OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 22, 2014, 03:54:13 PM *
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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Sharing sacraments?  (Read 11059 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
tomowapig
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Christian (struggling)
Posts: 51


« on: November 01, 2010, 05:27:38 PM »


In another thread on this forum, I referred to the validity of sacraments in the RCC and the OC.  Unless I am misinformed, both recognize the validity of each others' sacraments.  Both recognize that the priesthood and episcopacy of the other derives from valid apostolic succession.  If this is indeed the case, why is it that Catholics will warmly welcome Orthodox Christians to worship with them *and* partake of the sacraments whereas Orthodox Christians will welcome Catholics to worship but *not* partake of the sacraments unless or until they convert?  I wonder what God makes of all that?

Any comments or thoughts about this from those of us who are not God?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,219


« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2010, 05:31:51 PM »

In another thread on this forum, I referred to the validity of sacraments in the RCC and the OC.  Unless I am misinformed, both recognize the validity of each others' sacraments.

You are mistaken.

Quote
Both recognize that the priesthood and episcopacy of the other derives from valid apostolic succession.

You are mistaken.

Quote
If this is indeed the case, why is it that Catholics will warmly welcome Orthodox Christians to worship with them *and* partake of the sacraments whereas Orthodox Christians will welcome Catholics to worship but *not* partake of the sacraments unless or until they convert?  I wonder what God makes of all that?

For Orthodox Christians, supposedly, communion means having the same faith. Since Catholics do not have the same faith as the Orthodox, it would be wrong to ignore the differences and commune with them.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,439


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2010, 05:52:50 PM »

The Catholic church would allow an Orthodox to commune. But an Orthodox that actually understood the issue, and was properly catechized, would not partake of a Catholic Eucharist. We are similar, but not the same. The differences may seem slight at first glance, but the issues run deep and are very serious. There may be some Orthodox priests that allow Catholics to partake, I don't know of any personally, but I can't say it is impossible. But the general consensus would be that Catholics can not partake of an Orthodox Eucharist, they are not Orthodox.

Eastern Catholics are another issue, I don't entirely know how that would work. The Eastern Catholic church has much more in common with the Orthodox church than it does with the Roman Catholic church. I would be interested to hear more about that.
Logged
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 #3 on: November 01, 2010, 05:55:07 PM »


In another thread on this forum, I referred to the validity of sacraments in the RCC and the OC.  Unless I am misinformed, both recognize the validity of each others' sacraments.  Both recognize that the priesthood and episcopacy of the other derives from valid apostolic succession.  If this is indeed the case, why is it that Catholics will warmly welcome Orthodox Christians to worship with them *and* partake of the sacraments whereas Orthodox Christians will welcome Catholics to worship but *not* partake of the sacraments unless or until they convert?  I wonder what God makes of all that?

Any comments or thoughts about this from those of us who are not God?

I would quote II Cor. "6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!...17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him," but that would be God.

I don't know what you mean by "welcome Catholics to worship."  I've invited communicants of the Vatican to come, and I wouldn't bar any to come and see, but I wouldn't (barring mixed marriages and other real life situations) suggest to anyone who believes that submission to the Vatican's supreme pontiff is necessary to make a Divine Liturgy valid and licit to make an Orthodox parish his parish, unless he was planning on embracing the Orthodox Faith.

I would go into Christ giving the Orthodox Church the authority to judge, but in the matter you bring up, it is more appropriate to bring up the responsibility of the Orthodox to guard the Holy Mysteries of His Catholic Church.

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
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 964



« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2010, 06:20:29 PM »

Although the OP is specific, the thread title generic.

I am under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church rejects the validity of Anglican sacraments, but that, at least until the mid-20th century, some Orthodox bishops viewed Anglican sacraments as valid and permitted Orthodox faithful to take communion at Anglican parishes. True? Feel free to elaborate.

Does anyone know what the recent Roman Catholic invitation to Anglicans (the Personal Ordinariate) means for the Roman Catholic opinion of Anglican sacraments?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2010, 06:22:35 PM by tuesdayschild » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2010, 06:30:57 PM »


In another thread on this forum, I referred to the validity of sacraments in the RCC and the OC.  Unless I am misinformed, both recognize the validity of each others' sacraments.  Both recognize that the priesthood and episcopacy of the other derives from valid apostolic succession.  If this is indeed the case, why is it that Catholics will warmly welcome Orthodox Christians to worship with them *and* partake of the sacraments whereas Orthodox Christians will welcome Catholics to worship but *not* partake of the sacraments unless or until they convert?  I wonder what God makes of all that?

Any comments or thoughts about this from those of us who are not God?

No, we don't recognize them as having Sacraments.
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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2010, 07:01:55 PM »

Eastern Catholics are another issue.

Why?
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2010, 07:04:40 PM »

Eastern Catholics are another issue, I don't entirely know how that would work. The Eastern Catholic church has much more in common with the Orthodox church than it does with the Roman Catholic church. I would be interested to hear more about that.

They are one church.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,903


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2010, 07:49:31 PM »

In another thread on this forum, I referred to the validity of sacraments in the RCC and the OC.  Unless I am misinformed, both recognize the validity of each others' sacraments.  Both recognize that the priesthood and episcopacy of the other derives from valid apostolic succession.  

I'll echo Asteriktos - your assumptions are incorrect.  We don't recognize the sacraments of the RC (using convenient, yet imperfect language) as valid per se, or "as they are, on their own, right now" - otherwise, we'd let RC priests celebrate Vespers or Liturgy in our Churches, for example.  They may be accepted once the people come into Orthodoxy, but there is some situational leeway involved in that, too (i.e. are they coming from Roman or Eastern rite?  Were they SSPX?  Were they promoting dance masses, or traditional ones?)

If this is indeed the case, why is it that Catholics will warmly welcome Orthodox Christians to worship with them *and* partake of the sacraments whereas Orthodox Christians will welcome Catholics to worship but *not* partake of the sacraments unless or until they convert?  

Asteriktos answered this well.
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.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,903


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2010, 07:52:00 PM »

I am under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church rejects the validity of Anglican sacraments, but that, at least until the mid-20th century, some Orthodox bishops viewed Anglican sacraments as valid and permitted Orthodox faithful to take communion at Anglican parishes. True? Feel free to elaborate.

The only documents I've seen that allowed Orthodox Christians to go to Anglican services and participate/partake refer to situations where no Orthodox Church is reachable, at a time when there were less than half of the Orthodox Churches currently found in the US.  I don't think the situation is applicable now.
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.
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 964



« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2010, 07:57:44 PM »

I am under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church rejects the validity of Anglican sacraments, but that, at least until the mid-20th century, some Orthodox bishops viewed Anglican sacraments as valid and permitted Orthodox faithful to take communion at Anglican parishes. True? Feel free to elaborate.

The only documents I've seen that allowed Orthodox Christians to go to Anglican services and participate/partake refer to situations where no Orthodox Church is reachable, at a time when there were less than half of the Orthodox Churches currently found in the US.  I don't think the situation is applicable now.

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,402



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2010, 09:35:36 PM »

I am under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church rejects the validity of Anglican sacraments, but that, at least until the mid-20th century, some Orthodox bishops viewed Anglican sacraments as valid and permitted Orthodox faithful to take communion at Anglican parishes. True? Feel free to elaborate.

The only documents I've seen that allowed Orthodox Christians to go to Anglican services and participate/partake refer to situations where no Orthodox Church is reachable, at a time when there were less than half of the Orthodox Churches currently found in the US.  I don't think the situation is applicable now.

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

IIRC this permission was rescinded not long after after being issued due to Episcopalian/Anglican priests telling Orthodox Christians that there was no need to go to Orthodox parishes at all.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,785



« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2010, 09:39:49 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 964



« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2010, 11:06:09 PM »

I am under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church rejects the validity of Anglican sacraments, but that, at least until the mid-20th century, some Orthodox bishops viewed Anglican sacraments as valid and permitted Orthodox faithful to take communion at Anglican parishes. True? Feel free to elaborate.

The only documents I've seen that allowed Orthodox Christians to go to Anglican services and participate/partake refer to situations where no Orthodox Church is reachable, at a time when there were less than half of the Orthodox Churches currently found in the US.  I don't think the situation is applicable now.

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

IIRC this permission was rescinded not long after after being issued due to Episcopalian/Anglican priests telling Orthodox Christians that there was no need to go to Orthodox parishes at all.

I am certain you have this in mind:

Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny on the Anglicans and Orthodox Baptism

However, I think the Patriarch of Constantinople is said to have recognized Anglican sacraments as late as the 1930's. I cannot locate where I saw that.
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 964



« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2010, 11:17:55 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Is your preference for RCC over AC based on something specific to their sacraments or on some other (perhaps aesthetic) criteria?

I searched in vain for THGCOEC, but apparently no episcopus vagans has yet trademarked that particular acronym.  Cheesy
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,219


« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2010, 11:19:11 PM »

I am certain you have this in mind:

Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny on the Anglicans and Orthodox Baptism

However, I think the Patriarch of Constantinople is said to have recognized Anglican sacraments as late as the 1930's. I cannot locate where I saw that.

Perhaps you are thinking of this thread...?
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 964



« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2010, 11:22:30 PM »

I am certain you have this in mind:

Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny on the Anglicans and Orthodox Baptism

However, I think the Patriarch of Constantinople is said to have recognized Anglican sacraments as late as the 1930's. I cannot locate where I saw that.

Perhaps you are thinking of this thread...?

First, thank you.  Second, your familiarity with the content of this board frightens me.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,219


« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2010, 11:29:22 PM »

I am certain you have this in mind:

Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny on the Anglicans and Orthodox Baptism

However, I think the Patriarch of Constantinople is said to have recognized Anglican sacraments as late as the 1930's. I cannot locate where I saw that.

Perhaps you are thinking of this thread...?

First, thank you.  Second, your familiarity with the content of this board frightens me.

Lol, I just remember the conversation, so I searched for something like "Anglican Constantinople" in posts made by Irish Hermit, and it was one of the first threads that came up.  Smiley
Logged
tomowapig
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Christian (struggling)
Posts: 51


« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2010, 02:34:54 PM »

In another thread on this forum, I referred to the validity of sacraments in the RCC and the OC.  Unless I am misinformed, both recognize the validity of each others' sacraments.  Both recognize that the priesthood and episcopacy of the other derives from valid apostolic succession.  

I'll echo Asteriktos - your assumptions are incorrect.  We don't recognize the sacraments of the RC (using convenient, yet imperfect language) as valid per se, or "as they are, on their own, right now" - otherwise, we'd let RC priests celebrate Vespers or Liturgy in our Churches, for example.  They may be accepted once the people come into Orthodoxy, but there is some situational leeway involved in that, too (i.e. are they coming from Roman or Eastern rite?  Were they SSPX?  Were they promoting dance masses, or traditional ones?)

If this is indeed the case, why is it that Catholics will warmly welcome Orthodox Christians to worship with them *and* partake of the sacraments whereas Orthodox Christians will welcome Catholics to worship but *not* partake of the sacraments unless or until they convert?  

Asteriktos answered this well.

Hmmm.....interesting.  Especially in light of the fact that my assumptions come from being told these things by both RC and OC priests.  Very "conservative" ones at that.

Let me clarify 2 things: 1) I meant to refer in the subject of my OP to RC and OC sacraments.  No more, no less.  This is, after all, the Orthodox-Catholic Discussion forum; and 2) I'm not trying to "make a point" here, just in case anyone got that impression.  I only want to learn and to clarify some things that seem pretty fuzzy to me.

In light of all that, I have some questions:
1) With the (not-so-minor) exception of the filioque, do not Catholics and Orthodox recite the same creed?  And in that creed is there not the phrase, "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church"?

2) Is a person baptized in the RC not recognized as a baptized person by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

3) Is the marriage of a couple married by a RC priest in a Catholic church not recognized as a valid marriage by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

4) Are the bread and wine that are consecrated during a RC liturgy not the Body and Blood of Christ?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And if so, are they recognized as such by the OC?

5) If I (or anyone else, for that matter) were to confess sins to Christ before a RC priest and receive absolution, am I (or whoever else) absolved in the eyes of God?  And does the OC recognize that absolution?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And also if not, if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy would he/she have to re-confess, as it were, all those sins confessed and absolved in the RC?  Either way, please explain.

I guess that's probably enough to chew on for now  Smiley!
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 02:39:17 PM by tomowapig » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2010, 02:52:29 PM »

In light of all that, I have some questions:
1) With the (not-so-minor) exception of the filioque, do not Catholics and Orthodox recite the same creed?  And in that creed is there not the phrase, "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church"?

Yes, so...

Quote
2) Is a person baptized in the RC not recognized as a baptized person by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

He is not baptised. There are no sacraments outside the Church.

Quote
3) Is the marriage of a couple married by a RC priest in a Catholic church not recognized as a valid marriage by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

There are no sacraments outside the Church.

Quote
4) Are the bread and wine that are consecrated during a RC liturgy not the Body and Blood of Christ?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And if so, are they recognized as such by the OC?

They are bread and wine.

Quote
If I (or anyone else, for that matter) were to confess sins to Christ before a RC priest and receive absolution, am I (or whoever else) absolved in the eyes of God?  And does the OC recognize that absolution?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And also if not, if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy would he/she have to re-confess, as it were, all those sins confessed and absolved in the RC?  Either way, please explain.

There are no sacraments outside the Church. While converting all the sins are cleansed.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
tomowapig
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Christian (struggling)
Posts: 51


« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2010, 03:03:07 PM »

In light of all that, I have some questions:
1) With the (not-so-minor) exception of the filioque, do not Catholics and Orthodox recite the same creed?  And in that creed is there not the phrase, "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church"?

Yes, so...

Quote
2) Is a person baptized in the RC not recognized as a baptized person by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

He is not baptised. There are no sacraments outside the Church.

Quote
3) Is the marriage of a couple married by a RC priest in a Catholic church not recognized as a valid marriage by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

There are no sacraments outside the Church.

Quote
4) Are the bread and wine that are consecrated during a RC liturgy not the Body and Blood of Christ?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And if so, are they recognized as such by the OC?

They are bread and wine.

Quote
If I (or anyone else, for that matter) were to confess sins to Christ before a RC priest and receive absolution, am I (or whoever else) absolved in the eyes of God?  And does the OC recognize that absolution?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And also if not, if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy would he/she have to re-confess, as it were, all those sins confessed and absolved in the RC?  Either way, please explain.

There are no sacraments outside the Church. While converting all the sins are cleansed.

I wonder if I were to ask the same questions on a Catholic discussion forum and switched around the RC and OC if someone there would reply in like manner?  You know, "There are no sacraments outside the (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic) church.  Sigh.  Never the twain shall meet?  Bigger sigh.

And I also wonder if your position would be echoed and confirmed by all the OC bishops, thus making it an "official" Church position?  Interesting.

Would I be putting words in your mouth, so to speak, if I were to conclude that you would also hold that there is NO salvation outside the Church?  Er, the Orthodox Church?  And if so, how would you *know* that?
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 03:07:42 PM by tomowapig » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2010, 03:08:23 PM »

Why to care what the RCs/Lutherans/Pastafarians think about us?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/non-orthodox_ch7.pdf
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 03:08:43 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
tomowapig
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Christian (struggling)
Posts: 51


« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2010, 03:09:25 PM »

Why to care what the RCs/Lutherans/Pastafarians think about us?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/non-orthodox_ch7.pdf

But that doesn't answer my questions.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2010, 03:18:16 PM »

1. The Catholics would answer that the sacraments are valid but unworthyly given wahtever that means. I have no idea why it is important to anyone in the Orthodox Church.

2. Yes.

3. The link I posted answers it.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
tomowapig
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Christian (struggling)
Posts: 51


« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2010, 03:31:25 PM »

1. The Catholics would answer that the sacraments are valid but unworthyly given wahtever that means. I have no idea why it is important to anyone in the Orthodox Church.

2. Yes.

3. The link I posted answers it.

Thanks for the link.  I've saved it and will read it later when I have more time.

Anyone else care to jump in and comment?
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,903


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2010, 03:47:13 PM »

1) With the (not-so-minor) exception of the filioque, do not Catholics and Orthodox recite the same creed?  And in that creed is there not the phrase, "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church"?

Yes, we do recite the same creed.  However, as with many things, where (or, more accurately, "with whom") you recite the creed makes a big difference.

2) Is a person baptized in the RC not recognized as a baptized person by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

If you're coming into Orthodoxy, or marrying an Orthodox person, then usually the answer is "yes."  However, if you're doing neither, then it's none of our business, and it remains a matter between the person and the Holy Spirit.

3) Is the marriage of a couple married by a RC priest in a Catholic church not recognized as a valid marriage by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

If they're becoming Orthodox, then the answer is usually, "yes."  It had a "good form," but is now being sanctified by entry into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  However, if you're not becoming Orthodox, then it's none of our concern - it's between you and the Holy Spirit.

4) Are the bread and wine that are consecrated during a RC liturgy not the Body and Blood of Christ?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And if so, are they recognized as such by the OC?

Generally we're not 100% sure, but we tend toward, "no Eucharist outside the Church."  At the end of the day, we don't dictate where the Spirit cannot go, and certainly cannot be sure of every place He dwells in - all we can be sure of is His presence in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

5) If I (or anyone else, for that matter) were to confess sins to Christ before a RC priest and receive absolution, am I (or whoever else) absolved in the eyes of God?

None of us can know that - God's absolution is His business, not ours.  He said that His disciples (and, by their blessing, their successors) had the power to loose and bind - which we see as present in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church - but that doesn't restrict His ability to loose and bind; therefore, He will forgive whomever He wants, even if they're not in the Church.

And also if not, if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy would he/she have to re-confess, as it were, all those sins confessed and absolved in the RC?  Either way, please explain.

There's no "re-confess," just like there's no "re-baptize" - it either happened (in reality or in form), in which case it's not duplicated (if it took place in reality, then we'd be blaspheming the Spirit for duplicating; and if in form, then we can bless the prior act through the entry into the Church), or it didn't.
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.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2010, 06:08:09 PM »

I am under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church rejects the validity of Anglican sacraments, but that, at least until the mid-20th century, some Orthodox bishops viewed Anglican sacraments as valid and permitted Orthodox faithful to take communion at Anglican parishes. True? Feel free to elaborate.

The only documents I've seen that allowed Orthodox Christians to go to Anglican services and participate/partake refer to situations where no Orthodox Church is reachable, at a time when there were less than half of the Orthodox Churches currently found in the US.  I don't think the situation is applicable now.

Indeed, St. Raphael of Brooklyn, after being better informed on Anglicanism by the convert priest, Fr. Nathaniel Irivine, wrote forbidding communion with Anglicans even in extremis.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2010, 07:00:14 PM »

No, we don't recognize them as having Sacraments.

