OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 03:40:03 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Not "Open Communion"?  (Read 18840 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« on: June 30, 2007, 07:23:45 PM »

I found this article rather interesting:

Why Not "Open Communion"?

-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2007, 09:13:07 PM »

I found this article rather interesting:

Why Not "Open Communion"?

-PJ

Thanks for that! I especially appreciate this paragraph in the article which articulates eloquently what I've often wanted to say to people who asked me this question but couldn't find the words:
Quote
The real issue, however, is not one of obedience or disobedience to rules and regulations.  If the Orthodox preserve the sanctity of the Eucharist as a supreme obligation, it is because of the often stated truth that communion in the Body and Blood of Christ is the very end or fulfillment of Christian existence.  It can not, for example, be reduced to a means by which to achieve "Christian unity."  (In any case, Church history has made it clear that sharing of Communion among Churches of conflicting theological teachings never results in lasting unity.)
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2010, 03:58:13 PM »

I was baptized Lutheran, attended a Catholic school, and was confirmed Presbyterian. I joined the Orthodox church as a teenager because of its connection to eastern countries. It is the church of Russia, Greece, and the Holy Land.

The strongest reason against my participation in nonOrthodox communion is practical:

Tradition and the church leadership demand I reject it, as a discipline like fasting. The threat of excommunication for disobedience controls my behavior. Should i give up orthodoxy because of this discipline and join what I believe to be a decayed Catholic church that closes its communion to traditional protestants on a search for the original faith? Should I give up Orthodoxy to join traditional protestants who reject the authority of tradition and apostolic succession? The traditions of the early church and belonging to a church with continuity with the apostles is more important to me than open communion.

But I feel an inner spiritual impulse to join with other Christians where I understand Jesus to be present.

Roman Catholic, eastern Catholic, and traditional protestant services are very beautiful for me, and I feel grace exists in their churches too. If the eucharist in Catholic and traditional protestant churches is a valid sacrament and if, as they believe, they are united with Jesus Christ, then they are united with all other Christians like us. Yet at Communion, Jesus, my family, my friends invite me to join them, and I reject them in favor of my own church's discipline. It is very hard for me.

Please help me understand the church's teaching.


I am aware of other reasons against open communion:

1. For us Orthodox Communion has a extremely high level of sacredness
We are afraid of undermining the meaning of communion and diluting our experience by taking it in non-Orthodox circumstances. Would a valid eucharist have the same meaning, whatever the value that non-Orthodox ascribe to it?
A less orthodox context could fool us into thinking that it has less value than it really does in fact. But despite the non-orthodox environment, can we maintain an orthodox understanding of communion? This leads to the next reason:

2. Possibility of different understandings of communion
Catholics teach "transubstantiation," whereby the visible properties of the eucharist are the same, but its substance is physically changed. Lutheranism describes the transformation event as consubstantiation, where both Jesus' body and the bread coexist.
The Orthodox church retained the original view that a transformation happens that is a mystery.

However, the article "Why Not Open Communion" (http://www.oca.org/CHRIST-life-print.asp?ID=132) rejects the Catholic explanation that it closes communion to protestants because of a common Catholic-Orthodox understanding of Eucharist, since: Like Orthodox and Catholics, traditional Anglicans and Lutherans "do believe that Holy Communion offers them a true participation in Christ’s Body and Blood."

If non-Orthodox understand the eucharist wrongly, does that alone mean their communion may be invalid even if they perform it correctly? This leads to the next reason:

3. Other churches don't give communion correctly
The article "Why Not Open Communion?" explains that Communion should be "from a canonically ordained priest or bishop within the context of the traditional Orthodox Divine Liturgy," which our tradition demands.

The article continues, saying closed communion "implies no particular judgment on the Eucharistic services of other Churches."
I disagree. Closed communion does give the wrong impression that we judge their eucharist to be done incorrectly or to be invalid.

What is the explanation given by that tradition? Some churches- I believe eastern catholics- have maintained apostolic succession and give the eucharist in the same manner and with the same theology.

4. Church unity.
The article explains that: "We are incorporated into a universal community of persons, both living and departed, whose common faith and practice unite them in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."
The Catholic church isn't apostolic because it adopted ideas like purgatory that contradict the apostles' teachings. Traditional protestants reject apostolic succession, although it may in fact exist in them.

Communion is an expression of being in a common unity with other Christians, but an institutional unity does not exist. I feel connected with God in Catholic and traditional protestants in a similar way as I do in Orthodox churches, although I do not feel the same degree of belonging since our teachings are different. But if their communion is valid and we are joined together with eachother through Christ, then He overcomes their heresies.

Reasons that favor open communion:

1. Christian unityOpen Communion facilitates Christian unity because when it happens, Christians break bread together and share a meal.

Closed communion forces unity too, by pressuring believers to accept the church's authority and traditions, and I do accept them myself.
On the other hand, closed communion creates the threat of excommunication for traditionalists who challenge leaders who fall into heresies like those of the Roman church. But Orthodoxy rejects the idea that God makes the leadership by itself infallible, since the church as a whole rejected the dogma of iconoclasm.

=============================================

I can think up other reasons for open communion, like the fact we recognize the validity of nonOrthodox baptisms and marriage, the Ecumenical Patriarch concelebrated with the Roman Pope, I heard of instances when the Russian Patriarch church and OCA churches in America, and possibly other Orthodox churches gave or offered communion to Roman Catholics. I also heard of instances where Orthodox priests allowed Orthodox believers living very far from Orthodox churches to take communion in Catholic churches. I think there also a good cause exception to our abstaining from communion in Catholic churches.

I accept the Orthodox church's teaching on closed communion because I accept its authority and its teachings in general. I should say thy will, not mine be done O Lord, and not put my personal will, inspiration, and "learning" before God's. That is why I hope to get a better understanding and belief about "closed communion."
« Last Edit: April 23, 2010, 04:05:23 PM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2010, 04:35:26 PM »

It is not only the threat of excommunication that controls my behavior, but a desire to obey the church, its teachings, and traditions.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2010, 04:38:45 PM by rakovsky » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2010, 04:40:50 PM »

Just two corrections:
What is the explanation given by that tradition? Some churches- I believe eastern catholics- have maintained apostolic succession and give the eucharist in the same manner and with the same theology.

Eastern Catholic Churches changed their theology to the RCC's one.

Quote
the Ecumenical Patriarch concelebrated with the Roman Pope

It did not take place.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2010, 04:42:09 PM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2010, 05:11:33 PM »

It is not only the threat of excommunication that controls my behavior, but a desire to obey the church, its teachings, and traditions.

You ask very important questions and I really admire your openness in laying it all out there for anybody to take a potshot at.

I noticed that you did not cite the closing paragraph from that article, where Father Breck (a great theologian and minister, by the way) says the following:

"From this perspective, "open communion" -- the welcoming of non-Orthodox to share in the Eucharistic celebration -- is simply not possible without undermining the very meaning of the sacrament. This implies no particular judgment on the Eucharistic services of other Churches.  It acknowledges rather that for the Orthodox, the Divine Liturgy is what the name implies.  It is both the means and the end of Christian existence, an existence which arises from Orthodox faith, ongoing repentance, ascetic discipline, ecclesial identity and works of love.  To those who accept this "Orthodox Way," the Eucharist offers a true participation in the very Life of the risen and glorified Christ, just as it offers the forgiveness of sins, the healing of soul and body, and a foretaste of the heavenly Banquet in the eternal presence of God. " (Bolded portions are my emphasis)

There is nothing that holds back anyone from undertaking this "Orthodox Way." Thus, it would be disservice to folks if we were to have open communion. Such a practice would diminish the Orthodox Way because the Eucharist is much more than a symbol of unity or spiritual medicine. Prayer breakfasts, for example, are symbols of unity. Similarly, praying, fasting, alms giving, and any of the Holy Mysteries are all "spiritual medicine." By offering the Eucharist to those who are practicing the "Orthodox Way," we are making this Holy Mystery the center piece of Christian existence, to paraphrase Father Breck. As one desert father reportedly advised, we should live from Eucharist to Eucharist: spending the intervening period first in thanksgiving and the latter part in anticipation--with the Body and Blood of the Lord always in us and us in the Body of Christ.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2010, 05:19:31 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2010, 07:58:28 PM »

Like "open marriage" (a more appropriate titel would be "loose"), it defeats the purpose.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2010, 08:36:42 PM »

Without judging those outside the Orthodox Church as heretics and schismatics, one must still recognize that we who call ourselves Christians are divided.  The Eucharist is the crown of our unity as one Body in Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).  To the Orthodox, its celebration implies a unity that already exists, not a not-yet-existent unity for which we hope and strive; therefore, the Eucharist can never be used as a means to achieving unity with those outside our fold.  To allow non-Orthodox to receive Orthodox Communion or allow Orthodox to receive non-Orthodox Communion is to overlook the tragic fact of the disunity between Christians and to allow Christians to bring their divisions to the Chalice, something St. Paul condemned in 1 Corinthians 11:17-22.  AISI, it is best we respect what unity there is in a non-Orthodox church by not approaching their chalice for Communion, just as it is best we demand respect for the unity of our Orthodox Church by not allowing non-Orthodox to receive Communion from our chalice.  Again, this is not to judge any party in our divisions; this is merely a recognition that divisions exist and that we should not allow them to be brought to the Chalice.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2010, 11:21:25 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,959



« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2010, 11:10:07 PM »

Without judging those outside the Orthodox Church as heretics and schismatics, one must still recognize that we who call ourselves Christians are divided.  The Eucharist is the crown of our unity as one Body in Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).  To the Orthodox, it's celebration implies a unity that already exists, not a not-yet-existent unity for which we hope and strive; therefore, the Eucharist can never be used as a means to achieving unity with those outside our fold.  To allow non-Orthodox to receive Orthodox Communion or allow Orthodox to receive non-Orthodox Communion is to overlook the tragic fact of the disunity between Christians and to allow Christians to bring their divisions to the Chalice, something St. Paul condemned in 1 Corinthians 11:17-22.  AISI, it is best we respect what unity there is in a non-Orthodox church by not approaching their chalice for Communion, just as it is best we demand respect for the unity of our Orthodox Church by not allowing non-Orthodox to receive Communion from our chalice.  Again, this is not to judge any party in our divisions; this is merely a recognition that divisions exist and that we should not allow them to be brought to the Chalice.

yeah, what you said!  Wink
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,575



« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2010, 01:41:22 AM »

Like "open marriage" (a more appropriate titel would be "loose"), it defeats the purpose.

Well now you have me curious, what is the purpose of marriage?
Logged
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2010, 02:24:17 PM »

Mike, Second Chance, Ialmisry, PeterTheAleut,

I appreciate each of your answers very much!

Last month I visited St Anthony's Chapel in Pittsburgh's North Side. I want to give you an accurate description, because it impressed me as a special, holy place. It has over 5,000 relics, more than any other place in the world for visitors to see, outside the Vatican. The chapel was pretty, and had many relics all around the chapel's candlelit front half. There were the skulls of several early Popes, bone fragments from John Chrysostom and other early saints, pieces of the true cross, and a thread from the Blessed Mother's clothes. A Ukrainian Catholic gave me a tour, and showed me how many of our eastern saints are there. I was sickened to hear about the early martyrs' deaths. They had the skull of a commander in present-day Turkey who was skinned alive because he refused to reject Jesus as Christ. They had a statue of a 14 year old girl laying down. However, it was not a normal statue of a saint- it showed her throat cut, because in France she refused to give up Christianity. They had a jar of green clay, her blood, and the guide said at the statue's feet, they had her tooth. I felt sick. And I felt that my faith is not strong enough that I would hold to Jesus Christ if it meant I would be killed in such bloody ways. I have doubts, and am psychologically weak. I might easily make a sacrifice to a statute of the emperor and make up half-baked theological justifications for it, and repent later.

So being there, in the midst of so many saints was an emotional experience. When I have had trouble, I have asked all the saints for their help to get me out of it. At the chapel, I lit a candle, asking that they would try to help a Catholic I read about was unfairly executed in a horrible way in America.

I feel that this is a holy Christian place and would like to participate in the liturgy and receive there, which I believe is a spiritiual ceremony, and to receive the Eucharist there, which I believe is a valid Eucharist. It is hard for me to refuse it, because I feel that in a way I would be rejecting the saints who are there.




The best justification I see for abstaining from the Eucharist is the Orthodox church's asceticism.


At my rural college, there was no Orthodox Christian Fellowship. The priest and the students at the Catholic Campus Ministry were very nice, humble, sincere, and did not treat me as if I were outside the church. I can say the same of nearly all my interactions with Catholics I can remember. I attended a Catholic Apologetics Class, and was not persuaded at all by their differences with Orthodoxy, except that I learned that early western saints did show intense reverence for the Pope. The class explained that protestants couldn't commune in Catholic churches, not because they disbelieved in Christ's presence in the Eucharist, but because Catholicism requires that people take certain steps before communion, like Confession, and protestants don't.

John Breck's article says: "The Eucharist is life itself... To participate in the Eucharist... requires as well acceptance of an ascetic discipline, which includes personal prayer, liturgical celebration, fasting, confession of sins, and acts of charity: the ingredients of a life of repentance and of an ongoing quest for holiness... for the Orthodox, the Divine Liturgy is what the name implies.  It is both the means and the end of Christian existence, an existence which arises from Orthodox faith..., ascetic discipline, ecclesial identity."

In other words, my existence as an Orthodox means that I follow an ascetic discipline that my church has because of its high regard for the Eucharist. The Orthodox practice is that before taking the Eucharist, I should go to confession so that I receive it with clean hands and a clean heart, I should read certain prayers to prepare myself spiritually, and I should attend Vespers the night before. Our ascetic attitude toward Communion is so great that we fast from food and drink since the previous midnight, while St Paul allowed people to eat before communion so that they would not take it out of hunger. If we have such an ascetic discipline in preparing for the Eucharist, naturally, we would have the same ascetic attitude about taking the Eucharist, and would limit ourselves to taking it in circumstances that match this ascetic discipline.

It's true that when we can't go to vespers the night before, or we need to take medicine, then we relax our preparation. Likewise, I think there might be circumstances where the Orthodox church would relax its restriction on Catholic communion. A Catholic Church, like Ukrainian Catholic churches, could use an acceptable liturgical form. Its bishops and clergy obey Apostolic Succession. There were times when our churches were in communion despite western churches and saints, like St Augustine, having different beliefs, like Original Sin. However, because of our strict practices and deep respect for Communion, we abstain from it in circumstances that are outside this discipline, and the Catholic church's practices, including its organizational practices, differ enough from ours that it falls outside our system of spiritual discipline.

People often abstain from communion in church when they haven't prepared themselves ascetically, without casting an aspersion on the Church's Eucharist. Consequently, we are not casting an aspersion by refraining from the Eucharist in catholic churches, it is simply outside our spiritual discipline.



The weakest reason for abstaining from nonOrthodox Communion would be to claim that Catholics exclude Orthodox too.

In responding to a statement that "Orthodox Christians may take communion in all Roman Catholic Churches," Father Breck wrote in Why Not Open Communion: "It is true that Orthodox Christians are considered by some Catholic priests to be eligible to receive communion in their parishes; but this practice is not formally sanctioned by the Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Holy Office or Magisterium)."

I disagree with his suggestion that the Catholic church considers Orthodox ineligible to take communion, since Catholic worship books contain the statement:
"Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3)."

POPE PAUL VI in his DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES OF THE EASTERN RITE announced:
Quote
Without prejudice to the principles noted earlier, Eastern Christians who are in fact separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, if they ask of their own accord and have the right dispositions, may be admitted to the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick. Further, Catholics may ask for these same sacraments from those non-Catholic ministers whose churches possess valid sacraments, as often as necessity or a genuine spiritual benefit recommends such a course and access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible.
Logged
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2010, 02:33:36 PM »


There are other reasons against open communion:


1. For us Orthodox Communion has a extremely high level of sacredness[/u]

Second Chance, I think this was the reason you were referring to. The Eucharist is the center of Orthodoxy, because it "offers a true participation in the very Life" of Christ. However, I am not sure that it would diminish its value or centrality if we offered it to nonOrthodox, who did not give it the same level of sacredness. If a person loves a certain kind of food or hobby and shares it with someone who doesn't care nearly as much about it, he hasn't diminished its value for him. In fact, he could say that he shares it because he values it so much that he wants to let others experience it too. And on the other hand, some nonOrthodox could regard Communion with the same reverence as some Orthodox, or even more.

2. Maintaining the Purpose of Communion:

IALMISRY, you commented that: "Like "open marriage" (a more appropriate titel would be "loose"), it defeats the purpose."
You would be right to suggest that reproducing outside of marriage would defeat the purpose, just like giving the pieces of the Eucharist outside of the Eucharist itself would defeat the purpose.

Asteriktos asked "what is the purpose of marriage?" Now I want to know what you mean too!
I think you mean that marriage (1) joins you to the other person and (2) gives the church's permission for you to reproduce. Likewise, in Communion, we are joined with Christ. An important difference is that millions of people accept the Eucharist and communion with Christ and eachother at the same time, but the church does not allow three people to be married together at once. If the church did, I am not sure it would defeat either of the two purposes. But it would go against Christ's teachings to us on marriage. I am not sure whether open communion goes against Christ's teachings, but it goes against the Russian Orthodox church's teachings.

3. A nonOrthodox church could have a different understanding of communion or doesn't give it correctly.

This would not apply to non-Canonical Orthodox churches like Old Belienvers, self-made "Ukrainian Patriarch" churches, or ROCOR before it reunited with Moscow, because they have the same theology as canonical churches. Mike, you mentioned that Eastern Catholics share the Roman church's theology instead of the Orthodox church's, but I don't know if that is correct.

The Melkites
Second, a Melkite claimed to me that our Orthodox Bishop allows her to take communion, since some Melkite churches preserved Orthodox theology. She also believed that the Melkite church considers itself sovereign instead of subject to the Pope, although I doubt this is legitimate, since the Pope doesn't view it that way. After all, what would it mean if one church viewed itself as superior, and the other one viewed itself as sovereign, and they both maintained communion with eachother?

I notice that Melkite websites are often silent about doctrines that divide Orthodox and Catholics.
This Melkite website distinguishes itself from Catholic theology, claiming Melkites accept theosis: http://www.melkite.org/OES-RomanMelkite.htm
The Catholic Near East Welfare Association claims: "Only Orthodox textbooks are used in religion classes and only Orthodox theology is taught in the Melkite seminary."
A review of the book "The Melkite Church" explains: "more [Melkites] are proposing a local restoration of communion with the Orthodox without renouncing the link with Rome." (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2065/is_n2_v47/ai_16885567/)
The Melkite Information Center says: "The Pope rarely exercises the responsibilities and authorities of the job position “Pope”. Some people say that the only time that a Pope has exercised the responsibilities and authorities of a "Pope" since 1800 was in 1854 when Pius IX unilaterally declared of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The NonRoman Catholics, including Melkites, did not accept this declaration as dogma. They believe that only an Ecumenical Council can declare dogma." http://www.mliles.com/melkite/schoolcatholic.shtml
This Melkite website's understanding of the Eucharist doesn't mention the Catholic idea of Transubstantiation, instead relying on early church traditions: http://holytransfiguration.org/communion.htm

Church unity vs. Christian Unity vs. Unity in Christ:

PETER THE ALEUT, you said that St Paul condemned allowing Christians to bring their divisions to the Chalice in 1 Corinthians 11:17-22: "first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others."

In Galatians 2:11-14, St Paul rebukes Peter for failing to eat with the other big faction in the church, the Judaizers who required circumcision: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation."
From these two passages, it sounds like St Paul demands open communion with fellow Christians. The Judaizers' doctrines taught that Gentiles must follow Jewish laws like circumcision, but St Peter, like the Orthodox Church, reject that. So St Peter removed himself from eating with them.

In 1 Corinthians 11:17-22, St Paul again complains that each faction eats dinner by itself and the factions doen't come together in order to eat the Lord's supper. St Paul is telling us to be one church, not to have factions, live together as a community, and share the Eucharist. In 11:21 He tells us that if we are going to eat separately, be "drunk", and let others be "hungry," we should do those things at home, not when we come together. At that time, Christians took the Eucharist in the course of a meal, just like Jesus gave it to his apostles during the Last Supper. In Corinthians 11, isn't St Paul complaining that when people from the factions come together they do not share this communal meal?

I feel like I could be doing the same thing St Paul warns against when I refuse the Lord's Supper with other Christians. We and nonOrthodox Christians are separated into factions, and when I come together with them in one place- their churches, I have not left my factionalism at home, but have refused to eat with them when they pass the communion plate around to me.


PETER THE ALEUT,
You explained that "we who call ourselves Christians are divided.  The Eucharist is the crown of our unity as one Body in Christ."
If Christians with valid Eucharists are united in Christ, then aren't they also united with eachother, making them one body in Christ, despite their factionalism? If the believers are united in Christ, wouldn't they share the crown of this unity, the Eucharist?

You explained: "To the Orthodox, its celebration implies a unity that already exists, not a not-yet-existent unity for which we hope and strive."
If Christians with valid Eucharists are united in Christ, I think they must be united with eachother through Christ, and this unity does in fact exist.

I think that you mean: Sharing communion suggests a unity, so refusing communion suggests that they are not united. Sharing communion suggests the church is one whole, but we have divisions, so it is not one whole and we shouldn't share communion.

But from St Paul's writing in Corinthians and Galatians about the Judaizers and Orthodox, shouldn't we say that despite our divisions, we are one church?

