OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 21, 2014, 06:11:45 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you, as an Oriental or Eastern Orthodox Christian, believe the Roman Catholic priesthood and sacraments are grace filled?
Yes - 11 (45.8%)
No - 13 (54.2%)
Total Voters: 24

Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Catholicism - Do you believe our priests and sacraments are grace-filled?  (Read 3634 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« on: September 29, 2012, 08:19:06 PM »

I haven't received a definitive answer from the Orthodox on this question. I spoke with an Orthodox Church in America priest who told me that in his particular branch of Orthodoxy, RC priests who convert to Orthodoxy are not re-ordained, instead they are vested. He went on to say that this practice existed in Russia several centuries ago. What is your opinion?
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2012, 09:56:56 PM »

There is not a universally agreed on definitive answer to this question. To be honest, I'm afraid of the practical implications of refusing intercommunion with another church you believe to have Christ in the sacraments.

This is not a statement of whether or not I believe other churches not in communion with my own have Christ present in their sacraments, but I am glad it's not my job to give definitive answers. FWIW, the church I've been attending the last few weeks (Antiochian) does officially (to the best of my knowledge) have an agreement  with one of the OO (Syraic Orthodox) jurisdictions to allow intercommunion (of laypersons) in certain situations.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 10:03:41 PM by Melodist » Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2012, 10:27:05 PM »

There is not a universally agreed on definitive answer to this question. To be honest, I'm afraid of the practical implications of refusing intercommunion with another church you believe to have Christ in the sacraments.

This is not a statement of whether or not I believe other churches not in communion with my own have Christ present in their sacraments, but I am glad it's not my job to give definitive answers. FWIW, the church I've been attending the last few weeks (Antiochian) does officially (to the best of my knowledge) have an agreement  with one of the OO (Syraic Orthodox) jurisdictions to allow intercommunion (of laypersons) in certain situations.

I think its ridiculous that your Antiochian church has an agreement with one of the OO jurisdictions, aka the Miaphysites. The RCC and EOC share core beliefs and a common hsitory and we even allow members of your church to commune in ours. There should definitely be an intercommunion agreement at least on the local level between the RCC and EOC.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2012, 10:34:35 PM »

What is "ridiculous" is how often RCs are told by EO that the EO and the RC are not particularly close despite their shared Christology, yet RCs often make statements such as you have that "There should definitely be an intercommunion agreement". I'm not in communion with either of you, so I don't particularly care, but I would think that if you were serious about this, you'd look into why it is that the EO are not so keen on the idea, and maybe even try to fix the problems that the EO say must be dealt with before intercommunion can be considered.

And I don't want to make an argument out of this issue, but I do feel it necessary to say that if you have a problem with Miaphysite Christology, then you have a problem with St. Cyril of Alexandria, and should not then count him among your saints as you currently do.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 10:35:27 PM by dzheremi » Logged

BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2012, 10:40:23 PM »

What is "ridiculous" is how often RCs are told by EO that the EO and the RC are not particularly close despite their shared Christology, yet RCs often make statements such as you have that "There should definitely be an intercommunion agreement". I'm not in communion with either of you, so I don't particularly care, but I would think that if you were serious about this, you'd look into why it is that the EO are not so keen on the idea, and maybe even try to fix the problems that the EO say must be dealt with before intercommunion can be considered.

And I don't want to make an argument out of this issue, but I do feel it necessary to say that if you have a problem with Miaphysite Christology, then you have a problem with St. Cyril of Alexandria, and should not then count him among your saints as you currently do.

I know why the EasternOrthodox are not "so keen on the idea" of intercommunion. I believe that as a church we do need to re-examine some of the issues that Orthodoxy rejects, particularly the Filioque. However, all of our ecumenical councils are valid and must be accepted by the Orthodox before full communion is reached. But I do not see the harm in sharing the body and blood of Christ with our brothers and sisters from other, but true churches (valid episcopacy through apostolic succession and sacraments)
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2012, 10:59:22 PM »

You are coming at this issue from a Roman Catholic perspective which revolves around pronouncements of "validity" regarding other churches and their sacraments. This is not how the Orthodox (either EO or OO) view the matter, so you will make very little progress in understanding any answers you might find to your OP question, or why you do not find "definitive" answers to this question in the first place.

Again, as someone without a dog in this fight, I have to say how astonishing it is that a person without understanding of how the Orthodox think about these issues would make declarative statements like "there definitely should be an intercommunion agreement" or "all of our ecumenical councils are valid and must be accepted by the Orthodox before full communion is reached". It does not seem that do you understand why the Orthodox are not rushing to commune (with) the RCs, but nevertheless your comments are as good a form of supporting evidence for that reticence as anything.
Logged

OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 994



« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2012, 11:09:28 PM »

For the record, I'm not at all scandalized by BayStater123's claim that we need to accept all their extra "Ecumenical Councils" before full communion can be reached. He is simply following the teachings of his Church. I don't believe the Orthodox will accept those demands (and if they do I will probably have to conclude that the Orthodox Church was not the true Church from the beginning), but it's hardly surprising that he would make them.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2012, 11:19:41 PM »

Oh, absolutely. And I much prefer this type of discussion to the "we're all the same" sort of thing that you hear from some Catholics. I just find it funny that he says he understands why the EO don't want to be in union with the RC, but apparently not why they won't have intercommunion agreements with the RC (or why they have them with the OO). If you understood one, it seems to me you'd understand the others.
Logged

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2012, 11:43:15 PM »

What is "ridiculous" is how often RCs are told by EO that the EO and the RC are not particularly close despite their shared Christology, yet RCs often make statements such as you have that "There should definitely be an intercommunion agreement". I'm not in communion with either of you, so I don't particularly care, but I would think that if you were serious about this, you'd look into why it is that the EO are not so keen on the idea, and maybe even try to fix the problems that the EO say must be dealt with before intercommunion can be considered.

And I don't want to make an argument out of this issue, but I do feel it necessary to say that if you have a problem with Miaphysite Christology, then you have a problem with St. Cyril of Alexandria, and should not then count him among your saints as you currently do.

I know why the EasternOrthodox are not "so keen on the idea" of intercommunion. I believe that as a church we do need to re-examine some of the issues that Orthodoxy rejects, particularly the Filioque. However, all of our ecumenical councils are valid and must be accepted by the Orthodox before full communion is reached. But I do not see the harm in sharing the body and blood of Christ with our brothers and sisters from other, but true churches (valid episcopacy through apostolic succession and sacraments)

Then you have a view of Holy Communion that is at odds with Christianity as a whole until about 1500, and with Roman Catholicism for arguably several centuries after that. Albeit, the RC has adopted some sort of ambiguity policy on almost all of its dogmas, sort of like Israel and its nukes.
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.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2012, 11:59:10 PM »

I think its ridiculous that your Antiochian church has an agreement with one of the OO jurisdictions, aka the Miaphysites.

I think I'll leave those decisions to their respective patriarchs/bishops. And there is no official agreement allowing the concelebration of clergy.

Quote
The RCC and EOC share core beliefs and a common hsitory

I agree about our core beliefs (of course with the exception of your dogmas about the Pope), and our common history is only for the first millenium.

Quote
and we even allow members of your church to commune in ours.

I know.

Quote
There should definitely be an intercommunion agreement at least on the local level between the RCC and EOC.

I will leave that up to our bishops and follow their guidance either way (as long as it doesn't require me to contradict the statement of faith I made at my chrismation).

Like I said before, I'm afraid of the implications of not being in communion with someone you believe to have Christ present in the sacraments. I'm glad I don't make those decisions. It's one thing to discuss how "close in belief" anyone is, but Communion is the Body of Christ, He is either there or He is not, not mostly or partly or imperfectly or in theory. If He is really there, then the dividing issues are not worth being divided over (should not be dogmatized - at the very least) because we are still fully united in Christ becasue He is fully in the sacraments and our division is a denial of the reality of that unity in Christ by virtue of Christ's presence in the sacraments. If He is not there, then intercommunion should not be allowed.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 12:00:28 AM by Melodist » Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,980



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2012, 12:07:37 AM »

The concept of Grace as one of the Uncreated Energies of God comes in handy in this issue. We see in St. Paul that Grace itself can come in many "flavors" known as charismas (1 Cor. 7 & 12).

The question then if there is grace in RC or any other Church is answered by the NT: the Grace of God is not limited to His body. The case of the centurion is one that makes this point straight. Nor is His body wherever grace occurs - the Spirit blows wherever He wants, but the body itself of Christ is clearly spacially located, even after the resurrection.

So, one thing is the presence of Grace. Another thing is that special kind of Grace that is "being Body of Christ".

I do believe, nay, I am sure there is Grace in every serious church. Even among some of the faithful of the worst sects Grace may act. God is not good toward the Church only. He *is* good, He *is* merciful, in Himself, not toward some people only. He is not one who will turn His face from someone calling upon His name, just because this person is not in the Church. He will provide His love even to those who hate Him, the more so to those who love Him and just happen to circunstancially not be in His body.

Therefore, I do believe that some RC mystics may have had real divine experiences. Miracles do occur, specially those of healing. But the particular ecclesiastic grace that makes a person Body of Christ, and the bread and wine, flesh and blood of Christ, is completely absent from all the heterodox communities (including non-Chalcedonians). They are what we see in St. Luke:
"We saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us."
St. Luke 9:49

Also, the Christian attitude toward heterodox is given by Jesus replying to that:

And Jesus said unto him, Forbid {him} not: for he that is not against us is for us.
Lucas 9:50

Notice that Our Lord did not bring the "one" into the group of Apostles. This "one" was not in the day Pentecost. He is not part of the Church, but don't forbid him, because he is for us. We also see how Jesus treat the Samaritans and even Roman pagans, praising their faith and going to them - Jesus does go to the heterodox as well. But if they really wanted to follow Him, they had to join the Apostles. An Angel appeared to Cornelius in Act, but instructed him to call St. Peter, without whom, even with a direct contact with the angelic being, Cornelius could not become part of the Church. It was necessary to be baptized by one of the "clergy".

So, no, there is no ecclesiastical grace in the RC, but yes, they are visited by all other kinds of grace, more so than non-christian religions because they direct their prayers closer to reality.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 12:10:22 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,015



« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2012, 12:32:09 AM »

I haven't received a definitive answer from the Orthodox on this question. I spoke with an Orthodox Church in America priest who told me that in his particular branch of Orthodoxy, RC priests who convert to Orthodoxy are not re-ordained, instead they are vested. He went on to say that this practice existed in Russia several centuries ago. What is your opinion?

I agree with the OCA priest you spoke with.

Please note, the Orthodox Church in America is not a "branch of Orthodoxy," there are no "branches" of the Orthodox Church.  All Eastern Orthodox Christians are under particular bishops, and synods of bishops, but their faith is the same; there is One Holy Orthodox Church, "the Holy Churches of God."
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2012, 01:20:44 AM »

I haven't received a definitive answer from the Orthodox on this question. I spoke with an Orthodox Church in America priest who told me that in his particular branch of Orthodoxy, RC priests who convert to Orthodoxy are not re-ordained, instead they are vested. He went on to say that this practice existed in Russia several centuries ago. What is your opinion?

I agree with the OCA priest you spoke with.

Please note, the Orthodox Church in America is not a "branch of Orthodoxy," there are no "branches" of the Orthodox Church.  All Eastern Orthodox Christians are under particular bishops, and synods of bishops, but their faith is the same; there is One Holy Orthodox Church, "the Holy Churches of God."


So are you saying that RC priests are validly ordained? That the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the RCC is valid?
Logged
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 994



« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2012, 01:30:52 AM »

I haven't received a definitive answer from the Orthodox on this question. I spoke with an Orthodox Church in America priest who told me that in his particular branch of Orthodoxy, RC priests who convert to Orthodoxy are not re-ordained, instead they are vested. He went on to say that this practice existed in Russia several centuries ago. What is your opinion?

I agree with the OCA priest you spoke with.

Please note, the Orthodox Church in America is not a "branch of Orthodoxy," there are no "branches" of the Orthodox Church.  All Eastern Orthodox Christians are under particular bishops, and synods of bishops, but their faith is the same; there is One Holy Orthodox Church, "the Holy Churches of God."


So are you saying that RC priests are validly ordained? That the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the RCC is valid?

The wheels on the bus go round and round...

Wait for the "oikonomia retroactively infuses grace into invalid sacraments " crowd to clash with the "not repeating sacraments constitutes a recognition of those sacraments" crowd again.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 01:31:08 AM by OrthoNoob » Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2012, 01:38:14 AM »



Wait for the "oikonomia retroactively infuses grace into invalid sacraments " crowd to clash with the "not repeating sacraments constitutes a recognition of those sacraments" crowd again.
[/quote]

Apparently it does, because if I were an Orthodox Bishop and I believed that Roman Catholic sacraments are invalid, I would definitely re-administer the sacrament. But Roman Catholic sacraments aren't even sacraments, right?
Logged
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2012, 01:39:51 AM »



Wait for the "oikonomia retroactively infuses grace into invalid sacraments " crowd to clash with the "not repeating sacraments constitutes a recognition of those sacraments" crowd again.


The only group that has valid sacraments are the Greeks, right? God allowed Western Europe and Assyria to be without sacraments for centuries, right?
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2012, 01:40:17 AM »

I think you don't have.

God allowed Western Europe and Assyria to be without sacraments for centuries, right?

