OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 15, 2014, 05:53:57 AM *
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 18883 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 32,149


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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,251



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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,251



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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,251



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: 32,149


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: 20,070


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: 32,149


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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,251



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: 20,070


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: 1,233



« 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: 1,233



« 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: 37,572



« 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
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,776



« 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: 1,899


« 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: 5,986



« 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: 37,572



« 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: 37,572



« 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: 12,190


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
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 0.185 seconds with 72 queries.