OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 10:41:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church  (Read 37082 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #180 on: January 17, 2010, 08:12:08 AM »

In Latin theology, the risk of separating the simplicity of God's nature implies the necessity to strengthen its unity

I just heard a recent Orthodox speaker talk about how divine simplicity is an import from Greek philosophy into Latin theology and not a part of Orthodoxy.  He also said this gave rise to the Latin heresy of created grace.

The writings of Fr Adrian Fortescue, some of which are scattered through the Catholic Encyclopedia reject the idea of uncreated grace because the West sees it as introducing  distortion into the divine simplicity.  He speaks of this briefly in his article on hesychasm in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The "rediscovery" of uncreated grace in the West commenced in the late 1930s and the 1940s with the writings of the eminent Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, a Jesuit theologian who died about 20 years ago.  He moved Catholicism away from its scholastic approach and closer to the patristic approach of earlier centuries. Rahner was the most noteworthy and influential Roman Catholic theologian of the 20th century. His theology and his approach to theology had a decisive effect on the Second Vatican Council.

However as far as I am aware his ideas on uncreated grace remain a matter of opinion within theological circles and have not been proclaimed as official Roman Catholic doctrine.

More recently we have the writings of the erstwhile Jesuit George Maloney in which he shows that uncreated grace is compatible with Latin theology.

Hesychasm only 'works' if we accept the distinction between God's Essence and God's Energies and the teaching that grace is uncreated. In the past Catholic theologians have not been willing to do this and have termed us heretical on this point. I am not sure if they now accept Orthodox theology on this point but without the theology hesychasm is a dead thing.

George Maloney has written a lot on this, and I think that his writings may be having an effect on Roman Catholic acceptance of the theology underpinning hesychasm but to be honest, I am not sure how 'mainstream' he is or if he is more like Anthony de Mello and his writings.Fr Maloney puts aside the Catholic vs. Orthodox polemics of past centuries and presents a better understanding of Orthodox theology.  (Fr Maloney died a few years back, having been received into the Orthodox Church..)


"Uncreated Energy: A Journey into the Authentic Sources of Christian Faith"
by George A. Maloney S.J.
ISBN: 0916349209

"Theology of Uncreated Energies of God"
(Pere Marquette Lecture Ser.)
by George S. Maloney S.J.
ISBN: 0874625165


Which proves that a Palamite reading of God's Essence has never been condemned, and is even allowed as a theological opinion in the Roman Catholic Church. I don't think Maloney might be of any interest in the dispute, while I consider Rahner the best testimony in favour of the Essence-Energy relationship.
As for what regards the refusal of Scholasticism to embrace Palamism there's the explicit affirmation of the simplicity of the Divine Essence. Without an official Papal or Conciliar stand on the matter, supporting such a doctrine is risky, or better was risky in the days of Inquisition. Now that the doors of theology are more open in Catholicism, there's a greater approach to the Church Fathers as sources of the deposit of faith, and this is essential in solving the dispute. Rahner is but one example of this open dialogue with Eastern theology within the boundaries of Catholic theology. Whether one day the Catholic Church will discuss the matter directly, this is not a question I can answer... what I know, is that the Magisterium must find some kind of "balance" where Palamism is absorbed and at the same time divine simplicity is safeguarded. The latter is in fact a dogma of the Catholic Church since the Fourth Lateran Council. I find the study of Dr. Liccione a good way to face the matter without contradicting the deposit of faith (quote is from Wikipedia, but the sources can be verified):
Quote
Dr. Liccione says that Divine simplicity and the distinction between the Divine Essence and the Divine Energies would be contradictory if Divine Essence is taken "to mean God as what He eternally is" because "God is actus purus, and thus has no unrealized potentialities." However, if we define God's essence as what "He necessarily is apart from what He does," then God's "essence is incommunicable" and communication would necessitate Divine actions, or Energies. Thus there is a real distinction between God's Essence, what "He necessarily is apart from what He does," and His Energies, "God as what He eternally does."

On the article on Tabor Light from Wikipedia we also have a reference to John Paul II having addressed in positive words to Eastern theology as an enrichment for the whole Church: http://rumkatkilise.org/byzpope.htm this webpage will give you some hints on the matter. It is curious how God put on the chair of Peter a man suspended by birth between West and East, between the Latin and Slavic worlds, right in the time when the Roman Catholic Church and politically the world needed this the most.
Especially relevant to this discussion are this words of His Holiness:
Quote
The hesychast controversy marked another distinctive moment in Eastern theology. In the East, hesychasm means a method of prayer characterized by a deep tranquility of the spirit, which is engaged in constant contemplation of God by invoking the name of Jesus. There was no lack of tension with the Catholic viewpoint on certain aspects of this practice. However, we should acknowledge the good intentions which guided the defense of this spiritual method, that is, to emphasize the concrete possibility that man is given to unite himself with the Triune God in the intimacy of his heart, in that deep union of grace which Eastern theology likes to describe with the particularly powerful term of "theosis", "divinization".

I hope this might help to maintain a greater respect for each other, following the steps of John Paul II who so highly esteemed Eastern theology as complementary to Latin theology.

May God grant us unity and peace.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #181 on: January 17, 2010, 11:41:00 AM »

Some EO/OO are not so convinced that the priesthood absolutely should be male-only. I'm among them.

Dear Deus,

Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) has expressed a wish to explore the possibility of ordaining women to the priesthood.   I think he stands alone in this among Eastern Orthodox bishops, very much the odd man out?

