OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 09:47:09 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Catholic vs. Orthodox on the Sacraments  (Read 3484 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
NucleicAcid
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: searching
Posts: 9


« on: November 02, 2010, 12:44:01 PM »

From what I understand, Catholics explicitly define "The Sacraments" as numbering seven, while Orthodox do not formally do so (though the same seven are recognized as sacraments). 

My first question has to do with baptism.  Catholics believe that a valid baptism creates an "indelible mark" on one's soul, and therefore a valid baptism cannot be repeated.  Where does the idea of "indelible mark" come from, and do Orthodox agree?

My next question is somewhat related to the first.  Catholics believe that valid baptisms are found in all churches that profess belief in the Trinity and use the Trinitarian formula.  They also believe that in an emergency (i.e. imminent death), anyone, even an atheist, can validly baptize someone, provided they have the right intent and use the right formula and matter.  How do Orthodox view the issue of the validity of sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church?  To me, it doesn't really make sense that there would be valid sacraments outside of the "one true church", or that the "one true church" is defined in such a way as to allow valid apostolic succession, priesthood, and sacraments outside of its visible confines.  The Catholic Church holds the Orthodox Church to be in schism from the "one true church", yet it still is believed to have a valid priesthood and sacraments.  Also, how do Orthodox view the situation of non-Christians baptizing in emergencies?

Finally, from what I understand, Orthodox believe that Chrismation/Confirmation can be repeated, while Catholics believe that it can only be done once (perhaps related to the "indelible mark" idea).  Did one belief originate later in history?

Also, of course I'm speaking about Roman Catholics, and not Eastern Catholics Wink

Thanks!
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2010, 12:46:36 PM »

So it makes sense to you that just because the EOs are out of commuion with the Pope, that some holy EO peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

Or the other way around: Just because Catholics are out of communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, then some holy Catholic peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 12:47:29 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
NucleicAcid
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: searching
Posts: 9


« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2010, 12:53:08 PM »

So it makes sense to you that just because the EOs are out of commuion with the Pope, that some holy EO peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

Or the other way around: Just because Catholics are out of communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, then some holy Catholic peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

What about a holy Lutheran/Anglican/etc peasant? 

My issue perhaps lies in ecclesiology, and understanding how it is possible for a group, regarded as being in schism from the one true church (Catholic, Orthodox, whatever) can still be held as having a valid priesthood and valid sacraments, outside of the visible confines of that one true church.  If that is the case, then what is the schismatic church missing if they are able to maintain that priesthood and holy sacraments throughout the ages, apart from full communion with the one true church?

If Orthodox believe the same, then I would appreciate the Orthodox perspective on this as well.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2010, 12:54:41 PM »

So it makes sense to you that just because the EOs are out of commuion with the Pope, that some holy EO peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

Or the other way around: Just because Catholics are out of communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, then some holy Catholic peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

What about a holy Lutheran/Anglican/etc peasant? 

My issue perhaps lies in ecclesiology, and understanding how it is possible for a group, regarded as being in schism from the one true church (Catholic, Orthodox, whatever) can still be held as having a valid priesthood and valid sacraments, outside of the visible confines of that one true church.  If that is the case, then what is the schismatic church missing if they are able to maintain that priesthood and holy sacraments throughout the ages, apart from full communion with the one true church?

If Orthodox believe the same, then I would appreciate the Orthodox perspective on this as well.
What about them? They don't even believe in the same kind of real presence that we do. And further, I don't think we can be sure that Christ doesn't some how unite himself to them through their communion services, in spite of their non-sacramental nature.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2010, 12:56:56 PM »

So it makes sense to you that just because the EOs are out of commuion with the Pope, that some holy EO peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

Or the other way around: Just because Catholics are out of communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, then some holy Catholic peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

What about a holy Lutheran/Anglican/etc peasant? 

My issue perhaps lies in ecclesiology, and understanding how it is possible for a group, regarded as being in schism from the one true church (Catholic, Orthodox, whatever) can still be held as having a valid priesthood and valid sacraments, outside of the visible confines of that one true church.  If that is the case, then what is the schismatic church missing if they are able to maintain that priesthood and holy sacraments throughout the ages, apart from full communion with the one true church?

If Orthodox believe the same, then I would appreciate the Orthodox perspective on this as well.
What about them? They don't even believe in the same kind of real presence that we do. And further, I don't think we can be sure that Christ doesn't some how unite himself to them through their communion services, in spite of their non-sacramental nature.
Very true. We know that God works through the Sacraments, but He certainly is not limited to them.
Logged
NucleicAcid
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: searching
Posts: 9


« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2010, 01:05:30 PM »

So it makes sense to you that just because the EOs are out of commuion with the Pope, that some holy EO peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

Or the other way around: Just because Catholics are out of communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, then some holy Catholic peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

What about a holy Lutheran/Anglican/etc peasant? 

My issue perhaps lies in ecclesiology, and understanding how it is possible for a group, regarded as being in schism from the one true church (Catholic, Orthodox, whatever) can still be held as having a valid priesthood and valid sacraments, outside of the visible confines of that one true church.  If that is the case, then what is the schismatic church missing if they are able to maintain that priesthood and holy sacraments throughout the ages, apart from full communion with the one true church?