Plus, sharing and refusing communion suggests unity and disunity from Christ. Refusing to share communion suggests nonOrthodox are not united with Christ. If nonOrthodox are not in union with Christ, then you are right that the Eucharist alone will not create that connection. But if Orthodox believe that nonOrthodox are in union with Christ, then they should share communion.

I disagree with the explanation that "it is best we respect what unity there is in a non-Orthodox church by not approaching their chalice for Communion, just as it is best we demand respect for the unity of our Orthodox Church by not allowing non-Orthodox to receive Communion from our chalice."
What is more important, Christians' unity in Christ, or the internal unity of our factions? If we refuse their invitation to the Eucharist, we respect their internal unity, but we disrespect their unity in Christ by disrespecting the unity that we both have in Christ, since if we are united in Christ, we must be united with eachother.


Weak Reasons favoring open communion:

MIKE, it is hard to find detailed information of the concelebration. I think you are right that the Patriarch didn't concelebrate. Instead, his "arcdeacon" concelebrated with the Pope's archdeacon in their presence in 1987. ( http://nektarios.home.comcast.net/~nektarios/1511.html , http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_world_orthodoxy_demetrios.shtml )
The "True Orthodoxy" website says the Ecumenical Patriarch said that Orthodox can take communion in Catholic churches where no Orthodox church is nearby, and I believe that applies to all Orthodox.
I read that in some years after 1054, Antioch did not break with Rome, that the Bulgarian Orthodox church never excommunicated Rome, and that Finland's Orthodox church has open communion, but I am not sure about the last two.


=======================================================

If I were to invent my own standard, I would have to use the same as St Paul: even if Christians are in competing factions with leaders who are "approved" and "recognized", or their practices are as different as the Judaizers and the Orthodox, we should share the Eucharist. But if the person rejects that it is Christ's body, then sharing it does not make sense, especially in light of I Corinthians 11:27-29. This is the explanation Catholic priests give for refusing communion to protestants. Father Breck is right to point out that traditional protestants do believe in the transformation and real presence. So they should take communion in their churches without worrying about violating Paul's requirement that they discern the body. And if we would advise them to take communion in their churches without condemnation, we would offer it in ours.

But it's not my place to invent new rules for the Orthodox Apostolic church, nor do I want to. Either way it is hard for me.

Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2010, 06:06:06 PM »

A bunch of relics does not make them 'true'. It's faith and faith only.

If I were at your place I would not attend RC gatherings in order not to be stolen from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. They can be really nice while trying to do that.

Rites and magical laying hands does not make Ukrainian Catholics Orthodox. Taoists have also similar rites to the Orthodox ones.

Reverence does not make anyone Orthodox also.

Some Eastern Catholics can pose that they are not obligated to believe in all RCC teachings but they simply lie. Read that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium.

Archdeacons as they are not Priests can't serve so they can't concelebre with anyone.

I don't believe that any Orthodox Hierarch would allow the Orthodox to take Eucharist (or not - who knows?) in any non-Orthodox Church. Even in Finland.

Anathemas between the EOC and RCC are lifted but the unity has not been achieved.

A thousand years ago there was no Internet and communication was a bit more difficult. It was the reason for Antioch to be late with cutting ties with Rome.

The most important thing is that we can't ensure whether these outside the EOC have valid anything.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 06:07:37 PM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2010, 09:07:07 PM »

I think I've brought this point up before in other places, but...

We believe that Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ, which is union with Him (theosis), transcending time and space, connecting the Earthly to the Heavenly, an experience of the Parousia, the foretaste of the eschaton.

This belief compels me to deny communion to those who are not Orthodox in order to spare their souls the Judgment that awaits - for how can they partake and be one with the Judge when they do not believe correctly with regards to the things concerning Him?  If they receive His Body and Blood, how will they be able to stand before His Judgment Seat, having Known Him intimately through partaking of His Body and Blood, and yet say that they deny Him, or His Father, or the Spirit?  I tremble knowing that I will be judged sternly for knowing Him and yet transgressing His Laws; I cannot subject someone who denies a part of Him to that same experience, for it will be exceedingly difficult.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,554


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2010, 09:26:49 PM »

I think I've brought this point up before in other places, but...

We believe that Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ, which is union with Him (theosis), transcending time and space, connecting the Earthly to the Heavenly, an experience of the Parousia, the foretaste of the eschaton.

This belief compels me to deny communion to those who are not Orthodox in order to spare their souls the Judgment that awaits - for how can they partake and be one with the Judge when they do not believe correctly with regards to the things concerning Him?  If they receive His Body and Blood, how will they be able to stand before His Judgment Seat, having Known Him intimately through partaking of His Body and Blood, and yet say that they deny Him, or His Father, or the Spirit?  I tremble knowing that I will be judged sternly for knowing Him and yet transgressing His Laws; I cannot subject someone who denies a part of Him to that same experience, for it will be exceedingly difficult.

Axios!!
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2010, 10:25:13 PM »

If any of those relics are true, there probably stolen from the east ...Also the catholic churche's in the past were know to compete with each other  ,in who has the best relics there where many fake ones also, all for the tourist dinari,,How do you know that you weren't venerating a chicken bone or a porkrib bone....
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 10:51:16 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2010, 10:49:28 PM »

Church unity vs. Christian Unity vs. Unity in Christ:

PETER THE ALEUT, you said that St Paul condemned allowing Christians to bring their divisions to the Chalice in 1 Corinthians 11:17-22: "first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others."

In Galatians 2:11-14, St Paul rebukes Peter for failing to eat with the other big faction in the church, the Judaizers who required circumcision: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation."
From these two passages, it sounds like St Paul demands open communion with fellow Christians. The Judaizers' doctrines taught that Gentiles must follow Jewish laws like circumcision, but St Peter, like the Orthodox Church, reject that. So St Peter removed himself from eating with them.

In 1 Corinthians 11:17-22, St Paul again complains that each faction eats dinner by itself and the factions doen't come together in order to eat the Lord's supper. St Paul is telling us to be one church, not to have factions, live together as a community, and share the Eucharist. In 11:21 He tells us that if we are going to eat separately, be "drunk", and let others be "hungry," we should do those things at home, not when we come together. At that time, Christians took the Eucharist in the course of a meal, just like Jesus gave it to his apostles during the Last Supper. In Corinthians 11, isn't St Paul complaining that when people from the factions come together they do not share this communal meal?

I feel like I could be doing the same thing St Paul warns against when I refuse the Lord's Supper with other Christians. We and nonOrthodox Christians are separated into factions, and when I come together with them in one place- their churches, I have not left my factionalism at home, but have refused to eat with them when they pass the communion plate around to me.
The problem with your reasoning, though, and the Number One reason no Orthodox can find it acceptable is that it proceeds from the logical premise that all who call themselves Christian are visible members of the Church and that the heterodox churches are therefore part of the Church.  This is nothing less than the Branch Theory that Orthodoxy condemns as heresy.  Since you seem to want to misinterpret my words on unity and the Eucharist, I ask that you understand them in the light of my rejection of Branch Theory.  There is but one holy, catholic, apostolic Church, and that is the Orthodox Church.  Regardless of what you might feel on a subjective level when you visit a heterodox church, the teaching of the Orthodox Church is that those not united with us sacramentally and doctrinally are outside the Church.  It is this level of division that I cannot support bringing to the Chalice.

PETER THE ALEUT,
You explained that "we who call ourselves Christians are divided.  The Eucharist is the crown of our unity as one Body in Christ."
If Christians with valid Eucharists are united in Christ, then aren't they also united with eachother, making them one body in Christ, despite their factionalism? If the believers are united in Christ, wouldn't they share the crown of this unity, the Eucharist?
1.  How can we presume to speak with certainty that the Eucharist is valid and grace-filled when celebrated by those outside the Church?  We just don't know, and it's really not our concern.
2.  The Eucharist is the crown of our unity in that it manifests the glory of a unity that already exists, but it is not what makes us united.
3.  Christians are divided from the Church on the basis of heretical doctrines, not merely because we don't share the Eucharist together.  Many of our Fathers, notable among them the Bishop St. Cyprian, even taught that those sacraments performed outside the Church are devoid of grace and confer no salvific value to the recipient.  I can't say I agree wholeheartedly with this hard line position, since a number of other Fathers, particularly St. Cyprians opponent, Pope St. Stephen, believed otherwise, but the position needs to be taken seriously.  Seeing that it is nothing less than heresy that divides Catholics and Protestants from the Church, can we pretend that these divisions don't exist by sharing the Eucharist with them and them with us?

You explained: "To the Orthodox, its celebration implies a unity that already exists, not a not-yet-existent unity for which we hope and strive."
If Christians with valid Eucharists are united in Christ, I think they must be united with eachother through Christ, and this unity does in fact exist.
Only if you follow the heretical Branch Theory.

I think that you mean: Sharing communion suggests a unity, so refusing communion suggests that they are not united. Sharing communion suggests the church is one whole, but we have divisions, so it is not one whole and we shouldn't share communion.

But from St Paul's writing in Corinthians and Galatians about the Judaizers and Orthodox, shouldn't we say that despite our divisions, we are one church?
No.

Plus, sharing and refusing communion suggests unity and disunity from Christ. Refusing to share communion suggests nonOrthodox are not united with Christ. If nonOrthodox are not in union with Christ, then you are right that the Eucharist alone will not create that connection. But if Orthodox believe that nonOrthodox are in union with Christ, then they should share communion.

I disagree with the explanation that "it is best we respect what unity there is in a non-Orthodox church by not approaching their chalice for Communion, just as it is best we demand respect for the unity of our Orthodox Church by not allowing non-Orthodox to receive Communion from our chalice."
What is more important, Christians' unity in Christ, or the internal unity of our factions? If we refuse their invitation to the Eucharist, we respect their internal unity, but we disrespect their unity in Christ by disrespecting the unity that we both have in Christ, since if we are united in Christ, we must be united with eachother.
One is left to wonder just how united to Christ the non-Orthodox really are.  It's not enough to be united to Christ spiritually.  One must also be united to Christ within the context of His Body, the Church, the Orthodox Church.  Can we say that those outside the Church are most definitely NOT united to Christ?  I, for one, cannot, but neither will I say with certainty that they are.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2010, 10:50:39 PM »

If any of those relics are true, there probably stolen from the east ...Also the catholic churche's in the past were know to compete with each other  ,in who has the best relics there where ,many fake ones also ,How do you know that you weren't venerating a chicken bone or a porkrib bone....
Known to compete with each other to the point of fakery?  Can you back up this slanderous claim?
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2010, 10:56:09 PM »

If any of those relics are true, there probably stolen from the east ...Also the catholic churche's in the past were know to compete with each other  ,in who has the best relics there where ,many fake ones also ,How do you know that you weren't venerating a chicken bone or a porkrib bone....
Known to compete with each other to the point of fakery?  Can you back up this slanderous claim?

I thought this was just common knowledge; honestly I've read it stated in so many textbooks that I have taken it for granted. I was under the impression that the West had to start regulating and authenticating relics because of crooks selling fakes.
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2010, 10:57:11 PM »

If any of those relics are true, there probably stolen from the east ...Also the catholic churche's in the past were know to compete with each other  ,in who has the best relics there where ,many fake ones also ,How do you know that you weren't venerating a chicken bone or a porkrib bone....
Known to compete with each other to the point of fakery?  Can you back up this slanderous claim?

 It was on the history channel awhile back.....about medieval europe the churches and the fake relics.the competion between the catholic churches ........
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2010, 11:22:24 PM »

If any of those relics are true, there probably stolen from the east ...Also the catholic churche's in the past were know to compete with each other  ,in who has the best relics there where ,many fake ones also ,How do you know that you weren't venerating a chicken bone or a porkrib bone....
Known to compete with each other to the point of fakery?  Can you back up this slanderous claim?

I thought this was just common knowledge; honestly I've read it stated in so many textbooks that I have taken it for granted. I was under the impression that the West had to start regulating and authenticating relics because of crooks selling fakes.

People gave their entire lives to verify the provenance of the relics in that Chapel.  There are no relics preserved in the chapel unless they had a traceable provenance. 

This particular chapel is not a snake oil show!!

M.
Logged

stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2010, 12:08:57 AM »

A  Lutheran Missouri synod friend was in business, for quite awhile selling classic furniture and religious  church furniture, religious goods ,tabernacles,censors, altar crosses, processional crosses ,tiny little pocket watches for nuns ,priest and brothers....altar candle holders, old Latin vestments,old Latin prayer books and many other things altar  stones with relics embedded inside ,chalices,statues, stations of the cross..also tons of individual relics with authentication...
All of this ended up in his shop when Vatican 11 rolled in ,The catholic churches started to look more protestant.. Eventally  he sold his business but he has a garage full of some of the things mentioned above...


Forgot to mention That Mother Angelic from E W T N Heard of him ,and sent her agents there to investigate...She only purchased thru her agents, stuff that was almost pure gold or Silver...
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 12:29:47 AM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2010, 01:19:32 AM »

If any of those relics are true, there probably stolen from the east ...Also the catholic churche's in the past were know to compete with each other  ,in who has the best relics there where ,many fake ones also ,How do you know that you weren't venerating a chicken bone or a porkrib bone....
Known to compete with each other to the point of fakery?  Can you back up this slanderous claim?
I thought this was just common knowledge; honestly I've read it stated in so many textbooks that I have taken it for granted. I was under the impression that the West had to start regulating and authenticating relics because of crooks selling fakes.
People gave their entire lives to verify the provenance of the relics in that Chapel.  There are no relics preserved in the chapel unless they had a traceable provenance.  This particular chapel is not a snake oil show!!

I'm sorry Mary, you misunderstood. I wasn't talking about that chapel, I was talking about the ambiguous "middle ages" when there was a lot of crooks cashing in on relics. This is actually why the church formalized an authentication process. But this is an area I have no real knowledge in, so I don't wish to get involved. I honestly need to study up on the question before I can make any comments. I also don't know if the East ever had to grapple with these kinds of issues, but I have to admit that the many different "findings" of St. John the Forerunner's head makes me wonder...
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2010, 02:02:30 AM »

I think the most complicated part of this issue is with those individuals who have essentially the same Theological, Triadological, and Christological beliefs as the Church on top of the same understanding of the substance of the Sacred Mysteries and are thus almost entirely if not entirely orthodox in their dogmatic beliefs but for other personal reasons have not found the Church otherwise a home for them. I actually encountered one Byzantine priest who was willing to give a person Holy Communion on that basis. I don't know whether I agree with his approach or not. It's a very complicated issue.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 02:03:54 AM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2010, 06:10:38 AM »

If any of those relics are true, there probably stolen from the east ...Also the catholic churche's in the past were know to compete with each other  ,in who has the best relics there where ,many fake ones also ,How do you know that you weren't venerating a chicken bone or a porkrib bone....
Known to compete with each other to the point of fakery?  Can you back up this slanderous claim?
I thought this was just common knowledge; honestly I've read it stated in so many textbooks that I have taken it for granted. I was under the impression that the West had to start regulating and authenticating relics because of crooks selling fakes.
People gave their entire lives to verify the provenance of the relics in that Chapel.  There are no relics preserved in the chapel unless they had a traceable provenance.  This particular chapel is not a snake oil show!!

I'm sorry Mary, you misunderstood. I wasn't talking about that chapel, I was talking about the ambiguous "middle ages" when there was a lot of crooks cashing in on relics. This is actually why the church formalized an authentication process. But this is an area I have no real knowledge in, so I don't wish to get involved. I honestly need to study up on the question before I can make any comments. I also don't know if the East ever had to grapple with these kinds of issues, but I have to admit that the many different "findings" of St. John the Forerunner's head makes me wonder...

Oh...all right.  I see what you were doing then.  And yes, you are quite right.  In fact that is what makes the St. Anthony Chapel such an amazing place.  It is because there was such a concerted effort to trace the provenance of the relics and be sure they were human and traceable to a reliable source.  Who knows.  In a place with that many relics, there is always the chance of error.  It was an astonishing reclamation project in any event.

But back to the topic, it seems to me that open communion would be sinful and that would be the best reason for not engaging it.  Or at least it would be sinful for those in a Church who believes all other confessions are objectively heretical or have no Apostolic Succession.

M.
Logged

recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,889


« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2010, 08:51:45 AM »

I think I've brought this point up before in other places, but...

We believe that Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ, which is union with Him (theosis), transcending time and space, connecting the Earthly to the Heavenly, an experience of the Parousia, the foretaste of the eschaton.

This belief compels me to deny communion to those who are not Orthodox in order to spare their souls the Judgment that awaits - for how can they partake and be one with the Judge when they do not believe correctly with regards to the things concerning Him?  If they receive His Body and Blood, how will they be able to stand before His Judgment Seat, having Known Him intimately through partaking of His Body and Blood, and yet say that they deny Him, or His Father, or the Spirit?  I tremble knowing that I will be judged sternly for knowing Him and yet transgressing His Laws; I cannot subject someone who denies a part of Him to that same experience, for it will be exceedingly difficult.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2010, 08:59:15 AM »

I think I've brought this point up before in other places, but...

We believe that Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ, which is union with Him (theosis), transcending time and space, connecting the Earthly to the Heavenly, an experience of the Parousia, the foretaste of the eschaton.

This belief compels me to deny communion to those who are not Orthodox in order to spare their souls the Judgment that awaits - for how can they partake and be one with the Judge when they do not believe correctly with regards to the things concerning Him?  If they receive His Body and Blood, how will they be able to stand before His Judgment Seat, having Known Him intimately through partaking of His Body and Blood, and yet say that they deny Him, or His Father, or the Spirit?  I tremble knowing that I will be judged sternly for knowing Him and yet transgressing His Laws; I cannot subject someone who denies a part of Him to that same experience, for it will be exceedingly difficult.

This is quite a strong juridical explanation for an Orthodox truth...I am perplexed by it.  Is there a juridical faction in Orthodoxy?

M.
Logged

recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,889


« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2010, 09:12:12 AM »

I think I've brought this point up before in other places, but...

We believe that Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ, which is union with Him (theosis), transcending time and space, connecting the Earthly to the Heavenly, an experience of the Parousia, the foretaste of the eschaton.

This belief compels me to deny communion to those who are not Orthodox in order to spare their souls the Judgment that awaits - for how can they partake and be one with the Judge when they do not believe correctly with regards to the things concerning Him?  If they receive His Body and Blood, how will they be able to stand before His Judgment Seat, having Known Him intimately through partaking of His Body and Blood, and yet say that they deny Him, or His Father, or the Spirit?  I tremble knowing that I will be judged sternly for knowing Him and yet transgressing His Laws; I cannot subject someone who denies a part of Him to that same experience, for it will be exceedingly difficult.

This is quite a strong juridical explanation for an Orthodox truth...I am perplexed by it.  Is there a juridical faction in Orthodoxy?

M.
I think a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 with a focus on vs 27-29 explains this.  To me this just keeps the sacrament sacred & within the church and one ought to consider what happened when Aaron's sons offered strange fire in Leviticus 10 as a lesson. It seems safe to believe that other churches that reverance the body of Christ probably have grace too but we must not venture too far & fall into a potential trap of a false ecumenism. This is a delicate issue & the father put it into the context we as Orthodox Christians must understand within the church for the  welfare of souls of others as well as ourselves. There seemed only the law of love here not any condemnation.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 09:13:07 AM by recent convert » Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2010, 09:17:12 AM »

I think I've brought this point up before in other places, but...

We believe that Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ, which is union with Him (theosis), transcending time and space, connecting the Earthly to the Heavenly, an experience of the Parousia, the foretaste of the eschaton.

This belief compels me to deny communion to those who are not Orthodox in order to spare their souls the Judgment that awaits - for how can they partake and be one with the Judge when they do not believe correctly with regards to the things concerning Him?  If they receive His Body and Blood, how will they be able to stand before His Judgment Seat, having Known Him intimately through partaking of His Body and Blood, and yet say that they deny Him, or His Father, or the Spirit?  I tremble knowing that I will be judged sternly for knowing Him and yet transgressing His Laws; I cannot subject someone who denies a part of Him to that same experience, for it will be exceedingly difficult.

This is quite a strong juridical explanation for an Orthodox truth...I am perplexed by it.  Is there a juridical faction in Orthodoxy?

M.
I think a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 with a focus on vs 27-29 explains this.  To me this just keeps the sacrament sacred & within the church and one ought to consider what happened when Aaron's sons offered strange fire in Leviticus 10 as a lesson. It seems safe to believe that other churches that reverance the body of Christ probably have grace too but we must not venture too far & fall into a potential trap of a false ecumenism. This is a delicate issue & the father put it into the context we as Orthodox Christians must understand within the church for the  welfare of souls of others as well as ourselves. There seemed only the law of love here not any condemnation.

Is that what "juridical" means?  Juridical=Condemnation

If I as a Catholic would drink from an Orthodox Chalice, would I not be drinking to my condemnation?  Is that not what Father George said.

Is this not a juridical explanation of an Orthodox truth?

Mary
Logged

Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2010, 09:34:15 AM »

If I as a Catholic would drink from an Orthodox Chalice, would I not be drinking to my condemnation? 

If an Orthodox priest knows that you are not in communion with Holy Orthodoxy, and your own conscience does not prevent you from approaching the chalice, then he would be compelled to turn you away--not out of some type of legalism---but out of love.

Forgive me if that is a subpar explanation.
Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,889


« Reply #30 on: May 06, 2010, 09:49:07 AM »

I think I've brought this point up before in other places, but...

