OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 11:29:00 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 Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: First among equals  (Read 7267 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« on: December 02, 2003, 01:42:10 PM »

I'm overextending myself by trying to sum up the EOx position on this, but here's trying...

The EOx Church teaches that the Holy Father is the successor of Peter, and therefore has a primacy of honor. Please correct any of this if I don't get it right!

EOxy also teaches that outside the EOx Church, sacraments don't mean anything, or they are not grace-filled, or is it an open question?

My question is, how can the Holy Father have a primacy of honor, if he is not in fact a primate? How can the Holy Father be first among equals if the Roman Church is schismatic, heretical, and lacking in grace?
Logged
Karamazov
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2003, 01:56:16 PM »

I'm overextending myself by trying to sum up the EOx position on this, but here's trying...

The EOx Church teaches that the Holy Father is the successor of Peter, and therefore has a primacy of honor. Please correct any of this if I don't get it right!

EOxy also teaches that outside the EOx Church, sacraments don't mean anything, or they are not grace-filled, or is it an open question?

My question is, how can the Holy Father have a primacy of honor, if he is not in fact a primate? How can the Holy Father be first among equals if the Roman Church is schismatic, heretical, and lacking in grace?

Good questions!

Comment 1:  To which "Holy Father" do you refer?  I assume you mean the Pope of Rome.  I also like to qualify myself when speaking of THAT Pope, because he does not exclusively hold the title of "Pope."

Comment 2:  The Pope of Rome held a primacy of honour when the western church was still "orthodox."  Presently, in the Eastern Orthodox world, primacy of honour is held by the Ecumenical Patriarch (Patriarch of Constantinople).

Hope this answers your question. Smiley
Logged
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2003, 01:57:14 PM »

I think of it in terms of the church prior to 1054.  At that time, the Church was unified and the pope was considered to be in such a position.  EOx would reinstate such a title if union were restored.

At this point in time, there is a schism, and as the head of a schismatic church it would be irregular to call the current pope as such.  But the current Ecumenical Patriarch has done and said things to surprise the Orthodox Churches and may have called the current pope as "first among equals." Even if this were the case, the actions and words of the Patriarch of Constantinolple are not the final authority.  That authority rests with the Scriptures, the Ecumenical Councils, the canons of the church, and a synod of bishops.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2003, 02:28:34 PM »

Thanks,

This answers my question.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2003, 07:48:09 PM »



Quote
EOxy also teaches that outside the EOx Church, sacraments don't mean anything, or they are not grace-filled, or is it an open question?

I have only heard this from ROAC priests. To my limited knowledge the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox sacraments as valid. If the EOC did believe that all sacraments outside of the EOC are null and mean nothing then, like the ROAC, Orthodox priests would baptize converts to the Orthodox faith. However this does not happen. Roman Catholics who enter the EOC need only be chrismated and of course go to confession. Maybe I am misreading your post but I am so sick of ROAC's NO GRACE OUTSIDE OF ORTHODOXY, that I am quite frustrated with the whole issue.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2003, 07:55:34 PM »

I hope so, if not then all the EO priests I have met with have been wrong in saying the RCC sacraments are valid and that I only need to be recieved into the Church by chrismation.

I'm just fed up with this ROAC invention that NO grace exsists outside of Orthodoxy! Oy!
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2003, 08:28:58 PM »

BEN: quite right.  Orthodoxy does not hold a monopoly on grace - MY church does Grin
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2003, 11:04:24 PM »

Ben,

I have only a few minutes to make this reply, so I will have to be brief (or very quick!) Smiley

Quote
I have only heard this from ROAC priests. To my limited knowledge the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox sacraments as valid. If the EOC did believe that all sacraments outside of the EOC are null and mean nothing then, like the ROAC, Orthodox priests would baptize converts to the Orthodox faith. However this does not happen. Roman Catholics who enter the EOC need only be chrismated and of course go to confession. Maybe I am misreading your post but I am so sick of ROAC's NO GRACE OUTSIDE OF ORTHODOXY, that I am quite frustrated with the whole issue.

