Orthodox Holy Synods that respect the validity of their Sacrament of Holy Orders. I think the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) has accepted Roman Catholic clergy by vesting.  Most of the Orthodox eparchies in North America demonstrate acceptance of their Sacrament of Holy Baptism by accepting converts through Holy Chrismation, without the administration of the Orthodox Sacrament of Holy Baptism.   Say what you may about certain possible excesses in ecumenical relations, particularly by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (such as Patriarch Dimitrios,' of blessed memory, "concelebration" of the Liturgy of the Word, before the Altar of the Basilica of St. Peter, with Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory), with Roman Catholicism, but there is a lot of respect for that faith among Orthodox clergy (Deacons, Priests, and Hierarchs).  One of the final topics not as yet addressed by a preconciliar commission of the Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church, is ecumenical relations and specifically, relations with the Church of Rome.

*These comments ignore the positions taken about Roman Catholicism among separated, traditionalist, Old Calendarist Orthodox Churches.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: jordanz on April 03, 2011, 02:02:06 PM
You probably shouldn't call them Orthodox, because from a Romanist perspective they are either heretics or schismatics and either way are not really within the Orthodox Church (the Orthodox Church of the Fathers is the Roman church from a Romanist perspective).

Off topic but sort of interesting: Byzantine and early modern Greek language was called "Romaic".  Why is this the case?

I can read Greek literature up to about the 10th century AD, and Katharevousa with a modern Greek dictionary.  I cannot understand modern Demotic Greek, as it is quite different grammatically from Plato and the New Testament.  
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: orthonorm on April 03, 2011, 02:14:01 PM
I think we should all at least respect each other, or the two churches will never be reunited. Please don't call us the "Roman" church because we wouldn't call you the "Greek" church or the "Russian" church, but the Orthodox church. :(

LittleFlower,

You are going to have a hard around here, if you are going to be offended by being called an RC, a Romanist, a schismatic, a heterodox, a Papist, an ultramontanist, etc.

If you find these terms difficult and imprecise and would like to return in kind and refer to the Orthodox Church in some manner which might to you be equally demeaning, you will probably be sanctioned in some manner.

It is an Orthodox Christian board. But I do think the RCs do get a rough time of it at times.

As in all internetz, thick skin is your friend.





Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Hermogenes on April 11, 2011, 04:26:40 PM
Let's keep in mind that the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church* has never met in synod to address the developments and innovations of Roman Catholicism since the 13th century, except for synods of primates that were more specifically examining the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas and the Gregorian Calendar.  Some Orthodox clergy and saints have addressed their opinions of modern Catholicism.  But, because the Roman Catholic Church is not Orthodox, the Orthodox Church does not consider Roman Catholicism to possess the fullness of faith, neither does it consider its sacraments as valid for Orthodox Christians, especially the Holy Eucharist, but that doesn't mean that the Orthodox Churches don't respect the holiness and presence of God in this Apostolic, Trinitarian Faith.  There are some Orthodox Holy Synods that respect the validity of their Sacrament of Holy Orders. I think the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) has accepted Roman Catholic clergy by vesting.  Most of the Orthodox eparchies in North America demonstrate acceptance of their Sacrament of Holy Baptism by accepting converts through Holy Chrismation, without the administration of the Orthodox Sacrament of Holy Baptism.   Say what you may about certain possible excesses in ecumenical relations, particularly by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (such as Patriarch Dimitrios,' of blessed memory, "concelebration" of the Liturgy of the Word, before the Altar of the Basilica of St. Peter, with Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory), with Roman Catholicism, but there is a lot of respect for that faith among Orthodox clergy (Deacons, Priests, and Hierarchs).  One of the final topics not as yet addressed by a preconciliar commission of the Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church, is ecumenical relations and specifically, relations with the Church of Rome.

*These comments ignore the positions taken about Roman Catholicism among separated, traditionalist, Old Calendarist Orthodox Churches.

The OCA usually accepts Roman and Eastern-Rite Catholic priests by vesting. Most mainline Protestant baptized Christians are accepted by Chrismation, but the anointing is more extensive than it is for converts from Catholicism. So there is clearly a sense in which we feel closer to the Latin church. But a year or so ago, two metropolitans in Romania were called on the carpet and nearly deposed for participating in a Roman Catholic Mass, so that sense of closeness is also clearly limited.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on April 11, 2011, 04:38:24 PM
I believe He is present in all these churches (they are Apostolic).

I wonder if it would help at all to know that the Orthodox Church actually does not regard God as being present in the Roman church in the same way that He is present within herself (Pentecostal indwelling) and actually does not view it as "Apostolic" in the same sense either?

Do the Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church has a real Eucharist? (because I do).
The Orthodox Church does not believe nor teach that the Vatican can "confect the Eucharist" (to use the Vatican's terminology), as its supreme pontiff and his hierachies are not in the Catholic communion of the Orthodox diptychs. No Orthodox could receive their communion, so it is a non issue for us.

I do cross myself going by a church under the Vatican, and prostrate if I go in and adoration is going on, but that is only my personal opinion/theologoumen.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: zekarja on April 11, 2011, 05:31:29 PM

Well, for one, the Orthodox believe that they are the Catholic Church.

And no, most do not believe that the Roman church has a real Eucharist.

I think we should all at least respect each other, or the two churches will never be reunited. Please don't call us the "Roman" church because we wouldn't call you the "Greek" church or the "Russian" church, but the Orthodox church. :(

What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?
God bless


There is no compromising the Truth.

In your faith, you must accept that I am in schism and deny certain dogmas/councils and permit divorce, etc.
In my faith, I must deny papal infallibility and supremacy, purgatory, the Filioque, etc.

I have never understood why we must unite because of some similar beliefs and origin. Either I must repent and join the Pope or you must repent and join the Orthodox Church. I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as do you. If that is true, one of us is in isn't Catholic (not to be rude or anything, just the facts).

As-Salamu alaykum,
zekarja

P.S. You may call my Church whatever you believe it to be. I won't take offense. :)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on April 11, 2011, 06:04:44 PM
I do cross myself going by a church under the Vatican, and prostrate if I go in and adoration is going on, but that is only my personal opinion/theologoumen.
I must say I am surprised to hear this from you.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: akimel on April 14, 2011, 05:54:02 PM
Over at the Byzantine Forum, Fr Ambrose posted the following postings from Fr Alexander Lebedeff (ROCOR).  At the very least they witness to a diversity of both practice and understanding within Orthodoxy:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-tradition/message/133733

In reality, the Russian Orthodox Church fully recognized the validity of apostolic succession in both the Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches (Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, etc.).

I can find, rather easily, at least fifty pre-revolutionary official sources of the Russian Orthodox Church that state, unequivocally, that the Roman Catholics have apostolic succession--these are textbooks of Canon Law, Manuals and Handbooks for Clergy, and other sources that reference official Decrees of the Holy Synod.

The Baptism of Roman Catholics and Monophysites was recognized as completely valid and salvific, as were the Mysteries of Confirmation, Marriage and Ordination.

Remember, the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church was that none of these Mysteries should be repeated if a roman Catholic were to wish to become Orthodox.

Orthodox priests were explicitly **forbidden** to "re-baptize" Roman Catholics. And Roman Catholic priests who became Orthodox were accepted simply by Confession of Faith and then vesting--they were not baptized, chrismated or reordained.

And-- the Russian Orthodox Church issued an official decree allowing Roman Catholic Uniates to be given Holy Communion by Orthodox priests in those areas where they could not be ministered to by a Uniate priest.

In the "Handbook for Priests" by Bulgakov, a discussion is found regarding whether Episcopalian (Anglican) priests could also be received in full ecclesiastical rank when becoming Orthodox, as were Roman Catholics. The question revolved as to whether the Anglicans had preserved valid apostolic succession **AS HAD THE CATHOLICS**.

So-- there is no question that the Church of Russia considered the Roman Catholics to have valid apostolic succession.


With love in Christ,
Prot. Alexander Lebedeff


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-tradition/message/135810


Actually, not just the position of the Russian Orthodox Church during the past 400 years, but the position of the whole Church up until Patriarch Cyril and the Tomos of 1755.

I would suggest careful reading of the following.

The best Greek theologian and scholar to write on this issue, Fr. George Metallinos, in his book "I confess One Baptism" (available on-line) writes:

"According to the prevailing view, after the schism the Orthodox Church recognized ''the validity of the Latin sacraments,''[228] and indeed that of baptism. Upon their conversion, the Church applied Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council or XCV of Penthekte to them, or occasionally received them by a mere recantation of their foreign doctrines.[229] Even after the Crusades and the Council of Ferrara/Florence (1438-1439), when the relations between Orthodox and Latins became strained, and the stance of the Orthodox East in dealing with the Latins became more austere, [230] the East considered the application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council to be an adequate measure of defense, that is she received them by chrismation and a written statement. This action was officially ratified by the Local Council of Constantinople in 1484, with the participation, moreover, of all the Patriarchs of the East.

This Council also wrote an appropriate service.[231] Thus, according to I. Karmiris (and also according to the arguments of the Latinizers and pro-westerners during the Turkish rule), the cases of ''rebaptism'' were exceptions, owing ''to individual initiative,'' and ''not to an authoritative decision of the Church.''[232]

"This custom, however, was overturned in 1755 under Cyril V, Patriarch of Constantinople, by the imposing of the (re)baptism of Latins and all Western converts in general,[233] again through the application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council and the other relevant Canons of the Church. This action, to this day the last ''official'' decision of the Orthodox Church,[234] was opposed by those who disagreed. It was considered to have subverted the decision of the Council of 1484. because of its circumstantial character,[235] not having gained universal acceptance and application, it was often not adhered to. In addition, the practice of the Russian Church from 1667 differed from that of the other Orthodox Patriarchates, and indeed that of Constantinople.[236] This, then, is what is commonly accepted to this day concerning the issue in question."

http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/B6.htm


Here we see that the prevailing view was that the Orthodox Church, since 1054, "accepted the validity of the Latin sacraments" and that even after the Council of Florence, when relations between the East and the West had totally deteriorated, the Council of Constantinople of 1484, at which all four Eastern Patriarchs participated, decreed that Latins should be accepted by Chrismation and a written statement, and, more importantly, this Council created a special service for the Reception of Converts according to the mandated form (Chrismation after giving a statement renouncing false teachings and professing the Orthodox faith).

Fr. Metallinos underscores that the Oros of 1755 under Cyril V **overturned** this previously established custom.

It is critical to note that the Russian Church **NEVER** accepted the Oros of 1755 as being binding for it, and continues to this day to consider as prevailing the decision of the Council of Constantinoplein 1484, which directed that Latins NOT be baptized. This was confirmed at the Council of the Russian Church in 1667--the last time that a Council of
the Russian Church addressed this issue.

In fact, it would have been impossible for a Council of the Russian Orthodox Church to have accepted the Oros of 1755, since there WERE NO Councils of the Russian Church held from 1690 until 1917!!!

The Russian Church Council in 1667, at which two Patriarchs of the East participated, had previously sent queries to ALL of the ancient Patriarchs, asking for their opinion on this question. The unanimous reply of all four Patriarchs confirmed the position of the 1484 Council of Constantinople--that Latins were not to be rebaptized.

Fr. George Metallinos writes: "The Council of Moscow in 1620-21 decided to baptize Western converts.[276] However, the ''great'' Council of Moscow in 1666-67, in which the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch also participated, approved the decision of the 1484 Council of Constantinople, and thus rejected the (re)baptism of Western converts."

We must remember tyhat Fr. George Metallinos' work is based on the positions of the Kollyvades Fathers, especially Neophytos and C. Oikonomos. Still, he admits:

"Nevertheless, the Council of Constantinople in 1484 creates the greatest difficulties for an acceptance of our theologian's position on Latin baptism. This Council decided ''only to anoint with chrismthe Latins who come over to Orthodoxy,.after they submit a written statement of faith.'' In other words, it ranks them in the class of the Arians and Macedonians of the Second Ecumenical Council (Canon VII).[262]"

In a footnore, Metallinos quotes Bishop Kallistos Ware:

"Ware writes in this connection: ''Neither of these Councils [i.e. Constantinople, 1484, and Moscow, 1667] was exposed to foreign pressure or acted from fear of Papist reprisals"

So it is totally incorrect to attribute the position of the Russian Church regarding accepting as valid the baptism of the Latins to Peter the Great or to Western influence.

Actually, regarding Peter I, Metallinos quotes from a reply in 1718 of Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias III to Czar Peter the Great, in which the Patriarch directs the Czar to receive Latins ''by mere chrismation,''

Metallinos is forced to admit that even the theologian he uses as the basis for his thesis, C. Oikonomos, wrote the following:

"''I honor and respect the Russian Church as the undefiled bride of Christ and inseparable from her Bridegroom, and in addition as my own benefactress, by which the Lord has done and shall do many great and marvelous things, as she unerringly and verily follows the rule of piety. Hence, I do not doubt that it was in a spirit of discernment that she chose the older rule, in accordance with which she accepts the baptism of the other Churches [sic], merely chrismating those who join when they renounce their patrimonial beliefs with a written statement and confess those of the Orthodox faith.''[317]"

Here we have the clear statement of Metallinos chief theologian that the Church of Russia chooses to follow what he calls "the **older rule**, in accordance with which she accepts the baptism of other Churches."

Now, please tell me how is the position stated by Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk any different from the position of the Russian Church has held since 1667, which is based on the decision of the Council of the Four Patriarchs of 1484?

With love in Christ,

Prot. Alexander Lebedeff


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-tradition/message/135709


Thursday, December 31, 2009, 7:38:45 PM, you wrote:

> On the other hand, you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the
> Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it. Saint
> Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.

As I mentioned before, it is far more than the opinion of St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.

Every Handbook for Clergy, every textbook on Canon Law, Comparative Theology, Liturgics, and Pastorral Theology published in Russia before the Revolution states that the Roman Catholics have valid Mysteries and true apostolic succession, and that in no way should Baptism and
Chrismation, or ordination of them be performed again.

One can like it or not, but that was the official position of the Russian Church, without question or exception.

With love in Christ,
Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 14, 2011, 07:15:55 PM
I believe He is present in all these churches (they are Apostolic).

I wonder if it would help at all to know that the Orthodox Church actually does not regard God as being present in the Roman church in the same way that He is present within herself (Pentecostal indwelling) and actually does not view it as "Apostolic" in the same sense either?

Do the Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church has a real Eucharist? (because I do).

The Orthodox Church does not believe nor teach that the Vatican can "confect the Eucharist"


The Russian Orthodox Church disagrees.

Please see message 57
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555625.html#msg555625

I don't know too many Antiochian priests but the ones I know recognise Catholic sacraments.

The bottom line is that there is no consensus on this among the Orthodox.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 14, 2011, 07:20:48 PM
/\ /\  Ah, I see that Fr Kimel has presented some of the writings of Fr Alexander Lebedeff (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) on Roman Catholic and Pre-Chalcedonian sacraments.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: xariskai on April 14, 2011, 07:37:54 PM
Metropolitan Philaret Voznesensky wrote "It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth… They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The Lord, “Who will have all men to be saved” (I Tim. 2:4) and “Who enlightens every man born into the world” (Jn 1:43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation in His own way."

We do not know, I think, that God cannot heal/save an atheist, albeit if in the end he or she is saved by God that would not be because of his or her atheism.

Quote
What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?
How would this differ from the Mormon view of subjective accreditation via "burning in the bosom"? I know a young polytheist/Wiccan (i.e. ecclectic syncretist) who strongly feels he has experienced the truth that the goddess Sophia is a true goddess who interacts with him daily and brings songs to speak to him on the radio. I also know another man who will not go to any church because he experiences God in the forest, and considers it a better cathedral than any other. He may experience God in the forest -who am I to know that he does not, or that God is not even now reaching to the others in their weakness as well (Jn 3:19-21)- but his experience does not represent the fullness of the presence of God to an Orthodox.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 14, 2011, 07:42:24 PM

Quote
What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?
How would this differ from the Mormon view of subjective accreditation via "burning in the bosom"? I know a young polytheist/Wiccan (i.e. ecclectic syncretist) who strongly feels he has experienced the truth that the goddess Sophia is a true goddess who interacts with him daily and brings songs to speak to him on the radio.

The answer that would apply to Orthodox believers in any similar case, equally applies to those members of the Catholic Church of MY Baptism.

That's how it differs.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: xariskai on April 14, 2011, 07:49:41 PM

Quote
What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?
How would this differ from the Mormon view of subjective accreditation via "burning in the bosom"? I know a young polytheist/Wiccan (i.e. ecclectic syncretist) who strongly feels he has experienced the truth that the goddess Sophia is a true goddess who interacts with him daily and brings songs to speak to him on the radio.

The answer that would apply to Orthodox believers in any similar case, equally applies to those members of the Catholic Church of MY Baptism.

That's how it differs.
If a faith is true, one would expect to have subjective experience go along with it. But subjective experience alone does not prove any faith to be true. Or do you think it does? Members of virtually any world religion appeal to personal experience.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 14, 2011, 07:50:07 PM
/\ /\  Ah, I see that Fr Kimel has presented some of the writings of Fr Alexander Lebedeff (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) on Roman Catholic and Pre-Chalcedonian sacraments.

 :laugh:  Apparently there are some there who suspect that you or your informant is of the "Paris School"...with all that implies.  

If it is "alien" to convert ears then blame Paris!!
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: xariskai on April 14, 2011, 08:45:07 PM
"Every one of us is in the image of God, and every one of us in like a damaged icon.  But if we were given an icon damaged by time, damaged by circumstances, or desecrated by human hatred, we would treat it with reverence, with tenderness, with broken-heartedness. We would not pay attention primarily to the fact that it was damaged, but to the tragedy of its being damaged. We would concentrate on what is left of its beauty, and not on what is lost of its beauty. And this is what we must learn to do with regard to each person as an individual, but also -and this is not always easy--with regard to groups of people, whether it be a parish or a denomination, or a nation.

We must learn to look, and to look until we have seen the underlying beauty of this group of people. Only then can we even begin to do something to call out all the beauty that is there. Listen to other people, and whenever you discern something, which sounds true, which is a revelation of harmony and beauty, emphasize it and help it to flower. Strengthen it and encourage it to live."  -Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of blessed memory
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 14, 2011, 09:13:00 PM

Quote
What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?
How would this differ from the Mormon view of subjective accreditation via "burning in the bosom"? I know a young polytheist/Wiccan (i.e. ecclectic syncretist) who strongly feels he has experienced the truth that the goddess Sophia is a true goddess who interacts with him daily and brings songs to speak to him on the radio.

The answer that would apply to Orthodox believers in any similar case, equally applies to those members of the Catholic Church of MY Baptism.

That's how it differs.
If a faith is true, one would expect to have subjective experience go along with it. But subjective experience alone does not prove any faith to be true. Or do you think it does? Members of virtually any world religion appeal to personal experience.

I was baptised into the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, therefore I have no need to worry about anything subjective in order to live the true faith.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: orthonorm on April 14, 2011, 09:38:59 PM
Awesome stuff xariskai. Very generous and well stated and attributed.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: sainthieu on April 14, 2011, 11:35:01 PM
"What would you say to a Catholic who believes they have experienced the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?"

Dear Little Flower:

I would believe them. The circumstances under which God makes Himself known to my fellow human beings is unknown to me. Although differences exist between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches, the similarities far outweigh them.

I'm glad you came by. Please consider sticking around. And have a blessed Lent.




Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: podkarpatska on April 15, 2011, 12:00:20 PM
^I think that it is important for Roman Catholic inquirers to keep in mind that there are many who call themselves 'Orthodox' and that a wide diversity of opinion does exist on this subject. The self-proclaimed 'traditionalist' bodies (such as the Genuine Orthodox Church and others) will express a harsh view of the Roman church ( and for some of them, not to mention the rest of the Orthodox world.) However, even within the Churches of the ancient Patriarchates, i.e. Constantinople, Antioch, Damascus, Alexandria and Moscow, one will find a wide range of opinion on the subject.

It is not at all inconsistent for a fierce and learned defender of Orthodoxy such as Isa to articulate Orthodoxy's objections to the Roman positions on issues such as the universality and infallibility of the papacy, the Filioque and liturgical innovations while maintaining a respect for and acknowledgement of the presence of Christ within the Roman Church as his personal theologoumen. I suspect that Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Kyril would agree on that basic argument while differing on some of the specifics and external actions.  

Even the most learned advocates of and participants in the academic process of 'ecumenism' among the Catholic and Orthodox participants in the dialog process recognize the deep divisions between the Roman and Orthodox perspectives and teachings. A casual review of their published papers points this out clearly. http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic.html

There are those on both 'sides'of Christianity -east and west- who fear dialog and try to distort areas of faith upon which we are substantially in accord. My advice is to understand that there are many passionate and loud voices but not to despair as you try to sort things out on your journey. Have a blessed Holy Week and Pascha!
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: jah777 on April 15, 2011, 01:33:09 PM
/\ /\  Ah, I see that Fr Kimel has presented some of the writings of Fr Alexander Lebedeff (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) on Roman Catholic and Pre-Chalcedonian sacraments.

As Irish Hermit knows, I think Fr. Alexander Lebedeff is wrong on this point and draws incorrect conclusions from the quotations he has provided to support the notion that the Russian Orthodox Church has historically accepted Roman Catholic sacraments as salvific and grace-filled.  All Fr. Alexander has demonstrated is that the Russian Orthodox Church historically received Roman Catholics without requiring baptism and therefore considered Roman Catholic baptisms to be “valid”.  This “validity”, however, pertains to the sacramental *form* administered and has nothing to do with whether the baptism was salvific or grace-filled.  As Met Anthony (Khrapovitsky) thoroughly explains regarding the manner in which converts are received into the Orthodox Church, sacramental forms which are administered outside of the Orthodox Church are forms alone and empty of sanctifying grace.  When a person is received into the Orthodox Church who has a valid *form* of chrismation/confirmation and/or baptism, the Orthodox Church may not require that person to be baptized because the grace present in the Orthodox Church completes the previously administered empty form, and renders salvific and grace-filled what previously was form without content.  For more discussion on this, you can see the exchange between me and Irish Hermit below.  Following my exchange with Irish Hermit I emailed Fr. Alexander Lebedeff asking him to clarify his position for me, but he is not responding to my emails.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29606.msg539388.html#msg539388
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: deusveritasest on April 15, 2011, 01:53:17 PM
I do cross myself going by a church under the Vatican, and prostrate if I go in and adoration is going on, but that is only my personal opinion/theologoumen.
I must say I am surprised to hear this from you.

I must say that I'm not surprised to hear that you are surprised.  ::)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Papist on April 15, 2011, 02:14:29 PM
I do cross myself going by a church under the Vatican, and prostrate if I go in and adoration is going on, but that is only my personal opinion/theologoumen.
I must say I am surprised to hear this from you.

I must say that I'm not surprised to hear that you are surprised.  ::)
But I am suprised to hear that from you.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Papist on April 15, 2011, 02:14:53 PM
I do cross myself going by a church under the Vatican, and prostrate if I go in and adoration is going on, but that is only my personal opinion/theologoumen.
I must say I am surprised to hear this from you.

I must say that I'm not surprised to hear that you are surprised.  ::)
But I am suprised to hear that from you.
But not surpirsed to hear that from me.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 15, 2011, 02:30:50 PM
I do cross myself going by a church under the Vatican, and prostrate if I go in and adoration is going on, but that is only my personal opinion/theologoumen.
I must say I am surprised to hear this from you.

I must say that I'm not surprised to hear that you are surprised.  ::)
But I am suprised to hear that from you.

You are? That's very surprising.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: podkarpatska on April 15, 2011, 02:32:13 PM
I do cross myself going by a church under the Vatican, and prostrate if I go in and adoration is going on, but that is only my personal opinion/theologoumen.
I must say I am surprised to hear this from you.

I must say that I'm not surprised to hear that you are surprised.  ::)
But I am suprised to hear that from you.

You are? That's very surprising.

I like surprises!  ;D
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 15, 2011, 02:48:04 PM
^I think that it is important for Roman Catholic inquirers to keep in mind that there are many who call themselves 'Orthodox' and that a wide diversity of opinion does exist on this subject. The self-proclaimed 'traditionalist' bodies (such as the Genuine Orthodox Church and others) will express a harsh view of the Roman church ( and for some of them, not to mention the rest of the Orthodox world.) However, even within the Churches of the ancient Patriarchates, i.e. Constantinople, Antioch, Damascus, Alexandria and Moscow, one will find a wide range of opinion on the subject.

It is not at all inconsistent for a fierce and learned defender of Orthodoxy such as Isa to articulate Orthodoxy's objections to the Roman positions on issues such as the universality and infallibility of the papacy, the Filioque and liturgical innovations while maintaining a respect for and acknowledgement of the presence of Christ within the Roman Church as his personal theologoumen. I suspect that Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Kyril would agree on that basic argument while differing on some of the specifics and external actions.  

Even the most learned advocates of and participants in the academic process of 'ecumenism' among the Catholic and Orthodox participants in the dialog process recognize the deep divisions between the Roman and Orthodox perspectives and teachings. A casual review of their published papers points this out clearly. http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic.html

There are those on both 'sides'of Christianity -east and west- who fear dialog and try to distort areas of faith upon which we are substantially in accord. My advice is to understand that there are many passionate and loud voices but not to despair as you try to sort things out on your journey. Have a blessed Holy Week and Pascha!

A good illustration of the difference between how Catholics and Orthodox approach such questions is Apostolicae Curae. (Wikipedia isn't the greatest source, but just for anyone who doesn't know what document I'm referring to:

Quote
A controversy in the Catholic church over the question of whether Anglican holy orders are valid was settled by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, who wrote in Apostolicae Curae that Anglican orders lack validity because the rite by which priests were ordained was not correctly performed from 1547 to 1553 and from 1558 to the 19th century, thus causing a break of continuity in apostolic succession and a break with the sacramental intention of the Church. Leo XIII condemned the Anglican ordinals and deemed the Anglican orders "absolutely null and utterly void".[4] Some Changes in the Anglican Ordinal since King Edward VI, and a fuller appreciation of the pre-Reformation ordinals suggest, according to some private theologians, that the correctness of the dismissal of Anglican Orders may be questioned; however Apostolicae Curae remains Roman Catholic definitive teaching and was in fact reinforced by Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Orders_%28Catholic_Church%29#Recognition_of_other_churches.27_orders))
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on April 15, 2011, 03:31:09 PM
Here is my take on this, fwiw.  Please bear in mind that I am no theologian, no priest, no nuttin'.  Just a poor working schmuck with a bunch of years under his belt, a bunch of reading that's been done, and a little bit of experience.  Heck, I don't even have a college degree!  :o

Anyway....I am a Jew.  As such, I converted to Christianity a number of years ago.  I was baptized into the wonderful Holy Byzantine Catholic Church.  At the same time I was also chrismated, and received Holy Communion.  Sometime later my wife (baptized Byz.Cath, raised RC) and I were received into Orthodoxy (OCA) via chrismation.  Now, I know this may cause some here to become apoplectic ;D, but since our chrismation we have have mainly worshipped and communed in the O.C., but there have been times when (shock, horror, gasp!!!!) we have received communion in the Catholic Church, confessed to and been absolved by Catholic priests.  (Wow---now he's goin' straight to hell in a hand basket!  ::))

Why do I say all this?  Because I believe in ONE God, in ONE Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church..., in ONE baptism..., etc.  And I believe that that ONE Church is manifested (if that's the right word) in both Orthodoxy AND Catholicism.  And I believe that that makes the apostolicity of both, the validity of the sacraments of both EQUAL.  God is really present in the Eucharist of both.  How could He NOT be?  Can anyone *prove* beyond any reasonable doubt that He is not?  I know, I know....someone out there's going to start throwing theology at me after recovering their eyebrows from the ceiling, but it all boils down to this, as I've asked elsewhere on this forum.....when we come before God at the Final Judgment, will He ask if we were Catholic (yes, and if so, which type?), Orthodox (yes, and if so, which jurisdiction?), Baptist, or Jew, or whatever??  Well....will He?  Or will He ask if we have loved Him, if we have loved our neighbor and our enemy;  if we have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc.?  Will He ask if we choose Him or if we choose the other?  I mean, really.....come on folks....I know it's fun and interesting and edifying to argue, discuss, and debate these matters, but are they that which is **really** essential to us as God's children, who, hopefully, love Him above all else?

(Now I'm gonna duck  ;D ;))
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 15, 2011, 07:20:48 PM
I know it's fun and interesting and edifying to argue, discuss, and debate these matters,

Judging by your post, I would think that you consider to more fun to needle and provoke people.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Father H on April 15, 2011, 10:00:03 PM
I do cross myself going by a church under the Vatican, and prostrate if I go in and adoration is going on, but that is only my personal opinion/theologoumen.
I must say I am surprised to hear this from you.
I must say that I'm not surprised to hear that you are surprised.  ::)
But I am suprised to hear that from you.
You are? That's very surprising.

You guys, cut it out.  Is Lent, you not supposed to be making people laugh.   :police:
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Gypsy on April 15, 2011, 11:20:33 PM
"Every one of us is in the image of God, and every one of us in like a damaged icon.  But if we were given an icon damaged by time, damaged by circumstances, or desecrated by human hatred, we would treat it with reverence, with tenderness, with broken-heartedness. We would not pay attention primarily to the fact that it was damaged, but to the tragedy of its being damaged. We would concentrate on what is left of its beauty, and not on what is lost of its beauty. And this is what we must learn to do with regard to each person as an individual, but also -and this is not always easy--with regard to groups of people, whether it be a parish or a denomination, or a nation.

We must learn to look, and to look until we have seen the underlying beauty of this group of people. Only then can we even begin to do something to call out all the beauty that is there. Listen to other people, and whenever you discern something, which sounds true, which is a revelation of harmony and beauty, emphasize it and help it to flower. Strengthen it and encourage it to live."  -Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of blessed memory


Thank you so much for posting this Xariskai. What wonderful words of wisdom.
They may help me make it through one more day filled with questions.....especially as I try to make my way through as an inquirer who reads this forum every day.  I rarely post as you are all, quite frankly, as a group - very intimidating.  The phrases above bring me back to why I came here in the first place..........to see if beauty really could save the world.

Thanks for showing that you care about the "broken icons.".
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on April 16, 2011, 12:19:59 PM
I know it's fun and interesting and edifying to argue, discuss, and debate these matters,

Judging by your post, I would think that you consider to more fun to needle and provoke people.

Actually, fun really isn't the point.  If my style of writing has upset you, I ask your forgiveness.  But, that's me.  At least sometimes.

However, you seem to have missed the point I was trying, in this case perhaps unsuccessfully, to make.  And that point was my last paragraph, so I'll copy it here again, without the sarcasm (a huge fault of mine that I am continually working on, by the way):

 "Why do I say all this?  Because I believe in ONE God, in ONE Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church..., in ONE baptism..., etc.  And I believe that that ONE Church is manifested (if that's the right word) in both Orthodoxy AND Catholicism.  And I believe that that makes the apostolicity of both, the validity of the sacraments of both EQUAL.  God is really present in the Eucharist of both.  How could He NOT be?  Can anyone *prove* beyond any reasonable doubt that He is not? But it all boils down to this, as I've asked elsewhere on this forum.....when we come before God at the Final Judgment, will He ask if we were Catholic (yes, and if so, which type?), Orthodox (yes, and if so, which jurisdiction?), Baptist, or Jew, or whatever??  Well....will He?  Or will He ask if we have loved Him, if we have loved our neighbor and our enemy;  if we have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc.?  Will He ask if we choose Him or if we choose the other? "

I hope that now you will be able, if you so desire, to respond to the substance of my post rather than to something extraneous.

And I wish you a Blessed and truly holy Holy Week, and a Glorious Pascha!!

In Christ,
JM




Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 16, 2011, 12:59:29 PM
I hope that now you will be able, if you so desire, to respond to the substance of my post rather than to something extraneous.

And I wish you a Blessed and truly holy Holy Week, and a Glorious Pascha!!

In Christ,
JM

I suppose I too expected a bit more gravitas with this particular message but I don't think you are trolling.  Your position, which I agree with BTW,  is so out of the ordinary, however, that to shuck 'n jive it looks strange to me.  Perhaps I take it too soberly...I do have that fault in general, I think.

Would you indulge my curiosity and tell us why you went from the Roman Church to Orthodoxy?

Also are you familiar with the writing of Father Lev Gillet?

Mary
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ignatius on April 16, 2011, 02:20:35 PM
Grace and Peace,

I think many can come to this opinion by the lack of reverence present in many Catholic parishes. I can only say that I have a keener encounter of the divine within Orthodoxy. I'm trying to only speak from experience and not by some kind of theological argument. Of course, both can be misleading but I have to go with my gut on this one. Were the fruits are found, there is the holy spirit.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 16, 2011, 02:21:15 PM
I hope that now you will be able, if you so desire, to respond to the substance of my post rather than to something extraneous.

And I wish you a Blessed and truly holy Holy Week, and a Glorious Pascha!!

In Christ,
JM

I suppose I too expected a bit more gravitas with this particular message but I don't think you are trolling.  Your position, which I agree with BTW,  is so out of the ordinary, however, that to shuck 'n jive it looks strange to me.  Perhaps I take it too soberly...I do have that fault in general, I think.

Would you indulge my curiosity and tell us why you went from the Roman Church to Orthodoxy?

Also are you familiar with the writing of Father Lev Gillet?

Mary
I'm curious why he would convert to Orthodoxy and then go back to Catholicism to receive their sacraments without a second thought. It's like getting married and then sleeping around. I guess if he's into that sorta thing... :/

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 16, 2011, 02:35:11 PM
Grace and Peace,

I think many can come to this opinion by the lack of reverence present in many Catholic parishes. I can only say that I have a keener encounter of the divine within Orthodoxy. I'm trying to only speak from experience and not by some kind of theological argument. Of course, both can be misleading but I have to go with my gut on this one. Were the fruits are found, there is the holy spirit.

Very different experiences: as I've noted.  I live in central PA and am surrounded by Orthodox, Catholic and eastern Catholic parishes.  There are reverential liturgies in any and all of the ones I have encountered personally, and sometimes exceptionally so.  It would please me to think that all the world was so blessed but I am not that naive.   By the same token I have Greek friends who will drive hours on Sunday to avoid liturgies that are too "Russian"...That runs both ways, in fact, and Greek liturgies are thought to be quite dry by some standards.   So there are people here who go with their guts too...

I hope some day you learn to listen to your heart instead... :)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ignatius on April 16, 2011, 03:01:58 PM
Grace and Peace,

I think many can come to this opinion by the lack of reverence present in many Catholic parishes. I can only say that I have a keener encounter of the divine within Orthodoxy. I'm trying to only speak from experience and not by some kind of theological argument. Of course, both can be misleading but I have to go with my gut on this one. Were the fruits are found, there is the holy spirit.