We believe that Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ, which is union with Him (theosis), transcending time and space, connecting the Earthly to the Heavenly, an experience of the Parousia, the foretaste of the eschaton.

This belief compels me to deny communion to those who are not Orthodox in order to spare their souls the Judgment that awaits - for how can they partake and be one with the Judge when they do not believe correctly with regards to the things concerning Him?  If they receive His Body and Blood, how will they be able to stand before His Judgment Seat, having Known Him intimately through partaking of His Body and Blood, and yet say that they deny Him, or His Father, or the Spirit?  I tremble knowing that I will be judged sternly for knowing Him and yet transgressing His Laws; I cannot subject someone who denies a part of Him to that same experience, for it will be exceedingly difficult.

This is quite a strong juridical explanation for an Orthodox truth...I am perplexed by it.  Is there a juridical faction in Orthodoxy?

M.
I think a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 with a focus on vs 27-29 explains this.  To me this just keeps the sacrament sacred & within the church and one ought to consider what happened when Aaron's sons offered strange fire in Leviticus 10 as a lesson. It seems safe to believe that other churches that reverance the body of Christ probably have grace too but we must not venture too far & fall into a potential trap of a false ecumenism. This is a delicate issue & the father put it into the context we as Orthodox Christians must understand within the church for the  welfare of souls of others as well as ourselves. There seemed only the law of love here not any condemnation.

Is that what "juridical" means?  Juridical=Condemnation

If I as a Catholic would drink from an Orthodox Chalice, would I not be drinking to my condemnation?  Is that not what Father George said.

Is this not a juridical explanation of an Orthodox truth?

Mary
If we are not in communion how can we share communion? Again, I believe in the eyes of God both churches may actually be sharing grace but we do not have the same understanding as we live so we as Orthodox must obey our clergy who discern what is right for us. This is a serious and delicate issue & great care must be taken. This does not make the non Orthodox Christian any better or worse than the Orthodox Christian but I think St. Paul's words have definition & sometimes sentimentality is secondary.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 06, 2010, 09:57:04 AM »

If I as a Catholic would drink from an Orthodox Chalice, would I not be drinking to my condemnation? 

If an Orthodox priest knows that you are not in communion with Holy Orthodoxy, and your own conscience does not prevent you from approaching the chalice, then he would be compelled to turn you away--not out of some type of legalism---but out of love.

Forgive me if that is a subpar explanation.

Are you suggesting that laws are not given out of love? 

Is that what Orthodoxy teaches?  That love cannot come out of the law?

Really?

Orthodoxy, in terms of strict adherence to canons, is by far and away more juridical than the Catholic Church.

Are you suggesting that the laws of the Catholic Church are prompted by something other than love?  Is that really what the Orthodox have been suggesting all this time?

Mary
Logged

recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,889


« Reply #32 on: May 06, 2010, 10:04:29 AM »

If I as a Catholic would drink from an Orthodox Chalice, would I not be drinking to my condemnation? 

If an Orthodox priest knows that you are not in communion with Holy Orthodoxy, and your own conscience does not prevent you from approaching the chalice, then he would be compelled to turn you away--not out of some type of legalism---but out of love.

Forgive me if that is a subpar explanation.

Are you suggesting that laws are not given out of love? 

Is that what Orthodoxy teaches?  That love cannot come out of the law?

Really?

Orthodoxy, in terms of strict adherence to canons, is by far and away more juridical than the Catholic Church.

Are you suggesting that the laws of the Catholic Church are prompted by something other than love?  Is that really what the Orthodox have been suggesting all this time?

Mary
Who is suggesting that? We have different theology & we believe it has the same basis that you have in your communion. If we forced ours on yours we would violate some the very things you beleive are sacred but we do not understand as such. If I attend a Catholic mass I do not take communion out of respect that I would be violating certain tenets of the RCC since I do not share them like the immaculate conception for instance.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2010, 10:11:55 AM »

If I as a Catholic would drink from an Orthodox Chalice, would I not be drinking to my condemnation? 

If an Orthodox priest knows that you are not in communion with Holy Orthodoxy, and your own conscience does not prevent you from approaching the chalice, then he would be compelled to turn you away--not out of some type of legalism---but out of love.

Forgive me if that is a subpar explanation.

Are you suggesting that laws are not given out of love? 

Is that what Orthodoxy teaches?  That love cannot come out of the law?

Really?

Orthodoxy, in terms of strict adherence to canons, is by far and away more juridical than the Catholic Church.

Are you suggesting that the laws of the Catholic Church are prompted by something other than love?  Is that really what the Orthodox have been suggesting all this time?

Mary
Who is suggesting that? We have different theology & we believe it has the same basis that you have in your communion. If we forced ours on yours we would violate some the very things you beleive are sacred but we do not understand as such. If I attend a Catholic mass I do not take communion out of respect that I would be violating certain tenets of the RCC since I do not share them like the immaculate conception for instance.

You raise something of a different issue Mickey than the one I was addressing. 

Can you answer the question?  Does Orthodoxy teach that love cannot come out of the law?

In response to your issue here:  I believe that what separates Orthodoxy from the Catholic Church is not sufficient to a rupture in communion.  But I do accept that there is a material schism.  So yes.  Out of respect I would never approach an Orthodox chalice unless it was offered to me at point of death.

However I think that because of what Orthodoxy professes at the moment concerning the schism, then if you were to approach a Catholic chalice, you would sin in disobedience if nothing else.  Any Catholic knowingly offering you the chalice would be a scandalum, a near occasion of sin and that priest would have to answer to God for his act.

M.
Logged

Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #34 on: May 06, 2010, 10:17:46 AM »

I think I've brought this point up before in other places, but...

We believe that Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ, which is union with Him (theosis), transcending time and space, connecting the Earthly to the Heavenly, an experience of the Parousia, the foretaste of the eschaton.

This belief compels me to deny communion to those who are not Orthodox in order to spare their souls the Judgment that awaits - for how can they partake and be one with the Judge when they do not believe correctly with regards to the things concerning Him?  If they receive His Body and Blood, how will they be able to stand before His Judgment Seat, having Known Him intimately through partaking of His Body and Blood, and yet say that they deny Him, or His Father, or the Spirit?  I tremble knowing that I will be judged sternly for knowing Him and yet transgressing His Laws; I cannot subject someone who denies a part of Him to that same experience, for it will be exceedingly difficult.
This is quite a strong juridical explanation for an Orthodox truth...I am perplexed by it.  Is there a juridical faction in Orthodoxy?

I fail to see how this is juridical/legalistic.  It is merciful.  I believe you have a greater chance of attaining the Kingdom of Heaven as a non-Orthodox who does not partake of His Body and blood than you do as a non-Orthodox who does.  Juridical would be saying something to the effect of, "You are not Orthodox, and will be condemned if you take Communion," or something like, "Communion is for the Orthodox, you are not Orthodox, therefore communion is forbidden to you."  In the case I described, I am not judging you - but we will all be judged - but I, by denying you Communion when you are not Orthodox, am hopefully facilitating an easier Judgment for you than if you were to receive of Him.

If I as a Catholic would drink from an Orthodox Chalice, would I not be drinking to my condemnation?  

We don't know for certain.  But what has been revealed to us is that you're better off becoming Orthodox than not.  We know where the Truth is, and we choose to stay there.

Are you suggesting that laws are not given out of love?  

Is that what Orthodoxy teaches?  That love cannot come out of the law?

Really?

Your question comes out of an incorrect reading of the previous statement.  Yes, the law out of love directs me to not commune non-Orthodox.  But the sense of love to my neighbor is what compels me.  The loving law is a guide, but love compels.

Orthodoxy, in terms of strict adherence to canons, is by far and away more juridical than the Catholic Church.

Juridical?  "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2010, 10:19:50 AM »

Are you suggesting that laws are not given out of love? 

No.

Is that what Orthodoxy teaches?  That love cannot come out of the law?

No.

Are you suggesting that the laws of the Catholic Church are prompted by something other than love?

No. 


Is that really what the Orthodox have been suggesting all this time?

No.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2010, 10:38:59 AM »

Are you suggesting that laws are not given out of love? 

No.

Is that what Orthodoxy teaches?  That love cannot come out of the law?

No.

Are you suggesting that the laws of the Catholic Church are prompted by something other than love?

No. 


Is that really what the Orthodox have been suggesting all this time?

No.

So tell me why is it that Orthodox faithful refer to the Catholic Church as "juridical" as though there is something wrong with that?

Also what do you think about my estimation of communing, at least between Orthodox and Catholic and do you see communing outside of Orthodoxy as sinful?

M.
Logged

Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #37 on: May 06, 2010, 10:46:39 AM »

So tell me why is it that Orthodox faithful refer to the Catholic Church as "juridical" as though there is something wrong with that?

I cannot answer that.  I would have to see the context in which the word is being used.


Also what do you think about my estimation of communing, at least between Orthodox and Catholic and do you see communing outside of Orthodoxy as sinful?  

I am in no place to judge anyone's actions as sinful.

I only receive Holy Communion in the Holy Orthodox Church. 

Fr George has a wonderful explanation above.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 10:48:13 AM by Mickey » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 06, 2010, 11:05:51 AM »

So tell me why is it that Orthodox faithful refer to the Catholic Church as "juridical" as though there is something wrong with that?

I cannot answer that.  I would have to see the context in which the word is being used.


Also what do you think about my estimation of communing, at least between Orthodox and Catholic and do you see communing outside of Orthodoxy as sinful?  

I am in no place to judge anyone's actions as sinful.

I only receive Holy Communion in the Holy Orthodox Church. 

Fr George has a wonderful explanation above.

Does Orthodoxy not have a concept of objectively sinful acts that can be discerned without judging anyone as being guilty of actual sin?

Is murder not an objectively sinful act?

Even if you cannot read the heart can one not say that the act itself is objectively evil?

Do words not have definitive meaning that can be established as a baseline, outside of context?

How does one tell if a word is being used in the appropriate context without some objectively determined meaning?

Mary
Logged

Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #39 on: May 06, 2010, 11:22:10 AM »

Does Orthodoxy not have a concept of objectively sinful acts that can be discerned without judging anyone as being guilty of actual sin?

Is murder not an objectively sinful act?

Even if you cannot read the heart can one not say that the act itself is objectively evil?

We were talking about Holy Communion. Suddenly you have veered to a subject on murder as an objectively sinful act.  I often have trouble understanding your twisting of subjects.

Fr George answered your question sufficiently.
Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,889


« Reply #40 on: May 06, 2010, 11:39:40 AM »

Are you suggesting that laws are not given out of love? 

No.

Is that what Orthodoxy teaches?  That love cannot come out of the law?

No.

Are you suggesting that the laws of the Catholic Church are prompted by something other than love?

No. 


Is that really what the Orthodox have been suggesting all this time?

No.

So tell me why is it that Orthodox faithful refer to the Catholic Church as "juridical" as though there is something wrong with that? 

Also what do you think about my estimation of communing, at least between Orthodox and Catholic and do you see communing outside of Orthodoxy as sinful?

M.
Re Juridical: Our parish priest was an RCC priest & he told us that the juridical concept originates with Tertullian (2nd c & when he was still Orthodox & Catholic) so it is not wrong but different than the Greek Orthodox mindset. It is based on the Roman legal system as an approach to theology. A fatal flaw eventually developed though with the concept of merits applied to works in salvation. Some of the Protestants obliterated works in salvation & applied solely faith as preached by St. Paul in Romans but failed to take into account that St. Paul was preaching against  circumcision being required for gentile Christians (Fr Lawrence Farley has a good Orthodox study book of Romans on this).
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 17, 2010, 05:13:31 AM »

The Best Reason I Find Against Open Communion: The Asceticism of Orthodox Practice

Is my reason for abstaining from the Eucharist in nonOrthodox churches, the asceticism of Orthodoxy as I wrote in Reply #10, acceptable?

Quote
As an Orthodox, I follow an ascetic discipline that my church has because of its high regard for the Eucharist. The Orthodox practice is that before taking the Eucharist, I should go to confession so that I receive it with clean hands and a clean heart, I should read certain prayers to prepare myself spiritually, and I should attend Vespers the night before. Our ascetic attitude toward Communion is so great that we fast from food and drink since the previous midnight, while St Paul allowed people to eat before communion so that they would not take it out of hunger. If we have such an ascetic discipline in preparing for the Eucharist, naturally, we would have the same ascetic attitude about taking the Eucharist, and would limit ourselves to taking it in circumstances that match this ascetic discipline.

It's true that when we can't go to vespers the night before, or we need to take medicine, then we relax our preparation. Likewise, I think there might be circumstances where the Orthodox church would relax its restriction on Catholic communion. A Catholic Church, like Ukrainian Catholic churches, could use an acceptable liturgical form. Its bishops and clergy obey Apostolic Succession. There were times when our churches were in communion despite western churches and saints, like St Augustine, having different beliefs, like Original Sin. However, because of our strict practices and deep respect for Communion, we abstain from it in circumstances that are outside this discipline, and the Catholic church's practices differ enough from ours that it falls outside our system of spiritual discipline.

Just as our ascetic discipline demands that we fast before taking communion in a church, which must be Orthodox, we have an exception to this asceticism when we must take medicine in the morning or possibly when there is no Orthodox church close enough to attend.

That would explain why the Ecumenical Patriarch approved the Thyateira Confession, which stated in part:

"When they are not near a Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholics are permitted to receive the Holy Communion in Orthodox Churches; and the same is also extended to Orthodox when they are not near an Orthodox Church."

Does this apply to other Orthodox jurisdictions?


Side Comments

1. Juridical Rules

ELIJAHMARIA, I wouldn't get too bogged down in the juridical vs mystical approach. They can be complementary, as Recent Convert said, instead of an exclusive dichotomy.

2. Differing Understandings of Communion or Theology

The Melkites
Mike said "Eastern Catholics can pose that they are not obligated to believe in all RCC teachings but they simply lie." He referred to the Roman Catholic "Magisterium" doctrine from Vatican I, which says the Pope has direct authority over all Catholics and is infallible.

While Melkites accept the ope's authority as their "world leader" (http://www.mliles.com/melkite/pope.shtml), it sounds like some reject the Roman Catholic idea of the Magisterium doctrine of Papal infallibility. That means those Melkites remain under the Pope despite considering eachother to be in apostasy. If people are obligated to accept their leaders' doctrines even if the doctrines are heresies, then Mike is right and the Melkites have surrendered their Orthodox theology. It looks to be the case, although I could imagine a Melkite bishop continuing to teach Orthodox theology despite his obligations to the Pope.


3. Church unity vs. Christian Unity vs. Unity in Christ:

PETER THE ALEUT,
I do not want to misinterpret your words. Your explanation for rejecting open communion was that "we who call ourselves Christians are divided", that Open Communion overlooks "the disunity between Christians," and that St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 told Christians not to bring their divisions to the chalice. I concluded that you meant Catholics are Christians who are divided from us, and you meant that St Paul warned different divisions of Christians from sharing the Meal together.

On closer inspection, it appears to me that St Paul in Galatians 2:11-14 and 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 instructed Christians that they should not abstain from eating together based on divisions, the factions mentioned being those of St Peter who rejected kosher rules and the Judaizers who required circumcision. But doesn't it look like modern Orthodoxy would consider the Judaizers to be outside its communion?

In your next message, you said you rejected the branch theory and the idea that Catholics were a legitimate faction within the church. This makes 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 irrelevant at best, because the passage's message is that factions of Christians should share the meal together.


I appreciate your writings, Mike, Peter,  Fr. George, ElijahMaria, and RecentConvert.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 05:35:30 AM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 17, 2010, 05:19:04 AM »


Other Reasons Against Open Communion


1. Juridical Rules

Recent Convert said: "we as Orthodox must obey our clergy who discern what is right for us."

Father George defended Reason #3 below (different understandings of God or the Eucharist), saying:
I fail to see how this is juridical/legalistic... Juridical would be saying... something like, "Communion is for the Orthodox, you are not Orthodox, therefore communion is forbidden to you."

This juridical rule is the Orthodox Church's position, but it is not the only reason.


2. nonOrthodox Communion Might Not Be Valid


If bishops like those of ROCOR(1925-2007) or some Ukrainian Orthodox have an organizational disagreement with other bishops, why should that make the former's communion invalid?
In Galatians 2:11-14, St Paul objected to St Peter (the Pope) abstaining from sharing meals with the Judaizer faction.

Please say more about why we are uncertain if communion is valid in nonOrthodox churches and if grace exists outside of the Orthodox church.

Can you please point me to Bishop St. Cyprian's writings saying that sacraments outside the Church are devoid of grace, or the contrary writings of Pope St. Stephen?

RecentConvert suggested that a nonOrthodox Communion could be like Aaron's sons' offering of strange fire in Leviticus 10. This comparison is wrong, because the Eucharist-Jesus' body- is not bad. Whether the Eucharist remained bread and wine as Protestants believe, or became physically Jesus' body and blood as Catholics believe, the item itself would not be harmful. It is a different matter for a person to take the Eucharist unworthily, which is what St Paul warns against in 1 Corinthians 11:27. As Jesus says in Matthew 15:11 "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

The OCA website (http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=200&SID=3) writes:
Quote
Concerning the Eucharist: Many Orthodox Christians do view the Roman Catholic Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ; others today would not subscribe to this. The answer is linked to whether one believes that Roman Catholicism is "with grace" or "devoid of grace."

In other words: If we believe a church is devoid of grace, then we would believe its Eucharist would be invalid. But if we believe a church had grace, then we would believe its Eucharist was valid. And if we are uncertain, then we should abstain because we would be unable to "discern the body" in it.

This makes sense, but goes back to the question of whether their Eucharist is valid or not.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 05:38:51 AM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #43 on: May 17, 2010, 05:27:27 AM »

3. Differing Understandings of Communion
This does not apply to non-canonical Orthodox churches like Old Believers or self-made "Ukrainian Patriarch" churches, who share our theology.

What about Catholics and Traditional Protestants?
Father George asks: how will they be able to stand before His Judgment Seat, having Known Him intimately through partaking of His Body and Blood, and yet say that they deny Him, or His Father, or the Spirit
In other words, if they reject God, their rejection is worse because they reject him at the same time as they have joined with him.

Since the resurrection, is Jesus' body both physical (he can eat) and spiritual (he can pass through doors)? Or perhaps we don't know this either? This relates to the Eucharist's transformation.

My understanding is that Orthodox say the mechanics of the Eucharist's transformation is a mystery, while Catholics have transubstantiation (the physical substance changes) and traditional Protestants have consubstantiation (the physical substance remains bread, but its spiritual nature changes).

So do you mean that Catholics who say Jesus' body is the same "substance" as the Eucharist could be wrong, while Protestants could be right that the bread remains bread in a physical sense, and in such a situation Catholics would blaspheme Jesus by saying that what is- unbeknownst to them- in reality physical bread is part of the "substance" of His body?

And if a priest has this mistaken understanding of the Eucharist, then his attempt to perform it is blasphemous, as would be my reception of the Eucharist from him?

Meanwhile, St Paul instructs us in 1 Corinthians 11:29 to discern the body in the Eucharist, and I as an Orthodox respond that "Yes, I accept that it has changed in some mysterious way, but am unable to discern it further."

4. Differences in Theology

RECENTCONVERT, you commented:
If I attend a Catholic mass I do not take communion out of respect that I would be violating certain tenets of the RCC since I do not share them like the immaculate conception for instance.

The Roman Catholic church doesn't consider you to be violating its tenets if you take its communion. Their service books say: "According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of [Orthodox] Churches (canon 844 § 3)."

5. Church unity vs. Christian Unity vs. Unity in Christ:

PETER THE ALEUT, You rejected the branch theory and the idea that nonOrthodox belong to The Church, which you said means the Orthodox Church. My impression is that a non-authoritative "Balamand Agreement" accepts the Catholic church as some kind of sister church. Anyway, the assumption that "those not united with us sacramentally and doctrinally are outside the Church" goes back to the original question of why Christians outside the Church are not united with us sacramentally, and to Reason #1 the validity of Communion in nonOrthodox churches.

Do self-made Ukrainian "Orthodox" churches rely on the "Branch theory" for apostolic succession, since their nonconsensual branching off of Orthodoxy violated traditional church rules?

If the Eucharist unites believers with Christ, why wouldn't we be united in Him with nonOrthodox believers - regardless of the Branch Theory?

Do we use the formula:
the Eucharist = the Body of Christ = The Church = Christians With Right Beliefs about Christ

Peter, you wrote: "It's not enough to be united to Christ spiritually. One must also be united to Christ within the context of His Body, the Church, the Orthodox Church." I am confused. If a nonOrthodox is spiritually united to Christ, wouldn't that mean the person is united to His body, which is The Church?


Weak Reasons for Open Communion:


Galatians 2:11-14 and 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 appear to suggest that Christian factions, like St Peter and the Judaizers, should share the Meal together (See Reply #11). The Judaizers didn't accept Peter or St Paul's authority over them and they disagreed over doctrines like circumcision and kosher rules.

In 1987 the Ecumenical Patriach attended a liturgy with the pope where their deacons both took the Eucharist. (http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_world_orthodoxy_demetrios.shtml)

Mike said that this was not a concelebration, but I can't find any more detailed information on the event!
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 05:33:07 AM by rakovsky » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 17, 2010, 09:48:49 AM »


Side Comments

1. Juridical Rules

ELIJAHMARIA, I wouldn't get too bogged down in the juridical vs mystical approach. They can be complementary, as Recent Convert said, instead of an exclusive dichotomy.

I appreciate your writings, Mike, Peter,  Fr. George, ElijahMaria, and RecentConvert.