What you are refering to (receiving converts from heterhedox groups without performing water Baptism) is known as "sacramental economy."

What this means, is that because the form of the sacrament was present when the person was "baptized" in their former religion, it does not absolutely have to be repeated - the Church (if She really feels this is a worthy thing to do) can receive such persons by other means (typically, renunication of error/confession, Chrismation, Holy Communion).

Unfortunately this legit practice (more common in Russian tradition; the Greeks have gone back and forth with this, historically - in the ancient west it was all but the absolute norm) is sorely misunderstood in our times.  That you've been given the impression (by someone, obviously) that it is tantamount to a recognition of heterodox sacraments, is unfortunate, and most assuredly, incorrect.

For example, though someone with the proper form of baptism can be received via "economy", he could just as rightly (depending on pastoral considerations) be put through the full Christian initiation and be Baptized in water.  However, materially, what is going on in either case is the same - what was lifeless (case of heterodox convert being received by economy: themselves and their former "baptism"... in the case of a heterodox convert or pagan being received by "exactitude": themselves) is being given life, what was unregenerate is being reborn.  Only the Spouse of Christ, His Very Body, the Church, can give this.  "You cannot have God for a Father, if you do not have the Church for a Mother" St.Cyprian taught - and this is because the Church alone can birth you, just as a mother does, into the life of grace.

It is precisely because sacramental economy is misunderstood in our age, that many Orthodox (not simply the "ROAC" people you have an axe to grind with, for whatever reason) bodies now only receive converts via "exactitude."  This is not simply the so called "schismatic" groups people in this forum generally like to use for a pi+¦ata (ROAC, Greek Old Calendarists, etc.); the ROCOR (which due to it's change in ecclessiology and firmness on certain subjects, is now considered "on the level" by practically everyone here...it wasn't always this way, even in recent memory), the Jerusalem Patriarchate, and in general, the monasteries on Mt.Athos will not practice this type of "economy" of the same reasons.

Though this is only a few of the many references that could be supplied on this subject, here are a few...

Canon XLVI. - We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?

Canon XLVII. - Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize again one who has rightly received baptism, or who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the ungodly, be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not making a distinction between the true priests and the false.
(Apostolic Canons)

But what a thing it is, to assert and contend that they who are not born in the Church can be the sons of God! For the blessed apostle sets forth and proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies and the new man is born, saying, 'He saved us by the washing of regeneration.' But if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in baptism, how can heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, generate sons to God by Christ?"  (St Cyprian of Carthage (200 AD), "The Epistles of Cyprian," Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, pg. 388)

The ancients, viz. Cyprian and Fermilian, put these, and the Encratites, and Hydroparastatae, and Apotactites, under the same condemnation; because they have no longer the communication of the Holy Ghost, who have broken the succession. They who first made the departure had the spiritual gift; but by being schismatics, they became laymen; and therefore they ordered those that were baptized by them, and came over to the Church, to be purged by the true baptism, as those that are baptized by laymen. (from the First Canon of St.Basil)

It is generally noticed that the earlier practice, was to always baptize those coming over from heresy - generally Chrismation was only reserved for those who had at one time been Orthodox, apostacized, and then returned to the Church (yes, unlike the Roman Catholics, Orthodox believe that Chrismation/Confirmation can/must sometimes be "repeated") - this then, is exactitude.  The other, more lenient practice (and only admitted towards certain types of heretics) is just that - economy, a leniency against the rule, admitted for some perceived benefit on the part of the pastors of soul.  It's legit of itself, but as I've said previously (in our day) often misunderstood (or worse yet, outright misrepresented by "Orthodox" ecumenists.)