You mean you do not.  Not all Oriental Orthodox Churches agree with you.

http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/19940125SOCRCMarriageAgmt.html

This agreement between the Catholic Church and the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church on interchurch marriages has been prepared taking into account the following elements of the Common Declaration of Pope John Paul II and the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Zakka I Iwas of Antioch, dated 23 June 1984:

1.The common profession of faith between the Pope and the Patriarch on the mystery of the Incarnate Word;
2.The common affirmation of their faith in the mystery of the Church and the sacraments;
3.The possibility given by the declaration for a pastoral collaboration including the mutual admission of the faithful belonging to both churches to the reception of the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick for a grave spiritual need.
Having considered the above mentioned events and declaration, the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church agreed on the following considerations and norms.


As our two churches believe in and confess the mystery of the Church and its sacramental reality, we consider it our duty to specify the areas of agreement in cases of marriages between the members of our two churches.

Man and woman created in the image of God (Gen. 1: 26,27) are called to become sharers of the eternal divine communion. The sacrament of marriage is an image of this divine communion. Marital intimacy and self-effacing sharing are reflections of the deepest interpersonal sharing within the Trinitarian communion. Hence this intimate marital communion is divinely confirmed by Christ with the seal of unity and of indissolubility, and ordered toward the good of the spouses and the generation and education of the offspring.

He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh?" What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder. (Mt. 19:46).

Marriage is a great sacrament of divine communion and St Paul compares the mutual relationship of the husband and wife to the mystery of communion between Jesus Christ and his Church (cf. Eph. 5: 21-26; Tit. 2:3f; I Pet. 3: if; Rev. 18:7, 21:2). St Paul calls it a great mystery: "This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church" (Eph. 5:32). Hence we believe that the sacrament of marriage bearing the image of the eternal divine communion is also an image of the most intimate communion between the Risen Bridegroom with his Bride, the Church.

The Church is the primordial sacrament of the eternal divine communion and, through the celebration of her sacramental mysteries; she deepens her communion with the divine Spouse and enables her members to participate in the divine life.

Our two churches accept the sacredness and indissolubility of the sacramental bond of marriage and consider the conjugal relationship as an expression of the above communion and a means to achieve self effacing mutual love and freedom from selfishness, which was the cause of the fall of humanity.

In this theological perspective, taking into account the question of the marriages between the members of our two churches, we consider it a matter of our pastoral concern to provide the following directives.

Our two churches desire to foster marriages within the same ecclesial communion and consider this the norm. However, we have to accept the pastoral reality that interchurch marriages do take place. When such occasions arise, both churches should facilitate the celebration of the sacrament of matrimony in either church, allowing the bride/bridegroom the right and freedom to retain her/his own ecclesial communion, by providing necessary information and documents. On the occasion of these celebrations, the couples as well as their family members belonging to these two churches are allowed to participate in the Holy Eucharist in the church where the sacrament of matrimony is celebrated. We consider it also the great responsibility of the parents to pay special attention to impart to the extent possible and in mutual accord proper ecclesial formation to their children in full harmony with the tradition of the ecclesial communion to which they have to belong.

The agreement was drafted in November 1993 and released on January 25, 1994, after approval from Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Zakka I.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastoral Guidelines
The Pastoral Guidelines which follow the text of the Agreement state that "the pastors of both partners are bound in conscience to provide continued pastoral care to interchurch families in such a way as to contribute to their sanctity, unity and harmony."

The couples are "allowed to participate jointly in the Eucharistic celebration on special occasions when this joint celebration is socially required".

Communion at the Wedding
Reciprocity. The Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church is an autonomous church under the authority of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. It is thus one of those Eastern churches, which the Roman Catholic Church recognizes as close in faith to itself and "in possession of true sacraments, notably the priesthood and the Eucharist" (Decree on Ecumenism, n.14, 15). For this reason the bride and groom are allowed to receive communion together, whether the wedding and wedding Eucharist takes place in a Catholic church or in a Malankara Syrian Orthodox church.

Family members. This document makes explicit provision for the wider family to receive communion together at the wedding, not simply the bride and groom

« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 07:01:04 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2010, 07:11:34 PM »

Eastern Catholics are another issue.

Why?

Because your Church has always treated them as a seperate issue.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2010, 09:47:28 PM »

1) With the (not-so-minor) exception of the filioque, do not Catholics and Orthodox recite the same creed?  And in that creed is there not the phrase, "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church"?

Yes, we do recite the same creed.  However, as with many things, where (or, more accurately, "with whom") you recite the creed makes a big difference.

2) Is a person baptized in the RC not recognized as a baptized person by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

If you're coming into Orthodoxy, or marrying an Orthodox person, then usually the answer is "yes."  However, if you're doing neither, then it's none of our business, and it remains a matter between the person and the Holy Spirit.

3) Is the marriage of a couple married by a RC priest in a Catholic church not recognized as a valid marriage by the OC?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

If they're becoming Orthodox, then the answer is usually, "yes."  It had a "good form," but is now being sanctified by entry into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  However, if you're not becoming Orthodox, then it's none of our concern - it's between you and the Holy Spirit.

4) Are the bread and wine that are consecrated during a RC liturgy not the Body and Blood of Christ?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  And if so, are they recognized as such by the OC?

Generally we're not 100% sure, but we tend toward, "no Eucharist outside the Church."  At the end of the day, we don't dictate where the Spirit cannot go, and certainly cannot be sure of every place He dwells in - all we can be sure of is His presence in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

5) If I (or anyone else, for that matter) were to confess sins to Christ before a RC priest and receive absolution, am I (or whoever else) absolved in the eyes of God?

None of us can know that - God's absolution is His business, not ours.  He said that His disciples (and, by their blessing, their successors) had the power to loose and bind - which we see as present in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church - but that doesn't restrict His ability to loose and bind; therefore, He will forgive whomever He wants, even if they're not in the Church.

And also if not, if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy would he/she have to re-confess, as it were, all those sins confessed and absolved in the RC?  Either way, please explain.

There's no "re-confess," just like there's no "re-baptize" - it either happened (in reality or in form), in which case it's not duplicated (if it took place in reality, then we'd be blaspheming the Spirit for duplicating; and if in form, then we can bless the prior act through the entry into the Church), or it didn't.

For pastoral reasons, however, most people I know who are received into the Church, regardless if they've confessed elsewhere before, give a life confession. This medicine is also recommended by various spiritual fathers to spiritual children who were raised in the Church, especially if they have not confessed in awhile or there is spiritual need.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2010, 06:40:10 AM »

Eastern Catholics are another issue.

Why?

Because your Church has always treated them as a seperate issue.

Could you elaborate?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,785



« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2010, 01:54:57 PM »

Is your preference for RCC over AC based on something specific to their sacraments or on some other (perhaps aesthetic) criteria?

It has to do with the Roman Catholic Churches fidelity to apostolic tradition compared to the vast majority of those in the Anglican communion. When I look at the Roman Catholic Church, I see real and tangible bonds with us (apostolic succession, liturgical worship, veneration of saints and relics, Real Presence, traditional morality, etc.). When I look at the Anglicans as a whole, all I see is a huge mess of flimsy, flabby nonsense.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 01:55:20 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
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 #32 on: November 03, 2010, 02:26:17 PM »

Eastern Catholics are another issue.

Why?

Because your Church has always treated them as a seperate issue.

Could you elaborate?

For one thing, those which go 'Doxing (convert to Orthodoxy) are spoken as returning rather than converting.  As a body, they are in origin a schism of local Church which has united with a heretical body, thus slightly diffferent situation.
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 #33 on: November 03, 2010, 10:34:28 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2010, 02:21:29 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2010, 02:25:51 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2010, 02:26:46 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,181


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 04, 2010, 02:48:24 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion? 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #38 on: November 04, 2010, 02:51:01 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.
Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 02:51:28 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #39 on: November 04, 2010, 03:23:04 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 03:23:22 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #40 on: November 04, 2010, 03:26:57 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #41 on: November 04, 2010, 03:28:51 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?
The answers to that question probably vary. I doubt there is a cannonical process.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2010, 04:10:45 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?
The answers to that question probably vary. I doubt there is a cannonical process.

I would think the process would be Chrismation and Communion. God cares about the non-Orthodox person's salvation just as much, but an Orthodox priest must adhere to the discipline and tradition of the Orthodox Church in which he cannot dispense of the Holy Mysteries to those who are not joined to the Church. He is not even supposed to commune Orthodox Christians who refuse to repent of their sins.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,903


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2010, 04:33:11 PM »

For pastoral reasons, however, most people I know who are received into the Church, regardless if they've confessed elsewhere before, give a life confession.

Then the statement is that they didn't have a valid confession before.  As I said, there's no, "re-confession" - either their confession "didn't count," and they do it now, or it "did count" and they're not required to do so.

This medicine is also recommended by various spiritual fathers to spiritual children who were raised in the Church, especially if they have not confessed in awhile or there is spiritual need.

Personal opinion: If an Orthodox Christian is asked to "re-confess" a sin that was already confessed and absolved by an Orthodox priest or hierarch, then the request is blasphemous.  If the Orthodox Christian is asked to discuss previous sins with their new spiritual father in order for the spiritual father to have a better idea about the person's background, needs, etc. (like giving a new doctor your complete medical history), then the request is "normal" and useful.
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.
tomowapig
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Christian (struggling)
Posts: 51


« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2010, 05:09:52 PM »

This discussion is very interesting, especially in it's development over the days.  I'd really like to thank everyone who has participated!!

I'd also like to add two (unrelated) comments, for what they are worth. First of all, a very good friend of mine once said that **everything** man has touched since the Fall he has managed to corrupt.  Everything.  Just look around you.  Just look at history.  All of history.  And that includes the Church.  Just re-read this thread.

Secondly, at The Judgment, at which according to the Antiochian Orthodox Divine Liturgy,we will be called upon to offer "a good defense before the awful judgment seat of the Lord" (did I get that right?), will God ask us if we were Orthodox, or Anglican, or Roman Catholic?  Will He ask us if we partook of Holy Communion from a priest that was in communion with the "correct" Church?  I wonder just *what* He will ask us.  And, speaking only for myself here, I really do not think I will have "a good defense...".  Lord have mercy on me, a sinner!
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 04, 2010, 05:33:28 PM »

The Church, according to the Creed, is Holy. Christ will ask us have we been members of Her.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #46 on: November 05, 2010, 01:37:38 AM »

The Church, according to the Creed, is Holy. Christ will ask us have we been members of Her.
I don't see in the New Testament where Jesus has said that you have to belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church. What I read is this: Matthew 25:
[31] And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
 
Logged
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 #47 on: November 05, 2010, 01:47:43 AM »

The Church, according to the Creed, is Holy. Christ will ask us have we been members of Her.
I don't see in the New Testament where Jesus has said that you have to belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church. What I read is this: Matthew 25:
[31] And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

The Unitarian Universalists are fond of that lection.

"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." Luke 10:16
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #48 on: November 05, 2010, 04:23:24 AM »

The Church, according to the Creed, is Holy. Christ will ask us have we been members of Her.
I don't see in the New Testament where Jesus has said that you have to belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church. What I read is this: Matthew 25:
[31] And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

The Unitarian Universalists are fond of that lection.

They also like to quote the Our Father, otherwise known as the Lord's Prayer.
In any case, I don't see here or anywhere else in the New Testament where Jesus says that He will ask you  if you are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 05, 2010, 04:47:26 AM »

In any case, I don't see here or anywhere else in the New Testament where Jesus says that He will ask you  if you are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Are you a Baptist?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #50 on: November 05, 2010, 05:45:47 AM »

In any case, I don't see here or anywhere else in the New Testament where Jesus says that He will ask you  if you are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Are you a Baptist?
Whether I am a Unitarian, Baptist, Episcopalian, Jehovah's witness, Jew, Muslim, Hindhu  or Buddhist is irrelevant to what Jesus is quoted as saying in Matthew 25. Do you or do you not accept the words of Our Divine Lord and Savior as written in Matthew 25? Do you see that He does not say that He is going to ask anyone if they are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Can you read and do you accept what He says are His criteria for salvation?
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 05, 2010, 05:55:40 AM »

Do you thinks that's all the criteria and nothing more is needed?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #52 on: November 05, 2010, 06:11:14 AM »

Do you thinks that's all the criteria and nothing more is needed?
Let me answer your question this way:
Here is my personal opinion on the question:
I don't believe that Jesus will ask Mother Theresa why she did not become a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And for the sake of the discussion, let us suppose that she did convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Would that have affected  her status in heaven, so that she would get a better deal, so to speak? I don't see anything in the New Testament which indicates that Mother Theresa would have a higher status in heaven if she had converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 06:11:57 AM by stanley123 » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,487



« Reply #53 on: November 05, 2010, 07:28:50 AM »

I don't see anything in the New Testament which indicates that Mother Theresa would have a higher status in heaven if she had converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I don't see anything in the New Testament which indicates that Mother Teresa would have a lower status in heaven if she had converted to the Baptist Church.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 07:29:11 AM by Alpo » Logged
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 #54 on: November 05, 2010, 10:36:58 AM »

The Church, according to the Creed, is Holy. Christ will ask us have we been members of Her.
I don't see in the New Testament where Jesus has said that you have to belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church. What I read is this: Matthew 25:
[31] And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

The Unitarian Universalists are fond of that lection.

They also like to quote the Our Father, otherwise known as the Lord's Prayer.

Actually, no, they do not. Too Christian. But what was your point?

Quote
In any case, I don't see here or anywhere else in the New Testament where Jesus says that He will ask you  if you are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

"I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" John 14:6.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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 #55 on: November 05, 2010, 10:47:56 AM »

In any case, I don't see here or anywhere else in the New Testament where Jesus says that He will ask you  if you are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Are you a Baptist?
Whether I am a Unitarian, Baptist, Episcopalian, Jehovah's witness, Jew, Muslim, Hindhu  or Buddhist is irrelevant to what Jesus is quoted as saying in Matthew 25.

The Unitarian, Jehovah's witness, Jew, Muslim, Hindhu and Buddhist do not accept Him as Our Divine Lord and Savior and do not accept His words, and there is question about the Baptist and Episcopalian.

Quote
Do you or do you not accept the words of Our Divine Lord and Savior as written in Matthew 25?

Do you not accept the words of Our Divine Lord and Savior as written in John 3? "“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”"

Quote
Do you see that He does not say that He is going to ask anyone if they are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

I'm sorrry, where does it say that Matthew 25 is the whole of the Gospel? In the Evangelikon we have the rest of Matthew and the other three Gospels.  Unitarian Universalists like to ignore that gentle Jesus has plenty to say about hellfire, and like to blame St. Paul, the Apostle of Faith (i.e. the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church), although St. Paul doesn't take about hell at all.

Quote
Can you read and do you accept what He says are His criteria for salvation?
We do. We just read and accept what those uncomfortable with what He says are His criteria for salvation.
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
tomowapig
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Christian (struggling)
Posts: 51


« Reply #56 on: November 05, 2010, 10:49:50 AM »

I've read and heard it said that "there is no salvation outside the Church."  Now, depending upon who is saying that, "the Church" could be either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.  Or the Oriental Orthodox Church, or the Baptist Church, or the whatever Church.  I suppose the meaning here is the One Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church.  And just what does *that* consist of?  Oops, here we go again  Grin

I've also heard it said that if there is salvation outside the Church [and why, really, would there NOT be??], we (as in those *inside* the Church) do not know how that happens.  Which is not to day that it *cannot* happen, just that "we" don't know how it happens.  You know, "We know where the Holy Spirit *is* (as in "the Church") but we do not know where He is not."

Comments?
Logged
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 #57 on: November 05, 2010, 10:55:01 AM »

Do you thinks that's all the criteria and nothing more is needed?
Let me answer your question this way:
Here is my personal opinion on the question:
I don't believe that Jesus will ask Mother Theresa why she did not become a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And for the sake of the discussion, let us suppose that she did convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Would that have affected  her status in heaven, so that she would get a better deal, so to speak? I don't see anything in the New Testament which indicates that Mother Theresa would have a higher status in heaven if she had converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Let me answer you this way.
The Agha Khan claims to be the successor of Muhammad and the manifestation of God and Lord of the Age.  He operates a vast array of philantropic endevors throughout the world. He also has moved to bring his followers more in line with more mainstream Islam.  He has even visted Mt. Athos: would he have a higher status (rather hard, as his followers pray to him as God) if he converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church?
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
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,595


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #58 on: November 05, 2010, 12:24:55 PM »

I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources. I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible .
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #59 on: November 05, 2010, 12:29:26 PM »

We have many new posters who think they know what God wants.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 12:45:11 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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 #60 on: November 05, 2010, 01:07:37 PM »

I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ ,

Then you are Protestant. When I learned that the teaching of His Apostles that you cannot call God Father unless you calll the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church mother, and cannot have Christ as your Head if you are not a member of that Church, His Body, I left Protestantism and embraced the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles.

From the time of Christs Ascension and until his return the Apostles and their successors the Orthodox bishops have told you are not supposed to partake of their communion. But you do what you conscience tells you, if that's what is speaking.

Quote
I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago
And the 1000 years since then.
Quote
and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

And one supreme pontiff, whose communion you have entered.

The Mormons have the same Gospels (and "another" as well) but they believe in a pluarlity of gods. On your criteria, why don't you commune with them?

Quote
I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources.

Quote
I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible.
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
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,595


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #61 on: November 05, 2010, 04:17:05 PM »

I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ ,

Then you are Protestant. When I learned that the teaching of His Apostles that you cannot call God Father unless you calll the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church mother, and cannot have Christ as your Head if you are not a member of that Church, His Body, I left Protestantism and embraced the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles.

From the time of Christs Ascension and until his return the Apostles and their successors the Orthodox bishops have told you are not supposed to partake of their communion. But you do what you conscience tells you, if that's what is speaking.

Quote
I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago
And the 1000 years since then.
Quote
and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

And one supreme pontiff, whose communion you have entered.

The Mormons have the same Gospels (and "another" as well) but they believe in a pluarlity of gods. On your criteria, why don't you commune with them?

Quote
I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources.

Quote
I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible.


I call for unity under one church as Jesus said to love all and you find divisiveness in all you say.
I Am humbled by your attack on me and dismayed at you lack of mercy and compassion for what I meant as openness for all.

< Luke 6:42 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 04:18:36 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
tomowapig
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Christian (struggling)
Posts: 51


« Reply #62 on: November 05, 2010, 04:26:53 PM »

Dear Sinful Hypocrite,

Welcome to the wonderful world of Orthodoxy, especially the internet version  Grin.  Yup.  One.  Holy.  And far from undivided. Cry 

But I guess that's not just Orthodoxy, is it?  Everything that isn't God, I think, is like that.  Or am I just too cynical anymore?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #63 on: November 05, 2010, 04:29:48 PM »

I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources. I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible .

Yes. I agree with you to some extent.
There are so many beliefs that RC and EO hold in common. However, the problem is that there are a few sore points of disagreement, and my understanding is that the EO believe them to be serious and in need of clarification before any intercommunion would take place. Such as for example, the RC doctrine on the Supreme Universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. This might appear to have the effect of making the Eastern Patriarchs subservient to the Roman Pontiff in a way that was not in effect before the split which took place in 1054.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,181


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #64 on: November 05, 2010, 08:26:26 PM »

I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ ,

Then you are Protestant. When I learned that the teaching of His Apostles that you cannot call God Father unless you calll the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church mother, and cannot have Christ as your Head if you are not a member of that Church, His Body, I left Protestantism and embraced the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles.

From the time of Christs Ascension and until his return the Apostles and their successors the Orthodox bishops have told you are not supposed to partake of their communion. But you do what you conscience tells you, if that's what is speaking.

Quote
I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago
And the 1000 years since then.
Quote
and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

And one supreme pontiff, whose communion you have entered.

The Mormons have the same Gospels (and "another" as well) but they believe in a pluarlity of gods. On your criteria, why don't you commune with them?

Quote
I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources.

Quote
I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible.


I call for unity under one church as Jesus said to love all and you find divisiveness in all you say.
I Am humbled by your attack on me and dismayed at you lack of mercy and compassion for what I meant as openness for all.

< Luke 6:42 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Perhaps openness for all wasn't and isn't what you meant it to be. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,595


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #65 on: November 05, 2010, 09:32:46 PM »

Dear Sinful Hypocrite,

Welcome to the wonderful world of Orthodoxy, especially the internet version  Grin.  Yup.  One.  Holy.  And far from undivided. Cry 

But I guess that's not just Orthodoxy, is it?  Everything that isn't God, I think, is like that.  Or am I just too cynical anymore?

Yes it is with dismay I realize that I found that out in short order.  Of course there is light in the tunnel my friend. There are many who in my parish and family who do not have much love for those others either ,so I am not so surprised.
You are a bit of sunshine in a otherwise hateful issue.Thank you tomowapig.

I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources. I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible .

Yes. I agree with you to some extent.
There are so many beliefs that RC and EO hold in common. However, the problem is that there are a few sore points of disagreement, and my understanding is that the EO believe them to be serious and in need of clarification before any intercommunion would take place. Such as for example, the RC doctrine on the Supreme Universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. This might appear to have the effect of making the Eastern Patriarchs subservient to the Roman Pontiff in a way that was not in effect before the split which took place in 1054.

I Realize that it has been a long time but it was close to being given a chance recently. There may be what we think are serious issues but I say it is worse to act as we have for so long . It may not be possible and that is why we are never able to walk as Jesus without sin. We are bickering the same as the disciples did right in front of Jesus
NIV Luke 22:
24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #66 on: November 05, 2010, 09:42:49 PM »

Dear Sinful Hypocrite,

Welcome to the wonderful world of Orthodoxy, especially the internet version  Grin.  Yup.  One.  Holy.  And far from undivided. Cry 

But I guess that's not just Orthodoxy, is it?  Everything that isn't God, I think, is like that.  Or am I just too cynical anymore?

Yes it is with dismay I realize that I found that out in short order.  Of course there is light in the tunnel my friend. There are many who in my parish and family who do not have much love for those others either ,so I am not so surprised.
You are a bit of sunshine in a otherwise hateful issue.Thank you tomowapig.

I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources. I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible .

Yes. I agree with you to some extent.
There are so many beliefs that RC and EO hold in common. However, the problem is that there are a few sore points of disagreement, and my understanding is that the EO believe them to be serious and in need of clarification before any intercommunion would take place. Such as for example, the RC doctrine on the Supreme Universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. This might appear to have the effect of making the Eastern Patriarchs subservient to the Roman Pontiff in a way that was not in effect before the split which took place in 1054.

I Realize that it has been a long time but it was close to being given a chance recently. There may be what we think are serious issues but I say it is worse to act as we have for so long . It may not be possible and that is why we are never able to walk as Jesus without sin. We are bickering the same as the disciples did right in front of Jesus
NIV Luke 22:
24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.
I like your view on this. Thanks.
Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,595


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #67 on: November 05, 2010, 09:47:04 PM »

I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian. I was taught the Gospel and how our faith is in Jesus as our savior rising from the dead for our sins . I was never taught and it is never spoken about in Church or in sermons that my faith is an Eastern Orthodox faith only. And if they would I imagine many would find that suspect.

However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ ,

Then you are Protestant. When I learned that the teaching of His Apostles that you cannot call God Father unless you calll the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church mother, and cannot have Christ as your Head if you are not a member of that Church, His Body, I left Protestantism and embraced the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles.

From the time of Christs Ascension and until his return the Apostles and their successors the Orthodox bishops have told you are not supposed to partake of their communion. But you do what you conscience tells you, if that's what is speaking.

Quote
I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago
And the 1000 years since then.
Quote
and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

And one supreme pontiff, whose communion you have entered.

The Mormons have the same Gospels (and "another" as well) but they believe in a pluarlity of gods. On your criteria, why don't you commune with them?

Quote
I read the Bible and have understanding of it from many different sources.

Quote
I try and use all of them to help me understand the answers we all seek. This is what I believe God wants all of us to do as one Church. I will continue to respect the differences that we have while I also will attend any church that believes in the Bible.


I call for unity under one church as Jesus said to love all and you find divisiveness in all you say.
I Am humbled by your attack on me and dismayed at you lack of mercy and compassion for what I meant as openness for all.

< Luke 6:42 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Perhaps openness for all wasn't and isn't what you meant it to be. 

First of all I said anyone who believes in the Bible , not any mention of the book of Mormon .

Secondly we are supposed to love even our enemies. The ones  I mentioned standing up for weddings with my freinds such as Catholics are very much the same as us so they would be just neighbors who we are to love as ourselves.

Third Jesus taught us to  be meek and not puffed up like the pharisees who thought they knew better . And forgive them as you want to be forgiven.
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
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 #68 on: November 07, 2010, 08:56:09 PM »

I call for unity under one church as Jesus said to love all and you find divisiveness in all you say.
Christ calls for Orthodox union with Him in His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Whom do you think I should listen to, you or Him?

Quote
I Am humbled by your attack on me and dismayed at you lack of mercy and compassion for what I meant as openness for all.
Sorry, I don't believe in open marriage, because Christ spoke against it, so I'm not going to stand by as someone wants to prostitute His Bride to anyone who wants a crack at her.

Quote
<< Luke 6:42 >>
   
New International Version (©1984)
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

<<Luke 11:23>>

New International Version (©1984)
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me, scatters.

While you are straining out gnats and swallowing camels, my planks are not the issue. You take issue with Christ's radiant Church, which is without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.


First of all I said anyone who believes in the Bible , not any mention of the book of Mormon.
The Mormons believe in the Bible, just ask them. Many Muslims will tell you the same claim of theirs. Who are you to judge? Is your eye so plank free that it can see such issues clearly?

Secondly we are supposed to love even our enemies. The ones  I mentioned standing up for weddings with my freinds such as Catholics are very much the same as us so they would be just neighbors who we are to love as ourselves.
Loving our enemies means feeding them, clothing them, etc. It doesn't mean giving them the keys to our house, letting them have their way with our spouses, signing our children over to them, etc.  Just because you stand up at the wedding doesn't mean you get to share the bride with the bridegroom.

Third Jesus taught us to  be meek and not puffed up like the pharisees who thought they knew better . And forgive them as you want to be forgiven.
So you put the successors of the Apostles on the same level as the disciples of the Pharisees.  Christ expressed a diferent view on them:"you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #69 on: November 08, 2010, 09:58:36 AM »



However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

There are many who believe as you do and thank you for having the courage to speak out!!

I have a comment:

1. If you are going to receive communion in the Catholic Church, when you do, you should then confess it as a disobedience, for in these times of schism, without the blessing of an Orthodox bishop, you are committing the sin of disobedience.  The issue will then arise as to your commitment to be obedient and you may legitimately call upon the primacy of your conscience and the salvation of your soul.   That is not a game as long as you truly desire to be obedient but also want to be obedient to the words of Jesus in the Gospels where he calls for unity in the Body of Christ.  If you believe that your Catholic brothers and sisters are closest to you in faith, and you are not alone in Orthodoxy in believing this, then for the time being the greater weight of the sin of disobedience lies in the willed perpetuation of the schism.

Logged

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 #70 on: November 08, 2010, 10:55:27 AM »



However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

There are many who believe as you do and thank you for having the courage to speak out!!

I have a comment:

1. If you are going to receive communion in the Catholic Church, when you do, you should then confess it as a disobedience, for in these times of schism, without the blessing of an Orthodox bishop, you are committing the sin of disobedience.  The issue will then arise as to your commitment to be obedient and you may legitimately call upon the primacy of your conscience and the salvation of your soul.   That is not a game as long as you truly desire to be obedient but also want to be obedient to the words of Jesus in the Gospels where he calls for unity in the Body of Christ.  If you believe that your Catholic brothers and sisters are closest to you in faith, and you are not alone in Orthodoxy in believing this, then for the time being the greater weight of the sin of disobedience lies in the willed perpetuation of the schism.
2. Have him repent of the sin of presumption while he is at it.

But why not go to an ecclesiastiacl community that doesn't believe intercommunion is disobedience (not to mention apostacy and ignoring the words of Jesus in the Gospels and Revelation where He calls for purity and exclusive loyalty to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Body of Christ)?  The Vatican has plenty of churches here. Then he can commune to his heart's content with the Vatican and everyone else he deems to believe in the Bible: we have lots of "Bible Churches"-Baptist, Pentacostal, Evangelical, etc.-that he can commune with too. Oh, dear. Your Vatican doesn't allow that, at least not officially (though her priests used to commune me all the time when I was Lutheran). Didn't your supreme pontiff issue a "motu proprio" clarifying that?  So much for "unity" and "openness to all."

Holding the exclusive loyalty that Christ demands for the unity of His Church is never a sin, nor disobedience.  Weighed in the scales of Orthodoxy, your interpretations are found wanting.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #71 on: November 08, 2010, 11:02:08 AM »



However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

There are many who believe as you do and thank you for having the courage to speak out!!

I have a comment:

1. If you are going to receive communion in the Catholic Church, when you do, you should then confess it as a disobedience, for in these times of schism, without the blessing of an Orthodox bishop, you are committing the sin of disobedience.  The issue will then arise as to your commitment to be obedient and you may legitimately call upon the primacy of your conscience and the salvation of your soul.   That is not a game as long as you truly desire to be obedient but also want to be obedient to the words of Jesus in the Gospels where he calls for unity in the Body of Christ.  If you believe that your Catholic brothers and sisters are closest to you in faith, and you are not alone in Orthodoxy in believing this, then for the time being the greater weight of the sin of disobedience lies in the willed perpetuation of the schism.
2. Have him repent of the sin of presumption while he is at it.

But why not go to an ecclesiastiacl community that doesn't believe intercommunion is disobedience (not to mention apostacy and ignoring the words of Jesus in the Gospels and Revelation where He calls for purity and exclusive loyalty to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Body of Christ)?  The Vatican has plenty of churches here. Then he can commune to his heart's content with the Vatican and everyone else he deems to believe in the Bible: we have lots of "Bible Churches"-Baptist, Pentacostal, Evangelical, etc.-that he can commune with too. Oh, dear. Your Vatican doesn't allow that, at least not officially (though her priests used to commune me all the time when I was Lutheran). Didn't your supreme pontiff issue a "motu proprio" clarifying that?  So much for "unity" and "openness to all."

Holding the exclusive loyalty that Christ demands for the unity of His Church is never a sin, nor disobedience.  Weighed in the scales of Orthodoxy, your interpretations are found wanting.

Which Orthodoxy?

The one which knows in its heart that there are grounds for resumption of communion today?

Or the one that will never accept resumption of communion except on its own idiosyncratic terms argued by those who belong to the true Church rather than the one holy catholic and apostolic Church?

Logged

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 #72 on: November 08, 2010, 11:24:46 AM »



However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

There are many who believe as you do and thank you for having the courage to speak out!!

I have a comment:

1. If you are going to receive communion in the Catholic Church, when you do, you should then confess it as a disobedience, for in these times of schism, without the blessing of an Orthodox bishop, you are committing the sin of disobedience.  The issue will then arise as to your commitment to be obedient and you may legitimately call upon the primacy of your conscience and the salvation of your soul.   That is not a game as long as you truly desire to be obedient but also want to be obedient to the words of Jesus in the Gospels where he calls for unity in the Body of Christ.  If you believe that your Catholic brothers and sisters are closest to you in faith, and you are not alone in Orthodoxy in believing this, then for the time being the greater weight of the sin of disobedience lies in the willed perpetuation of the schism.
2. Have him repent of the sin of presumption while he is at it.

But why not go to an ecclesiastiacl community that doesn't believe intercommunion is disobedience (not to mention apostacy and ignoring the words of Jesus in the Gospels and Revelation where He calls for purity and exclusive loyalty to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Body of Christ)?  The Vatican has plenty of churches here. Then he can commune to his heart's content with the Vatican and everyone else he deems to believe in the Bible: we have lots of "Bible Churches"-Baptist, Pentacostal, Evangelical, etc.-that he can commune with too. Oh, dear. Your Vatican doesn't allow that, at least not officially (though her priests used to commune me all the time when I was Lutheran). Didn't your supreme pontiff issue a "motu proprio" clarifying that?  So much for "unity" and "openness to all."

Holding the exclusive loyalty that Christ demands for the unity of His Church is never a sin, nor disobedience.  Weighed in the scales of Orthodoxy, your interpretations are found wanting.

Which Orthodoxy?

This Orthodoxy:
a Romanian Orthodox priest invited a Roman Catholic priest to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy of Pentecost.

I read the news that the priest was deposed from priesthood by his bishop, for this co-celebration with a romano-catholic.
Amen! Amen! Amen!

Quote
The one which knows in its heart that there are grounds for resumption of communion today?

No, an Orthodoxy that exists outiside of rather active imaginations and misguided delusions.

Quote
Or the one that will never accept resumption of communion except on its own idiosyncratic terms argued by those who belong to the true Church rather than the one holy catholic and apostolic Church?
The True Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has and will never accept communion except only on Christ's own Orthodox terms. It's not that hard a concept to grasp: the Vatican made claims similar to the fact of Orthodox communion until its doctrinal drift "developed" its dogma away, in another scheme to hoodwink the Orthodox.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #73 on: November 08, 2010, 11:57:34 AM »


The True Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has and will never accept communion except only on Christ's own Orthodox terms. It's not that hard a concept to grasp: the Vatican made claims similar to the fact of Orthodox communion until its doctrinal drift "developed" its dogma away, in another scheme to hoodwink the Orthodox.

 laugh laugh laugh

Now we are down to the nub of it:  Hoodwinking!!

Good thing your hierarchs don't see it that way or we'd not be discussing anything at all.
Logged

Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #74 on: November 11, 2010, 01:37:35 PM »

Eastern Catholics are another issue.

Why?

Because your Church has always treated them as a seperate issue.

Could you elaborate?

I am confused.  In this thread
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21196.msg492781/topicseen.html#msg492781
you clearly present an understanding of the issue and now act as if you have no idea what I am talking about.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #75 on: November 11, 2010, 01:53:09 PM »


The True Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has and will never accept communion except only on Christ's own Orthodox terms. It's not that hard a concept to grasp: the Vatican made claims similar to the fact of Orthodox communion until its doctrinal drift "developed" its dogma away, in another scheme to hoodwink the Orthodox.

Given the fact that there's been an unceasing habit of intercommunion between Catholics and Orthodox regardless of how rigid the denial, one of the other, over all of the centuries since the separation hardened, I think that to claim that the Catholics are the only one with "drift" shows some sort of ignorance of reality at work, certainly an ignorance of what constitutes doctrine in the Catholic Church, some sort of denial of reality in general, and certainly, give the general "drift" of the poster, the refusal to discuss reality on any terms but that which feeds an Orthodox believer's fantasy and sincere hope for the future and one which is not shared by all Orthodox believers or hierarchs.

M.
Logged

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 #76 on: November 11, 2010, 02:15:45 PM »


The True Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has and will never accept communion except only on Christ's own Orthodox terms. It's not that hard a concept to grasp: the Vatican made claims similar to the fact of Orthodox communion until its doctrinal drift "developed" its dogma away, in another scheme to hoodwink the Orthodox.

 laugh laugh laugh

Now we are down to the nub of it:  Hoodwinking!!

Good thing your hierarchs don't see it that way or we'd not be discussing anything at all.
Your hiearchs see it that way, as well as our hierarchs. Hence why those in the East who have submitted to the Vatican are not at the "discussions."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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 #77 on: November 11, 2010, 02:25:33 PM »


The True Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has and will never accept communion except only on Christ's own Orthodox terms. It's not that hard a concept to grasp: the Vatican made claims similar to the fact of Orthodox communion until its doctrinal drift "developed" its dogma away, in another scheme to hoodwink the Orthodox.

Given the fact that there's been an unceasing habit of intercommunion between Catholics and Orthodox regardless of how rigid the denial,
What denial?  The historical record reveals the occurance of behavior for which clergy should and were deposed for.

Quote
one of the other, over all of the centuries since the separation hardened, I think that to claim that the Catholics are the only one with "drift" shows some sort of ignorance of reality at work,


Not being Orthodox, we are quite free to think anything you like, and ignore reality as much as you like, or dare. Reality won't drift in your direction therefrom, though.

Quote
certainly an ignorance of what constitutes doctrine in the Catholic Church, some sort of denial of reality in general, and certainly, give the general "drift" of the poster, the refusal to discuss reality on any terms but that which feeds an Orthodox believer's fantasy and sincere hope for the future and one which is not shared by all Orthodox believers or hierarchs.
Well, name your nameless "more conservative Orthodox clergy" who want to renounce Orthodoxy and embrace Ultramontanism, and we'll deal with them and talk.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 02:26:07 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #78 on: November 11, 2010, 05:24:16 PM »


Given the fact that there's been an unceasing habit of intercommunion between Catholics and Orthodox regardless of how rigid the denial,
What denial?  The historical record reveals the occurance of behavior for which clergy should and were deposed for.

Now you sometimes say things which I know other Orthodox here can't really know whether what you are saying is real and true or not, so they believe you simply because you are Orthodox...but what you say here is so far from reality that is actually one of the funnier things you've said.

All of us know or know about someone or several someones who are currently communing Catholics and are not in any danger whatsoever of being deposed...and it has been like that throughout our history together and to suggest that all those who did continue to share the chalice were deposed or are going to be deposed is simply a silly statement.  Some have been, of course, but to suggest it happens to all or even most, just ain't so.

M.
Logged

katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,186



« Reply #79 on: November 12, 2010, 11:48:58 AM »

All of us know or know about someone or several someones who are currently communing Catholics and are not in any danger whatsoever of being deposed...and it has been like that throughout our history together and to suggest that all those who did continue to share the chalice were deposed or are going to be deposed is simply a silly statement.  Some have been, of course, but to suggest it happens to all or even most, just ain't so.