Very different experiences: as I've noted.  I live in central PA and am surrounded by Orthodox, Catholic and eastern Catholic parishes.  There are reverential liturgies in any and all of the ones I have encountered personally, and sometimes exceptionally so.  It would please me to think that all the world was so blessed but I am not that naive.   By the same token I have Greek friends who will drive hours on Sunday to avoid liturgies that are too "Russian"...That runs both ways, in fact, and Greek liturgies are thought to be quite dry by some standards.   So there are people here who go with their guts too...

Grace and Peace,

You know, I've heard this for years by well meaning Catholics on the internet... I'm sure you are right... like I've said before... I see such a division within differing Catholic Parishes as to argue they all may be in communion materially but not so spiritually. I don't fault the entire Catholic Church for my personal state. I am simply not strong enough spiritual to survive in such a confusing and frustrating environment. Clearly, it is my own weaknesses that drive me from the Western Church into refuge within Holy Orthodoxy. My wounds over the years under the care of the western tradition has only managed to heal but a little and at times flare up in infection to the point that I am at the very edge of my spiritual flame going out entirely. Only after extended time attending Vespers and other Feast Days among the Eastern Traditions do I return to better health. How am I to explain this? I can only say that it is here that I am nourished and find healing. I don't want to abandon my tradition but it seems my tradition has abandoned me. The Priests don't fight sin but make excuses for it's presence among us. I'm not given what I need to fight as our Saints fought many many years ago. We are taught a different faith to theirs and they pretend that it is the same but it clearly is not. I can not speak for you. If you are feed, then God Bless You but it is not well in the Catholic Church and I am tired. I don't want my children to be raise with these lies, I want them to hear the truth of our faith. If the Catholic Church will not do that, then I am not in the Catholic Church. It may materially be a parish with Roman Catholic Church on it's sign, but it is no such thing. That is all I have to say on this right now.

Quote
I hope some day you learn to listen to your heart instead... :)

Cute. Very Cute.  ;)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 16, 2011, 03:08:40 PM
Relax.  I am not judging you.  But I will ping the notes where you appear to paint the entire Catholic Church with the brush of your own, admittedly limited, experiences.

"For the salvation of my soul..." is powerful reason to move.  It is the only one, as far as I am concerned.  You may look weak to others and they may say so.  That is not the case where I am concerned.  I believe what you tell me.  Why would I doubt you?

M.

Grace and Peace,

I think many can come to this opinion by the lack of reverence present in many Catholic parishes. I can only say that I have a keener encounter of the divine within Orthodoxy. I'm trying to only speak from experience and not by some kind of theological argument. Of course, both can be misleading but I have to go with my gut on this one. Were the fruits are found, there is the holy spirit.

Very different experiences: as I've noted.  I live in central PA and am surrounded by Orthodox, Catholic and eastern Catholic parishes.  There are reverential liturgies in any and all of the ones I have encountered personally, and sometimes exceptionally so.  It would please me to think that all the world was so blessed but I am not that naive.   By the same token I have Greek friends who will drive hours on Sunday to avoid liturgies that are too "Russian"...That runs both ways, in fact, and Greek liturgies are thought to be quite dry by some standards.   So there are people here who go with their guts too...

Grace and Peace,

You know, I've heard this for years by well meaning Catholics on the internet... I'm sure you are right... like I've said before... I see such a division within differing Catholic Parishes as to argue they all may be in communion materially but not so spiritually. I don't fault the entire Catholic Church for my personal state. I am simply not strong enough spiritual to survive in such a confusing and frustrating environment. Clearly, it is my own weaknesses that drive me from the Western Church into refuge within Holy Orthodoxy. My wounds over the years under the care of the western tradition has only managed to heal but a little and at times flare up in infection to the point that I am at the very edge of my spiritual flame going out entirely. Only after extended time attending Vespers and other Feast Days among the Eastern Traditions do I return to better health. How am I to explain this? I can only say that it is here that I am nourished and find healing. I don't want to abandon my tradition but it seems my tradition has abandoned me. The Priests don't fight sin but make excuses for it's presence among us. I'm not given what I need to fight as our Saints fought many many years ago. We are taught a different faith to theirs and they pretend that it is the same but it clearly is not. I can not speak for you. If you are feed, then God Bless You but it is not well in the Catholic Church and I am tired. I don't want my children to be raise with these lies, I want them to hear the truth of our faith. If the Catholic Church will not do that, then I am not in the Catholic Church. It may materially be a parish with Roman Catholic Church on it's sign, but it is no such thing. That is all I have to say on this right now.

Quote
I hope some day you learn to listen to your heart instead... :)

Cute. Very Cute.  ;)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ignatius on April 16, 2011, 05:05:32 PM
Relax.  I am not judging you.  But I will ping the notes where you appear to paint the entire Catholic Church with the brush of your own, admittedly limited, experiences.

What does disturbs me is that the Roman Catholic Church attempts to suggest that the Clergy are in communion and of one mind. I honestly don't see that at all. The Parishes that I've attended over the years are very politically ideological and mirror popular secular society. I ask, where is the salt and light? Most have only a thin veneer of the old church traditions present anymore "what smells and bells"? This is what I mean when I speak of the Catholic Church being dead, lost or gone. With their outward orthopracy went their inward orthodoxy. I am sure there are a few hold outs... just none around me. I ask you, how long can they stand? Until their Priest is eventually retired? I don't see enough tradition present in the modern Catholic Liturgy to mold hearts and minds. I don't seen any ascesis present in the clergy to form them into holy examples.

I've asked this of Catholics before, why where the sacred Relics thrown out with the Alters... after Vatican II? Why the radical change is orthopracy? To me, this was similar to the Iconoclasm in the Eastern Church but it was brought about from within... What Church that Claims continuity with the Apostles so quickly throws out their Traditions and Liturgy for another? I've struggled very long to understand that and Priests just look at me dumbfounded. Do you have an answer?



Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Michał on April 16, 2011, 05:16:16 PM
I've asked this of Catholics before, why where the sacred Relics thrown out with the Alters... after Vatican II? Why the radical change is orthopracy? To me, this was similar to the Iconoclasm in the Eastern Church but it was brought about from within... What Church that Claims continuity with the Apostles so quickly throws out their Traditions and Liturgy for another? I've struggled very long to understand that and Priests just look at me dumbfounded. Do you have an answer?

If I were a Catholic, I would say: "Don't worry, we have the international New Liturgical Movement which will fix everything if enough people join it." But there remains this "if"...
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Noesisaa on April 16, 2011, 05:27:23 PM
Ignatius: there are problems EVERYWHERE, including the Orthodox Church. Just yesterday I read an article in a Romanian newspaper about a woman who was six months pregnant and aborted because the child had Down syndrom. She said that she does not feel guilty about anything in front of God because beforehand she went to speak to a priest (orthodox) who told her that she can either keep the baby or terminate the pregnancy. (!!!) So therefore, in her words, she had a priest's blessing. This enrages me...There are priests with girlfriends/mistresses, there are priests who steal, priests who smuggle cigarettes over the border and try to bribe the policemen, priests who allow their daughter to cohabit with only a civil marriage...Artificial contraception is okay. Ascesis....hahahhaha!

What I mean is that liturgical orthodoxy does not necessarily moral orthodoxy. I can bet that that priest who told that poor woman that she can have an abortion is liturgically correct. But how mistaken he really is.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Michał on April 16, 2011, 05:41:19 PM
Just yesterday I read an article in a Romanian newspaper about a woman who was six months pregnant and aborted because the child had Down syndrom. She said that she does not feel guilty about anything in front of God because beforehand she went to speak to a priest (orthodox) who told her that she can either keep the baby or terminate the pregnancy. (!!!)

And I've read today that "[a]fter 20,000 complaints [a] Jesuit university [is] still promoting Planned Parenthood (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/after-20000-complaints-jesuit-university-still-promoting-planned-parenthood)," an association of abortion clinics, so I have to agree with Noesisaa that the moral crisis is everywhere, unfortunately.

Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ignatius on April 16, 2011, 05:42:43 PM
Ignatius: there are problems EVERYWHERE, including the Orthodox Church. Just yesterday I read an article in a Romanian newspaper about a woman who was six months pregnant and aborted because the child had Down syndrom. She said that she does not feel guilty about anything in front of God because beforehand she went to speak to a priest (orthodox) who told her that she can either keep the baby or terminate the pregnancy. (!!!) So therefore, in her words, she had a priest's blessing. This enrages me...There are priests with girlfriends/mistresses, there are priests who steal, priests who smuggle cigarettes over the border and try to bribe the policemen, priests who allow their daughter to cohabit with only a civil marriage...Artificial contraception is okay. Ascesis....hahahhaha!

What I mean is that liturgical orthodoxy does not necessarily moral orthodoxy. I can bet that that priest who told that poor woman that she can have an abortion is liturgically correct. But how mistaken he really is.

Grace and Peace,

I understand but the Orthodox Parish that I attend and the Parish Priest is simply a wonderful light for me and my family. My journey East has for a while been one found in theology and cultural debate on this forum but I've found greater fruit in the literal encounter and day to day experience of the faith among the faithful. I know there are problems even within my own heart.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 16, 2011, 05:47:30 PM
Ignatius: there are problems EVERYWHERE, including the Orthodox Church. Just yesterday I read an article in a Romanian newspaper about a woman who was six months pregnant and aborted because the child had Down syndrom. She said that she does not feel guilty about anything in front of God because beforehand she went to speak to a priest (orthodox) who told her that she can either keep the baby or terminate the pregnancy. (!!!) So therefore, in her words, she had a priest's blessing. This enrages me...There are priests with girlfriends/mistresses, there are priests who steal, priests who smuggle cigarettes over the border and try to bribe the policemen, priests who allow their daughter to cohabit with only a civil marriage...Artificial contraception is okay. Ascesis....hahahhaha!

What I mean is that liturgical orthodoxy does not necessarily moral orthodoxy. I can bet that that priest who told that poor woman that she can have an abortion is liturgically correct. But how mistaken he really is.

Grace and Peace,

I understand but the Orthodox Parish that I attend and the Parish Priest is simply a wonderful light for me and my family. My journey East has for a while been one found in theology and cultural debate on this forum but I've found greater fruit in the literal encounter and day to day experience of the faith among the faithful. I know there are problems even within my own heart.

How long have you been struggling spiritually...internally?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Noesisaa on April 16, 2011, 05:50:27 PM
Ignatius: there are problems EVERYWHERE, including the Orthodox Church. Just yesterday I read an article in a Romanian newspaper about a woman who was six months pregnant and aborted because the child had Down syndrom. She said that she does not feel guilty about anything in front of God because beforehand she went to speak to a priest (orthodox) who told her that she can either keep the baby or terminate the pregnancy. (!!!) So therefore, in her words, she had a priest's blessing. This enrages me...There are priests with girlfriends/mistresses, there are priests who steal, priests who smuggle cigarettes over the border and try to bribe the policemen, priests who allow their daughter to cohabit with only a civil marriage...Artificial contraception is okay. Ascesis....hahahhaha!

What I mean is that liturgical orthodoxy does not necessarily moral orthodoxy. I can bet that that priest who told that poor woman that she can have an abortion is liturgically correct. But how mistaken he really is.

Grace and Peace,

I understand but the Orthodox Parish that I attend and the Parish Priest is simply a wonderful light for me and my family. My journey East has for a while been one found in theology and cultural debate on this forum but I've found greater fruit in the literal encounter and day to day experience of the faith among the faithful. I know there are problems even within my own heart.

Yes, you are right. I don't want to play the devil's advocate: but what if you'd find a nice, orthodox, good, roman-catholic parish?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: akimel on April 16, 2011, 05:59:15 PM
Relax.  I am not judging you.  But I will ping the notes where you appear to paint the entire Catholic Church with the brush of your own, admittedly limited, experiences.

What does disturbs me is that the Roman Catholic Church attempts to suggest that the Clergy are in communion and of one mind. I honestly don't see that at all. The Parishes that I've attended over the years are very politically ideological and mirror popular secular society. I ask, where is the salt and light? Most have only a thin veneer of the old church traditions present anymore "what smells and bells"? This is what I mean when I speak of the Catholic Church being dead, lost or gone. With their outward orthopracy went their inward orthodoxy. I am sure there are a few hold outs... just none around me. I ask you, how long can they stand? Until their Priest is eventually retired? I don't see enough tradition present in the modern Catholic Liturgy to mold hearts and minds. I don't seen any ascesis present in the clergy to form them into holy examples.

I've asked this of Catholics before, why where the sacred Relics thrown out with the Alters... after Vatican II? Why the radical change is orthopracy? To me, this was similar to the Iconoclasm in the Eastern Church but it was brought about from within... What Church that Claims continuity with the Apostles so quickly throws out their Traditions and Liturgy for another? I've struggled very long to understand that and Priests just look at me dumbfounded. Do you have an answer?

Ignatius, I'd like to respond on two points.

First, I agree with you wholeheartedly regarding the state of modern Catholic liturgy.  I am flummoxed by what happened to the liturgy after Vatican II.  It was not a reform of the rite; it was a revolution.  I do not understand how such a revolution was possible.  The rot must have been deep.  I think your reference to the iconoclastic crisis is apt.  A liberal Protestant-inspired iconoclasm swept through the Catholic Church, and it still has its grip on the Catholic mind and spirit.  Despite all talk about the reform of the reform, I do not expect significant changes in my lifetime or the lifetime of my children.  The institution is too deeply invested in the liturgical status quo.  Few parish priests are willing, or able, to challenge this status quo.  Liturgy is not a ditch most are willing to die in.  

Second, I think you are being excessively and unfairly hard on Catholic priests.  The ones I know are faithful, overworked men who are simply overwhelmed by the work that needs to be done in the typical Catholic parish.  Their fidelity is their ascesis.  A single priest is often expected to pastor, all by himself, a congregation of three thousand families.  This is impossible!  And matters are only going to get worse, unless God intervenes.  After all the Masses are said, after all the dead are buried and the infants are baptized, after the administration is done, there simply is no time nor energy left to devote to spiritual renewal, either for oneself or for the parish.  It is all impossible.  

I agree that contemporary Catholicism, particularly at the parish level, has lost the ascetical rhythm of the Church.  This is a huge loss!  But it is wrong to assume that Orthodoxy is producing holier Christians.  Just talk to your local Greek priest.  Both traditions are profoundly compromised.  Both are vulnerable to the acid rain of modernity.  Kyrie eleison.

In the end, we must find shelter and hope to survive.  Ecclesiastical ideology will not save us.    
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on April 16, 2011, 06:29:28 PM
I hope that now you will be able, if you so desire, to respond to the substance of my post rather than to something extraneous.

And I wish you a Blessed and truly holy Holy Week, and a Glorious Pascha!!

In Christ,
JM

I suppose I too expected a bit more gravitas with this particular message but I don't think you are trolling.  Your position, which I agree with BTW,  is so out of the ordinary, however, that to shuck 'n jive it looks strange to me.  Perhaps I take it too soberly...I do have that fault in general, I think.

Would you indulge my curiosity and tell us why you went from the Roman Church to Orthodoxy?

Also are you familiar with the writing of Father Lev Gillet?

Mary

Mary,

No, I wasn't trolling.  I tend to be somewhat of a smartass sometimes, and tend to make light when it may not be the most appropriate thing to do.  Shuck and jive  :D?  Okay.....mea culpa  :).   And yes, I am kind of strange.  

There were, in fact, many reasons why we (my wife and I) converted to Orthodoxy, and I won't go into all of them here and now.  What I will say is that while we were in the Byzantine Catholic church, our deacon there would frequently refer to Byzantine Catholicism as "Orthodoxy lite".  Well, I tend to like my beer dark, my whiskey straight, and my Christianity full.  So, we searched and read, and read more, and prayed, and asked God to lead us where He wanted us to be.  It so happened that there is an Orthodox church less than 1/2 way between where we live and the B.C. church we were attending, which, given my wife's deteriorating state of health, was quite a hike for us.  So, we started attending there.  And there was a kind of fullness and completeness that was somehow lacking at the B.C. church.  Also, the community there was more alive and vibrant.

We continued to pray and study.  We liked what we experienced, for the most part, so eventually we asked to be and were received by way of Holy Chrismation.

Why did we then, from time to time, go back to the Catholic church for sacraments?  I think I explained that in my original post.  It was a matter of geography, health, convenience, and the fact that for all the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy they really are one and the same faith.  I know many would and do disagree with me, but that always makes me return to the statements and questions of my original post, which, so far, no one seems to have addressed to my satisfaction.  I am a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  That Church finds expression in Orthodoxy and in Catholicism.  I remember Fr. Tom Hopko in one of his lectures saying something to the effect of Christianity being *not* a "religion" but rather a relationship with a Person, and that Person is Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Now *that* is what I had longed for for many years and finally found in *both* Catholicism and Orthodoxy, all aspects of the religiosity thereof aside.  Many of the differences between them are political.  Many are cultural.  Some are theological.  As far as I have been able to determine, both have direct and unbroken apostolic succession and that, I believe, validates the sacraments of both.  I may be condemned to eternal damnation, but I seriously doubt that it will be because I go to a Catholic priest for confession and absolution, and receive Holy Communion from an Orthodox priest, or vice versa.  It is my relationship, or lack thereof, with Jesus Christ that matters, not whether the church I attend begins with an "O" or a "C".  This is my choice.  So, one might say that I am Orthodox in communion with the Catholic Church.

To be perfectly honest with you, if there were a Byzantine Catholic parish as close to us as the Orthodox one or closer, we'd probably alternate going to both.  I know that doesn't sit well with many so-called "purists", and not a few Orthodox priests, but too bad.  

By the way, by marriage I have many, many relatives in Western PA., who have for many years gone back and forth to Orthodox, R.C., and B.C. churches.  They are known by the priests and bishops of all three and regularly and freely receive sacraments, including Holy Communion from all of them.  Of the purists here I would ask, what of them?  And by "them" I mean both my relatives and the clergy.

I know I haven't answered your question completely, but I hope I've answered it enough to give you a sense of where I'm coming from.

I am familiar with Fr. Lev Gillet.  It's been a few years since I've read anything by him.  Was there anything in particular you were thinking of?

As for Andrew's comment about "sleeping around".....well, I could get back into smartass mode, but I won't, so.....no comment. ;D
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Michał on April 16, 2011, 07:15:28 PM
Why did we then, from time to time, go back to the Catholic church for sacraments?  I think I explained that in my original post.  It was a matter of geography, health, convenience, and the fact that for all the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy they really are one and the same faith.  I know many would and do disagree with me, but that always makes me return to the statements and questions of my original post, which, so far, no one seems to have addressed to my satisfaction.  I am a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  That Church finds expression in Orthodoxy and in Catholicism.  I remember Fr. Tom Hopko in one of his lectures saying something to the effect of Christianity being *not* a "religion" but rather a relationship with a Person, and that Person is Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Now *that* is what I had longed for for many years and finally found in *both* Catholicism and Orthodoxy, all aspects of the religiosity thereof aside.  Many of the differences between them are political.  Many are cultural.  Some are theological.  As far as I have been able to determine, both have direct and unbroken apostolic succession and that, I believe, validates the sacraments of both.  I may be condemned to eternal damnation, but I seriously doubt that it will be because I go to a Catholic priest for confession and absolution, and receive Holy Communion from an Orthodox priest, or vice versa.  It is my relationship, or lack thereof, with Jesus Christ that matters, not whether the church I attend begins with an "O" or a "C".  This is my choice.  So, one might say that I am Orthodox in communion with the Catholic Church.

You sound very much like Jerzy Nowosielski, the recently deceased painter, iconographer and, some would say, Orthodox theologian from Poland.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Michał on April 16, 2011, 07:29:35 PM
Just yesterday I read an article in a Romanian newspaper about a woman who was six months pregnant and aborted because the child had Down syndrom. She said that she does not feel guilty about anything in front of God because beforehand she went to speak to a priest (orthodox) who told her that she can either keep the baby or terminate the pregnancy. (!!!)

I'm sure it's not a coincidence that she went precisely to that priest with a pro-choice (i.e., pro-death) mentality and not to some strict holy elder from a monastery.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Noesisaa on April 16, 2011, 08:18:15 PM
Just yesterday I read an article in a Romanian newspaper about a woman who was six months pregnant and aborted because the child had Down syndrom. She said that she does not feel guilty about anything in front of God because beforehand she went to speak to a priest (orthodox) who told her that she can either keep the baby or terminate the pregnancy. (!!!)

I'm sure it's not a coincidence that she went precisely to that priest with a pro-choice (i.e., pro-death) mentality and not to some strict holy elder from a monastery.

She probably went to the priest of the church nearest to her house. :( I doubt that she went around churches in Bucharest looking specifically for a pro-choice priest.

Most probably the priest didn't have the guts to tell her the truth and tell her to carry her cross.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Michał on April 16, 2011, 08:26:22 PM
Most probably the priest didn't have the guts to tell her the truth and tell her to carry her cross.

I hope someone with the guts will step in and exercise a sufficient canonical punishment both for the woman and the priest -- for their own good.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 16, 2011, 08:50:16 PM
Most probably the priest didn't have the guts to tell her the truth and tell her to carry her cross.

I hope someone with the guts will step in and exercise a sufficient canonical punishment both for the woman and the priest -- for their own good.

That's pretty darn juridical for a faith that is said to be the faith of the spiritual hospital.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 16, 2011, 09:00:14 PM
Most probably the priest didn't have the guts to tell her the truth and tell her to carry her cross.

I hope someone with the guts will step in and exercise a sufficient canonical punishment both for the woman and the priest -- for their own good.

That's pretty darn juridical for a faith that is said to be the faith of the spiritual hospital.

When a surgeon malpractises some form of rebuke and correction is usually beneficial to prevent him harming the health of other patients.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 16, 2011, 09:11:46 PM
Grace and Peace,

I understand but the Orthodox Parish that I attend and the Parish Priest is simply a wonderful light for me and my family. My journey East has for a while been one found in theology and cultural debate on this forum but I've found greater fruit in the literal encounter and day to day experience of the faith among the faithful. I know there are problems even within my own heart.

Yes, you are right. I don't want to play the devil's advocate: but what if you'd find a nice, orthodox, good, roman-catholic parish?

That's just what I was thinking.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 16, 2011, 09:17:35 PM
I'm curious why he would convert to Orthodoxy and then go back to Catholicism to receive their sacraments without a second thought. It's like getting married and then sleeping around. I guess if he's into that sorta thing... :/

In Christ,
Andrew

I agree with you in part but not in full. I don't agree with the "getting married and then sleeping around" comparison, but I agree that it's strange for someone to break off communion with a church (the Catholic Church, in this case) and then want to receive communion in that church.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 16, 2011, 09:18:22 PM

Mary,

No, I wasn't trolling.  I tend to be somewhat of a smartass sometimes, and tend to make light when it may not be the most appropriate thing to do.  Shuck and jive  :D?  Okay.....mea culpa  :).   And yes, I am kind of strange.  

There were, in fact, many reasons why we (my wife and I) converted to Orthodoxy, and I won't go into all of them here and now.  What I will say is that while we were in the Byzantine Catholic church, our deacon there would frequently refer to Byzantine Catholicism as "Orthodoxy lite".  Well, I tend to like my beer dark, my whiskey straight, and my Christianity full.  So, we searched and read, and read more, and prayed, and asked God to lead us where He wanted us to be.  It so happened that there is an Orthodox church less than 1/2 way between where we live and the B.C. church we were attending, which, given my wife's deteriorating state of health, was quite a hike for us.  So, we started attending there.  And there was a kind of fullness and completeness that was somehow lacking at the B.C. church.  Also, the community there was more alive and vibrant.

We continued to pray and study.  We liked what we experienced, for the most part, so eventually we asked to be and were received by way of Holy Chrismation.

Why did we then, from time to time, go back to the Catholic church for sacraments?  I think I explained that in my original post.  It was a matter of geography, health, convenience, and the fact that for all the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy they really are one and the same faith.  I know many would and do disagree with me, but that always makes me return to the statements and questions of my original post, which, so far, no one seems to have addressed to my satisfaction.  I am a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  That Church finds expression in Orthodoxy and in Catholicism.  I remember Fr. Tom Hopko in one of his lectures saying something to the effect of Christianity being *not* a "religion" but rather a relationship with a Person, and that Person is Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Now *that* is what I had longed for for many years and finally found in *both* Catholicism and Orthodoxy, all aspects of the religiosity thereof aside.  Many of the differences between them are political.  Many are cultural.  Some are theological.  As far as I have been able to determine, both have direct and unbroken apostolic succession and that, I believe, validates the sacraments of both.  I may be condemned to eternal damnation, but I seriously doubt that it will be because I go to a Catholic priest for confession and absolution, and receive Holy Communion from an Orthodox priest, or vice versa.  It is my relationship, or lack thereof, with Jesus Christ that matters, not whether the church I attend begins with an "O" or a "C".  This is my choice.  So, one might say that I am Orthodox in communion with the Catholic Church.

To be perfectly honest with you, if there were a Byzantine Catholic parish as close to us as the Orthodox one or closer, we'd probably alternate going to both.  I know that doesn't sit well with many so-called "purists", and not a few Orthodox priests, but too bad.  

By the way, by marriage I have many, many relatives in Western PA., who have for many years gone back and forth to Orthodox, R.C., and B.C. churches.  They are known by the priests and bishops of all three and regularly and freely receive sacraments, including Holy Communion from all of them.  Of the purists here I would ask, what of them?  And by "them" I mean both my relatives and the clergy.

I know I haven't answered your question completely, but I hope I've answered it enough to give you a sense of where I'm coming from.

I am familiar with Fr. Lev Gillet.  It's been a few years since I've read anything by him.  Was there anything in particular you were thinking of?

As for Andrew's comment about "sleeping around".....well, I could get back into smartass mode, but I won't, so.....no comment. ;D

Don't be sorry...I didn't really mind your humor.  It is an attitude that is pretty difficult for most Orthodox, or Catholics to grasp.  To simply ignore the schism is about as daring as it gets in some circles  :laugh:  But there are many who have done just that in their own quiet ways...they may not be quite so active as you are but they refuse to recognize or acknowledge anything but the fact that we are not in communion.  But to say that we are two different bodies...no...they refuse that idea absolutely.

I can understand your choice quite well, in fact.  I would never be so daring as you are however, so I stay home and don't stray, though I've often wanted to do precisely what you are doing.  It would stop me from doing what I do in venues like this however, and it would not be an example that I would choose to give those who count on me to be who and what I am, and there are enough of those to make it important that I demonstrate a certain kind of stability.

But we are different souls on different paths.  I feel the pull of different responsibilities, just as deeply as I feel the pull of parish life in Orthodoxy.  But I am not quite so dependent upon a parish or a parish priest to help me keep my spiritual life in order.  I am by nature and practice a solitary and contemplative person...not reclusive...but certainly solitary...and I've been blessed by the company of the same spiritual father for nearly fifteen years now.  That makes all the difference in the world in what I can absorb and what becomes too much to bear.

At any rate...I was just curious whether or not you were familiar with Father Lev...didn't have any particular one of his works in mind.

Pleased to meet you.

Mary

Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 18, 2011, 09:14:23 AM

Mary,

No, I wasn't trolling.  I tend to be somewhat of a smartass sometimes, and tend to make light when it may not be the most appropriate thing to do.  Shuck and jive  :D?  Okay.....mea culpa  :).   And yes, I am kind of strange.  

There were, in fact, many reasons why we (my wife and I) converted to Orthodoxy, and I won't go into all of them here and now.  What I will say is that while we were in the Byzantine Catholic church, our deacon there would frequently refer to Byzantine Catholicism as "Orthodoxy lite".  Well, I tend to like my beer dark, my whiskey straight, and my Christianity full.  So, we searched and read, and read more, and prayed, and asked God to lead us where He wanted us to be.  It so happened that there is an Orthodox church less than 1/2 way between where we live and the B.C. church we were attending, which, given my wife's deteriorating state of health, was quite a hike for us.  So, we started attending there.  And there was a kind of fullness and completeness that was somehow lacking at the B.C. church.  Also, the community there was more alive and vibrant.

We continued to pray and study.  We liked what we experienced, for the most part, so eventually we asked to be and were received by way of Holy Chrismation.

Why did we then, from time to time, go back to the Catholic church for sacraments?  I think I explained that in my original post.  It was a matter of geography, health, convenience, and the fact that for all the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy they really are one and the same faith.  I know many would and do disagree with me, but that always makes me return to the statements and questions of my original post, which, so far, no one seems to have addressed to my satisfaction.  I am a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  That Church finds expression in Orthodoxy and in Catholicism.  I remember Fr. Tom Hopko in one of his lectures saying something to the effect of Christianity being *not* a "religion" but rather a relationship with a Person, and that Person is Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Now *that* is what I had longed for for many years and finally found in *both* Catholicism and Orthodoxy, all aspects of the religiosity thereof aside.  Many of the differences between them are political.  Many are cultural.  Some are theological.  As far as I have been able to determine, both have direct and unbroken apostolic succession and that, I believe, validates the sacraments of both.  I may be condemned to eternal damnation, but I seriously doubt that it will be because I go to a Catholic priest for confession and absolution, and receive Holy Communion from an Orthodox priest, or vice versa.  It is my relationship, or lack thereof, with Jesus Christ that matters, not whether the church I attend begins with an "O" or a "C".  This is my choice.  So, one might say that I am Orthodox in communion with the Catholic Church.

To be perfectly honest with you, if there were a Byzantine Catholic parish as close to us as the Orthodox one or closer, we'd probably alternate going to both.  I know that doesn't sit well with many so-called "purists", and not a few Orthodox priests, but too bad.  

By the way, by marriage I have many, many relatives in Western PA., who have for many years gone back and forth to Orthodox, R.C., and B.C. churches.  They are known by the priests and bishops of all three and regularly and freely receive sacraments, including Holy Communion from all of them.  Of the purists here I would ask, what of them?  And by "them" I mean both my relatives and the clergy.

I know I haven't answered your question completely, but I hope I've answered it enough to give you a sense of where I'm coming from.

I am familiar with Fr. Lev Gillet.  It's been a few years since I've read anything by him.  Was there anything in particular you were thinking of?

As for Andrew's comment about "sleeping around".....well, I could get back into smartass mode, but I won't, so.....no comment. ;D

Don't be sorry...I didn't really mind your humor.  It is an attitude that is pretty difficult for most Orthodox, or Catholics to grasp.  To simply ignore the schism is about as daring as it gets in some circles  :laugh:  But there are many who have done just that in their own quiet ways...they may not be quite so active as you are but they refuse to recognize or acknowledge anything but the fact that we are not in communion.  But to say that we are two different bodies...no...they refuse that idea absolutely.

I can understand your choice quite well, in fact.  I would never be so daring as you are however, so I stay home and don't stray, though I've often wanted to do precisely what you are doing.  It would stop me from doing what I do in venues like this however, and it would not be an example that I would choose to give those who count on me to be who and what I am, and there are enough of those to make it important that I demonstrate a certain kind of stability.

But we are different souls on different paths.  I feel the pull of different responsibilities, just as deeply as I feel the pull of parish life in Orthodoxy.  But I am not quite so dependent upon a parish or a parish priest to help me keep my spiritual life in order.  I am by nature and practice a solitary and contemplative person...not reclusive...but certainly solitary...and I've been blessed by the company of the same spiritual father for nearly fifteen years now.  That makes all the difference in the world in what I can absorb and what becomes too much to bear.

At any rate...I was just curious whether or not you were familiar with Father Lev...didn't have any particular one of his works in mind.

Pleased to meet you.

Mary

Dear elijahmaria and J Michael,

You might say that you're only jesting or only being a smartass, but may I be so bold as to suggest that you read the following quote from C. S. Lewis, and see if you don't fit the description:

Quote
Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any
 communion.* This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each 
there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with
 the same voice.

(*I would assume he meant women as well as men.)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 18, 2011, 10:07:44 AM
Personally I've never thought much of C. S. Lewis's writing.  There's so much excellent work done by Catholic and Orthodox saints.  Lewis is "accessible" I suppose but that has never been my first criteria for superior spiritual writing.

Besides Jesus and the Apostles worked on the fringes and that becomes ever so apparent this week, just how far out on the edge they were.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: podkarpatska on April 18, 2011, 10:25:02 AM
Most probably the priest didn't have the guts to tell her the truth and tell her to carry her cross.

I hope someone with the guts will step in and exercise a sufficient canonical punishment both for the woman and the priest -- for their own good.

That's pretty darn juridical for a faith that is said to be the faith of the spiritual hospital.

When a surgeon malpractises some form of rebuke and correction is usually beneficial to prevent him harming the health of other patients.

This is true, but...in my experience as an attorney, it has been my observation that within any profession one will find an acknowledgment that malpractice or error occurs with some regularity, but when confronted with that reality, the profession will close ranks and protect the guilty and cover up the misdeeds. The Church, unfortunately, is no exception as the Roman Catholic faithful have sadly learned these past years. The Orthodox are no less likely to behave in the same manner if pressed.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on April 18, 2011, 11:15:13 AM

Mary,

No, I wasn't trolling.  I tend to be somewhat of a smartass sometimes, and tend to make light when it may not be the most appropriate thing to do.  Shuck and jive  :D?  Okay.....mea culpa  :).   And yes, I am kind of strange.  

There were, in fact, many reasons why we (my wife and I) converted to Orthodoxy, and I won't go into all of them here and now.  What I will say is that while we were in the Byzantine Catholic church, our deacon there would frequently refer to Byzantine Catholicism as "Orthodoxy lite".  Well, I tend to like my beer dark, my whiskey straight, and my Christianity full.  So, we searched and read, and read more, and prayed, and asked God to lead us where He wanted us to be.  It so happened that there is an Orthodox church less than 1/2 way between where we live and the B.C. church we were attending, which, given my wife's deteriorating state of health, was quite a hike for us.  So, we started attending there.  And there was a kind of fullness and completeness that was somehow lacking at the B.C. church.  Also, the community there was more alive and vibrant.

We continued to pray and study.  We liked what we experienced, for the most part, so eventually we asked to be and were received by way of Holy Chrismation.

Why did we then, from time to time, go back to the Catholic church for sacraments?  I think I explained that in my original post.  It was a matter of geography, health, convenience, and the fact that for all the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy they really are one and the same faith.  I know many would and do disagree with me, but that always makes me return to the statements and questions of my original post, which, so far, no one seems to have addressed to my satisfaction.  I am a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  That Church finds expression in Orthodoxy and in Catholicism.  I remember Fr. Tom Hopko in one of his lectures saying something to the effect of Christianity being *not* a "religion" but rather a relationship with a Person, and that Person is Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Now *that* is what I had longed for for many years and finally found in *both* Catholicism and Orthodoxy, all aspects of the religiosity thereof aside.  Many of the differences between them are political.  Many are cultural.  Some are theological.  As far as I have been able to determine, both have direct and unbroken apostolic succession and that, I believe, validates the sacraments of both.  I may be condemned to eternal damnation, but I seriously doubt that it will be because I go to a Catholic priest for confession and absolution, and receive Holy Communion from an Orthodox priest, or vice versa.  It is my relationship, or lack thereof, with Jesus Christ that matters, not whether the church I attend begins with an "O" or a "C".  This is my choice.  So, one might say that I am Orthodox in communion with the Catholic Church.