There have been rumblings in Alexandria of all places.  IIRC Pope Parthenius made off hand remarks about it, and recently the Pope and Holy Synod had to issue a statement against a bishop in South Africa who raised the issue. We have a thread on that somewhere here.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #182 on: January 17, 2010, 07:32:34 PM »


Dear Deus,

My birth name is Christopher. I'm usually called Chris. My (EO) Baptismal name is Cyril. Feel free to call me any of these names.


I see you are an enquirer into the Oriental Orthodox and about them I know very little.   Could you say something about them and how their bishops view a female priesthood and, presumably, episcopate?

Honestly, the only perspective on female ordination to the priesthood I can think of off the top of my head is Pope Shenouda III's, which is highly negative. Supposedly he even called the fellows at Nashota House heretics for allowing females to serve as acolytes.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #183 on: January 17, 2010, 07:50:52 PM »


I'd be interested in knowing official statements by the Oriental Orthodox Church and Eastern Orthodox Church where it is said that priesthood should be female-inclusive. The fact that you, and some theologians, think of a possible inclusion of female priesthood, doesn't mean that this is the doctrine of your Church (considering that there are no women priests, and that the Church Fathers and Councils technically ruled out the possibility for 2000 years as a part of our Tradition).

Who said that there were official "female-inclusive to the priesthood" statements?

And who said that this was clearly doctrine of the Church?

It doesn't appear that it was me.


When you say that filioque perverts the meaning of the Trinity, you support Hellenism implicitly. "to proceed" and "ekpourenai" are entirely different word. Would you excommunicate Ambrose of Milan or Cyril of Alexandria for using it?

I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn't necessarily suggest that the filioque as used by Ambrose of Milan or Cyril of Alexandria was heretical. And while I regard the clause itself as a violation of the Creed, I don't necessarily view it as a violation of the doctrine of the Trinity. I certainly think that the Latins should come up with a better terminology to use in the Creed that better expresses the original Greek meaning such that the clause is naturally ruled out. What I was referring to was the filioque in so far as it concerns modern day Romanists. The phrasing "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle" is part of the current dogmatic tradition of Rome. This is where I see the doctrine of the Trinity being clearly violated.


Also, Thomism is NOT an official part of the Catholic doctrines, I mean that the category of created grace has found no place in the Councils of the Roman Church, and the fact that Eastern Catholics are free to venerate Gregory Palamas as a saint is a symptome of this openness. Now, the fact that some Catholics, such as Papist, regard Thomism as the only reading of the Catholic doctrine of grace DOESN'T mean that he is expressing infallible doctrine.

I've heard numerous Romanist sources claim that the Summa Theologica is the second most authoritative text in your tradition second only to the Bible. Also, I've been told that the Summa has been officially recognized by the Vatican. If this is true, I see some aspects of the Summa as inherently contradictory to Palamism.


This is the same kind of dispute as for the two natures of Christ which has divided Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians...

As someone who was formerly EO and is now exploring OOy out of a rejection of Chalcedon, I would suggest that we not even go there, at least not here.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #184 on: January 17, 2010, 09:00:03 PM »

The writings of Fr Adrian Fortescue, some of which are scattered through the Catholic Encyclopedia reject the idea of uncreated grace because the West sees it as introducing  distortion into the divine simplicity.  He speaks of this briefly in his article on hesychasm in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

A clarification and correction needs to be made here.  The Catholic Church has never rejected uncreated grace and cannot reject uncreated grace.  The Catholic Church has always taught that God communicates himself to the baptized.  In the Holy Spirit God indwells the souls of the faithful; through this indwelling the faithful partakes of the divine nature.  In its primary meaning the word grace signifies not a created reality but God in his self-donation to creature.  We love God only because the Spirit, who is Love, inhabits our hearts.  This is the teaching of St Augustine and is the foundation of all Latin theological reflection on divine grace. 

Scholastic theologians would later develop the notion of created grace to "explain" how it was possible for human creatures to participate in the divine being.  The whole point of the gift of created grace is to make possible the gift of uncreated grace and the inhabitation of the Holy Spirit, as is made clear even in Irish Hermit's favorite Catholic publication, the traditional Catholic Encyclopedia

Irish Hermit:
Quote
The "rediscovery" of uncreated grace in the West commenced in the late 1930s and the 1940s with the writings of the eminent Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, a Jesuit theologian who died about 20 years ago.  He moved Catholicism away from its scholastic approach and closer to the patristic approach of earlier centuries. Rahner was the most noteworthy and influential Roman Catholic theologian of the 20th century. His theology and his approach to theology had a decisive effect on the Second Vatican Council.  However as far as I am aware his ideas on uncreated grace remain a matter of opinion within theological circles and have not been proclaimed as official Roman Catholic doctrine.

Post-Tridentine scholasticism does appear to have so emphasized created grace that the gift of uncreated grace was pushed out of theological view.  But the fundamental understanding of grace as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was preserved in the writings of individual theologians (Petau, Scheeben, Newman) but most importantly in the teachings and experience of the mystics.  Thus the famous prayer of St Catherine of Siena:
Quote
"O unfathomable depth! O Deity eternal! O deep ocean! What more could You give me than to give me Yourself? You are an ever-burning Fire; You consume and are not consumed. By Your fire, you consume every trace of self-love in the soul. You are a Fire which drives away all coldness and illumines minds with its light, and with this light You have made known Your truth. Truly this light is a sea which feeds the soul until it is all immersed in You, O peaceful Sea, eternal Trinity! The water of this sea is never turbid; it never causes fear, but gives knowledge of the truth. This water is transparent and discloses hidden things; and a living faith gives such abundance of light that the soul almost attains to certitude in what it believes.