This is also anecdotal evidence, of course, but based on my experience with a couple of bishops (both GOA and OCA) any priest who knowingly communed non-Orthodox (and continued to do so) would have a lot of 'splaining to do to his Hierarch.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #80 on: November 12, 2010, 11:59:41 AM »

All of us know or know about someone or several someones who are currently communing Catholics and are not in any danger whatsoever of being deposed...and it has been like that throughout our history together and to suggest that all those who did continue to share the chalice were deposed or are going to be deposed is simply a silly statement.  Some have been, of course, but to suggest it happens to all or even most, just ain't so.


This is also anecdotal evidence, of course, but based on my experience with a couple of bishops (both GOA and OCA) any priest who knowingly communed non-Orthodox (and continued to do so) would have a lot of 'splaining to do to his Hierarch.

I agree and the more public or flagrant it is, depending one where the jurisdictions are, the more likely it is that a priest or bishop would be disciplined.  That is also fact and I am aware of it and do not think it is a bad thing in fact.

But there are and have always been times and places where there is pretty relaxed inter-communion between canonical Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church.

My point really is that there is no monolithic rejection of the Catholic Church by Orthodoxy to date.

Rejection will either come to be universally,  or we will have to find a way to resume communion.  But this push-me, pull-you that we've done over the centuries is worse than absurd and does need to stop one way or another.

The toxicity that gets squeezed out in conversations such as some of the ones on this board is hardly spiritually healthy...On this, I think we might agree.

In Christ,

M.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 12:01:06 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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 #81 on: November 12, 2010, 12:51:16 PM »


Given the fact that there's been an unceasing habit of intercommunion between Catholics and Orthodox regardless of how rigid the denial,
What denial?  The historical record reveals the occurance of behavior for which clergy should and were deposed for.

Now you sometimes say things which I know other Orthodox here can't really know whether what you are saying is real and true or not, so they believe you simply because you are Orthodox...but what you say here is so far from reality that is actually one of the funnier things you've said.

All of us know or know about someone or several someones who are currently communing Catholics and are not in any danger whatsoever of being deposed...and it has been like that throughout our history together and to suggest that all those who did continue to share the chalice were deposed or are going to be deposed is simply a silly statement.  Some have been, of course, but to suggest it happens to all or even most, just ain't so.
And throughout history there are clerics who have engaged in all sorts of vice with impunity, knowing that they were not going to be called to account by any ecclesiastical or secular authority (recent lawsuits have proved them wrong again on that last part) and evidently do not fear God. So? Pornocratia, rather than Orthodoxy, as communion is not the commonion of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I give plenty of documentation so other Orthodox, and others, can know what I say is true (your problem with official statements and documents duly notted). I would really rather not waste time supplying the documentation of vice covered by the pall, or do you insist on it?

There are areas, for instance, in Syria where intercommunion, intermarriage etc. is very common between Orthodox and those Melkites who are in submission to the Vatican, but that comes out of an "a Pox on Both Romes-Antioch first!" mentality. It hasn't transplanted as far as I have seen to the diaspora (Arab, not Orthodox): hence the directive which I have heard from the priest holding the chalice, written in the Sunday bulletin etc. of every Antiochian parish, convert or craddle, that I have been to, that communion is restricted to Orthodox members who have prepared themselves. There is something similar among those whose forebares after Brest et alia were told that the pope in the Vatican had professed the Orthodox Faith.  I understand that in some areas they use "Pravoslavni" "Orthodox" in the usage you advocate for "Catholic" here.

Such areas are few and far between, and definitely far from the reality of the totality of Orthodoxy.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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 #82 on: November 12, 2010, 12:59:58 PM »

All of us know or know about someone or several someones who are currently communing Catholics and are not in any danger whatsoever of being deposed...and it has been like that throughout our history together and to suggest that all those who did continue to share the chalice were deposed or are going to be deposed is simply a silly statement.  Some have been, of course, but to suggest it happens to all or even most, just ain't so.


This is also anecdotal evidence, of course, but based on my experience with a couple of bishops (both GOA and OCA) any priest who knowingly communed non-Orthodox (and continued to do so) would have a lot of 'splaining to do to his Hierarch.

I agree and the more public or flagrant it is, depending one where the jurisdictions are, the more likely it is that a priest or bishop would be disciplined.  That is also fact and I am aware of it and do not think it is a bad thing in fact.

But there are and have always been times and places where there is pretty relaxed uncanonical inter-communion between canonical Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church Vatican.

Uncanonical communion of the canonical Orthodox members of the Catholic Church with the Vatican. Interesting picture you paint there.

Quote
My point really is that there is no monolithic rejection of the Catholic Church by Orthodoxy to date.
Just 99%, and 100% on the canonical level.

Quote
Rejection will either come to be universally,  or we will have to find a way to resume communion.


The Holy Synod of Romania has shown us the way.

Quote
But this push-me, pull-you that we've done over the centuries is worse than absurd and does need to stop one way or another.

The Holy Synod of Romania has shown us the way.

Quote
The toxicity that gets squeezed out in conversations such as some of the ones on this board is hardly spiritually healthy...On this, I think we might agree.
It's the silly personal opinions of some being presented as object official reality, and the need to interject heavy doses of reality to prevent the contagion, that makes it so. Like chemo-therapy to stop the spread of cancer.
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
Erethorn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic, Latin rite
Posts: 12


« Reply #83 on: November 12, 2010, 01:03:29 PM »

Ialmisry, I see you keep bringing up the Holy Sinod of Romania.

I wonder how familiar you are with the actual relations between the  Orthodox and Greek-Catholic churches in Romania.

The case of Metropolitan Corneanu, for example. I wonder if you know the exact circumstances regarding his relationship with the Orthodox Sinod, as regarding the Greek-Catholic Church.

« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 01:06:06 PM by Erethorn » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #84 on: November 12, 2010, 01:34:11 PM »

All of us know or know about someone or several someones who are currently communing Catholics and are not in any danger whatsoever of being deposed...and it has been like that throughout our history together and to suggest that all those who did continue to share the chalice were deposed or are going to be deposed is simply a silly statement.  Some have been, of course, but to suggest it happens to all or even most, just ain't so.


This is also anecdotal evidence, of course, but based on my experience with a couple of bishops (both GOA and OCA) any priest who knowingly communed non-Orthodox (and continued to do so) would have a lot of 'splaining to do to his Hierarch.

I agree and the more public or flagrant it is, depending one where the jurisdictions are, the more likely it is that a priest or bishop would be disciplined.  That is also fact and I am aware of it and do not think it is a bad thing in fact.

But there are and have always been times and places where there is pretty relaxed uncanonical inter-communion between canonical Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church Vatican.

Uncanonical Communion of the schismatic Orthodox with the Catholic Church.


You were saying?
Logged

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 #85 on: November 12, 2010, 02:42:31 PM »

Ialmisry, I see you keep bringing up the Holy Sinod of Romania.

I wonder how familiar you are with the actual relations between the  Orthodox and Greek-Catholic churches in Romania.

Fairly familiar: the mother of my sons is Romanian, I've been to Romania twice, know Romanian, and I know plenty of Romanians.

The case of Metropolitan Corneanu, for example. I wonder if you know the exact circumstances regarding his relationship with the Orthodox Sinod, as regarding the Greek-Catholic Church.

Yes, but you seem to have something specific in mind:what is it?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 02:52:13 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #86 on: November 12, 2010, 02:46:26 PM »

All of us know or know about someone or several someones who are currently communing Catholics and are not in any danger whatsoever of being deposed...and it has been like that throughout our history together and to suggest that all those who did continue to share the chalice were deposed or are going to be deposed is simply a silly statement.  Some have been, of course, but to suggest it happens to all or even most, just ain't so.


This is also anecdotal evidence, of course, but based on my experience with a couple of bishops (both GOA and OCA) any priest who knowingly communed non-Orthodox (and continued to do so) would have a lot of 'splaining to do to his Hierarch.

I agree and the more public or flagrant it is, depending one where the jurisdictions are, the more likely it is that a priest or bishop would be disciplined.  That is also fact and I am aware of it and do not think it is a bad thing in fact.

But there are and have always been times and places where there is pretty relaxed uncanonical inter-communion between canonical Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church Vatican.
Uncanonical Communion of the schismatic Orthodox with the Catholic Church.
Misquoting again I see:fixed that for you. "Schismatic Orthodox" is an oxymoron btw.

You were saying?
The doors of repentance are always open, and the Father ever waiting with open arms:

« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 02:53:30 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,186



« Reply #87 on: November 12, 2010, 03:05:15 PM »

But there are and have always been times and places where there is pretty relaxed inter-communion between canonical Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church.
My best guess would be that this is more of a cultural phenomenon than a theological one. Such as was mentioned certain parts of Syria. That is, it doesn't truly represent the normative practice of the Orthodox Church, and is not sanctioned but rather is essentially, thumbing one's nose at authority.

Quote
My point really is that there is no monolithic rejection of the Catholic Church by Orthodoxy to date.
Yes. There has. Of course I can only offer my own experiences and observations, FWIW.
While most Orthodox I know don't think about Catholics or the RCC from one day to the next, (and certainly don't exhibit any of the rabid anti-Catholicism that I have seen on the part of certain evangelicals and Baptists), they most assuredly do not believe that the RCC is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If they did, or believed that there were not substantive differences, they would, of course, be Catholic and not Orthodox.
The most common prevailing attitude that I have witnessed is not anger, or bitterness or holding grudges, it is an understanding that the RCC and the OC are totally different churches. I've read in more than one place that Orthodox consider the RCC and Protestant Churches two sides of the same coin, more alike than they are different, and totally different from the OC.

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Erethorn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic, Latin rite
Posts: 12


« Reply #88 on: November 12, 2010, 04:38:59 PM »

The specifics that I had in mind, regarding Metropolitan Corneanu's relationship with the bulk of Romanian Orthodox Church's hierarchy are:

1. It's a well known and documented fact that the upper echelons (and not only) of the Romanian Orthodox Church have been cooperant to the communist regime in general and to the secret police Securitate in particular.

Of these people, Metropolitan Corneanu is the among the very few who, after the fall of communism, came out and made a public confession of his colaboration with the Securitate, a public apology to the people he gave information on.

In stark contrast to Metropolitan Corneanu's attitude, the rest of the Romanian Orthodox Church hierarchy has opposed, over the years, all legislative atempts to make the Securitate files public, particulary those of high ranking Church officials.

2. The second point where Metropolitan Corneanu went in opposite directions with the rest of Romanian Orthodox Church concerns the property of the Greek Catholic Church.

As you know, the Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek Catholic, was oulawed by the communists in 1948, and all of it's posessions were given to the Orthodox Church.

Following the fall of the communist regime, the Greek Catholic Church became a legal cult again, and one would expect that the property of wich it was forcibly deposed would be returned ti it. However, 20 years later, the majority of Greek Catholic Cchurches are still being fought over in the courts of law. The orthodox simply refuse to let go, despite these churches having been built by the greek catholic.

Again, in stark conrtast to this attitude stood Metropolitan Corneanu, who, imediatelly after the fall of communism, instructed every parish priest in his eparchy to allow the rightful owners of the churches to take posesions of their property and to begin worshiping in the temples built by their fathers, including the Greek Catholic Catedral in Lugoj.

One need not be a genius to realise that such actions did not make the Metropolitan popular with the rest of the Church. As such, the episode where he dared to aproach the Body and Blood of Christ in the church of the much hated Greek Catholics was the icing on the cake.

By the way, I live 5 minutes away from the very church where the whole thing took place. To this day, acts of vandalism take place there; the Vatican Flag is often ripped from it's place, and not three months ago the main door of the church was set on fire during the night.



Ialmisry, I see you keep bringing up the Holy Sinod of Romania.

I wonder how familiar you are with the actual relations between the  Orthodox and Greek-Catholic churches in Romania.

Fairly familiar: the mother of my sons is Romanian, I've been to Romania twice, know Romanian, and I know plenty of Romanians.

The case of Metropolitan Corneanu, for example. I wonder if you know the exact circumstances regarding his relationship with the Orthodox Sinod, as regarding the Greek-Catholic Church.

Yes, but you seem to have something specific in mind:what is it?


Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,595


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #89 on: November 13, 2010, 01:54:12 AM »



However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

There are many who believe as you do and thank you for having the courage to speak out!!

I have a comment:

1. If you are going to receive communion in the Catholic Church, when you do, you should then confess it as a disobedience, for in these times of schism, without the blessing of an Orthodox bishop, you are committing the sin of disobedience.  The issue will then arise as to your commitment to be obedient and you may legitimately call upon the primacy of your conscience and the salvation of your soul.   That is not a game as long as you truly desire to be obedient but also want to be obedient to the words of Jesus in the Gospels where he calls for unity in the Body of Christ.  If you believe that your Catholic brothers and sisters are closest to you in faith, and you are not alone in Orthodoxy in believing this, then for the time being the greater weight of the sin of disobedience lies in the willed perpetuation of the schism.



Thank you too, however I believe in Jesus above any priest or denomination, maybe this is what he refereed to brother against brother. The difference I see with it is that we are both on the same page as far as being Christians . There are many who are far apart from us and I make them welcome in my house as I will try to love them as myself. I see your point of obedience to my church and you may be right that I should humble myself . My issue is that in my heart I believe Jesus would attend both churches and does every week.I am going to be judged by Jesus and God , my Priest and parishioners , or the bishops will not be there.
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,754


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #90 on: November 13, 2010, 02:25:39 AM »

This discussion is very interesting, especially in it's development over the days.  I'd really like to thank everyone who has participated!!

I'd also like to add two (unrelated) comments, for what they are worth. First of all, a very good friend of mine once said that **everything** man has touched since the Fall he has managed to corrupt.  Everything.  Just look around you.  Just look at history.  All of history.  And that includes the Church.  Just re-read this thread.

Secondly, at The Judgment, at which according to the Antiochian Orthodox Divine Liturgy,we will be called upon to offer "a good defense before the awful judgment seat of the Lord" (did I get that right?), will God ask us if we were Orthodox, or Anglican, or Roman Catholic?  Will He ask us if we partook of Holy Communion from a priest that was in communion with the "correct" Church?  I wonder just *what* He will ask us.  And, speaking only for myself here, I really do not think I will have "a good defense...".  Lord have mercy on me, a sinner!

We are not saying that the Lord will have no mercy on any of those who were not knowingly grafted onto his Body, the Church. No limit can be placed on God's mercy. You are attacking a strawman.

You need to relax, my friend, and stop seeing exclusivism as inherently malicious.

Not everything man can touch is corruptible, let alone corrupted. Be careful, the gnostics are always trying to gain ground.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 02:26:43 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"Simply put, if you’re not willing to take what is dearest to you, whether plans or people, and kiss it goodbye, you can’t be my disciple."
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 #91 on: November 13, 2010, 02:34:30 AM »

The specifics that I had in mind, regarding Metropolitan Corneanu's relationship with the bulk of Romanian Orthodox Church's hierarchy are:

1. It's a well known and documented fact that the upper echelons (and not only) of the Romanian Orthodox Church have been cooperant to the communist regime in general and to the secret police Securitate in particular.

Of these people, Metropolitan Corneanu is the among the very few who, after the fall of communism, came out and made a public confession of his colaboration with the Securitate, a public apology to the people he gave information on.

In stark contrast to Metropolitan Corneanu's attitude, the rest of the Romanian Orthodox Church hierarchy has opposed, over the years, all legislative atempts to make the Securitate files public, particulary those of high ranking Church officials.

2. The second point where Metropolitan Corneanu went in opposite directions with the rest of Romanian Orthodox Church concerns the property of the Greek Catholic Church.

As you know, the Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek Catholic, was oulawed by the communists in 1948, and all of it's posessions were given to the Orthodox Church.

Following the fall of the communist regime, the Greek Catholic Church became a legal cult again, and one would expect that the property of wich it was forcibly deposed would be returned ti it. However, 20 years later, the majority of Greek Catholic Cchurches are still being fought over in the courts of law. The orthodox simply refuse to let go, despite these churches having been built by the greek catholic.

Again, in stark conrtast to this attitude stood Metropolitan Corneanu, who, imediatelly after the fall of communism, instructed every parish priest in his eparchy to allow the rightful owners of the churches to take posesions of their property and to begin worshiping in the temples built by their fathers, including the Greek Catholic Catedral in Lugoj.

One need not be a genius to realise that such actions did not make the Metropolitan popular with the rest of the Church. As such, the episode where he dared to aproach the Body and Blood of Christ in the church of the much hated Greek Catholics was the icing on the cake.

By the way, I live 5 minutes away from the very church where the whole thing took place. To this day, acts of vandalism take place there; the Vatican Flag is often ripped from it's place, and not three months ago the main door of the church was set on fire during the night.



Ialmisry, I see you keep bringing up the Holy Sinod of Romania.

I wonder how familiar you are with the actual relations between the  Orthodox and Greek-Catholic churches in Romania.

Fairly familiar: the mother of my sons is Romanian, I've been to Romania twice, know Romanian, and I know plenty of Romanians.

The case of Metropolitan Corneanu, for example. I wonder if you know the exact circumstances regarding his relationship with the Orthodox Sinod, as regarding the Greek-Catholic Church.

Yes, but you seem to have something specific in mind:what is it?
Orthodox Church Threatens the Catholic Minority in Romania

Using the "majority rules" communist principle, the Romanian Orthodox Church is trying to gain permanent ownership of the properties seized from the Catholic minority by the communist regime in 1948. The Catholic minority threatened is the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church, one of the Eastern Rite Churches in communion with the Pope...

____________________
Can someone more familiar with this situation chime in and say whether the story is accurate?

Define accurate.

The report is extremely biased, but if you say bottom line "is the Orthodox in a battle with the "Romanian Church united with Rome, Greek Catholic" (the official title), the answer is yes.

A fact only alluded too but not discussed is that even if you go by the Vatican figures, less than half of the Romanians "united with Rome" have gone back, although they were quite free to do so for decades now.  According to the census figures, it is even lower, only about a tenth.  The "Union of Alba-Iulia 1699-1701" (the scheme in question) was enforced by imperial decree of Leopold I, and confiscated all Orthodox properties: Orthodox communion being declared treason (this is following edict to outright exterminate the "schismatic Vlachs" i.e. the Romanian Orthodox).  When the Orthodox majority refused to sign on for decades, and began erecting their own temples and monasteries, Marie Therese sent Buccow to destroy them all.  Even then, she finally in 1759 had to recognize officially that the Orthodox didn't disappear.  Despite Imperial support, the number of those in the union began to drop.  The figure of two million is often given by church in question: the figures for that don't add up.