Dear Rakovsky,

First I smiled at your name and avatar.

Then I read your posts with great interest.

Then I read your comment to me and fell out of my chair!!  laugh

Thank you.  I am in full agreement.

Elijahmaria
Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 17, 2010, 02:23:58 PM »

The Melkites
Mike said "Eastern Catholics can pose that they are not obligated to believe in all RCC teachings but they simply lie." He referred to the Roman Catholic "Magisterium" doctrine from Vatican I, which says the Pope has direct authority over all Catholics and is infallible.

While Melkites accept the ope's authority as their "world leader" (http://www.mliles.com/melkite/pope.shtml), it sounds like some reject the Roman Catholic idea of the Magisterium doctrine of Papal infallibility. That means those Melkites remain under the Pope despite considering eachother to be in apostasy. If people are obligated to accept their leaders' doctrines even if the doctrines are heresies, then Mike is right and the Melkites have surrendered their Orthodox theology. It looks to be the case, although I could imagine a Melkite bishop continuing to teach Orthodox theology despite his obligations to the Pope.

Your imagination is very wide.
Quote
A religious obsequium  of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching  on faith  or morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching.
Code of canons of Oriental Churches §599
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 02:25:08 PM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #46 on: May 17, 2010, 02:53:15 PM »

If any of those relics are true, there probably stolen from the east ...Also the catholic churche's in the past were know to compete with each other  ,in who has the best relics there where many fake ones also, all for the tourist dinari,,How do you know that you weren't venerating a chicken bone or a porkrib bone....

The same way you know about your own relics, ¿Don't you think?
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #47 on: May 17, 2010, 02:57:39 PM »

5. Church unity vs. Christian Unity vs. Unity in Christ:

PETER THE ALEUT, You rejected the branch theory and the idea that nonOrthodox belong to The Church, which you said means the Orthodox Church. My impression is that a non-authoritative "Balamand Agreement" accepts the Catholic church as some kind of sister church. Anyway, the assumption that "those not united with us sacramentally and doctrinally are outside the Church" goes back to the original question of why Christians outside the Church are not united with us sacramentally, and to Reason #1 the validity of Communion in nonOrthodox churches.

Do self-made Ukrainian "Orthodox" churches rely on the "Branch theory" for apostolic succession, since their nonconsensual branching off of Orthodoxy violated traditional church rules?

If the Eucharist unites believers with Christ, why wouldn't we be united in Him with nonOrthodox believers - regardless of the Branch Theory?

Do we use the formula:
the Eucharist = the Body of Christ = The Church = Christians With Right Beliefs about Christ

Peter, you wrote: "It's not enough to be united to Christ spiritually. One must also be united to Christ within the context of His Body, the Church, the Orthodox Church." I am confused. If a nonOrthodox is spiritually united to Christ, wouldn't that mean the person is united to His body, which is The Church?
No.  Now you're espousing an "Invisible Church" ecclesiology, which the Orthodox reject.  The Church is ALSO a visible institution with a visible structure and a history.  She is NOT merely an invisible, spiritual reality such as you implied in your question above.  Since the Church is a visible institution, we say that one cannot be united to her only spiritually.  This goes against the teaching of Ss. Ignatius of Antioch and Cyprian of Carthage, who both taught that the bishop is the fountainhead of life within the Church and the visible focus of unity.  Was it not St. Ignatius who consistently exhorted his churches to do nothing apart from the bishop and that separation from the bishop was the mark only of heretics and schismatics?  How, then, do we reconcile your idea of an invisible spiritual union with the Church with St. Ignatius's teaching that those not in communion with their local bishop are outside the Church?  I don't think we can.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 02:58:42 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #48 on: May 17, 2010, 08:36:10 PM »

5. Church unity vs. Christian Unity vs. Unity in Christ:

PETER THE ALEUT, You rejected the branch theory and the idea that nonOrthodox belong to The Church, which you said means the Orthodox Church. My impression is that a non-authoritative "Balamand Agreement" accepts the Catholic church as some kind of sister church. Anyway, the assumption that "those not united with us sacramentally and doctrinally are outside the Church" goes back to the original question of why Christians outside the Church are not united with us sacramentally, and to Reason #1 the validity of Communion in nonOrthodox churches.

Do self-made Ukrainian "Orthodox" churches rely on the "Branch theory" for apostolic succession, since their nonconsensual branching off of Orthodoxy violated traditional church rules?

If the Eucharist unites believers with Christ, why wouldn't we be united in Him with nonOrthodox believers - regardless of the Branch Theory?

Do we use the formula:
the Eucharist = the Body of Christ = The Church = Christians With Right Beliefs about Christ

Peter, you wrote: "It's not enough to be united to Christ spiritually. One must also be united to Christ within the context of His Body, the Church, the Orthodox Church." I am confused. If a nonOrthodox is spiritually united to Christ, wouldn't that mean the person is united to His body, which is The Church?
No.  Now you're espousing an "Invisible Church" ecclesiology, which the Orthodox reject.  The Church is ALSO a visible institution with a visible structure and a history.  She is NOT merely an invisible, spiritual reality such as you implied in your question above.  Since the Church is a visible institution, we say that one cannot be united to her only spiritually.  This goes against the teaching of Ss. Ignatius of Antioch and Cyprian of Carthage, who both taught that the bishop is the fountainhead of life within the Church and the visible focus of unity.  Was it not St. Ignatius who consistently exhorted his churches to do nothing apart from the bishop and that separation from the bishop was the mark only of heretics and schismatics?  How, then, do we reconcile your idea of an invisible spiritual union with the Church with St. Ignatius's teaching that those not in communion with their local bishop are outside the Church?  I don't think we can.

It depends in what parameter are you taking as proof of the true Bishop, the true Church, if you take as parameter Apostolic roots both Catholic and "Orthodox" churches have their Apostolic roots, If you are searching on ecclesiology then in orthodox churches you have to be shure that your church is recognized by the 15 autocephalous patriarcetes as a church in full comunion, while by being catholic you only have to be sure that your priest is part of the Catholic Church ordered to Rome. If you are looking for unity as a proof of  comunion then you will only have one option, Catholicism.
 Alonso Castillo,

Even your own ecclesiastical organization does not address us as the "Orthodox" Church.

Until you demonstrate the slightest effort to start to learn of the Orthodox Church, the Body of Christ, you are muted. I have already Private Messaged you regarding what indicators I will start to look for from you.

+FrChris
Administrator
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #49 on: May 17, 2010, 09:38:14 PM »

ALONSO,

The Forum's Main Question "Why Not Open Communion" applies to Catholics too, because the Catholic church doesn't have Open Communion either. Please read earlier posts on the forum, Thanks.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 17, 2010, 09:40:45 PM »

ALONSO,

The Forum's Main Question "Why Not Open Communion" applies to Catholics too, because the Catholic church doesn't have Open Communion either. Please read earlier posts on the forum, Thanks.

 laugh...curious ain't it!!... laugh

But it does seem to have been forgotten in this thread.

M.
Logged

rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #51 on: June 02, 2010, 06:53:18 PM »

REASONS AGAINST OPEN COMMUNION

1. The Orthodox Church's Ascetic Discipline.

Our practice and spiritual regime is ascetic, taking communion only after strict preparation and communion in other churches would not match this ascetic attitude. (Reply #10)

2. Communion is part of unity inside the church

Communion unites believers with Christ and eachother.
However, it seems to me that a valid Eucharist would unite people with Christ and such union would overcome divisions between Christians.
It appears that this reflects an "Invisible Church" Ecclesiology. And I see that the 12 apostles were united, and had a visible structure like the Jerusalem Council. If a nonconsensual organizational schism occurs within the same region, it would break organizational unity. The kind of organizational unity we are instructed to practice, with appointing bishops, is not done in an organized, coordinated manner between noncanonical Orthodox churches and canonical ones.

It's true that we have a bad situation in America where the church in the same region does not act in a strong coordinated manner, and there are several Orthodox bishops in one place lacking coordinated appointments by a single body. But this is an exception, and hopefully one that we are working to overcome. The Episcopal Assembly should be much stronger than the World Council of Churches.
The Episcopal Assembly (in America), our Councils, common correct observance of canon law, and mutual cooperation of our Primates creates a degree of church unity that we lack with other noncanonical churches. If Christians are in schism, then as a whole we are not following the structure handed down by the apostles and the vision God has for us as united believers. I accept that the Orthodox churches represent this vision, while the totalitarian one-primate structure of the Catholic church doesn't, nor does the broken, scattered, disunited structure of the 1000 Protestant churches.

However, St Paul in St Paul in Galatians 2:11-14 and 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 wanted St Peter to be together with the judaizers, and wanted the factions in Corinth to eat together, and I assume be united, despite their differences and division into factions. What should come first, institutional unity or sharing communion? This is not a chicken or the egg question, and it sounds like the Orthodox position is to put organizational unity first.

I can see the point of view that those who broke organizational unity based on a noncanonical position are no longer part of the church, and the church continues in the canonically correct organization. On the other hand, I think St Paul's position in Galatians 2:11-14 was that St Peter and the Judaizers were wtill part of the church because of their disagreement, which at some point apparently became organizational. But perhaps this division only became organizational later.

I think the judaizers' dispute is relevant, because it appears that such a disagreement existed between the apostle St James and the apostle St Peter. We, the spiritual descendants of St Peter, consider the judaizers to be wrong. If we reject the Invisible Church ecclesiology, we conclude that the spiritual descendants of St James would be outside the church, correct? We want an apostolic church, but we say it only includes those apostles with whom we have organizational unity. I admit that even apostles could fall outside the church, since St Peter denied Christ. But rejection of Invisible Church ecclesiology has a harsh result: once an organizational schism develops, we must decide whose fault it is and say one side is the church and the rest are outside the church, no matter how trivial the mistake may seem.

It appears that we do use a variation of the formula:

Quote
the Eucharist = the Body of Christ = The Church = Christians With Right Beliefs about Christ subject to an organizationally united institution

If we reject Invisible Church ecclesiology and say that the church must be a single united, coordinated, visible institution combined with a spiritual reality, then it doesn't make sense to me to say you can be united to it only spiritually.

On the other hand, "Invisible church" ecclesiology would say that actually there is a visible church, made up of canonical and noncanonical churches, and combined with a spiritual reality, but the church's organizational unity is invisible. One problem I see with "Invisible church" ecclesiology is that Jesus said a divided house will soon fall. Naturally, his house, his church, would not be currently broken as an organization, since He said it will prevail. On the other hand, Jesus said his body is broken for us, and his body after all, is the church, but this seems like a weak idea.

One conclusion is that in 1925-2007 either ROCOR was uncanonical or the Russian Patriarch and the OCA were uncanonical, since they had a nonconsensual organizational division. The churches lacked organizational unity and I believe considered eachother schismatic or noncanonical. However, ROCOR did have communion with a very few canonical churches like Serbia, and they in turn had communion with other canonical churches.

Yet as a member of OCA or a Greek parish, I could not take communion in a ROCOR church. Why not? Were the churches in schism? I believe so, because there was no consensual or organizational unity. But from the perspective of a few canonical churches, ROCOR was still canonical. What if even they broke communion? The only way to see ROCOR as part of the church in 1925-2007 is to accept invisible church ecclesiology since they were not part of a united structure, were outside their mother church without consent, and were not autocephalous. Now that we all have communion, and value some of eachother's traditions in 1925-2007, it is harder for me to say that ROCOR was completely outside the church.

I don't know much about John of Shanghai, or noncanonical Ukrainian Orthodox churches, but it is hard to say that those with faith much stronger than mine and an understanding of Orthodox theology much deeper than mine are not joined with Christ ("communion"), while I am. Are there examples of Christians or saints who have been wrongly excommunicated?

St Ignatius of Antioch
Ignatius lived ca.35/50 -- 98/117 when the gospels were written, was a student of St John.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans says:
Quote
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution  of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper  Eucharist, which is [administered] either  by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

So once we have defined who a legitimate bishop is, we must follow him. Generally we shouldn't have 2 bishops in one place, although we have such a situation in nonOrthodox countries. I don't think this excludes the possibility of two bishops in one area, although it should not be a long term plan. I don't think "Invisible church" ecclesiogy would necessarily means approval of schism, just that both sides of the schism still belong to the church.

PETER THE ALEUT,
You asked:
"How, then, do we reconcile your idea of an invisible spiritual union with the Church with St. Ignatius's teaching that those not in communion with their local bishop are outside the Church?"
Sorry, where exactly does St Ignatius say this? The passage above seems to define the church as where Christ is. But I could imagine him agreeing with your words.
To answer the question, you would have to say that noncanonical Orthodox, traditional protestants, or Catholics are inside the church because they have legitimate bishops. That sounds like the Branch Theory. You also might be able to say that if there is no local bishop for them, like in a few nonOrthodox places, then failure to be in communion with such a bishop wouldn't necessarily put them outside the Church. Perhaps this explains the Thyateira Confession, which says Orthodox can commune in Catholic churches if there is no Orthodox church near them.

St. Cyprian of Carthage
Cyprian lived in the first half of the 3rd Century. Cyprian's Letter on Church Unity uses language that more clearly describes a unified institution.
Quote
"The episcopate is one, of which each bishop holds his part within the undivided structure."
The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness...
break a branch from a tree,--when broken, it will not be able to bud... Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world."

In reality, I think regeneration from a branch depends on the kind of tree. Is a nonconsensual organizational division between bishops enough to make the kind of break Cyprian describes? In Cyprian's time, a united church did spread its branches across the Mediterranean. But by 1200 AD, either the Catholic church didn't spread its branches over the whole east, and the Orthodox lacked branches in the west.

Unfortunately perhaps, Cyprian's idea of unity seems to focus on one person, the Pope, saying that Christ
Quote
"assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?
We have to say that Cyprian did not envision that a future pope would fall into heresy and that the structure of the church would divide. Cyprian would not want either. But once the division occurred, we can speculate that he would say Peter's chair moved, or that it is unoccupied, or that the church structure is now divided between Peter's descendants and the other apostles.

It looks like Cyprian describes the situation, like that in German Lutheran churches I believe, of churches that lack any claim to apostolic succession:

Quote
"they who of their own accord, without any divine arrangement... who appoint themselves prelates without any law of ordination, who assume to themselves the name of bishop, although no one gives them the episcopate, whom the Holy Spirit points out in the Psalms as sitting 'in the seat of pestilence.' ... Although there can be no other baptism but one, they think that they can baptize."

Did other ex-Catholic Lutheran priests have a law on ordination and give Luther the episcopate? I could imagine a situation where the bishops were killed or became heretics and priests had to install a new bishop. If Cyprian is talking about German Lutherans, it looks like none of their baptisms are valid and we former Lutherans would need rebaptism. Since the Orthodox church rejects this position, German Lutherans are either part of the church, or their sacrament is valid despite being outside the church.

Further, it is possible that Cyprian held that once bishops received the episcopate, other bishops or higher ones could not remove it from them: “each bishop has the right to think for himself and as he is not accountable to any other, so is no bishop accountable to him." This could suggest bishops wouldn't lose a valid apostolic succesion or fall outside the church based on a purely organizational disagreement with other bishops.

Conclusion
In conclusion, if (1)the Church is a visible structure whose spiritual boundaries extend no farther than its coordinated organizational boundaries, (2) its organizational boundaries are defined by its leadership or by Christians' recognition of where those structural boundaries lie, and (3) the church=the body of Christ=the Eucharist, then (4) it's impossible for those outside the church to give or receive the Eucharist.

In that case, what about Christians outside the church who give or receive the Eucharist? Either they would be unknowingly part of the visible church and in disobedience to its leaders and canons, or the Eucharist they receive would be invalid.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 07:00:16 PM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 02, 2010, 06:55:05 PM »

REASONS AGAINST OPEN COMMUNION (continued)

3. NonOrthodox Communion could be invalid.


Assuming that the Church is a visible structure whose organizational boundaries confine its spiritual boundaries, and its organizational boundaries are defined by its leadership or by Christians' recognition of those organizational boundaries, would the Eucharist be valid?

St Cyprian and Pope St Stephen disagreed over whether sacraments like baptism outside the united Roman-Greek Church were valid. If the Orthodox church rejects "Invisible Church" ecclesiology, it would appear to accept St Stephen's view, since it accepts Lutheran baptism.

St Stephen

St Stephen accepted heretics' baptism because acceptance was the original practice. He wrote:
Quote
"Let there be no innovation beyond what has been handed down:hands are to be laid on them in penitence, since among heretics themselves they do not use their own rite of baptism on other heretics when they come to them, but they simply admit them to communion."

Stephen said the baptism only required the correct form, "because baptism is given in the name of Christ", and "the effect is due to the majesty of the Name".

Stephen's supporters proposed that since we believe in one baptism for the remmission of sins, we would not deny the one-time nature of baptism by rebaptizing others. I have heard this explanation given nowadays too. Of course, the same could be proposed about communion: since there is one body and one communion, we wouldn't reject communion, whether given by heretics or not. Cyprian simply responded though that baptism by those outside the institutional church wasn't baptism.

The 3rd Century book "On Rebaptism" "says that the ordinances of Pope Stephen, forbidding the rebaptism of converts, are in accordance with antiquity and ecclesiastical tradition, and are consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance of all the saints and of all the faithful." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VIII)

The author of On Rebaptism emphasizes the power of Jesus' name for salvation and that in Jesus' name
"all kinds of power are accustomed to be exercized, and occasionally some even by people outside the church," quoting Matthew 7:22 where even sinners Jesus rejects could cast out demons in His name.
He says that those who may have mistaken ideas when baptized "would not be hindered from knowing the truth at some other time... and would not lose that former invocation of the name of Jesus." The author asks rhetorically, "What about those baptized by bishops of bad character... Or by bishops of unsound opinions or who are ignorant?"

St Cyprian

Cyprian's response is that "A custom without truth is but error gone cold."

St Cyprian's explanation in "The Unity Of The Catholic Church" is that the sacrament united just like the church, quoting Ephesians 4:5, “There is one body and one spirit... one faith, one baptism, one God”
One problem could be that just because there is one God, one baptism, one faith etc. doesn't mean their boundaries are the same. I think God is everywhere and in everyone, even though not everything and everyone in the world has been baptized. And there are unbaptized people who share our faith.

Next, Cyprian points out "the sacrament of the passover contains nothing else in the law of the Exodus than that the lamb which is slain in the figure of Christ should be eaten in one house." It appears that Exodus is talking about a physical house. I assume that people of different sects of Judaism can eat passover together today. I assume that those of the opposing Sadduccee and Pharisaic sects could share passover, since there was one Temple building in Jesus' time.

Cyprian asks "But what unity does he keep, what love does he maintain or consider, who, savage with the madness of discord, divides the Church, destroys the faith, disturbs the peace, dissipates charity, profanes the sacrament?"

I think that many Protestants and many of their leaders do maintain or consider some love. I think love is a kind of bond, so many protestants keep some unity. I see the origins of traditional Protestantism as a flawed attempt to return to the faith of the early church.

Why would the Orthodox Church Refuse Cyprian Communion?
The Western and Eastern bishops supported St Stephen, but the African bishops supported St Cyprian. Archimandrite Ambrosius claims that St Stephen excommunicated Cyprian for failing to repeal the African Council's decision rejecting heretics' baptism. (http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch1.html)
Another source claimed that when Cyprian's messengers came to Rome they were refused communion. But St Augutine writes that Cyprian wasn't excommunicated.

Why would the Orthodox church refuse Cyprian communion? Was it because creating a division inside the church and disobeying Peter's chair actually separated Cyprian from Jesus? Or was it just a practical matter that those who go to communion must first confess their sins, and he would not confess his disobedience? If so, I think Christians might receive the Eucharist once they receive proper confession, regardless of denomination.


4. Our churches aren't in communion, so how can we share communion?


The churches have decided not to commune eachother, calling this a state of excommunication, so they can't share communion. This is circular logic.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 07:03:44 PM by rakovsky » Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #53 on: June 02, 2010, 07:20:08 PM »

The Orthodox Church does not accept others baptism or any other sacrament. That does not mean that the Church can not through economia make something that was lacking complete and holy. Their are Churches that don't rebaptize but rather Baptize converts from western confessions as there are no mysteries outside the Orthodox Church. Some will chrismate them which will perfect the invalid baptism. This topic is covered extensively on orthodoxinfo.com
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #54 on: June 02, 2010, 07:48:45 PM »

IIRC, I believe St. Cyprian also had the support of St. Firmilian and all Cappadocia, so it's not entirely accurate to say that Pope St. Stephen had the support of the East for his position.

More on St. Firmilian:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmilian
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 07:49:04 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #55 on: June 02, 2010, 09:27:22 PM »

The Orthodox Church does not accept others baptism or any other sacrament. That does not mean that the Church can not through economia make something that was lacking complete and holy. Their are Churches that don't rebaptize but rather Baptize converts from western confessions as there are no mysteries outside the Orthodox Church. Some will chrismate them which will perfect the invalid baptism. This topic is covered extensively on orthodoxinfo.com

The Orthodox Church in different times and places has had several views on this issue (and that can be said for her on more than this issue!).

Logged
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #56 on: June 02, 2010, 09:32:09 PM »



 laugh...curious ain't it!!... laugh

But it does seem to have been forgotten in this thread.

M.