And China, Japan, Southern Africa, America, Australia...
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 01:41:05 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2012, 01:49:36 AM »

Quote
Apparently it does, because if I were an Orthodox Bishop and I believed that Roman Catholic sacraments are invalid, I would definitely re-administer the sacrament. But Roman Catholic sacraments aren't even sacraments, right?

If you were an Orthodox bishop, you'd probably be more concerned with making sure that people coming into your church can receive the sacraments in which there is no question of validity (that is to say, your own church's sacraments) than in deciding what to think about the sacraments of a church that they will no longer be a part of. As was explained to me shortly before my reception into the Coptic Orthodox Church, it is not necessarily because we have any particular belief about Catholic sacraments that you will be baptized when you come into the Orthodox Church, but rather because we have a very certain belief in our own sacraments. Or, as the Byzantines are famous for saying, "We know where the Church is, not where it is not".
Logged

Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,015



« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2012, 01:57:09 AM »

I haven't received a definitive answer from the Orthodox on this question. I spoke with an Orthodox Church in America priest who told me that in his particular branch of Orthodoxy, RC priests who convert to Orthodoxy are not re-ordained, instead they are vested. He went on to say that this practice existed in Russia several centuries ago. What is your opinion?

I agree with the OCA priest you spoke with.

Please note, the Orthodox Church in America is not a "branch of Orthodoxy," there are no "branches" of the Orthodox Church.  All Eastern Orthodox Christians are under particular bishops, and synods of bishops, but their faith is the same; there is One Holy Orthodox Church, "the Holy Churches of God."


So are you saying that RC priests are validly ordained? That the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the RCC is valid?

Yes, I believe that the Holy Spirit is present during Roman Catholic ordinations, that RC clergy possess the Grace of the Holy Spirit, although Roman Catholicism does not enjoy the fullness of the Faith.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #19 on: September 30, 2012, 02:01:08 AM »

Quote
Apparently it does, because if I were an Orthodox Bishop and I believed that Roman Catholic sacraments are invalid, I would definitely re-administer the sacrament. But Roman Catholic sacraments aren't even sacraments, right?

If you were an Orthodox bishop, you'd probably be more concerned with making sure that people coming into your church can receive the sacraments in which there is no question of validity (that is to say, your own church's sacraments) than in deciding what to think about the sacraments of a church that they will no longer be a part of. As was explained to me shortly before my reception into the Coptic Orthodox Church, it is not necessarily because we have any particular belief about Catholic sacraments that you will be baptized when you come into the Orthodox Church, but rather because we have a very certain belief in our own sacraments. Or, as the Byzantines are famous for saying, "We know where the Church is, not where it is not".

If the Orthodox are unsure about the validity of Catholic sacraments, then why does the OCA not re-ordain Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy? Makes no sense to me. Instead, I feel like I belong to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church where there is consensus among the members, including the priests and bishops. It would be helpful if the Patriarchate of Constantinople had more authority over the autonomous Orthodox patriarchates. Orthodoxy will never make any ecumenical progress without one voice leading the way.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2012, 02:11:20 AM »

If the Orthodox are unsure about the validity of Catholic sacraments, then why does the OCA not re-ordain Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy?

Because that is the decision that they have made. It is entirely up to the church into which you are received to apply the canons concerning the administration of the sacraments in a given situation. For instance, in the church into which I was received, converts coming from Roman Catholicism (like me) are received with the all the parts of the rite of baptism (baptism, charismatiion, profession of faith, etc.), whereas converts from Eastern Orthodoxy are not rebaptized. This is not lack of conviction or confusion, but in keeping with what our synod has declared is proper, as Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics are not the same.

Quote
Makes no sense to me. Instead, I feel like I belong to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church where there is consensus among the members, including the priests and bishops. It would be helpful if the Patriarchate of Constantinople had more authority over the autonomous Orthodox patriarchates. Orthodoxy will never make any ecumenical progress without one voice leading the way.

Why do you think that Orthodoxy needs or desires to make (more) ecumenical progress? Orthodoxy predates any modern ecumenical movement, or the schisms that have made these movements seem necessary to some.
Logged

BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2012, 02:15:32 AM »

If the Orthodox are unsure about the validity of Catholic sacraments, then why does the OCA not re-ordain Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy?

Because that is the decision that they have made. It is entirely up to the church into which you are received to apply the canons concerning the administration of the sacraments in a given situation. For instance, in the church into which I was received, converts coming from Roman Catholicism (like me) are received with the all the parts of the rite of baptism (baptism, charismatiion, profession of faith, etc.), whereas converts from Eastern Orthodoxy are not rebaptized. This is not lack of conviction or confusion, but in keeping with what our synod has declared is proper, as Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics are not the same.

Quote
Makes no sense to me. Instead, I feel like I belong to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church where there is consensus among the members, including the priests and bishops. It would be helpful if the Patriarchate of Constantinople had more authority over the autonomous Orthodox patriarchates. Orthodoxy will never make any ecumenical progress without one voice leading the way.

Why do you think that Orthodoxy needs or desires to make (more) ecumenical progress? Orthodoxy predates any modern ecumenical movement, or the schisms that have made these movements seem necessary to some.


What are the schisms you mentioned? You must not be talking about the East-West Schism. Because that schism was mutual.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2012, 02:21:34 AM »

Any of the major schisms that have continued to negatively affect the unity of world Christianity will do: The Nestorian schism, the Chalcedonian schism, the East-West schism, etc.
Logged

WPM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,215



« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2012, 04:27:42 AM »

The Roman Catholic sacraments(?), I'm pretty sure.
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,015



« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2012, 06:30:22 AM »

Quote
Apparently it does, because if I were an Orthodox Bishop and I believed that Roman Catholic sacraments are invalid, I would definitely re-administer the sacrament. But Roman Catholic sacraments aren't even sacraments, right?

If you were an Orthodox bishop, you'd probably be more concerned with making sure that people coming into your church can receive the sacraments in which there is no question of validity (that is to say, your own church's sacraments) than in deciding what to think about the sacraments of a church that they will no longer be a part of. As was explained to me shortly before my reception into the Coptic Orthodox Church, it is not necessarily because we have any particular belief about Catholic sacraments that you will be baptized when you come into the Orthodox Church, but rather because we have a very certain belief in our own sacraments. Or, as the Byzantines are famous for saying, "We know where the Church is, not where it is not".

If the Orthodox are unsure about the validity of Catholic sacraments, then why does the OCA not re-ordain Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy? Makes no sense to me. Instead, I feel like I belong to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church where there is consensus among the members, including the priests and bishops. It would be helpful if the Patriarchate of Constantinople had more authority over the autonomous Orthodox patriarchates. Orthodoxy will never make any ecumenical progress without one voice leading the way.


The matter of Ecumenical Relations is a topic on the agenda of the forthcoming Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity has made much progress particularly during the first millennium of church history, under its existing practice of "church order" or "governance," some of which is called for by the canons of the church, especially in connection with the position, responsibility, and authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, some of which is due to adherence to the tradition of the Early Church, the Apostolic Church.  Church practice in connection with how converts are received from other Christian denominations has varied among and within each of the the Holy Orthodox Churches throughout church history.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 06:37:21 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,896


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2012, 06:33:53 AM »

Quote
Apparently it does, because if I were an Orthodox Bishop and I believed that Roman Catholic sacraments are invalid, I would definitely re-administer the sacrament. But Roman Catholic sacraments aren't even sacraments, right?

If you were an Orthodox bishop, you'd probably be more concerned with making sure that people coming into your church can receive the sacraments in which there is no question of validity (that is to say, your own church's sacraments) than in deciding what to think about the sacraments of a church that they will no longer be a part of. As was explained to me shortly before my reception into the Coptic Orthodox Church, it is not necessarily because we have any particular belief about Catholic sacraments that you will be baptized when you come into the Orthodox Church, but rather because we have a very certain belief in our own sacraments. Or, as the Byzantines are famous for saying, "We know where the Church is, not where it is not".

If the Orthodox are unsure about the validity of Catholic sacraments, then why does the OCA not re-ordain Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy? Makes no sense to me. Instead, I feel like I belong to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church where there is consensus among the members, including the priests and bishops. It would be helpful if the Patriarchate of Constantinople had more authority over the autonomous Orthodox patriarchates. Orthodoxy will never make any ecumenical progress without one voice leading the way.

Ultramontanism was heresy when Rome did it, what makes it different from when Constantinople tries it?

There is not a universally agreed on definitive answer to this question. To be honest, I'm afraid of the practical implications of refusing intercommunion with another church you believe to have Christ in the sacraments.

This is not a statement of whether or not I believe other churches not in communion with my own have Christ present in their sacraments, but I am glad it's not my job to give definitive answers. FWIW, the church I've been attending the last few weeks (Antiochian) does officially (to the best of my knowledge) have an agreement  with one of the OO (Syraic Orthodox) jurisdictions to allow intercommunion (of laypersons) in certain situations.

I think its ridiculous that your Antiochian church has an agreement with one of the OO jurisdictions, aka the Miaphysites. The RCC and EOC share core beliefs and a common hsitory and we even allow members of your church to commune in ours. There should definitely be an intercommunion agreement at least on the local level between the RCC and EOC.

The OO and the EO don't share core beliefs? They probably share all beliefs, something which they don't do with the RCC.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 06:38:22 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2012, 06:36:08 AM »

There is not a universally agreed on definitive answer to this question. To be honest, I'm afraid of the practical implications of refusing intercommunion with another church you believe to have Christ in the sacraments.

This is not a statement of whether or not I believe other churches not in communion with my own have Christ present in their sacraments, but I am glad it's not my job to give definitive answers. FWIW, the church I've been attending the last few weeks (Antiochian) does officially (to the best of my knowledge) have an agreement  with one of the OO (Syraic Orthodox) jurisdictions to allow intercommunion (of laypersons) in certain situations.

I think its ridiculous that your Antiochian church has an agreement with one of the OO jurisdictions, aka the Miaphysites. The RCC and EOC share core beliefs and a common hsitory and we even allow members of your church to commune in ours. There should definitely be an intercommunion agreement at least on the local level between the RCC and EOC.
I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) if an Orthodox takes communion in a Roman Catholic Church without his Bishops approval, that person is then himself out of communion with the Orthodox Church.  I could be wrong.
Logged
Dominika
Serbian/Polish
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Poland
Posts: 981


St. Luke, pray for us!


WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2012, 06:59:32 AM »

Yes, I believe that the Holy Spirit is present during Roman Catholic ordinations, that RC clergy possess the Grace of the Holy Spirit, although Roman Catholicism does not enjoy the fullness of the Faith.

That's what I think. When I was RC, I felt "some grace" when I was taking the Communion, but it was not full because only Orthodox Church (in my opinion EO and OO are the same Orthodox Church) is fully the Body of Christ. In some way (but not perfectly because of heresies) Catholic Church gathers in Christ's Name and follow Him, so there should be some grace of Holy Spirit (that's what Christ says, "when there are 2 or 3 gathered in My Name, there I am present"), that allows e.g. for ordination of priests.

I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) if an Orthodox takes communion in a Roman Catholic Church without his Bishops approval, that person is then himself out of communion with the Orthodox Church.  I could be wrong.

You are right. That's what every Orthodox priest says. If an Orthodox christian takes Communion in a Catholic Church, he automatically becomes a Catholic, because he rejects the fact that Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ - it's a kind of betrayal.


BayStater123 as other Catholics can't understand the Orthodox vision of the Christ's Church, but as some of you said, it's not his blame, because some Catholic priests confuse their's believers saying something contradictory: Catholic Church is the true one, but Orthodox are "just little desconnected brothers", so in some situations they can take Communion in our Church and vice versa". They focus only on the validity issue, but that's not the main thing when we talk about Church and its Holy Mysteries
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 07:04:52 AM by Dominika » Logged

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,980



WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2012, 09:30:19 AM »

Consensus and agreement do not define truth. Many times in history, both were against the truth and not only in religion.

Post-modern consensus varies from "I can't know anything" to "everything is valid from a certain perspective" for mostly everything in life, and that applies for many of our contemporary Orthodox who can't bring themselves up to the fact that the Church does not believe, think or act under these standards.

There is One church. Either we are it or not. And every affirmation implies infinite exclusions. I have a keyboard in front of me now. It is a keyboard, not a cat, not butter, not a supernova. Infinite exclusions is intrisic to any affirmation. That is why so many people feel uncomfortable with straight affirmations nowadays, but avoiding exclusions is also avoiding any form of knowledge. If you don't know that the thing over which you type is a keyboard (even if electronic in a Ipad), but you are not sure if you cat is not a keyboard either, then you don't know what a keyboard is at all, not even a cat.

The sacraments exist as elements of the Church. Only in the Church. If we are the Church - as it can be proven that we are - then only in the Orthodox Church there are sacraments.

Heterodox may be saved in the future, on Last Judgment day. They surely have non-ecclesiastical grace, miracles and surely God loves them. But they are not in the Church. They have never been.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2012, 12:56:36 PM »

Consensus and agreement do not define truth. Many times in history, both were against the truth and not only in religion.

Post-modern consensus varies from "I can't know anything" to "everything is valid from a certain perspective" for mostly everything in life, and that applies for many of our contemporary Orthodox who can't bring themselves up to the fact that the Church does not believe, think or act under these standards.

