OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 12:23:19 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: My "Official" Status with the Roman Catholic Church?  (Read 7328 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 6,670



« on: January 21, 2009, 03:09:48 AM »

This might seem like a bizarre question, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

I was baptized as an infant in the RCC, and I also received my first communion (and many thereafter), as well as my first and only confession.  I never underwent confirmation, because at that point I had left the church.

At age 15 I received a "believer's baptism" in the Southern Baptist Church, and spent several years in other interdenominational groups, as well as several years in an Emergent Church.

Now I am a catechumen within the Serbian Orthodox Church, but this evening I began to wonder what my status is with the RCC, having never been confirmed.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  It seems to me that I am somehow not "fully Catholic" because I have not received the Sacrament of Chrismation within the RCC, but I really do not know.  Not that it really matters now that I have found the truth in Holy Orthodoxy, but I am somewhat curious.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 03:10:15 AM by Alveus Lacuna » 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: 35,605



« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2009, 04:31:23 AM »

This might seem like a bizarre question, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

I was baptized as an infant in the RCC, and I also received my first communion (and many thereafter), as well as my first and only confession.  I never underwent confirmation, because at that point I had left the church.

At age 15 I received a "believer's baptism" in the Southern Baptist Church, and spent several years in other interdenominational groups, as well as several years in an Emergent Church.

Now I am a catechumen within the Serbian Orthodox Church, but this evening I began to wonder what my status is with the RCC, having never been confirmed.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  It seems to me that I am somehow not "fully Catholic" because I have not received the Sacrament of Chrismation within the RCC, but I really do not know.  Not that it really matters now that I have found the truth in Holy Orthodoxy, but I am somewhat curious.

Having been baptized by someone else, you are according to them a schismatic, and because of the rebaptism, a heretic.  That you were not confirmed plays no part, you would be the same classification if you had.

More to the point, what does the Orthodox priest say about you becoming fully Catholic, ie. Orthodox?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 04:55:04 AM 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
Jonny
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


Presently in the Roman Catholic Communion


« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2009, 04:44:35 AM »

This might seem like a bizarre question, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

I was baptized as an infant in the RCC, and I also received my first communion (and many thereafter), as well as my first and only confession.  I never underwent confirmation, because at that point I had left the church.

At age 15 I received a "believer's baptism" in the Southern Baptist Church, and spent several years in other interdenominational groups, as well as several years in an Emergent Church.

Now I am a catechumen within the Serbian Orthodox Church, but this evening I began to wonder what my status is with the RCC, having never been confirmed.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  It seems to me that I am somehow not "fully Catholic" because I have not received the Sacrament of Chrismation within the RCC, but I really do not know.  Not that it really matters now that I have found the truth in Holy Orthodoxy, but I am somewhat curious.

Your still Catholic but probably excommunicate but some rule or another (if you've taken communion in any other Church for example). To take Communion in the Catholic Church again all you would need to do is go to Confession with a Catholic Priest. Confirmation doesn't matter as the Catholic Church has little to no theology when it comes to this Sacrament and it has been stripped of all its original meaning by being moved from before first Communion to after. I know 60 year olds who've slipped through the net, never got confirmed, and now can't see the point.
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2009, 07:15:43 AM »

Well, technically most get confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church at around 6-7, but a lot of Bishops' Conferences have changed it to much later (sometimes even double the 'Age of Reason').  Confirmation wouldn't have made you "fully" Roman Catholic, it is just a sign of maturity and a renewal/perfecting of your bond to the Roman Catholic Church.  Confirmed or not, you have been excommunicated though.   laugh
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 07:15:55 AM by Nebelpfade » Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2009, 12:39:05 PM »

Well, technically most get confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church at around 6-7, but a lot of Bishops' Conferences have changed it to much later (sometimes even double the 'Age of Reason').  Confirmation wouldn't have made you "fully" Roman Catholic, it is just a sign of maturity and a renewal/perfecting of your bond to the Roman Catholic Church.  Confirmed or not, you have been excommunicated though.   laugh

This is interesting. Although I've never been a member of the Catholic Church, all of my friends growing up were. (As a young child I wanted to be Catholic so I could go with all my friends to CCD on Wednesday afternoons because I had no one to play with!  Grin )

Anyway, I digress. All of my friends were confirmed at the end of 8th grade at around age 13-14. I wonder if this was just a local custom in New Jersey or just the U.S.?

What was often the practice is that parents would take their kids to church and CCD until they were confirmed, and then never go to church again. Which begs the question: what was the point?
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2009, 12:43:53 PM »

Your still Catholic but probably excommunicate but some rule or another (if you've taken communion in any other Church for example). To take Communion in the Catholic Church again all you would need to do is go to Confession with a Catholic Priest. Confirmation doesn't matter as the Catholic Church has little to no theology when it comes to this Sacrament and it has been stripped of all its original meaning by being moved from before first Communion to after. I know 60 year olds who've slipped through the net, never got confirmed, and now can't see the point.

These days there is an increasing practice to have Confirmation come before first Communion---which is the traditional practice, even in the West (actually, the permission to change the order came only in 1932!). I was Confirmed before Communing.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2009, 12:59:47 PM »

This is interesting. Although I've never been a member of the Catholic Church, all of my friends growing up were. (As a young child I wanted to be Catholic so I could go with all my friends to CCD on Wednesday afternoons because I had no one to play with!  Grin )

Anyway, I digress. All of my friends were confirmed at the end of 8th grade at around age 13-14. I wonder if this was just a local custom in New Jersey or just the U.S.?

What was often the practice is that parents would take their kids to church and CCD until they were confirmed, and then never go to church again. Which begs the question: what was the point?

Custom. Unfortunately, for many Catholics their Faith is simply Cultural Identity and nothing more. My daughter is in CCD but I have been taking her to Great Vespers at the local Orthodox Parish since the summer. We're still working out our conversion to Orthodoxy. It is challenging and difficult because my daughter is like you when you were a little girl except she is already going to CCD on Wednesdays and her father is messing everything up by all this talk about Orthodoxy.  Undecided
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2009, 07:56:39 PM »

Custom. Unfortunately, for many Catholics their Faith is simply Cultural Identity and nothing more. My daughter is in CCD but I have been taking her to Great Vespers at the local Orthodox Parish since the summer. We're still working out our conversion to Orthodoxy. It is challenging and difficult because my daughter is like you when you were a little girl except she is already going to CCD on Wednesdays and her father is messing everything up by all this talk about Orthodoxy.  Undecided

And sadly the same criticism can be laid on many Orthodox. In fact the problem may be compounded in Eastern Orthodoxy by the fact that many Churches are nationally/ethnically categorized.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2009, 08:18:18 PM »

Quote
And sadly the same criticism can be laid on many Orthodox. In fact the problem may be compounded in Eastern Orthodoxy by the fact that many Churches are nationally/ethnically categorized.

You are right that Orthodoxy has become an ethnic club for many people (especially in America), but churches still ought to be nationally categorized. This is how Rome was, since it is commonly referred to as Latin or Western. Before the Schism you had Greek, Latin, Syrian, Coptic, etc churches. Even certain parts of Western Europe were independent from Rome for quite a while. That is why there were distinctions in Western Europe between Latin Church, Mozarabic Church, Gallican Church, and maybe more (I'm not sure). The Latin Church ended up subjugating all these independent churches, kind of like what Russia is doing right now with certain other autocephalous churches in Eastern Europe.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2009, 08:19:58 PM by antiderivative » Logged

signature
Ary_girl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: ELCA Lutheran?
Posts: 8


« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2009, 05:14:10 PM »

To the OP, from what I have heard you are still considered Catholic, and specifically latin rite.  Like others have said it really doesn't matter if you have been confirmed or not since children who have not been confirmed are still considered Catholic.  It is more of a coming of age thing.  My cousins were confirmed when they were 15, so the age covers a large spectrum. 
If you don't want to be considered Catholic, you would have to formally go to the Catholic Church and sign some papers. Kind of like a resignation.  At least that is what I have heard from a couple of Catholic sources.
Logged
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 #10 on: January 27, 2009, 05:44:13 PM »

To the OP, from what I have heard you are still considered Catholic, and specifically latin rite. 
Are you sure? I would have thought he would be considered a schismatic.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 6,670



« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2009, 06:57:41 PM »

If you don't want to be considered Catholic, you would have to formally go to the Catholic Church and sign some papers. Kind of like a resignation.  At least that is what I have heard from a couple of Catholic sources.

I would be interested to know if this is true.  Does the Roman Catholic Church really have me on an official registry of sorts that would require my official withdrawal?  That would be strange, considering the fact that I have not been a part of the Roman Catholic Church for some thirteen years.

Would I have to contact the diocese that I was baptized in as an infant?
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2009, 05:06:35 PM »

If you don't want to be considered Catholic, you would have to formally go to the Catholic Church and sign some papers. Kind of like a resignation.  At least that is what I have heard from a couple of Catholic sources.

I would be interested to know if this is true.  Does the Roman Catholic Church really have me on an official registry of sorts that would require my official withdrawal?  That would be strange, considering the fact that I have not been a part of the Roman Catholic Church for some thirteen years.

Would I have to contact the diocese that I was baptized in as an infant?

Grace and Peace Alveus Lacuna,

You're Baptismal records will be found in the Parish in which you were Baptized. Perhaps in modern times this record is uploaded to a larger registry and I do believe that it takes a formal request to the diocesan office to have your records removed/deleted.

But be clear that this has little to do with your 'status' per se in the Catholic Church. If a Roman Catholic has not participated in the Sacraments (namely Confession and Communion) for one full year the Church considers that individual a 'lapsed' Catholic and excommunication takes place ipso facto. As I understand it in the OCA this excommunication takes place in the Orthodox Church of America after 3 weeks.

