OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 02:08:39 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Confirmation & Communion  (Read 13601 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« on: November 03, 2004, 11:52:30 AM »


The following appears on the Questions & Answers section of EWTN.  If I reading it correctly, it means that within the papal Catholic Church Confirmation has now become a Sacrament of individual choice rather than a necessity.  In fact one can now receive Communion without  have received the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit!

Is this another  change within the papal church?

=========



Confirmation and Communion
Question from Karen Ryan on 11-02-2004:  
 
Dear Sir or Madam:

In a discussion about Catholic teachings, I was informed that the Catholic Church permits us to receive Holy Communion even though a person need not be confirmed. The Diocese I belong to has the Choice program, and they are telling 14 year olds that they do not have to receive Confirmation if they do not want to. No Priest, parent or anyone else can force them to receive Confirmation, it's their choice. I asked if these people are permitted to receive Communion and I was told that yes, they can receive Communion. Is this the true teaching of the Holy Catholic Church? Please tell me it's not so.

Thank you and God Bless!
 
Answer by Catholic Answers on 11-02-2004:  
Dear Karen,

It is true that one need not be Confirmed to receive Holy Communion. While no one should be forced to receive any sacrament, they should be urged to be Confirmed and taught WHY they should be. Any other approach is mindless!

What often happens is that teenagers decide they don't want to be confirmed and then a few years later they want to be married. Then they and the parish priest have to deal with rushing them through Confirmation preparation so that they can be confirmed before they take on the responsiblities of adult life. It's crazy--just crazy!

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

==========

Orthodoc
 


Logged

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

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2004, 12:08:13 PM »

Well receiving communion without confirmation is how it goes chronologically, isn't it?  I mean, you receive First Holy Communion around age 7, then you receive Confirmation around 13 or 14, when you "graduate" from CCD.
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2004, 12:26:57 PM »

There is no change.  One could always receive Communion without Confirmation at least for a time as First Communion is at age 7 and Confiramtion is usually after. The age for receiving Confirmation in normal circumstances in the Latin Catholic Church is between the age of reason (7) and 16.  Confirmation is also supposed to be preceded by Catechesis.  However, the Catholic Church considers someone an adult at age 14 and therefore a 14 year old cannot be compelled to atttend Catechism or to receive Confirmation.  Hopefully this problem will be recognized and more bishops will choose to have Communion and Confirmation administered together at age 7.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
MsGuided
Pharmakolytria
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2004, 12:45:35 PM »

Hopefully this problem will be recognized and more bishops will choose to have Communion and Confirmation administered together at age 7.
 

But that would seem to be a step in a more conservative direction.  Doesn't seem to be a favoured direction considering they're thinking you don't even need confirmation.  I dunno...
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2004, 01:21:46 PM »

It is not that they don't think you don't need it, only that you can't force a teenager into receiving it.  It also works the same in reverse, the Catholic Church won't accept someone under 14 as a convert without their parent's permission.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2004, 01:37:43 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2004, 01:22:06 PM »

[But that would seem to be a step in a more conservative direction.  Doesn't seem to be a favoured direction considering they're thinking you don't even need confirmation.  I dunno...}

That is what is so shocking about this.  Confirmation in the papal church is now an option or choice rather than a necissity that it is in the Orthodox Catholic Church.  What's next?

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2004, 01:29:47 PM »

[It is not that they don't think you don't neeed, only that you can't force a teenager into receiving it. ]

Your statement makes no sense.  If they thought  it was needed they  wouldn't be giving the final decision to a teenager.
What's next...Baptism?

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: November 03, 2004, 01:30:52 PM by Orthodoc » Logged

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

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2004, 01:35:14 PM »

It is not that they don't think you don't neeed, only that you can't force a teenager into receiving it.  It also works the same in reverse, the Catholic Church won't accept someone under 14 as a convert without their parent's permission.

I don't know.  It doesn't seem right to me to have people be "half-members" of the church, participating in some sacraments, but not all.  You can not force someone to receive Confirmation, of course, but then aren't they in essense rejecting a sacrament?  If someone earnestly doesn't want to be a "full member" of the church, why are they in the church at all? Huh
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,739



« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2004, 01:41:25 PM »

I guess brother Orthodoc spends his time trying to find problems outside his Church, especially targeting the Church of Rome.

Your time would be better spent in prayer, especially for all you  feel that are in trouble.