There is One church. Either we are it or not. And every affirmation implies infinite exclusions. I have a keyboard in front of me now. It is a keyboard, not a cat, not butter, not a supernova. Infinite exclusions is intrisic to any affirmation. That is why so many people feel uncomfortable with straight affirmations nowadays, but avoiding exclusions is also avoiding any form of knowledge. If you don't know that the thing over which you type is a keyboard (even if electronic in a Ipad), but you are not sure if you cat is not a keyboard either, then you don't know what a keyboard is at all, not even a cat.

The sacraments exist as elements of the Church. Only in the Church. If we are the Church - as it can be proven that we are - then only in the Orthodox Church there are sacraments.


Heterodox may be saved in the future, on Last Judgment day. They surely have non-ecclesiastical grace, miracles and surely God loves them. But they are not in the Church. They have never been.


Where is the proof that the Orthodox Church is the only church established by Jesus? I think that truth exists in both the RCC and Orthodox Church.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2012, 01:12:20 PM »

What about RC's perennial favorite, Matthew 16:18? "And upon this rock I will build My Church" -- it's singular, not plural. Jesus Christ established one church, and one church only.
Logged

BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2012, 01:23:30 PM »

What about RC's perennial favorite, Matthew 16:18? "And upon this rock I will build My Church" -- it's singular, not plural. Jesus Christ established one church, and one church only.

There is one church founded by Christ and that is the Roman Catholic Church, who has remained undivided since AD 33 and is the largest Christian denomination in the world. However, truth resides in both the RCC and EO churches, namely the belief in the 7 sacraments established by Christ and the apostolic succession of the episcopacy.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,896


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2012, 01:35:50 PM »

What about RC's perennial favorite, Matthew 16:18? "And upon this rock I will build My Church" -- it's singular, not plural. Jesus Christ established one church, and one church only.

There is one church founded by Christ and that is the Roman Catholic Church

 Grin
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Dominika
Serbian/Polish
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Poland
Posts: 981


St. Luke, pray for us!


WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2012, 01:37:44 PM »

There is one church founded by Christ and that is the Roman Catholic Church, who has remained undivided since AD 33 and is the largest Christian denomination in the world. However, truth resides in both the RCC and EO churches, namely the belief in the 7 sacraments established by Christ and the apostolic succession of the episcopacy.

So what about Eastern Catholic Churches? Wink

And I can ask you reverse question: Where is the proof that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church established by Jesus?

The number of believers doesn't matter: in one moment of the history the biggest Church was Nestorian one Wink
I always notice that the names of our Churches are in some way significant: Catholic Church is bigger (more common), but it hasn't the right faith - contrary to Orthodox Church that is smaller (but of course Catholic in the way as it's called in the Symbol of the Faith), but it has preserved the right and unchanged Christian faith.

Logged

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2012, 01:38:37 PM »

Well then, I guess that settles that. Schism over. Cheesy

(Why did you start this thread? Just to read your own words and educate all of us plebeians in the truth according to Rome?)
Logged

BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2012, 01:48:36 PM »

There is one church founded by Christ and that is the Roman Catholic Church, who has remained undivided since AD 33 and is the largest Christian denomination in the world. However, truth resides in both the RCC and EO churches, namely the belief in the 7 sacraments established by Christ and the apostolic succession of the episcopacy.

So what about Eastern Catholic Churches? Wink

And I can ask you reverse question: Where is the proof that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church established by Jesus?

The number of believers doesn't matter: in one moment of the history the biggest Church was Nestorian one Wink
I always notice that the names of our Churches are in some way significant: Catholic Church is bigger (more common), but it hasn't the right faith - contrary to Orthodox Church that is smaller (but of course Catholic in the way as it's called in the Symbol of the Faith), but it has preserved the right and unchanged Christian faith.




Most, if not all, of the Eastern Catholic Churches are on the verge of schism from Rome. Some are openly denying our ecumenical councils and infallible dogma proclaimed by the councils and Popes. I don't understand why the Holy Father has not openly disciplined them.
Logged
Dominika
Serbian/Polish
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Poland
Posts: 981


St. Luke, pray for us!


WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2012, 02:06:42 PM »

Most, if not all, of the Eastern Catholic Churches are on the verge of schism from Rome. Some are openly denying our ecumenical councils and infallible dogma proclaimed by the councils and Popes. I don't understand why the Holy Father has not openly disciplined them.

That's the best proof that Roman Catholic does not understand at all Eastern Christian spirituality and consider themselves the best Christians and their Eastern brothers as worse Catholics. That's tragic that e.g. traditional Catholics on the one hand appreciate Eastern Catholic Liturgy, but on the other hand they ignore maintained by Eastern Christianity fasts and want to introduce strange for Eastern Christianity practices such as kneeling in various parts of Liturgy (even during Holy Communion). Roman Catholics seem to not understand the deep connection between Eastern Liturgy and Church's teaching.

I think nowadays Roman pope has bigger problems with Roman Catholic Church: the lost of sacrum because of Novus Ordo and some other scandals.

I'm sorry if I've written too severely.
Logged

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,594



« Reply #37 on: September 30, 2012, 02:15:29 PM »

Yes, Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics is and are grace-filled. It just isn't sacramental grace.
Logged
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #38 on: September 30, 2012, 02:17:58 PM »

Most, if not all, of the Eastern Catholic Churches are on the verge of schism from Rome. Some are openly denying our ecumenical councils and infallible dogma proclaimed by the councils and Popes. I don't understand why the Holy Father has not openly disciplined them.

That's the best proof that Roman Catholic does not understand at all Eastern Christian spirituality and consider themselves the best Christians and their Eastern brothers as worse Catholics. That's tragic that e.g. traditional Catholics on the one hand appreciate Eastern Catholic Liturgy, but on the other hand they ignore maintained by Eastern Christianity fasts and want to introduce strange for Eastern Christianity practices such as kneeling in various parts of Liturgy (even during Holy Communion). Roman Catholics seem to not understand the deep connection between Eastern Liturgy and Church's teaching.

I think nowadays Roman pope has bigger problems with Roman Catholic Church: the lost of sacrum because of Novus Ordo and some other scandals.

I'm sorry if I've written too severely.

Don't be sorry, you're only expressing your opinion. I believe that there are problems with the Novus Ordo Missæ, but they are being corrected slowly as the years pass. For example, the words of consecration have been corrected as of 2011. Prior to 2011, when the priest raised the cup, he would say "Take this all of you and drink from it. This is the blood of the new and everlasting covenant shed for you and all menso that your sins may be forgiven...". Jesus never said "for you and all men", he said "for you and many".
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #39 on: September 30, 2012, 02:39:27 PM »

I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) if an Orthodox takes communion in a Roman Catholic Church without his Bishops approval, that person is then himself out of communion with the Orthodox Church.  I could be wrong.

Seeing how the Eucharist is a visible sign of unity, I would expect uniting oneself to another church without approval from both churches to break unity with the one.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #40 on: September 30, 2012, 02:50:38 PM »

I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) if an Orthodox takes communion in a Roman Catholic Church without his Bishops approval, that person is then himself out of communion with the Orthodox Church.  I could be wrong.

Seeing how the Eucharist is a visible sign of unity, I would expect uniting oneself to another church without approval from both churches to break unity with the one.

I agree. If there is no formal intercommunion agreement, than a person should not receive the Eucharist in another church without the approval of his Bishop. I think that the Orthodox are too strict about this rule, though. I remember hearing that Orthodox priests under no circumstances, even if a person is in danger of death, will administer viaticum (last sacraments) to a Catholic. I feel that this is inconsiderate.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #41 on: September 30, 2012, 03:05:45 PM »

It does not matter what you feel, though. It matters what is decided with regard to the individual situation. Before the Copts of this area had their own priest assigned to them, some who lived here received from the Greek Orthodox. Once they had their own Coptic priest and could start having their own liturgies, the intercommunion ceased. Is that "inconsiderate"? No, it is considerate of the standards governing communion in both churches. So it is with all churches that maintain closed communion/restricted reception of the sacraments (including the Catholics, I might add). Nobody is owed sacraments in another church just because their feelings are hurt if they are not given them. The priests are the servants of the sacraments, and have a responsibility to handle them properly. Therefore, if an Orthodox priest decides for pastoral regions to commune a Catholic (as happens sometimes in the Middle East, I'm told), then it is acceptable in that particular case without establishing a wider precedent. Same too with 'last rites' or whatever (though I haven't heard of that happening here).

We do not establish communion, even temporarily, based on our emotions. If we did, I'd be in communion with many more churches than I am now. But we must respect the nature of communion as it is understood in the church in which we find ourselves as visitors. I do not ask to receive in the local OCA church in my hometown, even as other OO (Ethiopians and Eritreans) receive there. Why? The agreement by which they are allowed to receive by both their own bishops and the OCA bishops is not extended to me, and I respect the reality of our relationship (i.e., that the OO and EO are not in communion right now).
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 03:06:29 PM by dzheremi » Logged

Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,980



WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 30, 2012, 03:23:40 PM »

Consensus and agreement do not define truth. Many times in history, both were against the truth and not only in religion.

Post-modern consensus varies from "I can't know anything" to "everything is valid from a certain perspective" for mostly everything in life, and that applies for many of our contemporary Orthodox who can't bring themselves up to the fact that the Church does not believe, think or act under these standards.

There is One church. Either we are it or not. And every affirmation implies infinite exclusions. I have a keyboard in front of me now. It is a keyboard, not a cat, not butter, not a supernova. Infinite exclusions is intrisic to any affirmation. That is why so many people feel uncomfortable with straight affirmations nowadays, but avoiding exclusions is also avoiding any form of knowledge. If you don't know that the thing over which you type is a keyboard (even if electronic in a Ipad), but you are not sure if you cat is not a keyboard either, then you don't know what a keyboard is at all, not even a cat.

The sacraments exist as elements of the Church. Only in the Church. If we are the Church - as it can be proven that we are - then only in the Orthodox Church there are sacraments.


Heterodox may be saved in the future, on Last Judgment day. They surely have non-ecclesiastical grace, miracles and surely God loves them. But they are not in the Church. They have never been.


Where is the proof that the Orthodox Church is the only church established by Jesus? I think that truth exists in both the RCC and Orthodox Church.

When we talk of verifiable proof, we must put theology aside. Both theologies are internally coherent and both claim revelation and correct interpretation. Correct interpretation implies that the sources are not self-explanatory as anyone can notice both from Bible and from other traditional means such as icons, fathers' works, liturgical symbology etc etc.  In fact, once one gives up an arbitrary exterior interpretation to these things, one falls into the multi-denominationalism that, if correct, would only proove that Christianity is but a fairy-tale with no link to reality.

To have verifiable proof we must establish what are we trying to prove and what kind of proof it would be.

The first issue: what are we trying to prove? I think that for this subject, we must take as a given the historicity of Jesus Christ, the trustability of the New Testament as a document, that Christ actually did resurrect in flesh and, most importantly for this subject, that He did create a community that is somehow also His body. As you can see, one cannot discuss Church without first discussing Christ. A thorough analysis would have to start with Him, but that is not the aim here, so we can skip that. If all that is true, so, what we are looking for is first and foremost a community, a social group, that shares not all, but defining traits with that community that Christ created. Some changes are expected, since His first followers numbered among hundreds, maybe thousands (St. Paul mentions over 500 eye-witnesses of the resurrection; one can only estimate how many followers there were), and we know that today the four top claimants to being that community are hundreds of millions each (Orthodox, Romans, Non-Chalcedoneans and Protestants), so traits that characterize small communities and large communities cannot justify any claim for rupture. Finally, over 2000 years of history, this community has certainly gone under some changes, so we must also establish what kinds of change are just "variations on the same theme", and which ones are actual ruptures, where a certain group acquire distinctive traits different from the original community and break away from it.

As for the second issue, what kind of proof we are looking for. Certainly not mystical or theological, for that would be using the conclusion as an assumption, besides the already mentioned issue that the acceptance of these things depend on the acceptance of which community if any or if all, constitutes the continuation without rupture of the original community. We must then resort to historical and sociological tools of analysis, avoiding reading the past from the present, but allowing the past to "judge" the present. The question is not so much how we can interpret what the Apostles did and said, but how would they interpret what we are doing and saying. Would they say "Yeps, you follow Him with us" or "No, you exorcize demons in His name but you do not follow Him with us"? One small example is the repetitive issue of who the rock of Matthew 16:18 is. Each Church says it means one thing, there are fathers who say it is the correct faith Peter had expressed, others that it was Peter himself and others that it was Jesus Himself. On what criteria a non-partisan would choose? Simply what he/she *feels* sounds more right? Would he make a research to discover that the majority of the fathers said it was the faith expressed by Peter, a minority that it was Christ and the middle group that it was Peter? Is a majority vote a good criteria for this kind of question? I think neither is a good criteria. But, if you ask the Apostles, specially the one that was addressed in the event, St. Peter himself, you see that *he* explains in his epistle that the Rock is Jesus Christ. To me, that is case closed, above even the "majority" vote of the Fathers. The person involved in the case, making reference to the words used in that event, explains that Jesus is the rock. Who else would have more authority? To just improve this line of interpretation, if we go to the OT and allow it to explain the question, we see that 'rock' is an image always used to refer to God, which just confirms Peter's own explanation.

I asked all the questions I made above and used the technique of "let them explain us" instead of "I will try to explain them" to examine them all. As one can imagine, if I were to put that in words, it would be a book, but that is not the purpose of this forum.