So perhaps you can take solace, if you desire, in knowing that after one year of inactivity the Roman Catholic Church recognizes that a spiritual break between you and the life of the Church has taken place.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,410


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2009, 05:19:04 PM »


Custom. Unfortunately, for many Catholics their Faith is simply Cultural Identity and nothing more. My daughter is in CCD but I have been taking her to Great Vespers at the local Orthodox Parish since the summer. We're still working out our conversion to Orthodoxy. It is challenging and difficult because my daughter is like you when you were a little girl except she is already going to CCD on Wednesdays and her father is messing everything up by all this talk about Orthodoxy.  Undecided

This is the sad reality.  I remember when my wife and I were doing our pre-Cana classes, the leader of the group, who was a deacon at that particular parish, asked the group why we were marrying in the Catholic church.

Almost everyone said, "It's tradition" or "It's our custom".

I got real funny looks when I finally said, "It's a God ordained sacrament and being with someone else for the rest of your life is hard enough w/o the grace participating in the sacrament will give."

From then on I was pegged the "class zealot". 
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 6,670



« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2009, 05:30:13 PM »

I got real funny looks when I finally said, "It's a God ordained sacrament and being with someone else for the rest of your life is hard enough w/o the grace participating in the sacrament will give."

From then on I was pegged the "class zealot".

Yeah, it turns out that if you know anything about the faith at all then you need to either be in the clergy or a monastic.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,076


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2009, 06:00:09 PM »

If a Roman Catholic has not participated in the Sacraments (namely Confession and Communion) for one full year the Church considers that individual a 'lapsed' Catholic and excommunication takes place ipso facto. As I understand it in the OCA this excommunication takes place in the Orthodox Church of America after 3 weeks.

No, it doesn't, although God may consider this to be the case.  Wink   But that's not for me to say.   I think you are referring to a widely accepted belief in the early Church that assumed that if someone had not been to communion for over 3 weeks (with no extenuating circumstances explaining this absence from the chalice) then they had left the Church.  I believe there were also canons similar to, though not identical to this belief in force at various times, though I do not have the references handy.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 06:06:20 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2009, 06:37:15 PM »

If a Roman Catholic has not participated in the Sacraments (namely Confession and Communion) for one full year the Church considers that individual a 'lapsed' Catholic and excommunication takes place ipso facto. As I understand it in the OCA this excommunication takes place in the Orthodox Church of America after 3 weeks.

No, it doesn't, although God may consider this to be the case.  Wink   But that's not for me to say.   I think you are referring to a widely accepted belief in the early Church that assumed that if someone had not been to communion for over 3 weeks (with no extenuating circumstances explaining this absence from the chalice) then they had left the Church.  I believe there were also canons similar to, though not identical to this belief in force at various times, though I do not have the references handy.

My Parish Priest just told me this last week...
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2009, 06:49:57 PM »

But be clear that this has little to do with your 'status' per se in the Catholic Church. If a Roman Catholic has not participated in the Sacraments (namely Confession and Communion) for one full year the Church considers that individual a 'lapsed' Catholic and excommunication takes place ipso facto. As I understand it in the OCA this excommunication takes place in the Orthodox Church of America after 3 weeks.

That is news to me, the 1 year excommunication latae sententiae.  Is this a USCCB decision or something local?  I don't think there is anything officially in the Code of Canon law that spells that out.  Then of course, entering into schism will have you excommunicated lata sententia under canon 1364 (1983).
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Jonny
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


Presently in the Roman Catholic Communion


« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2009, 08:22:44 PM »

If a Roman Catholic has not participated in the Sacraments (namely Confession and Communion) for one full year the Church considers that individual a 'lapsed' Catholic and excommunication takes place ipso facto. As I understand it in the OCA this excommunication takes place in the Orthodox Church of America after 3 weeks.

No, it doesn't, although God may consider this to be the case.  Wink   But that's not for me to say.   I think you are referring to a widely accepted belief in the early Church that assumed that if someone had not been to communion for over 3 weeks (with no extenuating circumstances explaining this absence from the chalice) then they had left the Church.  I believe there were also canons similar to, though not identical to this belief in force at various times, though I do not have the references handy.

It is certinally commonly believed that if you do not go to confession during Lent and recieve communion at least at the feast of the Resurrection then you are not in the Church's good graces. I've heard many Priest say that its an excommunicatable offence not to fulfill these criteria but I don't know of any offical teaching.
Logged
Ary_girl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: ELCA Lutheran?
Posts: 8


« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2009, 10:29:19 PM »

If you don't want to be considered Catholic, you would have to formally go to the Catholic Church and sign some papers. Kind of like a resignation.  At least that is what I have heard from a couple of Catholic sources.

I would be interested to know if this is true.  Does the Roman Catholic Church really have me on an official registry of sorts that would require my official withdrawal?  That would be strange, considering the fact that I have not been a part of the Roman Catholic Church for some thirteen years.

Would I have to contact the diocese that I was baptized in as an infant?

Yes, they would still have your papers filed away in the diocese you were baptised in.  I guess I made a mistake in saying that you would not be considered Catholic.  I guess you are Catholic for life because your baptism leaves "an indelible mark" on your soul.  They would continue to keep your baptismal records, however, if they saw fit, they could make a note of your "actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica"

You may find this website informative:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

If you really wish to go through the trouble of having this done, you should contact the parish you were baptised in and they could probably direct you further.

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: 35,605



« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2009, 11:50:58 PM »


Custom. Unfortunately, for many Catholics their Faith is simply Cultural Identity and nothing more. My daughter is in CCD but I have been taking her to Great Vespers at the local Orthodox Parish since the summer. We're still working out our conversion to Orthodoxy. It is challenging and difficult because my daughter is like you when you were a little girl except she is already going to CCD on Wednesdays and her father is messing everything up by all this talk about Orthodoxy.  Undecided

This is the sad reality.  I remember when my wife and I were doing our pre-Cana classes, the leader of the group, who was a deacon at that particular parish, asked the group why we were marrying in the Catholic church.

Almost everyone said, "It's tradition" or "It's our custom".

I got real funny looks when I finally said, "It's a God ordained sacrament and being with someone else for the rest of your life is hard enough w/o the grace participating in the sacrament will give."

From then on I was pegged the "class zealot". 

LOL.  How dare you see things as they are.
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
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2009, 04:20:31 AM »

If a Roman Catholic has not participated in the Sacraments (namely Confession and Communion) for one full year the Church considers that individual a 'lapsed' Catholic and excommunication takes place ipso facto. As I understand it in the OCA this excommunication takes place in the Orthodox Church of America after 3 weeks.

No, it doesn't, although God may consider this to be the case.  Wink   But that's not for me to say.   I think you are referring to a widely accepted belief in the early Church that assumed that if someone had not been to communion for over 3 weeks (with no extenuating circumstances explaining this absence from the chalice) then they had left the Church.  I believe there were also canons similar to, though not identical to this belief in force at various times, though I do not have the references handy.

My Parish Priest just told me this last week...

You're "excommunicated" after three weeks, but it doesn't mean you're not welcome in the Church. You just have to go to confession before you go to communion again.

No biggie. :-)

And it should be said that if it's three weeks without a good reason. I mean if you're trapped in a jungle in the Amazon, you might get a pass. ;-)

All of this should be discussed between the communicant and their Spiritual Father.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Jonny
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


Presently in the Roman Catholic Communion


« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2009, 08:11:37 AM »



You're "excommunicated" after three weeks, but it doesn't mean you're not welcome in the Church. You just have to go to confession before you go to communion again.

No biggie. :-)

And it should be said that if it's three weeks without a good reason. I mean if you're trapped in a jungle in the Amazon, you might get a pass. ;-)

All of this should be discussed between the communicant and their Spiritual Father.

Then I guess I'm the worlds most commonly excommunicated Catholic! Not only do I deny Church dogma, which renders me anathema, but I also only receive communion after confession and that is never ever as regular as every three weeks.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2009, 10:31:16 AM »

Then I guess I'm the worlds most commonly excommunicated Catholic! Not only do I deny Church dogma, which renders me anathema, but I also only receive communion after confession and that is never ever as regular as every three weeks.

No, not really. If you recall I stated that in Roman Catholicism one has to abstain from communion for an entire Liturgical Year before they could consider themselves in a severed relationship with the Roman Church. It's within the OCA that one could consider themselves severed after 3 weeks.

Personally I don't take pride in disobedience even if it is something which my conscience dictates as may well be the case with you. For me it's been very important to enter into Holy Orthodoxy and not my dislike or denial of the Western Church but I have to admit it is difficult the temper my zeal when I dwell on all the thing I might find lacking in the some of the Roman Catholic Parishes that I have attended.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
VirSpeluncaeOrthodoxae
Da Orthodox Caveman! aka "Cavey"
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch...for now
Posts: 102



« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2009, 11:45:04 AM »

Custom. Unfortunately, for many Catholics their Faith is simply Cultural Identity and nothing more. My daughter is in CCD but I have been taking her to Great Vespers at the local Orthodox Parish since the summer. We're still working out our conversion to Orthodoxy. It is challenging and difficult because my daughter is like you when you were a little girl except she is already going to CCD on Wednesdays and her father is messing everything up by all this talk about Orthodoxy.  Undecided

And sadly the same criticism can be laid on many Orthodox. In fact the problem may be compounded in Eastern Orthodoxy by the fact that many Churches are nationally/ethnically categorized.

You can say that again!
Logged

Medieval, backwards, rigid, narrow-minded Traditionalist, Western Rite lover and proud of it! Make my day.
marlo
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #25 on: January 29, 2009, 04:51:14 PM »

You are currently Protestant, and maybe in a state of excommunication in the RCC.
Your baptism is still RCC and might be considered valid by some EO bishops, some might say its not, it really depends on the EO bishop. But your protestant baptism is not valid. When you become EO you will be called schismatic (as per RCC of course). Before you became protestant you are fully or truly catholic until your separation.