To be perfectly honest with you, if there were a Byzantine Catholic parish as close to us as the Orthodox one or closer, we'd probably alternate going to both.  I know that doesn't sit well with many so-called "purists", and not a few Orthodox priests, but too bad.  

By the way, by marriage I have many, many relatives in Western PA., who have for many years gone back and forth to Orthodox, R.C., and B.C. churches.  They are known by the priests and bishops of all three and regularly and freely receive sacraments, including Holy Communion from all of them.  Of the purists here I would ask, what of them?  And by "them" I mean both my relatives and the clergy.

I know I haven't answered your question completely, but I hope I've answered it enough to give you a sense of where I'm coming from.

I am familiar with Fr. Lev Gillet.  It's been a few years since I've read anything by him.  Was there anything in particular you were thinking of?

As for Andrew's comment about "sleeping around".....well, I could get back into smartass mode, but I won't, so.....no comment. ;D

Don't be sorry...I didn't really mind your humor.  It is an attitude that is pretty difficult for most Orthodox, or Catholics to grasp.  To simply ignore the schism is about as daring as it gets in some circles  :laugh:  But there are many who have done just that in their own quiet ways...they may not be quite so active as you are but they refuse to recognize or acknowledge anything but the fact that we are not in communion.  But to say that we are two different bodies...no...they refuse that idea absolutely.

I can understand your choice quite well, in fact.  I would never be so daring as you are however, so I stay home and don't stray, though I've often wanted to do precisely what you are doing.  It would stop me from doing what I do in venues like this however, and it would not be an example that I would choose to give those who count on me to be who and what I am, and there are enough of those to make it important that I demonstrate a certain kind of stability.

But we are different souls on different paths.  I feel the pull of different responsibilities, just as deeply as I feel the pull of parish life in Orthodoxy.  But I am not quite so dependent upon a parish or a parish priest to help me keep my spiritual life in order.  I am by nature and practice a solitary and contemplative person...not reclusive...but certainly solitary...and I've been blessed by the company of the same spiritual father for nearly fifteen years now.  That makes all the difference in the world in what I can absorb and what becomes too much to bear.

At any rate...I was just curious whether or not you were familiar with Father Lev...didn't have any particular one of his works in mind.

Pleased to meet you.

Mary

Dear elijahmaria and J Michael,

You might say that you're only jesting or only being a smartass, but may I be so bold as to suggest that you read the following quote from C. S. Lewis, and see if you don't fit the description:

Quote
Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any
 communion.* This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each 
there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with
 the same voice.

(*I would assume he meant women as well as men.)

I bear no "hostility" towards either "communion".  I love them both very much, as a matter of fact, and consider them, rightly or wrongly, equally valid.  My loyalty is to Jesus Christ, not a particular "communion".  So, no, I don't think I fit the description, unless of course in my hurry I mis-read and/or misunderstood it.  I may be "borderline" as Orthodox or Catholic or both, but *not* as a Christian.

I would also concur with Mary's assessment of Lewis.  Some of his fiction, however, is breath taking.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on April 18, 2011, 11:34:49 AM

Mary,

No, I wasn't trolling.  I tend to be somewhat of a smartass sometimes, and tend to make light when it may not be the most appropriate thing to do.  Shuck and jive  :D?  Okay.....mea culpa  :).   And yes, I am kind of strange.  

There were, in fact, many reasons why we (my wife and I) converted to Orthodoxy, and I won't go into all of them here and now.  What I will say is that while we were in the Byzantine Catholic church, our deacon there would frequently refer to Byzantine Catholicism as "Orthodoxy lite".  Well, I tend to like my beer dark, my whiskey straight, and my Christianity full.  So, we searched and read, and read more, and prayed, and asked God to lead us where He wanted us to be.  It so happened that there is an Orthodox church less than 1/2 way between where we live and the B.C. church we were attending, which, given my wife's deteriorating state of health, was quite a hike for us.  So, we started attending there.  And there was a kind of fullness and completeness that was somehow lacking at the B.C. church.  Also, the community there was more alive and vibrant.

We continued to pray and study.  We liked what we experienced, for the most part, so eventually we asked to be and were received by way of Holy Chrismation.

Why did we then, from time to time, go back to the Catholic church for sacraments?  I think I explained that in my original post.  It was a matter of geography, health, convenience, and the fact that for all the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy they really are one and the same faith.  I know many would and do disagree with me, but that always makes me return to the statements and questions of my original post, which, so far, no one seems to have addressed to my satisfaction.  I am a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  That Church finds expression in Orthodoxy and in Catholicism.  I remember Fr. Tom Hopko in one of his lectures saying something to the effect of Christianity being *not* a "religion" but rather a relationship with a Person, and that Person is Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Now *that* is what I had longed for for many years and finally found in *both* Catholicism and Orthodoxy, all aspects of the religiosity thereof aside.  Many of the differences between them are political.  Many are cultural.  Some are theological.  As far as I have been able to determine, both have direct and unbroken apostolic succession and that, I believe, validates the sacraments of both.  I may be condemned to eternal damnation, but I seriously doubt that it will be because I go to a Catholic priest for confession and absolution, and receive Holy Communion from an Orthodox priest, or vice versa.  It is my relationship, or lack thereof, with Jesus Christ that matters, not whether the church I attend begins with an "O" or a "C".  This is my choice.  So, one might say that I am Orthodox in communion with the Catholic Church.

To be perfectly honest with you, if there were a Byzantine Catholic parish as close to us as the Orthodox one or closer, we'd probably alternate going to both.  I know that doesn't sit well with many so-called "purists", and not a few Orthodox priests, but too bad.  

By the way, by marriage I have many, many relatives in Western PA., who have for many years gone back and forth to Orthodox, R.C., and B.C. churches.  They are known by the priests and bishops of all three and regularly and freely receive sacraments, including Holy Communion from all of them.  Of the purists here I would ask, what of them?  And by "them" I mean both my relatives and the clergy.

I know I haven't answered your question completely, but I hope I've answered it enough to give you a sense of where I'm coming from.

I am familiar with Fr. Lev Gillet.  It's been a few years since I've read anything by him.  Was there anything in particular you were thinking of?

As for Andrew's comment about "sleeping around".....well, I could get back into smartass mode, but I won't, so.....no comment. ;D

Don't be sorry...I didn't really mind your humor.  It is an attitude that is pretty difficult for most Orthodox, or Catholics to grasp.  To simply ignore the schism is about as daring as it gets in some circles  :laugh:  But there are many who have done just that in their own quiet ways...they may not be quite so active as you are but they refuse to recognize or acknowledge anything but the fact that we are not in communion.  But to say that we are two different bodies...no...they refuse that idea absolutely.

I can understand your choice quite well, in fact.  I would never be so daring as you are however, so I stay home and don't stray, though I've often wanted to do precisely what you are doing.  It would stop me from doing what I do in venues like this however, and it would not be an example that I would choose to give those who count on me to be who and what I am, and there are enough of those to make it important that I demonstrate a certain kind of stability.

But we are different souls on different paths.  I feel the pull of different responsibilities, just as deeply as I feel the pull of parish life in Orthodoxy.  But I am not quite so dependent upon a parish or a parish priest to help me keep my spiritual life in order.  I am by nature and practice a solitary and contemplative person...not reclusive...but certainly solitary...and I've been blessed by the company of the same spiritual father for nearly fifteen years now.  That makes all the difference in the world in what I can absorb and what becomes too much to bear.

At any rate...I was just curious whether or not you were familiar with Father Lev...didn't have any particular one of his works in mind.

Pleased to meet you.

Mary



Pleased to meet you, too!

Thanks for your thoughts!
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: countertenor on April 18, 2011, 12:38:51 PM
Here is my take on this, fwiw.  Please bear in mind that I am no theologian, no priest, no nuttin'.  Just a poor working schmuck with a bunch of years under his belt, a bunch of reading that's been done, and a little bit of experience.  Heck, I don't even have a college degree!  :o

Anyway....I am a Jew.  As such, I converted to Christianity a number of years ago.  I was baptized into the wonderful Holy Byzantine Catholic Church.  At the same time I was also chrismated, and received Holy Communion.  Sometime later my wife (baptized Byz.Cath, raised RC) and I were received into Orthodoxy (OCA) via chrismation.  Now, I know this may cause some here to become apoplectic ;D, but since our chrismation we have have mainly worshipped and communed in the O.C., but there have been times when (shock, horror, gasp!!!!) we have received communion in the Catholic Church, confessed to and been absolved by Catholic priests.  (Wow---now he's goin' straight to hell in a hand basket!  ::))

Why do I say all this?  Because I believe in ONE God, in ONE Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church..., in ONE baptism..., etc.  And I believe that that ONE Church is manifested (if that's the right word) in both Orthodoxy AND Catholicism.  And I believe that that makes the apostolicity of both, the validity of the sacraments of both EQUAL.  God is really present in the Eucharist of both.  How could He NOT be?  Can anyone *prove* beyond any reasonable doubt that He is not?  I know, I know....someone out there's going to start throwing theology at me after recovering their eyebrows from the ceiling, but it all boils down to this, as I've asked elsewhere on this forum.....when we come before God at the Final Judgment, will He ask if we were Catholic (yes, and if so, which type?), Orthodox (yes, and if so, which jurisdiction?), Baptist, or Jew, or whatever??  Well....will He?  Or will He ask if we have loved Him, if we have loved our neighbor and our enemy;  if we have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc.?  Will He ask if we choose Him or if we choose the other?  I mean, really.....come on folks....I know it's fun and interesting and edifying to argue, discuss, and debate these matters, but are they that which is **really** essential to us as God's children, who, hopefully, love Him above all else?

(Now I'm gonna duck  ;D ;))

 :)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: countertenor on April 18, 2011, 12:41:20 PM
I do cross myself going by a church under the Vatican, and prostrate if I go in and adoration is going on, but that is only my personal opinion/theologoumen.
I must say I am surprised to hear this from you.
I must say that I'm not surprised to hear that you are surprised.  ::)
But I am suprised to hear that from you.
You are? That's very surprising.

You guys, cut it out.  Is Lent, you not supposed to be making people laugh.   :police:

LOL
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on April 18, 2011, 12:57:30 PM
Here is my take on this, fwiw.  Please bear in mind that I am no theologian, no priest, no nuttin'.  Just a poor working schmuck with a bunch of years under his belt, a bunch of reading that's been done, and a little bit of experience.  Heck, I don't even have a college degree!  :o

Anyway....I am a Jew.  As such, I converted to Christianity a number of years ago.  I was baptized into the wonderful Holy Byzantine Catholic Church.  At the same time I was also chrismated, and received Holy Communion.  Sometime later my wife (baptized Byz.Cath, raised RC) and I were received into Orthodoxy (OCA) via chrismation.  Now, I know this may cause some here to become apoplectic ;D, but since our chrismation we have have mainly worshipped and communed in the O.C., but there have been times when (shock, horror, gasp!!!!) we have received communion in the Catholic Church, confessed to and been absolved by Catholic priests.  (Wow---now he's goin' straight to hell in a hand basket!  ::))

Why do I say all this?  Because I believe in ONE God, in ONE Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church..., in ONE baptism..., etc.  And I believe that that ONE Church is manifested (if that's the right word) in both Orthodoxy AND Catholicism.  And I believe that that makes the apostolicity of both, the validity of the sacraments of both EQUAL.  God is really present in the Eucharist of both.  How could He NOT be?  Can anyone *prove* beyond any reasonable doubt that He is not?  I know, I know....someone out there's going to start throwing theology at me after recovering their eyebrows from the ceiling, but it all boils down to this, as I've asked elsewhere on this forum.....when we come before God at the Final Judgment, will He ask if we were Catholic (yes, and if so, which type?), Orthodox (yes, and if so, which jurisdiction?), Baptist, or Jew, or whatever??  Well....will He?  Or will He ask if we have loved Him, if we have loved our neighbor and our enemy;  if we have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc.?  Will He ask if we choose Him or if we choose the other?  I mean, really.....come on folks....I know it's fun and interesting and edifying to argue, discuss, and debate these matters, but are they that which is **really** essential to us as God's children, who, hopefully, love Him above all else?

(Now I'm gonna duck  ;D ;))

 :)

Glad you saw the humor  ;D.  Welcome to the forum!!
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: countertenor on April 18, 2011, 01:12:33 PM
Here is my take on this, fwiw.  Please bear in mind that I am no theologian, no priest, no nuttin'.  Just a poor working schmuck with a bunch of years under his belt, a bunch of reading that's been done, and a little bit of experience.  Heck, I don't even have a college degree!  :o

Anyway....I am a Jew.  As such, I converted to Christianity a number of years ago.  I was baptized into the wonderful Holy Byzantine Catholic Church.  At the same time I was also chrismated, and received Holy Communion.  Sometime later my wife (baptized Byz.Cath, raised RC) and I were received into Orthodoxy (OCA) via chrismation.  Now, I know this may cause some here to become apoplectic ;D, but since our chrismation we have have mainly worshipped and communed in the O.C., but there have been times when (shock, horror, gasp!!!!) we have received communion in the Catholic Church, confessed to and been absolved by Catholic priests.  (Wow---now he's goin' straight to hell in a hand basket!  ::))

Why do I say all this?  Because I believe in ONE God, in ONE Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church..., in ONE baptism..., etc.  And I believe that that ONE Church is manifested (if that's the right word) in both Orthodoxy AND Catholicism.  And I believe that that makes the apostolicity of both, the validity of the sacraments of both EQUAL.  God is really present in the Eucharist of both.  How could He NOT be?  Can anyone *prove* beyond any reasonable doubt that He is not?  I know, I know....someone out there's going to start throwing theology at me after recovering their eyebrows from the ceiling, but it all boils down to this, as I've asked elsewhere on this forum.....when we come before God at the Final Judgment, will He ask if we were Catholic (yes, and if so, which type?), Orthodox (yes, and if so, which jurisdiction?), Baptist, or Jew, or whatever??  Well....will He?  Or will He ask if we have loved Him, if we have loved our neighbor and our enemy;  if we have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc.?  Will He ask if we choose Him or if we choose the other?  I mean, really.....come on folks....I know it's fun and interesting and edifying to argue, discuss, and debate these matters, but are they that which is **really** essential to us as God's children, who, hopefully, love Him above all else?

(Now I'm gonna duck  ;D ;))

 :)

Glad you saw the humor  ;D.  Welcome to the forum!!

I definitely caught the humor, especially as I've experienced all the reactions you mentioned, for the same type of thoughts/actions. :)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ignatius on April 18, 2011, 04:15:28 PM
Ignatius: there are problems EVERYWHERE, including the Orthodox Church. Just yesterday I read an article in a Romanian newspaper about a woman who was six months pregnant and aborted because the child had Down syndrom. She said that she does not feel guilty about anything in front of God because beforehand she went to speak to a priest (orthodox) who told her that she can either keep the baby or terminate the pregnancy. (!!!) So therefore, in her words, she had a priest's blessing. This enrages me...There are priests with girlfriends/mistresses, there are priests who steal, priests who smuggle cigarettes over the border and try to bribe the policemen, priests who allow their daughter to cohabit with only a civil marriage...Artificial contraception is okay. Ascesis....hahahhaha!

What I mean is that liturgical orthodoxy does not necessarily moral orthodoxy. I can bet that that priest who told that poor woman that she can have an abortion is liturgically correct. But how mistaken he really is.

Grace and Peace,

I understand but the Orthodox Parish that I attend and the Parish Priest is simply a wonderful light for me and my family. My journey East has for a while been one found in theology and cultural debate on this forum but I've found greater fruit in the literal encounter and day to day experience of the faith among the faithful. I know there are problems even within my own heart.

Yes, you are right. I don't want to play the devil's advocate: but what if you'd find a nice, orthodox, good, roman-catholic parish?

I tried... and failed.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ignatius on April 18, 2011, 04:18:20 PM
Relax.  I am not judging you.  But I will ping the notes where you appear to paint the entire Catholic Church with the brush of your own, admittedly limited, experiences.

What does disturbs me is that the Roman Catholic Church attempts to suggest that the Clergy are in communion and of one mind. I honestly don't see that at all. The Parishes that I've attended over the years are very politically ideological and mirror popular secular society. I ask, where is the salt and light? Most have only a thin veneer of the old church traditions present anymore "what smells and bells"? This is what I mean when I speak of the Catholic Church being dead, lost or gone. With their outward orthopracy went their inward orthodoxy. I am sure there are a few hold outs... just none around me. I ask you, how long can they stand? Until their Priest is eventually retired? I don't see enough tradition present in the modern Catholic Liturgy to mold hearts and minds. I don't seen any ascesis present in the clergy to form them into holy examples.

I've asked this of Catholics before, why where the sacred Relics thrown out with the Alters... after Vatican II? Why the radical change is orthopracy? To me, this was similar to the Iconoclasm in the Eastern Church but it was brought about from within... What Church that Claims continuity with the Apostles so quickly throws out their Traditions and Liturgy for another? I've struggled very long to understand that and Priests just look at me dumbfounded. Do you have an answer?

Ignatius, I'd like to respond on two points.

First, I agree with you wholeheartedly regarding the state of modern Catholic liturgy.  I am flummoxed by what happened to the liturgy after Vatican II.  It was not a reform of the rite; it was a revolution.  I do not understand how such a revolution was possible.  The rot must have been deep.  I think your reference to the iconoclastic crisis is apt.  A liberal Protestant-inspired iconoclasm swept through the Catholic Church, and it still has its grip on the Catholic mind and spirit.  Despite all talk about the reform of the reform, I do not expect significant changes in my lifetime or the lifetime of my children.  The institution is too deeply invested in the liturgical status quo.  Few parish priests are willing, or able, to challenge this status quo.  Liturgy is not a ditch most are willing to die in.  

Second, I think you are being excessively and unfairly hard on Catholic priests.  The ones I know are faithful, overworked men who are simply overwhelmed by the work that needs to be done in the typical Catholic parish.  Their fidelity is their ascesis.  A single priest is often expected to pastor, all by himself, a congregation of three thousand families.  This is impossible!  And matters are only going to get worse, unless God intervenes.  After all the Masses are said, after all the dead are buried and the infants are baptized, after the administration is done, there simply is no time nor energy left to devote to spiritual renewal, either for oneself or for the parish.  It is all impossible.  

I agree that contemporary Catholicism, particularly at the parish level, has lost the ascetical rhythm of the Church.  This is a huge loss!  But it is wrong to assume that Orthodoxy is producing holier Christians.  Just talk to your local Greek priest.  Both traditions are profoundly compromised.  Both are vulnerable to the acid rain of modernity.  Kyrie eleison.

In the end, we must find shelter and hope to survive.  Ecclesiastical ideology will not save us.    

Grace and Peace,

Thanks for your response. At my Catholic Parish, we have many families but we have 4 Deacons, one who is the Church Administrator, and 2 Priests. They talk endlessly about playing golf and watching the sports on tv... but neither of them attempt to grow in the spirit. I'm hard on them because they should be examples for us. The example they project is a worldly one.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 18, 2011, 05:32:56 PM
Yes, you are right. I don't want to play the devil's advocate: but what if you'd find a nice, orthodox, good, roman-catholic parish?

I tried... and failed.

That is, unfortunately, not all that difficult to believe.

But, just to make sure, did you include Eastern Catholic parishes and "traditionalist" Catholic parishes in your search?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 18, 2011, 06:19:34 PM
I'm curious why he would convert to Orthodoxy and then go back to Catholicism to receive their sacraments without a second thought. It's like getting married and then sleeping around. I guess if he's into that sorta thing... :/

In Christ,
Andrew

I agree with you in part but not in full. I don't agree with the "getting married and then sleeping around" comparison, but I agree that it's strange for someone to break off communion with a church (the Catholic Church, in this case) and then want to receive communion in that church.
Is not the Church the bride of Christ? Is a Christian man not expected to commit to one wife and one wife only? Is not infidelity  Though we would disagree which Church that was, my point still remains. As our brother Isa has said on here many times, and I think it bears repeating, Christ has a Bride not a harem. You would agree with that as well, I'm sure. Please understand, I am not referring to your church as a harem, but trying (though imperfectly I'm sure!) to make a point.

It hurts me deeply as an Orthodox Christian to see people so brazenly playing fast and loose with what I (and many others here) consider to be THE Apostolic Faith given us by Christ and preserved intact by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, I need thicker skin. In any event, the lack of any sort of respect for "rules" if you will of both churches is equally troubling.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 18, 2011, 06:28:11 PM
I'm curious why he would convert to Orthodoxy and then go back to Catholicism to receive their sacraments without a second thought. It's like getting married and then sleeping around. I guess if he's into that sorta thing... :/

In Christ,
Andrew

I agree with you in part but not in full. I don't agree with the "getting married and then sleeping around" comparison, but I agree that it's strange for someone to break off communion with a church (the Catholic Church, in this case) and then want to receive communion in that church.
Is not the Church the bride of Christ? Is a Christian man not expected to commit to one wife and one wife only? Is not infidelity  Though we would disagree which Church that was, my point still remains. As our brother Isa has said on here many times, and I think it bears repeating, Christ has a Bride not a harem. You would agree with that as well, I'm sure. Please understand, I am not referring to your church as a harem, but trying (though imperfectly I'm sure!) to make a point.

It hurts me deeply as an Orthodox Christian to see people so brazenly playing fast and loose with what I (and many others here) consider to be THE Apostolic Faith given us by Christ and preserved intact by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, I need thicker skin. In any event, the lack of any sort of respect for "rules" if you will of both churches is equally troubling.

In Christ,
Andrew

There is a maxim in the west, with regard to ecclesial authority, that we are to be obedient in all things but sin.

In that light it may be possible for someone to look at schism as a sin and therefore refuse to recognize formal schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches...

In this way they may believe that they are not bound to the sin of schism, regardless of the "rules" or the authority.

I think there is some fairly solid grounds for that argument.

M.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 18, 2011, 06:36:04 PM
I'm curious why he would convert to Orthodoxy and then go back to Catholicism to receive their sacraments without a second thought. It's like getting married and then sleeping around. I guess if he's into that sorta thing... :/

In Christ,
Andrew

I agree with you in part but not in full. I don't agree with the "getting married and then sleeping around" comparison, but I agree that it's strange for someone to break off communion with a church (the Catholic Church, in this case) and then want to receive communion in that church.
Is not the Church the bride of Christ? Is a Christian man not expected to commit to one wife and one wife only? Is not infidelity  Though we would disagree which Church that was, my point still remains. As our brother Isa has said on here many times, and I think it bears repeating, Christ has a Bride not a harem. You would agree with that as well, I'm sure. Please understand, I am not referring to your church as a harem, but trying (though imperfectly I'm sure!) to make a point.

It hurts me deeply as an Orthodox Christian to see people so brazenly playing fast and loose with what I (and many others here) consider to be THE Apostolic Faith given us by Christ and preserved intact by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, I need thicker skin. In any event, the lack of any sort of respect for "rules" if you will of both churches is equally troubling.

In Christ,
Andrew

There is a maxim in the west, with regard to ecclesial authority, that we are to be obedient in all things but sin.

In that light it may be possible for someone to look at schism as a sin and therefore refuse to recognize formal schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches...

In this way they may believe that they are not bound to the sin of schism, regardless of the "rules" or the authority.

I think there is some fairly solid grounds for that argument.

M.

It doesn't seem to be an argument acceptable in the East.  Vassula Ryden and her followers have just been excommunicated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate for practising such an approach.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 18, 2011, 06:40:49 PM

It doesn't seem to be an argument acceptable in the East.  Vassula Ryden and her followers have just been excommunicated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate for practising such an approach.

Most authority hates to be flouted quite so publicly. 

But I know many who commune in both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church and it is a matter of private practice for them and no one seems to mind or even know the difference in most cases.

So I expect, in the main, it is all a matter for the soul and God.

M.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 18, 2011, 06:48:38 PM

But I know many who commune in both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church and it is a matter of private practice for them and no one seems to mind or even know the difference in most cases.

So I expect, in the main, it is all a matter for the soul and God.

Are these your friends who are Orthodox bishops and priests?   Do they receive Catholic communion in mufti?  or openly at the altar as priests and bishops?  I suppose if the Orthodox laity see their pastors, their bishops and priests, communing in Catholic churches there is nothing to stop them doing likewise.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 18, 2011, 06:52:06 PM
I'm curious why he would convert to Orthodoxy and then go back to Catholicism to receive their sacraments without a second thought. It's like getting married and then sleeping around. I guess if he's into that sorta thing... :/

In Christ,
Andrew

I agree with you in part but not in full. I don't agree with the "getting married and then sleeping around" comparison, but I agree that it's strange for someone to break off communion with a church (the Catholic Church, in this case) and then want to receive communion in that church.
Is not the Church the bride of Christ? Is a Christian man not expected to commit to one wife and one wife only? Is not infidelity  Though we would disagree which Church that was, my point still remains. As our brother Isa has said on here many times, and I think it bears repeating, Christ has a Bride not a harem. You would agree with that as well, I'm sure. Please understand, I am not referring to your church as a harem, but trying (though imperfectly I'm sure!) to make a point.

It hurts me deeply as an Orthodox Christian to see people so brazenly playing fast and loose with what I (and many others here) consider to be THE Apostolic Faith given us by Christ and preserved intact by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, I need thicker skin. In any event, the lack of any sort of respect for "rules" if you will of both churches is equally troubling.

In Christ,
Andrew

Let me start with something from my own experience. About a decade ago there was a Melkite parish near where I was living at the time, which I went to for a couple years (until moving away). After I had been going there for some months, and EO friend of mine began accompanying me. At a still later time, he began receiving communion.

To my mind, there are 2 significant differences between that and what J Michael described. For one thing, my friend was never RC, whereas J Michael told us that he joined the RCC, then left it but continued to receive communion in it. For another thing, my friend joined the EOC as a baby not as an adult.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 18, 2011, 06:52:27 PM

But I know many who commune in both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church and it is a matter of private practice for them and no one seems to mind or even know the difference in most cases.

So I expect, in the main, it is all a matter for the soul and God.

Are these your friends who are Orthodox bishops and priests?   Do they receive Catholic communion in mufti?  or openly at the altar as priests and bishops?  I suppose if the Orthodox laity see their pastors, their bishops and priests, communing in Catholic churches there is nothing to stop them doing likewise.

I have no idea what you are talking about, except for the fact that you are poking fun at me for asking questions of Orthodox clergy and hierarchs.  I can't stop you from doing that, and you can't stop me from asking.

M.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 18, 2011, 06:59:46 PM
Dear elijahmaria and J Michael,

You might say that you're only jesting or only being a smartass, but may I be so bold as to suggest that you read the following quote from C. S. Lewis, and see if you don't fit the description:

Quote
Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any
 communion.* This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each 
there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with
 the same voice.

(*I would assume he meant women as well as men.)

I bear no "hostility" towards either "communion".  I love them both very much, as a matter of fact, and consider them, rightly or wrongly, equally valid.  My loyalty is to Jesus Christ, not a particular "communion".  So, no, I don't think I fit the description, unless of course in my hurry I mis-read and/or misunderstood it.  I may be "borderline" as Orthodox or Catholic or both, but *not* as a Christian.

I would also concur with Mary's assessment of Lewis.  Some of his fiction, however, is breath taking.


Personally I've never thought much of C. S. Lewis's writing.  There's so much excellent work done by Catholic and Orthodox saints.  Lewis is "accessible" I suppose but that has never been my first criteria for superior spiritual writing.

Besides Jesus and the Apostles worked on the fringes and that becomes ever so apparent this week, just how far out on the edge they were.

I guess I don't really blame you for not liking the C. S. Lewis quote. It's not exactly flattering to either of you. All I can really say is that it fits with my personal experiences -- my experience with you two and some other experiences as well.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 18, 2011, 07:07:52 PM

But I know many who commune in both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church and it is a matter of private practice for them and no one seems to mind or even know the difference in most cases.

So I expect, in the main, it is all a matter for the soul and God.

Are these your friends who are Orthodox bishops and priests?   Do they receive Catholic communion in mufti?  or openly at the altar as priests and bishops?  I suppose if the Orthodox laity see their pastors, their bishops and priests, communing in Catholic churches there is nothing to stop them doing likewise.

I have no idea what you are talking about, except for the fact that you are poking fun at me for asking questions of Orthodox clergy and hierarchs.  I can't stop you from doing that, and you can't stop me from asking.

M.
I'm not poking fun at you.  I am merely saying that if the laity enjoy a legitimate freedom to commune in two Churches if so inclined, then I expect the bishops and priests to have the same freedom. 
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 18, 2011, 07:16:22 PM

But I know many who commune in both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church and it is a matter of private practice for them and no one seems to mind or even know the difference in most cases.

So I expect, in the main, it is all a matter for the soul and God.

Are these your friends who are Orthodox bishops and priests?   Do they receive Catholic communion in mufti?  or openly at the altar as priests and bishops?  I suppose if the Orthodox laity see their pastors, their bishops and priests, communing in Catholic churches there is nothing to stop them doing likewise.

I have no idea what you are talking about, except for the fact that you are poking fun at me for asking questions of Orthodox clergy and hierarchs.  I can't stop you from doing that, and you can't stop me from asking.

M.
I'm not poking fun at you.  I am merely saying that if the laity enjoy a legitimate freedom to commune in two Churches if so inclined, then I expect the bishops and priests to have the same freedom. 

Would take very little to make that a reality.  In the meantime I think we should put charity first, and not nurture the schism, but more assertively and positively seek grounds for resumption of communion sooner rather than later.  Perhaps that is what is happening at some level but certainly at other levels that is being undermined at every opportunity and so I do not at all condemn those who refuse to wait in order to do what is right and good.

M.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 18, 2011, 07:21:29 PM

But I know many who commune in both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church and it is a matter of private practice for them and no one seems to mind or even know the difference in most cases.

So I expect, in the main, it is all a matter for the soul and God.

Are these your friends who are Orthodox bishops and priests?   Do they receive Catholic communion in mufti?  or openly at the altar as priests and bishops?  I suppose if the Orthodox laity see their pastors, their bishops and priests, communing in Catholic churches there is nothing to stop them doing likewise.

I have no idea what you are talking about, except for the fact that you are poking fun at me for asking questions of Orthodox clergy and hierarchs.  I can't stop you from doing that, and you can't stop me from asking.

M.
I'm not poking fun at you.  I am merely saying that if the laity enjoy a legitimate freedom to commune in two Churches if so inclined, then I expect the bishops and priests to have the same freedom. 

Would take very little to make that a reality.  In the meantime I think we should put charity first, and not nurture the schism, but more assertively and positively seek grounds for resumption of communion sooner rather than later.  Perhaps that is what is happening at some level but certainly at other levels that is being undermined at every opportunity and so I do not at all condemn those who refuse to wait in order to do what is right and good.

M.

There are legitimate boundaries that should not be crossed due to mutual decisions from both camps. It's not God's will for us to have intercommunion at present because we are not in communion with one mind and heart. I don't know if you saw the thread around here about an inquirer to Orthodoxy who believed it was a sin NOT to have pre-marital sex with his girlfriend. The same rule applies here for sure.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 18, 2011, 07:26:40 PM

But I know many who commune in both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church and it is a matter of private practice for them and no one seems to mind or even know the difference in most cases.

So I expect, in the main, it is all a matter for the soul and God.

Are these your friends who are Orthodox bishops and priests?   Do they receive Catholic communion in mufti?  or openly at the altar as priests and bishops?  I suppose if the Orthodox laity see their pastors, their bishops and priests, communing in Catholic churches there is nothing to stop them doing likewise.

I have no idea what you are talking about, except for the fact that you are poking fun at me for asking questions of Orthodox clergy and hierarchs.  I can't stop you from doing that, and you can't stop me from asking.

M.
I'm not poking fun at you.  I am merely saying that if the laity enjoy a legitimate freedom to commune in two Churches if so inclined, then I expect the bishops and priests to have the same freedom. 

Would take very little to make that a reality.  In the meantime I think we should put charity first, and not nurture the schism, but more assertively and positively seek grounds for resumption of communion sooner rather than later.  Perhaps that is what is happening at some level but certainly at other levels that is being undermined at every opportunity and so I do not at all condemn those who refuse to wait in order to do what is right and good.

M.

Again... the recent excommunication of Vassula Ryden shows that your thinking is not congenial to the East.  Neither hierarchs nor priests nor laity may commune from non-Orthodox altars, Catholic or Pre-Chalcedonian, Anglican or Utrecht.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 18, 2011, 07:45:26 PM

But I know many who commune in both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church and it is a matter of private practice for them and no one seems to mind or even know the difference in most cases.

So I expect, in the main, it is all a matter for the soul and God.

Are these your friends who are Orthodox bishops and priests?   Do they receive Catholic communion in mufti?  or openly at the altar as priests and bishops?  I suppose if the Orthodox laity see their pastors, their bishops and priests, communing in Catholic churches there is nothing to stop them doing likewise.

I have no idea what you are talking about, except for the fact that you are poking fun at me for asking questions of Orthodox clergy and hierarchs.  I can't stop you from doing that, and you can't stop me from asking.

M.
I'm not poking fun at you.  I am merely saying that if the laity enjoy a legitimate freedom to commune in two Churches if so inclined, then I expect the bishops and priests to have the same freedom.  

Would take very little to make that a reality.  In the meantime I think we should put charity first, and not nurture the schism, but more assertively and positively seek grounds for resumption of communion sooner rather than later.  Perhaps that is what is happening at some level but certainly at other levels that is being undermined at every opportunity and so I do not at all condemn those who refuse to wait in order to do what is right and good.

M.

There are legitimate boundaries that should not be crossed due to mutual decisions from both camps. It's not God's will for us to have intercommunion at present because we are not in communion with one mind and heart. I don't know if you saw the thread around here about an inquirer to Orthodoxy who believed it was a sin NOT to have pre-marital sex with his girlfriend. The same rule applies here for sure.

In Christ,
Andrew

Its a matter of numbers.  Michael J and others like him are scattered pretty thinly in this part of the world.  There are places in the world where Orthodox-Catholic intercommunion is more common and people live out their ecclesial lives...pretty much waiting for the rest of us to catch up.

My point is that we cultivate the schism.  In places where the schism is not cultivated then, de-facto, it does not exist.   I also think that if more people and more bishops stopped recognizing the schism, then the schism would end regardless of how loud some people hollered.   Communion does not demand contractual agreements.  Communion simply is communion.

So we really can choose to either continue or quit cultivating schism...Michael J and others have emphatically stopped cultivating and will either live out their little lives in defiance of a schism they do not recognize or recognize only as sin,  or somebody will dump them out of one camp or the other.  In any event they will have a place to go.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 18, 2011, 08:25:40 PM
In the meantime I think we should put charity first, and not nurture the schism

It would be nice if you would take your own advice, beginning with the way you post on this forum, but frankly I've pretty much given up on that.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 18, 2011, 08:30:03 PM
Its a matter of numbers.  Michael J and others like him are scattered pretty thinly in this part of the world.  