The "Catholic Encyclopedia" 1909 gives 1,750,000 Orthodox Romanians in Transylvania, and 1,300,000 for the Romanians under the Vatican in Hungary, the majority, but not the totality, residing in Transylvania. (the census of 1900 for Hungary (CE "Hungary"), which included Transylvania, showed "Uniat Greek 1,843,634...Orthodox Greek 2,799,846).  30 years earlier, the figures I've seen on the population of Transylvania are 31% Orthodox Romanians, 28%  the RCUwR,GC.  At the eve of the war the CE (Supp. I vol. 17, p. 385) figures for Hungary are "2,008,000 Uniat Greeks...2,004,000 Orthodox Greeks...As a result of the War about....Catholics [of whatever rite]..1,008,000 went to Rumania...since the signing of the Treaty of Versailles there are....158,000 Uniat Greeks...77,000 Orthodox Greeks [in Hungary].  On Rumania [sic] the supplement (p. 644)claims "in 1918 9,695,714 belonged to the Orthodox Church; 1,456,147 were Greek Catholic, 1,483,929 were Roman Catholic."  The figures for 1930 in Romania were 1930 Orthodox 13,108,227 (72.6), Uniate 1,427,391 (7.9) Latin 1,234,151 (6.Cool.  These figures comport with others I've seen elsewhere.  The Suppliment on "Fogaras" (pp. 311) states that "the Hungarians either imprisoned or interned many priests and layman, and some died during their internment."  It also elsewhere mentioned the persecusion by Communist Hungary before the Romanians overthrew Bela Kuhn.  To come up with 2 million would require a 37% increase in 30 years, whereas Romania only increased in the same period 6.6% (14,876,787 to 15,872,624: there is the problem that teh frist figure includes Bessarabia and N. Bucovina, later lost: the total without these territories was in 1930 14,280,729 (with them 18,057,028)).  These do not factor in the WWII casualties.  In other words, massive conversion or birthrate of the Romanians attatched to Fagaras, neither of which is found in the contemporary records (in fact, the opposite trend is seen), would be needed to come up with 2 million.

The "Roman Catholics" were mostly Hungarian and Germans, a point that I found odd that the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" translated into Romanian was available long before the English was, in fact nearly right after the first (French) version was available.  And it was flooded in Bucharest: I saw adds and copies of it everywhere in 92-93. Now, since not only does the Vatican have a minority in Romania, its flock speaking Romanian is a minority within a minority.  Yet the Romanian CCC seemed a priority.  This, after the pope of Rome had said that if the Romanians were really Roman, they would be "Roman Catholic."

But back to the properties: when Transylvania was reunited with Romania, the RCUwR,GC was declared by the constitution to be a second Romanian church, with preference before all other faiths except the state Orthodox Church.  As such, it was highly priviledged. That however wasn't enough, and the King-himself a Latin rite communicant of the Vatican (the pope had hoped for him to be the instrument of another "union" scheme)-made an unconstitutional concordant with the Vatican which gave the RCUwR, GC a status superior to the Orthodox Church, e.g. receiving the patriomony of the Hapsburgs (stolen from the Orthodox) as its own.  This was a consitent bone of contention.

The issue now is that the RCUwR,GC is denying that anyone was ever forced into union, that the Orthodox properties were ever stolen, that the Hapsburg enriched their church at the expense of the Orthodox-ill gotten gain that the RCUwR,GC was allowed to keep under the unconstitutional concordant. And the fact that the vast majority of its former communicants see no reason to apostacize again from the Orthodox Church, despite aggressive proseltizing.


As a side note, the Vatican's Ukrainian church in Romania was allowed to go on.
On the attempt of the Vatican to conclude a union with the Romanian Orthodox Church, which resulted in the union of 1948, on terms not of the Vatican's making:
http://www.geocities.com/serban_marin/vasile2002.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19694.msg291921.html#msg291921
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341358/topicseen.html#msg341358
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23726.msg364925/topicseen.html#msg364925
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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 #92 on: November 13, 2010, 02:40:10 AM »

On the attempt of the Vatican to conclude a union with the Romanian Orthodox Church, which resulted in the union of 1948, on terms not of the Vatican's making:
http://www.geocities.com/serban_marin/vasile2002.html
I see the link is not on line anymore. Marirea Dumnezeului for the way back machine!
Quote
The Apostolic Nunciature in Romania

at the Beginning of the Communist Regime

1945-1950*

 

Cristian Vasile,

“Nicolae Iorga” Institute of History,

Bucharest

 

My paper analyses the activity of the Apostolic Nunciature in Romania with a special attention to the Italian representatives of the Holy See in Bucharest, and to Romanian Italian prelates and clergymen between 1945 and 1950, pre-eminently in the lights of the Romanian Secret Services’ documents. Therefore, this study does not aim at providing a complete chronological and theoretical account of the period. It may be useful in the following introductory paragraph to sketch some of the general features of the diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Central and Eastern European countries from the Soviet-controlled area immediately after World War II.

For the Soviets, the Roman Catholic Church was an “international organization”, while the Holy See was an important ally of the American “imperialist”, facts which were unacceptable in their eyes. The Communist governments from Eastern and Central Europe sought to restrain and then even to suppress the communications between the Holy See and local Catholics, therefore the activity of the Apostolic Nunciatures from these countries began to be closely supervised even as early as 1945. In Albania the Holy See’s representatives were accused of collaboration with the Fascist occupiers and were unscrupulously driven away immediately after 1944[1]. The Holy See continued after 1944 to recognize the legal Polish authorities which remained in exile in London[2], but the Communist government from Warsaw treated more carefully the Polish Roman Catholic Church in comparison with their Central European neighbor “comrades”. Nevertheless, the Concordat was denounced by the Polish authorities in September 1945[3]. Although in Romania the Concordat - which had been ratified in 1929 - was unilaterally revoked only three years later on July 17, 1948, it was many times infringed and avoided after the Communist takeover in March 1945.

One of the most prominent Italian prelate in Romania was undoubtedly monseigneur Andrea Cassulo, the apostolic nuncio in Romania from 1936 to 1947, when he was practically forced to leave the country. After their takeover, the Romanian Communists suspected the Holy See of trying to change the Romanian religious map by converting its
p. 256
inhabitants to Roman Catholicism. Some Romanian Greek Catholic monks (former Orthodox[4]) pleaded vigorously for the religious union of Orthodox Church with Rome and their actions were sustained especially by the Prayer’s Front, a Catholic initiative animated by the Romanian Italian professor Iosif Frollo and msgr. Vladimir Ghika[5]. The Intelligence services were aware about their initiative and therefore intensified their actions for supervising of the Apostolic Nunciature and Catholic and Orthodox prelates in order to prevent the possibility of an anticommunist “alignment” of the two Christian Churches.
After 1945, the Holy See wished for an improvement of the Catholic-Orthodox relations and in this context, at the beginning of 1946, took place the visit of the apostolic nuncio Andrea Cassulo and Alexandru Theodor Cisar, archbishop-metropolit of the Latin Archdiocese of Bucharest at the Romanian patriarch Nicodim Munteanu, who was very reluctant towards the Communist regime. When the Soviet government had invited Nicodim at the end of January 1945 to attend the ceremonies connected with the election of the Russian patriarch Alexis I, the Romanian patriarch personally declined under the pretext of his great age, his uncertain health, and the winter season[6]. The patriarch’s lack of sympathy and enthusiasm for the Romanian Communist Party and Marxist ideology annoyed the officials and determined them, even from 1945, to try the intimidation and blackmail of Nicodim. Moreover, the meetings from January 1946 between patriarch Nicodim and two Roman Catholic dignitaries: Andrea Cassulo and Alexandru Th. Cisar, gave rise to many worries, the Communists feared that the two Christian Churches – rivals on previous occasions – could now create a common anti-governmental and anti-Soviet front[7]. On the contrary, the representatives of the Romanian government wanted and pleaded for the approaching between the Russian Patriarchy – a tool in the hands of the Soviet leadership – and Romanian Orthodox Church, and they exerted a constant pressure, especially on patriarch Nicodim, to accept a bilateral meeting in Romania with Alexis, the Russian patriarch. According to some sources, A. Cassulo and Alexandru Cisar gave to the patriarch an anniversary medal from the Holy Father as a sign of appreciation in the spirit of Christian love[8] and proposed him the dignity of cardinal of the East with the end to facilitate the negotiations for the union with Rome of the entire Eastern European Orthodoxy[9]. These meetings between patriarch Nicodim and the two Catholic prelates provoked the suspicion and anger of the Communist authorities. The Orthodox-Catholic discussions continued in the following months and the agents of the Romanian Secret Service (SSI) pointed out that in March 1946 patriarch Nicodim visited the Apostolic Nunciature and in front of Andrea Cassulo he kissed a Pope Pius XII medal – “an act of recognition of the Holy Father’s supremacy in the Christian world13]. Nonetheless, the appointment of an American prelate as Holy See’s representative in Romania generated great hopes among the Romanian Catholics concerning a firm action of the Vatican[14]. Despite the hostile messages sent by the government, Nicodim did not give up and maintained a normal relationship with the Vatican prelates in Romania, and before Andrea Cassulo’s departure the patriarch and the former nuncio had tears in their eyes[15]. In spite of the “quarantine” imposed by the Government against him, Andrea Cassulo sought to contribute to the safety of the Roman Catholic Church and maintained the contacts with the Romanian people, especially with the political and diplomatic milieus, until his departure in March 1947[16]. Another Holy See diplomat of Italian background who worked for the Apostolic Nunciature in Bucharest as secretary was Guido del Mestri de Schönberg[17]. After his expulsion from Romania he was for a long time apostolic nuncio in Germany; in 1990, he returned in Romania with the occasion of the reopening of the Apostolic Nunciature in Bucharest.
For the Communists the Romanian Catholic priests (they had about three milion faithful at that time) proved to be more hostile in comparison with the other clergy (Orthodox, Protestant etc). The Holy See maintained after the World War II the denunciation of the Communist ideology and, thus, under the influence of this decision[18], the Catholic Church in Romania (all of its rites: Latin, Byzantine and Armenian) as well as the other sister Churches from Central and Eastern Europe, forbade the adhesion of the subordinate clergymen to the Communist Parties and organizations[19]. Thus, the Roman

p. 258

Catholic Church did not give its blessing to the Communist regime, and this hostile attitude was accompanied by the support of some subordinate laymen groups - the Association of the Greek Catholic Romanians (AGRU) and the Association of the Romanian Greek Catholic Students (ASTRU)[20] - in favour of the anticommunist oppositionn. Moreover, the Secret Service’s report noted on March 1, 1946 that ASTRU (organization which supported actively the Prayer’s Front) received through the agency of msgr. Vladimir Ghika “a substantial subsidy” from the Apostolic Nunciature. Thanks to this fact, Andrea Cassulo was very interested in the activities of ASTRU, concluded the SSI report[21]. In reply, the Communist appealed to obedient organizations and even the small Catholic Italian community in Romania did not escape from the state authorities’ pressure which pleaded for “enlisting” in the Communist or pro-Communist associations. Among the major figures of the Romanian Italian community was Antonio Mantica who came in Romania in July 1913 sent by the Vatican, but approved and paid by the Italian government as priest of the Italian Catholics of Bucharest. He belonged to the diocese of Vicenza and was for a few years missionary in Sudan[22]; he remained for three decades priest of the Italian church of SS. Redentore in Bucharest[23]. After their takeover the Romanian Communists encouraged the foundation and development of the Italian Patriotic Union[24], an obedient organization which had the aim of dividing the Romanian Italian colony. Faced with this attempt of penetrating the Italian community, the Apostolic Nunciature decided to intervene and actively supported the creation of a rival association – the Catholic Italian Group, animated by padre Antonio Mantica, the priest of the Italian parish of Bucharest[25]. This Group received an significant support from the Italian Legation and from important members of the Italian colony in Romania: Valerio Ongari, Giovanni Villa and Umberto Ricordini[26].

Probably, the Romanian Communists perfidiously relied on a religious feud, as well. For instance, in Southern Bukovina the German and Hungarian Catholic population had left in 1940 and after 1944 its Catholic churches were occupied by the Orthodox faithful. The authorities had allowed Orthodox to use the Catholic churches but they deliberately neglected the property right of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Iaşi. Andrea Cassulo was concerned that the Communists might ignore sine die the Catholic properties, so he pleaded for the recognition of the property rights of the Roman Catholic Bishopric of Iaşi.

But the authorities tried to speculate every discord even within Roman Catholic Church. Some documents spoke about alleged Romanian Greek Catholic bishops’ pressures on Andrea Cassulo after 1944 for punishing mgr Aron Marton, the Romanian Hungarian bishop of Alba Iulia who was accused for his attempts to convert the Transylvanian Greek

p. 259

Catholics to Roman Catholicism during the World War II[27]. The nuncio, “a good friend of the Hungarian prelate from Alba Iulia” – as insinuated by the SSI - refused to make a decision alone and sent the case to Vatican for a resolution. However, it goes without saying that such information must be confirmed by other sources because now we hold also favorable Greek Catholic opinions on Aron Marton.

The Romanian officials just like their Soviet masters estimated that the Apostolic Nunciature in Bucharest was a sort of Intelligence Agency (or even Espionage Department of the Vatican in the Communist speech). For example, a leading Romanian Italian clergy exponent after 1944 – msgr. Andrea Iovanelli - was blamed in the spring of 1946 by the SSI for organizing an ecclesiastical, political and social Intelligence Department. According to the SSI agents, the headquarters of this “Department” was right at the Apostolic Nunciature led by an other Italian – Andrea Cassulo[28]. The Catholic priests were frequently charged for using espionage channels. After Andrea Cassulo’s departure the Secret Services blamed Gerald Patrick O’Hara and his colleagues Guido del Mestri and John C. Kirk for the continuation of the “spying activity31]. Therefore, many clergy were injailed especially from the beginning of the summer of 1947.

Moreover, the problem of the numerous arrested priests and the precarious state of the Catholic Church were the main topics of the discussion from December, 1947 between bishop Gerald Patrick O’Hara and representatives of the Romanian government. At the end of the meeting, O’Hara did not obtain much, and he declared openly that the real truth was hidden. It is clear that the Groza government began to promote a more rigid religious policy after September 1947 and its main objective was the subordination of all Churches, the last obstacle for the Romanian Communists after the suppression of the democratic opposition and abolition of the monarchy. So, 1948, a year dominated by the East-West confrontation, brought a fundamental change in the religious policy. On February 22, 1948 a provocative Communist attack on the Catholic Church took place: in a vehement speech the Communist leader Gh. Gheorghiu-Dej enunciated the anti-Catholic policy. Shortly after, the contact between the Catholic Church from Romania and the Holy See was effectively cut off under Article 40 from the Law concerning the Religious Cults, adopted on August 4, which stated that no religious community and none of its officials may have relations with

p. 260

religious communities abroad, except with permission of the Ministry of Religious Cults and through the Ministry of External Affairs[32].

Through the agency of the Apostolic Nunciature in Bucharest the Holy See vehemently protested in 1948-1949 against the suppression of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church and condemned the violation of the religious freedom, but the Communist authorities (especially the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) decisively rejected these justified accusations as “interferences” in the internal affairs of a sovereign and independent state[33]. Moreover, repeatedly the Romanian Communists infringed the elementary diplomatic practices and conventions: they illegally denounced the Concordat and in May 1949 the diplomats’ freedom of movement was drastically restricted[34].

On December 27, 1949 padre Antonio Mantica was summoned at the Ministry of Interior headquarters where he was practically arrested for 5 days. After psychic and physical pressures he accepted to declare publicly that he would leave “spontaneously” the country and not after an expulsion decree[35]. He left Romania on February 7, 1950 and after his expulsion the Italian church S.S. Redentore remained without a priest. The internuncio O’Hara and Scammacca del Murgo, the Italian ambassador in Romania, asked father Clemente Gatti whether he accepted to be the priest of the Italian colony in Bucharest. He was enthroned on February 11, 1950 but he did not have the title of parish priest. After the banishment of the Apostolic Nunciature’s diplomats[36], Clemente Gatti also received, on January 1, 1951 an order of expulsion without any motivation. Although the Italian Legation obtained a postponement, on March 3, 1951 the Italian Ministry of External Affairs gave clear instructions to its Legation from Bucharest to demand to Clemente Gatti to leave Romania immediately[37]. Since padre Clemente Gatti refused to obey, he was arrested on March 8, 1951.

As Pedro Ramet stated, for Marxists, religious policy and nationalities policy were parts of an organic whole[38]. After 1948 a furious anti-Western campaign was unleashed in Eastern and Central Europe, whose aim was to destroy the Western cultural values perceived as decadent and depraved: British, French and Italian Institutes and Libraries were closed by the Communist governments and the citizens of Western background (French, Italian, German etc) suffered, too. Thus, the fate of the Italian and Romanian Italian clergy is not surprising.

*

As we saw the Soviets and their obedient Romanian Communists imitators considered that the Vatican policy was enslaved by the warmonger American “imperialist”

p. 261

establishment and as a proof they invoked the nomination of American apostolic nuncios in Eastern Europe: Gerald Patrick O’Hara in Romania and Patrick Hurley in Yugoslavia[39]. In this anti-Catholic and suffocating climate Andrea Cassulo’s successor Gerald Patrick O’Hara was forced to leave Bucharest on July 7, 1950[40]. He was practically expelled. It is obvious that after 1945 the Holy See tried to counteract the Soviet anti-Catholic policy but we believe that it is an exaggeration to assert that the Vatican could “exert pressure” on Romanian Orthodox Church hierarchy for religious union with Rome, as some historians recently stated[41].

The Holy See’s diplomats in Romania were even since 1945 the object of a strong distrust because the pro-Communist government began to consider the Vatican as a “bulwark against Communism”. The ideological clash between the Roman Catholic Church and the state had important political consequences. The Communists interpreted the lack of political support of the Catholic Church as forbidding Catholic priests to engage in the “democratic” policy and therefore the Catholic clergy were labeled “reactionary” and “imperialist” like their “masters” from the Vatican, and especially after 1948 they have been charged with collaboration with the American and Vatican spies, and they spent years in Communist prisons. In recent years researchers have gained acces to new archival materials which revealed the brutality and the persecutions against the Romanian Catholic clergy of all rites.

At the same time the Communist Eastern and Central European Parties tried to convince their Roman Catholic Churches to break the canonical links with the Vatican and to transform them into “National Churches”. These attempts, a prelude to a future subordination, were firmly rejected by the Catholic hierarchy. The Communist intentions were rapidly deciphered by the Catholic prelates and representatives of the Vatican in Eastern and Central Europe. For example, early in the winter of 1946, Andrea Cassulo was aware of the fact that “the Soviet government has in its view, trough the agency of a skilful action, the creation of dissident Polish Roman Catholic Church which will break its ties with the Vatican and will become, for form’s sake, an autonomous Catholic Church, but in fact a Russian Patriarchy’s subordinate” [42 ]. Unfortunately for the Roman Catholic Church, the Western allies recognized the Soviet Union’s claims to pre-eminent influence in Eastern and Central Europe, thus the Holy See had no possibility to intervene in this part of the continent.