There is a problemn here mate in that a lot of Priests take the misguided notion we are all the same and will give Communion to the Eastern "Orthodox" because they have this attitude that we are all the same and dont really how confused and confusing they are.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #57 on: June 02, 2010, 09:47:26 PM »

There is a problemn here mate in that a lot of Priests take the misguided notion we are all the same and will give Communion to the Eastern "Orthodox" because they have this attitude that we are all the same and dont really how confused and confusing they are. 

I just had to correct a woman who works for a nearby RC parish, who was told by her priest that she and her son could receive communion in our Church, and the son's Orthodox fiancee could receive in their parish.  ISTM the misconception is more on "your" side - most RC priests & monks I've spoken to will allow an Orthodox Christian to approach their chalice with no question, and will tell their parishioners that they can receive in an Orthodox Church, but I've never once in my life heard the reverse from an Orthodox priest.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #58 on: June 02, 2010, 10:14:56 PM »

The Orthodox Church does not accept others baptism or any other sacrament. That does not mean that the Church can not through economia make something that was lacking complete and holy. Their are Churches that don't rebaptize but rather Baptize converts from western confessions as there are no mysteries outside the Orthodox Church. Some will chrismate them which will perfect the invalid baptism. This topic is covered extensively on orthodoxinfo.com

The Orthodox Church in different times and places has had several views on this issue (and that can be said for her on more than this issue!).

The same can be said about the RCC.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 10:15:33 PM by ICXCNIKA » Logged
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #59 on: June 02, 2010, 10:19:50 PM »



I just had to correct a woman who works for a nearby RC parish, who was told by her priest that she and her son could receive communion in our Church, and the son's Orthodox fiancee could receive in their parish.  ISTM the misconception is more on "your" side - most RC priests & monks I've spoken to will allow an Orthodox Christian to approach their chalice with no question, and will tell their parishioners that they can receive in an Orthodox Church, but I've never once in my life heard the reverse from an Orthodox priest.

That cant be denied.

However the situation varies...A Roman Catholic is much more likely to be able to recieve in an "Orthodox" country than he/she would be able to do in the west for obvious reasons. It also varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Because the "Orthodox" share things in common with Catholics that seperate us from Protestants who we have more a tendency to define ourselves against while as you define yourselves against us it follows that that would be the case.
Logged
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #60 on: June 02, 2010, 10:22:19 PM »


The same can be said about the RCC.


But we dont yo-yo...We develop!  angel
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #61 on: June 02, 2010, 10:28:42 PM »


The same can be said about the RCC.


But we dont yo-yo...We develop!  angel

your entitled to your opinion.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #62 on: June 02, 2010, 11:35:23 PM »

There is a problemn here mate in that a lot of Priests take the misguided notion we are all the same and will give Communion to the Eastern "Orthodox" because they have this attitude that we are all the same and dont really how confused and confusing they are. 

I just had to correct a woman who works for a nearby RC parish, who was told by her priest that she and her son could receive communion in our Church, and the son's Orthodox fiancee could receive in their parish.  ISTM the misconception is more on "your" side - most RC priests & monks I've spoken to will allow an Orthodox Christian to approach their chalice with no question, and will tell their parishioners that they can receive in an Orthodox Church, but I've never once in my life heard the reverse from an Orthodox priest.

That's because this is the official RC teaching and practice regarding communion. Rome acknowledges all the Orthodox sacraments, inculding ordinations and communion, to be valid. From this point of view, the same Body and Blood of the same Christ is being served on the altars in both churches by priests sharing the same priestly ordination from bishops sharing the same episcopal ordination. Intercommunion of the faithful, according to CCC Par 1399, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged." And according to the Code of Canon Law - canon 844 s 3 "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed."
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #63 on: June 03, 2010, 01:17:51 AM »



I just had to correct a woman who works for a nearby RC parish, who was told by her priest that she and her son could receive communion in our Church, and the son's Orthodox fiancee could receive in their parish.  ISTM the misconception is more on "your" side - most RC priests & monks I've spoken to will allow an Orthodox Christian to approach their chalice with no question, and will tell their parishioners that they can receive in an Orthodox Church, but I've never once in my life heard the reverse from an Orthodox priest.

That cant be denied.

However the situation varies...A Roman Catholic is much more likely to be able to recieve in an "Orthodox" country than he/she would be able to do in the west for obvious reasons. It also varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Because the "Orthodox" share things in common with Catholics that seperate us from Protestants who we have more a tendency to define ourselves against while as you define yourselves against us it follows that that would be the case.
I notice you've done this three times in two of your posts on this thread.  Is there any reason you place the title Orthodox in quotes?
Logged
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #64 on: June 03, 2010, 01:21:46 AM »

Because the "Orthodox" share things in common with Catholics that seperate us from Protestants who we have more a tendency to define ourselves against while as you define yourselves against us it follows that that would be the case.

Sidenote: I disagree that this is the case. Catholics and Protestants could have more animosity because their split is more recent. But it is hard to say which churches are exactly closer in reality.
Protestants and Catholics have a more juridical approach, Orthodoxy has a mysical approach, traditional protestants and Catholics share a closer liturgical form, ideas about original sin, perform baptism and communion in similar form, share an amended Nicene Creed.
Personally, I think traditional Protestants are closer to Orthodox because they reject many of the post-schism innovations in Catholicism. As a practical matter, Protestants rejected the authority of tradition and apostolic succession, in order to reject Rome's leaderhsip and its heresies, which had become part of Western "tradition." However, I understand that many Roman Catholics see Orthodox as practically "the same" as Catholics, and only those rebellious traditional Protestants as the outsiders.

For centuries however, Catholic churches rejected open communion with Orthodox. It is not enough to say that Orthodox have apostolic succession and believe in the divine presence in the Eucharist, since from a Catholic standpoint Anglicans have apostolic succession and believe in the divine presence. It's true that Anglicans likely deny transubstantiation that the Eucharist has Jesus' physical substance. But Orthodox don't affirm transubstantiation either, and say it is a mystery.

I would ask Catholics why the Catholic Church previously rejected open Communion with Orthodox and what has changed?
« Last Edit: June 03, 2010, 01:47:25 AM by rakovsky » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #65 on: June 03, 2010, 01:24:06 AM »

The Orthodox Church does not accept others baptism or any other sacrament.
Is this a universal teaching in every Eastern Orthodox Church throughout the entire world? And what about the Oriental Orthodox Churches?
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #66 on: June 03, 2010, 02:50:53 AM »

The Orthodox Church does not accept others baptism or any other sacrament.
Is this a universal teaching in every Eastern Orthodox Church throughout the entire world? And what about the Oriental Orthodox Churches?

I think this is the traditional understanding but maybe one of the Orthodox Priests on the forum can answer this and if need be correct me. I was surprised to see that a Russian Metropolitan recently said that the Russian Church accepted catholic sacraments however he was called a heretic by some of his parishners, so needless to say people can feel very strongly about it either way. I think that some people don't understand that the Church sometimes uses economia which in no way makes a practice normative and they seem to forget that Orthodoxy also has akribia (may be spelt wrong). As far as I know we are suppose to use akribia in such circumstances. But no one denies that the Church has the ability to accept the converts through Chrismation. So I think it is more of a question as what is the proper procedure instead of whether it is valid.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #67 on: June 03, 2010, 07:15:23 AM »

the Eastern "Orthodox"

an "Orthodox" country

{snip}

the "Orthodox"

You do know that it is impolite to put Orthodox in quotation marks on an Orthodox Forum, right?  Don't do it again.

(Just in case you don't already know - official moderatorial messages are usually in green font.)
« Last Edit: June 03, 2010, 07:15:32 AM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #68 on: June 03, 2010, 05:23:11 PM »

That's because this is the official RC teaching and practice regarding communion. Rome acknowledges all the Orthodox sacraments, inculding ordinations and communion, to be valid. From this point of view, the same Body and Blood of the same Christ is being served on the altars in both churches by priests sharing the same priestly ordination from bishops sharing the same episcopal ordination. Intercommunion of the faithful, according to CCC Par 1399, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged." And according to the Code of Canon Law - canon 844 s 3 "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed."

Valid is not the same a lilict. The Sacraments of EO are indeed Sacraments but that doesnt stop the fact that in a way they are "stolen" and could well be unto condemnation ("technically" they are always unto condemnation but lets not pry to much into God's business). When and where did that code of canon law come from?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #69 on: June 03, 2010, 06:45:18 PM »

And what about the Oriental Orthodox Churches?

It is my understanding that the African Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean which were all one before the 50's) have historically not recognized any rites of any other faith traditions, and have only begun to recognize EO Baptisms (though still not Chrismations) as a result of the Agreed Statements.

I don't know about the Asians ([West] Assyrians, Armenians, Indians).
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,228



« Reply #70 on: June 03, 2010, 06:45:58 PM »

That's because this is the official RC teaching and practice regarding communion. Rome acknowledges all the Orthodox sacraments, inculding ordinations and communion, to be valid. From this point of view, the same Body and Blood of the same Christ is being served on the altars in both churches by priests sharing the same priestly ordination from bishops sharing the same episcopal ordination. Intercommunion of the faithful, according to CCC Par 1399, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged." And according to the Code of Canon Law - canon 844 s 3 "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed."

Valid is not the same a lilict. The Sacraments of EO are indeed Sacraments but that doesnt stop the fact that in a way they are "stolen" and could well be unto condemnation ("technically" they are always unto condemnation but lets not pry to much into God's business). When and where did that code of canon law come from?

"Stolen"? Care to expand?  Huh

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #71 on: June 03, 2010, 06:52:45 PM »

That's because this is the official RC teaching and practice regarding communion. Rome acknowledges all the Orthodox sacraments, inculding ordinations and communion, to be valid. From this point of view, the same Body and Blood of the same Christ is being served on the altars in both churches by priests sharing the same priestly ordination from bishops sharing the same episcopal ordination. Intercommunion of the faithful, according to CCC Par 1399, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged." And according to the Code of Canon Law - canon 844 s 3 "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed."

Valid is not the same a lilict. The Sacraments of EO are indeed Sacraments but that doesnt stop the fact that in a way they are "stolen" and could well be unto condemnation ("technically" they are always unto condemnation but lets not pry to much into God's business). When and where did that code of canon law come from?

"Stolen"? Care to expand?  Huh

In Christ,
Andrew

Most likely he is saying that the Sacraments are originally of the Church of Christ which is defined by communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that the EO, OO, ACE, etc. are schismatic and thus have stolen the Sacraments that are rightfully those of the Roman church.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,228



« Reply #72 on: June 03, 2010, 08:28:22 PM »

That's because this is the official RC teaching and practice regarding communion. Rome acknowledges all the Orthodox sacraments, inculding ordinations and communion, to be valid. From this point of view, the same Body and Blood of the same Christ is being served on the altars in both churches by priests sharing the same priestly ordination from bishops sharing the same episcopal ordination. Intercommunion of the faithful, according to CCC Par 1399, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged." And according to the Code of Canon Law - canon 844 s 3 "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed."

Valid is not the same a lilict. The Sacraments of EO are indeed Sacraments but that doesnt stop the fact that in a way they are "stolen" and could well be unto condemnation ("technically" they are always unto condemnation but lets not pry to much into God's business). When and where did that code of canon law come from?

"Stolen"? Care to expand?  Huh

In Christ,
Andrew

Most likely he is saying that the Sacraments are originally of the Church of Christ which is defined by communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that the EO, OO, ACE, etc. are schismatic and thus have stolen the Sacraments that are rightfully those of the Roman church.

I thought that's what he was saying. I'll wait for his answer to be sure, but I gathered the same thing you were saying. If that's the case, a rather odd whitewashing of history, isn't it?  Cheesy

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #73 on: June 03, 2010, 10:00:48 PM »

That's because this is the official RC teaching and practice regarding communion. Rome acknowledges all the Orthodox sacraments, inculding ordinations and communion, to be valid. From this point of view, the same Body and Blood of the same Christ is being served on the altars in both churches by priests sharing the same priestly ordination from bishops sharing the same episcopal ordination. Intercommunion of the faithful, according to CCC Par 1399, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged." And according to the Code of Canon Law - canon 844 s 3 "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed."

Valid is not the same a lilict. The Sacraments of EO are indeed Sacraments but that doesnt stop the fact that in a way they are "stolen" and could well be unto condemnation ("technically" they are always unto condemnation but lets not pry to much into God's business). When and where did that code of canon law come from?

Youy can find the canon on the Vatican's web site at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM. It's Canon 844 section 3. If Rome taught that it would be unto condemnation, then the CCC would not "encourage" intercommunion and canon law would not require Catholic priests to administer communion to Orthodox faithful. As far as being stolen, the Orthodox don't serve anything on their altar that is not given from God.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #74 on: June 03, 2010, 10:14:29 PM »

That's because this is the official RC teaching and practice regarding communion. Rome acknowledges all the Orthodox sacraments, inculding ordinations and communion, to be valid. From this point of view, the same Body and Blood of the same Christ is being served on the altars in both churches by priests sharing the same priestly ordination from bishops sharing the same episcopal ordination. Intercommunion of the faithful, according to CCC Par 1399, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged." And according to the Code of Canon Law - canon 844 s 3 "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed."

Valid is not the same a lilict. The Sacraments of EO are indeed Sacraments but that doesnt stop the fact that in a way they are "stolen" and could well be unto condemnation ("technically" they are always unto condemnation but lets not pry to much into God's business). When and where did that code of canon law come from?

"Stolen"? Care to expand?  Huh

In Christ,
Andrew

Most likely he is saying that the Sacraments are originally of the Church of Christ which is defined by communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that the EO, OO, ACE, etc. are schismatic and thus have stolen the Sacraments that are rightfully those of the Roman church.

I thought that's what he was saying. I'll wait for his answer to be sure, but I gathered the same thing you were saying. If that's the case, a rather odd whitewashing of history, isn't it?  Cheesy

In Christ,
Andrew

If he's right about the possibility that being in communion with Peter was necessary, and that Peter passed down his individual charism to the bishops of Rome, and that it was thus necessary to be in communion with them to be in the Church, i.e. Rome was the inherent point of unity for the original Church, on that basis using that language is actually correct. The real difference is not in the language of "stealing", as that is what it would be if Rome is the original church, but rather the assumption the assumption of Roman supremacy itself.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #75 on: June 03, 2010, 11:02:08 PM »

That's because this is the official RC teaching and practice regarding communion. Rome acknowledges all the Orthodox sacraments, inculding ordinations and communion, to be valid. From this point of view, the same Body and Blood of the same Christ is being served on the altars in both churches by priests sharing the same priestly ordination from bishops sharing the same episcopal ordination. Intercommunion of the faithful, according to CCC Par 1399, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged." And according to the Code of Canon Law - canon 844 s 3 "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed."

Valid is not the same a lilict. The Sacraments of EO are indeed Sacraments but that doesnt stop the fact that in a way they are "stolen" and could well be unto condemnation ("technically" they are always unto condemnation but lets not pry to much into God's business). When and where did that code of canon law come from?

Youy can find the canon on the Vatican's web site at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM. It's Canon 844 section 3. If Rome taught that it would be unto condemnation, then the CCC would not "encourage" intercommunion and canon law would not require Catholic priests to administer communion to Orthodox faithful. As far as being stolen, the Orthodox don't serve anything on their altar that is not given from God.
For just a cathecumen, you got things down pat. I don't think I've ever heard such a devestating response to the Vatican's delusions that we crave its approval.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #76 on: June 04, 2010, 12:12:24 AM »

I would ask Catholics why the Catholic Church previously rejected open Communion with Orthodox and what has changed?
My guess is that Vatican II has changed the way that Catholics approach unity with the Orthodox Churches.
Logged
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #77 on: June 04, 2010, 09:07:23 AM »

I would ask Catholics why the Catholic Church previously rejected open Communion with Orthodox and what has changed?
My guess is that Vatican II has changed the way that Catholics approach unity with the Orthodox Churches.

Vatitican II didnt change anything however it was dangerously ambigious in places due to the fact of containing philospical though niot Theological error. Its not binding on anyone anyway...My advice would be to ignore it.
Logged
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #78 on: June 04, 2010, 09:12:10 AM »

I would ask Catholics why the Catholic Church previously rejected open Communion with Orthodox and what has changed?
My guess is that Vatican II has changed the way that Catholics approach unity with the Orthodox Churches.

Are you aware of how much money the Vatican is at present lashing out to Churches that by our standards are at the very least schismatic if not outright heretical and burn with hatred for us?

Its scandalous.

« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 09:24:11 AM by KingClovis » Logged
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #79 on: June 04, 2010, 09:21:10 AM »


Most likely he is saying that the Sacraments are originally of the Church of Christ which is defined by communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that the EO, OO, ACE, etc. are schismatic and thus have stolen the Sacraments that are rightfully those of the Roman church.

Please....Communion with the Church of Christ isnt necessarily defined by communion with the Pope. What about during the great western schism in which the Church was divided between two people claiming to be the Pope and there were Saints on both sides of the divide? One lot of those Saints must have not been in communion with the real "Bishop of Rome". There are perfectly good Catholics who due to the demonic confusion of our day believe that the Papacy has fallen and been fallen a good while now. I wouldnt say that they are not in Communion with the Church. The Papacy however was insituted by God in his wisdom as the normal way of running the Church though. It is Baptism and Faith that defines communion with the Church of Christ.

But indeed the Sacraments of the EO rightfully belong to Holy Mother Church from which they in their pride have seperated themselves from.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #80 on: June 04, 2010, 11:11:04 AM »


But indeed the Sacraments of the EO rightfully belong to Holy Mother Church from which they in their pride have seperated themselves from.

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, you must be insane to make such a claim. I say this as an Orthodox lay person who is not anti-catholic.. I mean I disagree with the Catholic Church on some things but I am not viscerally anti-Catholic. Let's go back to your alleged insanity, or insane statement. Are you aware at all of Christian ecclesiology as defined by Saint Ignatius of Antioch? Are you aware of the historical fact that Rome has never been the mother church in the east? Are you ignorant of the ecumenical councils that accord Rome the honor of "First Among Equals," a designation that is a far cry from "Holy Mother Church"? My point is that your statement is not rational; it is not based on reality; it is plainly insane--pick any one.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,889


« Reply #81 on: June 04, 2010, 11:13:01 AM »


Most likely he is saying that the Sacraments are originally of the Church of Christ which is defined by communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that the EO, OO, ACE, etc. are schismatic and thus have stolen the Sacraments that are rightfully those of the Roman church.

Please....Communion with the Church of Christ isnt necessarily defined by communion with the Pope. What about during the great western schism in which the Church was divided between two people claiming to be the Pope and there were Saints on both sides of the divide? One lot of those Saints must have not been in communion with the real "Bishop of Rome". There are perfectly good Catholics who due to the demonic confusion of our day believe that the Papacy has fallen and been fallen a good while now. I wouldnt say that they are not in Communion with the Church. The Papacy however was insituted by God in his wisdom as the normal way of running the Church though. It is Baptism and Faith that defines communion with the Church of Christ.

But indeed the Sacraments of the EO rightfully belong to Holy Mother Church from which they in their pride have seperated themselves from.
This is inaccurate our theological differences were well known prior to 1054 & ceoxisted in a tenuous but still valid unity. When the attempt was made to force the Orthodox Church to accept these it was Rome that excommunicated us first.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,959



« Reply #82 on: June 04, 2010, 12:56:16 PM »

The Papacy however was insituted by God in his wisdom as the normal way of running the Church though.

Sorry, we in the East didn't get that memo.  We were still under the mistaken impression that Christ is still the Head of the Church.  Besides, "normal" didn't enter into the equation until Pope Gregory VII, 1000 years after Christ.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #83 on: June 04, 2010, 01:58:44 PM »


Most likely he is saying that the Sacraments are originally of the Church of Christ which is defined by communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that the EO, OO, ACE, etc. are schismatic and thus have stolen the Sacraments that are rightfully those of the Roman church.

Please....Communion with the Church of Christ isnt necessarily defined by communion with the Pope. What about during the great western schism in which the Church was divided between two people claiming to be the Pope and there were Saints on both sides of the divide? One lot of those Saints must have not been in communion with the real "Bishop of Rome". There are perfectly good Catholics who due to the demonic confusion of our day believe that the Papacy has fallen and been fallen a good while now. I wouldnt say that they are not in Communion with the Church. The Papacy however was insituted by God in his wisdom as the normal way of running the Church though. It is Baptism and Faith that defines communion with the Church of Christ.

But indeed the Sacraments of the EO rightfully belong to Holy Mother Church from which they in their pride have seperated themselves from.
You mean the arrogance of pope Leo IX and Cardinal Umbert? You guys won't even claim credit for him.

Jerusalem, Antioch. Sorry, Rome isn't our mother, but our daughter.

You're right Communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church, is not defined by communion with Rome. But the Vatican defines it so.  Hence "Ultramontanism."

During the Great Western Schism (where was that great font of unity, the supreme pontiff, then?) our view would be a pox on both your houses.  We didn't have a dog in that fight, so whoever you wanted to call a saint isnt' our problem.

As someone eloquently put it, we Orthodox do not offer anything God did not give us.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #84 on: June 04, 2010, 02:00:42 PM »

I would ask Catholics why the Catholic Church previously rejected open Communion with Orthodox and what has changed?
My guess is that Vatican II has changed the way that Catholics approach unity with the Orthodox Churches.

Vatitican II didnt change anything however it was dangerously ambigious in places due to the fact of containing philospical though niot Theological error. Its not binding on anyone anyway...My advice would be to ignore it.
LOL. Is there no hair you Ultramontanists won't split?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #85 on: June 04, 2010, 02:39:31 PM »


But indeed the Sacraments of the EO rightfully belong to Holy Mother Church from which they in their pride have seperated themselves from.