Kyrie, eleison.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2004, 01:45:14 PM »

"It doesn't seem right to me to have people be "half-members" of the church, participating in some sacraments, but not all."

I agree.  If they decline they should also be barred from Communion until they receive Confirmation in my opinion.
Logged

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

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


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2004, 01:52:33 PM »

"Your statement makes no sense."

Bob,

Right or wrong 14 is the "magic age of adulthood" in the Catholic Church.  It is the minimum age for marriage, it is the age at which the Church will not turn a teen away seeking to convert, it will aslo not force a teen to receive it.

Both our Churches teach receiving the Eucharist is necessary but neither forces anyone to receive it either.

Also please stop with the "Papal Catholic" term as it is inaccurate, especially for this situation.  Latin Catholics are not even uniform in this practice as Spanish-speaking catholic countries do confirm at baptism.  Eastern Catrholics baptize and chrismate together.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

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

Posts: 2,739



« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2004, 02:00:38 PM »

I do spend time researching for the differences between East & West, then I'm prepared to ask a informative question and not a uncharitable accusation.

And Orthodoc, many on EWTN use "Catholic Christian", and not the lowly term you use.

You resemble John Kerry at times, flip-flop.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2004, 03:04:04 PM »


[And Orthodoc, many on EWTN use "Catholic Christian", and not the lowly term you use.]

What lowly term?

Orthodoc

Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2004, 03:18:00 PM »

Orthodoc,

I think that Father Deacon Lance and Jakub are talking about the term, "Papal Catholic".

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2004, 03:21:12 PM »

[Also please stop with the "Papal Catholic" term as it is inaccurate, especially for this situation.  Latin Catholics are not even uniform in this practice as Spanish-speaking catholic countries do confirm at baptism.  Eastern Catrholics baptize and chrismate together.]

You mean like 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome" which is not only inaccurate but an oxymoron at that?  And please note I use the term 'papal Catholic' not 'Papal Catholic'.  It is my way of distinguishing my Catholicity from those who recognize papal authority.  Which all those in communion with Rome do including your own church.

Obviously there is no uniformity within said structure regarding the Sacraments.

[I guess brother Orthodoc spends his time trying to find problems outside his Church, especially targeting the Church of Rome.]

Gee, I thought it was a very appropriate subject matter for the Orthodox-Catholic discussion section.  Isn't this the place such subject matter be discussed?

Orthodoc

Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2004, 03:34:21 PM »

Quote
You mean like 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome" which is not only inaccurate but an oxymoron at that?

Orthodoc,

No offense, but I think you are jumping to conclusions. I haven't seen Fr. Deacon Lance nor Jakub use the above term anywhere in this thread. I believe that they would much rather prefer the terms "Catholic Christian", "Latin Catholic" or "Eastern Catholic".

I've never seen Father Deacon Lance nor Jakub use terminology about the Orthodox Church that anyone would take offense to and I think that we ought to show them the same respect, don't you?

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2004, 03:52:01 PM »

Aaron,

The debate over the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" goes way back and even to other forums Smiley

As far as Papal Catholics, that was the term that we (forum administrators and participants) decided almost 2 years ago to use because it is the best way to assuase the concers of both sides, who equally have a claim to the term Catholic.  As such, Orthodoc is FULLY justified in using the term Papal Catholic.  If he wants to be more descriptive, he can specify Eastern or Western Church.

Anastasios
Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2004, 04:06:00 PM »

Quote
The debate over the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" goes way back and even to other forums

As far as Papal Catholics, that was the term that we (forum administrators and participants) decided almost 2 years ago to use because it is the best way to assuase the concers of both sides, who equally have a claim to the term Catholic.  As such, Orthodoc is FULLY justified in using the term Papal Catholic.  If he wants to be more descriptive, he can specify Eastern or Western Church.

Anastasios,

In going through older posts on this forum, as well as orther forums I have seen this term used, so I totally understand why any Orthodox Christian would get bent out of shape over the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" because of the obvious implications.

I was not aware about the term "Papal Orthodox" being acceptable, so thank you for bringing it to my intention.

I was merely pointing out that although such terminology may be acceptable to use, that does not necessarily mean that people would not find such things offensive and I think that everyone should use some Christian charity when posting because there is no need to try to irk someone off just because it is permissible.

One can think of situations in which terminology could be used in regards to the Oriental Orthodox Churches, as well as the traditionalist Orthodox synods where one could use terms which could be found offensive, so I think that the same should be applied to the members of the Roman/Latin/Byzantine Catholic Churches.