This might seem like a bizarre question, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

I was baptized as an infant in the RCC, and I also received my first communion (and many thereafter), as well as my first and only confession.  I never underwent confirmation, because at that point I had left the church.

At age 15 I received a "believer's baptism" in the Southern Baptist Church, and spent several years in other interdenominational groups, as well as several years in an Emergent Church.

Now I am a catechumen within the Serbian Orthodox Church, but this evening I began to wonder what my status is with the RCC, having never been confirmed.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  It seems to me that I am somehow not "fully Catholic" because I have not received the Sacrament of Chrismation within the RCC, but I really do not know.  Not that it really matters now that I have found the truth in Holy Orthodoxy, but I am somewhat curious.
Logged
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #26 on: January 29, 2009, 06:39:02 PM »



You're "excommunicated" after three weeks, but it doesn't mean you're not welcome in the Church. You just have to go to confession before you go to communion again.

No biggie. :-)

And it should be said that if it's three weeks without a good reason. I mean if you're trapped in a jungle in the Amazon, you might get a pass. ;-)

All of this should be discussed between the communicant and their Spiritual Father.

Then I guess I'm the worlds most commonly excommunicated Catholic! Not only do I deny Church dogma, which renders me anathema, but I also only receive communion after confession and that is never ever as regular as every three weeks.

I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. My statements about "excommunication" were in regards to the Orthodox Church. Also, it's not excommunication after three weeks without receiving Holy Communion; it's three weeks without being a Divine Liturgy for a good reason.

All of this, of course, should be discussed with one's Spiritual Father.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,198


WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2009, 06:49:39 PM »

Alveus, when you are received into Orthodoxy, your past status is rendered moot for you become a new man with a new heart in Christ.  No more need to sign anything, pledge anything, swear anything or account for anything.   Grin

Meanwhile, try not to distract yourself with anything not related to your present state as a Cathecumen.   Smiley
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2011, 12:16:08 PM »

But be clear that this has little to do with your 'status' per se in the Catholic Church. If a Roman Catholic has not participated in the Sacraments (namely Confession and Communion) for one full year the Church considers that individual a 'lapsed' Catholic and excommunication takes place ipso facto.

You're "excommunicated" after three weeks, but it doesn't mean you're not welcome in the Church. You just have to go to confession before you go to communion again.

No biggie. :-)

And it should be said that if it's three weeks without a good reason. I mean if you're trapped in a jungle in the Amazon, you might get a pass. ;-)

All of this should be discussed between the communicant and their Spiritual Father.

Technically a Roman Catholic is "excommunicated" for not fulfilling what we call in English the "Easter Duty" of confession and communion at least once a year.  Interestingly, the "Easter Duty" can be fulfilled anywhere from the 1st Sunday of Lent to Pentecost Sunday according to the American bishops. 

A confession to any parish priest can lift this excommunication, as it is a relatively minor offense.  Heck, I attended an Anglo-Catholic parish for half a year, received communion there a few times (an excommunication), and was lifted from all penalties just through regular confession.  There are very few excommunications that must be unbound by a bishop or even Rome.  Even the private procurement or assistance in an abortion, which is an extremely grave matter, can be absolved within a regular confession in many dioceses.  Absolution of public endorser of abortion, or a medical professional with a public reputation as an abortionist or abortion nurse, might be reserved for a bishop.  Even then, the usual protocol is for the penitent to go to a parish priest and confess.  The parish priest does not immediately grant absolution, but petitions the bishop anonymously for the jurisdiction to absolve.  If the bishop answers in the affirmative, the priest can then absolve the penitent.   

Logged
Shiranui117
Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: ACROD/OCA
Posts: 150


PUDDI PUDDI!


« Reply #29 on: March 24, 2011, 01:00:04 PM »

I've read through this and understand the considerations for one who was baptized Roman Catholic, but what about someone like me who converted and was only confirmed? How would I be considered if I left for Holy Orthodoxy? Is it the same deal?
Logged
Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2011, 01:17:57 PM »

You are currently Protestant, and maybe in a state of excommunication in the RCC.
Your baptism is still RCC and might be considered valid by some EO bishops, some might say its not, it really depends on the EO bishop. But your protestant baptism is not valid. When you become EO you will be called schismatic (as per RCC of course). Before you became protestant you are fully or truly catholic until your separation.


This might seem like a bizarre question, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

I was baptized as an infant in the RCC, and I also received my first communion (and many thereafter), as well as my first and only confession.  I never underwent confirmation, because at that point I had left the church.

At age 15 I received a "believer's baptism" in the Southern Baptist Church, and spent several years in other interdenominational groups, as well as several years in an Emergent Church.

Now I am a catechumen within the Serbian Orthodox Church, but this evening I began to wonder what my status is with the RCC, having never been confirmed.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  It seems to me that I am somehow not "fully Catholic" because I have not received the Sacrament of Chrismation within the RCC, but I really do not know.  Not that it really matters now that I have found the truth in Holy Orthodoxy, but I am somewhat curious.

I thought when I left the RCC for Orthodoxy, I was according to the Catholic Church an apostate and not a schismatic.
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,565


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2011, 04:24:02 PM »

You are currently Protestant, and maybe in a state of excommunication in the RCC.
Your baptism is still RCC and might be considered valid by some EO bishops, some might say its not, it really depends on the EO bishop. But your protestant baptism is not valid. When you become EO you will be called schismatic (as per RCC of course). Before you became protestant you are fully or truly catholic until your separation.


This might seem like a bizarre question, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

I was baptized as an infant in the RCC, and I also received my first communion (and many thereafter), as well as my first and only confession.  I never underwent confirmation, because at that point I had left the church.

At age 15 I received a "believer's baptism" in the Southern Baptist Church, and spent several years in other interdenominational groups, as well as several years in an Emergent Church.

Now I am a catechumen within the Serbian Orthodox Church, but this evening I began to wonder what my status is with the RCC, having never been confirmed.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  It seems to me that I am somehow not "fully Catholic" because I have not received the Sacrament of Chrismation within the RCC, but I really do not know.  Not that it really matters now that I have found the truth in Holy Orthodoxy, but I am somewhat curious.

I thought when I left the RCC for Orthodoxy, I was according to the Catholic Church an apostate and not a schismatic.

I recall that when the generation of people who led the opposition to Latinizations left the Byzantine Greek Catholic Church were still around they were called 'schismatics' by their former brethren. I never heard us referred to as 'apostates.'
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #32 on: March 25, 2011, 10:46:32 AM »

I thought when I left the RCC for Orthodoxy, I was according to the Catholic Church an apostate and not a schismatic.

I think you're projecting. There are certainly some Orthodox who apply the term "apostates" to those who convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, but I've never heard Catholics apply the term to those who convert from Catholicism to Orthodoxy. Not even on catholic.com.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2011, 10:56:05 AM »

These days there is an increasing practice to have Confirmation come before first Communion---which is the traditional practice, even in the West (actually, the permission to change the order came only in 1932!).

I'm glad you mentioned that. I knew the change happened some time after Quam singulari (1910) and some time before VCII, but I had wondered when exactly it was.

(Yes, I realize I'm responding to a 2-year-old post.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2011, 11:54:26 AM »

These days there is an increasing practice to have Confirmation come before first Communion---which is the traditional practice, even in the West (actually, the permission to change the order came only in 1932!).

I'm glad you mentioned that. I knew the change happened some time after Quam singulari (1910) and some time before VCII, but I had wondered when exactly it was.

(Yes, I realize I'm responding to a 2-year-old post.)

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

On another note...
Why did the Roman Rite change the order of the sacraments, was there a particular reason?
Logged

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2011, 01:24:20 PM »

These days there is an increasing practice to have Confirmation come before first Communion---which is the traditional practice, even in the West (actually, the permission to change the order came only in 1932!).

I'm glad you mentioned that. I knew the change happened some time after Quam singulari (1910) and some time before VCII, but I had wondered when exactly it was.

(Yes, I realize I'm responding to a 2-year-old post.)

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

On another note...
Why did the Roman Rite change the order of the sacraments, was there a particular reason?

There are two excellent historical-theological surveys done concerning the sacraments of initiation by Father Aidan Kavanagh back in the 1970's.  They are 1) The shape of baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation and 2) Confirmation: Origins and Reform. 

I know it is mean to just point to books, however they are available at amazon.com and they are both excellent and go well beyond any one or two sentence reply that I could offer to you here.  I know you tend to be a thoughtful person so I am hoping you get hold of these two texts and read them.

Mary
Logged

Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 25, 2011, 01:45:29 PM »

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

AFAIK according to the  Vatican teachings all EO baptised as infants used to be Orthodox because we were "validly baptised". We "abandoned" the Vatican intentionally renouncing it's teachings.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #37 on: March 25, 2011, 02:50:47 PM »

These days there is an increasing practice to have Confirmation come before first Communion---which is the traditional practice, even in the West (actually, the permission to change the order came only in 1932!).

I'm glad you mentioned that. I knew the change happened some time after Quam singulari (1910) and some time before VCII, but I had wondered when exactly it was.

(Yes, I realize I'm responding to a 2-year-old post.)

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

On another note...
Why did the Roman Rite change the order of the sacraments, was there a particular reason?

There are two excellent historical-theological surveys done concerning the sacraments of initiation by Father Aidan Kavanagh back in the 1970's.  They are 1) The shape of baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation and 2) Confirmation: Origins and Reform. 

I know it is mean to just point to books, however they are available at amazon.com and they are both excellent and go well beyond any one or two sentence reply that I could offer to you here.  I know you tend to be a thoughtful person so I am hoping you get hold of these two texts and read them.