Seraphim
Logged

Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2003, 11:20:22 PM »

Jesus Christ commanded his Apostles to baptize in the name of the blessed trinity. And I do not see why if this is done why one must be baptized a second time upon entering Orthodoxy. I asked Bishop Gregory this at Dormition Skete and his answer was simply that baptism outside of Orthodoxy is just a bath, there is no grace. This is not only contrary to the teaching of the Orthodox Church but also contrary to history. Do you dare say all of those converts to Orthodoxy from Catholicism or Protestantism and who were only chrismated weren't really Orthodox?! And unworthingly took part in the sacred mysteries!? This I can not believe. I can not believe this radical version of Orthodoxy that teaches God's grace does not exsist outside of Orthodoxy, therfore anything and everything outside of Orthodoxy is null and void of the power of God. This is the teaching of ROAC, and a teaching that is not held by the Orthodox Church and the majority of Church fathers.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2003, 11:21:01 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2003, 11:23:50 PM »

Wow if all converts to Orthodoxy must be baptized then all my local Orthodox priests are all really clueless!
« Last Edit: December 02, 2003, 11:25:50 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2003, 05:29:17 AM »

We know that the sacraments in the Orthodox church have grace. Outside the church? let's just say we can't put limits on what God can and can't do.

Other than that, Seraphim Reeves is quite correct in what he posted. When we say the sacraments of other churches are valid, we are only talking about the form of the sacrament. If we believed that heteradox sacraments were filled with grace then there would be no need for chrismation would there.

Some are received by chrismation (which fills the empty heteradox sacrament with grace) and some are received by baptism. It is the perogative of the bishop to decide which form is to be used.

John.
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2003, 11:05:50 AM »

I'm wondering how aware you guys are of how much you sound like the RCC in this.  The same RCC that said: There is no salvation without submission to the pope.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2003, 11:12:04 AM »

Quote
I'm wondering how aware you guys are of how much you sound like the RCC in this.  The same RCC that said: There is no salvation without submission to the pope.

This is kind of putting it crudely.
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2003, 11:20:45 AM »

caffeinator: I just don't get the whole notion of:  your sacraments are only valid if you are in submission to this or that earthly authority.  It's all to Monarchial.  The only King I have is Jesus Smiley
« Last Edit: December 03, 2003, 11:21:18 AM by Br. Max, OFC » Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2003, 11:35:13 AM »

Not only is it crudely put, it's erroneous.
Logged
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2003, 11:45:56 AM »

Ben,

I thought you were the "Ben" I was thinking of ("VeryConfusedBen"), but wasn't sure.  It appears that you are. Smiley

Quote
Jesus Christ commanded his Apostles to baptize in the name of the blessed trinity. And I do not see why if this is done why one must be baptized a second time upon entering Orthodoxy.

Yes, that is what He instructed - and of itself (without consideration of the interior, and what is ultimatly the important part of Baptism) is the "exterior part" or "rite" of Orthodox Baptism.

The reason why this was repeated almost universally in early times (and at varying times in the Church's history) is because of the truth I underlined with just a few canonical/patristic considerations; because those who are aliens to the Church (and not members of Christ) cannot give, what they do not have (they cannot integrate someone into Christ's Body, when they themselves are not members of Him.)

Either way, whether the rite of water Baptism is "repeated" or not, is materially non-sequitor in one sense - since receiving converts by economy (say, by profession and Chrismation) has the same effect as receiving one with the "full rite" - they are receiving the "re-birth from above".  No one is "born again" at the hands of heretical ministers.

Quote
I asked Bishop Gregory this at Dormition Skete and his answer was simply that baptism outside of Orthodoxy is just a bath, there is no grace. This is not only contrary to the teaching of the Orthodox Church but also contrary to history.

I will simply assume you're speaking from ignorance/misunderstanding, since this is absolutely false.  What "history" are you basing your opinion here on?

Interestingly enough, even the Latins for many centuries after the schism, had what was almost the same understanding of this issue as the Orthodox do.  The only thing that differed, is that the scholastics had firmly devloped the concept of the "sacramental character".  For example in the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas would say that schismatic Masses were "valid" as would be their other sacraments (as long as form, matter, and intent were satisified), but that they were of no profit to the schimatics trying to avail themselves of them - thus, there was no grace infused/communicated by them to heretics.