Since the term "papal Catholic" is acceptable as deemed by the administrators, I shall now get down off of my box.  Grin

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,739



« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2004, 04:20:42 PM »

Papal Catholic might be acceptable to Anastatsios & others but not to me.

Face it and accept it brethern,  both the East & West have imperfections, and when people finally realize that the Church of our Lord is divided. I do not acknowledge the term "The True Church", until East & West are united as "The One True and Holy Church".

Since Forum Administrators condone the papal Catholic label, I will refrain from posting here.

Peace to all,

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2004, 04:20:47 PM »

Aaron,

It's certainly a hard issue when even the terms become divisive.

Anastasios
Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2004, 04:22:39 PM »

Well Jakub, I'm sorry, but we debated this term for months and the Catholics here decided it was acceptable too. Why do you have a problem accepting a label which is TOTALLY FAIR? You are a Roman Catholic. You accept the Pope. That is what defines your brand of Catholicism--adherence to Rome.  Why then are you offended?

Anastasios
Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2004, 04:25:58 PM »

Papal Catholic might be acceptable to Anastatsios & others but not to me.

Face it and accept it brethern,  both the East & West have imperfections, and when people finally realize that the Church of our Lord is divided. I do not acknowledge the term "The True Church", until East & West are united as "The One True and Holy Church".

Since Forum Administrators condone the papal Catholic label, I will refrain from posting here.

Peace to all,

james

What does this have to do with Church unity?  There are Catholics who accept the Pope and Catholics who don't.

Anastasios
Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2004, 04:26:44 PM »

And another point--on some Orthodox sites, allowing Latins to be called Catholics in the first place would be debated! Just goes to show that when you try to be fair, everyone gets mad at you from both sides.

Anastasios
Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
MsGuided
Pharmakolytria
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2004, 04:29:31 PM »

Can I ask why "papal Catholic" is so offensive?  I'm Roman Catholic, we are under the pope, no?  Seems to denote "all the churches under the pope".  

(Ah, anastasios beat me to it)
« Last Edit: November 03, 2004, 04:31:54 PM by MsGuided » Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2004, 04:34:10 PM »

[Can I ask why "papal Catholic" is so offensive?  I'm Roman Catholic, we are under the pope, no?  Seems to denote "all the churches under the pope".  ]

Ah!  Thank you or asking.  I've been trying to figure this out for five years now.

Orthodoc
Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2004, 04:36:44 PM »

Quote
Papal Catholic might be acceptable to Anastatsios & others but not to me.

Face it and accept it brethern,  both the East & West have imperfections, and when people finally realize that the Church of our Lord is divided. I do not acknowledge the term "The True Church", until East & West are united as "The One True and Holy Church".

Since Forum Administrators condone the papal Catholic label, I will refrain from posting here.

Peace to all,

james

James/Jakub,

I am not a fan of the term "Papal Catholic" either, which is why I said something about it. I understand that such terms cheeses people off, just like the term "Monophysite" does to the Oriental Orthodox, and schismatics/heretics to the traditionalist Orthodox synods.

I certainly would hate to see you leave this site over something like this and I hope that you would stick around.

Perhaps it may be time for a poll to take place to see if we all couldn't find something more acceptable to the members of the Roman/Latin/Byzantine Catholic Churches, because I would hate to see this forum lose members over something so trivial.

Because as the description for this forum states:

Quote
Discuss in charity issues uniting and dividing the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches. (*in Communion with Rome).

Notice that it does not say "Papal Catholic" it uses terms that are acceptable and as such, I think that we should also be able to use more charitable terms when discussing the Roman/Latin/Byzantine Catholic Churches.

In Christ,
Aaron
« Last Edit: November 03, 2004, 04:38:00 PM by Arystarcus » Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #26 on: November 03, 2004, 04:37:59 PM »

[I believe that they would much rather prefer the terms "Catholic Christian", "Latin Catholic" or "Eastern Catholic". ]

I notice on the 'other' board you rightly identify yourself as a member of the 'Holy Orthodox Catholic' faith.  As such, how do you distinguish  yourself and your 'catholicity'  from those who are in communion with Rome (and therefore under its authority)  by allowing them to identify themselves as either "Catholic Christian" or 'Eastern Catholic".  