You are the supreme and infinite Good, good above all good; good which is joyful, incomprehensible, inestimable; beauty exceeding all other beauty; wisdom surpassing all wisdom, because You are Wisdom itself. Food of angels, giving Yourself with fire of love to men! You are the garment which covers our nakedness; You feed us, hungry as we are, with Your sweetness, because You are all sweetness, with no bitterness. Clothe me, O eternal Trinity, clothe me with Yourself, so that I may pass this mortal life in true obedience and in the light of the most holy faith with which You have inebriated my soul.

And again:
Quote
O inestimable charity! Even as You, true God and true Man, gave Yourself entirely to us, so also You left Yourself entirely for us, to be our food, so that during our earthly pilgrimage we would not faint with weariness, but would be strengthened by You, our celestial Bread. O man, what has your God left you? He has left you Himself, wholly God and wholly Man, concealed under the whiteness of bread. O fire of love! Was it not enough for You to have created us to Your image and likeness, and to have recreated us in grace through the Blood of Your Son, without giving Yourself wholly to us as our Food, O God, Divine Essence? What impelled You to do this? Your charity alone. It was not enough for You to send Your Word to us for our redemption; neither were You content to give Him us as our Food, but in the excess of Your love for Your creature, You gave to man the whole Divine essence.

Whatever the limitations of medieval and post-medieval scholastic theology may have been, these limitations do not ultimately limit and constrain the spiritual experience of the saints. 

Irish Hermit accurately observes that 20th century Catholic theologians have corrected the excessive theologial attention given to created grace and have restored the decisive centrality of the gift of uncreated gift.  As noted, Karl Rahner's contributions have been extremely influential but not only Rahner but many others (de Lubac, Balthasar, Congar).  I personally find Rahner difficult to understand and thus prefer other Catholic writers on this topic.  One of my favorite books is Robert W. Gleason, Grace (1962).       
Logged

GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #185 on: January 18, 2010, 09:00:54 AM »

Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
I think Aquinas is certainly worthy of veneration.

But is he worth imitation? We don't veneration Saints other than they are worth imitation as they were imitators of Christ. Would Christ say we should kill the Pharisees? I don't think so. So we must ask ourselves if he is truly worthy of imitation. I feel the same way about many of the 'Pious' Emperors of the Eastern Empire. Eastern Imperial Culture was not necessarily 'worthy' of imitation from a Christian perspective. The acts of those Emperors were not necessarily 'worthy' of Christian imitation either. So we have the ask the question... why are they venerated as Saints? Was it simply 'cultural' pride of the times?
I think that if we were living in a Christian country with Catholicism as the state Church, and we had due process, it would be appropriate to execute men like Arius.

"For Christians above all men are forbidden to correct the stumblings of sinners by force...it is necessary to make a man better not by force but by persuasion. We neither have authority granted us by law to restrain sinners, nor, if it were, should we know how to use it, since God gives the crown to those who are kept from evil, not by force, but by choice." -St. John Chrysostom, Six Books on the Priesthood

I suppose one could argue though that restraining sinners and restraining heretics bent on corrupting the Church are two different balls of wax though?
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #186 on: January 18, 2010, 09:05:50 AM »

Dear Chris,
Quote
I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn't necessarily suggest that the filioque as used by Ambrose of Milan or Cyril of Alexandria was heretical. And while I regard the clause itself as a violation of the Creed, I don't necessarily view it as a violation of the doctrine of the Trinity. I certainly think that the Latins should come up with a better terminology to use in the Creed that better expresses the original Greek meaning such that the clause is naturally ruled out. What I was referring to was the filioque in so far as it concerns modern day Romanists. The phrasing "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle" is part of the current dogmatic tradition of Rome. This is where I see the doctrine of the Trinity being clearly violated.
I suggest you read on the subject the many discussions of Pope John Paul II in his dialogue with Orthodoxy, specifically on the Filioque clause. Anyway, in what is eternal (God) it is impossible to have a temporary procession as you suppose. The "one spiration" source is the Father; the Holy Spirit abides in the Son and inherits (this always in eternity) a secondary procession from the Son. Augustine expresses this saying that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father principaliter" i.e. by principle. And in the Summa, the same Thomas Aquinas defends both definitions in two different chapters of his work:
Quote
Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning.
and then he adds (and this is the difference you evidence in your post):
Quote
As the begetting of the Son is co-eternal with the begetter (and hence the Father does not exist before begetting the Son), so the procession of the Holy Ghost is co-eternal with His principle. Hence, the Son was not begotten before the Holy Ghost proceeded; but each of the operations is eternal.
For the rest, I agree with you that the Catholic Church should find a new way to express this concepts, I hope for a day when all Catholics, both Western and Eastern, should sing together in their languages "who proceedth from the Father through the Son" overcoming all differences, but I don't think the form "from the Father" is complete enough for the Latin understanding of the Creed.