Thus, the only thing which differentiates the genuine Orthodox view on this subject from the old medieval RC one, is that the Orthodox do not have this same idea of "sacramental character", which to an extent I do not even think makes sense (if the sacramental rite  cannot give remission of sins when utilized by those separated from the Church, why would it even leave a "mark" when so utilized?).

Quote
Do you dare say all of those converts to Orthodoxy from Catholicism or Protestantism and who were only chrismated weren't really Orthodox?!

I'm thinking I either wasn't making myself clear, or you're not reading what I'm writing.

I've explicitly said that reception of converts by economy is most certainly possible - it's what you're being told by some unhappy souls about the presence of grace in heterodox mysteries (and the bad conclusions that are being drawn from the practice of economic reception of converts) that I'm challenging.

Quote
And unworthingly took part in the sacred mysteries!? This I can not believe.

And I'm not asking you.  The problem here is not what I'm supposedly asking you to believe, but your seeming unwillingness to make a clean break with heterodoxy, and embrace Orthodox Christianity as it is.

Quote
I can not believe this radical version of Orthodoxy that teaches God's grace does not exsist outside of Orthodoxy, therfore anything and everything outside of Orthodoxy is null and void of the power of God. This is the teaching of ROAC, and a teaching that is not held by the Orthodox Church and the majority of Church fathers.

Forgive me if I doubt that you've read many of the Fathers on this subject.  If I'm mistaken, then please provide me the witness to their acceptance of the presence of genuine Holy Mysteries outside of the Church of Christ...since I am painfully unaware of such a witness, but only that witness which is vehemently opposed to such an idea.

As an aside, I'm think you may be misunderstanding what is meant by "graceless" here.

Strictly speaking, all things (and not simply souls, as the Latin concept of grace has come to understand things - sanctifying grace being a created relationship between God and the soul, a static state, which really only pertains to salvation as the Latins have come to understand it) are the object of God's grace.  The word "grace"  found in the original Greek of the New Testament (charis) refers to "that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness, charm, loveliness: grace of speech" and "good will, loving-kindness, favour".  Thus, in the broadest sense, this is extended to all creation (and by default, all mankind.)  By His grace, God sustains the universe, and each creature in it - by His grace, He shows kindness to His creatures, and to His rational sheep, offers help to come towards Him in so far as they are open to co-operating.

However, there is also a "grace" which excells beyond these things, and this is what we mean in this discussion - this is the grace which could be said to work "interiorly" rather than "exteriorly" - the difference between the man who is being led towards water, as opposed to the one who has a spring of such waters eminating from within.  The difference between being a servant and creature, and a temple/dwelling place for God, a son of God, who is being assimilated to the glory of his Father, assimilated to the "likeness" of God (as opposed to the "image of God" which all men have, due to their being created as rational souls.)

This re-creation/re-birth, theosis (aka. "divinization"), is only possible in the Church of Christ, for She is His Body.

Christ is the Sacrament of God to the world for it's salvation - the Church is also this same Sacrament, for She is His Body.  Hence, we can say the Church is God's Sacrament/Mystery of salvation.  All other diverse/particular "sacraments" (which are often numbered chiefly as seven, though strictly speaking there are actually far more than "seven" sacraments in the Church) are but parts/facets of this single Holy Mystery...they are the particular acts of the Saviour, re-creating mankind.

Thus, while some (or even many) of the God-given dogmas of the Church can be mirrored elsewhere (even in pagan religions, either because of the primitive religion of mankind's earliest ancestors surviving in a corrupted form in these paths), and even the outward forms and customs of the Church can be mirrored elsewhere, the content cannot be - for if it were, then we wouldn't really be talking about "another church" would we, but once again, the Church of Christ.  This is the "oness" of the Church - and why She is in truth, indivisable (for ultimatly Her truths and mysteries, are but a participation in the the single Truth, the single Mystery, which is Christ.)

It is this grace, the communication of the Holy Spirit, which exists solely in the Church - and this is why those who will be saved, are drawn to Her.