Do you agree with  Romes claim that it alone is the 'Catholic Church' or that we Orthodox Catholics left the Catholic  in 1054?

It never ceases to amaze me that those who come into Orthodox Catholic discussion groups to defend papal authority and supremacy are insulted when they are reminded they are part of that papal authority they defend and believe in.  Or profess such love and respect for the Pope  but are so insulted when they hear the word 'papal'.

My purpose for using such terminology is not to offend but to defend and distinguish my 'catholicity'  from theirs.  I use it because I've been told by them that the term 'Roman Catholic' is also insulting as well as  the term 'Latin Catholic' when speaking of the entire papal Church which includes those who are not 'Latin'.

I use it because I am equally insulted when I read rewrites of history such as the following propaganda put out by this church by
trying to take the exclusive rights to the word 'Catholic' for themselves -

http://www.catholicism.org/pages/ConvRus.htm

The Conversion Of Russia

Excerpts:

[However, the immediate object of their prayer, the conversion of Russia, might better be considered the country's reconversion. That is because, when the nation we now know as Russia became Christian a thousand years ago, it was the One True Church she embraced. The Christian East had not yet gone into schism.]

[Tragic as was Russia's defection after Constantinople broke with Rome in 1054, it is understandable on the natural, human level.]   

[Russia went schismatic in much the manner that European nations never part of the old Roman Empire fell into heresy at the time of the Protestant revolt, commonly referred to as the "Reformation." ]

As you can see, the implication is that Russia accepted Christianity when everyone was part of the Catholic Church.  Russia never left that Catholic Church.  Neither did any other Orthodox  Church.  Taht is why I defend my 'catholicity'.

But I'll concede to use terminology such as either 'Catholics In Communion With Rome' when speaking of the entire Papal structure or  'Eastern Catholic In Communion With Rome'  when speaking exclusively of the Unia.

Since we have gotten off the subject this will be my last post concerning this.  If someone wants to continue check the archives first.

Orthodoc   







    





Logged

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

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


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #27 on: November 03, 2004, 04:49:06 PM »

"As far as Papal Catholics, that was the term that we (forum administrators and participants) decided almost 2 years ago to use because it is the best way to assuase the concers of both sides, who equally have a claim to the term Catholic.  As such, Orthodoc is FULLY justified in using the term Papal Catholic.  If he wants to be more descriptive, he can specify Eastern or Western Church."

When was that?  Used in this context Papal is a thin disguise for Papist, which is a term of derision as is Uniate.  Roman, Latin, Eastern, Byzantine, + Catholic are acceptable and are no cause for confusion as no Orthodox Church identifies itself as simply Eastern Catholic but always Greek Orthodox, Orthodox Catholic, Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic, etc. but never just: (insert name) Catholic.  There is no need for this type of behavior but you choose to ignore or endorse it.

I expect better of the adminstrators, moderators, and memebrs of this forum but it seems insults and digs, as long as they are aimed at "Papal Catholics", are acceptable.  If you guys received this kind of treatment at byzcath.org you would be having a fit.

I find all of this unacceptable and I no longer feel welcome here.  What was supposed to be a place of dialogue has become home to fundamentalism and what can only be the veiled proselytizing of "Papal" Catholics.

I can no longer participate here nor can I recommend this site to others.  You will remain in my prayers.

Fr. Deacon Lance


Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2004, 04:53:45 PM »

Quote
I notice on the 'other' board you rightly identify yourself as a member of the 'Holy Orthodox Catholic' faith.
 

Orthodoc,

I am flattered that you take such an interest in me that you know what my profile over at the Byzantine Forum says.  Grin

Quote
As such, how do you distinguish  yourself and your 'catholicity'  from those who are in communion with Rome (and therefore under its authority)  by allowing them to identify themselves as either "Catholic Christian" or 'Eastern Catholic".

I do not "allow" anyone to use any term, they use it on their own. I believe that most people, and society in general associates the terms "Eastern Catholic" or "Catholic Christian" with the Roman Catholic Church and faith. That may not be acceptable to you, or anyone else for that matter, but sadly this is life and the way it is going to be.

I distinguish myself by using the term "Orthodox", which unless someone is a complete moron, they will know what I am talking about. I use the term "Orthodox Catholic", because I will soon be received into the Holy Orthodox Church and as such when I recite the Creed I says, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" and as such I will be a member of this Church, the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Quote
Do you agree with  Romes claim that it alone is the 'Catholic Church' or that we Orthodox Catholics left the Catholic  in 1054?