Yet, this is just a secondary part of the topic, so I'll pass to the second point. You wrote:
Quote
I've heard numerous Romanist sources claim that the Summa Theologica is the second most authoritative text in your tradition second only to the Bible. Also, I've been told that the Summa has been officially recognized by the Vatican. If this is true, I see some aspects of the Summa as inherently contradictory to Palamism.
First of all, authoritative isn't the same as infallible. Only the Magisterium, in Roman Catholic theology, can express infallible and unchangeable dogmas, and the Magisterium is made of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and the "ex cathedra" of the Pope. A proof that the Summa can't be seen as dogmatic or entirely infallible and "official" is the explicit denial of the Immaculate Conception contained in it. Check it yourself if you want. St. Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, or better, he denied that Mary was immaculate since her conception, as he supported the hypothesis that Mary became Immaculate only at birth or after the 2nd month from conception, as many Scholastics held that the rational aspect of the soul developped only at that time, and that sin is a lack of justice (thus, a partially darkened rational soul). Anyway, this reflects the clear fact that the Summa, as good and profitable for Catholics might be, is still a work-in-progress in the theological growth of some doctrines by the Latin Church during the 12th and 13th century, and not a work endowed with infallibility despite its official recognition. If you want, you can compare its contents to the Synod of Jerusalem of 1666-1667 in the Orthodox Church, which is said to contain errors and thus being fallible despite its canons are perceived as useful instruments against Calvinism.
The only documents on the matter of grace being dogmatic are the necessity to preserve Divine Simplicity which is a dogma clearly sanctioned at the Lateran Councils and at Trent (a question which, it seems, can easily be safeguarded by saying that the distinction of Essence and Energies doesn't affect divine simplicity), and that grace - understood in the terms of the Council of Trent, i.e. as the individual "state of grace" of a faithful - is to be identified in LATIN theology with the transformation of the habitus of an individual and can thus be called "created grace". The voice of Pope John Paul II, as I have already said, opened a door to appreciation for Gregory Palamas who was explicitly called "Saint Gregory Palamas" by His Holiness during a conference with a mixed Orthodox-Catholic commission of theologians. You can verify it yourself on the book "How Not To Say Mass" by Father Dennis C. Smolarski. It is said, in the source I read (an official Melkite source) that this recognition came in the few months after Ali Agca's assassination attempt on the Pope's life. The entire matter is briefly mantioned on this webpage (which underlines the controversy on Palamas' figure and the way he was canonized and officially recognized in the Melkite Calendar): http://www.mliles.com/melkite/stgregorypalamas.shtml

On the matter of female priesthood, I must beg pardon. I evidently read too much in your affirmations. On the Chalcedonian/Non-Chalcedonian matter, I didn't mean to move the topic to that subject: I was just parallelling the two situations where different expressions in different languages can convey similar theologies despite all possible misunderstandings.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #187 on: January 20, 2010, 06:01:23 PM »

"Homilies Against the Jews"

Wow!  Reading some of this made me realize that we truly do live in a different age then that of the Fathers.  Who then should we follow?  Modern society which calls us all to live in peace and brotherhood with our fellow men regardless of religion, or writings such as these?

After reading these disturbing homilies, I'm more inclined to favor the position of those theologians who want to re interpret the Fathers by the light of our modern understanding.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 06:01:38 PM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #188 on: January 20, 2010, 06:37:20 PM »

"Homilies Against the Jews"

Wow!  Reading some of this made me realize that we truly do live in a different age then that of the Fathers.  Who then should we follow?  Modern society which calls us all to live in peace and brotherhood with our fellow men regardless of religion, or writings such as these?

After reading these disturbing homilies, I'm more inclined to favor the position of those theologians who want to re interpret the Fathers by the light of our modern understanding.

It is interesting that Chrysostom admits that there were Christians of his day who found his foul words against the Jews excessive.

"Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly
opinion."

Proof from Chrysostom himself that his opinions about the Jews were not universally held by Christians.



Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,239



« Reply #189 on: January 20, 2010, 06:53:09 PM »

"Homilies Against the Jews"

Wow!  Reading some of this made me realize that we truly do live in a different age then that of the Fathers.  Who then should we follow?  Modern society which calls us all to live in peace and brotherhood with our fellow men regardless of religion, or writings such as these?

After reading these disturbing homilies, I'm more inclined to favor the position of those theologians who want to re interpret the Fathers by the light of our modern understanding.

Fwiw, some would argue that St. John was exaggerating for the sake of making a point. If this was so, it wouldn't be proper to take his words at face value any more than you would someone engaging in satire, or someone who was "venting". That is not to say that I would ignore everything uncharitable that he says, only that I would think about whether he meant it to be taken in a woodenly literal way.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #190 on: January 20, 2010, 07:03:48 PM »

"Homilies Against the Jews"

Wow!  Reading some of this made me realize that we truly do live in a different age then that of the Fathers.  Who then should we follow?  Modern society which calls us all to live in peace and brotherhood with our fellow men regardless of religion, or writings such as these?

After reading these disturbing homilies, I'm more inclined to favor the position of those theologians who want to re interpret the Fathers by the light of our modern understanding.

Fwiw, some would argue that St. John was exaggerating for the sake of making a point. If this was so, it wouldn't be proper to take his words at face value any more than you would someone engaging in satire, or someone who was "venting". That is not to say that I would ignore everything uncharitable that he says, only that I would think about whether he meant it to be taken in a woodenly literal way.

I believe that the future Saint wrote these eight homilies Against the Jews, deplorable and hatefilled pieces of psogogical rhetoric calling for the slaughter of the Jews while he was still a young man and not ordained and he was very angry about the role played by the Jews in the persecution of Christians throughout the Roman Empire.  In other words the homilies against the Jews do not represent the mature theologian and saintly bishop which Chrysostom later became.
Logged
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #191 on: June 05, 2010, 08:30:00 PM »


I feel sure that the influence of the Patriarch and Holy Synod could deal with that in the specific case of the Catholic bishops and priests spreading heresy and sedition.   They are waging war upon the soul of Russia.

