OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 24, 2014, 01:02:49 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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church  (Read 34610 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #45 on: January 14, 2010, 05:35:05 PM »

I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.

I stand vindicated!!!!  Cool
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,835


"My god is greater."


« Reply #46 on: January 14, 2010, 05:35:59 PM »

What about the fact that the Orthodox reject defined Catholic dogma, e.g. Papal infallibility? That makes us, by definition, heretics to the Catholics.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,735


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #47 on: January 14, 2010, 05:48:07 PM »

Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #48 on: January 14, 2010, 05:49:45 PM »

This is my perspective, I hope you find it coherent.
The Catholic Church considers herself One. Grace is given through the Church alone. Yet, the Orthodox Church is in a condition of Schism since 1054 AD, and schism is a sin. Anyway - and this makes the difference - the Orthodox Church has preserved a correct understanding of the sacraments, of God, of ethics, and of apostolic succession, so that an Orthodox is only lacking communion with st. Peter's see in Rome. How does that change anything from the point of view of grace? I would say nothing. So, what's the problem for reunion?
We have a valid example in the Eastern Catholic Churches, who amount to some 2% of the Catholic Church (some 20 million people!). They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope, which implies that they just recognize that Latin theology is nothing but a different way to witness the same Catholic Faith, so neither the Westeners under the Pope nor the Easteners in the sui iuris Churches have any deficiency of faith. This makes a lot of difference. Latin Catholics don't have any problems with the EO perspective on doctrine and liturgy. The problem is that the EO refute to recognize how Latin Catholicism is as orthodox as Eastern Orthodoxy and that this orthodoxy was maintained through the ministry of Papacy.
To give some examples, the ECs aren't obliged to proclaim Filioque in the Greek Creed, but they recognize that its use in the Latin Creed is orthodox, having Greek word ekpouretai and Latin word procedere two slightly different meanings (the latter is more similar to the words st. Cyril of Alexandria who said the Holy Spirit proceeds=proienai from the Father and the Son). With purgatory it's the same... Latin Catholics have a Scholastic, technical approach to it as a prison of punishment (or better, chastisement) in the afterlife, while Eastern Catholics understand it as the completion of a theosis process, but both recognize a period of purification for those destined to Paradise but not yet ready for that.
All this might explain why Roman Catholics can still consider themselves "the" Church, acknowledge the validity and orthodoxy of the Orthodox faith, and yet claim that you are lacking something for perfection and belonging to the Catholic Church.
I really hope this might give further insight, and if I'm wrong, correct me, please.

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")
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #49 on: January 14, 2010, 07:01:30 PM »

Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.

Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc



« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 07:02:17 PM by Orthodoc » Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #50 on: January 14, 2010, 07:10:33 PM »

I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.

I stand vindicated!!!!  Cool
Deacon Lance, yes the Orthodox Church are true particular Churches in that they valid sacraments and a valid priesthood. However, because they are out of communion with the Catholic Church they are not part of the Catholic Church. In fact they even deny that they are part of the same church as us. They cannot be part of a church that do not wish to be in communion with. Deacon, I am afraid that you have imbibed false ecumenism.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #51 on: January 14, 2010, 07:10:59 PM »

What about the fact that the Orthodox reject defined Catholic dogma, e.g. Papal infallibility? That makes us, by definition, heretics to the Catholics.
]
Deacon Lance is simply wrong on this matter.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #52 on: January 14, 2010, 07:11:39 PM »

Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.
No we don't accuse them of being heretics but they do not want to be in communion with us so they can't be part of the same Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #53 on: January 14, 2010, 07:13:49 PM »

Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.

Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc




1054 AD
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 #54 on: January 14, 2010, 07:36:47 PM »


Not from the Orthodox point of view.  For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong.  The whole Scholastic way of thinking about God, for example.  Sorry, but that is the way it is.  You are not obliged to like it.  And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.
What is wrong with the Thomist view of God?

Aquinas said that the beatific vision involves perceiving the Essence of God.
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 #55 on: January 14, 2010, 07:37:43 PM »

I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.

 Roll Eyes
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 #56 on: January 14, 2010, 07:39:46 PM »


They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
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
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #57 on: January 14, 2010, 07:52:10 PM »

Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.

Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc




1054 AD

You mean when the Patriarch of Rome severed itself from the other four Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs?  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbet?  But we've been over this so many times before.

Orthodoc



« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 07:52:57 PM by Orthodoc » Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2010, 08:25:59 PM »

Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.

Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc




1054 AD

You mean when the Patriarch of Rome severed itself from the other four Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs?  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbet?  But we've been over this so many times before.

Orthodoc




Nope. Cardinal Humbert did not have the authority to excommunicate the Partriach of Constantinople because the Pope that he represented was already dead. The separation occured when the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. At that point we became two separate Churches. From your view we were separated from the Church. From Rome's view your Chruch was separated from the Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2010, 08:26:54 PM »


Not from the Orthodox point of view.  For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong.  The whole Scholastic way of thinking about God, for example.  Sorry, but that is the way it is.  You are not obliged to like it.  And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.
What is wrong with the Thomist view of God?

Aquinas said that the beatific vision involves perceiving the Essence of God.

Well, aprehending the essence of God. First, this does not mean comprehending it. Second, so what? The bible says that "we shall see him as he is".
« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 08:27:19 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2010, 08:27:55 PM »

I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.

 Roll Eyes
Funny but I actually agree with emoticon here. LOL
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2010, 08:29:22 PM »


They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 35,631



« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2010, 08:34:38 PM »


They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
Could that be because the West has changed more and more?
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #63 on: January 14, 2010, 08:35:09 PM »

Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.

Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

1054 AD

You mean when the Patriarch of Rome severed itself from the other four Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs?  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbet?  But we've been over this so many times before.

Nope. Cardinal Humbert did not have the authority to excommunicate the Partriach of Constantinople because the Pope that he represented was already dead. The separation occured when the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. At that point we became two separate Churches. From your view we were separated from the Church. From Rome's view your Chruch was separated from the Church.

So what was Pope Paul VI doing in 1964 when he made such a hoopla of cancelling the excommunications and anathemas imposed by Humbert in the name of the Pope.   Was Pope Paul simply offering the world a bit of a charade?   Or did he genuinely not know that the excommunications and anathemas were meaningless to begin with?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #64 on: January 14, 2010, 08:37:37 PM »

Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.

Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

1054 AD

You mean when the Patriarch of Rome severed itself from the other four Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs?  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbet?  But we've been over this so many times before.

Nope. Cardinal Humbert did not have the authority to excommunicate the Partriach of Constantinople because the Pope that he represented was already dead. The separation occured when the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. At that point we became two separate Churches. From your view we were separated from the Church. From Rome's view your Chruch was separated from the Church.

So what was Pope Paul VI doing in 1964 when he made such a hoopla of cancelling the excommunications and anathemas imposed by Humbert in the name of the Pope.   Was Pope Paul simply offering the world a bit of a charade?   Or did he genuinely not know that the excommunications and anathemas were meaningless to begin with?
He canceled an invalid excommunication. Maybe he did it because it was invalid in the first place. LOL.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #65 on: January 14, 2010, 08:39:05 PM »


They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
Could that be because the West has changed more and more?
I don't think so. There used to be EO theologians who had great respect for Thomas Aquinas and even considered him a darn good theologian, with the exception of the Filioque of course. Now, if you listen to modern EOs you would think Thomas Aquinas ate babies for breakfast and gave candy to small children just so that he could take it away from them.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 6,674



« Reply #66 on: January 14, 2010, 08:56:08 PM »

Ok, I have expressed the Catholic Church's view. Now its turning into one of those threads: "Those stupid mininfromed Catholics. If only they were educated they would be Eastern Orthodox". I have no use for such a thread. You guys enjoy all the intellectual self stimulation.  I am out.

Why didn't this pan out?
Logged
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Me when younger


« Reply #67 on: January 14, 2010, 09:03:27 PM »