Mary

Thank you. I don't know if I will have the time to order and read those books, but I do know that it can sometimes (oftentimes) be hard to summarize things into a couple of quick sentences. Thanks for the direction.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 25, 2011, 03:13:50 PM »

These days there is an increasing practice to have Confirmation come before first Communion---which is the traditional practice, even in the West (actually, the permission to change the order came only in 1932!).

I'm glad you mentioned that. I knew the change happened some time after Quam singulari (1910) and some time before VCII, but I had wondered when exactly it was.

(Yes, I realize I'm responding to a 2-year-old post.)

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

On another note...
Why did the Roman Rite change the order of the sacraments, was there a particular reason?

There are two excellent historical-theological surveys done concerning the sacraments of initiation by Father Aidan Kavanagh back in the 1970's.  They are 1) The shape of baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation and 2) Confirmation: Origins and Reform. 

I know it is mean to just point to books, however they are available at amazon.com and they are both excellent and go well beyond any one or two sentence reply that I could offer to you here.  I know you tend to be a thoughtful person so I am hoping you get hold of these two texts and read them.

Mary

Thank you. I don't know if I will have the time to order and read those books, but I do know that it can sometimes (oftentimes) be hard to summarize things into a couple of quick sentences. Thanks for the direction.

When I have the time to write something serious in more than five sentences I will do so here and call your attention to it if you don't catch it right off.  I do not want to put out something that I have to revise...It would be mangled before I could get back to fix what I'd done.  Your patience is appreciated.  If you do decide to look at Father Aidan's work, go with the one on Confirmation.  It is briefer and will answer your question and then some.
Logged

Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #39 on: March 25, 2011, 03:22:49 PM »

I do not want to put out something that I have to revise...It would be mangled before I could get back to fix what I'd done.

If I was to hold myself to your standard, I would never get anything done....  maybe surely I hold myself to a lower standard.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #40 on: March 25, 2011, 05:38:19 PM »

These days there is an increasing practice to have Confirmation come before first Communion---which is the traditional practice, even in the West (actually, the permission to change the order came only in 1932!).

I'm glad you mentioned that. I knew the change happened some time after Quam singulari (1910) and some time before VCII, but I had wondered when exactly it was.

(Yes, I realize I'm responding to a 2-year-old post.)

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

On another note...
Why did the Roman Rite change the order of the sacraments, was there a particular reason?

There are two excellent historical-theological surveys done concerning the sacraments of initiation by Father Aidan Kavanagh back in the 1970's.  They are 1) The shape of baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation and 2) Confirmation: Origins and Reform. 

I know it is mean to just point to books, however they are available at amazon.com and they are both excellent and go well beyond any one or two sentence reply that I could offer to you here.  I know you tend to be a thoughtful person so I am hoping you get hold of these two texts and read them.

Mary

Thank you. I don't know if I will have the time to order and read those books, but I do know that it can sometimes (oftentimes) be hard to summarize things into a couple of quick sentences. Thanks for the direction.

You might also consider starting a thread on that topic.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #41 on: March 25, 2011, 05:43:34 PM »

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

AFAIK according to the  Vatican teachings all EO baptised as infants used to be Orthodox because we were "validly baptised". We "abandoned" the Vatican intentionally renouncing it's teachings.

I have one question for both of you: can you provide a reference?

If not, then I'm inclined to think that these are just hearsay.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #42 on: March 25, 2011, 06:20:36 PM »

I thought when I left the RCC for Orthodoxy, I was according to the Catholic Church an apostate and not a schismatic.

An apostate is one who denies Chrsit, a Schismatic is one who leaves the Church from teh view of the Catholic Church.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 25, 2011, 06:47:46 PM »

I thought when I left the RCC for Orthodoxy, I was according to the Catholic Church an apostate and not a schismatic.

An apostate is one who denies Chrsit, a Schismatic is one who leaves the Church from teh view of the Catholic Church.

Dear Father Deacon,

I believe you are correct in this.  I do think, in addition,  that there is a secondary understanding of apostasy as a rejection of the faith of your baptism, so there would have been a time in the breakdown of relationships between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, where some Catholics would have insisted that a Roman rite person leaving the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy would have been apostate according to that secondary meaning.  But I don't think that position can be defended, at least since the Second Vatican Council, and most likely even a bit earlier.

M.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #44 on: March 25, 2011, 06:59:01 PM »

Why would you care how the Roman Catholic Church views you if you believe it is wrong and Eastern Orthodoxy is correct? That would be like me wondering what the LDS church thinks the state of my soul is....don't care.
Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,234



« Reply #45 on: March 25, 2011, 07:05:13 PM »

Why would you care how the Roman Catholic Church views you if you believe it is wrong and Eastern Orthodoxy is correct? That would be like me wondering what the LDS church thinks the state of my soul is....don't care.

It's important to know such things.
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #46 on: March 25, 2011, 07:16:17 PM »

Why would you care how the Roman Catholic Church views you if you believe it is wrong and Eastern Orthodoxy is correct? That would be like me wondering what the LDS church thinks the state of my soul is....don't care.

I'm sure some ex-Catholics would agree with that sentiment, but I don't know why you'd expect all of them to (much less why you'd expect all Orthodox to).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #47 on: March 25, 2011, 08:17:48 PM »

Why would you care how the Roman Catholic Church views you if you believe it is wrong and Eastern Orthodoxy is correct? That would be like me wondering what the LDS church thinks the state of my soul is....don't care.

It's important to know such things.
Really? Why? Why would you care what a group that you believe to be heretical thinks about you?
Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,234



« Reply #48 on: March 25, 2011, 08:35:42 PM »

Why would you care how the Roman Catholic Church views you if you believe it is wrong and Eastern Orthodoxy is correct? That would be like me wondering what the LDS church thinks the state of my soul is....don't care.

It's important to know such things.
Really? Why? Why would you care what a group that you believe to be heretical thinks about you?

Oh I think we're all heretical... so... um... anyway, nevermind my last post Smiley
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #49 on: March 26, 2011, 08:10:31 AM »

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

AFAIK according to the  Vatican teachings all EO baptised as infants used to be Orthodox because we were "validly baptised". We "abandoned" the Vatican intentionally renouncing it's teachings.

I have one question for both of you: can you provide a reference?

If not, then I'm inclined to think that these are just hearsay.

Do you speak Polish?
http://www.piusx.org.pl/zawsze_wierni/artykul/262
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #50 on: March 26, 2011, 08:33:46 AM »

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

AFAIK according to the  Vatican teachings all EO baptised as infants used to be Orthodox because we were "validly baptised". We "abandoned" the Vatican intentionally renouncing it's teachings.

I have one question for both of you: can you provide a reference?

If not, then I'm inclined to think that these are just hearsay.

Do you speak Polish?
http://www.piusx.org.pl/zawsze_wierni/artykul/262

You provided a website of the SSPX which has no standing in the Catholic Church.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #51 on: March 26, 2011, 08:37:11 AM »

You provided a website of the SSPX which has no standing in the Catholic Church.

And that's your opinion. Other Catholic Priests say otherwise. That proves that the valid-illicit thing is a nonsense.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #52 on: March 26, 2011, 09:07:00 AM »

No, that is the official ruling of the Catholic Church.  The excommuniations of their bishops have been lifted the status of SSPX remains unresolved.

CONGREGATION FOR BISHOPS
DECREE REMITTING THE EXCOMMUNICATION "LATAE SENTENTIAE" OF THE BISHOPS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X

In a letter of 15 December 2008 addressed to Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", Mons. Bernard Fellay writing also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on 30 June 1988 requested once again the removal of the excommunication latae sententiae formally declared by a Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation for Bishops on 1 July 1988. In his letter, Mons. Fellay stated, among other things, that "we continue firmly resolute in our desire to remain Catholics and to put all our strength at the service of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept her teachings in a filial spirit. We firmly believe in the primacy of Peter and in his prerogatives, and for this reason the current situation causes us much suffering".

His Holiness Benedict XVI in his paternal concern for the spiritual distress which the parties concerned have voiced as a result of the excommunication, and trusting in their commitment, expressed in the aforementioned letter, to spare no effort in exploring as yet unresolved questions through requisite discussions with the authorities of the Holy See in order to reach a prompt, full and satisfactory solution to the original problem has decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, resulting from their episcopal consecration.

This act signifies a desire to strengthen reciprocal relations of trust, and to deepen and stabilize the relationship of the Society of St Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, coming at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also meant to be a sign which promotes the Universal Church's unity in charity, and removes the scandal of division.

It is hoped that this step will be followed by the prompt attainment of full communion with the Church on the part of the whole Society of St Pius X, which will thus bear witness to its genuine fidelity and genuine recognition of the Magisterium and authority of the Pope by the proof of visible unity.


On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on 1 July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect.

Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, 21 January 2009

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re
Prefect



Link provided: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Thank you.

- PeterTheAleut

« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 12:44:27 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #53 on: March 26, 2011, 09:13:08 AM »

"full communion", not  just "communion". It means that "partial communion" exists alreaddy.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #54 on: March 26, 2011, 09:31:20 AM »

It also means the SSPX does not speak for the Catholic Church as they are not in full communion with it.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #55 on: March 26, 2011, 11:45:39 AM »

You provided a website of the SSPX which has no standing in the Catholic Church.