In what exact way our they spreading sedition?
Logged
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #192 on: June 07, 2010, 05:57:26 AM »

Does the Roman Catholic Church view Eastern Orthodox confession as valid?  In other words, if someone confesses to an Eastern Orthodox priest does the RC consider his sins absolved?  Are RCs allowed to confess to EO priests?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #193 on: June 07, 2010, 11:06:43 AM »

Does the Roman Catholic Church view Eastern Orthodox confession as valid?  In other words, if someone confesses to an Eastern Orthodox priest does the RC consider his sins absolved?  Are RCs allowed to confess to EO priests?
Yes, it is a valid sacrament but a Catholic can only confess to an EO priest if there is no Catholic priest available.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #194 on: June 07, 2010, 02:56:49 PM »

Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
I think Aquinas is certainly worthy of veneration.

But is he worth imitation? We don't veneration Saints other than they are worth imitation as they were imitators of Christ. Would Christ say we should kill the Pharisees? I don't think so. So we must ask ourselves if he is truly worthy of imitation. I feel the same way about many of the 'Pious' Emperors of the Eastern Empire. Eastern Imperial Culture was not necessarily 'worthy' of imitation from a Christian perspective. The acts of those Emperors were not necessarily 'worthy' of Christian imitation either. So we have the ask the question... why are they venerated as Saints? Was it simply 'cultural' pride of the times?
I think that if we were living in a Christian country with Catholicism as the state Church, and we had due process, it would be appropriate to execute men like Arius.

"For Christians above all men are forbidden to correct the stumblings of sinners by force...it is necessary to make a man better not by force but by persuasion. We neither have authority granted us by law to restrain sinners, nor, if it were, should we know how to use it, since God gives the crown to those who are kept from evil, not by force, but by choice." -St. John Chrysostom, Six Books on the Priesthood

I suppose one could argue though that restraining sinners and restraining heretics bent on corrupting the Church are two different balls of wax though?

How is that consistent with Chrysostom's seeming involvement in the destruction of a number of pagan temples?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,914


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #195 on: June 07, 2010, 03:04:15 PM »

How is that consistent with Chrysostom's seeming involvement in the destruction of a number of pagan temples?

Do you think that the destruction of temples is akin to physically correcting the stumbling of sinners?  Destroying a pagan temple does not end paganism, you know; it just prevents public space (as it was at that time) from being used for that end.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #196 on: June 07, 2010, 03:16:29 PM »

How is that consistent with Chrysostom's seeming involvement in the destruction of a number of pagan temples?

Do you think that the destruction of temples is akin to physically correcting the stumbling of sinners?  Destroying a pagan temple does not end paganism, you know; it just prevents public space (as it was at that time) from being used for that end.

Lacking public space for worship would probably lead a number of people to abandon their religion. It seems at least to be a form of coercion, if not "force".
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #197 on: June 07, 2010, 11:47:40 PM »

Does the Roman Catholic Church view Eastern Orthodox confession as valid?  In other words, if someone confesses to an Eastern Orthodox priest does the RC consider his sins absolved?  Are RCs allowed to confess to EO priests?
Yes, it is a valid sacrament but a Catholic can only confess to an EO priest if there is no Catholic priest available.

There is one other condition to which the Church almost always yields:

"For the salvation of my soul."

IF, in idealized circumstances, a Catholic found an Orthodox confessor who was a perfect fit for their spiritual health and well being and appealed to both a Catholic and an Orthodox bishop for permission to confess regularly to the Orthodox priest "For the salvation of my soul"   I would bet Kansas that both bishops would give that long hard consideration...maybe even now....

Mary
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #198 on: June 07, 2010, 11:51:03 PM »

Does the Roman Catholic Church view Eastern Orthodox confession as valid?  In other words, if someone confesses to an Eastern Orthodox priest does the RC consider his sins absolved?  Are RCs allowed to confess to EO priests?
My understanding of it is that first of all the Catholic must tell the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Once he is given permission by the priest to confess, then the confession is valid and the sins do not have to be reconfessed to a Catholic priest.
Logged
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #199 on: June 17, 2010, 11:47:14 PM »

Are Eastern Orthodox sacraments considered illicit?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #200 on: June 17, 2010, 11:52:07 PM »

Are Eastern Orthodox sacraments considered illicit?

Not that I represent their church or anything, but I'm about 95% sure the answer is "yes"; that any Sacraments that are performed not in union with Rome are illicit.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2010, 11:52:52 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

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

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #201 on: June 17, 2010, 11:57:40 PM »

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #202 on: June 18, 2010, 12:24:15 AM »

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?

If they did so in the context of the ability to instead go to a church in union with Rome, yes, I would imagine that would be recognized as a sin, and probably unto judgment. I don't know how severe it would be understood to be.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #203 on: June 18, 2010, 01:13:40 AM »

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 01:16:22 AM by stanley123 » Logged
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #204 on: June 18, 2010, 01:18:51 AM »

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

Do you know if this is a majority opinion?  Is there any official teaching on this subject?
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #205 on: June 18, 2010, 01:31:30 AM »

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.
Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #206 on: June 18, 2010, 03:57:23 AM »

Are Eastern Orthodox sacraments considered illicit?