This is my perspective, I hope you find it coherent.
The Catholic Church considers herself One. Grace is given through the Church alone. Yet, the Orthodox Church is in a condition of Schism since 1054 AD, and schism is a sin. Anyway - and this makes the difference - the Orthodox Church has preserved a correct understanding of the sacraments, of God, of ethics, and of apostolic succession, so that an Orthodox is only lacking communion with st. Peter's see in Rome. How does that change anything from the point of view of grace? I would say nothing. So, what's the problem for reunion?
We have a valid example in the Eastern Catholic Churches, who amount to some 2% of the Catholic Church (some 20 million people!). They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope, which implies that they just recognize that Latin theology is nothing but a different way to witness the same Catholic Faith, so neither the Westeners under the Pope nor the Easteners in the sui iuris Churches have any deficiency of faith. This makes a lot of difference. Latin Catholics don't have any problems with the EO perspective on doctrine and liturgy. The problem is that the EO refute to recognize how Latin Catholicism is as orthodox as Eastern Orthodoxy and that this orthodoxy was maintained through the ministry of Papacy.
To give some examples, the ECs aren't obliged to proclaim Filioque in the Greek Creed, but they recognize that its use in the Latin Creed is orthodox, having Greek word ekpouretai and Latin word procedere two slightly different meanings (the latter is more similar to the words st. Cyril of Alexandria who said the Holy Spirit proceeds=proienai from the Father and the Son). With purgatory it's the same... Latin Catholics have a Scholastic, technical approach to it as a prison of punishment (or better, chastisement) in the afterlife, while Eastern Catholics understand it as the completion of a theosis process, but both recognize a period of purification for those destined to Paradise but not yet ready for that.
All this might explain why Roman Catholics can still consider themselves "the" Church, acknowledge the validity and orthodoxy of the Orthodox faith, and yet claim that you are lacking something for perfection and belonging to the Catholic Church.
I really hope this might give further insight, and if I'm wrong, correct me, please.

In Christ,     Alex

I like your points.
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #68 on: January 14, 2010, 09:10:45 PM »


They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
Could that be because the West has changed more and more?
I don't think so. There used to be EO theologians who had great respect for Thomas Aquinas and even considered him a darn good theologian, with the exception of the Filioque of course. Now, if you listen to modern EOs you would think Thomas Aquinas ate babies for breakfast and gave candy to small children just so that he could take it away from them.

I couldn't maintain any respect for him when I learnt that he recommended murdering all non-Catholics.   I felt that even allowing for his more harsh days that was just so much a fundamental distortion of the Gospel of Christ that I could not see such a man as a follower of Christ.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #69 on: January 14, 2010, 09:12:52 PM »


Not from the Orthodox point of view.  For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong.  The whole Scholastic way of thinking about God, for example.  Sorry, but that is the way it is.  You are not obliged to like it.  And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.
What is wrong with the Thomist view of God?

Aquinas said that the beatific vision involves perceiving the Essence of God.

Well, aprehending the essence of God. First, this does not mean comprehending it. Second, so what? The bible says that "we shall see him as he is".


I believe that Aquinas explained that our senses will be transformed by "the light of glory" and that through our transformed senses we will perceive the Essence of God. Seeing as how the Essence of God is infinite and we are finite, I cannot see how this is anything less than blasphemy.
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 #70 on: January 14, 2010, 09:14:48 PM »

I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.

 Roll Eyes
Funny but I actually agree with emoticon here. LOL

Well it's probably clear to the both of us that lack of ecclesiastical union with the Bishop of Rome is not the only deficit of the EO tradition from the legitimate Roman POV.
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 #71 on: January 14, 2010, 09:16:21 PM »


They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.

So be it. I'm sure you expect that I don't agree. But at least you recognize the divergence in dogmatic traditions and come up with a reasonable explanation as to why that exists.
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
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #72 on: January 14, 2010, 09:47:38 PM »

I have two observations that I have made in the past that might have something to do with this thread.

As far as ecclesiology goes. If Rome acknowledges a valid priesthood and sacraments in the Orthodox Church, wouldn't that imply that both partake of the same Body and Blood of the same Jesus Christ, from a RC point of view? And if this is the case, then wouldn't the problem be that both receive the same sacrament but refuse to share with each other what they already have in common, from a RC point of view? Is this why par. 1399 of the CCC says:

Quote
A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."

As far as the filioque, shouldn't the Creed be understood in terms of the original intentions of the greek word "ekporeusis"? While the literal meaning of the latin "procedit" may be used to apply to being of the same essence as the Father and the Son, you would have to change your understanding of the original intentions and context of the Creed for it to make sense in the Creed.

Just a couple of thoughts.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,735


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #73 on: January 14, 2010, 10:32:52 PM »

I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.

I stand vindicated!!!!  Cool
Deacon Lance, yes the Orthodox Church are true particular Churches in that they valid sacraments and a valid priesthood. However, because they are out of communion with the Catholic Church they are not part of the Catholic Church. In fact they even deny that they are part of the same church as us. They cannot be part of a church that do not wish to be in communion with. Deacon, I am afraid that you have imbibed false ecumenism.

From Dominus Iesus:
"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.  The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.  Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church."