 

For this material, permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use.

Whether you intend to utilize it in scientific purposes, indicate the source: either this web address or the Annuario. Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 4 (2002), edited by Şerban Marin, Rudolf Dinu and Ion Bulei, Venice, 2002

« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 02:50:43 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #93 on: November 13, 2010, 12:11:20 PM »



However, I have partaken communion while standing up in Catholic friends weddings and I mentioned it once to our priest and that is when I found out that I was not supposed to. I told him that I did not agree since I feel we are both waiting to be saved by the same Christ and God. And the catholic mass is about the closest to the Greek orthodox compared to all other Christian churches.He understood and even agreed personally with me but he is bound by vows to uphold the church doctrine

I do not feel I have faith to a church as much as I have Faith in Jesus Christ , I understand the issues that separated us 1000 years ago and wish that we would reconcile our differences. I love my church and feel that it is right in the position that it took over the supreme leader or Pontiff . I know that there were many wrongs done and both sides have valid issues. However we both believe in the same Gospels and there is only one God.

There are many who believe as you do and thank you for having the courage to speak out!!

I have a comment:

1. If you are going to receive communion in the Catholic Church, when you do, you should then confess it as a disobedience, for in these times of schism, without the blessing of an Orthodox bishop, you are committing the sin of disobedience.  The issue will then arise as to your commitment to be obedient and you may legitimately call upon the primacy of your conscience and the salvation of your soul.   That is not a game as long as you truly desire to be obedient but also want to be obedient to the words of Jesus in the Gospels where he calls for unity in the Body of Christ.  If you believe that your Catholic brothers and sisters are closest to you in faith, and you are not alone in Orthodoxy in believing this, then for the time being the greater weight of the sin of disobedience lies in the willed perpetuation of the schism.



Thank you too, however I believe in Jesus above any priest or denomination, maybe this is what he refereed to brother against brother. The difference I see with it is that we are both on the same page as far as being Christians . There are many who are far apart from us and I make them welcome in my house as I will try to love them as myself. I see your point of obedience to my church and you may be right that I should humble myself . My issue is that in my heart I believe Jesus would attend both churches and does every week.I am going to be judged by Jesus and God , my Priest and parishioners , or the bishops will not be there.

I agree with you.  There are times when righting a moral wrong means moving against a man-made law.   Hitler's Reich accomplished much evil which, at the time, was precisely legal.  The Third Reich was a legitimate government, possessed of unspeakable evil.

There's a story that circulates about an eastern Catholic bishop who said [paraphrasing] that if it is legal it is moral!!   That is not an unusual sentiment among us as Christians, and it is terrifying to me at some level.

Orthodox believers will mock the Catholic Church for her legalism and turn around and crucify one another verbally on some of the most minute points of law that I have ever seen.

So I am with you on this one, and you may well be right.  If it flies in the face of the Christ's wish that we be one, then perhaps those bishops on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox schism indeed are not exercising the legitimate authority of Christ to do as they do, which serves to prolong the schism, and if the authority is not legitimate in this case, but sinful, then you have the right of it to do as you do.

Thank you, again.

Mary
Logged

katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,186



« Reply #94 on: November 13, 2010, 01:06:03 PM »

If it flies in the face of the Christ's wish that we be one, then perhaps those bishops on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox schism indeed are not exercising the legitimate authority of Christ to do as they do, which serves to prolong the schism, and if the authority is not legitimate in this case, but sinful, then you have the right of it to do as you do.

Thank you, again.

Mary

The Orthodox bishops that I know, particularly a GOA bishop that regularly participate in Orthodox-Catholic gatherings, would be delighted to welcome anyone to return home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It's simply that we disagree on where that is to be found.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #95 on: November 13, 2010, 01:49:47 PM »

If it flies in the face of the Christ's wish that we be one, then perhaps those bishops on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox schism indeed are not exercising the legitimate authority of Christ to do as they do, which serves to prolong the schism, and if the authority is not legitimate in this case, but sinful, then you have the right of it to do as you do.

Thank you, again.

Mary

The Orthodox bishops that I know, particularly a GOA bishop that regularly participate in Orthodox-Catholic gatherings, would be delighted to welcome anyone to return home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It's simply that we disagree on where that is to be found.

In the history of the schism, that position has been sometimes less and sometimes more rigid.  It has varied from place to place as well as from time to time.  Which is why, of course, that I've said there has never been a monolithic and rigid position on either side. 

It seems to me that we are in a period of good faith dialogue.  What comes out of it, of course, is yet to be seen but if it does continue apace and improves, then all those rigid Catholic and Orthodox bishops are going to either have to schism again or find a way to relax their rigid positions...seems to me.

M.
Logged

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 #96 on: November 13, 2010, 02:32:17 PM »

If it flies in the face of the Christ's wish that we be one, then perhaps those bishops on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox schism indeed are not exercising the legitimate authority of Christ to do as they do, which serves to prolong the schism, and if the authority is not legitimate in this case, but sinful, then you have the right of it to do as you do.

Thank you, again.

Mary

The Orthodox bishops that I know, particularly a GOA bishop that regularly participate in Orthodox-Catholic gatherings, would be delighted to welcome anyone to return home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It's simply that we disagree on where that is to be found.

In the history of the schism, that position has been sometimes less and sometimes more rigid.  It has varied from place to place as well as from time to time.  Which is why, of course, that I've said there has never been a monolithic and rigid position on either side.

And you still haven't distinguished that from other moral lapses of the clergy.

Btw, very odd how you challenge my authority as an Orthodox Christian to repeat the statements of the Orthodox Episcopate of the Catholic Church, but encourage "Sinful Hypocrite" in arroganting to himself the power to judge the Orthodox Episcopate of the Catholic Church because he doesn't like their statements of the Faith. But then again, maybe not odd, typical and expected.

Quote
It seems to me that we are in a period of good faith dialogue.
Roll Eyes
Quote
What comes out of it, of course, is yet to be seen but if it does continue apace and improves, then all those rigid Catholic and Orthodox bishops are going to either have to schism again or find a way to relax their rigid positions...seems to me.
Or those laxidasical bishops can get together and maybe catch up with the Anglicans.
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
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,595


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #97 on: November 13, 2010, 10:39:23 PM »

If it flies in the face of the Christ's wish that we be one, then perhaps those bishops on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox schism indeed are not exercising the legitimate authority of Christ to do as they do, which serves to prolong the schism, and if the authority is not legitimate in this case, but sinful, then you have the right of it to do as you do.

Thank you, again.

Mary

The Orthodox bishops that I know, particularly a GOA bishop that regularly participate in Orthodox-Catholic gatherings, would be delighted to welcome anyone to return home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It's simply that we disagree on where that is to be found.

In the history of the schism, that position has been sometimes less and sometimes more rigid.  It has varied from place to place as well as from time to time.  Which is why, of course, that I've said there has never been a monolithic and rigid position on either side.

And you still haven't distinguished that from other moral lapses of the clergy.

Btw, very odd how you challenge my authority as an Orthodox Christian to repeat the statements of the Orthodox Episcopate of the Catholic Church, but encourage "Sinful Hypocrite" in arroganting to himself the power to judge the Orthodox Episcopate of the Catholic Church because he doesn't like their statements of the Faith. But then again, maybe not odd, typical and expected.

Quote
It seems to me that we are in a period of good faith dialogue.
Roll Eyes
Quote
What comes out of it, of course, is yet to be seen but if it does continue apace and improves, then all those rigid Catholic and Orthodox bishops are going to either have to schism again or find a way to relax their rigid positions...seems to me.
Or those laxidasical bishops can get together and maybe catch up with the Anglicans.

You take it farther than it is intended. Out of context. Arrogance is your forte as my name implies my stance overall here. I have already agreed to being a hypocrite.

I am not making judgments of either as to which is better or right or wrong .I stated God loving both and Jesus attending both equally. I am subject to judgment but God said he would handle that not you or me or catholic or orthodox.I believe that it is simpler than you want to make it.

I love Jesus and he and God will judge us . I have learned much through my Greek Orthodox upbringing and I applaud and respect that , But I must not look down on Catholics or others and separate myself from them because of errors and arguments that are long ago and overdo for forgiveness and confession. I cannot be held responsible for your sins any more than you are held to mine.If we say we both believe in Jesus dying for our sins and rising on the third day , and we say the lords prayer together and have communion together and speak of the holy spirit moving within our souls together than You are the one who is lost when you find fault with that ,not me as far as what the gospels and the church teaches.I do not fear men is what Jesus said, you are all the same as me , a man to be judged by Jesus and God.
 
And he will not judge us by denomination because he said we were all to be one nation.

Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 10:46:14 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #98 on: November 14, 2010, 06:07:28 PM »

You take it farther than it is intended. Out of context. Arrogance is your forte as my name implies my stance overall here. I have already agreed to being a hypocrite.

I am not making judgments of either as to which is better or right or wrong .I stated God loving both and Jesus attending both equally. I am subject to judgment but God said he would handle that not you or me or catholic or orthodox.I believe that it is simpler than you want to make it.

I love Jesus and he and God will judge us . I have learned much through my Greek Orthodox upbringing and I applaud and respect that , But I must not look down on Catholics or others and separate myself from them because of errors and arguments that are long ago and overdo for forgiveness and confession. I cannot be held responsible for your sins any more than you are held to mine.If we say we both believe in Jesus dying for our sins and rising on the third day , and we say the lords prayer together and have communion together and speak of the holy spirit moving within our souls together than You are the one who is lost when you find fault with that ,not me as far as what the gospels and the church teaches.I do not fear men is what Jesus said, you are all the same as me , a man to be judged by Jesus and God.
 
And he will not judge us by denomination because he said we were all to be one nation.

Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us.
I was really touched by reading this post. We need more people like you not only on this forum but on the internet in general. I can tell you that it woke me up and made me realize how far off my conduct is at times and how much in need of God's mercy I am. Thank you for this. Your kindness and humility is definitely a powerful witness.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2010, 06:08:14 PM by Wyatt » Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,181


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #99 on: November 15, 2010, 04:16:38 AM »

If it flies in the face of the Christ's wish that we be one, then perhaps those bishops on both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox schism indeed are not exercising the legitimate authority of Christ to do as they do, which serves to prolong the schism, and if the authority is not legitimate in this case, but sinful, then you have the right of it to do as you do.

Thank you, again.

Mary

The Orthodox bishops that I know, particularly a GOA bishop that regularly participate in Orthodox-Catholic gatherings, would be delighted to welcome anyone to return home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It's simply that we disagree on where that is to be found.

In the history of the schism, that position has been sometimes less and sometimes more rigid.  It has varied from place to place as well as from time to time.  Which is why, of course, that I've said there has never been a monolithic and rigid position on either side.

And you still haven't distinguished that from other moral lapses of the clergy.

Btw, very odd how you challenge my authority as an Orthodox Christian to repeat the statements of the Orthodox Episcopate of the Catholic Church, but encourage "Sinful Hypocrite" in arroganting to himself the power to judge the Orthodox Episcopate of the Catholic Church because he doesn't like their statements of the Faith. But then again, maybe not odd, typical and expected.

Quote
It seems to me that we are in a period of good faith dialogue.
Roll Eyes
Quote
What comes out of it, of course, is yet to be seen but if it does continue apace and improves, then all those rigid Catholic and Orthodox bishops are going to either have to schism again or find a way to relax their rigid positions...seems to me.
Or those laxidasical bishops can get together and maybe catch up with the Anglicans.

You take it farther than it is intended. Out of context. Arrogance is your forte as my name implies my stance overall here. I have already agreed to being a hypocrite.

I am not making judgments of either as to which is better or right or wrong .I stated God loving both and Jesus attending both equally. I am subject to judgment but God said he would handle that not you or me or catholic or orthodox.I believe that it is simpler than you want to make it.

I love Jesus and he and God will judge us .

Which Jesus is it that you are referring to?  Because I have a sneaking suspicion that we're not talking about the One of the Orthodox Church but rather some imagination or perception you have picked up from somewhere else. 

Quote
.If we say we both believe in Jesus dying for our sins and rising on the third day , and we say the lords prayer together and have communion together and speak of the holy spirit moving within our souls together

Arius, Nestorius, Appolianrius, Sabellius, Donatus, etc. etc. etc. would use the same "synchretistic" language you would, and they have been Anathematized by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Again, which Jesus is it that you are referring to? 

Quote
than You are the one who is lost when you find fault with that ,not me as far as what the gospels and the church teaches.I do not fear men is what Jesus said, you are all the same as me , a man to be judged by Jesus and God.
 
And he will not judge us by denomination because he said we were all to be one nation.

Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us.

Wow...I'm not even sure what this means.  He will not judge us by denomination BECAUSE we are all one nation?  How are we exactly one Nation when we don't even profess the same exact understanding of this "Jesus" you speak of.  As one professor of mine famously said:  Jesus Christ is not "the big boss upstairs" not just because that's a ridiculous statement but because it totally tramples on the magnificence of what His Incarnation has done for our humanity. 

I think for this very basic reason, we need to be MUCH more careful about throwing the "Jesus" word around and assuming that everyone agrees with how it is being utilized, either by you OR by me. 



Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,186



« Reply #100 on: November 15, 2010, 11:52:00 AM »

In the history of the schism, that position has been sometimes less and sometimes more rigid.  It has varied from place to place as well as from time to time.  Which is why, of course, that I've said there has never been a monolithic and rigid position on either side. 
I'd be interested in any support for this assertion. Since my understanding is that the official theological (as it were)position of both has always been clear:"There is only one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We're it and you're not."
That seems to me to be pretty monolithic and rigid. Depending on your definition of monolithic and rigid, I guess.

What individuals, both clergy and lay, choose to do, and how they choose to interpret/defy/ignore the official positions of their respective Hierarchs (for what I suspect are mostly cultural and political reasons, and not some kind of warm-fuzzy idea that we're all one, except for some pesky irrelevant historical/theological details) is another things entirely

Quote
It seems to me that we are in a period of good faith dialogue.  What comes out of it, of course, is yet to be seen but if it does continue apace and improves, then all those rigid Catholic and Orthodox bishops are going to either have to schism again or find a way to relax their rigid positions...seems to me.
There is only one way to do that - the RCC and the OC are so different that one side or the other is going to have to say that they were wrong.
How likely is that?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #101 on: November 15, 2010, 12:07:36 PM »

In the history of the schism, that position has been sometimes less and sometimes more rigid.  It has varied from place to place as well as from time to time.  Which is why, of course, that I've said there has never been a monolithic and rigid position on either side. 
I'd be interested in any support for this assertion. Since my understanding is that the official theological (as it were)position of both has always been clear:"There is only one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We're it and you're not."
That seems to me to be pretty monolithic and rigid. Depending on your definition of monolithic and rigid, I guess.

What individuals, both clergy and lay, choose to do, and how they choose to interpret/defy/ignore the official positions of their respective Hierarchs (for what I suspect are mostly cultural and political reasons, and not some kind of warm-fuzzy idea that we're all one, except for some pesky irrelevant historical/theological details) is another things entirely

Quote
It seems to me that we are in a period of good faith dialogue.  What comes out of it, of course, is yet to be seen but if it does continue apace and improves, then all those rigid Catholic and Orthodox bishops are going to either have to schism again or find a way to relax their rigid positions...seems to me.
There is only one way to do that - the RCC and the OC are so different that one side or the other is going to have to say that they were wrong.
How likely is that?

There is a recent topic on a single Orthodox catechism on this board which would be instructive when trying to figure out what is any "official theological" position of universal Orthodoxy.

And I am sorry that you feel the way that you do but I am glad that not all Orthodox bishops join you in this approach to the resumption of communion.
Logged

katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,186



« Reply #102 on: November 15, 2010, 03:09:42 PM »

There is a recent topic on a single Orthodox catechism on this board which would be instructive when trying to figure out what is any "official theological" position of universal Orthodoxy.
So evidence for the assertion is that there is no Orthodox catechism?
I'm sorry, but do you really think so?


Quote
And I am sorry that you feel the way that you do but I am glad that not all Orthodox bishops join you in this approach to the resumption of communion.
I don't "feel" one way or another about this. It is a simple statement of fact: these are two totally different churches. Either the Pope is infallible or he isn't. Either he is the "first among equals" among a synod of bishops, or he isn't. Either the Creed contains the filioque or it doesn't. Etc.
Would the RCC bishops or cardinals be willing to concede that they were wrong about any of those or similar issues?
If they would, they are welcome in the OC. (And I'd be willing to bet that most Orthodox bishops feel the same way. I'd even be willing to bet that most of the RC Hierarchs would feel the same way about their particular beliefs.)

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #103 on: November 15, 2010, 03:24:53 PM »

There is a recent topic on a single Orthodox catechism on this board which would be instructive when trying to figure out what is any "official theological" position of universal Orthodoxy.
So evidence for the assertion is that there is no Orthodox catechism?
I'm sorry, but do you really think so?


Quote
And I am sorry that you feel the way that you do but I am glad that not all Orthodox bishops join you in this approach to the resumption of communion.
I don't "feel" one way or another about this. It is a simple statement of fact: these are two totally different churches. Either the Pope is infallible or he isn't. Either he is the "first among equals" among a synod of bishops, or he isn't. Either the Creed contains the filioque or it doesn't. Etc.
Would the RCC bishops or cardinals be willing to concede that they were wrong about any of those or similar issues?
If they would, they are welcome in the OC. (And I'd be willing to bet that most Orthodox bishops feel the same way. I'd even be willing to bet that most of the RC Hierarchs would feel the same way about their particular beliefs.)


What I think is that the conversation on the topic of catechisms says a great deal about claims to being a monolithic Orthodoxy.  I also know historically that there was not a monolithic approach to the Catholic Church on the part of Orthodoxy...as you claim there has been.

And if what you say about some of the expressions of faith between us is worthy of schism then I am surprised that Orthodoxy conducts the current dialogues between us in such bad faith and with such flagrant dishonesty.
Logged

katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,186



« Reply #104 on: November 15, 2010, 03:49:13 PM »

What I think is that the conversation on the topic of catechisms says a great deal about claims to being a monolithic Orthodoxy.  I also know historically that there was not a monolithic approach to the Catholic Church on the part of Orthodoxy...as you claim there has been.
Priests who knowingly choose to commune any non-Orthodox, which includes members of the RCC, are violating the canons of their Church, and if their Hierarch finds out, they will be in trouble.
How monolithic is that for you?

Quote
And if what you say about some of the expressions of faith between us is worthy of schism then I am surprised that Orthodoxy conducts the current dialogues between us in such bad faith and with such flagrant dishonesty.

Well, aside from the fact, that such a deduction from my statement requires mental zigzagging that leave me breathless, it's not bad faith and dishonesty. We're witnessing to our erring brethren and praying and hoping that they will see the light and all return to the One True Faith.