So, I think it can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the commonwealth currently known as the Orthodox Church is, without rupture or change in its defining traits, the very same community that was created by Jesus 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, while Romans, Non-Chalcedoneans and Protestants all have at some point been born of ruptures with one or more of these traits and constitute other respectable, admirable in many ways, but different communities.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #43 on: September 30, 2012, 07:43:07 PM »

Quote
Apparently it does, because if I were an Orthodox Bishop and I believed that Roman Catholic sacraments are invalid, I would definitely re-administer the sacrament. But Roman Catholic sacraments aren't even sacraments, right?

If you were an Orthodox bishop, you'd probably be more concerned with making sure that people coming into your church can receive the sacraments in which there is no question of validity (that is to say, your own church's sacraments) than in deciding what to think about the sacraments of a church that they will no longer be a part of. As was explained to me shortly before my reception into the Coptic Orthodox Church, it is not necessarily because we have any particular belief about Catholic sacraments that you will be baptized when you come into the Orthodox Church, but rather because we have a very certain belief in our own sacraments. Or, as the Byzantines are famous for saying, "We know where the Church is, not where it is not".

If the Orthodox are unsure about the validity of Catholic sacraments, then why does the OCA not re-ordain Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy? Makes no sense to me. Instead, I feel like I belong to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church where there is consensus among the members, including the priests and bishops. It would be helpful if the Patriarchate of Constantinople had more authority over the autonomous Orthodox patriarchates. Orthodoxy will never make any ecumenical progress without one voice leading the way.

Vesting is not a standard practice. It is a minority practice.
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.
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #44 on: September 30, 2012, 07:49:13 PM »

Quote
Apparently it does, because if I were an Orthodox Bishop and I believed that Roman Catholic sacraments are invalid, I would definitely re-administer the sacrament. But Roman Catholic sacraments aren't even sacraments, right?

If you were an Orthodox bishop, you'd probably be more concerned with making sure that people coming into your church can receive the sacraments in which there is no question of validity (that is to say, your own church's sacraments) than in deciding what to think about the sacraments of a church that they will no longer be a part of. As was explained to me shortly before my reception into the Coptic Orthodox Church, it is not necessarily because we have any particular belief about Catholic sacraments that you will be baptized when you come into the Orthodox Church, but rather because we have a very certain belief in our own sacraments. Or, as the Byzantines are famous for saying, "We know where the Church is, not where it is not".

If the Orthodox are unsure about the validity of Catholic sacraments, then why does the OCA not re-ordain Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy? Makes no sense to me. Instead, I feel like I belong to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church where there is consensus among the members, including the priests and bishops. It would be helpful if the Patriarchate of Constantinople had more authority over the autonomous Orthodox patriarchates. Orthodoxy will never make any ecumenical progress without one voice leading the way.

Vesting is not a standard practice. It is a minority practice.

Is vesting still the practice in Russia today?
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #45 on: September 30, 2012, 08:02:49 PM »

Quote
Apparently it does, because if I were an Orthodox Bishop and I believed that Roman Catholic sacraments are invalid, I would definitely re-administer the sacrament. But Roman Catholic sacraments aren't even sacraments, right?

If you were an Orthodox bishop, you'd probably be more concerned with making sure that people coming into your church can receive the sacraments in which there is no question of validity (that is to say, your own church's sacraments) than in deciding what to think about the sacraments of a church that they will no longer be a part of. As was explained to me shortly before my reception into the Coptic Orthodox Church, it is not necessarily because we have any particular belief about Catholic sacraments that you will be baptized when you come into the Orthodox Church, but rather because we have a very certain belief in our own sacraments. Or, as the Byzantines are famous for saying, "We know where the Church is, not where it is not".

If the Orthodox are unsure about the validity of Catholic sacraments, then why does the OCA not re-ordain Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy? Makes no sense to me. Instead, I feel like I belong to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church where there is consensus among the members, including the priests and bishops. It would be helpful if the Patriarchate of Constantinople had more authority over the autonomous Orthodox patriarchates. Orthodoxy will never make any ecumenical progress without one voice leading the way.

Vesting is not a standard practice. It is a minority practice.

Is vesting still the practice in Russia today?

To my knowledge, it is not as common as it was. This is because Orthodox have become more familiar with the many things separating Roman Catholicism from the truth and with new innovations made since the 16th century. Anyway, reception of RCs by vesting was itself an odd practice of post-Petrine Russia, same with believing RCs have sacramental grace. You won't find such sentiments or practices in Russia and Ukraine in earlier centuries.

Also, whether it's vesting or receiving RCs by chrismation or confession--this is not a recognition of grace, but that the sacramental form is/was there, something which could theoretically be filled with grace. (Not sure when this idea started.) Now that RCs no longer practice triple immersion in baptism, the underpinnings of this economia are weakened.
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.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039

Currently on hiatus from posting

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #46 on: September 30, 2012, 09:22:57 PM »

Fwiw, whenever I pass an RC parish I cross myself out of veneration for there Holy Altar. I personally think there is at least some grace in RCism which is not found in Protestantism.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 09:23:12 PM by Severian » Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (I.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Please note that some of my older posts -especially those pre-dating late 2012- may not necessarily reflect my current views.
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #47 on: September 30, 2012, 09:37:33 PM »

Fwiw, whenever I pass an RC parish I cross myself out of veneration for there Holy Altar. I personally think there is at least some grace in RCism which is not found in Protestantism.


That is a very nice gesture. Thank you for showing respect toward our parishes. I've heard this come from an Orthodox person more than once, but I think he too was an Oriental not Eastern. I cross myself whenever I pass an Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic, or Roman Catholic Church because I believe that they all have valid sacraments and priesthood.

I have very warm feelings toward a particular Armenian Orthodox priest. My 93 year old grandmother was on her death bed and our parish priest was stuck in traffic. The Armenian priest was visiting one of his parishioners and some how found out about our situation (I think the nurse told him). He immediately came to my grandmother's bed and anointed her with holy oil in the name of the Lord.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #48 on: September 30, 2012, 09:51:32 PM »

Hi all, I'm a bit of a late-comer to this discussion.

I haven't received a definitive answer from the Orthodox on this question.

I'm curious, are you surprised that you haven't, as you say, received a definitive answer? And if so, why? I ask because I sometimes get the impression that a lot of posters feel they have a kind of unlimited right to answers to any questions they can pose.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #49 on: September 30, 2012, 09:55:39 PM »

Hi all, I'm a bit of a late-comer to this discussion.

I haven't received a definitive answer from the Orthodox on this question.

I'm curious, are you surprised that you haven't, as you say, received a definitive answer? And if so, why? I ask because I sometimes get the impression that a lot of posters feel they have a kind of unlimited right to answers to any questions they can pose.


I'm surprised because i've heard many times that there is a consensus among the Orthodoxy in matters of faith and doctrine. It just doesn't seem true. I seem to receive multiple different answers to any question I ask about Orthodoxy's relationship with other Christians.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #50 on: September 30, 2012, 09:58:37 PM »

I also cross myself when I pass Catholic churches. I thought most people did that. For me, I figure this is another "Catholic" thing I don't have to give up to be Orthodox, as there's nothing inherently wrong with it. If we didn't believe that there was any grace whatsoever in Catholicism, our priest wouldn't have recommended that we visit the Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe to see its "miracle" staircase, and we wouldn't have regular Catholic visitors who are accepted and treated like members of the community in every way but receiving the sacraments. This is a different question, at least in my mind, from saying categorically that Catholic sacraments (or any non-Orthodox sacraments) "have grace" or not. To me that's sort of a hypothetical question, as I can't receive them anyway. It'd be like asking me what I think about your breakfast. It's kind of irrelevant, since I'm not the one eating it.
Logged

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #51 on: September 30, 2012, 09:59:55 PM »

Hi all, I'm a bit of a late-comer to this discussion.

I haven't received a definitive answer from the Orthodox on this question.

I'm curious, are you surprised that you haven't, as you say, received a definitive answer? And if so, why? I ask because I sometimes get the impression that a lot of posters feel they have a kind of unlimited right to answers to any questions they can pose.


I'm surprised because i've heard many times that there is a consensus among the Orthodoxy in matters of faith and doctrine. It just doesn't seem true. I seem to receive multiple different answers to any question I ask about Orthodoxy's relationship with other Christians.

Our relationship to other Christians is not a matter of dogma. If you read Church history carefully, you will see that even before the schism, there was no universally accepted position on the reception of schismatics and heretics. However, there were canons regarding not communing such.
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.
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #52 on: September 30, 2012, 10:02:07 PM »

Hi all, I'm a bit of a late-comer to this discussion.

I haven't received a definitive answer from the Orthodox on this question.

I'm curious, are you surprised that you haven't, as you say, received a definitive answer? And if so, why? I ask because I sometimes get the impression that a lot of posters feel they have a kind of unlimited right to answers to any questions they can pose.


I'm surprised because i've heard many times that there is a consensus among the Orthodoxy in matters of faith and doctrine. It just doesn't seem true. I seem to receive multiple different answers to any question I ask about Orthodoxy's relationship with other Christians.

We all agree our churches are not in communion. That's the clincher, really. The status of churches not in communion with us is not really our business to define, since we don't know. Thus it remains in the realm of opinion. There has been no pressing need to define it beyond that. It's not a matter that rises to the level of dogma.
Logged
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #53 on: September 30, 2012, 10:07:09 PM »

There is not a universally agreed on definitive answer to this question. To be honest, I'm afraid of the practical implications of refusing intercommunion with another church you believe to have Christ in the sacraments.

This is not a statement of whether or not I believe other churches not in communion with my own have Christ present in their sacraments, but I am glad it's not my job to give definitive answers. FWIW, the church I've been attending the last few weeks (Antiochian) does officially (to the best of my knowledge) have an agreement  with one of the OO (Syraic Orthodox) jurisdictions to allow intercommunion (of laypersons) in certain situations.

I think its ridiculous that your Antiochian church has an agreement with one of the OO jurisdictions, aka the Miaphysites. The RCC and EOC share core beliefs and a common hsitory and we even allow members of your church to commune in ours. There should definitely be an intercommunion agreement at least on the local level between the RCC and EOC.

According to my priest, the OO's are allowed to convert to EO in our jurisdiction by confession of faith and then commune. BUT, this is a conversion. If an OO communes in an Antiochian parish it is with the understanding that they have converted and may not return to the OO church. So it's not really intercommunion. I don't know how OO's see it, but it's not intercommunion from our end.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 10:13:21 PM by age234 » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #54 on: September 30, 2012, 10:07:48 PM »

Hi all, I'm a bit of a late-comer to this discussion.

I haven't received a definitive answer from the Orthodox on this question.

I'm curious, are you surprised that you haven't, as you say, received a definitive answer? And if so, why? I ask because I sometimes get the impression that a lot of posters feel they have a kind of unlimited right to answers to any questions they can pose.


I'm surprised because i've heard many times that there is a consensus among the Orthodoxy in matters of faith and doctrine. It just doesn't seem true. I seem to receive multiple different answers to any question I ask about Orthodoxy's relationship with other Christians.

Well, I think the Orthodox are in agreement that the faith handed down to the apostles didn't contain predictions about how many Christians would have valid sacraments in the future.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,015



« Reply #55 on: September 30, 2012, 10:28:59 PM »

There is full doctrinal unity in the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church, no question.

There is quite a bit of dissension in the Orthodox Church as to the nature of ecumenical relations between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and Orthodoxy and heterodox relations in general.  Even the activities that have become routine since the era of Christian ecumenical contact, the last half of the 20th century, are controversial within each of the Holy Orthodox Churches.  Today's largest divisions or separations within the Holy Churches, i.e. the Old Calendar or traditionalist separations, are largely attributable to disagreement over ecumenical affairs.  The traditionalists consider Roman Catholics heretics, while the Ecumenical Patriarch considers Orthodoxy and Catholicism "sister churches," the "two lungs" of Christianity.  As I mentioned earlier, the matter of ecumenical relations is a topic on the agenda of the forthcoming Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church; and the preconciliar commission meetings are efforts to forge some consensus about this matter.

But don't confuse practices connected with ecumenical relations, with doctrine, theology and the teachings of the church where there is complete accord in Holy Orthodoxy.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Shant
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Armenian Apostolic (Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Eastern Prelacy (U.S.)
Posts: 22


« Reply #56 on: September 30, 2012, 10:56:13 PM »

That is a very nice gesture. Thank you for showing respect toward our parishes. I've heard this come from an Orthodox person more than once, but I think he too was an Oriental not Eastern. I cross myself whenever I pass an Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic, or Roman Catholic Church because I believe that they all have valid sacraments and priesthood.

I have very warm feelings toward a particular Armenian Orthodox priest. My 93 year old grandmother was on her death bed and our parish priest was stuck in traffic. The Armenian priest was visiting one of his parishioners and some how found out about our situation (I think the nurse told him). He immediately came to my grandmother's bed and anointed her with holy oil in the name of the Lord.