And that's your opinion. Other Catholic Priests say otherwise. That proves that the valid-illicit thing is a nonsense.
Their Sacraments and Orders are valid, but they have no teaching capacity within the Catholic Church.
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #56 on: March 26, 2011, 12:57:11 PM »

So SSPX sacraments are Catholic despite SSPX is not Catholic.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 12:57:26 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #57 on: March 26, 2011, 01:40:09 PM »

My understanding (which may be incorrect) is, from a Roman POV, that if someone was never Catholic and was Orthodox, they were considered schismatic because they never left communion with the Pope, but if they were Catholic and converted to Orthodoxy, then they were considered apostate because they willfully seperated themselves from communion with the Pope. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

AFAIK according to the  Vatican teachings all EO baptised as infants used to be Orthodox because we were "validly baptised". We "abandoned" the Vatican intentionally renouncing it's teachings.

I have one question for both of you: can you provide a reference?

If not, then I'm inclined to think that these are just hearsay.

Do you speak Polish?
http://www.piusx.org.pl/zawsze_wierni/artykul/262

Does being able to sing Sto Lat count?  Smiley

But seriously, I didn't mean a reference to something somebody in the SSPX has said.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #58 on: March 26, 2011, 01:41:52 PM »

It also means the SSPX does not speak for the Catholic Church as they are not in full communion with it.

And even if they were in full communion with the RCC, that wouldn't give them the right to speak for her.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #59 on: March 26, 2011, 03:06:06 PM »

So SSPX sacraments are Catholic despite SSPX is not Catholic.

I think we might say that the Catholic Church recognizes grace in the sacraments of the SSPX.  She also recognizes grace in the sacraments of Orthodoxy...That does not mean that the Catholic Church would authorize either an Orthodox Church or the SSPX to teach Catholic doctrine.
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #60 on: March 26, 2011, 03:09:12 PM »

So SSPX sacraments are Catholic despite SSPX is not Catholic.

Sort of.

The episcopal consecrations and priestly ordinations are valid, but without the political sanction of Rome.
The Mass is "valid but illicit" (It's a "real Mass" with sacramental grace, but does does not fulfill "Sunday obligation")
The status of their confessions and marriages are questionable.  The sacraments offer grace, but the SSPX does not have the political jurisdiction to offer these sacraments.  This might be a problem if a couple marries at an SSPX Nuptial Mass but later seeks an annulment from a Roman Catholic diocese.
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #61 on: March 26, 2011, 03:34:18 PM »

So it proofs that all groups that have 'valid sacraments' make people Catholic until their reject it according to the Catholic Church.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #62 on: March 26, 2011, 03:49:13 PM »

So it proofs that all groups that have 'valid sacraments' make people Catholic until their reject it according to the Catholic Church.

It proofs no such thing.  What it proofs is that the Catholic Church recognizes the catholicity of both the SSPX and canonical Orthodox Churches.  That is quite a different statement to the one you've made.
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #63 on: March 26, 2011, 03:59:44 PM »

So it proofs that all groups that have 'valid sacraments' make people Catholic until their reject it according to the Catholic Church.

Rome believes that the canonical Orthodox synods and their priests are the Church of Christ, with full apostolic jurisdiction.  Rome views apostolicity and political jurisdiction as two separate phenomena.  Rome does not (after Vatican II, at least) consider herself to have political jurisdiction over the Orthodox Churches.  In the modern RC conception, a Christian can be an apostolic member of Christ's Church and not be under the Pontiff's control.  An Orthodox person does not need to accept papal political control to call themselves an apostolic Christian.  However, Rome does have political control of all her lay faithful and clergy.    

If I were in deepest Russia and there were no Roman Catholic church for me to go to, Rome would consider my participation in the Orthodox liturgies as participation in the corporate worship of the Church.  Rome would not mind me receiving Holy Communion at a Russian Divine Liturgy or going to confession with a Russian priest.  Moscow forbids this, but Rome approves of this under limited circumstances.  

    
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #64 on: March 26, 2011, 04:14:24 PM »

So it proofs that all groups that have 'valid sacraments' make people Catholic until their reject it according to the Catholic Church.

Rome believes that the canonical Orthodox synods and their priests are the Church of Christ, with full apostolic jurisdiction.  Rome views apostolicity and political jurisdiction as two separate phenomena.  Rome does not (after Vatican II, at least) consider herself to have political jurisdiction over the Orthodox Churches.  In the modern RC conception, a Christian can be an apostolic member of Christ's Church and not be under the Pontiff's control.  An Orthodox person does not need to accept papal political control to call themselves an apostolic Christian.  However, Rome does have political control of all her lay faithful and clergy.    

If I were in deepest Russia and there were no Roman Catholic church for me to go to, Rome would consider my participation in the Orthodox liturgies as participation in the corporate worship of the Church.  Rome would not mind me receiving Holy Communion at a Russian Divine Liturgy or going to confession with a Russian priest.  Moscow forbids this, but Rome approves of this under limited circumstances.  

    

Can you direct me to formal documents of the Church which refer to her "political" jurisdiction?
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #65 on: March 26, 2011, 05:46:08 PM »

So it proofs that all groups that have 'valid sacraments' make people Catholic until their reject it according to the Catholic Church.

Rome believes that the canonical Orthodox synods and their priests are the Church of Christ, with full apostolic jurisdiction.  Rome views apostolicity and political jurisdiction as two separate phenomena.  Rome does not (after Vatican II, at least) consider herself to have political jurisdiction over the Orthodox Churches.  In the modern RC conception, a Christian can be an apostolic member of Christ's Church and not be under the Pontiff's control.  An Orthodox person does not need to accept papal political control to call themselves an apostolic Christian.  However, Rome does have political control of all her lay faithful and clergy.    

If I were in deepest Russia and there were no Roman Catholic church for me to go to, Rome would consider my participation in the Orthodox liturgies as participation in the corporate worship of the Church.  Rome would not mind me receiving Holy Communion at a Russian Divine Liturgy or going to confession with a Russian priest.  Moscow forbids this, but Rome approves of this under limited circumstances.  

    

Can you direct me to formal documents of the Church which refer to her "political" jurisdiction?

jordanz, I'm not sure what you mean by "political jurisdiction" and "political control". I don't I've even heard of those terms before. What I do know that the Pope's jurisdiction is universal -- see Unam Sanctum or Pastor aeternus.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #66 on: March 26, 2011, 05:48:25 PM »

So it proofs that all groups that have 'valid sacraments' make people Catholic until their reject it according to the Catholic Church.

The wilder your statements become, the more inclined I am to just ignore them.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #67 on: March 26, 2011, 05:55:29 PM »

Members of your Church organisation said here that your Church organisation considers baptisms outside it valid what means that that those baptism outside your Church organisation make people members of your Church organisation.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #68 on: March 26, 2011, 05:58:33 PM »

Members of your Church organisation said here that your Church organisation considers baptisms outside it valid what means that that those baptism outside your Church organisation make people members of your Church organisation.

The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ.  It is not a Church organization.  Are you baiting the Catholics here?  What is the purpose of doing that during the Lenten fast?  Is that good for your soul? 
Logged

Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #69 on: March 26, 2011, 06:02:40 PM »

Members of your Church organisation said here that your Church organisation considers baptisms outside it valid what means that that those baptism outside your Church organisation make people members of your Church organisation.

The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ.  It is not a Church organization.  Are you baiting the Catholics here?  What is the purpose of doing that during the Lenten fast?  Is that good for your soul? 

And your purpose on an Orthodox message board?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #70 on: March 26, 2011, 06:10:41 PM »

Members of your Church organisation said here that your Church organisation considers baptisms outside it valid what means that that those baptism outside your Church organisation make people members of your Church organisation.

The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ.  It is not a Church organization.  Are you baiting the Catholics here?  What is the purpose of doing that during the Lenten fast?  Is that good for your soul? 

And your purpose on an Orthodox message board?

To interact with Orthodox believers, in a way that is spiritually healthy.  To correct the many errors that are prevalent among Orthodox believers concerning the teachings of the Catholic Church, as the opportunity arises.  To make contact with those Orthodox believers who are interested and open to a resumption of communion.  To share the liturgical cycle with those who pray as I do liturgically.
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #71 on: March 26, 2011, 06:15:13 PM »

Can you direct me to formal documents of the Church which refer to her "political" jurisdiction?

jordanz, I'm not sure what you mean by "political jurisdiction" and "political control". I don't I've even heard of those terms before. What I do know that the Pope's jurisdiction is universal -- see Unam Sanctum or Pastor aeternus.

The both of you are right.  I am making up terms.  I should've taken Steven Morrissey's advice: "Don't plagiarize or take on loan / there will always be someone somewhere / with a big nose who knows / who'll trip you up and laugh when you fall." (The Smiths, Cemetry Gates)

What I am trying to get at is this: Rome no longer cares to exercise political power over the Orthodox.  Yes, she claims jurisdiction according to Unam Sanctam or Pastor Aeternus, but her tact post-Vatican II is more ecumenical and less politically assertive or aggressive.

See, for example,

The CDF's NOTE ON THE EXPRESSION «SISTER CHURCHES» (2000)

which references Ut Unum Sint 56 and 60.

The Vatican is certainly no longer asserting that she has full temporal control over the Orthodox.  Rather, the "two lung" or complementary strategy is now in vogue.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #72 on: March 26, 2011, 06:24:18 PM »

Can you direct me to formal documents of the Church which refer to her "political" jurisdiction?

jordanz, I'm not sure what you mean by "political jurisdiction" and "political control". I don't I've even heard of those terms before. What I do know that the Pope's jurisdiction is universal -- see Unam Sanctum or Pastor aeternus.

The both of you are right.  I am making up terms.  I should've taken Steven Morrissey's advice: "Don't plagiarize or take on loan / there will always be someone somewhere / with a big nose who knows / who'll trip you up and laugh when you fall." (The Smiths, Cemetry Gates)

What I am trying to get at is this: Rome no longer cares to exercise political power over the Orthodox.  Yes, she claims jurisdiction according to Unam Sanctam or Pastor Aeternus, but her tact post-Vatican II is more ecumenical and less politically assertive or aggressive.