I don't want to presume that I know what you mean by "Michael J and others like him", but I refer you to what I said earlier:

Let me start with something from my own experience. About a decade ago there was a Melkite parish near where I was living at the time, which I went to for a couple years (until moving away). After I had been going there for some months, and EO friend of mine began accompanying me. At a still later time, he began receiving communion.

To my mind, there are 2 significant differences between that and what J Michael described. For one thing, my friend was never RC, whereas J Michael told us that he joined the RCC, then left it but continued to receive communion in it. For another thing, my friend joined the EOC as a baby not as an adult.


There are places in the world where Orthodox-Catholic intercommunion is more common and people live out their ecclesial lives...pretty much waiting for the rest of us to catch up.

My point is that we cultivate the schism.  In places where the schism is not cultivated then, de-facto, it does not exist.   I also think that if more people and more bishops stopped recognizing the schism, then the schism would end regardless of how loud some people hollered.   Communion does not demand contractual agreements.  Communion simply is communion.

See also http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35138.0.html
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on April 19, 2011, 10:48:01 AM
I'm curious why he would convert to Orthodoxy and then go back to Catholicism to receive their sacraments without a second thought. It's like getting married and then sleeping around. I guess if he's into that sorta thing... :/

In Christ,
Andrew

I agree with you in part but not in full. I don't agree with the "getting married and then sleeping around" comparison, but I agree that it's strange for someone to break off communion with a church (the Catholic Church, in this case) and then want to receive communion in that church.
Is not the Church the bride of Christ? Is a Christian man not expected to commit to one wife and one wife only? Is not infidelity  Though we would disagree which Church that was, my point still remains. As our brother Isa has said on here many times, and I think it bears repeating, Christ has a Bride not a harem. You would agree with that as well, I'm sure. Please understand, I am not referring to your church as a harem, but trying (though imperfectly I'm sure!) to make a point.

It hurts me deeply as an Orthodox Christian to see people so brazenly playing fast and loose with what I (and many others here) consider to be THE Apostolic Faith given us by Christ and preserved intact by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, I need thicker skin. In any event, the lack of any sort of respect for "rules" if you will of both churches is equally troubling.

In Christ,
Andrew

Let me start with something from my own experience. About a decade ago there was a Melkite parish near where I was living at the time, which I went to for a couple years (until moving away). After I had been going there for some months, and EO friend of mine began accompanying me. At a still later time, he began receiving communion.

To my mind, there are 2 significant differences between that and what J Michael described. For one thing, my friend was never RC, whereas J Michael told us that he joined the RCC, then left it but continued to receive communion in it. For another thing, my friend joined the EOC as a baby not as an adult.

Just for the record, I was baptized into the *Byzantine Catholic Church*, which I did mention above, not the RCC.  Not that it really matters, though.

The Church *is* the Bride of Christ, as you (I think it was you, anyway) wrote.  The Church consists of the Catholic Church in all of it's manifestations and the Orthodox Church in all of *it's* manifestations, both of which, to repeat myself, have continuous and unbroken apostolic succession.  I'm well aware that this is not a majority opinion or a popular opinion.  If this pains or upsets you or anyone else who would like to think they are somehow preserving the "purity" of your particular church, I am sorry.  But not, as you might guess, sorry enough to change my position for you or anyone else here.  This is a matter between me and my Creator.  If I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll eventually find out about it.  As Mary indicated, and I thank her for putting it so well, I refuse to recognize and perpetuate the schism created by men.  It is to God that I owe my allegiance, not, as I've said before, Orthodoxy or Catholicism.  God knows my mind and my heart.  I pray daily that He will grant me to know and do His will.  I struggle continuously.  I repent of my sins regularly, and I hope sincerely.  God is and will be my Judge.

If I were to recognize either Orthodoxy or Catholicism as *the* Church of Christ, and remember that it's been said that there is no salvation outside the Church (not totally sure I buy *that*, either, but that's another topic), then am I not somehow condemning by, endorsing that position, all those on the "other side", to some kind of eternal separation from God?  I really don't think it is my position, or yours, or anyone else's to do that.



 
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 19, 2011, 11:11:24 AM
I'm curious why he would convert to Orthodoxy and then go back to Catholicism to receive their sacraments without a second thought. It's like getting married and then sleeping around. I guess if he's into that sorta thing... :/

In Christ,
Andrew

I agree with you in part but not in full. I don't agree with the "getting married and then sleeping around" comparison, but I agree that it's strange for someone to break off communion with a church (the Catholic Church, in this case) and then want to receive communion in that church.
Is not the Church the bride of Christ? Is a Christian man not expected to commit to one wife and one wife only? Is not infidelity  Though we would disagree which Church that was, my point still remains. As our brother Isa has said on here many times, and I think it bears repeating, Christ has a Bride not a harem. You would agree with that as well, I'm sure. Please understand, I am not referring to your church as a harem, but trying (though imperfectly I'm sure!) to make a point.

It hurts me deeply as an Orthodox Christian to see people so brazenly playing fast and loose with what I (and many others here) consider to be THE Apostolic Faith given us by Christ and preserved intact by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, I need thicker skin. In any event, the lack of any sort of respect for "rules" if you will of both churches is equally troubling.

In Christ,
Andrew

Let me start with something from my own experience. About a decade ago there was a Melkite parish near where I was living at the time, which I went to for a couple years (until moving away). After I had been going there for some months, and EO friend of mine began accompanying me. At a still later time, he began receiving communion.

To my mind, there are 2 significant differences between that and what J Michael described. For one thing, my friend was never RC, whereas J Michael told us that he joined the RCC, then left it but continued to receive communion in it. For another thing, my friend joined the EOC as a baby not as an adult.

Just for the record, I was baptized into the *Byzantine Catholic Church*, which I did mention above, not the RCC.  Not that it really matters, though.

The Church *is* the Bride of Christ, as you (I think it was you, anyway) wrote.  The Church consists of the Catholic Church in all of it's manifestations and the Orthodox Church in all of *it's* manifestations, both of which, to repeat myself, have continuous and unbroken apostolic succession.  I'm well aware that this is not a majority opinion or a popular opinion.  If this pains or upsets you or anyone else who would like to think they are somehow preserving the "purity" of your particular church, I am sorry.  But not, as you might guess, sorry enough to change my position for you or anyone else here.  This is a matter between me and my Creator.  If I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll eventually find out about it.  As Mary indicated, and I thank her for putting it so well, I refuse to recognize and perpetuate the schism created by men.  It is to God that I owe my allegiance, not, as I've said before, Orthodoxy or Catholicism.  God knows my mind and my heart.  I pray daily that He will grant me to know and do His will.  I struggle continuously.  I repent of my sins regularly, and I hope sincerely.  God is and will be my Judge.

If I were to recognize either Orthodoxy or Catholicism as *the* Church of Christ, and remember that it's been said that there is no salvation outside the Church (not totally sure I buy *that*, either, but that's another topic), then am I not somehow condemning by, endorsing that position, all those on the "other side", to some kind of eternal separation from God?  I really don't think it is my position, or yours, or anyone else's to do that.


So what about Anglicans and Protestants? Do you think it's alright to condemn them to some kind of eternal separation from God?

BTW I don't know where you got the idea that your preaching "pains or upsets" me. I doesn't. It's just tiresome -- and a little annoying too, but mostly tiresome.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: podkarpatska on April 19, 2011, 11:47:55 AM

But I know many who commune in both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church and it is a matter of private practice for them and no one seems to mind or even know the difference in most cases.

So I expect, in the main, it is all a matter for the soul and God.

Are these your friends who are Orthodox bishops and priests?   Do they receive Catholic communion in mufti?  or openly at the altar as priests and bishops?  I suppose if the Orthodox laity see their pastors, their bishops and priests, communing in Catholic churches there is nothing to stop them doing likewise.

I have no idea what you are talking about, except for the fact that you are poking fun at me for asking questions of Orthodox clergy and hierarchs.  I can't stop you from doing that, and you can't stop me from asking.

M.
I'm not poking fun at you.  I am merely saying that if the laity enjoy a legitimate freedom to commune in two Churches if so inclined, then I expect the bishops and priests to have the same freedom. 

Would take very little to make that a reality.  In the meantime I think we should put charity first, and not nurture the schism, but more assertively and positively seek grounds for resumption of communion sooner rather than later.  Perhaps that is what is happening at some level but certainly at other levels that is being undermined at every opportunity and so I do not at all condemn those who refuse to wait in order to do what is right and good.

M.

There are legitimate boundaries that should not be crossed due to mutual decisions from both camps. It's not God's will for us to have intercommunion at present because we are not in communion with one mind and heart. I don't know if you saw the thread around here about an inquirer to Orthodoxy who believed it was a sin NOT to have pre-marital sex with his girlfriend. The same rule applies here for sure.

In Christ,
Andrew

I agree with Andrew on this point and that is the stated position of the Orthodox participants in the world-wide and North American theological dialogs with the Catholic Church. While it may not be the opinion of some on the Roman side of the dialog, it most certainly is that of the Orthodox.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on April 19, 2011, 11:54:21 AM
I'm curious why he would convert to Orthodoxy and then go back to Catholicism to receive their sacraments without a second thought. It's like getting married and then sleeping around. I guess if he's into that sorta thing... :/

In Christ,
Andrew

I agree with you in part but not in full. I don't agree with the "getting married and then sleeping around" comparison, but I agree that it's strange for someone to break off communion with a church (the Catholic Church, in this case) and then want to receive communion in that church.
Is not the Church the bride of Christ? Is a Christian man not expected to commit to one wife and one wife only? Is not infidelity  Though we would disagree which Church that was, my point still remains. As our brother Isa has said on here many times, and I think it bears repeating, Christ has a Bride not a harem. You would agree with that as well, I'm sure. Please understand, I am not referring to your church as a harem, but trying (though imperfectly I'm sure!) to make a point.

It hurts me deeply as an Orthodox Christian to see people so brazenly playing fast and loose with what I (and many others here) consider to be THE Apostolic Faith given us by Christ and preserved intact by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, I need thicker skin. In any event, the lack of any sort of respect for "rules" if you will of both churches is equally troubling.

In Christ,
Andrew

Let me start with something from my own experience. About a decade ago there was a Melkite parish near where I was living at the time, which I went to for a couple years (until moving away). After I had been going there for some months, and EO friend of mine began accompanying me. At a still later time, he began receiving communion.

To my mind, there are 2 significant differences between that and what J Michael described. For one thing, my friend was never RC, whereas J Michael told us that he joined the RCC, then left it but continued to receive communion in it. For another thing, my friend joined the EOC as a baby not as an adult.

Just for the record, I was baptized into the *Byzantine Catholic Church*, which I did mention above, not the RCC.  Not that it really matters, though.

The Church *is* the Bride of Christ, as you (I think it was you, anyway) wrote.  The Church consists of the Catholic Church in all of it's manifestations and the Orthodox Church in all of *it's* manifestations, both of which, to repeat myself, have continuous and unbroken apostolic succession.  I'm well aware that this is not a majority opinion or a popular opinion.  If this pains or upsets you or anyone else who would like to think they are somehow preserving the "purity" of your particular church, I am sorry.  But not, as you might guess, sorry enough to change my position for you or anyone else here.  This is a matter between me and my Creator.  If I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll eventually find out about it.  As Mary indicated, and I thank her for putting it so well, I refuse to recognize and perpetuate the schism created by men.  It is to God that I owe my allegiance, not, as I've said before, Orthodoxy or Catholicism.  God knows my mind and my heart.  I pray daily that He will grant me to know and do His will.  I struggle continuously.  I repent of my sins regularly, and I hope sincerely.  God is and will be my Judge.

If I were to recognize either Orthodoxy or Catholicism as *the* Church of Christ, and remember that it's been said that there is no salvation outside the Church (not totally sure I buy *that*, either, but that's another topic), then am I not somehow condemning by, endorsing that position, all those on the "other side", to some kind of eternal separation from God?  I really don't think it is my position, or yours, or anyone else's to do that.


So what about Anglicans and Protestants? Do you think it's alright to condemn them to some kind of eternal separation from God?

BTW I don't know where you got the idea that your preaching "pains or upsets" me. I doesn't. It's just tiresome -- and a little annoying too, but mostly tiresome.

I don't think it's alright to condemn *anyone* to some kind of eternal separation from God.

And, if you find my "preaching" tiresome or annoying, God gave you free will--don't read it or discuss it.  It won't hurt *my* feelings. ;)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 19, 2011, 12:02:11 PM

The Church *is* the Bride of Christ, as you (I think it was you, anyway) wrote.  The Church consists of the Catholic Church in all of it's manifestations and the Orthodox Church in all of *it's* manifestations, both of which, to repeat myself, have continuous and unbroken apostolic succession.  I'm well aware that this is not a majority opinion or a popular opinion.

It's not a matter of majority or minority positions.  It is a matter of fact that Orthodoxy does not speak OR act with one voice and praxis with regard to Apostolic Succession in the papal Church nor is there agreement on grace in sacraments.

So you have every reason to take the position that you take.  If it makes people uncomfortable...good!

People should be hideously discomfited by the reality that we are separated more by attitude and opinion than any kind of sacramental or ecclesial reality.

M.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on April 19, 2011, 12:05:44 PM

The Church *is* the Bride of Christ, as you (I think it was you, anyway) wrote.  The Church consists of the Catholic Church in all of it's manifestations and the Orthodox Church in all of *it's* manifestations, both of which, to repeat myself, have continuous and unbroken apostolic succession.  I'm well aware that this is not a majority opinion or a popular opinion.

It's not a matter of majority or minority positions.  It is a matter of fact that Orthodoxy does not speak OR act with one voice and praxis with regard to Apostolic Succession in the papal Church nor is there agreement on grace in sacraments.

So you have every reason to take the position that you take.  If it makes people uncomfortable...good!

People should be hideously discomfited by the reality that we are separated more by attitude and opinion than any kind of sacramental or ecclesial reality.

M.

THANK YOU!!  :)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 19, 2011, 12:13:49 PM
So what about Anglicans and Protestants? Do you think it's alright to condemn them to some kind of eternal separation from God?

BTW I don't know where you got the idea that your preaching "pains or upsets" me. I doesn't. It's just tiresome -- and a little annoying too, but mostly tiresome.

I don't think it's alright to condemn *anyone* to some kind of eternal separation from God.

Glad to hear it.

Now how does that fit in with your earlier post:

If I were to recognize either Orthodoxy or Catholicism as *the* Church of Christ, and remember that it's been said that there is no salvation outside the Church (not totally sure I buy *that*, either, but that's another topic), then am I not somehow condemning by, endorsing that position, all those on the "other side", to some kind of eternal separation from God?  I really don't think it is my position, or yours, or anyone else's to do that.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on April 19, 2011, 12:15:58 PM
So what about Anglicans and Protestants? Do you think it's alright to condemn them to some kind of eternal separation from God?

BTW I don't know where you got the idea that your preaching "pains or upsets" me. I doesn't. It's just tiresome -- and a little annoying too, but mostly tiresome.

I don't think it's alright to condemn *anyone* to some kind of eternal separation from God.

Glad to hear it.

Now how does that fit in with your earlier post:

If I were to recognize either Orthodoxy or Catholicism as *the* Church of Christ, and remember that it's been said that there is no salvation outside the Church (not totally sure I buy *that*, either, but that's another topic), then am I not somehow condemning by, endorsing that position, all those on the "other side", to some kind of eternal separation from God?  I really don't think it is my position, or yours, or anyone else's to do that.

 ???
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 19, 2011, 12:22:04 PM
So what about Anglicans and Protestants? Do you think it's alright to condemn them to some kind of eternal separation from God?

BTW I don't know where you got the idea that your preaching "pains or upsets" me. I doesn't. It's just tiresome -- and a little annoying too, but mostly tiresome.

I don't think it's alright to condemn *anyone* to some kind of eternal separation from God.

Glad to hear it.

Now how does that fit in with your earlier post:

If I were to recognize either Orthodoxy or Catholicism as *the* Church of Christ, and remember that it's been said that there is no salvation outside the Church (not totally sure I buy *that*, either, but that's another topic), then am I not somehow condemning by, endorsing that position, all those on the "other side", to some kind of eternal separation from God?  I really don't think it is my position, or yours, or anyone else's to do that.

 ???

There is a conflation of communion and salvation going on here.  You don't need to go down those bunny trails on this thread.  The original question concerns how God is present to Orthodox and Catholic.  It is perfectly legitimate to keep it at that bi-lateral level.  There are other venues for the other question.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on April 19, 2011, 12:26:49 PM
So what about Anglicans and Protestants? Do you think it's alright to condemn them to some kind of eternal separation from God?

BTW I don't know where you got the idea that your preaching "pains or upsets" me. I doesn't. It's just tiresome -- and a little annoying too, but mostly tiresome.

I don't think it's alright to condemn *anyone* to some kind of eternal separation from God.

Glad to hear it.

Now how does that fit in with your earlier post:

If I were to recognize either Orthodoxy or Catholicism as *the* Church of Christ, and remember that it's been said that there is no salvation outside the Church (not totally sure I buy *that*, either, but that's another topic), then am I not somehow condemning by, endorsing that position, all those on the "other side", to some kind of eternal separation from God?  I really don't think it is my position, or yours, or anyone else's to do that.

 ???

There is a conflation of communion and salvation going on here.  You don't need to go down those bunny trails on this thread.  The original question concerns how God is present to Orthodox and Catholic.  It is perfectly legitimate to keep it at that bi-lateral level.  There are other venues for the other question.

And THANK YOU, again!  :) :)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 19, 2011, 02:28:56 PM

But I know many who commune in both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church and it is a matter of private practice for them and no one seems to mind or even know the difference in most cases.

So I expect, in the main, it is all a matter for the soul and God.

Are these your friends who are Orthodox bishops and priests?   Do they receive Catholic communion in mufti?  or openly at the altar as priests and bishops?  I suppose if the Orthodox laity see their pastors, their bishops and priests, communing in Catholic churches there is nothing to stop them doing likewise.

I have no idea what you are talking about, except for the fact that you are poking fun at me for asking questions of Orthodox clergy and hierarchs.  I can't stop you from doing that, and you can't stop me from asking.

M.
I'm not poking fun at you.  I am merely saying that if the laity enjoy a legitimate freedom to commune in two Churches if so inclined, then I expect the bishops and priests to have the same freedom. 

Would take very little to make that a reality.  In the meantime I think we should put charity first, and not nurture the schism, but more assertively and positively seek grounds for resumption of communion sooner rather than later.  Perhaps that is what is happening at some level but certainly at other levels that is being undermined at every opportunity and so I do not at all condemn those who refuse to wait in order to do what is right and good.

M.

Again... the recent excommunication of Vassula Ryden shows that your thinking is not congenial to the East. 

I'm no expert on Vassula Ryden, but perhaps that should be "not congenial to Orthodox or Catholics" in view of:

Ironically, one of the main goals of her movement is bringing Orthodox Christians into unity with Rome, yet Pope Benedict won't have anything to do with Vassula.  He has consistently refused to endorse her and has issued statements criticizing her.

(See also my recent quote from C. S. Lewis.)

Neither hierarchs nor priests nor laity may commune from non-Orthodox altars, Catholic or Pre-Chalcedonian, Anglican or Utrecht.

If I may be so bold, your position seems a little extreme -- I notice that you include "Pre-Chalcedonian" (Oriental Orthodox) in your list.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Father H on April 19, 2011, 10:25:33 PM
^Well, I certainly would say that "pre-Chalcedonian" is not a good term to use in this sentence.  Although I don't think Fr.A meant it that way, it does, by the use of this particular term, exclude every saint before Chalcedon, as of course they were all "pre-Chalcedonian."  I think we should stick to terms that don't do that.  The Orientals have no problem with non-Chalcedonian as a word of usage, so let's keep it that way so as not to confound and confuse, in my opinion.   
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: deusveritasest on April 19, 2011, 10:50:09 PM
I was thinking of commenting on that phrase. It's usage was odd, because, if anything, I find calling the OO Tradition "Pre-Chalcedonian" to actually be far more complementary than "Non-Chalcedonian", as it is an indication that the OO faith represents what was before Chalcedon.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 19, 2011, 11:04:31 PM
The disrespectful attitude from RCs such as Mary and J Michael toward Holy Orthodoxy show me that I don't want to share from the Chalice with people who will have such a disregard for our Mysteries. Our Church is no vending machine for Sacraments. Ironically, if an Anglican, Lutheran or Methodist presented himself for communion in the RCC with the same view the RCs have toward Orthodoxy, they would be outraged.

I find this arrogant attitude unfortunate and symptomatic of why we can never be in communion with Rome until they do an about-face. To be fair, the pope or any of his bishops wouldn't present themselves for the Eucharist in one of our temples. Why would their laity feel so entitled to it?

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 19, 2011, 11:12:43 PM
^Well, I certainly would say that "pre-Chalcedonian" is not a good term to use in this sentence.  Although I don't think Fr.A meant it that way, it does, by the use of this particular term, exclude every saint before Chalcedon, as of course they were all "pre-Chalcedonian."  I think we should stick to terms that don't do that.  The Orientals have no problem with non-Chalcedonian as a word of usage, so let's keep it that way so as not to confound and confuse, in my opinion.   

The rules of the board prevent us from using traditonal Orthodox terminology, which is still the normal usage in Russian and Greek theological writings, and so we have had to find substitutes:  Pre-Chalcedonian, Non-Chalcedonian, Anti-Chalcedonian.

I myself don't like using Non-Chalcedonian since it is a little disdainful as if somehow they are lacking some essential theology.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 19, 2011, 11:30:45 PM
.
[/
Neither hierarchs nor priests nor laity may commune from non-Orthodox altars, Catholic or Pre-Chalcedonian, Anglican or Utrecht.

If I may be so bold, your position seems a little extreme --


Extreme?  I would accept your criticism, Peter, if you name me the Orthodox bishops and priests who commune at Catholic altars, or Non-Chalcedonian ones, Anglican or Utrecht.

I think my words are reflective of the truth of what does not happen.

Mary gives the impression that she is aware of large numbers of Orthodox laity receiving Catholic communion.   But we note that no Orthodox bishops and priests are doing that;  they are too wise to endanger their souls.  The laity Mary speaks about should look to their bishops and be as wise as them.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 20, 2011, 09:52:17 AM
.
[/
Neither hierarchs nor priests nor laity may commune from non-Orthodox altars, Catholic or Pre-Chalcedonian, Anglican or Utrecht.

If I may be so bold, your position seems a little extreme --


Extreme?  I would accept your criticism, Peter, if you name me the Orthodox bishops and priests who commune at Catholic altars, or Non-Chalcedonian ones, Anglican or Utrecht.

I think my words are reflective of the truth of what does not happen.

Mary gives the impression that she is aware of large numbers of Orthodox laity receiving Catholic communion.   But we note that no Orthodox bishops and priests are doing that;  they are too wise to endanger their souls.  The laity Mary speaks about should look to their bishops and be as wise as them.

Were bishops to challenge the schism by receiving communion in a Catholic liturgy, in a public display of communion, they would be strictly disciplined by their Orthodox hierarch.  I think we have seen that in action quite recently.  It certainly does make for a rather impressive disincentive, regardless of what one holds in one's heart.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 20, 2011, 10:46:10 AM
Neither hierarchs nor priests nor laity may commune from non-Orthodox altars, Catholic or Pre-Chalcedonian, Anglican or Utrecht.

If I may be so bold, your position seems a little extreme -- I notice that you include "Pre-Chalcedonian" (Oriental Orthodox) in your list.

Extreme?  I would accept your criticism, Peter, if you name me the Orthodox bishops and priests who commune at Catholic altars, or Non-Chalcedonian ones, Anglican or Utrecht.

I think my words are reflective of the truth of what does not happen.

Mary gives the impression that she is aware of large numbers of Orthodox laity receiving Catholic communion.   But we note that no Orthodox bishops and priests are doing that;  they are too wise to endanger their souls.  The laity Mary speaks about should look to their bishops and be as wise as them.

Regarding Pre-Chalcedonian, I would refer you to http://www.antiochian.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=657&Itemid=63

Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 20, 2011, 10:50:34 AM
The disrespectful attitude from RCs such as Mary and J Michael toward Holy Orthodoxy show me that I don't want to share from the Chalice with people who will have such a disregard for our Mysteries. Our Church is no vending machine for Sacraments. Ironically, if an Anglican, Lutheran or Methodist presented himself for communion in the RCC with the same view the RCs have toward Orthodoxy, they would be outraged.

I find this arrogant attitude unfortunate and symptomatic of why we can never be in communion with Rome until they do an about-face. To be fair, the pope or any of his bishops wouldn't present themselves for the Eucharist in one of our temples. Why would their laity feel so entitled to it?

In Christ,
Andrew

It is axiomatic in the history of human kind that all of the greatest changes in human behavior that tends to struggle against an obvious truth if it is inconvenient, have been initiated by those willing to lay down their lives, their reputations, their earthly comfort, their ability to be a welcome part of a community in order to see that the truth is told and people's behaviors change in response to that truth.

We are about to witness to that truth in a very few hours now.

J Michael believes in something, and I think it is the truth, and he is willing to be excoriated here in order to make his point clear.  I am not going to stand by and let him do that alone.

Mary

Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 20, 2011, 12:11:46 PM
The disrespectful attitude from RCs such as Mary and J Michael toward Holy Orthodoxy show me that I don't want to share from the Chalice with people who will have such a disregard for our Mysteries. Our Church is no vending machine for Sacraments. Ironically, if an Anglican, Lutheran or Methodist presented himself for communion in the RCC with the same view the RCs have toward Orthodoxy, they would be outraged.

I find this arrogant attitude unfortunate and symptomatic of why we can never be in communion with Rome until they do an about-face. To be fair, the pope or any of his bishops wouldn't present themselves for the Eucharist in one of our temples. Why would their laity feel so entitled to it?

In Christ,
Andrew

It is axiomatic in the history of human kind that all of the greatest changes in human behavior that tends to struggle against an obvious truth if it is inconvenient, have been initiated by those willing to lay down their lives, their reputations, their earthly comfort, their ability to be a welcome part of a community in order to see that the truth is told and people's behaviors change in response to that truth.

We are about to witness to that truth in a very few hours now.

J Michael believes in something, and I think it is the truth, and he is willing to be excoriated here in order to make his point clear.  I am not going to stand by and let him do that alone.

Mary


Is there something inherently flawed or absent from RC sacraments that people feel inclined to disrespect our Church's teaching? If you all believe you have true sacraments, receive them in your own churches. Don't profane ours.

This attitude is completely astounding and unbecoming. I can't help thinking of it as having the tone of a whiny 16 year old who is not allowed to take the keys to the car.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 20, 2011, 12:26:30 PM
The disrespectful attitude from RCs such as Mary and J Michael toward Holy Orthodoxy show me that I don't want to share from the Chalice with people who will have such a disregard for our Mysteries. Our Church is no vending machine for Sacraments. Ironically, if an Anglican, Lutheran or Methodist presented himself for communion in the RCC with the same view the RCs have toward Orthodoxy, they would be outraged.

I find this arrogant attitude unfortunate and symptomatic of why we can never be in communion with Rome until they do an about-face. To be fair, the pope or any of his bishops wouldn't present themselves for the Eucharist in one of our temples. Why would their laity feel so entitled to it?

In Christ,
Andrew

It is axiomatic in the history of human kind that all of the greatest changes in human behavior that tends to struggle against an obvious truth if it is inconvenient, have been initiated by those willing to lay down their lives, their reputations, their earthly comfort, their ability to be a welcome part of a community in order to see that the truth is told and people's behaviors change in response to that truth.

We are about to witness to that truth in a very few hours now.

J Michael believes in something, and I think it is the truth, and he is willing to be excoriated here in order to make his point clear.  I am not going to stand by and let him do that alone.

Mary


Is there something inherently flawed or absent from RC sacraments that people feel inclined to disrespect our Church's teaching? If you all believe you have true sacraments, receive them in your own churches. Don't profane ours.

This attitude is completely astounding and unbecoming. I can't help thinking of it as having the tone of a whiny 16 year old who is not allowed to take the keys to the car.

In Christ,
Andrew

You quite ignore the fact that both Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church have agreed on more than one occasion and in more than one way that we are closer than ANY other two Christian expressions of the faith.  The idea that the Catholic Church is the mother of all western heresies is not held by universal Orthodoxy through out our mutual history, equally so in all places and all times. 

There are several recent threads here on this Forum that talk about all kinds of exceptions to the idea that the Catholic Church has no Apostolic Succession or grace in sacraments.  It is very clear that all of Orthodoxy is not nearly so rigidly certain as you are as an individual.

So your words are water and I have a ducks back... ;)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Papist on April 20, 2011, 12:29:24 PM
Is there something inherently flawed or absent from RC sacraments that people feel inclined to disrespect our Church's teaching? If you all believe you have true sacraments, receive them in your own churches. Don't profane ours.

This attitude is completely astounding and unbecoming. I can't help thinking of it as having the tone of a whiny 16 year old who is not allowed to take the keys to the car.

In Christ,
Andrew
I feel no need to receive sacraments in an Eastern Orthodox Church. My Church's sacraments are quite sufficient.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 20, 2011, 12:35:29 PM
The disrespectful attitude from RCs such as Mary and J Michael toward Holy Orthodoxy show me that I don't want to share from the Chalice with people who will have such a disregard for our Mysteries. Our Church is no vending machine for Sacraments. Ironically, if an Anglican, Lutheran or Methodist presented himself for communion in the RCC with the same view the RCs have toward Orthodoxy, they would be outraged.

I find this arrogant attitude unfortunate and symptomatic of why we can never be in communion with Rome until they do an about-face. To be fair, the pope or any of his bishops wouldn't present themselves for the Eucharist in one of our temples. Why would their laity feel so entitled to it?

In Christ,
Andrew

It is axiomatic in the history of human kind that all of the greatest changes in human behavior that tends to struggle against an obvious truth if it is inconvenient, have been initiated by those willing to lay down their lives, their reputations, their earthly comfort, their ability to be a welcome part of a community in order to see that the truth is told and people's behaviors change in response to that truth.

We are about to witness to that truth in a very few hours now.

J Michael believes in something, and I think it is the truth, and he is willing to be excoriated here in order to make his point clear.  I am not going to stand by and let him do that alone.

Mary


Is there something inherently flawed or absent from RC sacraments that people feel inclined to disrespect our Church's teaching? If you all believe you have true sacraments, receive them in your own churches. Don't profane ours.

This attitude is completely astounding and unbecoming. I can't help thinking of it as having the tone of a whiny 16 year old who is not allowed to take the keys to the car.

In Christ,
Andrew

You quite ignore the fact that both Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church have agreed on more than one occasion and in more than one way that we are closer than ANY other two Christian expressions of the faith.  The idea that the Catholic Church is the mother of all western heresies is not held by universal Orthodoxy through out our mutual history, equally so in all places and all times. 

There are several recent threads here on this Forum that talk about all kinds of exceptions to the idea that the Catholic Church has no Apostolic Succession or grace in sacraments.  It is very clear that all of Orthodoxy is not nearly so rigidly certain as you are as an individual.

So your words are water and I have a ducks back... ;)
*sigh* That's good that they agree on certain things, but just because I agree with my girlfriend on many issues, does not mean we can act as if we are married by having sex and cohabitating. If RCs feel they need to receive sacraments in an Orthodox temple, then perhaps, deusveritasest is correct in saying that God is not present in the Roman church as He is in Orthodoxy.

Again, I repeat: what is missing from your church's sacraments that you all feel the need to receive in ours? Would you be fine with Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Mormons, Hindus, et al. receiving communion at your mass? I've met people in those faiths who felt it was a sin for them NOT to receive. Why not let them? Don't be so rigid now! ;)

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 20, 2011, 12:36:18 PM
Is there something inherently flawed or absent from RC sacraments that people feel inclined to disrespect our Church's teaching? If you all believe you have true sacraments, receive them in your own churches. Don't profane ours.

This attitude is completely astounding and unbecoming. I can't help thinking of it as having the tone of a whiny 16 year old who is not allowed to take the keys to the car.

In Christ,
Andrew

I feel no need to receive sacraments in an Eastern Orthodox Church. My Church's sacraments are quite sufficient.
I deeply respect your honesty on the subject! :)

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 20, 2011, 12:46:21 PM


Again, I repeat: what is missing from your church's sacraments that you all feel the need to receive in ours? Would you be fine with Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Mormons, Hindus, et al. receiving communion at your mass? I've met people in those faiths who felt it was a sin for them NOT to receive. Why not let them? Don't be so rigid now! ;)

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear, in Christ, Andrew:

For starters you are confusing being in communion with "needing" to receive communion....eh?

And again there are the related issues of Apostolic Succession and grace in sacraments, and shared sacraments in terms of form and content, among other things that have been and are even now recognized by many Orthodox.  So your example of the Catholic Church restricting communion to all but the Orthodox is not a really good parallel.

M.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Papist on April 20, 2011, 01:33:53 PM
I wonder what everyone makes of this Catholic priest at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in new york...

http://www.holytrinityyonkers.o rg/id22.html (http://www.holytrinityyonkers.o rg/id22.html)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Papist on April 20, 2011, 01:38:33 PM
Or this page about the same priest's particiapation at the parish:
http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/ (http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/)

Here is a caption from the page:

"Please Remember in your Prayers Fr. Robert Stanion, a very dear friend of our parish. Fr. Robert passed away March 23rd in Las Vegas.
 
While living in New York, Father was a frequent visitor and always welcome guest in our church. His sense of humor, enthusiasm and love of life and people will be  greatly missed by all those who knew him. Memory Eternal Fr. Robert!

Fr. Robert was affectionately titled our "Associate Pastor".
When in New York he frequently visited and prayed with us. We will always remember him. Click here to see some additional photos of Father Robert from years past."


I knew this Catholic priest personally, as a good friend. He was a holy and sainly man if ever I did meet one.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: podkarpatska on April 20, 2011, 01:40:37 PM
I wonder what everyone makes of this Catholic priest at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in new york...

http://www.holytrinityyonkers.o rg/id22.html (http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/id22.html)

He must have been a remarkable and holy man. Memory Eternal!

Father Yaroslav Sudik of Holy Trinity is a good priest and an old friend of ours.

BTW.. you added a space in the link...here it is corrected... http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/id22.html]http://www.holytrinityyonkers.o rg/id22.html
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 20, 2011, 01:57:01 PM

Guys...guys...Hard-Breaking News!!

They have BING-O in the house!!

 :-X

I wonder what everyone makes of this Catholic priest at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in new york...

http://www.holytrinityyonkers.o rg/id22.html (http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/id22.html)

He must have been a remarkable and holy man. Memory Eternal!

Father Yaroslav Sudik of Holy Trinity is a good priest and an old friend of ours.

BTW.. you added a space in the link...here it is corrected... http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/id22.html]http://www.holytrinityyonkers.o rg/id22.html
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Papist on April 20, 2011, 03:02:13 PM
I wonder what everyone makes of this Catholic priest at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in new york...

http://www.holytrinityyonkers.o rg/id22.html (http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/id22.html)

He must have been a remarkable and holy man. Memory Eternal!