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, you must be insane to make such a claim. I say this as an Orthodox lay person who is not anti-catholic.. I mean I disagree with the Catholic Church on some things but I am not viscerally anti-Catholic. Let's go back to your alleged insanity, or insane statement. Are you aware at all of Christian ecclesiology as defined by Saint Ignatius of Antioch? Are you aware of the historical fact that Rome has never been the mother church in the east? Are you ignorant of the ecumenical councils that accord Rome the honor of "First Among Equals," a designation that is a far cry from "Holy Mother Church"? My point is that your statement is not rational; it is not based on reality; it is plainly insane--pick any one.
Yeah. It  also appears to be  inaccurate to say that the Orthodox have separated themselves from Rome, when it was Cardinal Humbertus who delivered the bull of excommunication in 1054. And many of the grounds listed for the excommunication appear to be rather flimsy and insupportable by today's standards.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #86 on: June 04, 2010, 02:40:28 PM »

I would ask Catholics why the Catholic Church previously rejected open Communion with Orthodox and what has changed?
My guess is that Vatican II has changed the way that Catholics approach unity with the Orthodox Churches.

Are you aware of how much money the Vatican is at present lashing out to Churches that by our standards are at the very least schismatic if not outright heretical and burn with hatred for us?

Its scandalous.


How much money is it?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #87 on: June 04, 2010, 02:42:03 PM »

I would ask Catholics why the Catholic Church previously rejected open Communion with Orthodox and what has changed?
My guess is that Vatican II has changed the way that Catholics approach unity with the Orthodox Churches.

Vatitican II didnt change anything however it was dangerously ambigious in places due to the fact of containing philospical though niot Theological error. Its not binding on anyone anyway...My advice would be to ignore it.
Is it right and proper for Catholics to ignore an infallible and ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church which had the complete approval of the Roman Pope?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,188


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #88 on: June 04, 2010, 02:48:21 PM »

I would ask Catholics why the Catholic Church previously rejected open Communion with Orthodox and what has changed?
My guess is that Vatican II has changed the way that Catholics approach unity with the Orthodox Churches.

Vatitican II didnt change anything however it was dangerously ambigious in places due to the fact of containing philospical though niot Theological error. Its not binding on anyone anyway...My advice would be to ignore it.

IGNORE VATICAN II?  Wow. Wow. Wow.   Roll Eyes
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #89 on: June 04, 2010, 04:00:27 PM »

Its not binding on anyone anyway...

Where in the world do you get that idea?  Huh
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 04, 2010, 04:02:33 PM »

Please....Communion with the Church of Christ isnt necessarily defined by communion with the Pope. What about during the great western schism in which the Church was divided between two people claiming to be the Pope and there were Saints on both sides of the divide? One lot of those Saints must have not been in communion with the real "Bishop of Rome". There are perfectly good Catholics who due to the demonic confusion of our day believe that the Papacy has fallen and been fallen a good while now. I wouldnt say that they are not in Communion with the Church. The Papacy however was insituted by God in his wisdom as the normal way of running the Church though. It is Baptism and Faith that defines communion with the Church of Christ.

That sounds like a rather untraditional belief for your faith tradition to me.

But indeed the Sacraments of the EO rightfully belong to Holy Mother Church from which they in their pride have seperated themselves from.

I'm certainly not affirming that, I was just trying to clarify for others what your own position was.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 04, 2010, 04:03:59 PM »


But indeed the Sacraments of the EO rightfully belong to Holy Mother Church from which they in their pride have seperated themselves from.

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, you must be insane to make such a claim. I say this as an Orthodox lay person who is not anti-catholic.. I mean I disagree with the Catholic Church on some things but I am not viscerally anti-Catholic. Let's go back to your alleged insanity, or insane statement. Are you aware at all of Christian ecclesiology as defined by Saint Ignatius of Antioch? Are you aware of the historical fact that Rome has never been the mother church in the east? Are you ignorant of the ecumenical councils that accord Rome the honor of "First Among Equals," a designation that is a far cry from "Holy Mother Church"? My point is that your statement is not rational; it is not based on reality; it is plainly insane--pick any one.

No, it's just based on Western models of the Church that don't necessarily have to have been as explicitly present in the East for them to have been true.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 04, 2010, 04:06:54 PM »

This is inaccurate our theological differences were well known prior to 1054 & ceoxisted in a tenuous but still valid unity. When the attempt was made to force the Orthodox Church to accept these it was Rome that excommunicated us first.

There's nothing inaccurate about it. At least not in the way you are thinking. It's entirely possible that the Roman tradition represented the authentic Apostolic tradition and that the East rendered themselves formally heretical and schismatic by not accepting that tradition when Rome finally got down to asserting it.

What might be inaccurate is such an analysis of the Apostolic tradition (of course I would say this is the case).
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 04, 2010, 04:08:13 PM »

Sorry, we in the East didn't get that memo.  We were still under the mistaken impression that Christ is still the Head of the Church.

I doubt they would claim otherwise. The more common conception appears to be of the BoR being Christ's "Vicar" rather than him being the actual head.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #94 on: June 04, 2010, 04:37:22 PM »

Sorry, we in the East didn't get that memo.  We were still under the mistaken impression that Christ is still the Head of the Church.

I doubt they would claim otherwise. The more common conception appears to be of the BoR being Christ's "Vicar" rather than him being the actual head.
No, the application of the term "head" by the Vatican to itself has gone to its head, such that it doesn't always include the disclaimer "visible" with the use of the term.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #95 on: June 04, 2010, 04:39:09 PM »

This is inaccurate our theological differences were well known prior to 1054 & ceoxisted in a tenuous but still valid unity. When the attempt was made to force the Orthodox Church to accept these it was Rome that excommunicated us first.

There's nothing inaccurate about it. At least not in the way you are thinking. It's entirely possible that the Roman tradition represented the authentic Apostolic tradition and that the East rendered themselves formally heretical and schismatic by not accepting that tradition when Rome finally got down to asserting it.

What might be inaccurate is such an analysis of the Apostolic tradition (of course I would say this is the case).
Since Rome got its Apostolic Tradition from the East, what you postulate is quite imposssible.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 04:39:42 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #96 on: June 04, 2010, 04:39:26 PM »

Sorry, we in the East didn't get that memo.  We were still under the mistaken impression that Christ is still the Head of the Church.

I doubt they would claim otherwise. The more common conception appears to be of the BoR being Christ's "Vicar" rather than him being the actual head.
No, the application of the term "head" by the Vatican to itself has gone to its head, such that it doesn't always include the disclaimer "visible" with the use of the term.

Hmmmm. Perhaps that is just poor use of language. Because I've never seen them express Ultramontanism to such a high degree that I get the sentence that they are questioning the headship of Christ, just introducing a perverted version of it.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #97 on: June 04, 2010, 04:40:42 PM »

Sorry, we in the East didn't get that memo.  We were still under the mistaken impression that Christ is still the Head of the Church.

I doubt they would claim otherwise. The more common conception appears to be of the BoR being Christ's "Vicar" rather than him being the actual head.
No, the application of the term "head" by the Vatican to itself has gone to its head, such that it doesn't always include the disclaimer "visible" with the use of the term.

Hmmmm. Perhaps that is just poor use of language. Because I've never seen them express Ultramontanism to such a high degree that I get the sentence that they are questioning the headship of Christ, just introducing a perverted version of it.
Same thing.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #98 on: June 04, 2010, 04:42:05 PM »

This is inaccurate our theological differences were well known prior to 1054 & ceoxisted in a tenuous but still valid unity. When the attempt was made to force the Orthodox Church to accept these it was Rome that excommunicated us first.

There's nothing inaccurate about it. At least not in the way you are thinking. It's entirely possible that the Roman tradition represented the authentic Apostolic tradition and that the East rendered themselves formally heretical and schismatic by not accepting that tradition when Rome finally got down to asserting it.

What might be inaccurate is such an analysis of the Apostolic tradition (of course I would say this is the case).
Since Rome got its tradition from the East, what you postulate is quite imposssible.

I don't think the East ever really explicitly denied the Western position until much later on. If anything it would be that they did not materially believe in it and didn't really even consider it and thus did not bring it up.

Also, don't forget about the idea of "doctrinal development". It is potentially true and if true it would justify the doctrine not being explicitly in Eastern teaching but then being later developed.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 04, 2010, 04:43:39 PM »

Sorry, we in the East didn't get that memo.  We were still under the mistaken impression that Christ is still the Head of the Church.

I doubt they would claim otherwise. The more common conception appears to be of the BoR being Christ's "Vicar" rather than him being the actual head.
No, the application of the term "head" by the Vatican to itself has gone to its head, such that it doesn't always include the disclaimer "visible" with the use of the term.

Hmmmm. Perhaps that is just poor use of language. Because I've never seen them express Ultramontanism to such a high degree that I get the sentence that they are questioning the headship of Christ, just introducing a perverted version of it.
Same thing.

Erm...

In a certain sense.

You could say that they don't believe in the headship of Christ in the manner that it actually exists.

But they do believe in some false sense of "headship".

The same thing could be said about their "Trinitarian" doctrine.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #100 on: June 05, 2010, 09:18:54 AM »



IGNORE VATICAN II?  Wow. Wow. Wow.   Roll Eyes

Why wow?

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
Logged
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #101 on: June 05, 2010, 09:20:25 AM »


Hmmmm. Perhaps that is just poor use of language. Because I've never seen them express Ultramontanism to such a high degree that I get the sentence that they are questioning the headship of Christ, just introducing a perverted version of it.

Thank you for your honesty.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #102 on: June 05, 2010, 12:14:58 PM »



IGNORE VATICAN II?  Wow. Wow. Wow.   Roll Eyes

Why wow?

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #103 on: June 05, 2010, 12:22:38 PM »

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.

Secondly the Vatican I was never finished and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.

Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in (and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!) and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches. The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.

Fixed quote box, nothing more - Fr. George, Global Mod
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 11:16:21 AM by Fr. George » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #104 on: June 05, 2010, 12:59:28 PM »

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of harisplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has, so we are left with that claim, and the requirement to submit to him even when he doesn't speak infallibly.  A dictinction without a difference.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #105 on: June 05, 2010, 02:28:59 PM »



Quote from: KingClovis

Are you aware of how much money the Vatican is at present lashing out to Churches that by our standards are at the very least schismatic if not outright heretical and burn with hatred for us?

Its scandalous.


Mary Brought up the same thing,Vatican giving financial aid to Holy Orthodoxy ,Neither of them explaining it... Huh

What Aid...... Grin



Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #106 on: June 05, 2010, 02:57:19 PM »

"Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II"

Actually the first Vatican Council took place in the 19 th century and wasnt closed down by the Pope at all...It was halted due to political problemns that prevented it from continuing.

However I do agree with you that the Vatican's way of dealing with the Orthodox is "stupid"...Infact I would go further than that and describe it as criminally stupid evil .
Logged
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #107 on: June 07, 2010, 02:42:35 AM »

REASONS AGAINST OPEN COMMUNION

1. THE CHURCH'S ASCETIC DISCIPLINE

(See my Reply #52)

2. Communion with Christ = Communion with the Church = Communion with a unified Institution

Communion with the Church of Christ isnt necessarily defined by communion with the Pope. What about during the great western schism in which the Church was divided between two people claiming to be the Pope and there were Saints on both sides of the divide? One lot of those Saints must have not been in communion with the real "Bishop of Rome". There are perfectly good Catholics who due to the demonic confusion of our day believe that the Papacy has fallen and been fallen a good while now. I wouldnt say that they are not in Communion with the Church. It is Baptism and Faith that defines communion with the Church of Christ.

KING CLOVIS:
What you are saying is: If people only have to believe "a" Pope is righteous to be in the church, then they can follow the "wrong" one and believe the "right" one is fallen and still be in the church. But if there are no other "wrong" candidates and they believe the right one is wrong, only then are they excluded.
This idea that "It is Baptism and Faith (in "a" Pope) that defines communion with the Church of Christ" does not make sense.

Most likely he is saying that the Sacraments are originally of the Church of Christ which is defined by communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that the EO, OO, ACE, etc. are schismatic
One problem with the idea that the Church=Rome is a hypothetical where the Pope makes a wrong theological statement (King Clovis has a narrow view of papal infallibility) and then excommunicates those who reject the heresy. Cyprian had this dilemma when he called Rome the seat unifying the church, and he may have been later censured for demanding rebaptisms. I disagree that Jesus would reject an excommunicated church like the Orthodox for failing to accept a heresy.
So: either (1) the Pope is infallible on ALL matters of faith and can cut any perceived "heretics" off from the true Church, or (2) Peter's throne can have heresies while excommunicated orthodox churches remain its sister, or (3) Jesus didn't call all of St Peter's administrative replacements "the rock", and the Orthodox Church is The Church. There are ONLY 3 Options.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has, so we are left with that claim, and the requirement to submit to him even when he doesn't speak infallibly.  A dictinction without a difference.
IALMISRY, How do you know that Catholics must agree with the Pope when he isn't speaking infallibly? Canon 599 says that they must submit to him when he is exercizing the magisterium. But can Catholics use a kind of circular logic and say that a statement is so bad it is outside the magisterium? I think KINGCLOVIS or the Melkites might suggest that.

You're right Communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church, is not defined by communion
My understanding is that the Orthodox Church belongs to Christ's body, or IS Christ's body, because of 1. apostolic succession and 2. preservation of the true faith.

Of course, this goes back to the discussion in Reply #51-52 and Point 5. (below) about whether the Church is a single, unified, visible structure and if so, does a valid Eucharist from those outside that structure mystically joined those that receive it from them to that single structure nevertheless.

3. CATHOLICISM REJECTS OPEN COMMUNION WITH ORTHODOX

Speaking of the Validity of Orthodox Eucharist, KING CLOVIS writes:
Valid is not the same a lilict. The Sacraments of EO are indeed Sacraments but that doesnt stop the fact that in a way they are "stolen" and could well be unto condemnation
I accept the validity and legality of Orthodox sacraments. Let's turn this boat around. Assuming that the Catholic Church "stole" the Orthodox Church's sacraments, the problem would be that they are illegally-taken, not that they are by themselves "illegal sacraments." So we Orthodox would be in our rights to reclaim those valid, illegally-taken sacraments by receiving them in Catholic Churches.

MELODIST, you responded by pointing to Canon 844 section 3 to say taking Orthodox Eucharist wouldn't condemn Catholics. But why should you believe that just because a canon says something it is true? I would accept a canon as a very strong authority if the entire church agreed to it, but it looks like KING CLOVIS might not, asking "When and where did that code of canon law come from?"

4. ORIENTAL ORTHODOX REJECT ORTHODOX SACRAMENTS

It is my understanding that the African Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean which were all one before the 50's) have historically not recognized any rites of any other faith traditions, and have only begun to recognize EO Baptisms
This is only persuasive if
1. Their position is based on teachings taken before they broke at Chalcedon. And in fact even before Chalcedon we recognized heretic baptisms.
2. They have really good logic that stands by itself and applies to Orthodoxy.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 03:03:17 AM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #108 on: June 07, 2010, 02:45:24 AM »

5. NonOrthodox Eucharist May be Invalid.

ORTHODOXINFO considers it to be invalid
The Orthodox Church does not accept others baptism or any other sacrament. there are no mysteries outside the Orthodox Church. This topic is covered extensively on orthodoxinfo.com

Personally, I don't accept the Orthodoxinfo website's articles on baptism as reflecting an official position.

First, it condemns ecumenism as a heresy to such an extent that it strips "Catholics" and Oriental "Orthodox" of those names since: "The designation "Oriental Orthodox" itself clearly illustrates the ecumenistic tendency to obfuscate essential theological differences with euphemisms. This deceptive appellation, popularized by the defective world view of Western Christian thought." (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/east_orth.aspx)

Second, its articles on the Church Calendar describe the Calendar revision "as the first step in achieving a forced, false union of the Orthodox Church with non-Orthodox New Calendarist Christian bodies" and suggests Patriarch Metaxakis' illness to be one of the "evil fruits" of the calendar change." (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/zervakos_calendar.aspx)

The site explains that: "another jurisdiction, the "Orthodox Church in America," has introduced a change of calendar... There is only one Julian Calendar—not an "Original, "Old Style," "New Style," or "Revised"... This whole insidious process leads the faithful, often in trusting naively, further and further away from the Ark of Salvation... If the Orthodox Christians who presently use the Gregorian Adjustment continue to do so... They will have unity with nobody"
(http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/calendar_bond.aspx)

Third, other posters seem to disregard Orthodoxinfo's complete accuracy:
[/quote]
there are things are Orthodoxinfo that are good. When someone chooses to be in schism, I believe it affects everything they might write and therefore those writings necessitate a critical eye. However, there is a enough bad, and enough bad has come from Etna, that the average everyday person is rightly warned to read things there critically, unless they have such highly developed discernment that they can properly tell good from bad there--in a place where there is much bad, and much confusing stemming from much bad, I would discourage casual browsing there for information--but being directed there to read a specific article by your priest or something is good.

Is there a particular Orthodoxinfo article on Baptism you recommend?

Orthodoxinfo's main articles on baptism admit that they are in opposition to the positions of Fr. Hopko, Former St Vladimir's Seminary Dean George Florovsky, and Bishop Tikhon of the West (OCA) and attack these theologians using Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna from the "Synod in Resistance."
(http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_baptism.aspx)

Bishop Tikhon's Letter on "The Reception of Heretic Laity" (http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html)
Bishop Tikhon explains the centuries-old Russian practice that previously chrismated Eastern Catholics do not need a second chrismation, and Roman Catholics and traditional Protestants need only Chrismation.
"The prescribed practice printed in our Service Books has been in force and active use for centuries, and it cannot be considered only a temporary episode of Economy in the life of the Church." Bishop Tikhon points out that St Alexis of Wilkes-barre turned to Orthodoxy because his Latin superiors rejected his priesthood, while the Russian church did and received him not as a mere layman.

Bishop Tikhon cites CANONS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, Bishop Nikodim of Dalmatia and Istria, Saint Petersburg Theological Academy, 1911:

Baptism as something instituted by Jesus Christ may be accomplished only in His Church and consequently only in the Church may it be correct and salvific; however, if other Christian communities located outside the Orthodox Church hold the conscious intention of bringing the newly-baptized into Christ's Church, i.e., have the intention to communicate to him Divine Grace through Baptism in order that he would become through the power of the Holy Spirit a true member of the Body of Christ and a reborn child of God, then this Baptism also may be considered effective insofar as it is done on the foundation of faith in the Holy Trinity, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, for where such a Baptism is given and received, there it must operate with Grace and Christ's support cannot fail to be there.

Bishop Tikhon notes that rebaptism is exclusively the practice of the Greek Church, but "We are not in a position to express our judgment relative to this practice, since we don't know how it is that the Greek Church applies the first rule of Saint Basil to Roman Catholics."

Anonymous Priest's Response
Orthodoxinfo posts an anonymous priest's response, who claims accepting Catholics without rebaptism is a medieval Russian innovation. He doesn't mention that the 3rd centiry church rejected rebaptism, as St Pope Stephen and the 3rd century book "On Rebaptism" explain.

The anonymous priest quotes Canon 46 of the Canons of the Apostles: "We order that any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics' Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed." However, it appears there is a debate over whether, as Pope Hormisdas (514-23) declared, the Canons of the Apostles are Apocryphal, or whetehr the church accepts them. ( http://mb-soft.com/believe/txud/counci48.htm , http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03279a.htm) Please, can you tell me definitively whether an ecumenical synod or council adopted all the Canons of the Apostles, or Canon 46?

Next, he cites "Canon 95 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council", which uses confession of heresy for some heretics like Nestorians, chrismation for others like Arians, and rebaptism for others like single-immersion Eunomians. Do Protestants and Catholics use single dripping? If so, does the recommendation about rebaptizing Eunomians mean they should be rebaptized too?

He cites St Basil as saying: "Even if rebaptism is prohibited with you for the sake of some economy, as it is with the Romans, nevertheless let our word have the power of rejecting, to put it plainly, the baptism of such." The anonymous priest says that St Basil is talking about schismatics, and that St Basil's words should apply even stronger to heretics. If we accept that ROCOR was in schism in 1925-2007, would St Basil say that we don't rebaptize them merely as a matter of economy, but that we "reject, to put it plaintly, the baptism of such?"

The priest concludes with subjective feelings and miracles where Chrismated converts were rebaptized in Greek churches. Personally, I doubt I would have a good subjective feeling if I was rebaptized, and instead would feel that I was disobeying the my church's rules. And such rules are one of the main reasons I don't participate in Open Communion in the first place.

EKONOMIA vs. AKRIBIA
a Russian Metropolitan recently said that the Russian Church accepted catholic sacraments however he was called a heretic by some of his parishners. the Church sometimes uses economia(a kind of flexibility or lenient exception) which in no way makes a practice normative and Orthodoxy also has akribia (strict letter of the law approach). As far as I know we are suppose to use akribia in such circumstances. But no one denies that the Church has the ability to accept the converts through Chrismation. So I think it is more of a question as what is the proper procedure instead of whether it is valid.
The anonymous priest agreed with ICXCNIKA that we should use AKRIBIA because we are not in an emergency situation. He pointed to St Basil's writings to say that we don't accept heretics' baptism as valid and conversion-by-Chrismation is EKONOMIA. Bishop Tikhon said that conversion-by-Chrismation must be AKRIBIA, because the Russian Church has been using it for centuries. This could allow that the heretics' baptism is itself valid, since conversion-by-Chrismation isn't out of mere leniency.