See, for example,

The CDF's NOTE ON THE EXPRESSION «SISTER CHURCHES» (2000)

which references Ut Unum Sint 56 and 60.

The Vatican is certainly no longer asserting that she has full temporal control over the Orthodox.  Rather, the "two lung" or complementary strategy is now in vogue.


Where did you learn your ecclesiology?  I am not being funny or mean.  I am just a bit startled to hear a Catholic speak as you are.  I would expect it from Orthodox correspondents but...

In any event the authority exercised by the Catholic Church is not political.  The Church may engage the political realm but her authority is always spiritual. 

You really do damage by speaking the way that you do, at least there is great potential for it.  I am sorry but I see no reason to admonish Orthodox believers in their "assessments" of the Catholic Church, so I might as well tell you as I see it as well.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #73 on: March 26, 2011, 06:33:29 PM »

Can you direct me to formal documents of the Church which refer to her "political" jurisdiction?

jordanz, I'm not sure what you mean by "political jurisdiction" and "political control". I don't I've even heard of those terms before. What I do know that the Pope's jurisdiction is universal -- see Unam Sanctum or Pastor aeternus.

The both of you are right.  I am making up terms.  I should've taken Steven Morrissey's advice: "Don't plagiarize or take on loan / there will always be someone somewhere / with a big nose who knows / who'll trip you up and laugh when you fall." (The Smiths, Cemetry Gates)

What I am trying to get at is this: Rome no longer cares to exercise political power over the Orthodox.  Yes, she claims jurisdiction according to Unam Sanctam or Pastor Aeternus, but her tact post-Vatican II is more ecumenical and less politically assertive or aggressive.

See, for example,

The CDF's NOTE ON THE EXPRESSION «SISTER CHURCHES» (2000)

which references Ut Unum Sint 56 and 60.

The Vatican is certainly no longer asserting that she has full temporal control over the Orthodox.  Rather, the "two lung" or complementary strategy is now in vogue.


Alright, I think I get what you mean now.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #74 on: March 26, 2011, 06:38:19 PM »

Members of your Church organisation said here that your Church organisation considers baptisms outside it valid what means that that those baptism outside your Church organisation make people members of your Church organisation.

Yes, we do recognize validly-baptized non-Catholics as Christians. However, they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, so it doesn't make any sense to say that they are 'Catholic from the time they are baptized until they reject the Catholic Church' if they were baptized in a non-Catholic church or denomination.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #75 on: March 26, 2011, 06:41:55 PM »

So there are different kinds of valid baptisms? One valid baptism makes a Roman Catholic and the second one makes you a Lutheran? Which Baptism are validder and less valid?

According to the Orthodox Church valid  baptism makes a valid Christian and the Church member. You say that according to the Catholic Church valid baptism does not make a Church member. So what does?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 06:44:37 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #76 on: March 26, 2011, 06:48:42 PM »

Where did you learn your ecclesiology?  I am not being funny or mean.  I am just a bit startled to hear a Catholic speak as you are.  I would expect it from Orthodox correspondents but...

In any event the authority exercised by the Catholic Church is not political.  The Church may engage the political realm but her authority is always spiritual.

Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ, of which the Pontifex is vicar and the See of Peter the visible heir, is foremost a spiritual entity.  Still, the Holy See, which subsists in Christ's Church, has exercised great temporal powers for most of its existence.  Popes have held significant land-holdings, waged wars, excommunicated for political reasons and not for the care of souls (Elizabeth I of England, for example); and held the appointments and trappings of a regal court.  The papacy did not truly lose the Papal States and its major landholdings until the Risorgimento.  It was not until 1965 and Pope Paul VI's symbolic "abdication" of the tiara, that the age of popes as Italian princes formally ended.  Not surprisingly, Pope Paul's reconciliation with Ecumenical Patriarch Anaxagoras in 1967 came shortly after his renunciation of temporal power.

I do not think that ecumenical relations with the Orthodox could take place without Pope Paul's symbolic renunciation of papal temporal holdings.  The modern papacy's desire to style itself solely as a spiritual see has made discussions with the East all the more possible.  The renunciation of the tiara has moved Rome one step closer towards the sole role as a spiritual patriarchy.   
 
You really do damage by speaking the way that you do, at least there is great potential for it.  I am sorry but I see no reason to admonish Orthodox believers in their "assessments" of the Catholic Church, so I might as well tell you as I see it as well.

I might be wrong in my views.  Nevertheless, history has shown the destructive potentials when popes have placed their princely interests before the good of Christians.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 06:49:40 PM by jordanz » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #77 on: March 26, 2011, 07:00:30 PM »

Where did you learn your ecclesiology?  I am not being funny or mean.  I am just a bit startled to hear a Catholic speak as you are.  I would expect it from Orthodox correspondents but...

In any event the authority exercised by the Catholic Church is not political.  The Church may engage the political realm but her authority is always spiritual.

Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ, of which the Pontifex is vicar and the See of Peter the visible heir, is foremost a spiritual entity.  Still, the Holy See, which subsists in Christ's Church, has exercised great temporal powers for most of its existence.  Popes have held significant land-holdings, waged wars, excommunicated for political reasons and not for the care of souls (Elizabeth I of England, for example); and held the appointments and trappings of a regal court.  The papacy did not truly lose the Papal States and its major landholdings until the Risorgimento.  It was not until 1965 and Pope Paul VI's symbolic "abdication" of the tiara, that the age of popes as Italian princes formally ended.  Not surprisingly, Pope Paul's reconciliation with Ecumenical Patriarch Anaxagoras in 1967 came shortly after his renunciation of temporal power.

I do not think that ecumenical relations with the Orthodox could take place without Pope Paul's symbolic renunciation of papal temporal holdings.  The modern papacy's desire to style itself solely as a spiritual see has made discussions with the East all the more possible.  The renunciation of the tiara has moved Rome one step closer towards the sole role as a spiritual patriarchy.   
 
You really do damage by speaking the way that you do, at least there is great potential for it.  I am sorry but I see no reason to admonish Orthodox believers in their "assessments" of the Catholic Church, so I might as well tell you as I see it as well.

I might be wrong in my views.  Nevertheless, history has shown the destructive potentials when popes have placed their princely interests before the good of Christians.

The popes who did indeed put their "princely" interests ahead of Christians generally show up on the list of bad popes.  I am not sure you and I would agree on who was a bad pope and who was not.  The papal tiara has been reestablished in the papacy of Benedict XVI....
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #78 on: March 26, 2011, 07:08:34 PM »

The popes who did indeed put their "princely" interests ahead of Christians generally show up on the list of bad popes.  I am not sure you and I would agree on who was a bad pope and who was not.  The papal tiara has been reestablished in the papacy of Benedict XVI....

No, Pope Benedict XVI has never worn a tiara.  In fact, he had the tiara removed from his personal coat of arms and replaced with a mitre.  The tiara has been retained on the seal of the Holy See, however.

Remember, popes never wore the tiara when celebrating liturgies.  It was always a crown used when Popes presided as princely rulers or presided in liturgical choir.  Pope-celebrants always wore either the simple or precious mitre.  

I'm glad that popes no longer proclaim themselves to be princes.  The postmodern papacy is much better off as a purely spiritual see.  This is much more in keeping with the Orthodox model post-Byzantine Empire and post Tsarist Russia.  The days of Eastern caesaropapism are long over.  I'm glad the same can be said for popes as petty princes.  
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 07:13:35 PM by jordanz » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #79 on: March 26, 2011, 07:14:10 PM »

The popes who did indeed put their "princely" interests ahead of Christians generally show up on the list of bad popes.  I am not sure you and I would agree on who was a bad pope and who was not.  The papal tiara has been reestablished in the papacy of Benedict XVI....

No, Pope Benedict XVI has never worn a tiara.  In fact, he had the tiara removed from his personal coat of arms and replaced with a mitre.  The tiara has been retained on the seal of the Holy See, however.

Remember, popes never wore the mitre when celebrating liturgies.  It was always a crown used when Popes presided as princely rulers or presided in liturgical choir.  Pope-celebrants always wore either the simple or precious mitre.  

I'm glad that popes no longer proclaim themselves to be princes.  The postmodern papacy is much better off as a purely spiritual see.  This is much more in keeping with the Orthodox model post-Byzantine Empire and post Tsarist Russia.  The days of Eastern caesaropapism are long over.  I'm glad the same can be said for popes as petty princes.  

The tiara has been renewed as a symbol of the papacy and if you think that Orthodoxy is free from all political influence then we really are on two very different paths in terms of understanding the role of any Catholic Church in the world.
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #80 on: March 26, 2011, 07:27:01 PM »

The tiara has been renewed as a symbol of the papacy and if you think that Orthodoxy is free from all political influence then we really are on two very different paths in terms of understanding the role of any Catholic Church in the world.

You are right that Orthodoxy is still not free of political influences.  The Moscow patriarchate is not exempt from exercising some political coercion as in the case of denying the Ukrainians autocephaly.  The Soviets did exert a certain type of caesaropapism over the Moscow Patriarchate.   Did the Soviets exercise caesaropapism in the same way as the Byzantine emperors, Tsars, or Ottoman sultans directly influenced the selection and actions of historical Orthodox prelates?  Does today's Russian president exercise some degree of caesaropapism over the Moscow patriarch? I'm not exactly sure if this could be said.

However, I am certain that Pope Benedict has never worn the tiara.  Here's a picture of Pope Benedict's coat of arms (courtesy vatican.va):


 
Notice that a stylized mitre has replaced the tiara.

I'd like to see a photo of Pope Benedict presiding in a tiara.  This is not meant in an adversarial way, but rather out of curiosity.   
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #81 on: March 26, 2011, 07:33:07 PM »

The tiara has been renewed as a symbol of the papacy and if you think that Orthodoxy is free from all political influence then we really are on two very different paths in terms of understanding the role of any Catholic Church in the world.