Father Yaroslav Sudik of Holy Trinity is a good priest and an old friend of ours.

BTW.. you added a space in the link...here it is corrected... http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/id22.html]http://www.holytrinityyonkers.o rg/id22.html
Thanks for fixing that.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: podkarpatska on April 20, 2011, 03:04:56 PM

Guys...guys...Hard-Breaking News!!

They have BING-O in the house!!

 :-X

I wonder what everyone makes of this Catholic priest at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in new york...

http://www.holytrinityyonkers.o rg/id22.html (http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/id22.html)

He must have been a remarkable and holy man. Memory Eternal!

Father Yaroslav Sudik of Holy Trinity is a good priest and an old friend of ours.

BTW.. you added a space in the link...here it is corrected... http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/id22.html]http://www.holytrinityyonkers.o rg/id22.html

Yes, but it is Orthodox Bingo, no statues permitted during games....and they are authentic Rusnaks at that parish..... ;)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 20, 2011, 03:22:00 PM

Guys...guys...Hard-Breaking News!!

They have BING-O in the house!!

 :-X

I wonder what everyone makes of this Catholic priest at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in new york...

http://www.holytrinityyonkers.o rg/id22.html (http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/id22.html)

He must have been a remarkable and holy man. Memory Eternal!

Father Yaroslav Sudik of Holy Trinity is a good priest and an old friend of ours.

BTW.. you added a space in the link...here it is corrected... http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/id22.html]http://www.holytrinityyonkers.o rg/id22.html

Yes, but it is Orthodox Bingo, no statues permitted during games....and they are authentic Rusnaks at that parish..... ;)

OH...well heck!!...that's OK then   :angel:
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 20, 2011, 03:25:24 PM
Or this page about the same priest's particiapation at the parish:
http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/ (http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/)

Here is a caption from the page:

"Please Remember in your Prayers Fr. Robert Stanion, a very dear friend of our parish. Fr. Robert passed away March 23rd in Las Vegas.
 
While living in New York, Father was a frequent visitor and always welcome guest in our church. His sense of humor, enthusiasm and love of life and people will be  greatly missed by all those who knew him. Memory Eternal Fr. Robert!

Fr. Robert was affectionately titled our "Associate Pastor".
When in New York he frequently visited and prayed with us. We will always remember him. Click here to see some additional photos of Father Robert from years past."


I knew this Catholic priest personally, as a good friend. He was a holy and sainly man if ever I did meet one.

Memory eternal! I don't see why anyone would have issue with that. A RC priest comes to our church for services quite frequently, too. The only problem I would have would be if Fr. Robert presented himself to receive Sacraments without a real dire need (the article doesnt allude to it, so we can just assume he went for services). I tried to get that across in my posts on this thread, but perhaps my attempts were very inadequate. I apologize to anyone who was offended by remarks. I certainly meant no malice.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 20, 2011, 03:29:40 PM
Or this page about the same priest's particiapation at the parish:
http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/ (http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/)

Here is a caption from the page:

"Please Remember in your Prayers Fr. Robert Stanion, a very dear friend of our parish. Fr. Robert passed away March 23rd in Las Vegas.
 
While living in New York, Father was a frequent visitor and always welcome guest in our church. His sense of humor, enthusiasm and love of life and people will be  greatly missed by all those who knew him. Memory Eternal Fr. Robert!

Fr. Robert was affectionately titled our "Associate Pastor".
When in New York he frequently visited and prayed with us. We will always remember him. Click here to see some additional photos of Father Robert from years past."


I knew this Catholic priest personally, as a good friend. He was a holy and sainly man if ever I did meet one.

Memory eternal! I don't see why anyone would have issue with that. A RC priest comes to our church for services quite frequently, too. The only problem I would have would be if Fr. Robert presented himself to receive Sacraments without a real dire need (the article doesnt allude to it, so we can just assume he went for services). I tried to get that across in my posts on this thread, but perhaps my attempts were very inadequate. I apologize to anyone who was offended by remarks. I certainly meant no malice.

In Christ,
Andrew

Nope!! Never think Malice when Andrew Speaks!!

Furthermore you raise a very interesting question:

How do you respond to the hypothetical situation where sacraments are requested of an Orthodox priest, by a Catholic,  in case of near-death emergency?

Also how would you react to the request for Orthodox sacraments based upon the condition of it being for the salvation of a soul?

M.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 20, 2011, 03:32:16 PM


Again, I repeat: what is missing from your church's sacraments that you all feel the need to receive in ours? Would you be fine with Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Mormons, Hindus, et al. receiving communion at your mass? I've met people in those faiths who felt it was a sin for them NOT to receive. Why not let them? Don't be so rigid now! ;)

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear, in Christ, Andrew:

For starters you are confusing being in communion with "needing" to receive communion....eh?

And again there are the related issues of Apostolic Succession and grace in sacraments, and shared sacraments in terms of form and content, among other things that have been and are even now recognized by many Orthodox.  So your example of the Catholic Church restricting communion to all but the Orthodox is not a really good parallel.

M.
Mary,

For clarification and this will be my last post on this thread: There are many Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists out there that believe they have Apostolic Succession and they will receive sacraments in RC churches. I have more respect for the ones who refrain out of respect for the RCCs policy, if you will, even if they disagree with it. Whether or not certain Orthodox recognize Rome has having valid sacraments is not the point. We do not have full unity yet, as much as I would like it and it is premature to be sharing Sacraments. I would say the same for EO-OO relations as well.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 20, 2011, 03:39:59 PM
Or this page about the same priest's particiapation at the parish:
http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/ (http://www.holytrinityyonkers.org/)

Here is a caption from the page:

"Please Remember in your Prayers Fr. Robert Stanion, a very dear friend of our parish. Fr. Robert passed away March 23rd in Las Vegas.
 
While living in New York, Father was a frequent visitor and always welcome guest in our church. His sense of humor, enthusiasm and love of life and people will be  greatly missed by all those who knew him. Memory Eternal Fr. Robert!

Fr. Robert was affectionately titled our "Associate Pastor".
When in New York he frequently visited and prayed with us. We will always remember him. Click here to see some additional photos of Father Robert from years past."


I knew this Catholic priest personally, as a good friend. He was a holy and sainly man if ever I did meet one.

Memory eternal! I don't see why anyone would have issue with that. A RC priest comes to our church for services quite frequently, too. The only problem I would have would be if Fr. Robert presented himself to receive Sacraments without a real dire need (the article doesnt allude to it, so we can just assume he went for services). I tried to get that across in my posts on this thread, but perhaps my attempts were very inadequate. I apologize to anyone who was offended by remarks. I certainly meant no malice.

In Christ,
Andrew

Nope!! Never think Malice when Andrew Speaks!!

Furthermore you raise a very interesting question:

How do you respond to the hypothetical situation where sacraments are requested of an Orthodox priest, by a Catholic,  in case of near-death emergency?

Also how would you react to the request for Orthodox sacraments based upon the condition of it being for the salvation of a soul?

M.
Personally, if death was imminent, then it would be a pastoral decision and I would support an Orthodox priest or bishop dispensing the Mysteries to a dying RC. However, if someone was having spiritual issues and really felt the need to receive Sacraments from an Orthodox clergyman, then I would have to say it would be inappropriate for him to do so. I would have no problem with the priest counseling him and giving him good spiritual reading, telling him he is more than welcome to come to services and actively participate with the laity in the nave, but he would not be permitted to receive.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 20, 2011, 03:41:05 PM


Again, I repeat: what is missing from your church's sacraments that you all feel the need to receive in ours? Would you be fine with Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Mormons, Hindus, et al. receiving communion at your mass? I've met people in those faiths who felt it was a sin for them NOT to receive. Why not let them? Don't be so rigid now! ;)

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear, in Christ, Andrew:

For starters you are confusing being in communion with "needing" to receive communion....eh?

And again there are the related issues of Apostolic Succession and grace in sacraments, and shared sacraments in terms of form and content, among other things that have been and are even now recognized by many Orthodox.  So your example of the Catholic Church restricting communion to all but the Orthodox is not a really good parallel.

M.
Mary,

Whether or not certain Orthodox recognize Rome has having valid sacraments is not the point. We do not have full unity yet, as much as I would like it and it is premature to be sharing Sacraments. I would say the same for EO-OO relations as well.

In Christ,
Andrew

This is precisely the point Andrew.  

There is NO equivocation in the Catholic position concerning the non-Catholic-non-Orthodox examples that you have offered.  

But there is CLEAR equivocation on the part of Orthodoxy over time concerning Apostolic Succession and Sacraments in the Catholic Church and it is on those grounds that I have to say that I understand what J Michael and others do when they receive communion either in an Orthodox Church or an eastern Catholic Church.  Those are the most common occurrences of de facto communion between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church so I will limit my comments to those two examples.  But it is precisely the Orthodox equivocation that allows it to happen...and I think rightly so.  Though I do not indulge that myself I certainly am not condemnatory of those who do.

M.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 20, 2011, 03:43:41 PM

Personally, if death was imminent, then it would be a pastoral decision and I would support an Orthodox priest or bishop dispensing the Mysteries to a dying RC. However, if someone was having spiritual issues and really felt the need to receive Sacraments from an Orthodox clergyman, then I would have to say it would be inappropriate for him to do so. I would have no problem with the priest counseling him and giving him good spiritual reading, telling him he is more than welcome to come to services and actively participate with the laity in the nave, but he would not be permitted to receive.

In Christ,
Andrew

What about those Orthodox bishops who have allowed an eastern Catholic to receive sacraments in an Orthodox parish currently and still remain Catholic, for the good of their soul?    Father Ambrose has corroborated that it does happen so I don't think I need do more than refer to it.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 20, 2011, 03:44:03 PM


Again, I repeat: what is missing from your church's sacraments that you all feel the need to receive in ours? Would you be fine with Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Mormons, Hindus, et al. receiving communion at your mass? I've met people in those faiths who felt it was a sin for them NOT to receive. Why not let them? Don't be so rigid now! ;)

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear, in Christ, Andrew:

For starters you are confusing being in communion with "needing" to receive communion....eh?

And again there are the related issues of Apostolic Succession and grace in sacraments, and shared sacraments in terms of form and content, among other things that have been and are even now recognized by many Orthodox.  So your example of the Catholic Church restricting communion to all but the Orthodox is not a really good parallel.

M.
Mary,

Whether or not certain Orthodox recognize Rome has having valid sacraments is not the point. We do not have full unity yet, as much as I would like it and it is premature to be sharing Sacraments. I would say the same for EO-OO relations as well.

In Christ,
Andrew

This is precisely the point Andrew.  

There is NO equivocation in the Catholic position concerning the non-Catholic-non-Orthodox examples that you have offered.  

But there is CLEAR equivocation on the part of Orthodoxy over time concerning Apostolic Succession and Sacraments in the Catholic Church and it is on those grounds that I have to say that I understand what J Michael and others do when they receive communion either in an Orthodox Church or an eastern Catholic Church.  Those are the most common occurrences of de facto communion between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church so I will limit my comments to those two examples.  But it is precisely the Orthodox equivocation that allows it to happen...and I think rightly so.  Though I do not indulge that myself I certainly am not condemnatory of those who do.

M.
I can understand where they are coming from, but I still find it wrong to do so.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 20, 2011, 03:47:42 PM

I can understand where they are coming from, but I still find it wrong to do so.

In Christ,
Andrew


I do not hold that against you.  Again it is a different sort of path.  There is a need for people like you...and given your responses here, there is a great need for many more of those who hold your views for they will be the core of stability should communion ever be resumed between us.

M.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: deusveritasest on April 20, 2011, 03:51:19 PM
Were bishops to challenge the schism by receiving communion in a Catholic liturgy, in a public display of communion, they would be strictly disciplined by their Orthodox hierarch.

Or resisted by their faithful.  :police:
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Agabus on April 20, 2011, 04:38:52 PM
I have heard from several sources (including a priest) that in some parts of the world EOs, ECs, OOs and RC-OOs move pretty freely from one Church to the other. This is because in those areas the us-versus-them mentality is not between various Christian churches, but rather between Christians and Muslims. Sometimes it is physically safer to commune in the closest church.

I have very conflicted feelings about this, but I am not living their situation.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: deusveritasest on April 20, 2011, 04:44:00 PM
This attitude is completely astounding and unbecoming. I can't help thinking of it as having the tone of a whiny 16 year old who is not allowed to take the keys to the car.

Ditto. I get those vibes all the time from Romanists complaining about how Orthodox approach them.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: deusveritasest on April 20, 2011, 04:51:45 PM
You quite ignore the fact that both Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church have agreed on more than one occasion and in more than one way that we are closer than ANY other two Christian expressions of the faith.

Mmmmm, I don't think so. To begin with, there is actually quite wide agreement that the Chalcedonian and Ephesine Non-Chalcedonian traditions are closer to each other than either is to any other tradition. For another, I think it's safe to say that many Orthodox would recognize the East Syrian church as closer to us than your church. Also, some Orthodox have historically recognized traditional Anglicans and Old Catholics as closer to us. Only after all these considerations is your statement really true.

The idea that the Catholic Church is the mother of all western heresies is not held by universal Orthodoxy through out our mutual history, equally so in all places and all times.

These are not mutually exclusive realities. One can recognize the closeness of Orthodoxy and Romanism while also recognizing that Rome is the mother of Western heresies in general.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: deusveritasest on April 20, 2011, 04:57:50 PM
then perhaps, deusveritasest is correct in saying that God is not present in the Roman church as He is in Orthodoxy.

Perhaps? Why do you need to wonder at all? Do you actually think the Roman church has the very Pentecostal indwelling of the Holy Spirit received in Orthodox Chrismation?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on April 20, 2011, 05:03:42 PM
then perhaps, deusveritasest is correct in saying that God is not present in the Roman church as He is in Orthodoxy.

Perhaps? Why do you need to wonder at all? Do you actually think the Roman church has the very Pentecostal indwelling of the Holy Spirit received in Orthodox Chrismation?

Indeed.  And more than that I know there are Orthodox believers from the greatest lay man or women to the lowliest bishop who think the same thing...praise God!!

 :)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: deusveritasest on April 20, 2011, 05:06:24 PM
How do you respond to the hypothetical situation where sacraments are requested of an Orthodox priest, by a Catholic,  in case of near-death emergency?

If they are willing to accept that the Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ, then they should be Baptized or Chrismated and then Communed.

Also how would you react to the request for Orthodox sacraments based upon the condition of it being for the salvation of a soul?

Same as above, except that the initiation would probably not happen immediately but only after a period of discernment, and with the added condition that they swear to not return to participation in the ordinances of other communions.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 20, 2011, 05:16:14 PM
The disrespectful attitude from RCs such as Mary and J Michael toward Holy Orthodoxy show me that I don't want to share from the Chalice with people who will have such a disregard for our Mysteries.

For the record, J Michael isn't Catholic. According to his own statements, he left the Catholic Church to join to Orthodox Church (but still receives communion in the Catholic Church).
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: deusveritasest on April 20, 2011, 05:19:54 PM
What about those Orthodox bishops who have allowed an eastern Catholic to receive sacraments in an Orthodox parish currently and still remain Catholic, for the good of their soul?    Father Ambrose has corroborated that it does happen so I don't think I need do more than refer to it.

I think that they are in error. I don't think it's ever appropriate for the Orthodox to give Communion to those who have not been initiated into their faith tradition.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 20, 2011, 05:22:15 PM
Is there something inherently flawed or absent from RC sacraments that people feel inclined to disrespect our Church's teaching? If you all believe you have true sacraments, receive them in your own churches. Don't profane ours.

I have to admit I'm not really sure what to make of that either.

I recall, several years ago, I and a fellow Catholic attended the Easter Vigil at an Episcopal parish. I was a little surprised, as you may well imagine, when my friend received communion.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on April 20, 2011, 05:23:15 PM
The disrespectful attitude from RCs such as Mary and J Michael toward Holy Orthodoxy show me that I don't want to share from the Chalice with people who will have such a disregard for our Mysteries.

For the record, J Michael isn't Catholic. According to his own statements, he left the Catholic Church to join to Orthodox Church (but still receives communion in the Catholic Church).

Yup.  But I haven't actually received communion in a Catholic Church for over 4 years.  I have, however, confessed to a Catholic priest and received from him absolution.  The reception of communion issue *may* change, though.  It might also be worth noting that when I was received into Orthodoxy my thinking about the equality or lack thereof of Orthodox and Catholic sacraments was not what it is now.  Close, but not quite the same.

And, while I realize that most here think I'm wrong about this, I consider myself Orthodox and Catholic.  But we've been through this already, I think.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: deusveritasest on April 20, 2011, 05:53:09 PM
Indeed.

The question was very much for Andrew. Your answer I could very easily have guessed. Andrew's answer I am truly curious about.

And more than that I know there are Orthodox believers from the greatest lay man or women to the lowliest bishop who think the same thing...

I know. It's awful. They are deluded and most likely heretical too.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 20, 2011, 06:19:08 PM

What about those Orthodox bishops who have allowed an eastern Catholic to receive sacraments in an Orthodox parish currently and still remain Catholic, for the good of their soul?    Father Ambrose has corroborated that it does happen so I don't think I need do more than refer to it.

Well, I mentioned only one instance in an earlier post - of a Melkite woman whom a Catholic bishop sexually abused and she was then granted permission to commune in the Antiochian Church.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on April 20, 2011, 06:28:13 PM
then perhaps, deusveritasest is correct in saying that God is not present in the Roman church as He is in Orthodoxy.

Perhaps? Why do you need to wonder at all? Do you actually think the Roman church has the very Pentecostal indwelling of the Holy Spirit received in Orthodox Chrismation?

Indeed.  And more than that I know there are Orthodox believers from the greatest lay man or women to the lowliest bishop who think the same thing...praise God!!

 :)
LOL. Praising God for error. That's novel.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: akimel on April 20, 2011, 07:45:30 PM
Life in the kingdom of God is ever so much more complicated than allowed for by either canon law or simplistic ecclesiology.  This should not come as a surprise.  The Spirit blows where he wills.

The ecclesiology of St Cyprian was clear-cut: the Church is defined by her canonical boundaries; there are no sacraments outside the Catholic Church.  This is an easy, nonambiguous, uncomplicated ecclesiology.  Yet it is also an ecclesiology that the Church has never felt comfortable fully embracing. It was immediately contested by Pope Stephen I, who insisted that Cyprian's position was an innovation and departure from apostolic practice!  Even Cyprian's fellow African, St Augustine, did not feel quite comfortable with it.  It is sometimes asserted, especially in internet forums, that Orthodoxy has unequivocally embraced Cyprianic ecclesiology; but this is clearly not the case.  I have already cited the opinion of Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff (ROCOR), who believes that the traditional Russian practice of receiving Catholic laymen by chrismation and Catholic priests by vesting is grounded in the conviction that the Catholic Church has "valid Mysteries and true apostolic succession, and that in no way should Baptism and Chrismation, or ordination of them be performed again."  Whether Fr Alexander is correct in his assessment I cannot judge, though I did contact Fr John Erickson, retired professor from St Vladimir's Seminary, who confirmed Fr Alexander's interpretation of the Russian practice.  Other parts of Orthodoxy disagree with the Russian practice or at least disagree with Fr Alexander's interpretation of it.  The Bulgarian Diocese of the U.S., Canada, and Australia, for example, requires that all converts be (re)baptized, without exceptions.  No doubt many of the monks on Mt Athos would agree with this policy.  Other parts of Orthodoxy receive Catholic and perhaps Protestant converts through chrismation on the grounds of economy.  But the appeal to economy at this point is by no means uncontroversial.  As Fr Georges Florovsky argued many years ago in his essay "The Limits of the Church (http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/crete-01-e.html), "One can scarcely ascribe to the Church the power and the right, as it were, to convert the ‘has-not-been’ into the ‘has-been’, to change the meaningless into the valid ... ‘in the order of economy.’"  Economy cannot be employed to justify the the substitution of Chrismation for Holy Baptism.  If the Church is rigorously defined by her canonical boundaries, then ritual baptism performed outside the Church, even if it mimics the Orthodox sacrament in every way, is not a sacrament of the Church, and no subsequent sacramental action by the Church can make it into an authentic sacrament.  No doubt some Orthodox theologians, particularly in the Greek tradition, will dissent from Florovsky's argument; but let's at least admit that Orthodoxy does not speak with one voice on this matter.  Several months ago I raised this question with Fr Patrick Reardon of the Antiochian Church.  He acknowledged that present Orthodox diversity and disagreement on this question of the validity of heterodox baptism replicates the diversity that existed within the Church in the fifth century, and in the absence of a centralized authority or a binding decision by an Ecumenical Council this diversity would no doubt continue within Orthodoxy until the return of Christ ... but the Church muddles through.

One of the strengths of Orthodoxy is its refusal to be limited by canon law.  Cyprianic Purists insist that no one may receive communion in the Orthodox Church who is not a canonical member of an Orthodox diocese.  Internet forums are filled with ecclesiastical ideologues.  Yet on the parochial ground matters are so much more complicated.  I know of one Armenian theologian who partakes of the Orthodox Eucharist, with permission of both his Armenian bishop and the Orthodox bishop.  In some places of the world, Melkite Christians receive Holy Communion in Orthodox Churches and Orthodox Christians receive Holy Communion in Melkite Churches.  Canon law says that they shouldn't; but life in the Church, which is precisely life in the Spirit, will not be constrained by canon law.  Wise pastors understand this.  "For where the Church is," St Irenaeus exclaims, "there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and every kind of grace."  The work and presence of the Spirit is not limited by canon law.

And this brings us to J Michael's practice of inter-communion.  Despite what I have written above, I do not approve of his practice, and if I were his confessor or pastor, I would urge him, and indeed require him, to be faithful to the canons of his Church.  J. Michael, even if you are correct in your ecclesiological evaluation, even if both communions enjoy "direct and unbroken apostolic succession" and therefore valid sacraments, even if you will ultimately be judged by God by your relationship with Jesus Christ and not by your ecclesial affiliation, this does not authorize you to break the laws of your Church.  You are not living in an emergency situation; the Kingdom has not yet fully arrived; the divisions within the Church have not yet been overcome.  Despite the unity that exists between Catholicism and Orthodoxy--and I agree with you that at the deepest theological and spiritual levels this unity does exist--you are not permitted by your Church to partake in the Holy Eucharist of the Catholic Church.  We all live under obedience.  Without such obedience, life in community is impossible.  Until theological unity is achieved, we must continue to suffer the wounds of disunity.  There are no easy short-cuts around this suffering.   

Of course, if one advocates a pure Cyprianic ecclesiology, such suffering does not exist.  There is the visible Orthodox Church, and there is the grace-less wasteland.  Until a few decades ago, Catholics also advocated a similar ecclesiology.  My wife remembers her father telling her stories about how he and his fellow Catholics were instructed to avoid Protestants.  He wasn't even allowed to play basketball in the local non-Catholic high school.  I personally find such a black-and-white ecclesiology implausible, as well as spiritually dangerous.  It is blind to the work and presence of the Holy Spirit.  It is one thing to affirm the Orthodox Church as embodying the fullness of catholic faith; it is quite another thing to deny the possibility of ecclesial reality outside the canonical bounds of the Orthodox Church.  The Spirit blows where he wills.  The gospel is proclaimed.  Believers suffer and die in the name of Jesus.  Saints are created by God.  A proper ecclesiology must address and deal with these realities.     

Fr Alvin Kimel   
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 21, 2011, 07:05:12 AM
That was a great post.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 21, 2011, 07:25:32 AM
Also, some Orthodox have historically recognized traditional Anglicans and Old Catholics as closer to us.

It seems to me that the traditional Anglicans and traditional Old Catholics (I believe the second qualifier is necessary, because a lot of Old Catholics have gone pretty liberal, from what I hear) are in many ways a "compromise" between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

So sure, you can say "They're closer to us than the Catholics are" if you want. But of course, we can likewise say "They're closer to us than the Orthodox are".
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on April 23, 2011, 10:37:35 PM
Amen, Fr. Alvin. That post was quite edifying! Thank you for that.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: WetCatechumen on April 24, 2011, 10:47:25 PM
I believe He is present in all these churches (they are Apostolic).

I wonder if it would help at all to know that the Orthodox Church actually does not regard God as being present in the Roman church in the same way that He is present within herself (Pentecostal indwelling) and actually does not view it as "Apostolic" in the same sense either?

Do the Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church has a real Eucharist? (because I do).

The Orthodox Church does not believe nor teach that the Vatican can "confect the Eucharist"


The Russian Orthodox Church disagrees.

Please see message 57
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555625.html#msg555625

I don't know too many Antiochian priests but the ones I know recognise Catholic sacraments.

The bottom line is that there is no consensus on this among the Orthodox.

I find this happens very, very, often, on a whole host of issues - especially the ones separating our churches. It gives me a headache.

Although mayiritsa is a great. Can we agree on that?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on April 29, 2011, 09:27:25 PM
Neither hierarchs nor priests nor laity may commune from non-Orthodox altars, Catholic or Pre-Chalcedonian, Anglican or Utrecht.

If I may be so bold, your position seems a little extreme -- I notice that you include "Pre-Chalcedonian" (Oriental Orthodox) in your list.

Extreme?  I would accept your criticism, Peter, if you name me the Orthodox bishops and priests who commune at Catholic altars, or Non-Chalcedonian ones, Anglican or Utrecht.

I think my words are reflective of the truth of what does not happen.

Mary gives the impression that she is aware of large numbers of Orthodox laity receiving Catholic communion.   But we note that no Orthodox bishops and priests are doing that;  they are too wise to endanger their souls.  The laity Mary speaks about should look to their bishops and be as wise as them.

Regarding Pre-Chalcedonian, I would refer you to http://www.antiochian.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=657&Itemid=63

Doesn't that count?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Hermogenes on May 02, 2011, 02:28:45 PM
If "unity exists between Catholicism and Orthodoxy ... at the deepest theological and spiritual levels," as some are asserting here, then what is the reason for continuing divisions between us? I, for one, do not believe that unity exists. I believe we may resemble one another in many things, but those resemblances are superficial. I also think statements like the above are dangerous, because they suggest a Catholic Mass may be in all essentials as valid as an Orthodox Liturgy. If that's the case, why aren't we communicating with each other now?

Personally, I can't see any reason why I would accept the Catholic Eucharist, even in an "emergency." I've been told by my church that it is without validity, so what would be the point? Just a bit of bread and a sip of wine. I'd almost do better reverently to share a meal with my family, as they did in the earliest days of the Church.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on May 02, 2011, 02:33:11 PM
If "unity exists between Catholicism and Orthodoxy ... at the deepest theological and spiritual levels," as some are asserting here, then what is the reason for continuing divisions between us? I, for one, do not believe that unity exists. I believe we may resemble one another in many things, but those resemblances are superficial. I also think statements like the above are dangerous, because they suggest a Catholic Mass may be in all essentials as valid as an Orthodox Liturgy. If that's the case, why aren't we communicating with each other now?

Personally, I can't see any reason why I would accept the Catholic Eucharist, even in an "emergency." I've been told by my church that it is without validity, so what would be the point? Just a bit of bread and a sip of wine. I'd almost do better reverently to share a meal with my family, as they did in the earliest days of the Church.

Apparently not all Orthodox feel the same way that you do.

Personally, I think that is a good thing.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on May 02, 2011, 02:51:28 PM
If "unity exists between Catholicism and Orthodoxy ... at the deepest theological and spiritual levels," as some are asserting here, then what is the reason for continuing divisions between us? I, for one, do not believe that unity exists. I believe we may resemble one another in many things, but those resemblances are superficial. I also think statements like the above are dangerous, because they suggest a Catholic Mass may be in all essentials as valid as an Orthodox Liturgy. If that's the case, why aren't we communicating with each other now?

Personally, I can't see any reason why I would accept the Catholic Eucharist, even in an "emergency." I've been told by my church that it is without validity, so what would be the point? Just a bit of bread and a sip of wine. I'd almost do better reverently to share a meal with my family, as they did in the earliest days of the Church.

When you say "my church", do you mean by that the OCA?  Or, all of Orthodoxy?  If it's the former, and you are saying that the OCA denies the validity of Catholic sacraments, this is not what I have been told by several OCA priests.  Also, if that is the position of the OCA why do they not then require re-baptism of all previously baptized converts, along with a full, life-time confession of all sins previously confessed to and absolved by Catholic priests?

If the latter, i.e. all of Orthodoxy, how do you account for such enormous lack of unity about the subject, with some jurisdictions/churches recognizing the validity of Catholic sacraments and some not?  Even within the same jurisdiction/church are there not even some priests or bishops who say "yea" while others say "nay".  I find the lack of consistency about this issue rather troubling.

And, finally, you mention the Holy Eucharist specifically.  If you are referring to that only and none of the other sacraments, how could it be that one sacrament is not valid while another may be?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: deusveritasest on May 02, 2011, 04:34:27 PM
If "unity exists between Catholicism and Orthodoxy ... at the deepest theological and spiritual levels," as some are asserting here, then what is the reason for continuing divisions between us? I, for one, do not believe that unity exists. I believe we may resemble one another in many things, but those resemblances are superficial. I also think statements like the above are dangerous, because they suggest a Catholic Mass may be in all essentials as valid as an Orthodox Liturgy. If that's the case, why aren't we communicating with each other now?

Personally, I can't see any reason why I would accept the Catholic Eucharist, even in an "emergency." I've been told by my church that it is without validity, so what would be the point? Just a bit of bread and a sip of wine. I'd almost do better reverently to share a meal with my family, as they did in the earliest days of the Church.

Hear hear!
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Papist on May 02, 2011, 04:37:07 PM
If "unity exists between Catholicism and Orthodoxy ... at the deepest theological and spiritual levels," as some are asserting here, then what is the reason for continuing divisions between us? I, for one, do not believe that unity exists. I believe we may resemble one another in many things, but those resemblances are superficial. I also think statements like the above are dangerous, because they suggest a Catholic Mass may be in all essentials as valid as an Orthodox Liturgy. If that's the case, why aren't we communicating with each other now?

Personally, I can't see any reason why I would accept the Catholic Eucharist, even in an "emergency." I've been told by my church that it is without validity, so what would be the point? Just a bit of bread and a sip of wine. I'd almost do better reverently to share a meal with my family, as they did in the earliest days of the Church.

Apparently not all Orthodox feel the same way that you do.

Personally, I think that is a good thing.
Amen
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on May 02, 2011, 04:40:59 PM
I also think statements like the above are dangerous, because they suggest a Catholic Mass may be in all essentials as valid as an Orthodox Liturgy. If that's the case, why aren't we communicating with each other now?

Just a few years ago, the ROCOR and ROC didn't share the Eucharist. Why didn't they, if both had a valid Eucharist?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: deusveritasest on May 02, 2011, 04:46:32 PM
Apparently not all Orthodox feel the same way that you do.

Obviously. We already know that. Not all Orthodox actually fully hold to authentic Orthodox teaching. So what?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Hermogenes on May 02, 2011, 05:03:26 PM
If "unity exists between Catholicism and Orthodoxy ... at the deepest theological and spiritual levels," as some are asserting here, then what is the reason for continuing divisions between us? I, for one, do not believe that unity exists. I believe we may resemble one another in many things, but those resemblances are superficial. I also think statements like the above are dangerous, because they suggest a Catholic Mass may be in all essentials as valid as an Orthodox Liturgy. If that's the case, why aren't we communicating with each other now?

Personally, I can't see any reason why I would accept the Catholic Eucharist, even in an "emergency." I've been told by my church that it is without validity, so what would be the point? Just a bit of bread and a sip of wine. I'd almost do better reverently to share a meal with my family, as they did in the earliest days of the Church.

When you say "my church", do you mean by that the OCA?  Or, all of Orthodoxy?  If it's the former, and you are saying that the OCA denies the validity of Catholic sacraments, this is not what I have been told by several OCA priests.  Also, if that is the position of the OCA why do they not then require re-baptism of all previously baptized converts, along with a full, life-time confession of all sins previously confessed to and absolved by Catholic priests?

If the latter, i.e. all of Orthodoxy, how do you account for such enormous lack of unity about the subject, with some jurisdictions/churches recognizing the validity of Catholic sacraments and some not?  Even within the same jurisdiction/church are there not even some priests or bishops who say "yea" while others say "nay".  I find the lack of consistency about this issue rather troubling.

And, finally, you mention the Holy Eucharist specifically.  If you are referring to that only and none of the other sacraments, how could it be that one sacrament is not valid while another may be?

I always forget how one's words get picked apart on this site. LOL I mean all sacraments, and I am not aware that any Orthodox jurisdiction would view with equanimity its adherents receiving the sacraments at the hands of a Roman Catholic (or even Byzantine Catholic) priest. If this is incorrect, perhaps someone could list in detail which jurisdictions do accept such "crossover" participation. Then, perhaps they could explain why Orthodox and the church of Rome are not in full communion with one another, if they regard one another's sacraments as valid.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on May 02, 2011, 06:35:19 PM
Personally, I don't really see what the big deal is. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both have rules that prevent their members from receiving the Eucharist from a non-Catholic, resp. non-Orthodox, minister in ordinary circumstances.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Hermogenes on May 03, 2011, 07:03:28 AM
Personally, I don't really see what the big deal is. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both have rules that prevent their members from receiving the Eucharist from a non-Catholic, resp. non-Orthodox, minister in ordinary circumstances.

IF we regard each other's sacraments as valid, why aren't we in full communion? But IF we do not regard them as equally valid, why would we receive them under any circumstances--even emergencies? It would be futile. To make an invalid confession or receive an invalid Eucharist--what would be the point? And if it's no "big deal," why would Catholics bother to convert at all?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ignatius on May 03, 2011, 08:17:01 AM
Personally, I don't really see what the big deal is. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both have rules that prevent their members from receiving the Eucharist from a non-Catholic, resp. non-Orthodox, minister in ordinary circumstances.

IF we regard each other's sacraments as valid, why aren't we in full communion? But IF we do not regard them as equally valid, why would we receive them under any circumstances--even emergencies? It would be futile. To make an invalid confession or receive an invalid Eucharist--what would be the point? And if it's no "big deal," why would Catholics bother to convert at all?

Perhaps it's the attitude of the other party that is disconcerting? The Western Church, in the past, was extremely opinionated concerning the need of 'all Christians' having to be in communion with the Pope. Since Vatican II, this attitude has softened but it's still dogmatically taught by the Western Church and so can't be ignored by the Eastern Church. As I've journeyed through the Roman Church toward Holy Orthodoxy I have come to recognize how great 'historically' the papacy was taught in the Western Church and have come to understand how the Orthodox find it so challenging to embrace the Western Church with these continued teachings within them not to mention that fact that many Catholics are very nominal in their reverence of Holy Tradition.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Hermogenes on May 03, 2011, 08:38:47 AM
Personally, I don't really see what the big deal is. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both have rules that prevent their members from receiving the Eucharist from a non-Catholic, resp. non-Orthodox, minister in ordinary circumstances.