The St Cyprian - Pope St Stephan Debate
Archimandrite Ambrosius writes that when the debate began:
Others maintained a more tolerant view, accepting as valid that baptism, which was performed by some heretics, since it was performed in the name of the Holy Trinity, and did not require that those coming into Orthodoxy from heresy be re-baptized. A stricter line was taken by Tertullian (himself a Montanist), St. Cyprian of Carthage, Firmilian of Caesarea, and Elanus of Tarsus. St. Cyprian, a proponent of the strict line, convoked two councils in this matter (255-256) and insisted that heretics be received by no other way than baptism. St. Stephen, Pope of Rome (253-257) could be considered to hold a more tolerant view, and his position, according to the famous Hefele, was supported by Eastern bishops... Pope St. Stephen received penitent heretics with the laying of a bishop’s hand on their heads.

PETER THE ALEUT, is this an accurate description, including Firmilian's support in Cappadocia?

KING CLOVIS, You stated:
The Orthodox Church in different times and places has had several views on this issue (and that can be said for her on more than this issue!).
Can you please point to someplace the Orthodox church accepted nonOrthodox sacraments, inlcuding the Eucharist, as inherently valid?

The 4th Century Council of Arles
Canon 8 of the Council of Arles says: "If anyone shall come from heresy to the Church, they shall ask him to say the Creed; and if they shall perceive that he was baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost he shall have hands laid upon him only so that he may receive the Holy Ghost."
At first glance this suggests that the heretic lacks the Holy Spirit, so the baptism must have lacked the Holy Spirit too. However, I also heard a view-- compatible with the idea that the Orthodox Church is the only Church-- saying something like the nonOrthodox baptism had grace or the Holy Spirit, but they did not remain because the person was outside the church. The rite brought the person into the church, but he didn't remain in the church. It might be like saying that you registered for a room in a hotel, but then told the hotel you wouldn't show up for the room. Perhaps the Eucharist could be seen in a similar way- joining the person to the church, but then the person leaves the church again immediately after.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 02:47:04 AM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #109 on: June 07, 2010, 02:51:03 AM »

REASONS FOR OPEN COMMUNION:

1. Orthodox Priests say Catholics can commune in Orthodox Churches

The Thyateira Confession says Orthodox can commune in Catholic churches if there is no Orthodox church near them and vice verse. However, this is not the same as Open Communion. It could be simply based on ekonomia.

A close friend who is very sympathetic to Orthodoxy told me that Orthodoxy allows it with the priest's permission. He said that the OCA priest in a neighboring Pennsylvania town said he could take communion there. However, I have no idea how common this opinion is, and whether or not it is common hardly explains why we should have this teaching. To say we should or should not have a practice because no one or everyone does it sounds like circular logic to me: "We do it because that's what we do."

the situation varies...A Roman Catholic is much more likely to be able to recieve in an "Orthodox" country than he/she would be able to do in the west for obvious reasons. It also varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
What Orthodox Church in an Orthodox country or an American jurisdiction practices Open Communion?


2. The Catholic Church Developed a position of Open Communion with Orthodoxy


ICXCNIKA and KING CLOVIS agreed that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches "in different times and places have had several views on this issue." King Clovis joked that the Catholic Church was "developing," not Yo-Yoing. If the church switches positions on and off, it sounds like the church's latest "development" is just the latest yo-yo bounce in a series.

Why is the latest development the correct one? And why, for example, did Byzantine Catholic Churches, I assume, deny communion to Orthodox before Vatican II?

Understanding the Catholic Church's rejection and acceptance of Open Communion could help us understand why the Othodox Church rejects it or should accept it. But the Orthodox Church shouldn't necessarily treat the Catholic Church the same way that the Catholic Church treats us. For example, I believe the Catholic Church requires Orthodox--Catholic couples to raise their children to be Catholic, not Orthodox. This prejudiced upbringing abuses children's free will to discover the Truth Faith, whether it is the Orthodox or the Catholic faith.

Catholics offer Orthodox the Eucharist because the Catholic Church defines itself more against Protestants
Because the "Orthodox" share things in common with Catholics that seperate us from Protestants who we have more a tendency to define ourselves against while as you define yourselves against us it follows that that would be the case.

This doesn't fully explain why the Catholic Church didn't offer Communion to Orthodox before Vatican II. The Orthodox did drop its anathema against the Catholic Church about the same time as Vatican II. Was that it?
Also, why should the Catholic Church principally define itself vis a vis what it considers a heretical group of "bad boys", the Protestants, and not based on the division between the Pope of Rome and all the other Patriarchs? The Catholic Church is alot closer to Old Catholics and anti-Vatican II sects than to Orthodox. Does it give any of them the Eucharist? It appears that after Vatican II the Catholic Church accepts the Orthodox church's legitimacy in a way it doesn't accept theirs. Why?

The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Eucharist valid.

That's because this is the official RC teaching and practice regarding communion. Rome acknowledges all the Orthodox sacraments, including communion, to be valid. From this point of view, the same Body and Blood of the same Christ is being served on the altars in both churches by priests sharing the same priestly ordination from bishops sharing the same episcopal ordination. And according to the Code of Canon Law - canon 844 s 3 "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed."
First, this does not explain why the Catholic Church denied Orthodox the Eucharist before Vatican II.
Second, why does Rome believe the Orthodox Eucharist is valid? Does an incantation by priests make something necessarily true, and if so, what is the basis for this?
Third, if the episcopal ordination in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches is the same, why wouldn't the Anglicans' or Old Catholics' episcopal orsination be the same too?
Fourth, Canon 844 seems to contradict the Catholic Catechism 1401: When... a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist... to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church... provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions."
The Catholic Church considers Orthodox to be in "imperfect communion" with Rome. I think that is accurate. But Orthodox do NOT affirm the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation regarding the Eucharist.

Vatican II.
It is obvious that Vatican II, which I believe all Catholic bishops accept, changed the Catholic Church's treatment of Orthodoxy. But to leave the explanation at that would be empty. "Pope Says So" or "that's What the Church Teaches" might completely satisfy those with blind faith, but it doesn't convince me. My lack of blind faith is why I am trying to understand the Orthodox Church's teaching.

3. THE CHURCHES NEVER OFFICIALLY EXCOMMUNICATED EACHOTHER
A friend in my OCF group said that it's not clear when exactly the official excommunications occurred. The churches were in union with eachother for a long time while holding different doctrines like the filioque. Humbertus' 1054 excommunication was directed at the person of the Patriarch of Constantinople and vice verse. I assume there may have also been a personal excommunication of the person of the Pope by Constantinople. He added like Stanley says that many of the grounds sounded like nit-picking. Taken to its extreme, this could suggest there was no excommunication of the entire church by the other church.
It also appears to be  inaccurate to say that the Orthodox have separated themselves from Rome, when it was Cardinal Humbertus who delivered the bull of excommunication in 1054. And many of the grounds listed for the excommunication appear to be rather flimsy and insupportable by today's standards.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,188


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #110 on: June 07, 2010, 12:58:52 PM »

Sorry, we in the East didn't get that memo.  We were still under the mistaken impression that Christ is still the Head of the Church.

I doubt they would claim otherwise. The more common conception appears to be of the BoR being Christ's "Vicar" rather than him being the actual head.
No, the application of the term "head" by the Vatican to itself has gone to its head, such that it doesn't always include the disclaimer "visible" with the use of the term.

Hmmmm. Perhaps that is just poor use of language. Because I've never seen them express Ultramontanism to such a high degree that I get the sentence that they are questioning the headship of Christ, just introducing a perverted version of it.
Same thing.

Not at al. Christ is our Lord and God. The Pope is merely his steward.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 07, 2010, 02:51:56 PM »

This is only persuasive if
1. Their position is based on teachings taken before they broke at Chalcedon. And in fact even before Chalcedon we recognized heretic baptisms.

I don't necessarily agree. I do not think that acceptance of heretical baptisms has entered into a dogmatic status, and I think there have been some sources which have explicitly rejected such a position.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #112 on: June 07, 2010, 03:42:00 PM »

It is my understanding that the African Oriental Orthodox Churches... have only begun to recognize EO Baptisms (though still not Chrismations) as a result of the Agreed Statements.
I do not think that acceptance of heretical baptisms has entered into a dogmatic status, and I think there have been some sources which have explicitly rejected such a position.

Deus,

The Sixth Ecumenical Council decided:
Quote
As for... those from similar heresies, they have to give us certificates (called libelli) and anathematize their heresy... Dioscorus... and those who entertain their beliefs, and all the aforementioned heresies, and thus they are allowed to partake of Holy Communion.

Oriental Orthodox consider Dioscorus a saint. Our acceptance of Orientals' baptism instead of rebaptism comes from the Sixth Ecumenical Council instead of any stated agreements with Oriental orthodox.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 07, 2010, 05:24:19 PM »

It is my understanding that the African Oriental Orthodox Churches... have only begun to recognize EO Baptisms (though still not Chrismations) as a result of the Agreed Statements.
I do not think that acceptance of heretical baptisms has entered into a dogmatic status, and I think there have been some sources which have explicitly rejected such a position.

Deus,

The Sixth Ecumenical Council decided:
Quote
As for... those from similar heresies, they have to give us certificates (called libelli) and anathematize their heresy... Dioscorus... and those who entertain their beliefs, and all the aforementioned heresies, and thus they are allowed to partake of Holy Communion.

Oriental Orthodox consider Dioscorus a saint. Our acceptance of Orientals' baptism instead of rebaptism comes from the Sixth Ecumenical Council instead of any stated agreements with Oriental orthodox.

Then why did you say "before Chalcedon we recognized heretic baptisms"?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,217



WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 07, 2010, 05:47:19 PM »

I do not think that acceptance of heretical baptisms has entered into a dogmatic status, and I think there have been some sources which have explicitly rejected such a position.
Oriental Orthodox consider Dioscorus a saint. Our acceptance of Orientals' baptism instead of rebaptism comes from the Sixth Ecumenical Council instead of any stated agreements with Oriental orthodox.
Then why did you say "before Chalcedon we recognized heretic baptisms"?

You said that acceptance of nonOrthodox baptisms is not dogma for the Orthodox Church. I answered that the Sixth Ecumenical Council officially accepted Oriental baptism because you are Oriental and might find that heartening.

Please read replies #52 and 107 above about why the Church accepted nonOrthodox baptisms before Chalcedon (451 AD).
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 05:57:57 PM by rakovsky » Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #115 on: June 07, 2010, 06:03:50 PM »



Quote from: KingClovis

Are you aware of how much money the Vatican is at present lashing out to Churches that by our standards are at the very least schismatic if not outright heretical and burn with hatred for us?

Its scandalous.


Mary Brought up the same thing,Vatican giving financial aid to Holy Orthodoxy ,Neither of them explaining it... Huh





What Aid...... Grin

Conn....Rome Thur it's crusades  raped ,murdered and pillaged the Holy Orthodox East..and also Thur it's fascist Croatian/Fransiscan Ustasha during world war  two..Serbia has a case pending against the Vatican from what i read. the pope is sitting on the bloody soaked Loot ,looted from Serbs, gypsies Jews and Others..So what Aid are we talking About...hum.. Grin
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 07, 2010, 11:47:41 PM »



Quote from: KingClovis

Are you aware of how much money the Vatican is at present lashing out to Churches that by our standards are at the very least schismatic if not outright heretical and burn with hatred for us?

Its scandalous.


Mary Brought up the same thing,Vatican giving financial aid to Holy Orthodoxy ,Neither of them explaining it... Huh





What Aid...... Grin

Conn....Rome Thur it's crusades  raped ,murdered and pillaged the Holy Orthodox East..and also Thur it's fascist Croatian/Fransiscan Ustasha during world war  two..Serbia has a case pending against the Vatican from what i read. the pope is sitting on the bloody soaked Loot ,looted from Serbs, gypsies Jews and Others..So what Aid are we talking About...hum.. Grin



Most of the bloody loot is in museums and private collections.

The non-loot that was brought to Rome for safekeeping is still there.  I expect that if any of the Orthodox Churches in Europe and the Mediterranean were really reading to take it all back and guarantee its safekeeping there would have been petitions made in triplicate. 

So Mr. Stashko should hope we don't charge rent for the care and upkeep of antiquities which is not a "cheap" enterprise.

In any event it is not a good thing to allow this kind of warping of a history that is bad enough in reality...on both sides.

Don't Orthodox believers realize how much money the Vatincan has given to Orthodoxy in central Europe and Russia to help rebuild churches and seminaries?  What do they think is happening during this visit to Cyprus.  Do they really think that there's not going to be "gifts" offered and received in the Cyprus church?

Bad business not to acknowledge the good while distorting the errors and evils of the past.

M.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #117 on: May 27, 2011, 09:23:21 PM »

I found this article rather interesting:

Why Not "Open Communion"?

-PJ

Thanks for that! I especially appreciate this paragraph in the article which articulates eloquently what I've often wanted to say to people who asked me this question but couldn't find the words:
Quote
The real issue, however, is not one of obedience or disobedience to rules and regulations.  If the Orthodox preserve the sanctity of the Eucharist as a supreme obligation, it is because of the often stated truth that communion in the Body and Blood of Christ is the very end or fulfillment of Christian existence.  It can not, for example, be reduced to a means by which to achieve "Christian unity."  (In any case, Church history has made it clear that sharing of Communion among Churches of conflicting theological teachings never results in lasting unity.)

I had quite forgotten about that article. But, re-reading it earlier today, I discovered that I like it a lot. (I'm glad that I brought it to my attention. Grin)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #118 on: May 27, 2011, 09:23:48 PM »

ALONSO,

The Forum's Main Question "Why Not Open Communion" applies to Catholics too, because the Catholic church doesn't have Open Communion either. Please read earlier posts on the forum, Thanks.

Indeed we don't.

BTW, on a recent thread I mentioned an article called "Intercommunion: why Catholics need not 'apologise'". The author should have written a follow-up called "Intercommunion: why Orthodox need not 'apologise'".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #119 on: May 27, 2011, 09:32:11 PM »

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of harisplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #120 on: May 28, 2011, 03:58:52 AM »

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of harisplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #121 on: May 28, 2011, 08:05:54 AM »

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of harisplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. When I said that "There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less", I wasn't implying that I'm one of those people.

Also, every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but that doesn't mean that every infallible statement is ex cathedra.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #122 on: May 28, 2011, 10:49:57 AM »

Just on the point about transubstantiation, if it's helpful, the Catholic teaching is that the essence (That whereby the thing is intelligible by the mind as what it is, in scholastic terminology) changes to the body and blood of Christ, while the species or accidents (the physical attributes) remain the same. I never thought this was much less mystical or mysterious than in Orthodoxy.

Consubstantiation teaches that the eucharist becomes intelligible both as the body and blood of Christ and as bread.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #123 on: May 28, 2011, 11:32:40 AM »

You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of harisplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?
I think that's a case where the statement is infallible because because the Pope is simply upholding a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible. It is not ex cathedra, though. As Peter J said, though, something does not have to be ex cathedra to be true.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #124 on: May 28, 2011, 12:18:12 PM »

Christ is risen!
You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of harisplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I know, but their supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI isn't one of them.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 12:35:19 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #125 on: May 28, 2011, 12:24:31 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of hairsplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?
I think that's a case where the statement is infallible because because the Pope is simply upholding a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible. It is not ex cathedra, though. As Peter J said, though, something does not have to be ex cathedra to be true.

I guess not.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 12:25:23 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #126 on: May 28, 2011, 12:26:13 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of hairsplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?
I think that's a case where the statement is infallible because because the Pope is simply upholding a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible. It is not ex cathedra, though. As Peter J said, though, something does not have to be ex cathedra to be true.

I guess not.
It's really simple. You're the one making it complex.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #127 on: May 28, 2011, 12:34:44 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of hairsplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?
I think that's a case where the statement is infallible because because the Pope is simply upholding a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible. It is not ex cathedra, though. As Peter J said, though, something does not have to be ex cathedra to be true.

I guess not.
It's really simple. You're the one making it complex.
I always read the fine print.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #128 on: May 28, 2011, 12:40:53 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of hairsplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?
I think that's a case where the statement is infallible because because the Pope is simply upholding a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible. It is not ex cathedra, though. As Peter J said, though, something does not have to be ex cathedra to be true.

I guess not.
It's really simple. You're the one making it complex.
I always read misread the fine print.
Yep.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #129 on: May 28, 2011, 01:07:56 PM »

Christ is risen!
Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I know, but their supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI isn't one of them.

Are you now criticizing us based on the fact that our pope doesn't fly off the handle?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #130 on: May 28, 2011, 01:08:43 PM »

P.S. Ah, so your looking for an official list of ex cathedra statements, eh?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #131 on: May 28, 2011, 01:32:44 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
You have to admit that the fruits of the said Council have been highly unpleasant. Isnt it just best to ignore the whole mess that came out of it and quietly carry on as berfore?
ah, but since it was called by your supreme pontiff and bears his "infallible" imprematur, you Ultramontanists don't have the option of ignoring it without denying Vatican I. Do that, and you undermine much of the heresy of the Vatican which seperates it the Orthodoxy of St. Peter.

Firstly the word "Ultramontanist" has an actual meaning and I am not an ultramontanist at all.
Your posts say otherwise.

Quote
Secondly the Vatican I was never finished

Your supreme pontiff closed it right before he started Vatican II>

Quote
and so the exact meaning of some of it remains unclear. It was a doctrinal council as opposed to a "Pastoral" council and so is binding in a way that Vatican II simply isnt.


Do you people never tire of hairsplitting?

Quote
Thirdly I would advise you to put down the shrill charactures of Roman Catholicism that your Church seems to specialize in


Truth hurts, eh? We are quite well aware of what your church is about.

Quote
(and our probably printed with the money that we give you! LOL!)

I don't know what you are laughing about: that would be pretty stupid of you to give us money to print "shrill characatures" of your church.

Quote
and actually try to find out what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

We know what it teaches, fine print and all.

Quote
The Pope is only "Infallible" under certain conditions.
and yet nobody seems to be able to agree on a list of when he has,

That's not true. There are many people who will plainly tell you that there have been 2 ex cathedra statements -- no more and no less -- and will fly off the handle if you suggest otherwise.
I am not sure about that. For example, I have read where some people claim that the declaration  of Pope John Paul II that women cannot be priests, was an infallible statement and cannot be changed? Do you think it is possible to change this teaching?
I think that's a case where the statement is infallible because because the Pope is simply upholding a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible. It is not ex cathedra, though. As Peter J said, though, something does not have to be ex cathedra to be true.

I guess not.
It's really simple. You're the one making it complex.
I always read misread the fine print.
Yep.
filioque
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #132 on: May 28, 2011, 01:34:07 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
P.S. Ah, so your looking for an official list of ex cathedra statements, eh?
Given the nature of the claim, that shouldn't be too much to ask.  I don't recall Pastor Aeternus reverting to gnosticism and saying such pronouncements were secrets.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #133 on: May 28, 2011, 03:08:01 PM »

I think that's a case where the statement is infallible because because the Pope is simply upholding a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible. It is not ex cathedra, though. As Peter J said, though, something does not have to be ex cathedra to be true.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
I thought that ex cathedra simply means that the teaching is made with the intention of invoking infallibllity. Now are we being told on this thread that the teaching that women cannot be priests was not made with that intention?
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”
How come this declaration is not ex cathedra?
And even if you say it is not ex cathedra, are there not Catholics who claim it was declared ex cathedra. So why would that not confirm the claim that there is no agreement among Catholics about which beliefs have been declared infallibly or ex cathedra? 
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html


Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #134 on: May 28, 2011, 06:10:57 PM »

I thought that ex cathedra simply means that the teaching is made with the intention of invoking infallibllity.

Absolutely not!
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #135 on: May 28, 2011, 06:15:25 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
P.S. Ah, so your looking for an official list of ex cathedra statements, eh?
Given the nature of the claim, that shouldn't be too much to ask.  I don't recall Pastor Aeternus reverting to gnosticism and saying such pronouncements were secrets.

I don't know about "secrets". The way I see the, the number of ex cathedra statements (assuming there have been any) is something that Catholics can have different opinions about.

Or have you forgotten that for the first couple centuries Christians differed regarding how many books the New Testament had?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #136 on: May 28, 2011, 06:27:30 PM »

I thought that ex cathedra simply means that the teaching is made with the intention of invoking infallibllity.

Absolutely not!

If so, that would basically make the pope infallible whenever he wanted to be infallible.

What Vatican I actually said was:

"When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines with his supreme apostolic authority that a doctrine on faith and morals is to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised him in the person of St. Peter, he enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining a doctrine on faith and morals."
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #137 on: May 28, 2011, 07:21:38 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
P.S. Ah, so your looking for an official list of ex cathedra statements, eh?
Given the nature of the claim, that shouldn't be too much to ask.  I don't recall Pastor Aeternus reverting to gnosticism and saying such pronouncements were secrets.

I don't know about "secrets". The way I see the, the number of ex cathedra statements (assuming there have been any) is something that Catholics can have different opinions about.
The claim is made that "infallibility" settles the differences.  Supposedly that is why it is needed, or so we are told.  If they "can have different opinions" it pretty much defeats the purpose.