You are right that Orthodoxy is still not free of political influences.  The Moscow patriarchate is not exempt from exercising some political coercion as in the case of denying the Ukrainians autocephaly.  The Soviets did exert a certain type of caesaropapism over the Moscow Patriarchate.   Did the Soviets exercise caesaropapism in the same way as the Byzantine emperors, Tsars, or Ottoman sultans directly influenced the selection and actions of historical Orthodox prelates?  Does today's Russian president exercise some degree of caesaropapism over the Moscow patriarch? I'm not exactly sure if this could be said.

However, I am certain that Pope Benedict has never worn the tiara.  Here's a picture of Pope Benedict's coat of arms (courtesy vatican.va):


 
Notice that a stylized mitre has replaced the tiara.

I'd like to see a photo of Pope Benedict presiding in a tiara.  This is not meant in an adversarial way, but rather out of curiosity.   

I have not said that he has worn the Tiara.  What I am suggesting...strongly...is that the spiritual authority in the Catholic Church...east or west doesn't matter...is the authority of Christ over all of Creation, and we are best served never to loose sight of that truth.
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #82 on: March 26, 2011, 07:42:46 PM »

I have not said that he has worn the Tiara.  What I am suggesting...strongly...is that the spiritual authority in the Catholic Church...east or west doesn't matter...is the authority of Christ over all of Creation, and we are best served never to loose sight of that truth.

This is a nice description of Pope Benedict's coat of arms to go with my previous post.

No Catholic can doubt that the Church has lost spiritual authority.  The circumstances of the Church's worldly authority can and should change, however.  It is clear that the Vatican no longer wishes to hold government, in other words.  She is perfectly content to be the earthly presence of Christ's kingdom, and not a kingdom with a standing army.

The postmodern Catholic Church should stay the course of a reformed, spiritual Papacy even if other patriarchates meddle in the ecclesiastical affairs of other canonical eparchies, etc.  Maybe Rome can be an example to those Orthodox patriarchates that are embroiled in political disputes left over from previous autocratic regimes (i.e. the Soviet Union).  Both East and West have struggled with the apostolic Church's proper role in secular governments.  Finally there is the opportunity in this day to move beyond caesaropapism in the East and the imperial papacy in the West.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #83 on: March 26, 2011, 07:48:41 PM »

So there are different kinds of valid baptisms? One valid baptism makes a Roman Catholic and the second one makes you a Lutheran? Which Baptism are validder and less valid?

According to the Orthodox Church valid  baptism makes a valid Christian and the Church member. You say that according to the Catholic Church valid baptism does not make a Church member. So what does?

Since my last explanation doesn't seem to have helped, I guess I should try again. But first let me see if I can understand what you're saying.

Suppose an EO couple brings their baby to their local EO priest to be baptized (and chrismated of course), does it follow that the baby is now in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox? (If not, my next question is: does that mean that the baptism is invalid?)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #84 on: March 27, 2011, 06:56:16 AM »

Why Oriental Orthodox?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #85 on: March 27, 2011, 12:27:26 PM »

Suppose an EO couple brings their baby to their local EO priest to be baptized (and chrismated of course), does it follow that the baby is now in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox? (If not, my next question is: does that mean that the baptism is invalid?)

Why Oriental Orthodox?

I don't know what you mean by "Why Oriental Orthodox?" Do you mean that I, a Roman Catholic, am not permitted to ask whether the baby is in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox? Or is it more that you just don't want to answer?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #86 on: March 27, 2011, 01:21:36 PM »

So SSPX sacraments are Catholic despite SSPX is not Catholic.
The Catholic Church does not take such a black and white, saint or apostate stance like the Eastern Orthodox Church. We recognize the good in a group despite their flaws. The SSPX are is schismatic group, just as you are in our view, but that does not mean they or you lack Sacraments.
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #87 on: March 27, 2011, 03:26:41 PM »

Suppose an EO couple brings their baby to their local EO priest to be baptized (and chrismated of course), does it follow that the baby is now in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox? (If not, my next question is: does that mean that the baptism is invalid?)

Why Oriental Orthodox?

I don't know what you mean by "Why Oriental Orthodox?" Do you mean that I, a Roman Catholic, am not permitted to ask whether the baby is in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox? Or is it more that you just don't want to answer?

But why do you ask me about it? I know nothing about the Oriental Orthodox teachings.

The Catholic Church does not take such a black and white, saint or apostate stance like the Eastern Orthodox Church. We recognize the good in a group despite their flaws. The SSPX are is schismatic group, just as you are in our view, but that does not mean they or you lack Sacraments.

What sacraments? Are they different from yours?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #88 on: March 27, 2011, 03:32:50 PM »

What sacraments? Are they different from yours?
No
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #89 on: March 27, 2011, 03:35:01 PM »

So if they are the same they are Catholic sacraments. It would be illogical otherwise.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #90 on: March 27, 2011, 03:39:33 PM »

What sacraments? Are they different from yours?
No

Why are you letting him yank your chain?
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #91 on: March 27, 2011, 08:12:01 PM »

Suppose an EO couple brings their baby to their local EO priest to be baptized (and chrismated of course), does it follow that the baby is now in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox? (If not, my next question is: does that mean that the baptism is invalid?)

Why Oriental Orthodox?

I don't know what you mean by "Why Oriental Orthodox?" Do you mean that I, a Roman Catholic, am not permitted to ask whether the baby is in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox? Or is it more that you just don't want to answer?

But why do you ask me about it? I know nothing about the Oriental Orthodox teachings.

Ah. In that case, I think you're fellow Orthodox would tell you that your ignorance of certain details of RC teaching isn't your biggest problem. (On the other hand, they might also say that I'm being presumptuous in speaking for them.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #92 on: March 27, 2011, 08:29:45 PM »

So if they are the same they are Catholic sacraments. It would be illogical otherwise.
We do not tend to divide the Sacraments into subcategories. Either it is a Sacrament or it is not. Saying something is a "Catholic Sacrament" does not make sense. Lutheran "Sacraments" are not Sacraments, neither are Anglican "Sacraments." Only those groups who have maintained Apostolic Succession possess Sacraments, and that includes the SSPX and the Eastern Orthodox. Are you really having that much difficulty with the concept or are you doing as Elijahmaria says and just yanking my chain?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #93 on: March 27, 2011, 08:35:15 PM »

So if they are the same they are Catholic sacraments. It would be illogical otherwise.
We do not tend to divide the Sacraments into subcategories. Either it is a Sacrament or it is not. Saying something is a "Catholic Sacrament" does not make sense. Lutheran "Sacraments" are not Sacraments, neither are Anglican "Sacraments." Only those groups who have maintained Apostolic Succession possess Sacraments, and that includes the SSPX and the Eastern Orthodox. Are you really having that much difficulty with the concept or are you doing as Elijahmaria says and just yanking my chain?

You are a very gentle soul, Wyatt.  Happy to be keeping your company here!

M.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #94 on: March 27, 2011, 08:44:16 PM »

So if they are the same they are Catholic sacraments. It would be illogical otherwise.
We do not tend to divide the Sacraments into subcategories. Either it is a Sacrament or it is not. Saying something is a "Catholic Sacrament" does not make sense. Lutheran "Sacraments" are not Sacraments, neither are Anglican "Sacraments." Only those groups who have maintained Apostolic Succession possess Sacraments, and that includes the SSPX and the Eastern Orthodox. Are you really having that much difficulty with the concept or are you doing as Elijahmaria says and just yanking my chain?

You are a very gentle soul, Wyatt.  Happy to be keeping your company here!

M.
Thank you for the kind words.

God bless,

Wyatt
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #95 on: March 28, 2011, 09:05:00 AM »

We do not tend to divide the Sacraments into subcategories. Either it is a Sacrament or it is not. Saying something is a "Catholic Sacrament" does not make sense.

A Baptism makes a person a member of the Church. I suppose we can agree on this. If you consider our Baptisms valid they make people members of the Church. According to your teachings the Church is the ecclesiastical organisation under Pope Benedict XVI. The result is that according to your Church's teachings our sacraments make people members of your Church.

Where I am wrong?
- Are Orthodox Baptisms invalid?
- Is according to the Vatican 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church on Earth' a broader term than Catholic Communion as it also includes EOs, OOs, Nestorians, Lutherans, Old Catholics etc?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #96 on: March 28, 2011, 11:51:41 AM »

We do not tend to divide the Sacraments into subcategories. Either it is a Sacrament or it is not. Saying something is a "Catholic Sacrament" does not make sense.

A Baptism makes a person a member of the Church. I suppose we can agree on this. If you consider our Baptisms valid they make people members of the Church. According to your teachings the Church is the ecclesiastical organisation under Pope Benedict XVI. The result is that according to your Church's teachings our sacraments make people members of your Church.

Where I am wrong?
- Are Orthodox Baptisms invalid?
- Is according to the Vatican 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church on Earth' a broader term than Catholic Communion as it also includes EOs, OOs, Nestorians, Lutherans, Old Catholics etc?

I really think you should try to learn more about Orthodoxy instead of -- or at least before -- worrying so much about what Catholics believe.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #97 on: March 28, 2011, 11:58:43 AM »

But you can't simply answer me, can you?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #98 on: March 28, 2011, 12:08:29 PM »

But you can't simply answer me, can you?

Of course there is an answer.  There just is not an answer that an exclusionist is going to accept.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #99 on: March 28, 2011, 12:13:29 PM »

But you can't simply answer me, can you?
I can.

Where I am wrong?
- Are Orthodox Baptisms invalid?
No.