For a number of historical reasons, the Armenian church has generally taken a much more open view of the RC church and its sacraments. While concelebration is still not permitted, informal intercommunion among the laity, both here as well as in Armenia and the Middle East, is pretty much permitted. There is no question, from the POV of the Armenian church, that RC ordinations are valid and hence their sacraments are grace-filled. Note that this is definitely very much a minority position among the Orthodox churches, including among the OO churches.
Logged
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 994



« Reply #57 on: September 30, 2012, 11:03:45 PM »

OK, here's what bugs me:

The Russian Church, for example, receives RC priests by vesting. This is done (presumably; let us assume so for the sake of the argument) due to the recognition of RC ordinations as conferring genuine sacramental grace; it is presumably the position of the Russian Church that RC priests are in fact priests.

Now, if the Greeks hold that RC ordinations are not valid, doesn't it follow that the Greeks have to also hold that any RC priest who converts to Orthodoxy in the Russian Church and continues to serve as a priest in that Church is in fact not a priest? And if, on the Greek view, Russian Orthodox priests may not be actual priests, and thus many Russian Orthodox sacraments may be utterly void, why are the Greeks still in full communion with the Russians?
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #58 on: September 30, 2012, 11:08:41 PM »

OK, here's what bugs me:

The Russian Church, for example, receives RC priests by vesting. This is done (presumably; let us assume so for the sake of the argument) due to the recognition of RC ordinations as conferring genuine sacramental grace; it is presumably the position of the Russian Church that RC priests are in fact priests.

Now, if the Greeks hold that RC ordinations are not valid, doesn't it follow that the Greeks have to also hold that any RC priest who converts to Orthodoxy in the Russian Church and continues to serve as a priest in that Church is in fact not a priest? And if, on the Greek view, Russian Orthodox priests may not be actual priests, and thus many Russian Orthodox sacraments may be utterly void, why are the Greeks still in full communion with the Russians?

Great question...one i'd like to be answered too
Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #59 on: October 01, 2012, 12:06:20 AM »

I also cross myself when I pass Catholic churches. I thought most people did that. For me, I figure this is another "Catholic" thing I don't have to give up to be Orthodox, as there's nothing inherently wrong with it. If we didn't believe that there was any grace whatsoever in Catholicism, our priest wouldn't have recommended that we visit the Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe to see its "miracle" staircase, and we wouldn't have regular Catholic visitors who are accepted and treated like members of the community in every way but receiving the sacraments. This is a different question, at least in my mind, from saying categorically that Catholic sacraments (or any non-Orthodox sacraments) "have grace" or not. To me that's sort of a hypothetical question, as I can't receive them anyway. It'd be like asking me what I think about your breakfast. It's kind of irrelevant, since I'm not the one eating it.

All of this is extremely surprising for me.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #60 on: October 01, 2012, 12:16:29 AM »

I also cross myself when I pass Catholic churches. I thought most people did that. For me, I figure this is another "Catholic" thing I don't have to give up to be Orthodox, as there's nothing inherently wrong with it. If we didn't believe that there was any grace whatsoever in Catholicism, our priest wouldn't have recommended that we visit the Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe to see its "miracle" staircase, and we wouldn't have regular Catholic visitors who are accepted and treated like members of the community in every way but receiving the sacraments. This is a different question, at least in my mind, from saying categorically that Catholic sacraments (or any non-Orthodox sacraments) "have grace" or not. To me that's sort of a hypothetical question, as I can't receive them anyway. It'd be like asking me what I think about your breakfast. It's kind of irrelevant, since I'm not the one eating it.

All of this is extremely surprising for me.

When you say all do you mean everything that has been discussed succeeding the original post or some of the posters' statement about crossing themselves as they pass RC parishes?
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,551



« Reply #61 on: October 01, 2012, 12:16:49 AM »

OK, here's what bugs me:

The Russian Church, for example, receives RC priests by vesting. This is done (presumably; let us assume so for the sake of the argument) due to the recognition of RC ordinations as conferring genuine sacramental grace; it is presumably the position of the Russian Church that RC priests are in fact priests.

Now, if the Greeks hold that RC ordinations are not valid, doesn't it follow that the Greeks have to also hold that any RC priest who converts to Orthodoxy in the Russian Church and continues to serve as a priest in that Church is in fact not a priest? And if, on the Greek view, Russian Orthodox priests may not be actual priests, and thus many Russian Orthodox sacraments may be utterly void, why are the Greeks still in full communion with the Russians?

Sacramental grace is not a mechanical thing. You cannot think that because the Russian Orthodox Church vests Roman Catholic priests that therefore they recognize sacramental grace as some sort of material possession which is 'possessed' by the Roman Catholics (The Orthodox are all in agreement that only the Church properly possesses sacramental grace: the disagreement is over what degree the heterodox are able to participate in the sacramental grace possessed by the Church). Historically, the method for receiving Roman Catholics into Holy Orthodoxy was by confession. Sometime in maybe the 18th century, the Greeks changed their practice to receiving Catholics by baptism, while the Russians retained the practice of receiving Catholics by confession (Even ROCOR, when it was deliberating over whether Roman Catholics should be rebaptized, did so with the recognition that the Russian practice was to receive Catholics by confession, but the argument was made that the Roman faith had changed so much during the 19th century, that it was no longer prudent to receive Roman Catholics by confession). The question of how Roman Catholics should be received has no universal answer yet, just like how the question of how Eunomians, Arians, Sabellians, etc., were to be received before the First Council of Constantinople had no definitive and universal answer. It really isn't anything to be worried about.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #62 on: October 01, 2012, 12:19:48 AM »

I also cross myself when I pass Catholic churches. I thought most people did that. For me, I figure this is another "Catholic" thing I don't have to give up to be Orthodox, as there's nothing inherently wrong with it. If we didn't believe that there was any grace whatsoever in Catholicism, our priest wouldn't have recommended that we visit the Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe to see its "miracle" staircase, and we wouldn't have regular Catholic visitors who are accepted and treated like members of the community in every way but receiving the sacraments. This is a different question, at least in my mind, from saying categorically that Catholic sacraments (or any non-Orthodox sacraments) "have grace" or not. To me that's sort of a hypothetical question, as I can't receive them anyway. It'd be like asking me what I think about your breakfast. It's kind of irrelevant, since I'm not the one eating it.

All of this is extremely surprising for me.

Why?
Logged

William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #63 on: October 01, 2012, 12:30:37 AM »

I also cross myself when I pass Catholic churches. I thought most people did that. For me, I figure this is another "Catholic" thing I don't have to give up to be Orthodox, as there's nothing inherently wrong with it. If we didn't believe that there was any grace whatsoever in Catholicism, our priest wouldn't have recommended that we visit the Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe to see its "miracle" staircase, and we wouldn't have regular Catholic visitors who are accepted and treated like members of the community in every way but receiving the sacraments. This is a different question, at least in my mind, from saying categorically that Catholic sacraments (or any non-Orthodox sacraments) "have grace" or not. To me that's sort of a hypothetical question, as I can't receive them anyway. It'd be like asking me what I think about your breakfast. It's kind of irrelevant, since I'm not the one eating it.

All of this is extremely surprising for me.

Why?

I miss the days when Copts were hardliners.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 994



« Reply #64 on: October 01, 2012, 12:32:18 AM »

OK, here's what bugs me:

The Russian Church, for example, receives RC priests by vesting. This is done (presumably; let us assume so for the sake of the argument) due to the recognition of RC ordinations as conferring genuine sacramental grace; it is presumably the position of the Russian Church that RC priests are in fact priests.

Now, if the Greeks hold that RC ordinations are not valid, doesn't it follow that the Greeks have to also hold that any RC priest who converts to Orthodoxy in the Russian Church and continues to serve as a priest in that Church is in fact not a priest? And if, on the Greek view, Russian Orthodox priests may not be actual priests, and thus many Russian Orthodox sacraments may be utterly void, why are the Greeks still in full communion with the Russians?

Sacramental grace is not a mechanical thing. You cannot think that because the Russian Orthodox Church vests Roman Catholic priests that therefore they recognize sacramental grace as some sort of material possession which is 'possessed' by the Roman Catholics (The Orthodox are all in agreement that only the Church properly possesses sacramental grace: the disagreement is over what degree the heterodox are able to participate in the sacramental grace possessed by the Church). Historically, the method for receiving Roman Catholics into Holy Orthodoxy was by confession. Sometime in maybe the 18th century, the Greeks changed their practice to receiving Catholics by baptism, while the Russians retained the practice of receiving Catholics by confession (Even ROCOR, when it was deliberating over whether Roman Catholics should be rebaptized, did so with the recognition that the Russian practice was to receive Catholics by confession, but the argument was made that the Roman faith had changed so much during the 19th century, that it was no longer prudent to receive Roman Catholics by confession). The question of how Roman Catholics should be received has no universal answer yet, just like how the question of how Eunomians, Arians, Sabellians, etc., were to be received before the First Council of Constantinople had no definitive and universal answer. It really isn't anything to be worried about.

So...

1. The Roman Catholic Church performs what it calls "The Rite of Ordination," but the ordinand does not actually become a priest.
2. The Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy in the Russian Church.
3. The Russian Church vests him.
4. Now he's a priest.

Is that about right?

If that's the case, he became a priest without being ordained by a bishop. Am I to believe a man can become a priest without undergoing the Rite of Ordination at the hands of a bishop?
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,551



« Reply #65 on: October 01, 2012, 12:48:31 AM »

OK, here's what bugs me:

The Russian Church, for example, receives RC priests by vesting. This is done (presumably; let us assume so for the sake of the argument) due to the recognition of RC ordinations as conferring genuine sacramental grace; it is presumably the position of the Russian Church that RC priests are in fact priests.

Now, if the Greeks hold that RC ordinations are not valid, doesn't it follow that the Greeks have to also hold that any RC priest who converts to Orthodoxy in the Russian Church and continues to serve as a priest in that Church is in fact not a priest? And if, on the Greek view, Russian Orthodox priests may not be actual priests, and thus many Russian Orthodox sacraments may be utterly void, why are the Greeks still in full communion with the Russians?

Sacramental grace is not a mechanical thing. You cannot think that because the Russian Orthodox Church vests Roman Catholic priests that therefore they recognize sacramental grace as some sort of material possession which is 'possessed' by the Roman Catholics (The Orthodox are all in agreement that only the Church properly possesses sacramental grace: the disagreement is over what degree the heterodox are able to participate in the sacramental grace possessed by the Church). Historically, the method for receiving Roman Catholics into Holy Orthodoxy was by confession. Sometime in maybe the 18th century, the Greeks changed their practice to receiving Catholics by baptism, while the Russians retained the practice of receiving Catholics by confession (Even ROCOR, when it was deliberating over whether Roman Catholics should be rebaptized, did so with the recognition that the Russian practice was to receive Catholics by confession, but the argument was made that the Roman faith had changed so much during the 19th century, that it was no longer prudent to receive Roman Catholics by confession). The question of how Roman Catholics should be received has no universal answer yet, just like how the question of how Eunomians, Arians, Sabellians, etc., were to be received before the First Council of Constantinople had no definitive and universal answer. It really isn't anything to be worried about.

So...

1. The Roman Catholic Church performs what it calls "The Rite of Ordination," but the ordinand does not actually become a priest.
2. The Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy in the Russian Church.
3. The Russian Church vests him.
4. Now he's a priest.

Is that about right?

If that's the case, he became a priest without being ordained by a bishop. Am I to believe a man can become a priest without undergoing the Rite of Ordination at the hands of a bishop?

No, that is not correct. He received an ordination, and it is recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church because the Russian Orthodox Church out of economy does not declare his ordination to be ineffectual (even though it retains the canonical prerogative to do so). This is the same as any sort of canonically irregular ordination: it is presumed to be effective unless the Church uses its canonical prerogative to declare otherwise (that is to say, the canons are not self-effecting). The Greeks (that is, those in Greece, not the ones in America) have taken this canonical prerogative to completely cut off the Roman Catholic Church, rebaptizing converts (meaning the Roman Church, as far as the Greeks are concerned, is so foreign to the Church that it cannot participate at all in the grace of the Church). The Russians have not. Eventually, this discrepancy in practice will be settled universally, as were, in the past, the discrepancies between local churches over how Arians, Eunomians, Sabellians and other heretical/schismatic groups should be received.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #66 on: October 01, 2012, 12:57:29 AM »

I also cross myself when I pass Catholic churches. I thought most people did that. For me, I figure this is another "Catholic" thing I don't have to give up to be Orthodox, as there's nothing inherently wrong with it. If we didn't believe that there was any grace whatsoever in Catholicism, our priest wouldn't have recommended that we visit the Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe to see its "miracle" staircase, and we wouldn't have regular Catholic visitors who are accepted and treated like members of the community in every way but receiving the sacraments. This is a different question, at least in my mind, from saying categorically that Catholic sacraments (or any non-Orthodox sacraments) "have grace" or not. To me that's sort of a hypothetical question, as I can't receive them anyway. It'd be like asking me what I think about your breakfast. It's kind of irrelevant, since I'm not the one eating it.

All of this is extremely surprising for me.

Why?

I miss the days when Copts were hardliners.

We still are. Don't you remember Met. Bishoy offending everybody by declaring that Catholics and Protestants won't go to heaven? Cheesy (laughing sardonically because, whether it's true or not, I can't imagine being happy about it.)

But also a lot of Copts, particularly in the diaspora, have gone through Catholic schools due to the lack of suitable Orthodox ones, so that might be part of the less hardline attitude among the new generation. For myself, I used to actually be Catholic, so I don't feel like I need to tow any sort of "party line" when it comes to things that are not dogmatic in the first place, like whether or not a person crosses himself when passing a Catholic Church. That's part of my heritage, which is how I ended up in the Orthodox Church in the first place, so I don't feel like I should shy away from it.