IF we regard each other's sacraments as valid, why aren't we in full communion? But IF we do not regard them as equally valid, why would we receive them under any circumstances--even emergencies? It would be futile. To make an invalid confession or receive an invalid Eucharist--what would be the point? And if it's no "big deal," why would Catholics bother to convert at all?

Perhaps it's the attitude of the other party that is disconcerting? The Western Church, in the past, was extremely opinionated concerning the need of 'all Christians' having to be in communion with the Pope. Since Vatican II, this attitude has softened but it's still dogmatically taught by the Western Church and so can't be ignored by the Eastern Church. As I've journeyed through the Roman Church toward Holy Orthodoxy I have come to recognize how great 'historically' the papacy was taught in the Western Church and have come to understand how the Orthodox find it so challenging to embrace the Western Church with these continued teachings within them not to mention that fact that many Catholics are very nominal in their reverence of Holy Tradition.

Yes, most of us would always stumble over the issue of the papacy. But getting back to the sacraments, I'm thinking how easy to assume since we appear to be doing the same thing, that we really are. Take confession, for example. Even though a person is speaking with a priest, who at the end makes the sign of the cross over the "confessee's" head, the sacrament is really very different. I don't know enough theology to say whether those differences qualify as theological differences, but emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually the two processes are quite different experiences--at least, according to converts I've talked to.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on May 03, 2011, 10:26:50 AM
Personally, I don't really see what the big deal is. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both have rules that prevent their members from receiving the Eucharist from a non-Catholic, resp. non-Orthodox, minister in ordinary circumstances.

IF we regard each other's sacraments as valid, why aren't we in full communion? But IF we do not regard them as equally valid, why would we receive them under any circumstances--even emergencies? It would be futile. To make an invalid confession or receive an invalid Eucharist--what would be the point? And if it's no "big deal," why would Catholics bother to convert at all?

Perhaps it's the attitude of the other party that is disconcerting? The Western Church, in the past, was extremely opinionated concerning the need of 'all Christians' having to be in communion with the Pope. Since Vatican II, this attitude has softened but it's still dogmatically taught by the Western Church and so can't be ignored by the Eastern Church. As I've journeyed through the Roman Church toward Holy Orthodoxy I have come to recognize how great 'historically' the papacy was taught in the Western Church and have come to understand how the Orthodox find it so challenging to embrace the Western Church with these continued teachings within them not to mention that fact that many Catholics are very nominal in their reverence of Holy Tradition.

Yes, most of us would always stumble over the issue of the papacy. But getting back to the sacraments, I'm thinking how easy to assume since we appear to be doing the same thing, that we really are. Take confession, for example. Even though a person is speaking with a priest, who at the end makes the sign of the cross over the "confessee's" head, the sacrament is really very different. I don't know enough theology to say whether those differences qualify as theological differences, but emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually the two processes are quite different experiences--at least, according to converts I've talked to.

I guess the most appropriate questions to ask here, are:

a) What is it that confers grace to a sacrament?;

b)  What makes a sacrament "valid"?;

c) How are Orthodox sacraments "valid" and Catholic ones not, or Catholic sacraments "valid" and Orthodox ones not?; 

d)  If either Orthodox or Catholic sacraments were once "valid" and are not any longer, at what point, and how, did they lose validity?;

e)  What makes a sacrament "invalid"?

If this is inappropriate for this thread, I'd be happy to start a new one.  Someone just let me know, okay?  ;)  Thanks!
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Papist on May 03, 2011, 10:54:47 AM
many Catholics are very nominal in their reverence of Holy Tradition.
If you think that that is not a problem in the Eastern Orthodox Church, I think you are sadly mistaken.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on May 03, 2011, 11:12:59 AM
IF we regard each other's sacraments as valid, why aren't we in full communion?

See my earlier post:
Just a few years ago, the ROCOR and ROC didn't share the Eucharist. Why didn't they, if both had a valid Eucharist?

But IF we do not regard them as equally valid, why would we receive them under any circumstances--even emergencies? It would be futile. To make an invalid confession or receive an invalid Eucharist--what would be the point?

I completely agree with your logic here. In fact, the rules for Catholics are that we may only request the sacraments from a non-Catholic minister if these conditions are met:

Quote
   a. necessity or genuine spiritual advantage
    b. when the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided
    c. it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister
   d. a church which has valid sacraments

Condition (d) is extremely significant as a matter of principle, and extremely significant in practice because there are only a few non-Catholic groups that we recognize as having valid sacraments, such as the Orthodox, the PNCC, and the Assyrian Church of the East.

This goes back to what I said before, about our respective policies not being all that different:

Personally, I don't really see what the big deal is. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both have rules that prevent their members from receiving the Eucharist from a non-Catholic, resp. non-Orthodox, minister in ordinary circumstances.

And if it's no "big deal," why would Catholics bother to convert at all?

I absolutely agree with your logic there.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on May 03, 2011, 11:15:46 AM
many Catholics are very nominal in their reverence of Holy Tradition.
If you think that that is not a problem in the Eastern Orthodox Church, I think you are sadly mistaken.

In fact I am finding that among some Orthodox believers there is outright hostility to some of the more unpopular teachings of the Holy Father, patristic and desert, not to mention hostility toward those Orthodox believers who seek to renew the messages of the Fathers into the present life of the various particular Churches in Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on May 03, 2011, 11:42:19 AM
P.S. Hermogenes, you may have seen this on the other thread, but in case you didn't ...

I recommend reading this:

Intercommunion: why Catholics need not 'apologise' (http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1998/decjan1998p8_391.html)

It should (among other things) give you an idea of how much heat the Catholic Church takes for its "hardline" (in the eyes of many) stance concerning intercommunion.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Hermogenes on May 03, 2011, 02:15:52 PM
Personally, I don't really see what the big deal is. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both have rules that prevent their members from receiving the Eucharist from a non-Catholic, resp. non-Orthodox, minister in ordinary circumstances.

IF we regard each other's sacraments as valid, why aren't we in full communion? But IF we do not regard them as equally valid, why would we receive them under any circumstances--even emergencies? It would be futile. To make an invalid confession or receive an invalid Eucharist--what would be the point? And if it's no "big deal," why would Catholics bother to convert at all?

Perhaps it's the attitude of the other party that is disconcerting? The Western Church, in the past, was extremely opinionated concerning the need of 'all Christians' having to be in communion with the Pope. Since Vatican II, this attitude has softened but it's still dogmatically taught by the Western Church and so can't be ignored by the Eastern Church. As I've journeyed through the Roman Church toward Holy Orthodoxy I have come to recognize how great 'historically' the papacy was taught in the Western Church and have come to understand how the Orthodox find it so challenging to embrace the Western Church with these continued teachings within them not to mention that fact that many Catholics are very nominal in their reverence of Holy Tradition.

It hasn't softened that much. Acceptance of the supreme and universal authority of the See of Rome by all and sundry is still a non-negotiable condition for full relations, as far as I am aware. The Orthodox church has always accepted the primacy of Peter, but inter pares. Rome doesn't regard this as sufficient. One bishop as THE vicar of Christ on earth, with all authority over all others would never be accepted by Orthodox Christians. If you want an example of how sensitive we are on the subject, look at the wranglings currently going on in the OCA or the furor of the past couple of years in the Antiochian Archdiocese.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 01, 2011, 12:38:16 PM
Here is my take on this, fwiw.  Please bear in mind that I am no theologian, no priest, no nuttin'.  Just a poor working schmuck with a bunch of years under his belt, a bunch of reading that's been done, and a little bit of experience.  Heck, I don't even have a college degree!  :o

Anyway....I am a Jew.  As such, I converted to Christianity a number of years ago.  I was baptized into the wonderful Holy Byzantine Catholic Church.  At the same time I was also chrismated, and received Holy Communion.  Sometime later my wife (baptized Byz.Cath, raised RC) and I were received into Orthodoxy (OCA) via chrismation.  Now, I know this may cause some here to become apoplectic ;D, but since our chrismation we have have mainly worshipped and communed in the O.C., but there have been times when (shock, horror, gasp!!!!) we have received communion in the Catholic Church, confessed to and been absolved by Catholic priests.  (Wow---now he's goin' straight to hell in a hand basket!  ::))

Why do I say all this?  Because I believe in ONE God, in ONE Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church..., in ONE baptism..., etc.  And I believe that that ONE Church is manifested (if that's the right word) in both Orthodoxy AND Catholicism.  And I believe that that makes the apostolicity of both, the validity of the sacraments of both EQUAL.  God is really present in the Eucharist of both.  How could He NOT be?  Can anyone *prove* beyond any reasonable doubt that He is not?  I know, I know....someone out there's going to start throwing theology at me after recovering their eyebrows from the ceiling, but it all boils down to this, as I've asked elsewhere on this forum.....when we come before God at the Final Judgment, will He ask if we were Catholic (yes, and if so, which type?), Orthodox (yes, and if so, which jurisdiction?), Baptist, or Jew, or whatever??  Well....will He?  Or will He ask if we have loved Him, if we have loved our neighbor and our enemy;  if we have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc.?  Will He ask if we choose Him or if we choose the other?  I mean, really.....come on folks....I know it's fun and interesting and edifying to argue, discuss, and debate these matters, but are they that which is **really** essential to us as God's children, who, hopefully, love Him above all else?

(Now I'm gonna duck  ;D ;))
and fall off the fence and into the fire
Secondly, I have updated my profile to reflect the fact that, having been Orthodox my wife and I have returned to the Church of our baptism, the Catholic Church.  There are many reasons for this and I am not willing to discuss them here.

Thank you for clarifying. I was under the impression that you were Eastern Orthodox.

By the way, when were you received back into the Catholic Church? At Easter?

Oh, and of course welcome.  :)

Thank you.  Feels good to be back home!

Received back, "officially"?  I suppose on Saturday, by way of confession.  By the way, when I "confessed" having been "in schism" to my confessor, he just smiled and said "It's nothing to lose weight over."  ;) ;)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 01, 2011, 01:08:13 PM
^^ Good job quoting, ialmisry.

I wonder whether we will hear any "I was thrilled when J Michael broke off communion with the Catholic Church in order to join the Orthodox Church, but now ... " comments from any Orthodox posters.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Hermogenes on August 01, 2011, 02:34:40 PM
Quote

For the record, J Michael isn't Catholic. According to his own statements, he left the Catholic Church to join to Orthodox Church (but still receives communion in the Catholic Church).

Quote
Yup.  But I haven't actually received communion in a Catholic Church for over 4 years.  I have, however, confessed to a Catholic priest and received from him absolution.  The reception of communion issue *may* change, though.  It might also be worth noting that when I was received into Orthodoxy my thinking about the equality or lack thereof of Orthodox and Catholic sacraments was not what it is now.  Close, but not quite the same.

And, while I realize that most here think I'm wrong about this, I consider myself Orthodox and Catholic.  But we've been through this already, I think.

I don't understand the point of that. Is it some kind of nostalgia for the Catholic church that keeps you from really letting go? What is the point of continuing to receive invalid sacraments? And if you don't believe they're invalid, what are you doing on an Orthodox church?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 01, 2011, 02:51:39 PM
Quote

For the record, J Michael isn't Catholic. According to his own statements, he left the Catholic Church to join to Orthodox Church (but still receives communion in the Catholic Church).

Quote
Yup.  But I haven't actually received communion in a Catholic Church for over 4 years.  I have, however, confessed to a Catholic priest and received from him absolution.  The reception of communion issue *may* change, though.  It might also be worth noting that when I was received into Orthodoxy my thinking about the equality or lack thereof of Orthodox and Catholic sacraments was not what it is now.  Close, but not quite the same.

And, while I realize that most here think I'm wrong about this, I consider myself Orthodox and Catholic.  But we've been through this already, I think.

I don't understand the point of that. Is it some kind of nostalgia for the Catholic church that keeps you from really letting go? What is the point of continuing to receive invalid sacraments? And if you don't believe they're invalid, what are you doing on an Orthodox church?

Hermogenes, I think you missed the part where he said:

my wife and I have returned to the Church of our baptism, the Catholic Church
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shanghaiski on August 01, 2011, 02:54:01 PM
I don't think Cyprianistic ecclesiology is as simplistic as "visible Church" vs. "graceless wasteland."

I believe in a visible Church with clear canonical boundaries, but I don't believe in a graceless wasteland outside the Church. It seems to me it is a matter of fullness versus partiality. Some have explained at as purity versus poison, and this may be true in some respects, but a small amount of poison isn't deadly.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Hermogenes on August 01, 2011, 03:13:56 PM
Quote

For the record, J Michael isn't Catholic. According to his own statements, he left the Catholic Church to join to Orthodox Church (but still receives communion in the Catholic Church).

Quote
Yup.  But I haven't actually received communion in a Catholic Church for over 4 years.  I have, however, confessed to a Catholic priest and received from him absolution.  The reception of communion issue *may* change, though.  It might also be worth noting that when I was received into Orthodoxy my thinking about the equality or lack thereof of Orthodox and Catholic sacraments was not what it is now.  Close, but not quite the same.

And, while I realize that most here think I'm wrong about this, I consider myself Orthodox and Catholic.  But we've been through this already, I think.

I don't understand the point of that. Is it some kind of nostalgia for the Catholic church that keeps you from really letting go? What is the point of continuing to receive invalid sacraments? And if you don't believe they're invalid, what are you doing on an Orthodox church?

Hermogenes, I think you missed the part where he said:

my wife and I have returned to the Church of our baptism, the Catholic Church

Sorry, yes. I did overlook that. Sounds like maybe the best solution for them.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: theistgal on August 05, 2011, 11:34:52 PM
I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shiny on August 05, 2011, 11:37:37 PM
I don't believe the RCC has valid sacarments due to falling away into heresy and schism. If they were valid, I'd probably be RC.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on August 06, 2011, 12:46:43 PM
I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  ;D

And, if you *were* referring to me, please take my word (though you have no reason to) that there was nothing "blithe" or "demanding" about it.  Far, far more complicated than it might appear to be here.  Perhaps if you pm me, when I have a moment or two I might elaborate for you.  I've had enough, however, of being slammed and bashed publicly on this forum, although it's probably my own fault for speaking frankly.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, large numbers of my wife's family and their friends and relatives, some Orthodox, some Catholic (Latin and Byzantine), frequently attend Mass/DL at churches of the other faith, receiving the Eucharist (*not* demanding) and other sacraments as appropriate, all with full knowledge of the celebrant, and even a bishop or two.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2011, 12:53:48 PM
I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  ;D

And, if you *were* referring to me, please take my word (though you have no reason to) that there was nothing "blithe" or "demanding" about it.  Far, far more complicated than it might appear to be here.  Perhaps if you pm me, when I have a moment or two I might elaborate for you.  I've had enough, however, of being slammed and bashed publicly on this forum, although it's probably my own fault for speaking frankly.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, large numbers of my wife's family and their friends and relatives, some Orthodox, some Catholic (Latin and Byzantine), frequently attend Mass/DL at churches of the other faith, receiving the Eucharist (*not* demanding) and other sacraments as appropriate, all with full knowledge of the celebrant, and even a bishop or two.

Fact.  And not an unhappy one.  Communion is the seedbed for communion.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on August 06, 2011, 01:50:21 PM
I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  ;D

And, if you *were* referring to me, please take my word (though you have no reason to) that there was nothing "blithe" or "demanding" about it.  Far, far more complicated than it might appear to be here.  Perhaps if you pm me, when I have a moment or two I might elaborate for you.  I've had enough, however, of being slammed and bashed publicly on this forum, although it's probably my own fault for speaking frankly.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, large numbers of my wife's family and their friends and relatives, some Orthodox, some Catholic (Latin and Byzantine), frequently attend Mass/DL at churches of the other faith, receiving the Eucharist (*not* demanding) and other sacraments as appropriate, all with full knowledge of the celebrant, and even a bishop or two.

Fact.  And not an unhappy one.  Communion is the seedbed for communion.

This is a truth that may make some here apoplectic  ;).  But I guess we've already been through all of that  ;).  (I'm having dejavu all over again!)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2011, 02:44:42 PM
I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  ;D

And, if you *were* referring to me, please take my word (though you have no reason to) that there was nothing "blithe" or "demanding" about it.  Far, far more complicated than it might appear to be here.  Perhaps if you pm me, when I have a moment or two I might elaborate for you.  I've had enough, however, of being slammed and bashed publicly on this forum, although it's probably my own fault for speaking frankly.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, large numbers of my wife's family and their friends and relatives, some Orthodox, some Catholic (Latin and Byzantine), frequently attend Mass/DL at churches of the other faith, receiving the Eucharist (*not* demanding) and other sacraments as appropriate, all with full knowledge of the celebrant, and even a bishop or two.

Fact.  And not an unhappy one.  Communion is the seedbed for communion.
and communion with heretics harvests hellfire.

Quite unhappy.  Unless you are happy with heresy and hell.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2011, 02:49:58 PM
I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  ;D

And, if you *were* referring to me, please take my word (though you have no reason to) that there was nothing "blithe" or "demanding" about it.  Far, far more complicated than it might appear to be here.  Perhaps if you pm me, when I have a moment or two I might elaborate for you.  I've had enough, however, of being slammed and bashed publicly on this forum, although it's probably my own fault for speaking frankly.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, large numbers of my wife's family and their friends and relatives, some Orthodox, some Catholic (Latin and Byzantine), frequently attend Mass/DL at churches of the other faith, receiving the Eucharist (*not* demanding) and other sacraments as appropriate, all with full knowledge of the celebrant, and even a bishop or two.

Fact.  And not an unhappy one.  Communion is the seedbed for communion.
and communion with heretics harvests hellfire.

Quite unhappy.  Unless you are happy with heresy and hell.

We understand that not all Orthodox believers see eye to eye with you, or even one another,  concerning what constitutes heresy and what does not.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 06, 2011, 02:56:32 PM
I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  ;D

And, if you *were* referring to me, please take my word (though you have no reason to) that there was nothing "blithe" or "demanding" about it.  Far, far more complicated than it might appear to be here.  Perhaps if you pm me, when I have a moment or two I might elaborate for you.  I've had enough, however, of being slammed and bashed publicly on this forum, although it's probably my own fault for speaking frankly.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, large numbers of my wife's family and their friends and relatives, some Orthodox, some Catholic (Latin and Byzantine), frequently attend Mass/DL at churches of the other faith, receiving the Eucharist (*not* demanding) and other sacraments as appropriate, all with full knowledge of the celebrant, and even a bishop or two.

Fact.  And not an unhappy one.  Communion is the seedbed for communion.
and communion with heretics harvests hellfire.

Quite unhappy.  Unless you are happy with heresy and hell.

We understand that not all Orthodox believers see eye to eye with you, or even one another,  concerning what constitutes heresy and what does not.

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2011, 03:00:26 PM

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2011, 03:03:43 PM
I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  ;D

And, if you *were* referring to me, please take my word (though you have no reason to) that there was nothing "blithe" or "demanding" about it.  Far, far more complicated than it might appear to be here.  Perhaps if you pm me, when I have a moment or two I might elaborate for you.  I've had enough, however, of being slammed and bashed publicly on this forum, although it's probably my own fault for speaking frankly.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, large numbers of my wife's family and their friends and relatives, some Orthodox, some Catholic (Latin and Byzantine), frequently attend Mass/DL at churches of the other faith, receiving the Eucharist (*not* demanding) and other sacraments as appropriate, all with full knowledge of the celebrant, and even a bishop or two.

Fact.  And not an unhappy one.  Communion is the seedbed for communion.
and communion with heretics harvests hellfire.

Quite unhappy.  Unless you are happy with heresy and hell.

We understand that not all Orthodox believers see eye to eye with you, or even one another,  concerning what constitutes heresy and what does not.

yes.
(http://mrdignity.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/corneanu-150x150.jpg)
we deal with such things.
Quote
The Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church has decided to “forgive” two Orthodox bishops for their participation in religious rites with Eastern Catholics. However, it warned that no Orthodox cleric may celebrate sacraments or blessings with ministers of other religions on pain of excommunication.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/romanian_orthodox_synod_disciplines_bishop_for_intercommunion_with_catholics/
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 06, 2011, 03:14:26 PM

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing. Do you think leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy is good for one's soul? Last time I checked apostasy was a sin.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shiny on August 06, 2011, 03:28:51 PM
I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  ;D

And, if you *were* referring to me, please take my word (though you have no reason to) that there was nothing "blithe" or "demanding" about it.  Far, far more complicated than it might appear to be here.  Perhaps if you pm me, when I have a moment or two I might elaborate for you.  I've had enough, however, of being slammed and bashed publicly on this forum, although it's probably my own fault for speaking frankly.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, large numbers of my wife's family and their friends and relatives, some Orthodox, some Catholic (Latin and Byzantine), frequently attend Mass/DL at churches of the other faith, receiving the Eucharist (*not* demanding) and other sacraments as appropriate, all with full knowledge of the celebrant, and even a bishop or two.

Fact.  And not an unhappy one.  Communion is the seedbed for communion.
and communion with heretics harvests hellfire.

Quite unhappy.  Unless you are happy with heresy and hell.

We understand that not all Orthodox believers see eye to eye with you, or even one another,  concerning what constitutes heresy and what does not.

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?
And to whom would that be?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 06, 2011, 03:36:34 PM
I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  ;D

And, if you *were* referring to me, please take my word (though you have no reason to) that there was nothing "blithe" or "demanding" about it.  Far, far more complicated than it might appear to be here.  Perhaps if you pm me, when I have a moment or two I might elaborate for you.  I've had enough, however, of being slammed and bashed publicly on this forum, although it's probably my own fault for speaking frankly.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, large numbers of my wife's family and their friends and relatives, some Orthodox, some Catholic (Latin and Byzantine), frequently attend Mass/DL at churches of the other faith, receiving the Eucharist (*not* demanding) and other sacraments as appropriate, all with full knowledge of the celebrant, and even a bishop or two.

Fact.  And not an unhappy one.  Communion is the seedbed for communion.
and communion with heretics harvests hellfire.

Quite unhappy.  Unless you are happy with heresy and hell.

We understand that not all Orthodox believers see eye to eye with you, or even one another,  concerning what constitutes heresy and what does not.

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?
And to whom would that be?

Quote from: Shlomlokh
Aren't you coming into Orthodoxy soon?
Probably not, thanks largely to Isa and a few others of his ilk.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shiny on August 06, 2011, 03:46:23 PM
Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2011, 03:49:30 PM

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: lost on August 06, 2011, 04:02:31 PM
I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  ;D

And, if you *were* referring to me, please take my word (though you have no reason to) that there was nothing "blithe" or "demanding" about it.  Far, far more complicated than it might appear to be here.  Perhaps if you pm me, when I have a moment or two I might elaborate for you.  I've had enough, however, of being slammed and bashed publicly on this forum, although it's probably my own fault for speaking frankly.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, large numbers of my wife's family and their friends and relatives, some Orthodox, some Catholic (Latin and Byzantine), frequently attend Mass/DL at churches of the other faith, receiving the Eucharist (*not* demanding) and other sacraments as appropriate, all with full knowledge of the celebrant, and even a bishop or two.

Fact.  And not an unhappy one.  Communion is the seedbed for communion.
and communion with heretics harvests hellfire.

Quite unhappy.  Unless you are happy with heresy and hell.

We understand that not all Orthodox believers see eye to eye with you, or even one another,  concerning what constitutes heresy and what does not.

yes.
(http://mrdignity.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/corneanu-150x150.jpg)
we deal with such things.
Quote
The Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church has decided to “forgive” two Orthodox bishops for their participation in religious rites with Eastern Catholics. However, it warned that no Orthodox cleric may celebrate sacraments or blessings with ministers of other religions on pain of excommunication.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/romanian_orthodox_synod_disciplines_bishop_for_intercommunion_with_catholics/

 :'( ?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 06, 2011, 04:42:37 PM

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Schultz on August 06, 2011, 04:47:58 PM

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic. 

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: bogdan on August 06, 2011, 04:54:26 PM
Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.

That's what I'm thinking. Of course our actions affect others, but any serious inquirer who would convert or not convert based on a single person, or a few people (especially on a website), should probably slow down, think, and pray a LOT more before making such a rash decision.

Seed falling on the rocks: they spring up quickly, but having no root, quickly wither away under affliction and difficulty. Such individuals should cultivate healthier soul in their hearts, and they will not be turned away by people who they consider poor examples of Christians.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2011, 05:09:37 PM

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.

This has nothing to do with what I was saying to you.  Nothing at all. 
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2011, 05:12:58 PM

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic. 


Arguably you could be more accurately called a religious apostate if you left a Church with Apostolic Succession for one without Apostolic Succession.

Given the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes Apostolic Succession in Orthodoxy you cannot even be called a religious apostate.  You went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else. 

Any way, I still cannot figure out why Wyatt totally missed my point and is now pressing something that he's skewed beyond recognition.

blah

M.

PS: Wyatt should not feel too badly.  There was a time when I got sore and took that kind of a shot at Father Gregory Jensen.  And did I ever live to regret that move.  Not because he did or said anything to me that was hurtful but because I played emotional roulette with a very serious accusation.  But that was some time ago and I've let go of some of that emotional baggage.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2011, 05:14:53 PM
Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.

That's what I'm thinking. Of course our actions affect others, but any serious inquirer who would convert or not convert based on a single person, or a few people (especially on a website), should probably slow down, think, and pray a LOT more before making such a rash decision.

Seed falling on the rocks: they spring up quickly, but having no root, quickly wither away under affliction and difficulty. Such individuals should cultivate healthier soul in their hearts, and they will not be turned away by people who they consider poor examples of Christians.

Yes.  This is what I was trying to say to Wyatt.  In his eagerness to one-up Isa or Father Ambrose, he chose the lesser part.

M.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 06, 2011, 05:21:09 PM

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.
I recall someone awhile back posting that they had left the Orthodox Church and came back to the Catholic Church, and an Orthodox poster (can't remember which one now) told him that he had apostatized. So you're saying this, also, is incorrect? In the most basic sense, apostasy is just abandoning one's beliefs. If one is Catholic and they become Eastern Orthodox, they have apostatized from Catholicism.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 06, 2011, 05:22:43 PM
Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.

That's what I'm thinking. Of course our actions affect others, but any serious inquirer who would convert or not convert based on a single person, or a few people (especially on a website), should probably slow down, think, and pray a LOT more before making such a rash decision.

Seed falling on the rocks: they spring up quickly, but having no root, quickly wither away under affliction and difficulty. Such individuals should cultivate healthier soul in their hearts, and they will not be turned away by people who they consider poor examples of Christians.

Yes.  This is what I was trying to say to Wyatt.  In his eagerness to one-up Isa or Father Ambrose, he chose the lesser part.

M.
I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2011, 05:35:49 PM
Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.

That's what I'm thinking. Of course our actions affect others, but any serious inquirer who would convert or not convert based on a single person, or a few people (especially on a website), should probably slow down, think, and pray a LOT more before making such a rash decision.

Seed falling on the rocks: they spring up quickly, but having no root, quickly wither away under affliction and difficulty. Such individuals should cultivate healthier soul in their hearts, and they will not be turned away by people who they consider poor examples of Christians.

Yes.  This is what I was trying to say to Wyatt.  In his eagerness to one-up Isa or Father Ambrose, he chose the lesser part.

M.
I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."

Yea...ok...so ignore my point.   

If you want to use a loose understanding of apostasy then we should be able to use a loose understanding of conversion.

You and Isa share one thing for sure:  Both of you want it both ways all of the time.

Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 06, 2011, 06:03:58 PM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 06, 2011, 06:05:16 PM

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic. 


Arguably you could be more accurately called a religious apostate if you left a Church with Apostolic Succession for one without Apostolic Succession.

Given the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes Apostolic Succession in Orthodoxy you cannot even be called a religious apostate.  You went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else. 

Any way, I still cannot figure out why Wyatt totally missed my point and is now pressing something that he's skewed beyond recognition.

blah

M.

PS: Wyatt should not feel too badly.  There was a time when I got sore and took that kind of a shot at Father Gregory Jensen.  And did I ever live to regret that move.  Not because he did or said anything to me that was hurtful but because I played emotional roulette with a very serious accusation.  But that was some time ago and I've let go of some of that emotional baggage.

Wyatt should not feel too badly about what?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 06, 2011, 06:09:13 PM
I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."

I don't really see how calling it "conversion" is a problem. I'm more bothered by the statement that "[Schultz] went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else".

Of course, as I told someone else recently, most posters on this forum are only happy with Catholic posters who say things like "The only thing lacking for full communion is full communion" or "Pope Pius IX never said anyone had to agree with the Immaculate Conception, he just said you can't call it a heresy."
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 06, 2011, 06:16:01 PM
Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.

That's what I'm thinking. Of course our actions affect others, but any serious inquirer who would convert or not convert based on a single person, or a few people (especially on a website), should probably slow down, think, and pray a LOT more before making such a rash decision.

Seed falling on the rocks: they spring up quickly, but having no root, quickly wither away under affliction and difficulty. Such individuals should cultivate healthier soul in their hearts, and they will not be turned away by people who they consider poor examples of Christians.

Yes.  This is what I was trying to say to Wyatt.  In his eagerness to one-up Isa or Father Ambrose, he chose the lesser part.

M.
I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."

Yea...ok...so ignore my point.   

If you want to use a loose understanding of apostasy then we should be able to use a loose understanding of conversion.

You and Isa share one thing for sure:  Both of you want it both ways all of the time.
Well even though my definition for apostasy was somewhat more general than some are comfortable with, it is still much more precise than some people's definition of masturbation on this forum, which apparently can be applied to any and every type of sex act.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Schultz on August 06, 2011, 07:03:29 PM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: theistgal on August 06, 2011, 07:04:05 PM
I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  ;D

I was talking about ANY Catholic who presents him or herself for the Eucharist at an Orthodox Church.

Just because someone uses a Yiddish term doesn't mean they're addressing only those of that heritage. I could just as easily have said "huevos".  8)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 06, 2011, 08:20:38 PM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Schultz on August 06, 2011, 08:38:31 PM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2011, 10:13:19 PM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

The religion from which Schultz or I might be apostate a fide is Christianity. 

By Catholic standards Schults might be heterodox in some of his beliefs; he is a material schismatic and not a formal schismatic, but by no stretch of any canon is he apostate a fide.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2011, 10:21:35 PM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Also Wyatt, I agree with Schultz.  You are allowing hurt and anger to cloud your "vision" and that is not good for you spiritually.  It appears to me that you are allowing yourself to be inordinately distressed by the words and attitudes of some individuals here on this Forum.  It is clear that they have long since begun to disturb your inner peace and there is a very real culpability in failing to avoid a near occasion of sin.  Your Church does not say that those who convert/transfer/translate to Orthodoxy, from the Catholic Church, are apostate.   Why would you press it?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on August 06, 2011, 10:45:04 PM

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing. Do you think leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy is good for one's soul? Last time I checked apostasy was a sin.
This.

I never understood such a view, even when I was in the RCC. If you all believe we have grace, how in the world could it be a sin for someone from your camp to come into Orthodoxy? From your church's POV, would they not be exchanging grace for grace?  ???

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 06, 2011, 10:51:49 PM

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.
I recall someone awhile back posting that they had left the Orthodox Church and came back to the Catholic Church, and an Orthodox poster (can't remember which one now) told him that he had apostatized. So you're saying this, also, is incorrect? In the most basic sense, apostasy is just abandoning one's beliefs. If one is Catholic and they become Eastern Orthodox, they have apostatized from Catholicism.
I was that Orthodox poster. I recall others disagreeing with the definition of apostasy I was using at that time. Was I wrong? I really don't know. I suppose it really comes down to how one defines apostasy. Looking back now, I would probably mellow my use of the word "apostasy" and use it to refer only to those who abandon the Christian faith altogether, NOT to those who leave the Orthodox faith for a heterodox Christian faith.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2011, 11:07:42 PM
I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."

I don't really see how calling it "conversion" is a problem. I'm more bothered by the statement that "[Schultz] went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else".

Of course, as I told someone else recently, most posters on this forum are only happy with Catholic posters who say things like "The only thing lacking for full communion is full communion" or "Pope Pius IX never said anyone had to agree with the Immaculate Conception, he just said you can't call it a heresy."
Did you define happy?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 06, 2011, 11:10:01 PM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Asteriktos on August 06, 2011, 11:18:07 PM
EDIT-=-
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 06, 2011, 11:19:49 PM
I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."

I don't really see how calling it "conversion" is a problem. I'm more bothered by the statement that "[Schultz] went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else".

Of course, as I told someone else recently, most posters on this forum are only happy with Catholic posters who say things like "The only thing lacking for full communion is full communion" or "Pope Pius IX never said anyone had to agree with the Immaculate Conception, he just said you can't call it a heresy."
Did you define happy?

I figured I should first define "are".
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on August 06, 2011, 11:20:13 PM
I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."

I don't really see how calling it "conversion" is a problem. I'm more bothered by the statement that "[Schultz] went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else".
Yeep! :o I hated that relativistic drivel when I was in the RCC, i.e. "We're all Catholic and the schism doesn't exist, so let's just get a long and sing some Marty Haugen music!" (Of course that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it has been my experience with most RCs I have encountered.) I think from the Orthodox POV we would say "he went from being heterodox to Orthodox", in other words a conversion.

Quote
Of course, as I told someone else recently, most posters on this forum are only happy with Catholic posters who say things like "The only thing lacking for full communion is full communion" or "Pope Pius IX never said anyone had to agree with the Immaculate Conception, he just said you can't call it a heresy."
You don't have to put me in that camp. ;) I think it's silly talk.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 06, 2011, 11:22:02 PM
I never understood such a view, even when I was in the RCC. If you all believe we have grace, how in the world could it be a sin for someone from your camp to come into Orthodoxy? From your church's POV, would they not be exchanging grace for grace?  ???

Actually, what I have trouble understanding is the attitude of people like Fr. J. Steele (emphasis added):

Quote from:  Fr. J Steele
   The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

    I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

   Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on August 06, 2011, 11:22:16 PM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

Who on earth said you couldn't? Doth thou protest too much? ;)

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 06, 2011, 11:23:59 PM
I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."

I don't really see how calling it "conversion" is a problem. I'm more bothered by the statement that "[Schultz] went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else".
Yeep! :o I hated that relativistic drivel when I was in the RCC, i.e. "We're all Catholic and the schism doesn't exist, so let's just get a long and sing some Marty Haugen music!" (Of course that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it has been my experience with most RCs I have encountered.) I think from the Orthodox POV we would say "he went from being heterodox to Orthodox", in other words a conversion.

Quote
Of course, as I told someone else recently, most posters on this forum are only happy with Catholic posters who say things like "The only thing lacking for full communion is full communion" or "Pope Pius IX never said anyone had to agree with the Immaculate Conception, he just said you can't call it a heresy."
You don't have to put me in that camp. ;) I think it's silly talk.