Seraphim
Logged

Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2003, 11:54:02 AM »

Not only is it crudely put, it's erroneous.

what did I say in error?
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2003, 11:59:35 AM »

John,

Quote
We know that the sacraments in the Orthodox church have grace. Outside the church? let's just say we can't put limits on what God can and can't do.

I'm willing to conceed there is a sense in which this is agreeable (for God certainly can do as He pleases), I think the statement you offer here (particularly in our current climate, as over run as it is by abjecting heretical ecclessiologies) is more misleading than valuable.  I say this for the following reasons...

- we are told quite explicitly there is "no salvation outside of the Church", both by the Holy Fathers and in the Scriptures.

- the Canons of the Church which do touch on this topic, and the Fathers who discuss it, are quite unambiguous in saying that heresies/schisms are not part of the Church, and do not have the "communication of the Holy Spirit" as St.Basil puts it.

- then we have the practice of the Church in varying times and places, which undoubtedly allows/requires the reception of heterodox converts, even those who have the proper "form" of baptism/chrismation, to be received into the Church by Baptism/Chrismation (what is perjoritively called "re-baptism", which I know you understand is not the correct way of speaking of it.)

My point?  This is our operative knowledge.  This is what God has revealed, and this is what the conscience of the Church has always had to contend with.  As such, while I will whole-heartedly agree that God can do "what He likes, when He likes", it is extremely presumptuous to say "these non-Orthodox have grace", and in fact entirely appropriate to regard them as not having such, and receiving them as such (since this is what underlies both the Church's rationale for "economic" and "exact" receptions of converts from heterodoxy.)  This is our "operative knowledge"; so how dare we beat around the bush about it, or entertain vain speculations which serve no good end whatsoever?

If anything, such waffling only does two things - it goes beyond what has been given to any man to know, and it most certainly does feed an entirely false view of all that exists outside of the Church (ex. "branch theory ecclessiology.")

This heresy (ecumenism) has done tremendous harm - not only to what could at one time have been called the "traditionally Orthodox peoples", but also to those who either as nations or individuals are aliens to the Church.  According to the Fathers, we are not even to call a heretic "brother" - for, they are not, at least not in the sense that those within the Church are brethren.

In short...why presume?  Particularly when the letter and spirit of what has been made manifest to the Church, is so incredibly contrary to such idle speculation?

Seraphim
Logged

The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2003, 12:15:45 PM »

Quote
what did I say in error?

Catholicism does not teach that a sacraments validity is contingent upon submission to the Pope. The RCC recognizes almost all protestant baptisms, marriages, and all EOx sacraments as well.
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2003, 12:29:28 PM »

I said of rome:
Quote
The same RCC that said: There is no salvation without submission to the pope.
only after you said this was crudely put did I expound by saying
Quote
I just don't get the whole notion of:  your sacraments are only valid if you are in submission to this or that earthly authority.  It's all to Monarchial.

Now, do you deny that Rome teaches that when a bishop breaks communion with Rome that bishop no longer has the ability to function as a bishop?  This would make any consecrations he makes in holy orders invalid and thus the Eucharist for said persons also invalid.  Rome also teaches that schism is a heresy and heretics cannot impart valid sacraments.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2003, 12:44:18 PM »

Quote
The same RCC that said: There is no salvation without submission to the pope.  
 
only after you said this was crudely put did I expound by saying


Okay, the Traditional Catholic teaching is "Outside the Church, there is no salvation." IINM, it counts the baptized as "inside the Church," and that includes protestant and Orthodox Baptisms.

It does not teach that Christians acting in good conscience without formal union with Rome, are doomed.

Quote
Now, do you deny that Rome teaches that when a bishop breaks communion with Rome that bishop no longer has the ability to function as a bishop?  This would make any consecrations he makes in holy orders invalid and thus the Eucharist for said persons also invalid.  Rome also teaches that schism is a heresy and heretics cannot impart valid sacraments.  