Not that I represent their church or anything, but I'm about 95% sure the answer is "yes"; that any Sacraments that are performed not in union with Rome are illicit.
It depends on the view within Catholicism. The view of the more ultramontanist faction is that any sacraments performed without the permission of the Bishop of Rome are automatically illicit. Because the Orthodox are in formal schism, this would render all their sacraments illicit.

Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #207 on: June 18, 2010, 05:22:38 AM »

Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. Huh HuhRoll Eyes Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 05:24:12 AM by LBK » Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #208 on: June 18, 2010, 06:35:59 AM »

Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. Huh HuhRoll Eyes Roll Eyes

I intended only to explain the reality of the situation, which is quite contradictory. The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

Quote from: His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I
Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome. The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term. However, there is a certain recognition of a semblance of legitimacy to Pope Benedict's claim to being the rightful bishop of Rome, even if it is considered technically illicit by the canons.

Of course, there are many who were dismayed by the behavior of His All-Holiness, including the venerable monks of the Holy Mountain. However, clearly, the reality of what is licit and what is illicit is more complex than "the Orthodox Church is outside of the Catholic Church, and therefore all her sacraments are invalid".

An alternate explanation might be that Rome views it as economical to grant jurisdiction for the sacraments to the Eastern Churches not in communion with her, for the salvation of their faithful. I understand that this interpretation is objectionable to those with anti-Papal views.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 06:43:39 AM by WetCatechumen » Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #209 on: June 18, 2010, 07:06:03 AM »

Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. Huh HuhRoll Eyes Roll Eyes

I intended only to explain the reality of the situation, which is quite contradictory. The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

Quote from: His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I
Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome. The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term. However, there is a certain recognition of a semblance of legitimacy to Pope Benedict's claim to being the rightful bishop of Rome, even if it is considered technically illicit by the canons.

Of course, there are many who were dismayed by the behavior of His All-Holiness, including the venerable monks of the Holy Mountain. However, clearly, the reality of what is licit and what is illicit is more complex than "the Orthodox Church is outside of the Catholic Church, and therefore all her sacraments are invalid".

An alternate explanation might be that Rome views it as economical to grant jurisdiction for the sacraments to the Eastern Churches not in communion with her, for the salvation of their faithful. I understand that this interpretation is objectionable to those with anti-Papal views.

I get what you're saying.  I think though that the common view is not that "all sacraments outside the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term" but that all sacraments are possibly INVALID outside the Orthodox Church, to use the Latin term.
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #210 on: June 18, 2010, 09:43:33 AM »


^^
Like I said ...
Quote
it's possible to be a little bit pregnant.

R-i-i-ight.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #211 on: June 18, 2010, 10:56:39 AM »

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.   Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #212 on: June 18, 2010, 11:17:13 AM »

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.   Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary

Have these priests received permission from their bishops to commune non-Orthodox or are they acting as mavericks?   In what way would they be different to Milingo or other dissident Catholic priests and bishops who act against the will of the Pope?
Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #213 on: June 18, 2010, 02:52:56 PM »

Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. Huh HuhRoll Eyes Roll Eyes

I intended only to explain the reality of the situation, which is quite contradictory. The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

Quote from: His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I
Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome. The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term. However, there is a certain recognition of a semblance of legitimacy to Pope Benedict's claim to being the rightful bishop of Rome, even if it is considered technically illicit by the canons.

Of course, there are many who were dismayed by the behavior of His All-Holiness, including the venerable monks of the Holy Mountain. However, clearly, the reality of what is licit and what is illicit is more complex than "the Orthodox Church is outside of the Catholic Church, and therefore all her sacraments are invalid".

An alternate explanation might be that Rome views it as economical to grant jurisdiction for the sacraments to the Eastern Churches not in communion with her, for the salvation of their faithful. I understand that this interpretation is objectionable to those with anti-Papal views.

I get what you're saying.  I think though that the common view is not that "all sacraments outside the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term" but that all sacraments are possibly INVALID outside the Orthodox Church, to use the Latin term.
Well, the Orthodox Church recognizes Catholic Sacraments as valid, simply by virtue of accepting the ordinations and baptisms of convert. I think that sometimes, the Orthodox read too much into the term validity.

By accepting the ordination of priests from the Catholic Church, it indicates that the form of the sacrament has taken place and does not need to be repeated. To the Latin, this indicates validity. The nature of the priesthood specifically imparted by the Latin bishop would be viewed not to have its full meaning unless the priest is recognized by the Orthodox Church as a priest. The situation with baptisms and confessions seems to be the same.

The Eucharist is different, and most Orthodox I've spoken to on the internet would seem to believe that the Holy Spirit ignores the prayer of the Latin priest and refuses to transform the gifts, although the agnostic view is also prevalent.

I heard one analogy recently that compared Orthodox and Catholic sacraments by comparing two glasses, one empty, and one full. The full one is the sacrament in the Orthodox Church. I understood that analogy to mean that the form of the sacrament and its celebration was equivalent, hence valid (with the exception of the Eucharist). However, the sacrament loses its full meaning and wholeness outside of Orthodoxy. Priests do not have to be reordained because they already have the glass. However, there's something essential which is missing (the liquid). I don't quite understand what the liquid is suppose to represent, because except for some extremists, the Orthodox I've communicated with typically acknowledge some degree of grace outside of the Orthodox Church, but not necessarily sacramental grace.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Michael L
Priest Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 240



« Reply #214 on: June 18, 2010, 03:17:05 PM »

Quote
Vatican ambassador to Russia urges Catholic priests to periodically attend Orthodox divine services

Moscow, June 18, Interfax – The Holy See ambassador to the Russian Federation Archbishop Antonio Mennini suggested that Catholic priests every now and then attend divine services in Russian Orthodox churches.