In some places, ~100% of the Coptic Orthodox were Catholics, like I was; thank God that our priests and bishops are not so hardline as to not find them acceptable. We are only trying to sow the seeds of a similarly integrated Orthodox Church here in our little corner of very Roman Catholic America. Smiley
Logged

William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #67 on: October 01, 2012, 01:04:38 AM »

I also cross myself when I pass Catholic churches. I thought most people did that. For me, I figure this is another "Catholic" thing I don't have to give up to be Orthodox, as there's nothing inherently wrong with it. If we didn't believe that there was any grace whatsoever in Catholicism, our priest wouldn't have recommended that we visit the Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe to see its "miracle" staircase, and we wouldn't have regular Catholic visitors who are accepted and treated like members of the community in every way but receiving the sacraments. This is a different question, at least in my mind, from saying categorically that Catholic sacraments (or any non-Orthodox sacraments) "have grace" or not. To me that's sort of a hypothetical question, as I can't receive them anyway. It'd be like asking me what I think about your breakfast. It's kind of irrelevant, since I'm not the one eating it.

All of this is extremely surprising for me.

Why?

I miss the days when Copts were hardliners.

We still are. Don't you remember Met. Bishoy offending everybody by declaring that Catholics and Protestants won't go to heaven? Cheesy (laughing sardonically because, whether it's true or not, I can't imagine being happy about it.)

But also a lot of Copts, particularly in the diaspora, have gone through Catholic schools due to the lack of suitable Orthodox ones, so that might be part of the less hardline attitude among the new generation. For myself, I used to actually be Catholic, so I don't feel like I need to tow any sort of "party line" when it comes to things that are not dogmatic in the first place, like whether or not a person crosses himself when passing a Catholic Church. That's part of my heritage, which is how I ended up in the Orthodox Church in the first place, so I don't feel like I should shy away from it.

In some places, ~100% of the Coptic Orthodox were Catholics, like I was; thank God that our priests and bishops are not so hardline as to not find them acceptable. We are only trying to sow the seeds of a similarly integrated Orthodox Church here in our little corner of very Roman Catholic America. Smiley

Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039

Currently on hiatus from posting

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #68 on: October 01, 2012, 01:23:26 AM »

I miss the days when Copts were hardliners.
Well, you still have me and Stavro and the guys from Tasbeha. Wink Tongue
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 01:24:31 AM by Severian » Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (I.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Please note that some of my older posts -especially those pre-dating late 2012- may not necessarily reflect my current views.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #69 on: October 01, 2012, 01:37:36 AM »

I miss the days when Copts were hardliners.
Well, you still have me and Stavro and the guys from Tasbeha. Wink Tongue

Maybe I just missed all the fun, but Tasbeha seems even more liberal/softliner than OC.net judging by their "ecumenism" thread in the Faith Issues section.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #70 on: October 01, 2012, 01:45:11 AM »

Ahhh, Tasbeha...a place to argue about Thanksgiving, pumpkins, and whether it's "evkhi" or "evshi". Oh, and Orthodoxy is in there somewhere, maybe. Tongue

Quote
Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ?

I waver between being ambivalent and agnostic about this, and do not wish to be more explicit than that. Mainly because it doesn't matter, since I am not in communion with Rome. For the sake of those who are, I hope so, just like how I hope that all my non-Orthodox friends and family who have passed on are shown the same mercy that I depend on in kind. I should like to see them all in heaven, if I am blessed to be received there, but my feelings and desires are nothing compared to the judgment and mercy of God. In the end, it is not my place, as a mere layman and very new in the faith and the Church, to make judgments on such things. That is where I feel that the RC has way overstepped its boundaries, after all. The mere existence of another church that has a eucharistic service does not mean that it is acceptable before God, but again that is God's judgment to make. It is enough that I follow the directives of my own priests (who are quite conservative, despite any appearance to the contrary that I may have mistakenly given earlier; you miss Coptic "hardliners", just ask abouna about the Tome of Leo) and church in not betraying the holy faith in the name of false ecumenism. So from where I'm sitting, the important thing is that I not partake with any other Church, not whether or not I can speculate about the nature of what they consider sacraments. That is a Roman activity/pastime, not befitting of Orthodox people. You know where Christ is, so you go there. If He bestows His grace and mercy upon others in whatever way He sees fit, hallelujah. Again, I hope He does, but I can't say for sure one way or another.
Logged

Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039

Currently on hiatus from posting

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #71 on: October 01, 2012, 01:52:55 AM »

I miss the days when Copts were hardliners.
Well, you still have me and Stavro and the guys from Tasbeha. Wink Tongue

Maybe I just missed all the fun, but Tasbeha seems even more liberal/softliner than OC.net judging by their "ecumenism" thread in the Faith Issues section.
I must investigate at once!

Anyway, when I mentioned Tasbeha, I meant people like imikhail, ShereneMaria, Stavro, etc.
Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (I.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Please note that some of my older posts -especially those pre-dating late 2012- may not necessarily reflect my current views.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #72 on: October 01, 2012, 02:10:43 AM »

Ahhh, Tasbeha...a place to argue about Thanksgiving, pumpkins, and whether it's "evkhi" or "evshi". Oh, and Orthodoxy is in there somewhere, maybe. Tongue

Quote
Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ?

I waver between being ambivalent and agnostic about this, and do not wish to be more explicit than that. Mainly because it doesn't matter, since I am not in communion with Rome. For the sake of those who are, I hope so, just like how I hope that all my non-Orthodox friends and family who have passed on are shown the same mercy that I depend on in kind. I should like to see them all in heaven, if I am blessed to be received there, but my feelings and desires are nothing compared to the judgment and mercy of God. In the end, it is not my place, as a mere layman and very new in the faith and the Church, to make judgments on such things. That is where I feel that the RC has way overstepped its boundaries, after all. The mere existence of another church that has a eucharistic service does not mean that it is acceptable before God, but again that is God's judgment to make. It is enough that I follow the directives of my own priests (who are quite conservative, despite any appearance to the contrary that I may have mistakenly given earlier; you miss Coptic "hardliners", just ask abouna about the Tome of Leo) and church in not betraying the holy faith in the name of false ecumenism. So from where I'm sitting, the important thing is that I not partake with any other Church, not whether or not I can speculate about the nature of what they consider sacraments. That is a Roman activity/pastime, not befitting of Orthodox people. You know where Christ is, so you go there. If He bestows His grace and mercy upon others in whatever way He sees fit, hallelujah. Again, I hope He does, but I can't say for sure one way or another.


Well crossing oneself suggests their Eucharist is the true Eucharist, no ambivalence about it. That's why the practice exists, no? To honor the reserved Gifts.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #73 on: October 01, 2012, 02:17:22 AM »

A flawed poll, I think. It lacks the option: Don't Know

which I would think to be the proper Orthodox response.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #74 on: October 01, 2012, 02:29:19 AM »

Quote
Well crossing oneself suggests their Eucharist is the true Eucharist, no ambivalence about it. That's why the practice exists, no? To honor the reserved Gifts.

Yes. Again, the most I can say is "I hope so, but I can't know for sure". If He is not in fact there, then I am wrong, but out of sincere ignorance and even hopefulness for the sake of errant brothers rather than by some sort of proscribing of His presence on my part, which seems to me to be just the mirror image of all the inadvisable RC declarations on "sacramental validity" of other churches that I am trying to get away from in the first place. I mean, here I thought "we know where the Church is, not where it is not" meant exactly that.  Smiley
Logged

Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,015



« Reply #75 on: October 01, 2012, 06:09:16 AM »

OK, here's what bugs me:

The Russian Church, for example, receives RC priests by vesting. This is done (presumably; let us assume so for the sake of the argument) due to the recognition of RC ordinations as conferring genuine sacramental grace; it is presumably the position of the Russian Church that RC priests are in fact priests.

Now, if the Greeks hold that RC ordinations are not valid, doesn't it follow that the Greeks have to also hold that any RC priest who converts to Orthodoxy in the Russian Church and continues to serve as a priest in that Church is in fact not a priest? And if, on the Greek view, Russian Orthodox priests may not be actual priests, and thus many Russian Orthodox sacraments may be utterly void, why are the Greeks still in full communion with the Russians?

Great question...one i'd like to be answered too

The Holy Orthodox Churches tend to accept the internal practices of their sister churches, as long as there is not a doctrinal deviation, even when they don't agree with them.  One of the Churches will not break communion with the Church of Russia because of the few convert Roman Catholic priests it accepts, by economy, by vesting. The chalice should not to be toyed with over interpretations of ecclesial practices. 

"Matters of common concern," such as this topic, can be taken up at a pan-Orthodox forum.  Again, the matter of ecumenical relations is on the agenda of the forthcoming Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church and there will be reports of pre-conciliar conferences that will be debated among and within each of the Holy Orthodox Churches; (there may already be some pre-conciliar documents related to this topic of which I'm not aware).

Frankly, the Episcopal Assembly process may move this issue along to the front burner because resolution of deviations in practice (I can't think of the terminology) is a objective of the Episcopal Assembly process.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #76 on: October 01, 2012, 09:53:05 AM »

Baystar,
Might I suggest, that from a Catholic perspective, it does not really matter one way or another what another Christian denomination thinks about our sacraments? Certainly, there are many things that I love and respect about the Eastern Orthodox Church, but I'm not waiting on them to declare our sacraments valid. I already know that I belong to the Church established by Jesus Christ and that I have access to his Body and Blood in Holy Communion. I am sure the Eastern Orthodox feel the same way. They have never waited on us to declare their sacraments valid.
There may not be a strong possibility of unity between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics this side of heaven. We may never share the chalice before the return of Christ, but we can love one another, pray for each other, and get on with the work of sharing the love of Jesus Christ with a broken world.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #77 on: October 01, 2012, 10:11:19 AM »

Baystar,
Might I suggest, that from a Catholic perspective, it does not really matter one way or another what another Christian denomination thinks about our sacraments? Certainly, there are many things that I love and respect about the Eastern Orthodox Church, but I'm not waiting on them to declare our sacraments valid. I already know that I belong to the Church established by Jesus Christ and that I have access to his Body and Blood in Holy Communion. I am sure the Eastern Orthodox feel the same way. They have never waited on us to declare their sacraments valid.
There may not be a strong possibility of unity between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics this side of heaven. We may never share the chalice before the return of Christ, but we can love one another, pray for each other, and get on with the work of sharing the love of Jesus Christ with a broken world.

Very nicely said!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #78 on: October 01, 2012, 01:46:26 PM »

OK, here's what bugs me:

The Russian Church, for example, receives RC priests by vesting. This is done (presumably; let us assume so for the sake of the argument) due to the recognition of RC ordinations as conferring genuine sacramental grace; it is presumably the position of the Russian Church that RC priests are in fact priests.

Now, if the Greeks hold that RC ordinations are not valid, doesn't it follow that the Greeks have to also hold that any RC priest who converts to Orthodoxy in the Russian Church and continues to serve as a priest in that Church is in fact not a priest? And if, on the Greek view, Russian Orthodox priests may not be actual priests, and thus many Russian Orthodox sacraments may be utterly void, why are the Greeks still in full communion with the Russians?

Except this kind of calculating is not how Orthodoxy looks at things.
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.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #79 on: October 01, 2012, 01:53:14 PM »

Ahhh, Tasbeha...a place to argue about Thanksgiving, pumpkins, and whether it's "evkhi" or "evshi". Oh, and Orthodoxy is in there somewhere, maybe. Tongue

Quote
Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ?

I waver between being ambivalent and agnostic about this, and do not wish to be more explicit than that. Mainly because it doesn't matter, since I am not in communion with Rome. For the sake of those who are, I hope so, just like how I hope that all my non-Orthodox friends and family who have passed on are shown the same mercy that I depend on in kind. I should like to see them all in heaven, if I am blessed to be received there, but my feelings and desires are nothing compared to the judgment and mercy of God. In the end, it is not my place, as a mere layman and very new in the faith and the Church, to make judgments on such things. That is where I feel that the RC has way overstepped its boundaries, after all. The mere existence of another church that has a eucharistic service does not mean that it is acceptable before God, but again that is God's judgment to make. It is enough that I follow the directives of my own priests (who are quite conservative, despite any appearance to the contrary that I may have mistakenly given earlier; you miss Coptic "hardliners", just ask abouna about the Tome of Leo) and church in not betraying the holy faith in the name of false ecumenism. So from where I'm sitting, the important thing is that I not partake with any other Church, not whether or not I can speculate about the nature of what they consider sacraments. That is a Roman activity/pastime, not befitting of Orthodox people. You know where Christ is, so you go there. If He bestows His grace and mercy upon others in whatever way He sees fit, hallelujah. Again, I hope He does, but I can't say for sure one way or another.


Well crossing oneself suggests their Eucharist is the true Eucharist, no ambivalence about it. That's why the practice exists, no? To honor the reserved Gifts.