Or have you forgotten that for the first couple centuries Christians differed regarding how many books the New Testament had?
but then they didn't have a bishop who claimed that he had all the answers, now, did they?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 07:23:44 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #138 on: May 28, 2011, 08:33:06 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
P.S. Ah, so your looking for an official list of ex cathedra statements, eh?
Given the nature of the claim, that shouldn't be too much to ask.  I don't recall Pastor Aeternus reverting to gnosticism and saying such pronouncements were secrets.

I don't know about "secrets". The way I see the, the number of ex cathedra statements (assuming there have been any) is something that Catholics can have different opinions about.
The claim is made that "infallibility" settles the differences.  Supposedly that is why it is needed, or so we are told.

Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you've been told.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #139 on: May 28, 2011, 11:16:31 PM »

I thought that ex cathedra simply means that the teaching is made with the intention of invoking infallibllity.

Absolutely not!

If so, that would basically make the pope infallible whenever he wanted to be infallible.

What Vatican I actually said was:

"When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines with his supreme apostolic authority that a doctrine on faith and morals is to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised him in the person of St. Peter, he enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining a doctrine on faith and morals."
I don’t see where there is agreement among Catholics about what is declared infallibly or not, or what was declared ex cathedra or not.
Do you agree that there are Catholics in good standing who say that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not infallible.
And there are Catholics in good standing  who say it was infallible but not ex cathedra.
And there are Catholics in good standing who say it was both infallible and ex cathedra?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #140 on: May 29, 2011, 09:30:28 AM »

I thought that ex cathedra simply means that the teaching is made with the intention of invoking infallibllity.

Absolutely not!

If so, that would basically make the pope infallible whenever he wanted to be infallible.

What Vatican I actually said was:

"When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines with his supreme apostolic authority that a doctrine on faith and morals is to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised him in the person of St. Peter, he enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining a doctrine on faith and morals."
I don’t see where there is agreement among Catholics about what is declared infallibly or not, or what was declared ex cathedra or not.
Do you agree that there are Catholics in good standing who say that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not infallible.
And there are Catholics in good standing  who say it was infallible but not ex cathedra.
And there are Catholics in good standing who say it was both infallible and ex cathedra?

Yes, I suppose so; although I think Unam Sanctam is a better example of Catholics disagreeing about whether it's ex cathedra or not. (I mean whether it contains an ex cathedra statement or not. Obviously nobody thinks that the whole document is ex cathedra.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #141 on: May 29, 2011, 12:13:47 PM »

The way I have understood the claim of Papal Infallibility is something like as follows:

A.) The Church is infallible

B.) There have been times in the history of the Church when the Pope has settled matters of doctrine once and for all.

C.) When he has done so, the infallibility of the Church has been exercised through him.

Not that there is an "infallibility mechanism" where the Pope can say "X is so, and I'm saying it infallibly".

Klaus Schatz made a study that was published in 1985 which suggests the following as the historical instances of what would be understood as exercises of the Papal infallibility:

Pope Leo I's Tome to Flavian
Pope Agatho's letter to the Third Council of Constantinople
Pope Benedict XII's Benedictus Deus
Pope Innocent X's Cum Occasione
Pope Pius VI's Auctorem fidei
Pope Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus
Pope Pius XII's Munificentissimus Deus

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has also taught that John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was such an example.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2011, 12:13:59 PM by Alcuin » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #142 on: May 29, 2011, 12:51:05 PM »

The way I have understood the claim of Papal Infallibility is something like as follows:

A.) The Church is infallible

B.) There have been times in the history of the Church when the Pope has settled matters of doctrine once and for all.

C.) When he has done so, the infallibility of the Church has been exercised through him.

Not that there is an "infallibility mechanism" where the Pope can say "X is so, and I'm saying it infallibly".

Klaus Schatz made a study that was published in 1985 which suggests the following as the historical instances of what would be understood as exercises of the Papal infallibility:

Pope Leo I's Tome to Flavian
Pope Agatho's letter to the Third Council of Constantinople
Pope Benedict XII's Benedictus Deus
Pope Innocent X's Cum Occasione
Pope Pius VI's Auctorem fidei
Pope Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus
Pope Pius XII's Munificentissimus Deus

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has also taught that John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was such an example.

I'm so happy to see that you have read the Schatz book.  Yes.  There are eight instances, recognized by the Catholic Church, as exercises of papal infallibility.

The list is available in several locations.  I even believe Wiki publishes the list...for those who have not been able to find it...

M.
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #143 on: May 29, 2011, 03:37:21 PM »

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has also taught that John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was such an example.
Father  Francis A. Sullivan, who was dean of the faculty of theology at Gregorian University disagrees. BTW,  Father Sullivan is in good standing with the Catholic Church, and in fact, William Cardinal Levada, the current Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, received his doctorate under Sullivan in 1971.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #144 on: May 29, 2011, 03:38:57 PM »

Klaus Schatz made a study that was published in 1985 which suggests the following as the historical instances of what would be understood as exercises of the Papal infallibility:

Pope Leo I's Tome to Flavian
Pope Agatho's letter to the Third Council of Constantinople
Pope Benedict XII's Benedictus Deus
Pope Innocent X's Cum Occasione
Pope Pius VI's Auctorem fidei
Pope Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus
Pope Pius XII's Munificentissimus Deus

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has also taught that John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was such an example.
Are any of these considered to be ex cathedra?
Logged
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #145 on: May 29, 2011, 04:08:53 PM »

They were all definitions of dogma for the whole Church (or in the case of Cum Occasione and Auctorem Fidei rejections of certain propositions as wholly unacceptable), so if they're all regarded to have been infallible they'd all be regarded to be ex cathedra in that dimension.

Leo I's Tome to Flavian - Confirmed the two natures of Christ
Agatho's Letter to the Third Council of Constantinople - Confirmed the two wills of Christ
Benedict XII's Benedictus Deus - Confirmed the beatific vision of the blessed between their deaths and the final judgment
Innocent X's Cum Occasione - Condemned certain Jansenist propositions
Pius VI's Auctorem Fidei - Condemned further Jansenist propositions
Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus - Confirmed the Immaculate Conception of Mary
Pius XII's Municifentissimus Deus - Confirmed the bodily assumption of Mary
John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis - Confirmed the reservation of the priesthood to males

In the dimension of having been explicitly issued by the extraordinary magisterium of the Papacy, only Ineffabilis Deus and Municifentissimus Deus.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2011, 04:15:48 PM by Alcuin » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #146 on: May 29, 2011, 09:32:21 PM »

They were all definitions of dogma for the whole Church (or in the case of Cum Occasione and Auctorem Fidei rejections of certain propositions as wholly unacceptable), so if they're all regarded to have been infallible they'd all be regarded to be ex cathedra in that dimension.

Leo I's Tome to Flavian - Confirmed the two natures of Christ
Agatho's Letter to the Third Council of Constantinople - Confirmed the two wills of Christ
Benedict XII's Benedictus Deus - Confirmed the beatific vision of the blessed between their deaths and the final judgment
Innocent X's Cum Occasione - Condemned certain Jansenist propositions
Pius VI's Auctorem Fidei - Condemned further Jansenist propositions
Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus - Confirmed the Immaculate Conception of Mary
Pius XII's Municifentissimus Deus - Confirmed the bodily assumption of Mary
John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis - Confirmed the reservation of the priesthood to males

In the dimension of having been explicitly issued by the extraordinary magisterium of the Papacy, only Ineffabilis Deus and Municifentissimus Deus.

Well, I think that this could be what some people mean when they say that it is not known exactly which declarations are infallible but not ex cathedra, or which declarations are both infallible and ex cathedra. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is perhaps a good example.
Father Sullivan says it is not infallible.
Posters on this thread say it is infallible but not ex cathedra.
You (and you are not the only one on this) say it is both infallible and ex cathedra.
Logged
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #147 on: May 30, 2011, 01:27:14 AM »

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says that it is infallible but is not ex cathedra. I am not sure I understand what that means, precisely. It seems to me like any infallible statement would be ex cathedra, but I may be missing something.

Anyways, the list I provided is neither official nor complete, just a proposed list as a result of one scholar's study.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 01:28:07 AM by Alcuin » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #148 on: May 30, 2011, 10:29:18 AM »

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says that it is infallible but is not ex cathedra.

:thumbsup:

I am not sure I understand what that means, precisely. It seems to me like any infallible statement would be ex cathedra,

I don't see that. Remember that Vatican I said "defines":

"When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines with his supreme apostolic authority that a doctrine on faith and morals is to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised him in the person of St. Peter, he enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining a doctrine on faith and morals."

I don't see why there couldn't be an infallible statement that doesn't define a doctrine to be held by the whole Church.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #149 on: May 30, 2011, 04:54:04 PM »

What about "Exsurge Domine"?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33045.0.html
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #150 on: May 30, 2011, 05:16:37 PM »


I haven't read that entirely; but I'd like to repeat my earlier point: Vatican I did not say that the pope is infallible whenever he wants to be infallible.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #151 on: May 30, 2011, 06:04:49 PM »


I haven't read that entirely; but I'd like to repeat my earlier point: Vatican I did not say that the pope is infallible whenever he wants to be infallible.

Take a look at the thread. It's about how Exsurge Domine meets the criteria set out by V1.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #152 on: May 30, 2011, 07:29:08 PM »


I haven't read that entirely; but I'd like to repeat my earlier point: Vatican I did not say that the pope is infallible whenever he wants to be infallible.

Take a look at the thread. It's about how Exsurge Domine meets the criteria set out by V1.

Oh, I've looked at it (I just haven't read the whole thing). That's why I made the point about the pope not being infallible whenever he wants to be infallible.

Also, as I've mentioned before, Vatican I does not even say whether there have been any ex cathedra statements.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #153 on: May 30, 2011, 09:35:02 PM »


I haven't read that entirely; but I'd like to repeat my earlier point: Vatican I did not say that the pope is infallible whenever he wants to be infallible.

Take a look at the thread. It's about how Exsurge Domine meets the criteria set out by V1.

Oh, I've looked at it (I just haven't read the whole thing). That's why I made the point about the pope not being infallible whenever he wants to be infallible.

Also, as I've mentioned before, Vatican I does not even say whether there have been any ex cathedra statements.

Actually, in a way, it does. To support my point, Fr. Brian W. Harrison wrote a thesis called "Infallibility of Humanae Vitae - Ex Cathedra Status of the encyclical 'Humanae Vitae'" on the interpretation of V1 and HV. He states:

Quote
Having considered the official magisterial texts of both Vatican Councils in regard to the secondary object of infallibility, we should take into account another official document which sheds further light on the interpretation of the 1870 dogma. On July 11, 1870, just a week before the solemn proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility by Vatican I, Bishop Vincent Gasser, spokesman for the deputation "de fide" (the committee of Conciliar Fathers charged with drafting the solemn definition), delivered a four-hour speech explaining and defending the third (and, as it turned out, final) draft which was submitted to the assembled Fathers for their vote. The importance of this learned, historic dissertation lies in the fact that (apart from the subsequent Vatican II and post-Vatican II magisterial statements discussed above) it is the only "official" commentary on the 1870 definition. This speech informed the conciliar Fathers beforehand "what they were to understand" by the formula which was being presented for their vote. Therefore, if it should turn out that the dogmatic definition, taken in isolation, is open to more than one interpretation, that of Gasser must be seen as far more authoritative than that of any subsequent theologians, since it has to be presumed that the Council Fathers who were the formal authors of the definition intended it to mean what Gasser told them it meant. Vatican II itself recognizes the vital importance of Gasser's "relatio" by actually making the substance of some of his comments part of the Dogmatic constitution "Lumen Gentium" itself: he is quoted no less than four times in the official footnotes to "Lumen Gentium" 25, which treats of infallibility.
Quote
In replying to some Fathers who urged that the procedures or form to be used by the Pope in arriving at an infallible decision (i.e., his grave moral duty to pray for guidance, diligently consult the existing teaching of the Church, etc.) be included in the definition, Gasser replied:

But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. "Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See;" where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?[47]

(The context makes it clear that, by the expression "dogmatic judgment," Gasser here means any infallible definition "having to do" with dogma, not only with dogmas in the strict sense, because he notes in the same paragraph that the Council is proposing to define that "the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are infallible"; and as we have seen, a central point of the whole "relatio" is that the new formula being presented to the Fathers does not limit papal infallibility to dogmas in the strict sense, i.e., points of revealed truth.) In other words, Gasser was able to assert "in passing"--that is, as something which did not need arguing and would be taken for granted by his audience-- that there had already been "thousands and thousands" of infallible definitions issued by former Popes! Even allowing for the fact that he doubtless did not intend to be taken quite literally here, and meant only to make the point that "a great many" such definitions were "ex cathedra," it is obvious that he cannot have had in mind "only" solemn definitions of revealed truth, such as Pius IX's definition of the Immaculate Conception a few years previously. There have in fact been only a few such definitions. So Gasser obviously meant to include the many papal definitions of secondary truths, including censures less than heresy, as genuine "ex cathedra," infallible definitions. In line with this, the noted dogmatic theologian J. M. Herve, in his standard work, specifies all eighty of Pope St. Pius V's censures against the errors of Du Bay (DS 1901-1980) as infallible definitions, as well as all the errors condemned by Pius IX in the 1864 encyclical "Quanta Cura."[48] The conventional modern view that "ex cathedra" definitions are "extremely rare"[49] is thus at variance with the Vatican I "relator's" view of the matter, and is evidently based on the falsely restrictive presupposition which Gasser and the entire deputation "de fide" went to such pains to exclude.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2043321/posts

You see, it is quite clear, and at the time of the council, ex cathedra statements are to be believed to have been pronounce the entire time of the RCC. So there is certainly cause for stating what does and does not meet that criteria.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #154 on: May 30, 2011, 10:18:57 PM »

This article concludes that Exsurge Domine would not qualify for infallible teaching because, for a variety of reasons, the author feels the condemnations do not fit the qualifications of an explicit definition.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #155 on: May 30, 2011, 10:42:55 PM »


I haven't read that entirely; but I'd like to repeat my earlier point: Vatican I did not say that the pope is infallible whenever he wants to be infallible.

Take a look at the thread. It's about how Exsurge Domine meets the criteria set out by V1.

Oh, I've looked at it (I just haven't read the whole thing). That's why I made the point about the pope not being infallible whenever he wants to be infallible.

Also, as I've mentioned before, Vatican I does not even say whether there have been any ex cathedra statements.

Actually, in a way, it does. To support my point, Fr. Brian W. Harrison wrote a thesis called "Infallibility of Humanae Vitae - Ex Cathedra Status of the encyclical 'Humanae Vitae'" on the interpretation of V1 and HV. He states:

Quote
Having considered the official magisterial texts of both Vatican Councils in regard to the secondary object of infallibility, we should take into account another official document which sheds further light on the interpretation of the 1870 dogma. On July 11, 1870, just a week before the solemn proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility by Vatican I, Bishop Vincent Gasser, spokesman for the deputation "de fide" (the committee of Conciliar Fathers charged with drafting the solemn definition), delivered a four-hour speech explaining and defending the third (and, as it turned out, final) draft which was submitted to the assembled Fathers for their vote. The importance of this learned, historic dissertation lies in the fact that (apart from the subsequent Vatican II and post-Vatican II magisterial statements discussed above) it is the only "official" commentary on the 1870 definition. This speech informed the conciliar Fathers beforehand "what they were to understand" by the formula which was being presented for their vote. Therefore, if it should turn out that the dogmatic definition, taken in isolation, is open to more than one interpretation, that of Gasser must be seen as far more authoritative than that of any subsequent theologians, since it has to be presumed that the Council Fathers who were the formal authors of the definition intended it to mean what Gasser told them it meant. Vatican II itself recognizes the vital importance of Gasser's "relatio" by actually making the substance of some of his comments part of the Dogmatic constitution "Lumen Gentium" itself: he is quoted no less than four times in the official footnotes to "Lumen Gentium" 25, which treats of infallibility.
Quote
In replying to some Fathers who urged that the procedures or form to be used by the Pope in arriving at an infallible decision (i.e., his grave moral duty to pray for guidance, diligently consult the existing teaching of the Church, etc.) be included in the definition, Gasser replied:

But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. "Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See;" where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?[47]

(The context makes it clear that, by the expression "dogmatic judgment," Gasser here means any infallible definition "having to do" with dogma, not only with dogmas in the strict sense, because he notes in the same paragraph that the Council is proposing to define that "the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are infallible"; and as we have seen, a central point of the whole "relatio" is that the new formula being presented to the Fathers does not limit papal infallibility to dogmas in the strict sense, i.e., points of revealed truth.) In other words, Gasser was able to assert "in passing"--that is, as something which did not need arguing and would be taken for granted by his audience-- that there had already been "thousands and thousands" of infallible definitions issued by former Popes! Even allowing for the fact that he doubtless did not intend to be taken quite literally here, and meant only to make the point that "a great many" such definitions were "ex cathedra," it is obvious that he cannot have had in mind "only" solemn definitions of revealed truth, such as Pius IX's definition of the Immaculate Conception a few years previously. There have in fact been only a few such definitions. So Gasser obviously meant to include the many papal definitions of secondary truths, including censures less than heresy, as genuine "ex cathedra," infallible definitions. In line with this, the noted dogmatic theologian J. M. Herve, in his standard work, specifies all eighty of Pope St. Pius V's censures against the errors of Du Bay (DS 1901-1980) as infallible definitions, as well as all the errors condemned by Pius IX in the 1864 encyclical "Quanta Cura."[48] The conventional modern view that "ex cathedra" definitions are "extremely rare"[49] is thus at variance with the Vatican I "relator's" view of the matter, and is evidently based on the falsely restrictive presupposition which Gasser and the entire deputation "de fide" went to such pains to exclude.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2043321/posts

You see, it is quite clear, and at the time of the council, ex cathedra statements are to be believed to have been pronounce the entire time of the RCC.

I've seen that sort of argument before. But the thing is, those statements by Bishop Gasser, while they might have influenced the councils decisions, cannot be counted as statements made by the council. Ultimately we are left with the simple truth that Vatican I did not say whether there have been any ex cathedra statements.

So there is certainly cause for stating what does and does not meet that criteria.

Yes, if you're up to the challenge. (Bear in mind that it took centuries for Christians to decide how many books are in the New Testament.)
« Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 10:45:08 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #156 on: May 30, 2011, 10:44:37 PM »

This article concludes that Exsurge Domine would not qualify for infallible teaching because, for a variety of reasons, the author feels the condemnations do not fit the qualifications of an explicit definition.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

Thanks for the reply.

I read the article, however, since I have broken the encyclical down myself, I would have some trouble agreeing to his points. I would find accepting 'the burning of heretics' more comparable over all. Though harsh, it keeps from backpedaling the issue (if infallibility is to be accepted), and in a certain frame of though it might be acceptable. That is, we believe that God would not desire death on anyone, but is this true? Certainly someone who tries to destroy the Apostolic faith is more dangerous than any serial killer.

 Just thoughts.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #157 on: May 30, 2011, 10:46:10 PM »

So there is certainly cause for stating what does and does not meet that criteria.

Yes, if you're up to the challenge.

I don't understand. Do you mean besides the other thread, as in other documents?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #158 on: May 30, 2011, 11:46:33 PM »

This article concludes that Exsurge Domine would not qualify for infallible teaching because, for a variety of reasons, the author feels the condemnations do not fit the qualifications of an explicit definition.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

Thanks for the reply.

I read the article, however, since I have broken the encyclical down myself, I would have some trouble agreeing to his points. I would find accepting 'the burning of heretics' more comparable over all. Though harsh, it keeps from backpedaling the issue (if infallibility is to be accepted), and in a certain frame of though it might be acceptable. That is, we believe that God would not desire death on anyone, but is this true? Certainly someone who tries to destroy the Apostolic faith is more dangerous than any serial killer.

 Just thoughts.

I think the fact that Leo X says that the propositions are rejected as heretical or scandalous or false or offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds or in opposition to Catholic truth is important. It offers ambiguity in to the nature of the condemnation of each proposition, and I do think that makes it fuzzy as far as defining dogma goes.

Perhaps we could contrast it to the two documents suggested as infallible which, like Exsurge Domine, are condemnations of propositions: Innocent X's Cum Occasione and Pius VI's Auctorem Fidei:

http://www.rosarychurch.net/history/1653_Innocent_X.html

http://www.catholicresearch.org/Decrees/AuctoremFidei.html

In these two terms, each condemned proposition is listed specifically, with the specific reasons for its condemnation also listed. That seems to make Cum Occasione and Auctorem Fidei better candidates than Exsurge Domine for infallibility to me.

But as I said before, my understanding of Papal infallibility is merely that it is in recognition of the fact that in the history of the Church, matters of dogma have sometimes been definitively settled by Popes, and if the Church is infallible, the Popes must have been infallible when doing so. Absent a "infallibility mechanism" the Popes can call upon (which I don't think there is) it will be difficult to assemble any authoritative list of the times it has happened.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #159 on: May 30, 2011, 11:58:22 PM »

So there is certainly cause for stating what does and does not meet that criteria.

Yes, if you're up to the challenge. (Bear in mind that it took centuries for Christians to decide how many books are in the New Testament.)

I don't understand. Do you mean besides the other thread, as in other documents?

I mean that I don't think you realize the difficulty of proving what you're trying to prove.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #160 on: May 31, 2011, 12:01:11 AM »

Oddly enough, I'm less bothered by statements about "thousands and thousands" then I am by Catholics who say that there have been exactly 2 ex cathedra statements and then talk to you like a 5-year-old if you ask them how they know that.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags: communion baptism open communion 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.64 seconds with 188 queries.