The nuncio said it addressing participants in a regular session of Russia's Conference of Catholic Bishops in Sochi, its general secretary Rev. Igor Kovalevsky told Interfax-Religion on Friday.

According to Fr. Igor, Archbishop Mennini pointed out that Orthodox-Catholic relations had significantly improved and urged to develop "fraternal relations between Catholic and Orthodox clerics."

The nuncio also stated that state-church relations improved after establishing diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level between Russia and Vatican.

The Conference of Catholic Bishops made a statement regarding abolishing religious symbols in public schools of Europe and pointed out that the cross is one of most important elements of European identity. The bishops mentioned Russia's tragic experience when struggle against religious symbols resulted in prosecutions of believers and moral decay of the society.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=7377
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #215 on: June 18, 2010, 04:03:57 PM »

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.   Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary

Have these priests received permission from their bishops to commune non-Orthodox or are they acting as mavericks?   In what way would they be different to Milingo or other dissident Catholic priests and bishops who act against the will of the Pope?

 Smiley  Some of the ARE bishops, Father.  That should be obvious.  And if not then the bishops are turning a blind eye or semi-blind eye....I mean how blind can one be..really.

The point is that Orthodoxy is not unified in its estimations of grace in the Catholic Church...and it is not an insignificant point, as you know from your own lived experiences, regardless of your personal likes and dislikes.

Mary
Logged

WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #216 on: June 18, 2010, 05:29:46 PM »

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.   Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary

Have these priests received permission from their bishops to commune non-Orthodox or are they acting as mavericks?   In what way would they be different to Milingo or other dissident Catholic priests and bishops who act against the will of the Pope?

 Smiley  Some of the ARE bishops, Father.  That should be obvious.  And if not then the bishops are turning a blind eye or semi-blind eye....I mean how blind can one be..really.

The point is that Orthodoxy is not unified in its estimations of grace in the Catholic Church...and it is not an insignificant point, as you know from your own lived experiences, regardless of your personal likes and dislikes.

Mary
Let us be fair. The only Orthodox bishop I know of to have communed with the Catholic Christians is Metropolitan Bishop Nicolae Corneanu of Banat, and he was clearly treated as a "maverick" by the rest of the Orthodox bishops.

It's clearly not regular.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #217 on: June 18, 2010, 06:08:29 PM »

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.   Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary

Have these priests received permission from their bishops to commune non-Orthodox or are they acting as mavericks?   In what way would they be different to Milingo or other dissident Catholic priests and bishops who act against the will of the Pope?

 Smiley  Some of the ARE bishops, Father.  That should be obvious.  And if not then the bishops are turning a blind eye or semi-blind eye....I mean how blind can one be..really.

The point is that Orthodoxy is not unified in its estimations of grace in the Catholic Church...and it is not an insignificant point, as you know from your own lived experiences, regardless of your personal likes and dislikes.

Mary
Let us be fair. The only Orthodox bishop I know of to have communed with the Catholic Christians is Metropolitan Bishop Nicolae Corneanu of Banat, and he was clearly treated as a "maverick" by the rest of the Orthodox bishops.

It's clearly not regular.

It may not be regular in raw numbers, and there's more than one who does,  but if you count the blind eyes as well, it is not all that uncommon.  And I wonder if those priests and bishops who would allow inter-communion are less Orthodox than those who would not?  In your understanding of "not regular"...does that mean "not Orthodox" or does it indicate more than one or even more than two different approaches to the Catholic Church within Orthodoxy?

Mary

Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #218 on: June 18, 2010, 07:50:48 PM »

Well, the Orthodox Church recognizes Catholic Sacraments as valid, simply by virtue of accepting the ordinations and baptisms of convert.

Dear WetCatechumen,

What you have written will not stand as a general principle.

in my lifetime I have baptized two Roman Catholic priests (and a nun.)  These baptisms were performed on the instructions of my Serbian Orthodox bishop.  In the case of the priests, both of them were received into the Orthodox Church as laymen.  Neither their baptism nor their ordination were recognised.


There are numerous instances we could cite.  For example, in the 1970s when the French Catholic patristic scholar and Trappist monk Fr Placide Deseille and 6 or 7 of his brother monks converted to Orthodoxy, they went to Athos to be received.  The Ecumenical Patriarch deputised a bishop to first of all baptize these Catholic monks and then to ordain those who had been in Catholic Orders into Orthodox Orders.

For more on that incident (which caused a major ecumenical upset in France) see message 27 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14020.msg197731.html#msg197731

Fr Ambrose
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #219 on: June 18, 2010, 08:42:56 PM »

Well, the Orthodox Church recognizes Catholic Sacraments as valid, simply by virtue of accepting the ordinations and baptisms of convert.

Dear WetCatechumen,

What you have written will not stand as a general principle.

in my lifetime I have baptized two Roman Catholic priests (and a nun.)  These baptisms were performed on the instructions of my Serbian Orthodox bishop.  In the case of the priests, both of them were received into the Orthodox Church as laymen.  Neither their baptism nor their ordination were recognised.


There are numerous instances we could cite.  For example, in the 1970s when the French Catholic patristic scholar and Trappist monk Fr Placide Deseille and 6 or 7 of his brother monks converted to Orthodoxy, they went to Athos to be received.  The Ecumenical Patriarch deputised a bishop to first of all baptize these Catholic monks and then to ordain those who had been in Catholic Orders into Orthodox Orders.