As to the bit above, it is not always so, although (admittedly) I do not understand. Nevertheless, the Schism between east and west appears to be an exception to your thesis, because Rome undoubtedly acknowledges EOx sacraments. I think your thesis applies more to vagante bishops, or rogue bishops.

Quote
Rome also teaches that schism is a heresy and heretics cannot impart valid sacraments.


IIRC, Rome teaches that schism and heresy are two entirely different things, and Rome DOES NOT teach that a heretic cannot impart valid sacraments.

I highly recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for further confirmation of Catholic doctrine.
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2003, 01:01:44 PM »

Caffeinator: Under the doctrine of infallibility, any statement issued by the pope concerning the faith is infallible.  Boniface VIII is the bull Unam Sanctam clearly states that there is no salvation without submission to papal authority.  Vatican II is not an infallible statement according to the doctrine of infallibility, but unam Sanctam is.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2003, 01:02:13 PM by Br. Max, OFC » Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2003, 02:04:09 PM »

I haven't read that document, but I'm guessing it's addressed to Catholics.

Would you care to post a link to that document, and provide citations, and paragraph numbers?
Logged
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2003, 02:30:40 PM »

http://www.shrine.com/Unam.htm

I found the offending paragraph at the above link. It was the last sentence. Exegesis forthcoming...
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12,023


Lion of Judah, Lion of Arabs, Lion of Everyone


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2003, 05:47:46 PM »

Now, do you deny that Rome teaches that when a bishop breaks communion with Rome that bishop no longer has the ability to function as a bishop?  This would make any consecrations he makes in holy orders invalid and thus the Eucharist for said persons also invalid.  Rome also teaches that schism is a heresy and heretics cannot impart valid sacraments.

As far as sacraments go, Rome probably would say that, if apostolic succession as it understands it was carefully preserved, then the sacraments are valid.  Would a bishop be able to function as a bishop?  Sacramentally, yes, probably.  Administratively?  Probably not.  

Under the doctrine of infallibility, any statement issued by the pope concerning the faith is infallible.  Boniface VIII is the bull Unam Sanctam clearly states that there is no salvation without submission to papal authority.  Vatican II is not an infallible statement according to the doctrine of infallibility, but unam Sanctam is.

Well, Vatican II, being an ecumenical council to the RC's, would have the same amount of infallibility as Unam Sanctam, since it is an ecumenical council called and approved by the Pope.  In fact, there are RC's who would argue Unam Sanctam was not infallible, whereas Vatican II, being an ecumenical council, is.  I don't know if I know enough to accept or reject such a proposal, but I do know that the RC's regard proper ecumenical councils as infallible.
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #25 on: December 03, 2003, 06:38:08 PM »

Vatican II is infallible insofar as it deals with the doctrine of the Church. Much of it deals with praxis.

Exegesis still forthcoming, Br. Max. In the meanwhile, I highly recommend reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Respectfully, you seem to have some strange ideas about Latin Christianity.
Logged
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2003, 06:47:23 PM »

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum4&recnu=8&number=375275
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,739



« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2003, 07:11:52 PM »

I'm biting my lip very hard, but I'm in deep deep doo doo regarding the Bishop of Rome, guess I need to watch my mail box for the excommunication papers.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2003, 07:50:25 PM »

Why would you be excommunicated? (I think if you were conducting abortions, you wouldn't be posting on this board.)
Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2003, 04:32:09 AM »

John,

Quote
We know that the sacraments in the Orthodox church have grace. Outside the church? let's just say we can't put limits on what God can and can't do.

I'm willing to conceed there is a sense in which this is agreeable (for God certainly can do as He pleases), I think the statement you offer here (particularly in our current climate, as over run as it is by abjecting heretical ecclessiologies) is more misleading than valuable.

Seraphim,
duly noted and appreciated. However I think I did somewhat qualify my statement with the following:
Quote
If we believed that heteradox sacraments were filled with grace then there would be no need for chrismation would there.

I haven't the discernment to determine a loving way of calling people graceless schismatics. I'd rather leave that to those who God has blessed with wisdom and discernment.