In Christ,
Andrew

Wise man.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on August 06, 2011, 11:26:35 PM
I never understood such a view, even when I was in the RCC. If you all believe we have grace, how in the world could it be a sin for someone from your camp to come into Orthodoxy? From your church's POV, would they not be exchanging grace for grace?  ???

Actually, what I have trouble understanding is the attitude of people like Fr. J. Steele (emphasis added):

Quote from:  Fr. J Steele
   The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

    I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

   Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.
Ah, yes, the ByzCath crowd. You can probably add the ECs at CAF to that lot, too. I think he has a good point: if you don't believe what Rome claims about itself and find yourself Orthodox in almost every single way, why would you remain outside of communion with Her? Of course, if I were a RC priest I would be encouraging people to reform these believes and conform them to what Rome says. It's silly, IMHO, to say "You must remain in communion with the Pope and consent to the teachings of the magisterium, but if you don't, it's OK to become Orthodox." There seems to be some speaking out of two sides of the mouth in the RCC on this issue. :/

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 06, 2011, 11:29:40 PM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

Who on earth said you couldn't? Doth thou protest too much? ;)

In Christ,
Andrew
Who on earth? Schultz is on earth, isn't he?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2011, 11:43:23 PM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

The Vatican can say anything it likes. What Schultz is pointing out is only what the Vatican has been saying since Vatican II. If you disagree, your argument is not with him, but with the Vatican.

The Vatican likes to define the validity of the sacraments of those not in communion with it. OK, it says ours are valid.  We don't care what the Vatican says, but if you are taking your supreme pontiff's word on it, you do.  It allows its communicants to come commune with us (without asking us.  Rather rude, not to mention sacriligious).  It would give communion to any one of us-even me  :o, if we came up.  On the other hand, we won't ask it of you, nor will we give it to you.

So your parallel is, well, not parrallel.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shlomlokh on August 06, 2011, 11:49:32 PM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

Who on earth said you couldn't? Doth thou protest too much? ;)

In Christ,
Andrew
Who on earth? Schultz is on earth, isn't he?
I assume he is. I've never met him. Frankly, for all we know he could be made up.  :o But seriously, I don't see where he said that in his post that you quoted, unless I misread it.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 06, 2011, 11:56:52 PM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?

It struck me a little funny too, but it's pretty late for me tonight, so I'll think about some more tomorrow.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 06, 2011, 11:58:14 PM
I never understood such a view, even when I was in the RCC. If you all believe we have grace, how in the world could it be a sin for someone from your camp to come into Orthodoxy? From your church's POV, would they not be exchanging grace for grace?  ???

Actually, what I have trouble understanding is the attitude of people like Fr. J. Steele (emphasis added):

Quote from:  Fr. J Steele
   The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

    I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

   Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

I should add that by "OICWR" he means "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

Whether or not you choose to use the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome", it's quite offensive to say that people who call themselves that need to leave the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2011, 12:04:42 AM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

The Vatican can say anything it likes. What Schultz is pointing out is only what the Vatican has been saying since Vatican II. If you disagree, your argument is not with him, but with the Vatican.

The Vatican likes to define the validity of the sacraments of those not in communion with it. OK, it says ours are valid.  We don't care what the Vatican says, but if you are taking your supreme pontiff's word on it, you do.  It allows its communicants to come commune with us (without asking us.  Rather rude, not to mention sacriligious).  It would give communion to any one of us-even me  :o, if we came up.  On the other hand, we won't ask it of you, nor will we give it to you.

So your parallel is, well, not parrallel.
If you guys don't think that the Catholic Eucharist is valid, then why the hell are you reprimanding Wyatt and calling on him when he is taking Communion in a Catholic Church? You don't like it when Wyatt says conversion to Orthodoxy from Catholicism is apostasy, but then I suppose that we  Catholics are supposed to lie down and keep silent when  you guys put out official documents saying that Catholics are in apostasy from Orthodoxy?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 07, 2011, 12:55:57 AM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

The Vatican can say anything it likes. What Schultz is pointing out is only what the Vatican has been saying since Vatican II. If you disagree, your argument is not with him, but with the Vatican.

The Vatican likes to define the validity of the sacraments of those not in communion with it. OK, it says ours are valid.  We don't care what the Vatican says, but if you are taking your supreme pontiff's word on it, you do.  It allows its communicants to come commune with us (without asking us.  Rather rude, not to mention sacriligious).  It would give communion to any one of us-even me  :o, if we came up.  On the other hand, we won't ask it of you, nor will we give it to you.

So your parallel is, well, not parrallel.
If you guys don't think that the Catholic Eucharist is valid, then why the hell are you reprimanding Wyatt and calling on him when he is taking Communion in a Catholic Church? You don't like it when Wyatt says conversion to Orthodoxy from Catholicism is apostasy, but then I suppose that we  Catholics are supposed to lie down and keep silent when  you guys put out official documents saying that Catholics are in apostasy from Orthodoxy?
If what you say doesn't matter to us, why should what we say get you in such an uproar? ???
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 07, 2011, 01:02:26 AM
I assume he is. I've never met him. Frankly, for all we know he could be made up.  :o
No, I've met him and the lovely wife, so I can testify he is a real person. And a nice one at that.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 07, 2011, 01:31:39 AM
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

The Vatican can say anything it likes. What Schultz is pointing out is only what the Vatican has been saying since Vatican II. If you disagree, your argument is not with him, but with the Vatican.

The Vatican likes to define the validity of the sacraments of those not in communion with it. OK, it says ours are valid.  We don't care what the Vatican says, but if you are taking your supreme pontiff's word on it, you do.  It allows its communicants to come commune with us (without asking us.  Rather rude, not to mention sacriligious).  It would give communion to any one of us-even me  :o, if we came up.  On the other hand, we won't ask it of you, nor will we give it to you.

So your parallel is, well, not parrallel.
If you guys don't think that the Catholic Eucharist is valid,
Who? Me? I know the Catholic Eucharist is valid.  I think the Vatican's Eucharist is valid, but that's just my theologoumen. But I don't know what that has to do with what follows.

then why the hell are you reprimanding Wyatt and calling on him when he is taking Communion in a Catholic Church?
If he was communing in a Catholic Church, I'd reprimand the priest first.  But you mean the Vatican: no one is reprimanding him for communing with the Vatican, as he believes in it.  Except when it says the Orthodox are Catholic, evidently.

You don't like it when Wyatt says conversion to Orthodoxy from Catholicism is apostasy,

Besides not being true, he's contradicting your supreme pontiff.

but then I suppose that we  Catholics are supposed to lie down and keep silent when  you guys put out official documents saying that Catholics are in apostasy from Orthodoxy?
If you read the document you quoted, you'd see that Catholics are in Orthodoxy.
Quote
Of these heresies, some already have entirely failed, some are in decay, some have wasted away, some yet flourish in a greater or less degree vigorous until the time of their return to the Faith, while others are reproduced to run their course from their birth to their destruction. For being the miserable cogitations and devices of miserable men, both one and the other, struck with the thunderbolt of the anathema of the seven Ecumenical Councils, shall vanish away, though they may last a thousand years; for the orthodoxy of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the living Word of God, alone endures for ever, according to the infallible promise of the LORD: the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. xviii. 18).
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

As for lying down, I don't see it. I see a lot of jumping up and down.  Which is fine.  We just don't have to watch it.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Shiny on August 07, 2011, 01:49:24 AM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Also Wyatt, I agree with Schultz.  You are allowing hurt and anger to cloud your "vision" and that is not good for you spiritually.  It appears to me that you are allowing yourself to be inordinately distressed by the words and attitudes of some individuals here on this Forum.  It is clear that they have long since begun to disturb your inner peace and there is a very real culpability in failing to avoid a near occasion of sin.  Your Church does not say that those who convert/transfer/translate to Orthodoxy, from the Catholic Church, are apostate.   Why would you press it?

Soon they will not be saying that there is crime or sin, but only hungry men.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2011, 01:50:10 AM
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

The Vatican can say anything it likes. What Schultz is pointing out is only what the Vatican has been saying since Vatican II. If you disagree, your argument is not with him, but with the Vatican.

The Vatican likes to define the validity of the sacraments of those not in communion with it. OK, it says ours are valid.  We don't care what the Vatican says, but if you are taking your supreme pontiff's word on it, you do.  It allows its communicants to come commune with us (without asking us.  Rather rude, not to mention sacriligious).  It would give communion to any one of us-even me  :o, if we came up.  On the other hand, we won't ask it of you, nor will we give it to you.

So your parallel is, well, not parrallel.
If you guys don't think that the Catholic Eucharist is valid,
Who? Me? I know the Catholic Eucharist is valid.  I think the Vatican's Eucharist is valid, but that's just my theologoumen. But I don't know what that has to do with what follows.

then why the hell are you reprimanding Wyatt and calling on him when he is taking Communion in a Catholic Church?
If he was communing in a Catholic Church, I'd reprimand the priest first.  But you mean the Vatican: no one is reprimanding him for communing with the Vatican, as he believes in it. 
Here is the reprimand:
Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.
The Document quoted clearly implies that the Roman Church is in apostasy from the Orthodox Church. So there is an apostasy there according to the official teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church. Do you believe your own Orthodox bishops that there is an apostasy between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church or do you believe the Vatican that there is no apostasy between the two Churches. Who is right here? The Vatican or the official declarations and official documents of the Holy Orthodox Church?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2011, 02:11:23 AM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic. 

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.
However, does the Orthodox Church maintain that the Roman Church is in apostasy from the Orthodox Church? Or that the Pope is deceiving people into apostasy from the ORthodox Church?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
Do you believe the official declarations of the Orthodox Church or do you believe the Vatican on this issue of apostasy?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 02:35:14 AM
BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.


Indeed.  Is it not a wonderful testament to enduring love that even though the Church of the West separated from us 1000 years ago there are still Orthodox who are reluctant to deny that there is grace in Catholic Sacraments?

The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments.  Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his.

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all other Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 07, 2011, 02:40:38 AM
Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.

That's what I'm thinking. Of course our actions affect others, but any serious inquirer who would convert or not convert based on a single person, or a few people (especially on a website), should probably slow down, think, and pray a LOT more before making such a rash decision.

Seed falling on the rocks: they spring up quickly, but having no root, quickly wither away under affliction and difficulty. Such individuals should cultivate healthier soul in their hearts, and they will not be turned away by people who they consider poor examples of Christians.

Yes.  This is what I was trying to say to Wyatt.  In his eagerness to one-up Isa or Father Ambrose, he chose the lesser part.

M.
I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."
Coming back to this (since it ignores the semantic wars and actually illustrates my point).....it doesn't matter whether you call it apostasy, formal schism, material schism, etc. The point is that it is inappropriate to call abandoning the fullness of truth found only in the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy a "conversion" as if it were a good thing.


P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2011, 02:53:57 AM
BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.


Indeed.  Is it not a wonderful testament to enduring love that even though the Church of the West separated from us 1000 years ago there are still Orthodox who are reluctant to deny that there is grace in Catholic Sacraments?

The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments.  Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his.

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all other Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."
That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2011, 02:58:53 AM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon, but apparently he is unaware of the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns".
This official document,  signed, sealed and delivered by several Orthodox bishops, clearly implies that the Roman Pope is deceiving  people into apostasy. But the Pope is only teaching Roman Catholicism. Is there a question of apostasy between the two Churches or not? 
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 07, 2011, 04:04:02 AM
BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.


Indeed.  Is it not a wonderful testament to enduring love that even though the Church of the West separated from us 1000 years ago there are still Orthodox who are reluctant to deny that there is grace in Catholic Sacraments?

The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments.  Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his.

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all other Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."
That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.
Is this really a matter on which the Church needs to have an official teaching?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 07, 2011, 04:07:26 AM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,
1. Schultz did not call Wyatt an ignorant buffoon.
2. If you're really as worked up as your posts indicate, you may want to step away from the computer, take several deep breaths, and post only after you've calmed down a bit. It doesn't appear to me that you're reading others' posts correctly.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 04:10:16 AM
BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.


Indeed.  Is it not a wonderful testament to enduring love that even though the Church of the West separated from us 1000 years ago there are still Orthodox who are reluctant to deny that there is grace in Catholic Sacraments?

The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments.  Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his.

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all other Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."
That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.

We are really speaking about a peripheral question.  It does not impinge on the essence of our faith. 

But we should point out that *every* Orthodox Church will baptize Roman Catholics, some routinely and others less so.  In the case of Eastern Catholics I do not think that they are ever baptized if they come into Orthodoxy.

These contradictions/paradoxes do not bother the Orthodox very much. We live with them.  The focus is not on the validity of heterodox sacraments but on bringing the heterodox into Orthodoxy.

You will find that the diverse approaches result from the thicket of age old canons on this question on how to deal with schismatic and heretical groups.  The Church formulated so many canons which were suitable for this or that particular heterodox group and how to reconcile it to the Church.   But we have never had a pan-Orthodox Council to deliberate on the status of Roman Catholic sacraments nor how to receive Roman Catholics.  So when faced with a concrete request for reception a bishop has an array of choices.... he will find a way to bring the convert safely into the Church within the wide parameters of the canons.

Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 04:11:10 AM
/\  It's worth a mention that this "thicket" of ancient canons still exists in Orthodoxy.  Exactly the same thicket existed in the Roman Catholic Church until as late as 1918.  Prior to 1918 you had the same jumble of often contradictory canon laws from centuries past back to the year dot.   But in 1918 under Pope Pius X the first "Code of Canon Law" was created, eliminating the chaos of centuries.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 04:35:45 AM
That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.

Fr McQuinn baptized two of our Lebanese Orthodox teenage boys a few years back before he would recommend them for enrolment at a Marist school.

Sure looks like your Church is at sixes and sevens on this matter.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2011, 05:46:39 AM

1. Schultz did not call Wyatt an ignorant buffoon.
2. If you're really as worked up as your posts indicate, you may want to step away from the computer, take several deep breaths, and post only after you've calmed down a bit. It doesn't appear to me that you're reading others' posts correctly.
As I read reply 188:
Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.
BTW, does the Roman Pope desire to deceive people into apostasy from Orthodoxy or not?
If one converts from Orthodoxy into Roman Catholicism, are you going into apostasy?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 07:55:19 AM
BTW, does the Roman Pope desire to deceive people into apostasy from Orthodoxy or not?
If one converts from Orthodoxy into Roman Catholicism, are you going into apostasy?

The original meaning of apostasy was to abandon Christ, becoming a pagan or a Muslim or a Communist.  But it also has another popular usage, to abandon the Church and go to another. 

But what does the Pope want of us?  To subjugate and dominate the Orthodox?  Nowhere and never has he stated that he does not desire full and final authority over the Orthodox if we "return" to Rome.  He is far too artful to lay it out plainly.  He is acting in bad faith. 

Forgive me for "speaking the truth in love" but it is how I see it.

Metropolitan Anthony Bloom:

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."


The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 08:39:57 AM
That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.

Fr McQuinn baptized two of our Lebanese Orthodox teenage boys a few years back before he would recommend them for enrolment at a Marist school.

Sure looks like your Church is at sixes and sevens on this matter.

When the Catholic Church coerced these boys into being baptized were the Catholics forcing them into an act of apostasy?

These boys had been baptized at birth, chrismated, and receiving Holy Communion for 12 years.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 07, 2011, 08:46:17 AM
BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.


Indeed.  Is it not a wonderful testament to enduring love that even though the Church of the West separated from us 1000 years ago there are still Orthodox who are reluctant to deny that there is grace in Catholic Sacraments?

The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments.  Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his.

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all other Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."
That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.
Is this really a matter on which the Church needs to have an official teaching?
No.  Until they come to embrace Orthodoxy, there's no reason to worry ourselves.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 07, 2011, 08:49:54 AM
BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.


Indeed.  Is it not a wonderful testament to enduring love that even though the Church of the West separated from us 1000 years ago there are still Orthodox who are reluctant to deny that there is grace in Catholic Sacraments?

The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments.  Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his.

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all other Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."
That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.
Sure it does: we believe in one baptism for the remission of sins.
All Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism of any other Orthodox Church is valid.
As to the Vatican  that's like the US government worrying about the qualifications for Chinese citizenship.  Unless its an issue of US naturalization, it's not their affair.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Schultz on August 07, 2011, 08:50:56 AM
Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.

That's what I'm thinking. Of course our actions affect others, but any serious inquirer who would convert or not convert based on a single person, or a few people (especially on a website), should probably slow down, think, and pray a LOT more before making such a rash decision.

Seed falling on the rocks: they spring up quickly, but having no root, quickly wither away under affliction and difficulty. Such individuals should cultivate healthier soul in their hearts, and they will not be turned away by people who they consider poor examples of Christians.

Yes.  This is what I was trying to say to Wyatt.  In his eagerness to one-up Isa or Father Ambrose, he chose the lesser part.

M.
I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."
Coming back to this (since it ignores the semantic wars and actually illustrates my point).....it doesn't matter whether you call it apostasy, formal schism, material schism, etc. The point is that it is inappropriate to call abandoning the fullness of truth found only in the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy a "conversion" as if it were a good thing.

I have no problem were you to be arguing that leaving the RCC is not a "good thing."  I simply take umbrage with your terminology. 

Quote
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

I think you have finally grasped what I'm getting at.  Take that feeling and flip it around.

Until you can do the same, please refrain from calling people you don't know an apostate when your own church's definition of such precludes such a label.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 07, 2011, 08:54:17 AM
Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.

That's what I'm thinking. Of course our actions affect others, but any serious inquirer who would convert or not convert based on a single person, or a few people (especially on a website), should probably slow down, think, and pray a LOT more before making such a rash decision.

Seed falling on the rocks: they spring up quickly, but having no root, quickly wither away under affliction and difficulty. Such individuals should cultivate healthier soul in their hearts, and they will not be turned away by people who they consider poor examples of Christians.

Yes.  This is what I was trying to say to Wyatt.  In his eagerness to one-up Isa or Father Ambrose, he chose the lesser part.

M.
I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."
Coming back to this (since it ignores the semantic wars and actually illustrates my point).....it doesn't matter whether you call it apostasy, formal schism, material schism, etc. The point is that it is inappropriate to call abandoning  the Vatican and embracing the fullness of truth found only in the Catholic Church for of Eastern Orthodoxy a "conversion" as if it were a good thing.
Maybe not on CAF, but here it's a great thing.

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
Wow. So your father confessor can do all that?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Schultz on August 07, 2011, 08:54:56 AM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________


Again, what the Orthodox Church says is irrelevant to what Wyatt is saying.  If he's a good Roman Catholic, he simply must believe that the Orthodox Church is not an apostate organization, but a schismatic one.  Period.  There is no ifs, ands, or buts.  IF this was not the case, the RCC would not allow Orthodox Christians to receive communion in their churches at any time.  Apostates, by definition, cannot receive communion.

Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Schultz on August 07, 2011, 08:58:05 AM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: podkarpatska on August 07, 2011, 08:58:25 AM
The only result from endless discussions like this one is that we all make the Blessed Mother weep over our mutual arrogance and hubris which we think is zealous protection of what we each believe.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: podkarpatska on August 07, 2011, 08:58:56 AM
It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________


Again, what the Orthodox Church says is irrelevant to what Wyatt is saying.  If he's a good Roman Catholic, he simply must believe that the Orthodox Church is not an apostate organization, but a schismatic one.  Period.  There is no ifs, ands, or buts.  IF this was not the case, the RCC would not allow Orthodox Christians to receive communion in their churches at any time.  Apostates, by definition, cannot receive communion.



AMen to that.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 07, 2011, 09:18:30 AM
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

The Vatican can say anything it likes. What Schultz is pointing out is only what the Vatican has been saying since Vatican II. If you disagree, your argument is not with him, but with the Vatican.

The Vatican likes to define the validity of the sacraments of those not in communion with it. OK, it says ours are valid.  We don't care what the Vatican says, but if you are taking your supreme pontiff's word on it, you do.  It allows its communicants to come commune with us (without asking us.  Rather rude, not to mention sacriligious).  It would give communion to any one of us-even me  :o, if we came up.  On the other hand, we won't ask it of you, nor will we give it to you.

So your parallel is, well, not parrallel.
If you guys don't think that the Catholic Eucharist is valid,
Who? Me? I know the Catholic Eucharist is valid.  I think the Vatican's Eucharist is valid, but that's just my theologoumen. But I don't know what that has to do with what follows.

then why the hell are you reprimanding Wyatt and calling on him when he is taking Communion in a Catholic Church?
If he was communing in a Catholic Church, I'd reprimand the priest first.  But you mean the Vatican: no one is reprimanding him for communing with the Vatican, as he believes in it. 
Here is the reprimand:
Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Not a reprimand.  Just a reminder.  Has nothing to do with the validity of the Eucharist: even if it were just bread, he is setting himself in opposition to that "magisterium" which validates your Eucharist.  But then again, since one of your priests would give me communion (and when I was Lutheran, did) if I walked up, perhaps it doesn't matter.  At least to the Vatican.

BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.
Sure it does.  That's why the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church are read in every DL.

As to the Vatican, its self-absorbtion is throwing you. The Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, as the Fathers of Constantinople left it when they set the Church's seal upon it speaks of what the Church believes, not the heretics.  This in contrast to the draft of the Creed at Nicea, where the text anathematizes specific Arian beliefs.

We don't need a teaching on the validity of the Vatican's Eucharist.  Who cares?  I'm of the opinion that it is valid, even to the point of crossing myself passing one of the Vatican's churches, and even prostrating at adoration (where I would save a Vatican wafer like St. Joseph of Damascus was martyred protecting the Catholic Eucharist of his Orthodox Church, that I can't say).  But I would never think, even on my deathbed, of communing from it.  Those who don't think it is "valid" would care even less. We are not like your scholastics, looking for problems.

The Document quoted clearly implies that the Roman Church is in apostasy from the Orthodox Church.  So there is an apostasy there according to the official teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church.

And if you could produce like documents from the Vatican in its post Vatican II "developed" state, you might have had a point.

Do you believe your own Orthodox bishops that there is an apostasy between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church or do you believe the Vatican that there is no apostasy between the two Churches. Who is right here? The Vatican or the official declarations and official documents of the Holy Orthodox Church?
I side with the Holy Orthodox and Catholic Church (as the documents refers to us).  That does not preclude holding Wyatt to the standards of your "magisterium" which he claims to be following. Wyatt is quite free to embrace Orthodox standards, just embrace them fully.

[/quote]
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 07, 2011, 09:28:07 AM
But you mean the Vatican: no one is reprimanding him for communing with the Vatican, as he believes in it.  Except when it says the Orthodox are Catholic, evidently.

The Vatican said that? I think you're confused. It was Elijahmaria who said that. If I remember correctly, she called the Catholic Church "my one holy catholic and apostolic Church" and the Orthodox Church "your one holy catholic and apostolic Church".
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2011, 10:22:15 AM
But you mean the Vatican: no one is reprimanding him for communing with the Vatican, as he believes in it.  Except when it says the Orthodox are Catholic, evidently.

The Vatican said that? I think you're confused. It was Elijahmaria who said that. If I remember correctly, she called the Catholic Church "my one holy catholic and apostolic Church" and the Orthodox Church "your one holy catholic and apostolic Church".

Since the Catholic Church recognizes all canonical Orthodox Churches as Sister Churches, I'd need to have you show me something to indicate that the Catholic Church would deny the title Orthodox Catholic to Orthodox believers.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 07, 2011, 11:49:01 AM
Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

That's a good analogy. I would add that just as, in the one case, there are some Anglicans who take it worse than others, so too in the other case, there are some Catholics who take it worse than others.

I'd count myself as one of the Catholics who take it pretty well.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 07, 2011, 12:02:07 PM
BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.


Indeed.  Is it not a wonderful testament to enduring love that even though the Church of the West separated from us 1000 years ago there are still Orthodox who are reluctant to deny that there is grace in Catholic Sacraments?

The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments.  Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his.

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all other Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."
That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.
Is this really a matter on which the Church needs to have an official teaching?

Personally, I don't think it's a major problem. Consider, the bull Apostolicae Curae (Pope Leo XIII's bull declaring Anglican ordinations to be "absolutely null and utterly void") was a long time coming -- 1896.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 07, 2011, 01:47:21 PM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
Wow. So your father confessor can do all that?
No. When I made that statement I was, of course, meaning that since Schultz is not my confessor, the only other person who could know the state of my soul would be Christ Himself, and even one's confessor cannot know one's soul as intimately as Christ can. Confessors can still be wrong.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2011, 02:18:12 PM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 
Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
See:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
This encyclical seems to imply that it is apostasy to do so, but
 how can it be so, since you are not giving up on your belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: mike on August 07, 2011, 02:45:31 PM

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic. 

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.
I recall someone awhile back posting that they had left the Orthodox Church and came back to the Catholic Church, and an Orthodox poster (can't remember which one now) told him that he had apostatized. So you're saying this, also, is incorrect? In the most basic sense, apostasy is just abandoning one's beliefs. If one is Catholic and they become Eastern Orthodox, they have apostatized from Catholicism.
I was that Orthodox poster. I recall others disagreeing with the definition of apostasy I was using at that time. Was I wrong? I really don't know. I suppose it really comes down to how one defines apostasy. Looking back now, I would probably mellow my use of the word "apostasy" and use it to refer only to those who abandon the Christian faith altogether, NOT to those who leave the Orthodox faith for a heterodox Christian faith.

Well, I would call them as such.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 07, 2011, 03:53:17 PM

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic. 

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.
I recall someone awhile back posting that they had left the Orthodox Church and came back to the Catholic Church, and an Orthodox poster (can't remember which one now) told him that he had apostatized. So you're saying this, also, is incorrect? In the most basic sense, apostasy is just abandoning one's beliefs. If one is Catholic and they become Eastern Orthodox, they have apostatized from Catholicism.
I was that Orthodox poster. I recall others disagreeing with the definition of apostasy I was using at that time. Was I wrong? I really don't know. I suppose it really comes down to how one defines apostasy. Looking back now, I would probably mellow my use of the word "apostasy" and use it to refer only to those who abandon the Christian faith altogether, NOT to those who leave the Orthodox faith for a heterodox Christian faith.

Well, I would call them as such.
That's not surprising.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 07, 2011, 04:15:44 PM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 
Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
Why is what the Orthodox Church thinks of you so important to you?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 07, 2011, 04:20:06 PM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 
Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
Why is what the Orthodox Church thinks of you so important to you?
What is what the Catholic Church thinks of the Eastern Orthodox so important to Schultz?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2011, 04:30:31 PM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 
Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
Why is what the Orthodox Church thinks of you so important to you?
Because I  am interested in the definition of apostasy.  Schultz has one definition, but it looks like the Orthodox Church (or perhaps some members of the Orthodox Church) have an entirely different definition. Which one is it?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 07, 2011, 04:57:36 PM
Isn't splitting hairs over the difference between apostasy, schism, and heresy when speaking of people who once belonged to the Church but then left a bit like arguing over how much one is going to go to hell?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 05:42:41 PM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 
Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
See:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
This encyclical seems to imply that it is apostasy to do so, but
 how can it be so, since you are not giving up on your belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?


Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 07, 2011, 05:48:51 PM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 
Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
See:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
This encyclical seems to imply that it is apostasy to do so, but
 how can it be so, since you are not giving up on your belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?


Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.
Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2011, 05:56:37 PM
Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.
But referring to conversion the other way:
.....It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic. 

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.
An ignorant buffoon?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 06:19:08 PM

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?


... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."
 

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever
."
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 07, 2011, 06:21:14 PM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 
Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
Why is what the Orthodox Church thinks of you so important to you?
What is what the Catholic Church thinks of the Eastern Orthodox so important to Schultz?
Because you're acting in a way that you puts you at variance with your own Catholic Church.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 06:21:51 PM
Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.
But referring to conversion the other way:
.....It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic. 

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.
An ignorant buffoon?


My response to this use of terminology is up above in message 239.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 07, 2011, 06:24:05 PM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 
Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
See:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
This encyclical seems to imply that it is apostasy to do so, but
 how can it be so, since you are not giving up on your belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?


Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.
Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?
Only one who has tasted the fullness of faith can apostatize. One who has not tasted the fullness of faith can be said to be outside the faith, but cannot be said to have apostatized. You can't fall from the top rung of a ladder if you don't first climb the ladder.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 06:26:17 PM

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?


You cannot apostatasize from the Orthodox Church if you were never one of her children.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 07, 2011, 06:27:29 PM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 
Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
Why is what the Orthodox Church thinks of you so important to you?
What is what the Catholic Church thinks of the Eastern Orthodox so important to Schultz?
Because you're acting in a way that you puts you at variance with your own Catholic Church.
And yet I already said I'm fine with not using the term "apostasy." That wasn't my point...my point was that something which is harmful if not fatal to one's soul (e.g. leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy) should not be referred to as "conversion" which implies that it is a good thing. Obviously, if you have the fullness of truth and you abandon it, even if for a Church that still has valid Sacraments and an Epispocate (though in schism), you are still placing yourself in spiritual danger. I challenge anyone to pull up teaching from my Church that states that abandoning it for Eastern Orthodoxy is a good decision.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 07, 2011, 06:28:38 PM

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?


... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."
 

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever
."

How is this not merely the wisdom of St. Philaret of Moscow? How is this the Church's official definition of "apostasy" (if the Church even has such a definition)? Might it be possible that "heresy" really is the better word in this instance?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2011, 06:28:51 PM

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?


... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."
 

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever
."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 07, 2011, 06:29:44 PM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 
Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
See:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
This encyclical seems to imply that it is apostasy to do so, but
 how can it be so, since you are not giving up on your belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?


Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.
Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?
Only one who has tasted the fullness of faith can apostatize. One who has not tasted the fullness of faith can be said to be outside the faith, but cannot be said to have apostatized. You can't fall from the top rung of a ladder if you don't first climb the ladder.
This is exactly what I believe. If one who is in the Catholic Church leaves and joins Eastern Orthodoxy, they are in grave spiritual danger. They have abandoned the fullness of truth. It's like ialmisry says...he believes we have valid Sacraments but will never commune with us. I understand his rationale for that, because even if a Church has valid Sacraments but you do not believe it to be "the Church" in the fullest sense, you shouldn't choose it over your own Church.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 07, 2011, 06:33:55 PM
P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.
That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 
Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
Why is what the Orthodox Church thinks of you so important to you?
What is what the Catholic Church thinks of the Eastern Orthodox so important to Schultz?
Because you're acting in a way that you puts you at variance with your own Catholic Church.
And yet I already said I'm fine with not using the term "apostasy."
Well, then, based on Schultz's own words, I don't see why he would have any more problem with your position. His argument wasn't with your assertion that leaving the RCC is a bad thing; rather, his issue was with you calling this an apostasy. As long as you're willing to use more accurate terminology (e.g., schism or heresy) to describe this bad thing that leaving the RCC is to you, all should be well. :)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 06:45:14 PM

Might it be possible that "heresy" really is the better word in this instance?

I would say that the most common usage of "to apostasize" in contemporary Orthodoxy is to abandon the Church, either for paganism or a non-Christian religion but also for any other Christian Church.  The word has taken on a wider meaning that just abandoning Christ and it is now used to mean abandoning the Church also.

This may be one of those times when we must allow that English is more of a descriptive than prescriptive language.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 06:48:22 PM

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?


... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."
 

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever
."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

I am sure there were mitigating circumstances which may rescue them from damnation but yes, it's a possibility.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2011, 07:01:25 PM

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?


... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."
 

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever
."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

I am sure there were mitigating circumstances which may rescue them from damnation but yes, it's a possibility.
I think that it is up to God to decide, and not St. Theophan the Recluse, who does and who does not go to hell. BTW, does St. Theophan the Recluse have a higher status in your Church than Jesus? I noticed that Jesus says in Matthew 25: " [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."
I don't see any indication here that if someone follows his conscience to the best of his ability and changes Churches based on a conscientious decison, that he will lose his soul forever?

Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 07:08:31 PM

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?


... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."
 

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever
."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

I am sure there were mitigating circumstances which may rescue them from damnation but yes, it's a possibility.
I think that it is up to God to decide, and not St. Theophan the Recluse, who does and who does not go to hell. BTW, does St. Theophan the Recluse have a higher status in your Church than Jesus? I noticed that Jesus says in Matthew 25: " [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."

I don't see any indication here that if someone follows his conscience to the best of his ability and changes Churches based on a conscientious decison, that he will lose his soul forever?




Rejecting such things as communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ by moving into a Church which does not possess them is an extremely serious matter.

Rejecting the successors of the Apostles whom God has chosen to guide His flock is also extremely serious.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2011, 07:24:01 PM

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?


... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."
 

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever
."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

I am sure there were mitigating circumstances which may rescue them from damnation but yes, it's a possibility.
I think that it is up to God to decide, and not St. Theophan the Recluse, who does and who does not go to hell. BTW, does St. Theophan the Recluse have a higher status in your Church than Jesus? I noticed that Jesus says in Matthew 25: " [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."

I don't see any indication here that if someone follows his conscience to the best of his ability and changes Churches based on a conscientious decison, that he will lose his soul forever?



Rejecting such things as communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ by moving into a Church which does not possess them is an extremely serious matter.
Right. It is serious. But Jesus does not mention it in Matthew 25. Is it in the New Testament somewhere or is it in the teaching of the early Fathers of the Church,  that if a Catholic (RC) converts to the Orthodox Church and then believes that he had made a mistake and converts back to Catholicism , but the Byzantine Catholic Church in union with Rome, then he will lose his soul forever? BTW, I know someone who fits that description. 
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 07:26:44 PM

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?


... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."
 

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever
."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

I am sure there were mitigating circumstances which may rescue them from damnation but yes, it's a possibility.
I think that it is up to God to decide, and not St. Theophan the Recluse, who does and who does not go to hell. BTW, does St. Theophan the Recluse have a higher status in your Church than Jesus? I noticed that Jesus says in Matthew 25: " [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."

I don't see any indication here that if someone follows his conscience to the best of his ability and changes Churches based on a conscientious decison, that he will lose his soul forever?



Rejecting such things as communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ by moving into a Church which does not possess them is an extremely serious matter.
Right. It is serious. But Jesus does not mention it in Matthew 25. Is it in the New Testament somewhere or is it in the teaching of the early Fathers of the Church,  that if a Catholic (RC) converts to the Orthodox Church and then believes that he had made a mistake and converts back to Catholicism , but the Byzantine Catholic Church in union with Rome, then he will lose his soul forever? BTW, I know someone who fits that description. 

There are ladies of the night and these days also boys of the night in my part of town who fulfil Matthew 25 better than our parishioners
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 07:31:20 PM

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?


... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."
 

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever
."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

I am sure there were mitigating circumstances which may rescue them from damnation but yes, it's a possibility.
I think that it is up to God to decide, and not St. Theophan the Recluse, who does and who does not go to hell. BTW, does St. Theophan the Recluse have a higher status in your Church than Jesus? I noticed that Jesus says in Matthew 25: " [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."

I don't see any indication here that if someone follows his conscience to the best of his ability and changes Churches based on a conscientious decison, that he will lose his soul forever?