No. Russians in the Volga region sometimes cross themselves when passsing mosques--becasue it was built for God, even if it's a false religion.
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.
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #80 on: October 01, 2012, 02:13:11 PM »

Hmm. I had been told in my RC days that we do it to honor Christ who is worshiped in the church, but perhaps the Byzantines have their own reasons for doing it. It's kind of funny, because I could see Catholics more readily doing than Orthodox when passing mosques (given their official contention, viz. CCC 841, that Muslims and Christians worship the same God), but based on what you've said and what I have actually observed among Catholics, I bet that is not the case. I have certainly never done so, and wouldn't (again, because of my understanding of why it is done).
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #81 on: October 01, 2012, 02:28:04 PM »

Hmm. I had been told in my RC days that we do it to honor Christ who is worshiped in the church, but perhaps the Byzantines have their own reasons for doing it. It's kind of funny, because I could see Catholics more readily doing than Orthodox when passing mosques (given their official contention, viz. CCC 841, that Muslims and Christians worship the same God), but based on what you've said and what I have actually observed among Catholics, I bet that is not the case. I have certainly never done so, and wouldn't (again, because of my understanding of why it is done).
I would never cross myself in front of a mosque. Perhaps the muslims, by some form of natural knowledge, in a very vague and shadowy manner, can be said to worship the same God as we do. But the worship they offer is a false worship.
What is more, the reason that I cross myself in front of both Catholic and Orthodox Churches is Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Consequently, I don't cross myself in front of Protestant Churches, and if I don't honor Protestant Churches in this way, I certainly wouldn't do so for a muslim mosque.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #82 on: October 01, 2012, 02:36:48 PM »

Yeah, I never crossed myself in front of Protestant churches, either, and I'm certainly not about to start now. For one, even I wanted to, it's often hard to tell that the Protestant church (building) is a church. As we are neighbors, perhaps you'll find it funny that I was in the Nob Hill area recently (I am uncomfortable there, but I had to go to the bank and it happened to be close by while I was running my errands) and happened upon what I thought was a movie theater. Nope. Turned out to be some kind of Evangelical/Pentecostal (?) gathering place either made to look like a theater (complete with posters for their worship services), or occupying an old theater that they never bothered to remodel. Hey, one place is as good as any other, right? There's no holiness in the physical world according to popular Evangelical dualism, after all... Wink Worst still, it seemed by the graphics and showiness to be specifically targeting young people and disaffected ex-something elsers...thank God I found Orthodoxy when I did, lest but by the grace of God there go I... <505-specific stuff that nobody else will get>
Logged

Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,896


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #83 on: October 01, 2012, 02:41:13 PM »

I cross myself too when passing a Roman church but I show my disagreement with them by crossing myself the byzantine way. I guess that makes it even.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 02:41:26 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #84 on: October 01, 2012, 02:42:16 PM »

Yeah, I never crossed myself in front of Protestant churches, either, and I'm certainly not about to start now. For one, even I wanted to, it's often hard to tell that the Protestant church (building) is a church. As we are neighbors, perhaps you'll find it funny that I was in the Nob Hill area recently (I am uncomfortable there, but I had to go to the bank and it happened to be close by while I was running my errands) and happened upon what I thought was a movie theater. Nope. Turned out to be some kind of Evangelical/Pentecostal (?) gathering place either made to look like a theater (complete with posters for their worship services), or occupying an old theater that they never bothered to remodel. Hey, one place is as good as any other, right? There's no holiness in the physical world according to popular Evangelical dualism, after all... Wink Worst still, it seemed by the graphics and showiness to be specifically targeting young people and disaffected ex-something elsers...thank God I found Orthodoxy when I did, lest but by the grace of God there go I... <505-specific stuff that nobody else will get>
There are quite a few interesting "christian communities" in the 505, especially in that particular area of town... disenchanted hippies and all. But we also have quite a few Mega-Churches. I drove by Sagebrush "church" this weekend, and I realized how massive the complex was, for the first time. Unfortunatley, the iconoclasm present their was rampant. It didn't look like a church at all, and could just as easily been a school or collection of office buildings. Yet, it was so massive that police had to be out to direct traffic in the area. <sigh>.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #85 on: October 01, 2012, 02:42:50 PM »

I cross myself too when passing a Roman church but I show my disagreement with them by crossing myself the byzantine way. I guess that makes it even.
Ha!  Grin
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #86 on: October 01, 2012, 02:45:37 PM »

Papist, the thing to remember about mega churches is that they are always full, but never of the same people who were there five or ten years earlier. The spiritual search of the starving continues, and for most these grandiloquent buildings are nothing more than way stations.
Logged

OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 994



« Reply #87 on: October 01, 2012, 04:14:38 PM »

OK, here's what bugs me:

The Russian Church, for example, receives RC priests by vesting. This is done (presumably; let us assume so for the sake of the argument) due to the recognition of RC ordinations as conferring genuine sacramental grace; it is presumably the position of the Russian Church that RC priests are in fact priests.

Now, if the Greeks hold that RC ordinations are not valid, doesn't it follow that the Greeks have to also hold that any RC priest who converts to Orthodoxy in the Russian Church and continues to serve as a priest in that Church is in fact not a priest? And if, on the Greek view, Russian Orthodox priests may not be actual priests, and thus many Russian Orthodox sacraments may be utterly void, why are the Greeks still in full communion with the Russians?

Except this kind of calculating is not how Orthodoxy looks at things.

Oh. That clears it right up. Thanks.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #88 on: October 01, 2012, 04:44:00 PM »

The OCA (which is Russian in practice) also receives priests by vesting.  I know a fantastic priest that was brought in this way. 
As far as grace and such I follow what the bishops teach.  They are the chief priest and are entrusted to "rightfully divide the Word of Truth." 
Logged

BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #89 on: October 01, 2012, 04:48:06 PM »

The OCA (which is Russian in practice) also receives priests by vesting.  I know a fantastic priest that was brought in this way. 
As far as grace and such I follow what the bishops teach.  They are the chief priest and are entrusted to "rightfully divide the Word of Truth." 

Was the priest originally Roman Catholic or Oriental?
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #90 on: October 01, 2012, 04:49:11 PM »

I cross myself too when passing a Roman church but I show my disagreement with them by crossing myself the byzantine way. I guess that makes it even.

So in theory you are saying you recognise that the communion in their tabernacle is communion.  Communion is God.  So by crossing yourself out of spite would that not be judging your brothers because you disagree with x y z of their beliefs?  Would it be more prudent not to cross yourself at all then?  Crossing yourself outside of church whether walking or in a car is reverence to the communion held in reserve in the tabernacle.  Do Orthodox Christians not consider partaking of Communion as the most outwardly sign of union?  For if we are upset with even ONE of our Orthodox brethren no matter where he may reside then we can not partake of the chalice that day as we see it as a common cup.  It is the same holy communion in Dallas as it is in Jerusalem.  So recognising that the RCC have the true eucharist in their tabernacle by signing yourself would follow the above?
Logged

username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #91 on: October 01, 2012, 04:54:43 PM »

The OCA (which is Russian in practice) also receives priests by vesting.  I know a fantastic priest that was brought in this way. 
As far as grace and such I follow what the bishops teach.  They are the chief priest and are entrusted to "rightfully divide the Word of Truth." 

Was the priest originally Roman Catholic or Oriental?

He was and is European American and he was a minister in the RCC.
Logged

Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,896


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #92 on: October 01, 2012, 04:54:54 PM »

So by crossing yourself out of spite would that not be judging your brothers because you disagree with x y z of their beliefs?

That one about doing it the byzantine way because I disagree was just a little joke. I do it the byzantine way, but not because I want to judge them or something but because that's the way I'm used to do it. Calm down.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 04:56:27 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,673


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #93 on: October 01, 2012, 04:55:24 PM »

Yeah, I never crossed myself in front of Protestant churches, either, and I'm certainly not about to start now. For one, even I wanted to, it's often hard to tell that the Protestant church (building) is a church. As we are neighbors, perhaps you'll find it funny that I was in the Nob Hill area recently (I am uncomfortable there, but I had to go to the bank and it happened to be close by while I was running my errands) and happened upon what I thought was a movie theater. Nope. Turned out to be some kind of Evangelical/Pentecostal (?) gathering place either made to look like a theater (complete with posters for their worship services), or occupying an old theater that they never bothered to remodel. Hey, one place is as good as any other, right? There's no holiness in the physical world according to popular Evangelical dualism, after all... Wink Worst still, it seemed by the graphics and showiness to be specifically targeting young people and disaffected ex-something elsers...thank God I found Orthodoxy when I did, lest but by the grace of God there go I... <505-specific stuff that nobody else will get>

When we lived in ABQ, we went to a church that was in a strip mall... Just looked like a regular storefront, but was actually a church. Eventually they purchased a church building and moved out. This was up near Tramway though- not Nob Hill. But I am not surprised.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #94 on: October 01, 2012, 05:00:07 PM »

So by crossing yourself out of spite would that not be judging your brothers because you disagree with x y z of their beliefs?

That one about doing it the byzantine way because I disagree was just a little joke. I do it the byzantine way, but not because I want to judge them or something but because that's the way I'm used to do it. Calm down.


I am calm I was being philosophical.
Logged

Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,896


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #95 on: October 01, 2012, 05:03:56 PM »

So by crossing yourself out of spite would that not be judging your brothers because you disagree with x y z of their beliefs?

That one about doing it the byzantine way because I disagree was just a little joke. I do it the byzantine way, but not because I want to judge them or something but because that's the way I'm used to do it. Calm down.


I am calm I was being philosophical.

Oh, it sounded a little bit agressive to me. Sorry if he misunderstood it.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #96 on: October 01, 2012, 05:07:20 PM »

The OCA (which is Russian in practice) also receives priests by vesting.  I know a fantastic priest that was brought in this way. 
As far as grace and such I follow what the bishops teach.  They are the chief priest and are entrusted to "rightfully divide the Word of Truth." 

Was the priest originally Roman Catholic or Oriental?

He was and is European American and he was a minister in the RCC.

If the Orthodox expect me to respect them, then I expect you to respect me and my church. He was not a minister. He was and is a priest.
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #97 on: October 01, 2012, 05:19:39 PM »

The OCA (which is Russian in practice) also receives priests by vesting.  I know a fantastic priest that was brought in this way. 
As far as grace and such I follow what the bishops teach.  They are the chief priest and are entrusted to "rightfully divide the Word of Truth." 

Was the priest originally Roman Catholic or Oriental?

He was and is European American and he was a minister in the RCC.

If the Orthodox expect me to respect them, then I expect you to respect me and my church. He was not a minister. He was and is a priest.

Vicar, minister, reverend, etc... extraordinary minister of communion... think about it if that's what the RCC calls the helpers at mass that give out communion then the priest must be the ordinary minister.  Just using different words that mean the same thing.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #98 on: October 01, 2012, 07:09:22 PM »

delete for pointless and silly post.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 07:10:10 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #99 on: October 01, 2012, 09:31:35 PM »

I mean, here I thought "we know where the Church is, not where it is not" meant exactly that.  Smiley

Yes, it means exactly that. It just happens to be an incorrect sentiment.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #100 on: October 01, 2012, 09:32:17 PM »

Ahhh, Tasbeha...a place to argue about Thanksgiving, pumpkins, and whether it's "evkhi" or "evshi". Oh, and Orthodoxy is in there somewhere, maybe. Tongue

Quote
Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ?

I waver between being ambivalent and agnostic about this, and do not wish to be more explicit than that. Mainly because it doesn't matter, since I am not in communion with Rome. For the sake of those who are, I hope so, just like how I hope that all my non-Orthodox friends and family who have passed on are shown the same mercy that I depend on in kind. I should like to see them all in heaven, if I am blessed to be received there, but my feelings and desires are nothing compared to the judgment and mercy of God. In the end, it is not my place, as a mere layman and very new in the faith and the Church, to make judgments on such things. That is where I feel that the RC has way overstepped its boundaries, after all. The mere existence of another church that has a eucharistic service does not mean that it is acceptable before God, but again that is God's judgment to make. It is enough that I follow the directives of my own priests (who are quite conservative, despite any appearance to the contrary that I may have mistakenly given earlier; you miss Coptic "hardliners", just ask abouna about the Tome of Leo) and church in not betraying the holy faith in the name of false ecumenism. So from where I'm sitting, the important thing is that I not partake with any other Church, not whether or not I can speculate about the nature of what they consider sacraments. That is a Roman activity/pastime, not befitting of Orthodox people. You know where Christ is, so you go there. If He bestows His grace and mercy upon others in whatever way He sees fit, hallelujah. Again, I hope He does, but I can't say for sure one way or another.


Well crossing oneself suggests their Eucharist is the true Eucharist, no ambivalence about it. That's why the practice exists, no? To honor the reserved Gifts.

No. Russians in the Volga region sometimes cross themselves when passsing mosques--becasue it was built for God, even if it's a false religion.

I'm gonna need a reference for this one, Beijingski.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #101 on: October 01, 2012, 09:41:16 PM »

I mean, here I thought "we know where the Church is, not where it is not" meant exactly that.  Smiley

Yes, it means exactly that. It just happens to be an incorrect sentiment.

It is not correct that you do not know where the Church isn't?

Ahh...that must explain all the declarative, dogmatic statements about the sacraments of non-Orthodox churches that you always hear from the Orthodox...  Roll Eyes
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #102 on: October 01, 2012, 09:51:09 PM »

The OCA (which is Russian in practice) also receives priests by vesting.  I know a fantastic priest that was brought in this way.  
As far as grace and such I follow what the bishops teach.  They are the chief priest and are entrusted to "rightfully divide the Word of Truth."  

Was the priest originally Roman Catholic or Oriental?

He was and is European American and he was a minister in the RCC.