Of course I don't, because if I did, I wouldn't be seeking to enter the Orthodox Church.

Quote
It never ceases to amaze me that those who come into Orthodox Catholic discussion groups to defend papal authority and supremacy are insulted when they are reminded they are part of that papal authority they defend and believe in.  Or profess such love and respect for the Pope  but are so insulted when they hear the word 'papal'.

I think that some people take offense to the term because they know when you use that term that you aren't using it in a positive manner to distinguish them, rather that you are using it in a way to speak down at them. This may or may not be the case, but sometimes you do come off as being a little rough around the egdes and that is probably why others take offense.

Quote
My purpose for using such terminology is not to offend but to defend and distinguish my 'catholicity'  from theirs.  I use it because I've been told by them that the term 'Roman Catholic' is also insulting as well as  the term 'Latin Catholic' when speaking of the entire papal Church which includes those who are not 'Latin'.

See above.

Quote
I use it because I am equally insulted when I read rewrites of history such as the following propaganda put out by this church by
trying to take the exclusive rights to the word 'Catholic' for themselves -

http://www.catholicism.org/pages/ConvRus.htm

The above link is from a group that is considered schismatic by the Catholic Church and as such they do not speak for the Catholic Church and are not considered a part of the Catholic Church, so I don't see how posting that link in any way, shape or form proves your point.

Orthodoc,

I do hope that you do not take offense to anything I have said, because I was not trying to offend you. I don't have any problem with you and never have, so I hope that you will not hold any of my comments against me.

May God bless and keep us all.

In Christ,
Aaron

Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2004, 04:55:31 PM »

Aaron,

The debate over the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" goes way back and even to other forums Smiley

As far as Papal Catholics, that was the term that we (forum administrators and participants) decided almost 2 years ago to use because it is the best way to assuase the concers of both sides, who equally have a claim to the term Catholic.  As such, Orthodoc is FULLY justified in using the term Papal Catholic.  If he wants to be more descriptive, he can specify Eastern or Western Church.

Anastasios

Thank you Anastasios!  I appreciate your support.  As you may have noticed I have modified it by not capitalizing the word papal.  As I have already stated I use the term to distinguish my catholicity from theirs.  I do not deny them the right to identify themselves as 'Catholics'.  Because of that I can't for the life of me understand why the word 'papal' is so offensive to some of them!  Notice I say some because the term is now being used by some of them in other Orthodox Catholic discussion groups.

Since you have reminded me that the term is acceptable I will continue to use it.  Saves on typing!  (I'm a two finger typist!

Orthodoc
Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2004, 04:57:43 PM »

Quote
I find all of this unacceptable and I no longer feel welcome here.  What was supposed to be a place of dialogue has become home to fundamentalism and what can only be the veiled proselytizing of "Papal" Catholics.

I can no longer participate here nor can I recommend this site to others.  You will remain in my prayers.

Father Deacon Lance,

I also hope that you, along with Jakub will both be able to reconcile this situation with the mods, perhaps you could send them a pm and explain your situation to them? Because I would certainly hate to see either one of you leave as I believe that both of you do contribute to this forum.

Please take some time to think over your decisions and I do hope that the both of you will stick around.  Smiley

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
MsGuided
Pharmakolytria
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2004, 05:03:43 PM »

Not that this link matters much, but:
http://www.iasted.org/conferences/2004/banff/ocsn-ipc.htm
Under the International Program Committee section, it lists one school as "Papal Catholic University" in Brazil.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2004, 05:04:22 PM by MsGuided » Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2004, 05:33:48 PM »

[If you guys received this kind of treatment at byzcath.org you would be having a fit.]

Father Deacon Lance:

I went to the byzcath.org and did a search on the term 'Othodox In Communion With Rome' and came up with 14 PAGES CONSISTING OF 276  TIMES IT HAS BEEN USED!

Why always the one sided look at things?  Why is it that you can be offended by certain terminology but we aren't supposed to be?

May I remid you that 'papal' and 'papist' are two separate and distinct words.  I have yet to have any of you explain to me why its OK to say 'Papal Apartments', 'Papal Headquarters',  'Papal Encyclical', 'Papal Mass',  'Papal Bull',  etc. but not papal Catholic?

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: November 03, 2004, 05:39:46 PM by Orthodoc » Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #33 on: November 03, 2004, 05:38:09 PM »

As such, Orthodoc is FULLY justified in using the term Papal Catholic.