Rejecting such things as communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ by moving into a Church which does not possess them is an extremely serious matter.
Right. It is serious. But Jesus does not mention it in Matthew 25. Is it in the New Testament somewhere or is it in the teaching of the early Fathers of the Church,  that if a Catholic (RC) converts to the Orthodox Church and then believes that he had made a mistake and converts back to Catholicism , but the Byzantine Catholic Church in union with Rome, then he will lose his soul forever? BTW, I know someone who fits that description. 

The Saints and the Holy Fathers speak of the possibility.  I hope his Orthodox parish is praying for him.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2011, 07:51:51 PM

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?


... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."
 

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever
."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

I am sure there were mitigating circumstances which may rescue them from damnation but yes, it's a possibility.
I think that it is up to God to decide, and not St. Theophan the Recluse, who does and who does not go to hell. BTW, does St. Theophan the Recluse have a higher status in your Church than Jesus? I noticed that Jesus says in Matthew 25: " [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."

I don't see any indication here that if someone follows his conscience to the best of his ability and changes Churches based on a conscientious decison, that he will lose his soul forever?



Rejecting such things as communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ by moving into a Church which does not possess them is an extremely serious matter.
Right. It is serious. But Jesus does not mention it in Matthew 25. Is it in the New Testament somewhere or is it in the teaching of the early Fathers of the Church,  that if a Catholic (RC) converts to the Orthodox Church and then believes that he had made a mistake and converts back to Catholicism , but the Byzantine Catholic Church in union with Rome, then he will lose his soul forever? BTW, I know someone who fits that description. 

The Saints and the Holy Fathers speak of the possibility.  I hope his Orthodox parish is praying for him.
Since the RC and EO Church were one before 1054, I don't see how any Father of the Church before 1054 would be concerned about this..
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 07:59:29 PM
What do the Popes say?

See message 18
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37683.msg597017.html#msg597017
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2011, 09:53:09 PM

Might it be possible that "heresy" really is the better word in this instance?

I would say that the most common usage of "to apostasize" in contemporary Orthodoxy is to abandon the Church, either for paganism or a non-Christian religion but also for any other Christian Church.  The word has taken on a wider meaning that just abandoning Christ and it is now used to mean abandoning the Church also.

This may be one of those times when we must allow that English is more of a descriptive than prescriptive language.

Oh my oh my!!

Orthodox weasel words...I love it when you back yourself into the fan!!
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2011, 10:00:30 PM
Where are on earth are the weasel words?

I have spoken the truth.  People use "apostasize" to mean abandon Christ altogether and to abandon His Church and move to a heterodox Church.

Please note that the Patriarchs, writing to the Pope, see it as apostasy to join his Church.

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.asp
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 08, 2011, 09:48:35 AM
Wyatt,

It's amazing that you don't have a problem with "[Schultz] went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else" yet you take with the statement, He converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy, because it has the word "converted" in it.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 08, 2011, 10:06:12 AM
Wyatt,

It's amazing that you don't have a problem with "[Schultz] went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else" yet you take with the statement, He converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy, because it has the word "converted" in it.

Conversion and apostasy are very strong words. They are actually formal and technical words used in teaching the faith and about the Church.  They are both historically tied, in the Church, to our relationship with Jesus.  Once you anchor them to the visible Church on earth [not that there is an invisible one that is somehow separate in heaven]...but once you anchor them to Church and not to the Person of Jesus, there are distortions introduced that produce such things as...well....Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue for example.   :D
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: theistgal on August 08, 2011, 10:17:19 AM
This is just my personal opinion (obviously!  ;D) but to me, this whole RC/EO thing is like a really messy divorce - so moving from one to another is like a kid deciding to move from Mom's house to Dad's house.

And frankly, I think all these warnings that if you leave the RC for the EO or vice versa, you're doomed, doomed forever! are like Mom telling the kid, "If you move in with THAT MAN, you can forget about ever seeing ME again!"  (or vice versa!) 8)

(Is it any real surprise that some kids can't take the heat, ditch both Mom AND Dad, and move in with the big brother who left home years ago (i.e. Protestantism)?  ;D )
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on August 08, 2011, 02:14:32 PM
This is just my personal opinion (obviously!  ;D) but to me, this whole RC/EO thing is like a really messy divorce - so moving from one to another is like a kid deciding to move from Mom's house to Dad's house.

And frankly, I think all these warnings that if you leave the RC for the EO or vice versa, you're doomed, doomed forever! are like Mom telling the kid, "If you move in with THAT MAN, you can forget about ever seeing ME again!"  (or vice versa!) 8)

(Is it any real surprise that some kids can't take the heat, ditch both Mom AND Dad, and move in with the big brother who left home years ago (i.e. Protestantism)?  ;D )

That's more or less how I view it, too.

And, the whole notion that St. Whoever (of *whichever* church) said that if one converts/apostasizes or whatever from either the EO, OO, RCC, BCC to any of the same will lose their soul forever, or be condemned to damnation, or everlasting hellfire, etc., etc., etc. strikes me more as a way to "scare" (for lack of a better word) people into not leaving a particular church than as ironclad, definitive Truth.  As Stanley mentioned above, it's God who has the final word about all of that, not me, or you, or Fr. Ambrose, or St. Theophan, or St. Francis, or anyone else.  This is, of course, just my opinion and I'm fully aware that it holds no theological, doctrinal, or dogmatic weight.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: bogdan on August 08, 2011, 02:40:16 PM
This is just my personal opinion (obviously!  ;D) but to me, this whole RC/EO thing is like a really messy divorce - so moving from one to another is like a kid deciding to move from Mom's house to Dad's house.

And frankly, I think all these warnings that if you leave the RC for the EO or vice versa, you're doomed, doomed forever! are like Mom telling the kid, "If you move in with THAT MAN, you can forget about ever seeing ME again!"  (or vice versa!) 8)

(Is it any real surprise that some kids can't take the heat, ditch both Mom AND Dad, and move in with the big brother who left home years ago (i.e. Protestantism)?  ;D )

That's more or less how I view it, too.

And, the whole notion that St. Whoever (of *whichever* church) said that if one converts/apostasizes or whatever from either the EO, OO, RCC, BCC to any of the same will lose their soul forever, or be condemned to damnation, or everlasting hellfire, etc., etc., etc. strikes me more as a way to "scare" (for lack of a better word) people into not leaving a particular church than as ironclad, definitive Truth.  As Stanley mentioned above, it's God who has the final word about all of that, not me, or you, or Fr. Ambrose, or St. Theophan, or St. Francis, or anyone else.  This is, of course, just my opinion and I'm fully aware that it holds no theological, doctrinal, or dogmatic weight.

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.

People who move around outside the Body of Christ may well find the mercy of God for their sincere effort of searching. But if a person possesses the truth in its fullness, joins the Church, and later rejects it, that is another thing. If we reject the Church, we reject Christ.

Of course, if we're all mystically the Church despite our divisions, you could be right. But that is not the opinion of the Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on August 08, 2011, 03:25:55 PM
This is just my personal opinion (obviously!  ;D) but to me, this whole RC/EO thing is like a really messy divorce - so moving from one to another is like a kid deciding to move from Mom's house to Dad's house.

And frankly, I think all these warnings that if you leave the RC for the EO or vice versa, you're doomed, doomed forever! are like Mom telling the kid, "If you move in with THAT MAN, you can forget about ever seeing ME again!"  (or vice versa!) 8)

(Is it any real surprise that some kids can't take the heat, ditch both Mom AND Dad, and move in with the big brother who left home years ago (i.e. Protestantism)?  ;D )

That's more or less how I view it, too.

And, the whole notion that St. Whoever (of *whichever* church) said that if one converts/apostasizes or whatever from either the EO, OO, RCC, BCC to any of the same will lose their soul forever, or be condemned to damnation, or everlasting hellfire, etc., etc., etc. strikes me more as a way to "scare" (for lack of a better word) people into not leaving a particular church than as ironclad, definitive Truth.  As Stanley mentioned above, it's God who has the final word about all of that, not me, or you, or Fr. Ambrose, or St. Theophan, or St. Francis, or anyone else.  This is, of course, just my opinion and I'm fully aware that it holds no theological, doctrinal, or dogmatic weight.

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.

People who move around outside the Body of Christ may well find the mercy of God for their sincere effort of searching. But if a person possesses the truth in its fullness, joins the Church, and later rejects it, that is another thing. If we reject the Church, we reject Christ.

Of course, if we're all mystically the Church despite our divisions, you could be right. But that is not the opinion of the Orthodox Church.

I guess we will all find out, some sooner, some later. 

Reminds me of a fairly long joke I once heard about people of various faiths/denominations dying and going to heaven.  Each faith/denomination/church is assigned a "room" in heaven.  Depending on who is telling the joke, the punch line goes something like this--"make sure you (whichever church is being discussed), go very quietly to your room."  "Why is that?"  "Well, the Orthodox (or Catholics, or Baptists, etc.) are in the room right next to yours, and they think they're the only ones here!"  ;D

Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on August 08, 2011, 03:48:31 PM

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.


I think this may be more the problem, at least on this forum if not elsewhere: the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ, while the Orthodox Church claims exclusivity about that.  And round, and round, and round we go........
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 08, 2011, 06:21:08 PM
the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ

Citation?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: bogdan on August 08, 2011, 06:56:55 PM

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.


I think this may be more the problem, at least on this forum if not elsewhere: the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ, while the Orthodox Church claims exclusivity about that.  And round, and round, and round we go........

I know Catholics who believe that, but I don't know if that's the official teaching.

But yes, regardless, that is our ultimate point of division, and it is noted in one of those ecumenical agreements (I don't remember exactly which; maybe that one that was leaked recently?). It says that we EO view ourselves as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and there is none outside. That need not come with malice; it is what it is.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 08, 2011, 07:20:41 PM

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.


I think this may be more the problem, at least on this forum if not elsewhere: the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ, while the Orthodox Church claims exclusivity about that.  And round, and round, and round we go........

I know Catholics who believe that, but I don't know if that's the official teaching.

But yes, regardless, that is our ultimate point of division, and it is noted in one of those ecumenical agreements (I don't remember exactly which; maybe that one that was leaked recently?). It says that we EO view ourselves as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and there is none outside. That need not come with malice; it is what it is.

Indeed, the Orthodox delegates at Ravenna 2007 insisted that this point be emphasised in the Ravenna Document

The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2




Read also the various official statements spanning the 50 years of ecumenism, from Oberlin 1957 to Ravenna 2007

Message 130
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37062.msg590860.html#msg590860

So we see that the Church has tried mightily to interact with non-Orthodox Christians and it has been upfront in clearly and officially delineating its basis and purpose.   There is a clear statement through the years of ecumenical interaction that it and it alone is the Una Sancta.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 08, 2011, 10:28:26 PM

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.


I think this may be more the problem, at least on this forum if not elsewhere: the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ, while the Orthodox Church claims exclusivity about that.  And round, and round, and round we go........

I know Catholics who believe that, but I don't know if that's the official teaching.

If it is, then presumably a citation will be provided.

But yes, regardless, that is our ultimate point of division, and it is noted in one of those ecumenical agreements (I don't remember exactly which; maybe that one that was leaked recently?). It says that we EO view ourselves as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and there is none outside. That need not come with malice; it is what it is.

Perhaps not, but ascribing malice to it is a powerful way to manipulate the Orthodox.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: bogdan on August 08, 2011, 10:31:05 PM

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.


I think this may be more the problem, at least on this forum if not elsewhere: the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ, while the Orthodox Church claims exclusivity about that.  And round, and round, and round we go........

I know Catholics who believe that, but I don't know if that's the official teaching.

But yes, regardless, that is our ultimate point of division, and it is noted in one of those ecumenical agreements (I don't remember exactly which; maybe that one that was leaked recently?). It says that we EO view ourselves as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and there is none outside. That need not come with malice; it is what it is.

Indeed, the Orthodox delegates at Ravenna 2007 insisted that this point be emphasised in the Ravenna Document

The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2

That was the one I had in mind. Thanks, Father.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 08, 2011, 10:58:04 PM

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.


I think this may be more the problem, at least on this forum if not elsewhere: the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ, while the Orthodox Church claims exclusivity about that.  And round, and round, and round we go........

I know Catholics who believe that, but I don't know if that's the official teaching.

But yes, regardless, that is our ultimate point of division, and it is noted in one of those ecumenical agreements (I don't remember exactly which; maybe that one that was leaked recently?). It says that we EO view ourselves as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and there is none outside. That need not come with malice; it is what it is.

Indeed, the Orthodox delegates at Ravenna 2007 insisted that this point be emphasised in the Ravenna Document

The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2




Read also the various official statements spanning the 50 years of ecumenism, from Oberlin 1957 to Ravenna 2007

Message 130
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37062.msg590860.html#msg590860

So we see that the Church has tried mightily to interact with non-Orthodox Christians and it has been upfront in clearly and officially delineating its basis and purpose.   There is a clear statement through the years of ecumenical interaction that it and it alone is the Una Sancta.

A good point, but one might wonder why you only quoted a portion of Note 1:

Quote
1 Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ‘subsists in the Catholic Church’ (Lumen Gentium, 8 ); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.
(space inserted between "8" and ")" to prevent 8))
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on August 09, 2011, 10:22:04 AM
Quote from: Peter J

[quote
1 Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ‘subsists in the Catholic Church’ (Lumen Gentium, 8 ); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.


You asked for a citation, Peter.  I admit to not having one, only that that has always been my understanding of the situation since my catechumenate with the Byzantine Catholic Church.  I apologize for seeming to represent my statement as official Church teaching.  I should have been more careful with my wording.

Having said that, it seems like Fr. Ambrose and you have found something at least *akin* to a citation in what Fr. Ambrose quoted and you added to. 





Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 09, 2011, 10:40:41 AM
Quote from: Peter J

[quote
1 Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ‘subsists in the Catholic Church’ (Lumen Gentium, 8 ); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.


You asked for a citation, Peter.  I admit to not having one, only that that has always been my understanding of the situation since my catechumenate with the Byzantine Catholic Church.  I apologize for seeming to represent my statement as official Church teaching.  I should have been more careful with my wording.

Thank you for clarifying. When I read your earlier post, I took as a statement of fact rather than an impression.

Having said that, it seems like Fr. Ambrose and you have found something at least *akin* to a citation in what Fr. Ambrose quoted and you added to. 

If by akin you mean related, then I agree. But it's important to note that it contradicts your statement that "the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ". That's how it is related.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on August 09, 2011, 11:20:57 AM
Quote from: Peter J

[quote
1 Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ‘subsists in the Catholic Church’ (Lumen Gentium, 8 ); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.


You asked for a citation, Peter.  I admit to not having one, only that that has always been my understanding of the situation since my catechumenate with the Byzantine Catholic Church.  I apologize for seeming to represent my statement as official Church teaching.  I should have been more careful with my wording.

Thank you for clarifying. When I read your earlier post, I took as a statement of fact rather than an impression.

Having said that, it seems like Fr. Ambrose and you have found something at least *akin* to a citation in what Fr. Ambrose quoted and you added to. 

If by akin you mean related, then I agree. But it's important to note that it contradicts your statement that "the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ". That's how it is related.

Yup.  Akin means related.  "Contradiction" duly noted.  I put it in quotes because it doesn't appear to me to be a total, complete contradiction.  If the Catholic Church "...does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion...", that would seem to my poor little mind that there is at least the possibility that it might, at least peripherally, include the Orthodox Church as being part of the visible Body of Christ.  "Elements of the true Church" may actually include the Orthodox Church.  But then again, it may not.  Others far more knowledgeable than I would be more qualified to comment on that.  I am only offering my understanding, my impression, my conjecture. 
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 09, 2011, 11:47:41 AM
Others far more knowledgeable than I would be more qualified to comment on that. 

Well in the meantime, maybe you should stop projecting your own ideas onto the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on August 09, 2011, 12:16:30 PM
Others far more knowledgeable than I would be more qualified to comment on that. 

Well in the meantime, maybe you should stop projecting your own ideas onto the Catholic Church.

As long as I identify them, which I admitted to not having done earlier and offered my apology, as my own ideas or understanding (correct or incorrect as the case may be), what's the problem?  If I'm wrong about something, please correct me.  I'm on this forum as much to learn, as to opine or demonstrate how knowledgeable I am, if not more so. 
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 09, 2011, 12:43:05 PM
Others far more knowledgeable than I would be more qualified to comment on that. 

Well in the meantime, maybe you should stop projecting your own ideas onto the Catholic Church.

As long as I identify them, which I admitted to not having done earlier and offered my apology, as my own ideas or understanding (correct or incorrect as the case may be), what's the problem?  If I'm wrong about something, please correct me.  I'm on this forum as much to learn, as to opine or demonstrate how knowledgeable I am, if not more so. 

Dear J Michael,

You are being inappropriately abject here.  You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best... :)

You were not wrong in what you said.  It is clear from any number of documents prepared by John Paul II and Cardinal/Pope Ratzinger that there would be absolutely no difficulty for Catholics in accepting the Orthodox thinking of and referring to themselves as Catholics, also.

That is all I read your note to be saying.

M.

Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on August 09, 2011, 01:08:56 PM
Others far more knowledgeable than I would be more qualified to comment on that. 

Well in the meantime, maybe you should stop projecting your own ideas onto the Catholic Church.

As long as I identify them, which I admitted to not having done earlier and offered my apology, as my own ideas or understanding (correct or incorrect as the case may be), what's the problem?  If I'm wrong about something, please correct me.  I'm on this forum as much to learn, as to opine or demonstrate how knowledgeable I am, if not more so. 

Dear J Michael,

You are being inappropriately abject here.  You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best... :)

You were not wrong in what you said.  It is clear from any number of documents prepared by John Paul II and Cardinal/Pope Ratzinger that there would be absolutely no difficulty for Catholics in accepting the Orthodox thinking of and referring to themselves as Catholics, also.

That is all I read your note to be saying.

M.



Thank you for your kind words, yet again.  ;)

Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 09, 2011, 01:14:46 PM
Others far more knowledgeable than I would be more qualified to comment on that. 

Well in the meantime, maybe you should stop projecting your own ideas onto the Catholic Church.

As long as I identify them, which I admitted to not having done earlier and offered my apology, as my own ideas or understanding (correct or incorrect as the case may be), what's the problem?  If I'm wrong about something, please correct me.  I'm on this forum as much to learn, as to opine or demonstrate how knowledgeable I am, if not more so. 

Dear J Michael,

You are being inappropriately abject here.  You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best... :)

You were not wrong in what you said.  It is clear from any number of documents prepared by John Paul II and Cardinal/Pope Ratzinger that there would be absolutely no difficulty for Catholics in accepting the Orthodox thinking of and referring to themselves as Catholics, also.

That is all I read your note to be saying.

M.



Thank you for your kind words, yet again.  ;)



Just a passing thought   ;)......Mother is finally home but can do little for herself at this point.   She is sleeping a great deal and that is for the best I think.  She had another clot in her lung last week...so it's been a whirlwind.

All's well in the main.

M.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 09, 2011, 01:15:17 PM
You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best... :)

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Hermogenes on August 09, 2011, 01:49:21 PM
You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best... :)

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.

I don't understand this. Why would we want neo-conservative Catholics to have an advantage? Over whom?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 09, 2011, 01:56:12 PM
You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best... :)

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.

I don't understand this. Why would we want neo-conservative Catholics to have an advantage? Over whom?

Over traditional Catholics.

As for "why", well I think that's a question to ask your fellow Orthodox posters. (You might also check out Something rotten in the state of ecumenism? (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=37651.0) which is at least somewhat related.)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 09, 2011, 01:56:52 PM
Sheesh, Peter, what's with the attitude?

JM

Hi Peter,

RE: your post, "In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage."

You're right, it is not a level playing field, and probably never will be.  Catholics of *any* variety are at a distinct disadvantage here, especially when the likes of ialmisry are able to get away with what they do.  That, however, does not mean that you (or anyone else for that matter, myself included) have to lower yourself to their level of nastiness, intractability, arrogance, and knowing it all.

JM

J Michael, I would prefer if you would not send me private messages. Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on August 09, 2011, 01:59:27 PM
You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best... :)

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.

I don't understand this. Why would we want neo-conservative Catholics to have an advantage? Over whom?

That's a good question, but isn't it a little bit off topic?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: J Michael on August 09, 2011, 02:02:46 PM
Sheesh, Peter, what's with the attitude?

JM

Hi Peter,

RE: your post, "In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage."

You're right, it is not a level playing field, and probably never will be.  Catholics of *any* variety are at a distinct disadvantage here, especially when the likes of ialmisry are able to get away with what they do.  That, however, does not mean that you (or anyone else for that matter, myself included) have to lower yourself to their level of nastiness, intractability, arrogance, and knowing it all.

JM

J Michael, I would prefer if you would not send me private messages. Thanks in advance.

You're welcome!

And here I thought private messages were supposed to be **private**.  That was meant to be a message from *me* to *you*, and not for public consumption!
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 09, 2011, 02:05:40 PM
You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best... :)

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.
I haven't a clue what you are talking about, as that dispute is amongst yourselves and I couldn't care less who leads your charge.  But then I don't know what distinction you make between neo--cnservative  and  traditionalists, unless you are making a conservative VII vs. sedevantists distinction.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 09, 2011, 02:07:47 PM
Sheesh, Peter, what's with the attitude?

JM

Hi Peter,

RE: your post, "In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage."

You're right, it is not a level playing field, and probably never will be.  Catholics of *any* variety are at a distinct disadvantage here, especially when the likes of ialmisry are able to get away with what they do.  That, however, does not mean that you (or anyone else for that matter, myself included) have to lower yourself to their level of nastiness, intractability, arrogance, and knowing it all.

JM

J Michael, I would prefer if you would not send me private messages. Thanks in advance.

You're welcome!

And here I thought private messages were supposed to be **private**.  That was meant to be a message from *me* to *you*, and not for public consumption!

Kinda like your own private attack line?
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 09, 2011, 02:12:06 PM
But then I don't know what distinction you make between neo--cnservative  and  traditionalists,

Surely you're joking. Haven't you seen me post this about 3 times by now:

Father Ambrose, if you're unhappy with your dialogue with neo-conservative Catholics, perhaps you should give a thought to us traditional Catholics.
What's the difference between neo-conservative Catholics and traditional Catholics?

To my mind, the different is enormous.

As I told someone else recently ...

Quote
Peter W. Miller calls them "'conservative' Catholics". Here's his definition:

Quote
As the heretics of yesterday have become the liberals of today, the liberals of yesterday now lay claim to the title "conservative". Consequentially the conservatives came to be known as "traditionalists". Unfortunately, these terms are no longer completely accurate descriptions. So for the purposes of this essay, I will use the following general definitions to delineate the differences between traditionalists and "conservatives":

TRADITIONALIST: One who challenges the novel practices and teachings of Catholics (including bishops and priests) which appear to contradict the prior teaching of the Church. A traditionalist questions the prudence of new pastoral approaches and holds the belief that those things generally deemed objectively good or evil several decades ago remain so today.

"CONSERVATIVE": One who upholds and defends the current policies and positions of the Church hierarchy regardless of their novelty. A "conservative" extends the definitions of "infallibility" and "Magisterium" to include most every action and speech of the Pope and those Cardinals around him, but may exclude those Cardinals and bishops outside of Rome. A "conservative's" opinion is also subject to change depending on the current actions of the Holy Father. "Conservative" will be used it in quotation marks to avoid the misleading connotation of being diametrically opposed to liberalism or on the far right of the spectrum. Also since there only exists a desire to "conserve" only those traditions and practices of the past deemed appropriate at any given time by the present Pope. The quotation marks will also ensure a proper dissociation between the actual conservatives active prior to and during Vatican II (Ottaviani, Lefebvre, Fenton, etc.).

Both traditionalists and "conservatives" acknowledge the existence of problems in the Church but disagree as to their nature, extent, causes and remedies.

"Conservatives" see it as an "illness" — an incidental problem like a gangrene limb. In the English-speaking world, this problem may be limited to the actions of certain American bishops. "Conservatives" see the novelties of Vatican II and the New Mass as natural and acceptable developments in the course of the Church, but take issue with those seeking to expand upon those novelties, or take them to their next logical progression. They see the crisis in the Church as a societal issue that would have happened regardless of what actions the Church leadership had taken. Their solution is to return to Vatican II and embark on another attempt to "renew" the Church.

Traditionalists see the illness as a widespread cancer affecting the whole body put most particularly and critically the heart. They question the prudence of making significant changes in the Mass and the Church's pastoral orientation. They attribute the destruction to liberal and Modernist ideals given a certain degree of acceptability once the Church decided to stop fighting them with extreme vigilance. They see the Church leadership as sharing in the responsibility for the crisis due to its governance (or lack thereof). Their solution is not another attempt at a reform that may be "more in line with the 'spirit' of Vatican II" (shudder), but a return to the practices and beliefs of the Church that sustained it for hundreds of years prior.

- A Brief Defense of Traditionalism
Peter W. Miller
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 09, 2011, 02:13:53 PM
unless you are making a conservative VII vs. sedevantists distinction.

I refer you to:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38492.msg614616.html#msg614616

[Edited to replace quotation with link.]
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 09, 2011, 02:18:19 PM
But then I don't know what distinction you make between neo--cnservative  and  traditionalists,

Surely you're joking. Haven't you seen me post this about 3 times by now:

Father Ambrose, if you're unhappy with your dialogue with neo-conservative Catholics, perhaps you should give a thought to us traditional Catholics.
What's the difference between neo-conservative Catholics and traditional Catholics?

To my mind, the different is enormous.

As I told someone else recently ...

Quote
Peter W. Miller calls them "'conservative' Catholics". Here's his definition:

Quote
As the heretics of yesterday have become the liberals of today, the liberals of yesterday now lay claim to the title "conservative". Consequentially the conservatives came to be known as "traditionalists". Unfortunately, these terms are no longer completely accurate descriptions. So for the purposes of this essay, I will use the following general definitions to delineate the differences between traditionalists and "conservatives":

TRADITIONALIST: One who challenges the novel practices and teachings of Catholics (including bishops and priests) which appear to contradict the prior teaching of the Church. A traditionalist questions the prudence of new pastoral approaches and holds the belief that those things generally deemed objectively good or evil several decades ago remain so today.

"CONSERVATIVE": One who upholds and defends the current policies and positions of the Church hierarchy regardless of their novelty. A "conservative" extends the definitions of "infallibility" and "Magisterium" to include most every action and speech of the Pope and those Cardinals around him, but may exclude those Cardinals and bishops outside of Rome. A "conservative's" opinion is also subject to change depending on the current actions of the Holy Father. "Conservative" will be used it in quotation marks to avoid the misleading connotation of being diametrically opposed to liberalism or on the far right of the spectrum. Also since there only exists a desire to "conserve" only those traditions and practices of the past deemed appropriate at any given time by the present Pope. The quotation marks will also ensure a proper dissociation between the actual conservatives active prior to and during Vatican II (Ottaviani, Lefebvre, Fenton, etc.).

Both traditionalists and "conservatives" acknowledge the existence of problems in the Church but disagree as to their nature, extent, causes and remedies.

"Conservatives" see it as an "illness" — an incidental problem like a gangrene limb. In the English-speaking world, this problem may be limited to the actions of certain American bishops. "Conservatives" see the novelties of Vatican II and the New Mass as natural and acceptable developments in the course of the Church, but take issue with those seeking to expand upon those novelties, or take them to their next logical progression. They see the crisis in the Church as a societal issue that would have happened regardless of what actions the Church leadership had taken. Their solution is to return to Vatican II and embark on another attempt to "renew" the Church.

Traditionalists see the illness as a widespread cancer affecting the whole body put most particularly and critically the heart. They question the prudence of making significant changes in the Mass and the Church's pastoral orientation. They attribute the destruction to liberal and Modernist ideals given a certain degree of acceptability once the Church decided to stop fighting them with extreme vigilance. They see the Church leadership as sharing in the responsibility for the crisis due to its governance (or lack thereof). Their solution is not another attempt at a reform that may be "more in line with the 'spirit' of Vatican II" (shudder), but a return to the practices and beliefs of the Church that sustained it for hundreds of years prior.

- A Brief Defense of Traditionalism
Peter W. Miller
LOL. Yes, in fact I was in the process of editing by adding this
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38492.msg614616.html#msg614616
where you mentioned it in the private section.  I still can't get my finger on your distinction, as you don't seem to be expousing sedevantism, and your supreme pontiff Pius IX was as conservative as your present (and I do believe you claim him.  Correct me if I am wrong on that) supreme pontiff Benedict XVI.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 09, 2011, 02:27:09 PM
unless you are making a conservative VII vs. sedevantists distinction.

No sedevacantism for me.

I take it that you don't spend much time thinking about the SSPX, since you speak of "conservative VII vs. sedevantists".
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 09, 2011, 02:50:45 PM
unless you are making a conservative VII vs. sedevantists distinction.

No sedevacantism for me.

I take it that you don't spend much time thinking about the SSPX, since you speak of "conservative VII vs. sedevantists".
LOL. I don't spend much time thinking about any of you.  The Church of Christ is named in the Orthodox diptychs of the Cathoic Church, and everyone else is judged accordingly.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Wyatt on August 09, 2011, 02:57:48 PM
unless you are making a conservative VII vs. sedevantists distinction.

No sedevacantism for me.

I take it that you don't spend much time thinking about the SSPX, since you speak of "conservative VII vs. sedevantists".
LOL. I don't spend much time thinking about any of you.  The Church of Christ is named in the Orthodox diptychs of the Cathoic Church, and everyone else is judged accordingly.
That's funny since you spend more time talking about "the Vatican" than you do your own Church.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 09, 2011, 03:05:47 PM
unless you are making a conservative VII vs. sedevantists distinction.

No sedevacantism for me.

I take it that you don't spend much time thinking about the SSPX, since you speak of "conservative VII vs. sedevantists".
LOL. I don't spend much time thinking about any of you.  The Church of Christ is named in the Orthodox diptychs of the Cathoic Church, and everyone else is judged accordingly.
That's funny since you spend more time talking about "the Vatican" than you do your own Church.
He didn't say that he doesn't spend much time talking about; he just said he doesn't spend much time thinking about us. Draw your own conclusions. ;)
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 09, 2011, 03:14:17 PM
You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best... :)

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.

The "problem" with you and J Michael is your problem...

When did Christ ever promise "a level Playing Field"...Did he come to level fields?...Citation please!!

C'mon.  You talked down your nose to J Michael and it was not pretty and it was for NOTHING but your own opinions and attitudes which are not upheld by your own Church.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 09, 2011, 03:24:46 PM
unless you are making a conservative VII vs. sedevantists distinction.

No sedevacantism for me.

I take it that you don't spend much time thinking about the SSPX, since you speak of "conservative VII vs. sedevantists".
LOL. I don't spend much time thinking about any of you.  The Church of Christ is named in the Orthodox diptychs of the Cathoic Church, and everyone else is judged accordingly.
That's funny since you spend more time talking about "the Vatican" than you do your own Church.
I don't even talk more about the Vatican here than the Church, let alone in real life.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: ialmisry on August 09, 2011, 03:25:38 PM
unless you are making a conservative VII vs. sedevantists distinction.

No sedevacantism for me.

I take it that you don't spend much time thinking about the SSPX, since you speak of "conservative VII vs. sedevantists".
LOL. I don't spend much time thinking about any of you.  The Church of Christ is named in the Orthodox diptychs of the Cathoic Church, and everyone else is judged accordingly.
That's funny since you spend more time talking about "the Vatican" than you do your own Church.
He didn't say that he doesn't spend much time talking about; he just said he doesn't spend much time thinking about us. Draw your own conclusions. ;)
Not much thought is involved in pegging the Vatican.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Peter J on August 09, 2011, 03:48:02 PM
You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best... :)

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.

The "problem" with you and J Michael is your problem...

When did Christ ever promise "a level Playing Field"...Did he come to level fields?...Citation please!!

C'mon.  You talked down your nose to J Michael and it was not pretty and it was for NOTHING but your own opinions and attitudes which are not upheld by your own Church.

Given the nature of this forum, it would be pretty pointless for me to try to defend myself. I am optimistic, however, that there's a sizable minority of Orthodox posters who are open-minded enough to see what's going on around here.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: elijahmaria on August 09, 2011, 04:04:24 PM
You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best... :)

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.

The "problem" with you and J Michael is your problem...

When did Christ ever promise "a level Playing Field"...Did he come to level fields?...Citation please!!

C'mon.  You talked down your nose to J Michael and it was not pretty and it was for NOTHING but your own opinions and attitudes which are not upheld by your own Church.

Given the nature of this forum, I would be pretty pointless for me to try to defend myself. I am optimistic, however, that there's a sizable minority of Orthodox posters who are open-minded enough to see what's going on around here.

I honestly do not know what you are talking about.  After weeks and weeks, you show up announcing that traditional Catholics have bad deal on OC.net. 

I don't know what traditional Catholic means to you?  I don't understand the labels that are used in Catholic circles.  I think most of the label makers are not particularly good Catholics at a number of levels...so I never have paid much attention to them.

Then you jump all over J Michael so when I told you what I thought I used the label that you gave yourself...I don't care what you are or call yourself.  But IF you call yourself something, don't get all bent out of shape if people hold you to it.

M.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: Hermogenes on August 10, 2011, 01:07:20 PM

Quote
I don't understand this. Why would we want neo-conservative Catholics to have an advantage? Over whom?

Over traditional Catholics.

As for "why", well I think that's a question to ask your fellow Orthodox posters. (You might also check out Something rotten in the state of ecumenism? (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=37651.0) which is at least somewhat related.)[/quote]

Perhaps there are Orthodox who are vitally interested in internal issues in the Catholic church, like the battle between traditionalists and neo-conservatives, but I don't personally know any. I don't know anyone who cares about those arguments at all. Insofar as Orthodox are interested in Roman Catholics at all, it is over entirely different issues. Like the way the Roman Catholic church goes into countries where it has never had more than a token presence and then proceeds to act like it speaks for all Christians, because it is the "one true faith." That would get most Orthodox going pretty well.
Title: Re: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?
Post by: serb1389 on August 18, 2011, 07:16:24 PM
Sheesh, Peter, what's with the attitude?

JM

Hi Peter,

RE: your post, "In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage."

You're right, it is not a level playing field, and probably never will be.  Catholics of *any* variety are at a distinct disadvantage here, especially when the likes of ialmisry are able to get away with what they do.  That, however, does not mean that you (or anyone else for that matter, myself included) have to lower yourself to their level of nastiness, intractability, arrogance, and knowing it all.

JM

J Michael, I would prefer if you would not send me private messages. Thanks in advance.

You're welcome!

And here I thought private messages were supposed to be **private**.  That was meant to be a message from *me* to *you*, and not for public consumption!

  The moderation team, after much deliberation on this subject, has come to the agreement that as a board we would request that ANY and ALL posters NOT publish Private Message material, unless they ask for the other person's consent to publish said material in a public manner. 

We would also like to point out that in the Message system there is an "ignore" button/feature which works very well to mitigate getting messages from unwanted posters.  This is always an option, for everyone. 

-  Serb1389. General Fora Moderator.