God bless,
John.
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2003, 10:15:12 AM »

The Caffeinator: I'm only going on what the RCC teaches - The pope is infallible when speaking in His official capacity on issues of faith and morals.  Unam Sanctam is a papal BULL.  Bulls are OFFICIAL papal letters.  When something is promulgated in a Bull it is a matter of infallibility.  Unam Sanctam states clearly: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.  (Emphasis added.)

Once something is infallibly stated - that’s it.  No questions, no debate.  If Rome is now teaching otherwise, either the current teaching is in error, or the doctrine of infallibility is in error.  You choose Smiley              

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2003, 10:46:41 AM »

John,

Quote
I haven't the discernment to determine a loving way of calling people graceless schismatics. I'd rather leave that to those who God has blessed with wisdom and discernment.

You make a very good point here.  I don't think there is any nice way of "saying" this, as it is not a pleasant thing (though true.)

Really, going around saying "you are graceless" is not what should be at the top of anyone's priority list.  Unfortunately, it becomes necessary to speak about this unpleasant topic, precisely because some people make it such - by teaching heretical ideas about the Church's constitution/nature, they make it necessary to demonstrate why their ecumenistic ecclessiology is false.  It's too serious a topic to be met with silence, as it ultimatly gives an (at best) ambiguous witness to the necessity of Christ, and more particularly, His Church, which is His very Body.

Oh, how it would be better to speak of the good things that only the Church can offer mankind - but when people rear their heads and attack Orthodox ecclessiology, and malign those who stick with this pure confession, an answer must be offered to their challenge.  Not only for their own benefit, but also for that of confused/innocent ears who may over hear their mis-sayings, and perhaps be left confounding heterodoxy with the revelation of God.

Seraphim
Logged

Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2003, 12:06:55 PM »

The Caffeinator: I'm only going on what the RCC teaches - The pope is infallible when speaking in His official capacity on issues of faith and morals.  Unam Sanctam is a papal BULL.  Bulls are OFFICIAL papal letters.  When something is promulgated in a Bull it is a matter of infallibility.  Unam Sanctam states clearly: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.  (Emphasis added.)

Once something is infallibly stated - that’s it.  No questions, no debate.  If Rome is now teaching otherwise, either the current teaching is in error, or the doctrine of infallibility is in error.  You choose Smiley              


But what does this actually mean? Who was it directed to and for what reason?
Could it not be understood in the same way the statement that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation? Also isn't it the prerogative of the Roman Catholic Church which produced the document to interpret it and to decide if it is considered and excathedra document? Who should interpret Orthodox Church documents? Orthodox or non-Orthodox? What if non-Orthodox interpret an Orthodox document differently than the one who produced it?
In my opinion it is the Roman Church which gets to decide which Papal bulls, if any, are excathedra or not and what the proper interpretation is, not non-Roman Catholics.
Peace,
Polycarp
« Last Edit: December 04, 2003, 12:10:21 PM by Saint Polycarp » Logged

Peace
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2003, 12:09:43 PM »

Quote
Once something is infallibly stated - that’s it.  No questions, no debate.  If Rome is now teaching otherwise, either the current teaching is in error, or the doctrine of infallibility is in error.  You choose    
 

I don't believe it is a matter of choice. Read the links I posted. Smiley        
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2003, 12:33:04 PM »


But what does this actually mean? Who was it directed to and for what reason?

In my opinion it is the Roman Church which gets to decide which Papal bulls, if any, are excathedra or not and what the proper interpretation is, not non-Roman Catholics.
Peace,
Polycarp



Until Vatican II it was interpreted to mean just what it says - there is no salvation without submission to the Pope - the popes of the ages believe and taught exactly that and the Sede's still preach this message.

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino).

POPE ST. PIUS V (1566 - 1572 AD)
1. "He who reigns on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and on earth, has entrusted His Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one person on earth alone, namely, to Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to Peter's successor, the Roman Pontiff, to be governed by him with the fullness of power."

POPE GREGORY XVI (1831 - 1846 AD)
"Preach the true Catholic faith; he who does not keep it whole and without error will undoubtedly be lost....Encourage union with the Catholic Church, for he who is separated from her will not have life."