As long as he and you are willing to suffer "Eastern Orthodox" all the time.

It's the penalty paid for church names which are sales pitches. Object to someone else's sales pitch, and it's only fair for them to object to yours.

It's a lot easier and more charitable to just accept the names as they are and live with the fact that sometimes a certain care will be needed to distinguish the church names from the principles they are trying to claim.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #34 on: November 03, 2004, 05:51:09 PM »

Bob,

Do a search for Greek Schismatic at byzcath.org and you will find it gets 3 hits.  Neither you nor any other Orthodox would appreciate this label nor would I use it.  I do not  appreciate the label papal, and I really don't have to explain it.  It is not the name we use.  We do not object to your use of Catholic but you do object to our use of Orthodox, which officially we don't even use but is used only informally by some.  I do look at both sides.  I only ask to be treated in the same manner I treat others.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #35 on: November 03, 2004, 06:07:03 PM »

[I do not appreciate the label papal, and I really don't have to explain it.]

That's because you can't explain it.  Is it because it reminds you of the fact that your church is ultimately under papal authority whether you admit it or not.


 [We do not object to your use of Catholic but you do object to our use of Orthodox, which officially we don't even use but is used only informally by some.]

Read some of the discussions in some of the Orthodox Catholic- papal Catholic sites and then come back and make that claim with a straight face.  Read the archives here.  I have been accused here of having a 'Catholic'  (meaning papal Catholic)  envy  obsession  because of my defense of my right to use the term 'Catholic' as an Orthodox Christian.

Orthodoc

P.S.  I thought you signed off?
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 03, 2004, 06:13:21 PM »

"As long as he and you are willing to suffer "Eastern Orthodox" all the time."

But we ARE Eastern Orthodox! Why would that be offensive?

Anastasios
Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #37 on: November 03, 2004, 06:24:07 PM »

I've gotten complaints in the past (not necessarily here) about the word "Eastern".
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 03, 2004, 06:24:42 PM »

"As far as Papal Catholics, that was the term that we (forum administrators and participants) decided almost 2 years ago to use because it is the best way to assuase the concers of both sides, who equally have a claim to the term Catholic.  As such, Orthodoc is FULLY justified in using the term Papal Catholic.  If he wants to be more descriptive, he can specify Eastern or Western Church."

When was that?  Used in this context Papal is a thin disguise for Papist, which is a term of derision as is Uniate.  Roman, Latin, Eastern, Byzantine, + Catholic are acceptable and are no cause for confusion as no Orthodox Church identifies itself as simply Eastern Catholic but always Greek Orthodox, Orthodox Catholic, Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic, etc. but never just: (insert name) Catholic.  There is no need for this type of behavior but you choose to ignore or endorse it.

I'm sorry, Father Lance, but your claims don't stand. I am not going to go back in the threads and point this out; you can do this yourself. First of all, any references to Latin Catholics as being papists is corrected by us forum administrators whenever we catch it.  Papal Catholic is in no way a thin disguise for "Papist". We needed a term that addressed the body of Catholic Christians that counts the Pope of Rome as its head and/or center of unity, however you care to phrase it. "Catholic Christian" is ambiguous because Orthodox Christians are Catholic Christians, and "Latin Catholic" and "Eastern [Rite] Catholic" is too specific when one wants to address the whole body of Catholics in communion with Rome.

Quote
I expect better of the adminstrators, moderators, and memebrs of this forum but it seems insults and digs, as long as they are aimed at "Papal Catholics", are acceptable.  If you guys received this kind of treatment at byzcath.org you would be having a fit.

That's a cheap lie. We have many Catholics who post here such as Schultz who freely point out that they are proud Catholics.  And I correct name calling when I see it.  If you see an instance where we do not correct name calling, you can safely assume that it's because we didn't see it AND it wasn't reported via the report a post feature.

Quote
I find all of this unacceptable and I no longer feel welcome here.  What was supposed to be a place of dialogue has become home to fundamentalism and what can only be the veiled proselytizing of "Papal" Catholics.


You know we are not fundamentalists so please lose the hyperbole. If you would like to see very conservative Orthodoxy, I invite you to the euphrosynoscafe.com where you WILL be called names and your faith tradition derided.