There is One Lord Jesus Christ.  There is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.  If a Church is a true particular Church, with valid Orders and Eucharist, it is so because it is part of the One Church, even if imperfectly.  This has nothing to do with ecumenism but with ecclesiological reality.  If you aren't part of the One Church, you can't have a particular Church or a valid Eucharist.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,735


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #74 on: January 14, 2010, 10:39:18 PM »

Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.

Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc





When speaking of US I am refering to the Communion of Churches known as the Catholic Church, made up of the Latin Catholic Church and Eastern Catholic Churches. 

As to your Catholicity, the Orthodox Church has never given up its right to proclaim it.  In fact, I was defending your Catholicity in the post preceding.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #75 on: January 14, 2010, 10:53:40 PM »



From Dominus Iesus:
"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.  The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.  Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church."

There is One Lord Jesus Christ.  There is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.  If a Church is a true particular Church, with valid Orders and Eucharist, it is so because it is part of the One Church, even if imperfectly.  This has nothing to do with ecumenism but with ecclesiological reality.  If you aren't part of the One Church, you can't have a particular Church or a valid Eucharist.

Again, I have been Vindicated!!!!  Cool

Don't mess with the Deacon!
« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 10:54:48 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,169



« Reply #76 on: January 14, 2010, 11:17:34 PM »


Nope. Cardinal Humbert did not have the authority to excommunicate the Partriach of Constantinople because the Pope that he represented was already dead. The separation occured when the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. At that point we became two separate Churches. From your view we were separated from the Church. From Rome's view your Chruch was separated from the Church.

Yes, but was it not Cardinal Frederic that became pope of Rome some years later and could have reversed the "illegal" decision? Sounds like Rome was stuck in its own world.  Embarrassed

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

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

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #77 on: January 14, 2010, 11:39:56 PM »

GregoryLA,

To respond to your original post.....

For the first questions, as you can see you can approach this problem many ways and get different results - some good stuff, some chaff many sides.  However, I'd say Father Deacon Lance (surprise surprise) is correct.  

As to the question of "why would someone convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?", I've know people who've gone this way.  

First question is, what do you mean by converting?  There is no confession of faith or anything like that - an Orthodox simply attends his local Catholic parish and stops going to his local Orthodox parish.  He might say that he converted, but that's a matter of his intellectual/spiritual life and not something done by the local presbyter or bishop.  There's no conversion party, and I'd imagine that if one kept it to oneself no one else would really know.    

For the people I know, reasons for "converting" really differs case by case.  Some people convert because they really believe that, based on their reading of the Bible, Peter's keys lay with the Pope.  Some people convert because of other theological/doctrinal issues (I know one person for whom the birth control issue was a big deal, even though I personally don't believe birth control should be the deciding factor in such a decision).  Some people convert because they think the two communions are the same and because a particular Catholic church is closer, is more lively, is more welcoming, or is of the right ethnicity.   I know of (only a few) cases where Orthodox go to a Catholic church because it's more spiritually serious - e.g. the local Orthodox church will have one Presanctified Liturgy in the whole of Great Lent, whereas the local Catholic church will have several in one week.  

I know some people who were born Orthodox, are well aware of the difference between the churches, but who still claim to remain Orthodox (if you ask them), even though they go to a Catholic parish every Sunday.  I also know of one Orthodox who receives Catholic Eucharist at Daily Masses and then goes to Orthodox Divine Liturgy every Sunday, and I also believe his spiritual father knows this.  In these cases - as long as they know that most Orthodox jurisdictions won't look favorably on their actions - AFAIC that's their business with their own jurisdictions and spiritual fathers.  
Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #78 on: January 14, 2010, 11:53:45 PM »

GregoryLA,

To respond to your original post.....

For the first questions, as you can see you can approach this problem many ways and get different results - some good stuff, some chaff many sides.  However, I'd say Father Deacon Lance (surprise surprise) is correct.  

As to the question of "why would someone convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?", I've know people who've gone this way.  

First question is, what do you mean by converting?  There is no confession of faith or anything like that - an Orthodox simply attends his local Catholic parish and stops going to his local Orthodox parish.  He might say that he converted, but that's a matter of his intellectual/spiritual life and not something done by the local presbyter or bishop.  There's no conversion party, and I'd imagine that if one kept it to oneself no one else would really know.    