For more on that incident (which caused a major ecumenical upset in France) see message 27 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14020.msg197731.html#msg197731

Fr Ambrose

This proves no rule.  It simply indicates that Orthodoxy is divided when it comes to understanding the nature of the Catholic/Orthodox schism.   Even here on the Internet the laity is divided in terms of what they think is heresy or not or what disturbs them about Catholic teaching and what does not.  I am always surprised...sometimes pleasantly.  But since the time of the schism there's never been any solid, absolute and final wholesale condemnation of the Catholic Church.  There's always been ambivalence and there's always been unionists.  Some of the unionists resumed communion, some have not but would like to do so sooner rather than later.

At any rate that does not address the question of how the Catholic Church views Orthodoxy.

Mary

Logged

WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #220 on: June 18, 2010, 09:01:41 PM »

Well, the Orthodox Church recognizes Catholic Sacraments as valid, simply by virtue of accepting the ordinations and baptisms of convert.

Dear WetCatechumen,

What you have written will not stand as a general principle.

in my lifetime I have baptized two Roman Catholic priests (and a nun.)  These baptisms were performed on the instructions of my Serbian Orthodox bishop.  In the case of the priests, both of them were received into the Orthodox Church as laymen.  Neither their baptism nor their ordination were recognised.


There are numerous instances we could cite.  For example, in the 1970s when the French Catholic patristic scholar and Trappist monk Fr Placide Deseille and 6 or 7 of his brother monks converted to Orthodoxy, they went to Athos to be received.  The Ecumenical Patriarch deputised a bishop to first of all baptize these Catholic monks and then to ordain those who had been in Catholic Orders into Orthodox Orders.

For more on that incident (which caused a major ecumenical upset in France) see message 27 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14020.msg197731.html#msg197731

Fr Ambrose
Father Ambrose;

I am honored that you have responded to my post. You are certainly infinitely more educated in Orthodoxy than I am. However, I've heard more often the view that Catholic baptism is devoid of sacramental grace, but the form is still accepted and filled with grace by Orthodoxy upon conversion. While the Orthodox have been rebaptizing Catholics baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity since well before His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Michael Cærularius was excommunicated, there are still the numerous examples of the form of Catholic baptism being accepted, to be filled by Orthodoxy.

Are you saying that every instance of a Catholic convert being received into the Orthodox Church by chrismation or confession only, and of clergymen being received by vesting only, is an instance of economy?

From where I stand, and I say this only as how I see it, and not to be condemnatory, that there is a streak of Donatism in Orthodoxy. In the thread you linked, there was a catechumen who was anticipating a third Trinitarian baptism. Orthodoxy seems, as Mary said, terribly divided on the issue. You yourself have posted evidence of the MP accepting the validity of Catholic orders and baptisms.

I just feel like I'm not getting a straight answer on this.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #221 on: June 19, 2010, 12:01:25 AM »


I just feel like I'm not getting a straight answer on this.


There are two issues today on which the Orthodox will give you varying answers - ecumenism (our relationship with heterodox Churches) and the calendar.  It is not that you are not getting a starlight answer.  It is simply that Orthodoxy has varying answers.  This may be resolved, if only for a while, if the upcoming Pan-Orthodox Council addresses the issue of heterodox baptism.   I say "if only for a while" because you will find that there will be some Orthodox who will return to earlier practices and ones which can be quite justifiably based on tradition and the Ecumenical Councils.  I would not count on the diversity of Orthoox practices being done away with.

Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #222 on: June 19, 2010, 12:52:00 AM »

and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP.

I don't see how...?

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

These seem to be inconsistent realities. How can a church that is overall illicit perform licit ordinances?
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #223 on: June 19, 2010, 12:56:44 AM »

The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

Quote from: His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I
Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome.

Seeing as how episcopos means "overseer", I don't know that calling someone a bishop necessarily means that one recognizes them as having Holy Orders.

The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term.

No, the standard teachings differ. Typical Roman teaching is that rites outside of union with Rome can be valid and efficacious but not licit. On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #224 on: June 19, 2010, 12:58:36 AM »

Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. Huh HuhRoll Eyes Roll Eyes

I intended only to explain the reality of the situation, which is quite contradictory. The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

Quote from: His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I
Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome. The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term. However, there is a certain recognition of a semblance of legitimacy to Pope Benedict's claim to being the rightful bishop of Rome, even if it is considered technically illicit by the canons.

Of course, there are many who were dismayed by the behavior of His All-Holiness, including the venerable monks of the Holy Mountain. However, clearly, the reality of what is licit and what is illicit is more complex than "the Orthodox Church is outside of the Catholic Church, and therefore all her sacraments are invalid".

An alternate explanation might be that Rome views it as economical to grant jurisdiction for the sacraments to the Eastern Churches not in communion with her, for the salvation of their faithful. I understand that this interpretation is objectionable to those with anti-Papal views.

I get what you're saying.  I think though that the common view is not that "all sacraments outside the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term" but that all sacraments are possibly INVALID outside the Orthodox Church, to use the Latin term.

No, there are really three commonly cited properties: validity, efficacy, and licitness. What all rites outside of the Orthodox Church are is possibly inefficacious, while some are certainly recognized as being valid. "Validity" referring to the form of Sacraments; "efficacy" referring to their sanctifying substance.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 12:59:24 AM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   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 0.201 seconds with 72 queries.