Quote
I can no longer participate here nor can I recommend this site to others.  You will remain in my prayers.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Please, don't pray for us if your only reason is because we are such pitiful losers that you have no other recourse.  Prayer should never be used as a weapon or a threat.

I have sided with you against Orthodoc before Fr Lance and that has landed me in the middle. But this time, I am with Orthodoc because you are throwing around empty accusations.

We debated this issue of terms fully in the open for months in 2002 and if you had a problem with Papal Catholic, you should have brought it up then. And let me also remind you: THERE IS NO OFFICIAL TERMINOLOGY FOR THIS SITE ANYWAY (except that papist and Monophysite are not allowed)--if you notice, Bob is the only one who uses the term Papal Catholic regularly. I prefer Roman Catholic or when necessary Eastern Catholic. But then if you say the RCC and use that in reference to an Eastern Catholic, you get smashed with a proverbial club--here, on Byzcath.org, and anywhere on the net where Eastern Catholics reside. So how else but with the term "Papal Catholic" are people supposed to distinguish between Catholics centered on Rome and Orthodox Catholics??

Anastasios
Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 03, 2004, 06:25:07 PM »

I've gotten complaints in the past (not necessarily here) about the word "Eastern".


Fair enough. I don't find the term offensive at all.

Anastasios
Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 03, 2004, 06:26:43 PM »

As long as he and you are willing to suffer "Eastern Orthodox" all the time.

It's the penalty paid for church names which are sales pitches. Object to someone else's sales pitch, and it's only fair for them to object to yours.

It's a lot easier and more charitable to just accept the names as they are and live with the fact that sometimes a certain care will be needed to distinguish the church names from the principles they are trying to claim.


That's what we tried to do. I would have been fine calling Catholics Catholics and Orthodox Orthodox--but then when you try to be specific, and say Roman Catholic, the Eastern Catholics get upset because they say they are not Roman Catholic.

Anastasios
Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 03, 2004, 06:40:35 PM »

Let me post one more response.  Father Lance, when you said that our forum engages in "what can only be the veiled proselytizing of "Papal" Catholics" that got me riled up too. Because you obviously think that we hate you and are malicious towards you. I have stated it a million times and I will state it again: I love the Catholic Church and hope that it will return to Orthodoxy. But part of charity and love is to tell the truth.  And to counter the charge that we are "veiled" let me just blow it out in the open: barring a sudden and total change whereby your entire Church decides to return to Orthodoxy, I will stick with Fr Georges Florovsky, who stated that Church unity can only be described as "Universal conversion to the Orthodox Church."  We want you and every other Catholic to become Orthodox because we believe that it is the Church of Christ.  That's not thinly veiled, it's not disguised. We want you to come home to Orthodoxy and be one with us. If your entire Church comes, then that is a billion times better. But if it won't come, we want YOU to come, Father Lance. You and every one of our "separated bretheren" to use a Catholic term.  There is no hiding this desire.

There can be dialogue on points that truly are misunderstood between the two parties.  But there is nothing to misunderstand about papal universal jurisdiction. The Pope either has it or he doesn't.  Rome won't concede and neither will the Orthodox. We can keep talking about the other stuff, but until this issue is solved, the only solution is for you and every other Catholic to come into Orthodoxy.

Anastasios
Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,907


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #42 on: November 03, 2004, 06:53:04 PM »

I second anastasios's response above.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #43 on: November 03, 2004, 07:01:03 PM »

I second anastasios's response above.

Demetri

========

So do I!  Very well stated Anastasios!

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #44 on: November 03, 2004, 07:07:58 PM »

The fact that you could receive Holy Communion before being confirmed in the RCC is quite normal. BUT, and thats a big but, Confirmation was ALWAYS required to complete your initiation into the RCC. Confirmation in the RCC made one a soldier for Christ, and it this was the important part, it infused you to the Holy Spirit.  I made my first Holy Communion when I was 7 and received my Confirmation when I was about 10 years old.  So it is not unusual for one to be receiving Holy Communion years before you receive the sacrament of Confirmation.  What should bother the RC's is that this sacrament is now considered a choice rather than a plan for salvation. I just cant imagine what the good nuns would have done if I or my family decided not to participate in the sacrament of Confirmation.  I think I would have had some new knots on my head to show for it.  This sacrament is, or was, taken quite seriously in my younger years. But I chaulk this up to another INOVATION in the long line of inovations of the modern Roman Catholic church.
 
JoeS
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.153 seconds with 72 queries.