For the people I know, reasons for "converting" really differs case by case.  Some people convert because they really believe that, based on their reading of the Bible, Peter's keys lay with the Pope.  Some people convert because of other theological/doctrinal issues (I know one person for whom the birth control issue was a big deal, even though I personally don't believe birth control should be the deciding factor in such a decision).  Some people convert because they think the two communions are the same and because a particular Catholic church is closer, is more lively, is more welcoming, or is of the right ethnicity.   I know of (only a few) cases where Orthodox go to a Catholic church because it's more spiritually serious - e.g. the local Orthodox church will have one Presanctified Liturgy in the whole of Great Lent, whereas the local Catholic church will have several in one week.  

I know some people who were born Orthodox, are well aware of the difference between the churches, but who still claim to remain Orthodox (if you ask them), even though they go to a Catholic parish every Sunday.  I also know of one Orthodox who receives Catholic Eucharist at Daily Masses and then goes to Orthodox Divine Liturgy every Sunday, and I also believe his spiritual father knows this.  In these cases - as long as they know that most Orthodox jurisdictions won't look favorably on their actions - AFAIC that's their business with their own jurisdictions and spiritual fathers.  

Unfortunately, it seems in America, the average Orthodox appear to take it's faith far more seriously than the average Catholic Parish... very little spirituality.
Logged

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

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #79 on: January 14, 2010, 11:57:58 PM »

ignatius,

Beyond the very few cases which I was referring to in my post, I agree with you 100%.  Sad
« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 11:58:45 PM by MarkosC » Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #80 on: January 15, 2010, 12:36:21 AM »

GregoryLA,

To respond to your original post.....

For the first questions, as you can see you can approach this problem many ways and get different results - some good stuff, some chaff many sides.  However, I'd say Father Deacon Lance (surprise surprise) is correct.  

As to the question of "why would someone convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?", I've know people who've gone this way.  

First question is, what do you mean by converting?  There is no confession of faith or anything like that - an Orthodox simply attends his local Catholic parish and stops going to his local Orthodox parish.  He might say that he converted, but that's a matter of his intellectual/spiritual life and not something done by the local presbyter or bishop.  There's no conversion party, and I'd imagine that if one kept it to oneself no one else would really know.    

For the people I know, reasons for "converting" really differs case by case.  Some people convert because they really believe that, based on their reading of the Bible, Peter's keys lay with the Pope.  Some people convert because of other theological/doctrinal issues (I know one person for whom the birth control issue was a big deal, even though I personally don't believe birth control should be the deciding factor in such a decision).  Some people convert because they think the two communions are the same and because a particular Catholic church is closer, is more lively, is more welcoming, or is of the right ethnicity.   I know of (only a few) cases where Orthodox go to a Catholic church because it's more spiritually serious - e.g. the local Orthodox church will have one Presanctified Liturgy in the whole of Great Lent, whereas the local Catholic church will have several in one week.  

I know some people who were born Orthodox, are well aware of the difference between the churches, but who still claim to remain Orthodox (if you ask them), even though they go to a Catholic parish every Sunday.  I also know of one Orthodox who receives Catholic Eucharist at Daily Masses and then goes to Orthodox Divine Liturgy every Sunday, and I also believe his spiritual father knows this.  In these cases - as long as they know that most Orthodox jurisdictions won't look favorably on their actions - AFAIC that's their business with their own jurisdictions and spiritual fathers.  

Thank you for the info.  That was very enlightening!  Smiley

I have two questions, which either you or anyone else who knows could answer perhaps. 

1) Is there really no conversion process necessary to go from Orthodox to Catholic?  No chrismation, confirmation, etc.?  Is there not even supposed to be?

2) What is AFAIC an acronym for?  Haha.  I've seen it many times but never bothered to ask.

Thanks again!
Logged
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #81 on: January 15, 2010, 12:40:26 AM »


They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
Could that be because the West has changed more and more?
I don't think so. There used to be EO theologians who had great respect for Thomas Aquinas and even considered him a darn good theologian, with the exception of the Filioque of course. Now, if you listen to modern EOs you would think Thomas Aquinas ate babies for breakfast and gave candy to small children just so that he could take it away from them.

I couldn't maintain any respect for him when I learnt that he recommended murdering all non-Catholics.   I felt that even allowing for his more harsh days that was just so much a fundamental distortion of the Gospel of Christ that I could not see such a man as a follower of Christ.

Hello, Father Ambrose!  Father bless!