Oddly enough, though, I agree with you now. With such bad faith and poor opinions, and unsupported assertions, as demonstated, there probably isn't any hope for dialogue, and I wonder why they waste their time.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
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 #105 on: November 15, 2010, 04:45:06 PM »

There is a recent topic on a single Orthodox catechism on this board which would be instructive when trying to figure out what is any "official theological" position of universal Orthodoxy.
So evidence for the assertion is that there is no Orthodox catechism?
I'm sorry, but do you really think so?


Quote
And I am sorry that you feel the way that you do but I am glad that not all Orthodox bishops join you in this approach to the resumption of communion.
I don't "feel" one way or another about this. It is a simple statement of fact: these are two totally different churches. Either the Pope is infallible or he isn't. Either he is the "first among equals" among a synod of bishops, or he isn't. Either the Creed contains the filioque or it doesn't. Etc.
Would the RCC bishops or cardinals be willing to concede that they were wrong about any of those or similar issues?
If they would, they are welcome in the OC. (And I'd be willing to bet that most Orthodox bishops feel the same way. I'd even be willing to bet that most of the RC Hierarchs would feel the same way about their particular beliefs.)


What I think is that the conversation on the topic of catechisms says a great deal about claims to being a monolithic Orthodoxy.
Let's see, it was 28 apostate bishops who signed at Florence, and the rest of their Orthodox (coreligionists) rejected it. And that's not monolithic enough for you.


Quote
  I also know historically that there was not a monolithic approach to the Catholic Church on the part of Orthodoxy...as you claim there has been.
Yes, straining gnats to find exceptions to make the rule to swallow the camel.

Quote
And if what you say about some of the expressions of faith between us is worthy of schism then I am surprised that Orthodoxy conducts the current dialogues between us in such bad faith and with such flagrant dishonesty.
I have nothing to add to Katherneofdixie's treatment of the matter.
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 #106 on: November 15, 2010, 08:13:56 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.

That's not what I was talking about.

I was saying even if you don't have access to a particular church of your own communion, I still don't see what would be the point of taking communion in another communion.
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 #107 on: November 15, 2010, 08:15:14 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.

Frustrating?

Why?

He believes you would receive unto Gehenna.

He would give it to you if you would be willing to be Chrismated.
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 #108 on: November 15, 2010, 08:16:02 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.
Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace

No, the point he is saying that if you are not in communion you cannot receive the grace of the communion.
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
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,181


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #109 on: November 15, 2010, 09:34:42 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.
Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace

No, the point he is saying that if you are not in communion you cannot receive the grace of the communion.

Right, and even beyond that if we believe that communion is just Grace, then couldn't I just stand in a church and receive communion?  I mean...the Holy Spirit Blows where He Wills, right?  So that grace could be anywhere.  Is anywhere in communion?  By saying that Holy Communion is just grace you cheapen Holy Communion and what Christ did for us through His death and Resurrection. 

Plus on top of all that Holy Communion (Eucharist) is by no means just "grace":

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gp8st5bihlAC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=schmemann+eucharist&source=web&ots=s1ngPXN-eT&sig=OvJXwDQQXC5TjyeVZEdf65ZUILo#v=onepage&q&f=fal

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31134.0.html

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26730.0.html

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24608.0.html

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16008.0.html

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21259.0.html

This I think should give you a sufficient place to start and truly examining your theory of "grace"
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,595


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #110 on: November 15, 2010, 09:45:14 PM »


Quote
.If we say we both believe in Jesus dying for our sins and rising on the third day , and we say the lords prayer together and have communion together and speak of the holy spirit moving within our souls together

Arius, Nestorius, Appolianrius, Sabellius, Donatus, etc. etc. etc. would use the same "synchretistic" language you would, and they have been Anathematized by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Again, which Jesus is it that you are referring to?  

Quote
than You are the one who is lost when you find fault with that ,not me as far as what the gospels and the church teaches.I do not fear men is what Jesus said, you are all the same as me , a man to be judged by Jesus and God.
 
And he will not judge us by denomination because he said we were all to be one nation.

Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us.

Wow...I'm not even sure what this means.  He will not judge us by denomination BECAUSE we are all one nation?  How are we exactly one Nation when we don't even profess the same exact understanding of this "Jesus" you speak of.  As one professor of mine famously said:  Jesus Christ is not "the big boss upstairs" not just because that's a ridiculous statement but because it totally tramples on the magnificence of what His Incarnation has done for our humanity.  

I think for this very basic reason, we need to be MUCH more careful about throwing the "Jesus" word around and assuming that everyone agrees with how it is being utilized, either by you OR by me.  




Matthew 16:18 >>NIV
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

 1 Peter 2:9 >>NIV
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

An holy nation - This is also taken from Exodus 19:6. The Hebrews were regarded as a nation consecrated to God; and now that they were cast off or rejected for their disobedience, the same language was properly applied to the people whom God had chosen in their place - the Christian church.

I read the same Gospels as you , Every version I have ever read has the same Jesus saying the same parables as you have read .
Your attempt to mock me is fine but we should be clear that there are four gospels and what christian Church does not read them? The Church's I speak of are all based on the Gospels of Matthew ,Mark, Luke, and John. And they all read the same stories as I read there.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 10:05:57 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #111 on: November 15, 2010, 10:03:38 PM »

I read the same Gospels as you , Every version I have ever read has the same Jesus saying the same parables as you have read .
Your attempt to mock me is fine but we should be clear that there are four gospels and what christian Church does not read them? The Church's I speak of are all based on the Gospels of Matthew ,Mark, Luke, and John. And they all read the same stories as I read there.
There are many mockers on this forum, and it is an "Orthodox" forum. Logic...hmmmm.........
Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,595


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #112 on: November 15, 2010, 10:14:07 PM »

Thank you Wyatt, You are like an oasis in the wilderness. God bless you my friend.
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
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 #113 on: November 15, 2010, 10:21:44 PM »


Quote
.If we say we both believe in Jesus dying for our sins and rising on the third day , and we say the lords prayer together and have communion together and speak of the holy spirit moving within our souls together

Arius, Nestorius, Appolianrius, Sabellius, Donatus, etc. etc. etc. would use the same "synchretistic" language you would, and they have been Anathematized by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Again, which Jesus is it that you are referring to?  

Quote
than You are the one who is lost when you find fault with that ,not me as far as what the gospels and the church teaches.I do not fear men is what Jesus said, you are all the same as me , a man to be judged by Jesus and God.
 
And he will not judge us by denomination because he said we were all to be one nation.

Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on us.

Wow...I'm not even sure what this means.  He will not judge us by denomination BECAUSE we are all one nation?  How are we exactly one Nation when we don't even profess the same exact understanding of this "Jesus" you speak of.  As one professor of mine famously said:  Jesus Christ is not "the big boss upstairs" not just because that's a ridiculous statement but because it totally tramples on the magnificence of what His Incarnation has done for our humanity.  

I think for this very basic reason, we need to be MUCH more careful about throwing the "Jesus" word around and assuming that everyone agrees with how it is being utilized, either by you OR by me.  




Matthew 16:18 >>NIV
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Matthew 16:22-3
Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Quote
1 Peter 2:9 >>NIV
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

An holy nation - This is also taken from Exodus 19:6. The Hebrews were regarded as a nation consecrated to God; and now that they were cast off or rejected for their disobedience, the same language was properly applied to the people whom God had chosen in their place - the Christian church.
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And people can still be cast off and rejected for their disobedience to that Church.

2 Peter 3:16-7
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.
i.e. communion in that One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Quote
I read the same Gospels as you , Every version I have ever read has the same Jesus saying the same parables as you have read .
Your attempt to mock me is fine but we should be clear that there are four gospels and what christian Church does not read them?
Why stop there? The Mormons read them, the Muslim polemicists read them, the "higher critics" etc. read them. The Jesus seminar reads them.

Quote
The Church's I speak of are all based on the Gospels of Matthew ,Mark, Luke, and John.
Church is singular. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church confessing the Orthodox Faith.

And while you are speaking of, we are speaking for that Church.

Quote
And they all read the same stories as I read there.
As St. Peter warns us in Scripture.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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 #114 on: November 15, 2010, 10:23:19 PM »

Thank you Wyatt, You are like an oasis in the wilderness. God bless you my friend.
Maybe if you hadn't wandered out of the Land of Milk and Honey, you wouldn't be lost in the wilderness in need of an oasis.

Beware of mirages.
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
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,595


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #115 on: November 15, 2010, 11:05:04 PM »

Thank you Wyatt, You are like an oasis in the wilderness. God bless you my friend.
Maybe if you hadn't wandered out of the Land of Milk and Honey, you wouldn't be lost in the wilderness in need of an oasis.

Beware of mirages.

You are the most lucky and blessed sinner ,to never feel lost in a world of hate. You are never chased out of the temple by an angry mob like Christ , maybe you are a prophet in your village?
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,595


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #116 on: November 15, 2010, 11:07:09 PM »

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
With what propriety can the pretended successor of Peter - the pope - undertake to expound those difficult doctrines in the writings of Paul, when even Peter himself did not undertake it, and when he did not profess to be able to comprehend them? Is the Pope more skilled in the knowledge of divine things than the apostle Peter? Is he better qualified to interpret the sacred writings than an inspired apostle was?
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
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 #117 on: November 15, 2010, 11:18:37 PM »

Thank you Wyatt, You are like an oasis in the wilderness. God bless you my friend.
Maybe if you hadn't wandered out of the Land of Milk and Honey, you wouldn't be lost in the wilderness in need of an oasis.

Beware of mirages.

You are the most lucky and blessed sinner ,to never feel lost in a world of hate. You are never chased out of the temple by an angry mob like Christ , maybe you are a prophet in your village?
No, I"ve been threatened with death by Muslims in the Muslim world as I dare to prefer the Son of God over their "prophet." So while you have enjoyed it seems the luxury of fuzzy feelings, I've had to grap hold to the Rock on which I stand.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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 #118 on: November 15, 2010, 11:24:24 PM »

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
With what propriety can the pretended successor of Peter - the pope - undertake to expound those difficult doctrines in the writings of Paul, when even Peter himself did not undertake it, and when he did not profess to be able to comprehend them? Is the Pope more skilled in the knowledge of divine things than the apostle Peter? Is he better qualified to interpret the sacred writings than an inspired apostle was?
Quote
Barnes was ordained as a Presbyterian minister by the presbytery of Elizabethtown, New Jersey, in 1825
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Barnes_(theologian)

Ordained? By whose authority? Certainly not the inspired Apostles'.

I'll let your friend Wyatt dialogue on your views of the pope based of Barnes' distortion of scripture.
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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #119 on: November 15, 2010, 11:56:23 PM »

Thank you Wyatt, You are like an oasis in the wilderness. God bless you my friend.
Maybe if you hadn't wandered out of the Land of Milk and Honey, you wouldn't be lost in the wilderness in need of an oasis.

Beware of mirages.

You are the most lucky and blessed sinner ,to never feel lost in a world of hate. You are never chased out of the temple by an angry mob like Christ , maybe you are a prophet in your village?
No, I"ve been threatened with death by Muslims in the Muslim world as I dare to prefer the Son of God over their "prophet." So while you have enjoyed it seems the luxury of fuzzy feelings, I've had to grap hold to the Rock on which I stand.
You harbor a lot of bitterness
Logged
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 #120 on: November 16, 2010, 12:03:51 AM »

Thank you Wyatt, You are like an oasis in the wilderness. God bless you my friend.
Maybe if you hadn't wandered out of the Land of Milk and Honey, you wouldn't be lost in the wilderness in need of an oasis.

Beware of mirages.

You are the most lucky and blessed sinner ,to never feel lost in a world of hate. You are never chased out of the temple by an angry mob like Christ , maybe you are a prophet in your village?
No, I"ve been threatened with death by Muslims in the Muslim world as I dare to prefer the Son of God over their "prophet." So while you have enjoyed it seems the luxury of fuzzy feelings, I've had to grap hold to the Rock on which I stand.
You harbor a lot of bitterness
LOL.
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
Erethorn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic, Latin rite
Posts: 12


« Reply #121 on: November 16, 2010, 02:34:29 AM »

I've had to grap hold to the Rock on which I stand.

You stand on the Pope ?! Huh
Logged
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 #122 on: November 16, 2010, 09:12:01 AM »

I've had to grap hold to the Rock on which I stand.
You stand on the Pope ?! Huh

Ialmisery, what is this icon? Can you interpret it?
St. Mark of Ephesus standing on the "Roman pope," who is combined with some imagery of the beast in Revelation.
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
Erethorn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic, Latin rite
Posts: 12


« Reply #123 on: November 16, 2010, 11:27:51 AM »

I suppose I should take great comfort in the fact that the Catholic Church has not produced such abominations and called them holy icons.

On the other hand, if you really wanted some imagery depicting Vatican as The Great Whore and the Pope as Antichrist (or was it the Beast ?), you should look no further than the writings of Ellen White. That stuff could inspire you, perhaps take up the brush yourself.
Logged
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 #124 on: November 16, 2010, 11:49:42 AM »

I suppose I should take great comfort in the fact that the Catholic Church has not produced such abominations and called them holy icons.
In the sistine chapel (where your supreme pontiff is elected) is a Madonna trambling down Luther and Calvin with a banner "semper virgo" flying. Rather odd, as both Luther and Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of the Holy Theotokos

Quote
On the other hand, if you really wanted some imagery depicting Vatican as The Great Whore and the Pope as Antichrist (or was it the Beast ?)
I don't know. I didn't post it.

Quote
, you should look no further than the writings of Ellen White. That stuff could inspire you, perhaps take up the brush yourself.
No, I'll stick with the pillars of Orthodoxy.
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
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,186



« Reply #125 on: November 16, 2010, 11:53:54 AM »

I read the same Gospels as you , Every version I have ever read has the same Jesus saying the same parables as you have read .
...we should be clear that there are four gospels and what christian Church does not read them? The Church's I speak of are all based on the Gospels of Matthew ,Mark, Luke, and John. And they all read the same stories as I read there.

They may all read the same stories, but they understand/interpret them (and apply their understanding) in sometimes vastly different ways. The Jesus of the Mormons, for example, and the Jesus of the JWs is not necessarily a Jesus that you would recognize.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #126 on: November 16, 2010, 12:58:36 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

A number of EO believe in Toll Houses and so it would be somewhat hypocritical to attack the RC belief of Purgatory.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 01:03:25 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #127 on: November 16, 2010, 01:02:46 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #128 on: November 16, 2010, 01:11:51 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #129 on: November 16, 2010, 01:51:43 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
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: 37,124



« Reply #130 on: November 16, 2010, 02:12:53 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #131 on: November 16, 2010, 02:51:55 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #132 on: November 16, 2010, 02:54:10 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #133 on: November 16, 2010, 02:56:43 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Being in communion with Rome means that we are part of the same mystical body of Christ as Rome is and we can share in the sacraments with one another.
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: 37,124



« Reply #134 on: November 16, 2010, 03:04:17 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #135 on: November 16, 2010, 03:10:58 PM »


No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  Grin
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #136 on: November 16, 2010, 03:12:14 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Being in communion with Rome means that we are part of the same mystical body of Christ as Rome is and we can share in the sacraments with one another.
I was more responding to ialmisry's definition of ultramontanism above (sorry...probably should have quoted his post instead of yours) where he said that our Sacraments are only licit if done "in his name" (in the name of the Pope). My question was when do we, as RCs, offer up the Holy Eucharist or celebrate the Sacrament of Confession, or any other Sacrament for that matter, in the name of the Pope? I don't recall the Pope's name being brought up when any of the Sacraments are celebrated save for a brief mention of him in the Mass. I know of no Sacrament that is rendered illicit by the Pope's name not being invoked.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 03:13:20 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #137 on: November 16, 2010, 03:13:06 PM »

So at the time, if there was no Orthodox parish in town, permission was given to take Communion in the local Anglican parish - but not in the local Roman Catholic parish?

At times, which to me seems totally ridiculous. I'd much rather take communion at a Roman Catholic church than at an Anglican church, if this were even possible. In reality, I would never take the communion from anyone outside of The Holy Greek Catholic Orthodox Eastern Church.

Yeah. I don't see what would be the point in taking "Communion" outside the Church.
For the most part I agree with this. I don't need to be taking communion from an EO priest when I am perfectly capable of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ from a priest within my own communion.
It is still sort of frustrating that in an emergency situation, an EO priest would likely still not give us the Eucharist.
Actually, some might. I have heard some very conservative EO priests say that they would indeed offer viaticum to an ailing Catholic.

This would be inappropriate IMO because they are not in communion, so giving them communion is for what reason?  magic? to make them feel good?  What is the purpose of giving them communion when they are not in communion?  
Grace and salvation. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember Fr. Ambrose saying that he might be willing to commune a Roman Catholic that was on his deathbed when no Catholic Priest is available. Fr. Ambrose, was it you who said this or am I misktaken?
I wonder if certain EO Priests would only commune us on our deathbed if we renounced certain RC teachings that the EO consider heretical? Would I only be allowed to receive the Eucharist on my deathbed if I renounced the belief in Papal Primacy, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?

We are the ones who believe in Papal Primacy. You are suppose to believe in what is called Papal Supremacy. You are also suppose to believe in "Ultramontanism".

How do you define ultramontanism?

Good question. I wasn't able to find what I was looking for on the Roman Catholic website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm (Newadvent)

And so I will just say that the meaning I had in mind was one in where the Pope was above Church councils.....even ecumenical Church councils. What idea did you have in mind?
I didn't have one. I was just curious as to what you meant because so many people use the word in so many different ways.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Being in communion with Rome means that we are part of the same mystical body of Christ as Rome is and we can share in the sacraments with one another.
I was more responding to ialmisry's definition of ultramontanism above (sorry...probably should have quoted his post instead of yours) where he said that our Sacraments are only licit if done "in his name" (in the name of the Pope). My question was when do we, as RCs, offer up the Holy Eucharist or celebrate the Sacrament of Confession, or any other Sacrament for that matter, in the name of the Pope? I don't recall the Pope's name being brought up when any of the Sacraments are celebrated save for a brief mention of him in the Mass.
Oh, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
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: 37,124



« Reply #138 on: November 16, 2010, 03:13:16 PM »

Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
To take as an example, the DL that the Melkites in submission to the Vatican use:
Dear LBK,

Thank you for responding to my query. I find the topic to be very interesting.

Fr Anastasios, you wrote:

When I was an Eastern Rite Roman Catholic, our parish did not alter the liturgical texts that we lifted from Orthodoxy when we schismed.  So I think we have to be real careful where we draw the line lest the Eastern Rite Roman Catholics turn your argument right back on you.

That's easy to refute, Father. The definitive sign of an Eastern Rite Catholic is liturgical commemoration of the Pope of Rome as Supreme Pontiff. Last time I checked, this is heresy in the Orthodox Church.