- Is according to the Vatican 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church on Earth' a broader term than Catholic Communion as it also includes EOs, OOs, Nestorians, Lutherans, Old Catholics etc?
We believe ourselves to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. When someone is Baptized either by pouring or immersion and with the Trinitarian formula (In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) that person is Baptized into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Period. Are they in Full Communion with the Church? No. Do they belong to the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, by being validly Baptized? Yes.
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #100 on: March 28, 2011, 12:15:53 PM »

So according to the RCC teachings one can belong to the 'One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church' despite being 'not in Full Communion' with it?
« Last Edit: March 28, 2011, 12:16:13 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #101 on: March 28, 2011, 12:25:00 PM »

So according to the RCC teachings one can belong to the 'One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church' despite being 'not in Full Communion' with it?
Yes. Despite believing we are the One True Church, we also do not believe everyone who is not in Full Communion is automatically damned and excluded from Christ's mercy.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #102 on: March 28, 2011, 05:49:23 PM »

But you can't simply answer me, can you?

You're kidding, right?

I answered you, then I asked you a question about Orthodoxy and you pleaded ignorance.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #103 on: March 28, 2011, 05:55:27 PM »

I answered you, then I asked you a question about Orthodoxy and you pleaded ignorance.

No, you didn't answered me and you asked me about Oriental Orthodoxy which I consider as close to my Church as you are.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #104 on: March 28, 2011, 06:29:10 PM »

Of course there is an answer.  There just is not an answer that an exclusionist is going to accept.
To be quite frank (since it seems like everyone on the other side is), this exclusionist, elitist view is why I am not and will never be Eastern Orthodox. If I wanted to get on my theological high horse and declare everyone else hell bound who doesn't believe exactly as I do I would have remained a holiness Protestant. Thankfully the Catholic Church takes a much less radical and much more charitable approach to those outside the visible Church. Huh...imagine that...a Church that takes a stance not unlike its master. The Pharisees loved to judge and separate themselves from the rest of the world because they were the religious elite, yet Christ hung out with all kinds of sinners.
Logged
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #105 on: March 28, 2011, 06:38:46 PM »

Of course there is an answer.  There just is not an answer that an exclusionist is going to accept.
To be quite frank (since it seems like everyone on the other side is), this exclusionist, elitist view is why I am not and will never be Eastern Orthodox. If I wanted to get on my theological high horse and declare everyone else hell bound who doesn't believe exactly as I do I would have remained a holiness Protestant. Thankfully the Catholic Church takes a much less radical and much more charitable approach to those outside the visible Church. Huh...imagine that...a Church that takes a stance not unlike its master. The Pharisees loved to judge and separate themselves from the rest of the world because they were the religious elite, yet Christ hung out with all kinds of sinners.
Wow, that's not inflammatory or anything.

Catholics don't declare that everyone else is hell bound? I was brought up to believe that people who weren't Catholics WEREN'T TRUE CHRISTIANS. I was brought up with the fear of going to hell because I missed Sunday Mass when I was sick. I'm not even touching the teachings on homosexuality and suicide.

Whether this is the norm or not does not negate that such teachings and superior attitudes exist in the members and maybe even clergy in the Catholic church, as they do for every other denomination.

And I don't want to speak for everyone else, but I'm sure that a lot of members on the board (myself included) don't think that everyone in heaven is just going to be Orthodox.  Roll Eyes

There is a harsh legalistic tone to Orthodoxy, but my my experience with the people shows that people do have room in their hearts for other Christians, regardless of disagreements. Of course on this board, where Catholics and Orthodox alike are posting questions basically baiting the other members, you are going to see an extreme.

ETA: And I have never seen such a questioning of one's own motives and pride as I've seen in this community. At least the people can recognize that they do get on their high horse and be too forceful about their beliefs at times. The opinions here are diverse, and shame on you for branding everyone under one narrow category.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2011, 06:40:44 PM by IsmiLiora » Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #106 on: March 28, 2011, 06:51:25 PM »

Wow, that's not inflammatory or anything.
Just going by the attitude I have been exposed to since I have been on the forum.

Catholics don't declare that everyone else is hell bound? I was brought up to believe that people who weren't Catholics WEREN'T TRUE CHRISTIANS. I was brought up with the fear of going to hell because I missed Sunday Mass when I was sick. I'm not even touching the teachings on homosexuality and suicide.
Not going to Mass when you are sick or have a legitimate reason is not a sin. As far as homosexuality and suicide...what Catholic teachings are you talking about that so offended you? Specifically, what Catholic teachings are you talking about that are directly contrary to the Eastern Orthodox view on homosexuality and suicide? I was under the impression our Churches were in agreement with our teachings on these topics.

Whether this is the norm or not does not negate that such teachings and superior attitudes exist in the members and maybe even clergy in the Catholic church, as they do for every other denomination.
Perhaps, but I have personally not had any experiences with harsh, judgmental people since I have become Catholic. When I was Protestant I would hear hateful, elitist garbage spewed from pulpits. I witness such hatred spewing out of the hearts of Eastern Orthodox Christians when I hear things such as we "worship a different Trinity" or we "venerate a different Theotokos." Is this charitable? Is this patterning the life of Christ? These statements are coming from Eastern Orthodox "Christians."

And I don't want to speak for everyone else, but I'm sure that a lot of members on the board (myself included) don't think that everyone in heaven is just going to be Orthodox.  Roll Eyes
Thanks be to God.

There is a harsh legalistic tone to Orthodoxy, but my my experience with the people shows that people do have room in their hearts for other Christians, regardless of disagreements. Of course on this board, where Catholics and Orthodox alike are posting questions basically baiting the other members, you are going to see an extreme.
I feel as though we, as Catholics, are treated as subhuman on this forum time and time again.

ETA: And I have never seen such a questioning of one's own motives and pride as I've seen in this community. At least the people can recognize that they do get on their high horse and be too forceful about their beliefs at times. The opinions here are diverse, and shame on you for branding everyone under one narrow category.
I apologize if my words offended you. They were not directed towards any Eastern Orthodox Christian who truly has the love of Christ alive within them as I see that you have. Please forgive me.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2011, 06:52:06 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #107 on: March 28, 2011, 06:55:27 PM »

I still absolutely love our view on the Sacraments, though. The fact that we do not teach that the Sacraments are absolutely not present anywhere other than within our visible Communion is both refreshing and charitable.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #108 on: March 28, 2011, 11:00:15 PM »

I answered you, then I asked you a question about Orthodoxy and you pleaded ignorance.

No, you didn't answered me and you asked me about Oriental Orthodoxy which I consider as close to my Church as you are.

There doesn't seem to be an emoticon for "speechless". (There's "lips sealed" but that's not really what I mean.) If you consider me as close to you as the Oriental Orthodox are, then I only wish that more posters here felt the way you do. Smiley

But to try to move the conversation forward, let me redo my question:
Suppose an OO couple brings their baby to their local OO priest to be baptized (and chrismated of course), does it follow that the baby is now in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox? (If not, my next question is: does that mean that the baptism is invalid?)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #109 on: March 29, 2011, 02:59:43 AM »

But to try to move the conversation forward, let me redo my question:
Suppose an OO couple brings their baby to their local OO priest to be baptized (and chrismated of course), does it follow that the baby is now in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox? (If not, my next question is: does that mean that the baptism is invalid?)

The baptism is most likely invalid.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 03:00:07 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #110 on: March 29, 2011, 03:11:18 AM »

"If you bite and devour one another take heed that you are not consumed by one another" (Gal.5:15).
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #111 on: March 29, 2011, 05:48:36 PM »

The baptism is most likely invalid.
Most likely? I would think on matters as important as whether a given Church has graced Sacraments it would be important to have definite answers.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #112 on: March 29, 2011, 09:24:16 PM »

The baptism is most likely invalid.
Most likely? I would think on matters as important as whether a given Church has graced Sacraments it would be important to have definite answers.

At the very least it seems ironic, Michał, that you can't say whether OO baptism is valid or not, given how you expect answers from us Catholics on similar questions.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #113 on: March 29, 2011, 10:37:44 PM »

Grace and Peace Everyone,

My Orthodox Priest, at the time of my little boy Aidan's Birth, advised me to allow my daughter to continue with her Catholic Instructions and receive First Confession and First Communion at our Catholic Parish and then he would admit her along with me via Orthodox Chrismation.

If I continue on my current track, I will be officially separated from the Catholic Church this Pascha. I don't know I have feel about all of that but it's interesting never-the-less.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 833


Before Thy Cross we bow down in worship O Master!


« Reply #114 on: March 29, 2011, 11:02:38 PM »

By officially separated do you mean that you will become a catechumen?
Logged

"Open to me the doors of repentance O lifegiver!"
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #115 on: March 30, 2011, 09:41:15 AM »

The baptism is most likely invalid.
Most likely? I would think on matters as important as whether a given Church has graced Sacraments it would be important to have definite answers.

At the very least it seems ironic, Michał, that you can't say whether OO baptism is valid or not, given how you expect answers from us Catholics on similar questions.

No, it's not. My Church does not state where Baptism is invalid so I don't have to answer clearly. You Church does and it helps nothing.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #116 on: March 30, 2011, 12:37:07 PM »

The baptism is most likely invalid.
Most likely? I would think on matters as important as whether a given Church has graced Sacraments it would be important to have definite answers.

At the very least it seems ironic, Michał, that you can't say whether OO baptism is valid or not, given how you expect answers from us Catholics on similar questions.

No, it's not. My Church does not state where Baptism is invalid so I don't have to answer clearly. You Church does and it helps nothing.
Why are you so bothered by our Church's teaching?
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #117 on: April 01, 2011, 11:17:55 PM »

By officially separated do you mean that you will become a catechumen?

By my failure to participate in the Sacramental Life of the Western Church for one year.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 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 0.35 seconds with 146 queries.