If the Orthodox expect me to respect them, then I expect you to respect me and my church. He was not a minister. He was and is a priest.

Hmmm ... did you ever tell a Catholic priest to his face "You're not a minister"? And if so, what was his reaction?
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 09:52:30 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039

Currently on hiatus from posting

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #103 on: October 01, 2012, 09:51:39 PM »

Ahhh, Tasbeha...a place to argue about Thanksgiving, pumpkins, and whether it's "evkhi" or "evshi". Oh, and Orthodoxy is in there somewhere, maybe. Tongue

Quote
Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ?

I waver between being ambivalent and agnostic about this, and do not wish to be more explicit than that. Mainly because it doesn't matter, since I am not in communion with Rome. For the sake of those who are, I hope so, just like how I hope that all my non-Orthodox friends and family who have passed on are shown the same mercy that I depend on in kind. I should like to see them all in heaven, if I am blessed to be received there, but my feelings and desires are nothing compared to the judgment and mercy of God. In the end, it is not my place, as a mere layman and very new in the faith and the Church, to make judgments on such things. That is where I feel that the RC has way overstepped its boundaries, after all. The mere existence of another church that has a eucharistic service does not mean that it is acceptable before God, but again that is God's judgment to make. It is enough that I follow the directives of my own priests (who are quite conservative, despite any appearance to the contrary that I may have mistakenly given earlier; you miss Coptic "hardliners", just ask abouna about the Tome of Leo) and church in not betraying the holy faith in the name of false ecumenism. So from where I'm sitting, the important thing is that I not partake with any other Church, not whether or not I can speculate about the nature of what they consider sacraments. That is a Roman activity/pastime, not befitting of Orthodox people. You know where Christ is, so you go there. If He bestows His grace and mercy upon others in whatever way He sees fit, hallelujah. Again, I hope He does, but I can't say for sure one way or another.


Well crossing oneself suggests their Eucharist is the true Eucharist, no ambivalence about it. That's why the practice exists, no? To honor the reserved Gifts.

No. Russians in the Volga region sometimes cross themselves when passsing mosques--becasue it was built for God, even if it's a false religion.

I'm gonna need a reference for this one, Beijingski.
If this is true, it is incredibly disturbing.
Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (I.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Please note that some of my older posts -especially those pre-dating late 2012- may not necessarily reflect my current views.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #104 on: October 01, 2012, 09:53:21 PM »

Ahhh, Tasbeha...a place to argue about Thanksgiving, pumpkins, and whether it's "evkhi" or "evshi". Oh, and Orthodoxy is in there somewhere, maybe. Tongue

Quote
Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ?

I waver between being ambivalent and agnostic about this, and do not wish to be more explicit than that. Mainly because it doesn't matter, since I am not in communion with Rome. For the sake of those who are, I hope so, just like how I hope that all my non-Orthodox friends and family who have passed on are shown the same mercy that I depend on in kind. I should like to see them all in heaven, if I am blessed to be received there, but my feelings and desires are nothing compared to the judgment and mercy of God. In the end, it is not my place, as a mere layman and very new in the faith and the Church, to make judgments on such things. That is where I feel that the RC has way overstepped its boundaries, after all. The mere existence of another church that has a eucharistic service does not mean that it is acceptable before God, but again that is God's judgment to make. It is enough that I follow the directives of my own priests (who are quite conservative, despite any appearance to the contrary that I may have mistakenly given earlier; you miss Coptic "hardliners", just ask abouna about the Tome of Leo) and church in not betraying the holy faith in the name of false ecumenism. So from where I'm sitting, the important thing is that I not partake with any other Church, not whether or not I can speculate about the nature of what they consider sacraments. That is a Roman activity/pastime, not befitting of Orthodox people. You know where Christ is, so you go there. If He bestows His grace and mercy upon others in whatever way He sees fit, hallelujah. Again, I hope He does, but I can't say for sure one way or another.


Well crossing oneself suggests their Eucharist is the true Eucharist, no ambivalence about it. That's why the practice exists, no? To honor the reserved Gifts.

No. Russians in the Volga region sometimes cross themselves when passsing mosques--becasue it was built for God, even if it's a false religion.

Boy, that's a different perspective.  Lips Sealed I usually ask myself things like "Should I cross myself when I pass a Christian church building with no Eucharist (e.g. Baptist)?"
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #105 on: October 01, 2012, 10:42:25 PM »

I mean, here I thought "we know where the Church is, not where it is not" meant exactly that.  Smiley

Yes, it means exactly that. It just happens to be an incorrect sentiment.

It is not correct that you do not know where the Church isn't?

Ahh...that must explain all the declarative, dogmatic statements about the sacraments of non-Orthodox churches that you always hear from the Orthodox...  Roll Eyes

I hear them all the time.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #106 on: October 01, 2012, 10:46:23 PM »

The world of the inquirer on the internet must be very different than the world of the baptized person, then. Funnily enough the subject of Roman Catholic sacraments has never come up in over a year of attending at a Coptic Orthodox Church. It's almost like we leave such things up to God and how He sees fit to deal with those outside of the Church, and instead focus on our own Church and its sacraments, which we do not doubt.
Logged

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #107 on: October 01, 2012, 11:14:12 PM »

The OCA (which is Russian in practice) also receives priests by vesting.  I know a fantastic priest that was brought in this way. 
As far as grace and such I follow what the bishops teach.  They are the chief priest and are entrusted to "rightfully divide the Word of Truth." 

Was the priest originally Roman Catholic or Oriental?

He was and is European American and he was a minister in the RCC.

If the Orthodox expect me to respect them, then I expect you to respect me and my church. He was not a minister. He was and is a priest.

Dude, it's really the same thing. IIRC, St. Paul calls himself a minister of the Gospel.
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.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #108 on: October 01, 2012, 11:14:28 PM »

You don't have to get offended and resort to insults just because you're wrong.

Perhaps you'd like to be the one to inform the many bishops and elders I've heard say this teaching that their internet inquiry has mislead them?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #109 on: October 01, 2012, 11:15:49 PM »

Ahhh, Tasbeha...a place to argue about Thanksgiving, pumpkins, and whether it's "evkhi" or "evshi". Oh, and Orthodoxy is in there somewhere, maybe. Tongue

Quote
Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ?

I waver between being ambivalent and agnostic about this, and do not wish to be more explicit than that. Mainly because it doesn't matter, since I am not in communion with Rome. For the sake of those who are, I hope so, just like how I hope that all my non-Orthodox friends and family who have passed on are shown the same mercy that I depend on in kind. I should like to see them all in heaven, if I am blessed to be received there, but my feelings and desires are nothing compared to the judgment and mercy of God. In the end, it is not my place, as a mere layman and very new in the faith and the Church, to make judgments on such things. That is where I feel that the RC has way overstepped its boundaries, after all. The mere existence of another church that has a eucharistic service does not mean that it is acceptable before God, but again that is God's judgment to make. It is enough that I follow the directives of my own priests (who are quite conservative, despite any appearance to the contrary that I may have mistakenly given earlier; you miss Coptic "hardliners", just ask abouna about the Tome of Leo) and church in not betraying the holy faith in the name of false ecumenism. So from where I'm sitting, the important thing is that I not partake with any other Church, not whether or not I can speculate about the nature of what they consider sacraments. That is a Roman activity/pastime, not befitting of Orthodox people. You know where Christ is, so you go there. If He bestows His grace and mercy upon others in whatever way He sees fit, hallelujah. Again, I hope He does, but I can't say for sure one way or another.


Well crossing oneself suggests their Eucharist is the true Eucharist, no ambivalence about it. That's why the practice exists, no? To honor the reserved Gifts.

No. Russians in the Volga region sometimes cross themselves when passsing mosques--becasue it was built for God, even if it's a false religion.

I'm gonna need a reference for this one, Beijingski.

Bejing? WTH?

Reference came from a book on Russian culture. Dont ask for the specific one. I've read a couple score in my studies, but I didn't make it up.
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.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #110 on: October 01, 2012, 11:18:44 PM »

Ahhh, Tasbeha...a place to argue about Thanksgiving, pumpkins, and whether it's "evkhi" or "evshi". Oh, and Orthodoxy is in there somewhere, maybe. Tongue

Quote
Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ?

I waver between being ambivalent and agnostic about this, and do not wish to be more explicit than that. Mainly because it doesn't matter, since I am not in communion with Rome. For the sake of those who are, I hope so, just like how I hope that all my non-Orthodox friends and family who have passed on are shown the same mercy that I depend on in kind. I should like to see them all in heaven, if I am blessed to be received there, but my feelings and desires are nothing compared to the judgment and mercy of God. In the end, it is not my place, as a mere layman and very new in the faith and the Church, to make judgments on such things. That is where I feel that the RC has way overstepped its boundaries, after all. The mere existence of another church that has a eucharistic service does not mean that it is acceptable before God, but again that is God's judgment to make. It is enough that I follow the directives of my own priests (who are quite conservative, despite any appearance to the contrary that I may have mistakenly given earlier; you miss Coptic "hardliners", just ask abouna about the Tome of Leo) and church in not betraying the holy faith in the name of false ecumenism. So from where I'm sitting, the important thing is that I not partake with any other Church, not whether or not I can speculate about the nature of what they consider sacraments. That is a Roman activity/pastime, not befitting of Orthodox people. You know where Christ is, so you go there. If He bestows His grace and mercy upon others in whatever way He sees fit, hallelujah. Again, I hope He does, but I can't say for sure one way or another.


Well crossing oneself suggests their Eucharist is the true Eucharist, no ambivalence about it. That's why the practice exists, no? To honor the reserved Gifts.

No. Russians in the Volga region sometimes cross themselves when passsing mosques--becasue it was built for God, even if it's a false religion.

I'm gonna need a reference for this one, Beijingski.
If this is true, it is incredibly disturbing.

It wasn't a display of ecumenism. It was a recognition of the original purpose, the intention. The Mohammedans intended to build the mosque for God. Of course, they are not illumined and follow a false prophet. But remember one of the Desert Fathers who complimented the pagan priest on his devotion after his disciple ridiculed him for being an idolater? The abba's kindness and recognition of the good won the pagan priest over and he became a Christian and a monk. Same thing.
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.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #111 on: October 01, 2012, 11:21:28 PM »

The world of the inquirer on the internet must be very different than the world of the baptized person, then. Funnily enough the subject of Roman Catholic sacraments has never come up in over a year of attending at a Coptic Orthodox Church. It's almost like we leave such things up to God and how He sees fit to deal with those outside of the Church, and instead focus on our own Church and its sacraments, which we do not doubt.

Indeed. Exactly this.

We have enough to do to teach and live Orthodoxy than to try and figure out whether a group of people who perform liturgies running the gamut from traditional to bizarre have sacramental grace. We have all we can do to wonder what happened to the folks who invented the inquisiton and why have they become soft.
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.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #112 on: October 02, 2012, 05:58:21 PM »

Ahhh, Tasbeha...a place to argue about Thanksgiving, pumpkins, and whether it's "evkhi" or "evshi". Oh, and Orthodoxy is in there somewhere, maybe. Tongue

Quote
Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ?

I waver between being ambivalent and agnostic about this, and do not wish to be more explicit than that. Mainly because it doesn't matter, since I am not in communion with Rome. For the sake of those who are, I hope so, just like how I hope that all my non-Orthodox friends and family who have passed on are shown the same mercy that I depend on in kind. I should like to see them all in heaven, if I am blessed to be received there, but my feelings and desires are nothing compared to the judgment and mercy of God. In the end, it is not my place, as a mere layman and very new in the faith and the Church, to make judgments on such things. That is where I feel that the RC has way overstepped its boundaries, after all. The mere existence of another church that has a eucharistic service does not mean that it is acceptable before God, but again that is God's judgment to make. It is enough that I follow the directives of my own priests (who are quite conservative, despite any appearance to the contrary that I may have mistakenly given earlier; you miss Coptic "hardliners", just ask abouna about the Tome of Leo) and church in not betraying the holy faith in the name of false ecumenism. So from where I'm sitting, the important thing is that I not partake with any other Church, not whether or not I can speculate about the nature of what they consider sacraments. That is a Roman activity/pastime, not befitting of Orthodox people. You know where Christ is, so you go there. If He bestows His grace and mercy upon others in whatever way He sees fit, hallelujah. Again, I hope He does, but I can't say for sure one way or another.


Well crossing oneself suggests their Eucharist is the true Eucharist, no ambivalence about it. That's why the practice exists, no? To honor the reserved Gifts.

No. Russians in the Volga region sometimes cross themselves when passsing mosques--becasue it was built for God, even if it's a false religion.

I'm gonna need a reference for this one, Beijingski.
If this is true, it is incredibly disturbing.

It wasn't a display of ecumenism. It was a recognition of the original purpose, the intention. The Mohammedans intended to build the mosque for God. Of course, they are not illumined and follow a false prophet. But remember one of the Desert Fathers who complimented the pagan priest on his devotion after his disciple ridiculed him for being an idolater? The abba's kindness and recognition of the good won the pagan priest over and he became a Christian and a monk. Same thing.

I understand about it being "a recognition of original purpose", but I still think it's a tad extreme. And if it's extreme for us Catholics, I imagine how your fellow Orthodox might react, especially those who pray "that the secularists and Protestants are kept at a distance [from Eastern Europe]" and the like.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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 0.365 seconds with 143 queries.