While I would agree with you that such commemoration is heretical, I don't believe you can deduce that just from the liturgical deposit; the main reason we know that Roman Catholics are heretics is because they were condemned by several councils and the Fathers wrote against their false doctrines.

No, actually it is heretical on the face of it.
Quote
First, Lord, remember our Father N. Pope of Rome, our Most Blessed Patriarch N., our Father and (Arch)bishop N.  Graciously bestow them to Your Holy Churches in peace, safty, honor, health, long life, rightly dispensing the word of Your truth.
http://www.melkite.org/PDF/LITURGY2009.pdf

Now, the (arch)bishop is there because the parish exists only antimens.  The Patriarch is there, because of the Church's canonical order, of the synod of the local Church having a primate.

But the mere mention of the pope of Rome, first of all, on the face of it is an intrusion of ultramontanism, the idea that someone is above the Local Church.  Both "Rome" and "Pope" point to that:if you are not in the Patriarchate of Rome, there is no reason to be commorating him over any other primate in the diptych.  And "Pope" breaks the Word "Call no one Father," the Orthodox not falling for the Protestant trap on denying to anyone (otherwise they could not Honor your father as the commandment says, and would have to condemn scripture 1 Cor. 4:15 where St. Paul claims to be their father), but neither the error of the Vatican in claiming the title the Father, arrogating the title "pope" "dad" only to himself. In fact, since I got this from the Melkite Web site, their is the problem that the Melkite patriarch claims, and is installed by Rome to be, the patriarch of Alexandria, upon whom was bestowed the title, long before Rome took it, of "Pope."  Yet the Vatican, because of the heresies of Vatican I, denies him this title, and it doesn't appear in their liturgy.

There is a dogmatic basis for the commemoration, and the liturgical commemoration of the Vatican breaks it, making it clear that it is heresy.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #139 on: November 16, 2010, 03:15:15 PM »

^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
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: 37,124



« Reply #140 on: November 16, 2010, 03:15:51 PM »


No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  Grin
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #141 on: November 16, 2010, 03:17:29 PM »


No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  Grin
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Father H
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #142 on: November 16, 2010, 03:23:22 PM »

No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  Grin
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
Good question.  The tea in China is both cheaper and superior to that in the US (i.e. the tea that they drink, not that which they send to the US).   But there may be a connection:  your flag may be made in China by people drinking inexpensive Chinese tea.   There you go, that is what it has to do with the price of tea in China
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 03:24:45 PM by FatherHLL » Logged
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 #143 on: November 16, 2010, 03:38:29 PM »

I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Being in communion with Rome means that we are part of the same mystical body of Christ as Rome is and we can share in the sacraments with one another.
I was more responding to ialmisry's definition of ultramontanism above (sorry...probably should have quoted his post instead of yours) where he said that our Sacraments are only licit if done "in his name" (in the name of the Pope). My question was when do we, as RCs, offer up the Holy Eucharist or celebrate the Sacrament of Confession, or any other Sacrament for that matter, in the name of the Pope? I don't recall the Pope's name being brought up when any of the Sacraments are celebrated save for a brief mention of him in the Mass.

That's it. Outside of the Patriarchate of the West and the pontifical DL, i.e. ones served by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, the Archbishop of Cyprus, the Catholicoi of Armenia, Georgia, Albania (Caucasian), etc. i.e. his autocephalous peers, the name of no Pope of Rome was commemorated in any  DL during the first millenium of the Church. When Isodore the Apostate of Kiev, coming back from Florence, commemorated his supreme pontiff during DL he was arrested and then expelled from the see.  All the "unions" require his commemoration. I recall in the late 80's, a crypto-Ultramontanist in Ukraine, assigned to a brand new Church (so no question of it being "stolen) commemorated supreme pontiff John Paul II and the Orthodox of the congregation immediately rose up while the other ultramontanists went on to seize the Church properties.

We can go more into that, but I don't think it necessary, e.g.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM12.HTM#5
Quote
Lateran IV c. 5. The dignity of the patriarchal sees

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord's disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord's cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.
The early Church knew nothing of any of this. No patriarch EVER received his "pallium" nor his pontifical office from the Pope of Rome, nor did ANY patriarch have to swear an oath of fidelity and obedience to the same.

Quote
I know of no Sacrament that is rendered illicit by the Pope's name not being invoked.
Neither do we, but the Vatican claims otherwise.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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 #144 on: November 16, 2010, 03:40:05 PM »


No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  Grin
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
LOL. In China, the "Catholic Patriotic Church" does not recognize the supreme pontiff, nor fly his flag.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #145 on: November 16, 2010, 03:41:32 PM »

No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.

Yes.  We are the Body of Christ and all that is given unto us through his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is of utmost sufficiency.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #146 on: November 16, 2010, 03:45:03 PM »


No, we're not. Ya'll and the Vatican are on your own.
There you go referring to that city state again.  Grin
Whose flag is in your parish, or do you deny that?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
LOL. In China, the "Catholic Patriotic Church" does not recognize the supreme pontiff, nor fly his flag.
I am aware of the Patriotic Church of China
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: 37,124



« Reply #147 on: November 16, 2010, 03:45:27 PM »

^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
To take as an example, the DL that the Melkites in submission to the Vatican use:
Dear LBK,

Thank you for responding to my query. I find the topic to be very interesting.

Fr Anastasios, you wrote:

When I was an Eastern Rite Roman Catholic, our parish did not alter the liturgical texts that we lifted from Orthodoxy when we schismed.  So I think we have to be real careful where we draw the line lest the Eastern Rite Roman Catholics turn your argument right back on you.

That's easy to refute, Father. The definitive sign of an Eastern Rite Catholic is liturgical commemoration of the Pope of Rome as Supreme Pontiff. Last time I checked, this is heresy in the Orthodox Church.

While I would agree with you that such commemoration is heretical, I don't believe you can deduce that just from the liturgical deposit; the main reason we know that Roman Catholics are heretics is because they were condemned by several councils and the Fathers wrote against their false doctrines.

No, actually it is heretical on the face of it.
Quote
First, Lord, remember our Father N. Pope of Rome, our Most Blessed Patriarch N., our Father and (Arch)bishop N.  Graciously bestow them to Your Holy Churches in peace, safty, honor, health, long life, rightly dispensing the word of Your truth.
http://www.melkite.org/PDF/LITURGY2009.pdf

Now, the (arch)bishop is there because the parish exists only antimens.  The Patriarch is there, because of the Church's canonical order, of the synod of the local Church having a primate.

But the mere mention of the pope of Rome, first of all, on the face of it is an intrusion of ultramontanism, the idea that someone is above the Local Church.  Both "Rome" and "Pope" point to that:if you are not in the Patriarchate of Rome, there is no reason to be commorating him over any other primate in the diptych.  And "Pope" breaks the Word "Call no one Father," the Orthodox not falling for the Protestant trap on denying to anyone (otherwise they could not Honor your father as the commandment says, and would have to condemn scripture 1 Cor. 4:15 where St. Paul claims to be their father), but neither the error of the Vatican in claiming the title the Father, arrogating the title "pope" "dad" only to himself. In fact, since I got this from the Melkite Web site, their is the problem that the Melkite patriarch claims, and is installed by Rome to be, the patriarch of Alexandria, upon whom was bestowed the title, long before Rome took it, of "Pope."  Yet the Vatican, because of the heresies of Vatican I, denies him this title, and it doesn't appear in their liturgy.

There is a dogmatic basis for the commemoration, and the liturgical commemoration of the Vatican breaks it, making it clear that it is heresy.[/size]
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #148 on: November 16, 2010, 03:47:25 PM »

^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Ultramontanism: the heresy that holds that the Church is one because all its bishops receive their authority by submission to the "supreme pontiff," that the Churhc is holy because the "Vicar of Christ" can speak infallibly ex cathedra and sacraments are licit by being done in his name, that the Church is Catholic because its "pope" has jursidiction throughout the world, and that the Church is Apostolic because its "visible head" alone calls and approves Ecumenical Councils.
Oh so you don't think that those of us in communion with Rome are ultramontanits then. cool
I'm curious as to when and by whom is the Holy Eucharist offered in the name of the Pope. What does that happen?
To take as an example, the DL that the Melkites in submission to the Vatican use:
Dear LBK,

Thank you for responding to my query. I find the topic to be very interesting.

Fr Anastasios, you wrote:

When I was an Eastern Rite Roman Catholic, our parish did not alter the liturgical texts that we lifted from Orthodoxy when we schismed.  So I think we have to be real careful where we draw the line lest the Eastern Rite Roman Catholics turn your argument right back on you.

That's easy to refute, Father. The definitive sign of an Eastern Rite Catholic is liturgical commemoration of the Pope of Rome as Supreme Pontiff. Last time I checked, this is heresy in the Orthodox Church.

While I would agree with you that such commemoration is heretical, I don't believe you can deduce that just from the liturgical deposit; the main reason we know that Roman Catholics are heretics is because they were condemned by several councils and the Fathers wrote against their false doctrines.

No, actually it is heretical on the face of it.
Quote
First, Lord, remember our Father N. Pope of Rome, our Most Blessed Patriarch N., our Father and (Arch)bishop N.  Graciously bestow them to Your Holy Churches in peace, safty, honor, health, long life, rightly dispensing the word of Your truth.
http://www.melkite.org/PDF/LITURGY2009.pdf

Now, the (arch)bishop is there because the parish exists only antimens.  The Patriarch is there, because of the Church's canonical order, of the synod of the local Church having a primate.

But the mere mention of the pope of Rome, first of all, on the face of it is an intrusion of ultramontanism, the idea that someone is above the Local Church.  Both "Rome" and "Pope" point to that:if you are not in the Patriarchate of Rome, there is no reason to be commorating him over any other primate in the diptych.  And "Pope" breaks the Word "Call no one Father," the Orthodox not falling for the Protestant trap on denying to anyone (otherwise they could not Honor your father as the commandment says, and would have to condemn scripture 1 Cor. 4:15 where St. Paul claims to be their father), but neither the error of the Vatican in claiming the title the Father, arrogating the title "pope" "dad" only to himself. In fact, since I got this from the Melkite Web site, their is the problem that the Melkite patriarch claims, and is installed by Rome to be, the patriarch of Alexandria, upon whom was bestowed the title, long before Rome took it, of "Pope."  Yet the Vatican, because of the heresies of Vatican I, denies him this title, and it doesn't appear in their liturgy.

There is a dogmatic basis for the commemoration, and the liturgical commemoration of the Vatican breaks it, making it clear that it is heresy.[/size]
^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
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: 37,124



« Reply #149 on: November 16, 2010, 04:19:46 PM »

^ So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
How silly of me! I had forgot that the lex orandi lex credendi doesn't apply to those with the supreme pontiff, so those who commemorate his name need not say the filioque in their creed. I'm used to the Orthodox way of professing what we belief and believing what we profess.

So for you all:

Can.  838 §1. The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, the diocesan bishop.

§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books and review their translations in vernacular languages, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

§3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves.

§4. Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.

Can.  841 Since the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and belong to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirements for their validity; it is for the same or another competent authority according to the norm of ⇒ can. 838 §§3 and 4 to decide what pertains to their licit celebration, administration, and reception and to the order to be observed in their celebration.

Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

§3. A bishop takes canonical possession of a diocese when he personally or through a proxy has shown the apostolic letter in the same diocese to the college of consultors in the presence of the chancellor of the curia, who records the event. In newly erected dioceses, he takes canonical possession when he has seen to the communication of the same letter to the clergy and people present in the cathedral church, with the senior presbyter among those present recording the event.

§4. It is strongly recommended that the taking of canonical possession be done within a liturgical act in the cathedral church with the clergy and people gathered together.

Can. 399 §1. Every Five years a diocesan bishop is bound to make a report to the Supreme Pontiff on the state of the diocese entrusted to him, according to the form and time determined by the Apostolic See.

Can. 400 §1. Unless the Apostolic See has established otherwise, during the year in which he is bound to submit a report to the Supreme Pontiff, a diocesan bishop is to go to Rome to venerate the tombs of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and to present himself to the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 375 §1. Bishops, who by divine institution succeed to the place of the Apostles through the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, are constituted pastors in the Church, so that they are teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship, and ministers of governance.

§2. Through episcopal consecration itself, bishops receive with the function of sanctifying also the functions of teaching and governing; by their nature, however, these can only be exercised in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.

Can. 377 §1. The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those legitimately elected.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 04:20:26 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #150 on: November 16, 2010, 05:01:03 PM »

Still don't see how this means that the Euchrist is "offered in the name of the Pope."

But hey, why bother with the facts, right? You have Latins to bash. lol


So once moe: So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
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: 37,124



« Reply #151 on: November 16, 2010, 05:57:49 PM »

Still don't see how this means that the Euchrist is "offered in the name of the Pope."
I'm sure you don't.

Quote
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University

In acting in the person of Christ the priest makes it possible for the present assembly to exercise the common priesthood of the faithful and thus to unite themselves in heart and mind to Christ, as he offers his perfect sacrifice to the Father and who allows us to share in this sacrifice.

Yet this priesthood cannot be genuinely exercised except in communion with the ministerial priesthood acting in the person of Christ and the Church. And indeed, one of the primary purposes of the ministerial priesthood is to facilitate the exercise of the common priesthood.

Without this communion the liturgy ceases, in a way, to be an act of the Church, for the concrete assembly is a manifestation of the Church, but is not the Church itself.

Thus the priest, in saying the Eucharistic Prayer alone, but in always using the first person plural, expresses this double aspect of acting in the person of Christ and of the Church. Through the priest's acting in the person of Christ, in a way Christ himself acts in the person of the Church in saying the Eucharistic Prayer.

In other words, Christ himself, as head of his body, the Church, says the Eucharistic Prayer, and says it in first person plural because while, on the one hand, only he can offer the Eucharist, he associates his whole body — all the faithful — with him in doing so.

Another consequence of this communion in the whole Church is that we are all engaged in every Mass said anywhere.

This can be seen in some elements of the prayer itself. For example, the intercessions of the first two Eucharistic Prayers contain the expression "una cum" — "together with N. our Pope and N. our Bishop" (although the same Latin expression is translated differently in the two prayers).

This "together with" is not just a praying-for but a praying-with by which we are united through the celebrating priest to the bishop and through him to the Pope and the universal Church.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 149, addresses this point:

"If the celebrant is a Bishop, in the Prayers, after the words 'Papa nostro N.' (N., our Pope), he adds, 'et me, indigno famulo tuo' (and me, your unworthy servant). If, however, the Bishop is celebrating outside his own diocese, after the words 'Papa nostro N.' (N., our Pope), he adds, 'et me indigno famulo tuo, et fratre meo N., Episcopo huius Ecclesiae N.' (me, your unworthy servant, and my brother N., the Bishop of this Church of N.).

"The diocesan Bishop or anyone equivalent to him in law must be mentioned by means of this formula: 'una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Episcopo (or Vicario, Prelato, Praefecto, Abbate)' (together with your servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop [or Vicar, Prelate, Prefect, Abbot]).

Because ecclesial unity is formed through the pope and the bishop it is not correct to extend the prayer by specifically naming priests such as "N. our pastor."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur40.htm

For a Traditionalist take on this "Should I Assist at a Mass That Names Benedict XVI in the Canon?"
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/B16inCanon.pdf

anyone further interested, look up "Una cum Mass"

Take a look at your missal. Tell me if it is approved by someone other than your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI, either directly or indirectly per those canons I posted from http:/ /www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM


Quote
But hey, why bother with the facts, right?
You don't seem bothered by the facts, and the fact that I am right.

Quote
You have Latins to bash. lol
Can. 838 — § 1. Sacrae liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet: quae quidem est penes Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, penes Episcopum dioecesanum.

 § 2. Apostolicae Sedis est sacram liturgiam Ecclesiae universae ordinare, libros liturgicos edere eorumque versiones in linguas vernaculas recognoscere, necnon advigilare ut ordinationes liturgicae ubique fideliter observentur.

 § 3. Ad Episcoporum conferentias spectat versiones librorum liturgicorum in linguas vernaculas, convenienter intra limites in ipsis libris liturgicis definitos aptatas, parare, easque edere, praevia recognitione Sanctae Sedis.

§ 4. Ad Episcopum dioecesanum in Ecclesia sibi commissa pertinet, intra limites suae competentiae, normas de re liturgica dare, quibus omnes tenentur.

Can. 841 — Cum sacramenta eadem sint pro universa Ecclesia et ad divinum depositum pertineant, unius supremae Ecclesiae auctoritatis est probare et definire quae ad eorum validitatem sunt requisita, atque eiusdem aliusve auctoritatis competentis, ad normam can. 838, §§ 3 et 4, est decernere quae ad eorum celebrationem, administrationem et receptionem licitam necnon ad ordinem in eorum celebratione servandum spectant.

Can. 381 — § 1. Episcopo dioecesano in dioecesi ipsi commissa omnis competit potestas ordinaria, propria et immediata, quae ad exercitium eius muneris pastoralis requiritur, exceptis causis quae iure aut Summi Pontificis decreto supremae aut alii auctoritati ecclesiasticae reserventur.

§ 3. Canonicam dioecesis possessionem capit Episcopus simul ac in ipsa dioecesi, per se vel per procuratorem, apostolicas litteras collegio consultorum ostenderit, praesente curiae cancellario, qui rem in acta referat, aut, in dioecesibus noviter erectis, simul ac clero populoque in ecclesia cathedrali praesenti earundem litterarum communicationem procuraverit, presbytero inter praesentes seniore in acta referente.

§ 4. Valde commendatur ut captio canonicae possessionis cum actu liturgico in ecclesia cathedrali fiat, clero et populo adstantibus.

Can. 399 — § 1. Episcopus dioecesanus tenetur singulis quinquenniis relationem Summo Pontifici exhibere super statu dioecesis sibi commissae, secundum formam et tempus ab Apostolica Sede definita.

Can. 400 — § 1. Episcopus dioecesanus, eo anno quo relationem Summo Pontifici exhibere tenetur, nisi aliter ab Apostolica Sede statutum fuerit, ad Urbem, Beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli sepulcra veneraturus, accedat et Romano Pontifici se sistat.

Can. 375 — § 1. Episcopi, qui ex divina institutione in Apostolorum locum succedunt per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est eis, in Ecclesia Pastores constituuntur, ut sint et ipsi doctrinae magistri, sacri cultus sacerdotes et gubernationis ministri.

§ 2. Episcopi ipsa consecratione episcopali recipiunt cum munere sanctificandi munera quoque docendi et regendi, quae tamen natura sua nonnisi in hierarchica communione cum Collegii capite et membris exercere possunt.

Can. 377 — § 1. Episcopos libere Summus Pontifex nominat, aut legitime electos confirmat.

Quote
So once moe: So then Isa, you don't have a meaningful answer to Wyatt's question? That's what I thought.
Hold that thought.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,128


Truth, Justice, and the American way!