Oh, and please be nice to our friend Papist! laugh

Do you remember where Aquinas recommended killing non-Catholics?  I don't mean any disrespect by asking for sources, Father, and I know you're not the sort to say things without being able to back them up- that's just really shocking and I'd like to see where he said it.

Thank you very much!
Logged
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #82 on: January 15, 2010, 12:42:56 AM »

Ok, I have expressed the Catholic Church's view. Now its turning into one of those threads: "Those stupid mininfromed Catholics. If only they were educated they would be Eastern Orthodox". I have no use for such a thread. You guys enjoy all the intellectual self stimulation.  I am out.

Why didn't this pan out?

I, for one, am glad Papist has stayed around.  Haha.  I hope he wasn't finally run off!
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #83 on: January 15, 2010, 12:53:36 AM »

Do you remember where Aquinas recommended killing non-Catholics?  I don't mean any disrespect by asking for sources, Father, and I know you're not the sort to say things without being able to back them up- that's just really shocking and I'd like to see where he said it.

Herre are the passges from Aquinas' Summa Theologica:

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."
Logged
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #84 on: January 15, 2010, 12:57:22 AM »

I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.

I stand vindicated!!!!  Cool
Deacon Lance, yes the Orthodox Church are true particular Churches in that they valid sacraments and a valid priesthood. However, because they are out of communion with the Catholic Church they are not part of the Catholic Church. In fact they even deny that they are part of the same church as us. They cannot be part of a church that do not wish to be in communion with. Deacon, I am afraid that you have imbibed false ecumenism.

From Dominus Iesus:
"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.  The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.  Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church."

There is One Lord Jesus Christ.  There is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.  If a Church is a true particular Church, with valid Orders and Eucharist, it is so because it is part of the One Church, even if imperfectly.  This has nothing to do with ecumenism but with ecclesiological reality.  If you aren't part of the One Church, you can't have a particular Church or a valid Eucharist.

So it seems that Papist and Deacon Lance are reading the same thing but coming to different conclusions.  Perhaps the official position of the Vatican is not so clear? (And I don't mean that as an accusation or anything).  

It appears that for Papist what makes the EO not part of the Church (from the Catholic point of view) is the fact that the EO are not in communion with the RC.  But for Deacon Lance, that doesn't seem to matter because the EO have a valid priesthood and Eucharist and are (thus?) "true particular Churches".  So, I suppose it comes down to- do the EO have to be in full communion with Rome to be considered part of the Church?

Papist or Deacon Lance, thanks a lot already but can you post or direct me to anything else that would clarify things further?

Also, out of curiosity, the Eastern Catholics aren't allowed to/supposed venerate "anti-Catholic" Eastern Orthodox saints are they?  So EC wouldn't venerate say, St. Mark of Ephesus?
Logged
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #85 on: January 15, 2010, 01:00:32 AM »

Do you remember where Aquinas recommended killing non-Catholics?  I don't mean any disrespect by asking for sources, Father, and I know you're not the sort to say things without being able to back them up- that's just really shocking and I'd like to see where he said it.

Herre are the passges from Aquinas' Summa Theologica:

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."


Wow!  And by the way, you sure were quick with that!  Haha.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #86 on: January 15, 2010, 01:09:01 AM »

Well, considering that I was considered before 1994 a "heretic" what can I say. The idea that people should be cutoff and delivered to the secular court (ie: that the church not harbour sinners) comes from scripture though. See the letters to the Corinthians.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 516



WWW
« Reply #87 on: January 15, 2010, 01:10:52 AM »

Aquinas's view of heresy as capital crime was typical for his day.  We may find this position harsh and offensive, but we live in a different time.  See Michael Novak's "Aquinas and the Heretics."
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #88 on: January 15, 2010, 01:12:09 AM »

I agree Arius should have been put to death before spreading his heresy.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #89 on: January 15, 2010, 01:14:11 AM »

Do you remember where Aquinas recommended killing non-Catholics?  I don't mean any disrespect by asking for sources, Father, and I know you're not the sort to say things without being able to back them up- that's just really shocking and I'd like to see where he said it.

Herre are the passges from Aquinas' Summa Theologica:

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."


What you think Aquinas is meaning by "heretics" and what he actually meant by it are not necessarily one and the same. I had the matter explained to me once by a Trad Cath who said that only those who are actually part of the Church and then choosing to pervert its teachings are actually heretics. Thus, all denominations that have already become asunder from it are not heretics in this sense.
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 0.208 seconds with 73 queries.