POPE PIUS IX (1846 - 1878 AD)
"The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman: unique, the Chair founded on Peter...Outside her fold is to be found neither the true faith nor eternal salvation, for it is impossible to have God for a Father if one has not the Church for a Mother."

POPE LEO XIII (1878 - 1903 AD)
"All who wish to reach salvation outside the Church are mistaken as to the way and are engaged in a futile effort....Christianity is, in fact, incarnate in the Catholic Church; it is identified with that perfect and spiritual society which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and has for its visible head the Roman Pontiff.... By God's commandment, salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church."

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2003, 12:54:37 PM »

Quote
But what does this actually mean? Who was it directed to and for what reason?
Could it not be understood in the same way the statement that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation? Also isn't it the prerogative of the Roman Catholic Church which produced the document to interpret it and to decide if it is considered and excathedra document? Who should interpret Orthodox Church documents? Orthodox or non-Orthodox? What if non-Orthodox interpret an Orthodox document differently than the one who produced it?
In my opinion it is the Roman Church which gets to decide which Papal bulls, if any, are excathedra or not and what the proper interpretation is, not non-Roman Catholics.
Peace,
Polycarp

Hey Polycarp,

If you read the rest of the document, you'll see it deals with temporal power vs. spiritual power in medieval Europe. Read the links I posted Polycarp. They explain the RCC POV. Smiley
Logged
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2003, 01:26:22 PM »

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/coverstory.html
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2003, 01:52:34 PM »

I posted this on another thread. It might be helpful in understanding the RC view of exactly who is in the Catholic Church. It's from the CCC.

838    " The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

The italics are in the original.


« Last Edit: December 04, 2003, 01:53:32 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2003, 02:10:09 PM »

Linus: what is the date of the canon? I'll bet it does not date prior to vatican II.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2003, 02:35:49 PM »

Even if we choose to discount Unam Sanctam as addressing ONLY Roman Catholics . .  . what about Eugene and  the bull Cantate Domino which is twice as forceful as Uman Sanctam!
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2003, 03:43:47 PM »

The RCC doesn't teach that protestants or EOx are "heretics and schismatics." Luther yes. Lutherans, no.

Moreover, while the need to remain united to the visible body of Christ is very real, and binding on the consciences of Catholics, nowhere did these Popes say that said unity must itself be visible.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2003, 03:51:11 PM by The Caffeinator » Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2003, 06:51:31 PM »

The RCC doesn't teach that protestants or EOx are "heretics and schismatics." Luther yes. Lutherans, no.

Moreover, while the need to remain united to the visible body of Christ is very real, and binding on the consciences of Catholics, nowhere did these Popes say that said unity must itself be visible.

That's my understanding Caff. Which is why I said that the community which produces a document is the one which gets to interpret it and explain it. Not those who are in opposition to that community. Would we allow the Russians to interpret the Constitution of the United States for us? Papal bulls etc. are Roman Catholic documents, we get to interpret them not those who choose to remain seperated from us.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2003, 08:27:25 PM »

Polycarp: I posted RC explinations - not my own.  I know what Rome teaches now in light of Vatican II.  But what is taught now is NOT what was taught prior to Vatican II.  Do you deny this?
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12,023


Lion of Judah, Lion of Arabs, Lion of Everyone


WWW
« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2003, 09:48:01 PM »

Moreover, while the need to remain united to the visible body of Christ is very real, and binding on the consciences of Catholics, nowhere did these Popes say that said unity must itself be visible.

But what does this mean?  Is this some "invisible Church" idea?  Or do you mean the teaching that all who are saved are saved through the Church, whether they know it or not?
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12,023


Lion of Judah, Lion of Arabs, Lion of Everyone


WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2003, 09:48:37 PM »

But what is taught now is NOT what was taught prior to Vatican II.  

That is certainly the conclusion my limited reading on the subject leads me to.
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  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 0.127 seconds with 72 queries.