If Orthodox believe the same, then I would appreciate the Orthodox perspective on this as well.
What about them? They don't even believe in the same kind of real presence that we do. And further, I don't think we can be sure that Christ doesn't some how unite himself to them through their communion services, in spite of their non-sacramental nature.

Right, even if you're not sure that Christ doesn't somehow unite himself to them in their communion services, the Catholic Church doesn't regard them as having a valid priesthood or valid sacraments, right?

The issue then becomes, how much "change" is necessary for a church in schism of the one true church to no longer have a valid priesthood and valid sacraments?  Obviously some Anglicans (especially Anglo-Catholics) will dispute the claim that they don't believe in the same kind of real presence that Catholics do, and some will say that their churches have maintained apostolic succession through some lineage.

Anyway, all of this is missing the actual question (one of them) that I am asking:  How is it possible for a church that is in schism of the one true church to maintain a valid priesthood and valid sacraments?  What is it about that schismatic church that makes it different from, say, an Anglo-Catholic church, and in the grand scheme of things, if that schismatic church has the same access to a valid priesthood and sacraments as the one true church, then what is that schismatic church missing that the one true church has, and what does that missing thing(s) do that the schismatic church lacks?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2010, 01:12:58 PM »

I believe the issue with the Anglican Communion was that they made drastic changes to the Rite of Ordination to the point where it could no longer be considered the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Had this not happened, they (at least some of them) would probably still be considered by the Catholic Church to be valid Churches to this day. As far as Eastern Orthodoxy, even though it is considered schismatic by us, besides lack of Communion with Rome they have pretty much kept everything else preserved and in tact, which is why we consider them valid Churches (as we do for the Oriental Orthodox as well).
Logged
NucleicAcid
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: searching
Posts: 9


« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2010, 01:17:18 PM »

I believe the issue with the Anglican Communion was that they made drastic changes to the Rite of Ordination to the point where it could no longer be considered the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Had this not happened, they (at least some of them) would probably still be considered by the Catholic Church to be valid Churches to this day. As far as Eastern Orthodoxy, even though it is considered schismatic by us, besides lack of Communion with Rome they have pretty much kept everything else preserved and in tact, which is why we consider them valid Churches (as we do for the Oriental Orthodox as well).

Thanks!

So really the only thing (or perhaps the main thing?) that the Orthodox Church is lacking, from the Catholic perspective, is union with the Bishop of Rome? 
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2010, 01:22:42 PM »

I believe the issue with the Anglican Communion was that they made drastic changes to the Rite of Ordination to the point where it could no longer be considered the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Had this not happened, they (at least some of them) would probably still be considered by the Catholic Church to be valid Churches to this day. As far as Eastern Orthodoxy, even though it is considered schismatic by us, besides lack of Communion with Rome they have pretty much kept everything else preserved and in tact, which is why we consider them valid Churches (as we do for the Oriental Orthodox as well).

Thanks!

So really the only thing (or perhaps the main thing?) that the Orthodox Church is lacking, from the Catholic perspective, is union with the Bishop of Rome?  
No problem.

And yes, I would say that that is basically the only thing, from our view, that separates us right now is their lack of union with the Bishop of Rome. Actually, this is what really makes sense as far as why we let the Eastern Orthodox can receive the Eucharist in our Church but they don't in theirs. To us, we are basically the same. To them, we are way, way off because they don't accept any of our dogmatic definitions after the schism, so in their eyes we have a lot of "innovations" that need to be removed before Full Communion could ever resume.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 01:23:13 PM by Wyatt » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2010, 01:38:04 PM »

My first question has to do with baptism.  Catholics believe that a valid baptism creates an "indelible mark" on one's soul, and therefore a valid baptism cannot be repeated.  Where does the idea of "indelible mark" come from, and do Orthodox agree?

The Orthodox teach the same. Check the Creed.

Quote
My next question is somewhat related to the first.  Catholics believe that valid baptisms are found in all churches that profess belief in the Trinity and use the Trinitarian formula.  They also believe that in an emergency (i.e. imminent death), anyone, even an atheist, can validly baptize someone, provided they have the right intent and use the right formula and matter.  How do Orthodox view the issue of the validity of sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church?  To me, it doesn't really make sense that there would be valid sacraments outside of the "one true church", or that the "one true church" is defined in such a way as to allow valid apostolic succession, priesthood, and sacraments outside of its visible confines.  The Catholic Church holds the Orthodox Church to be in schism from the "one true church", yet it still is believed to have a valid priesthood and sacraments.  Also, how do Orthodox view the situation of non-Christians baptizing in emergencies?

We agree. No sacraments outside the Church.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2010, 01:44:25 PM »

The "No sacraments outside the Church" idea what work in a neat and tidy world. But this is not a neat and tidy world. "No sacraments ouside the Church" would make sense if there were no Christians outside the Church. But unfortunately, there Christians outside the Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,169



« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2013, 03:13:12 AM »

The "No sacraments outside the Church" idea what work in a neat and tidy world. But this is not a neat and tidy world. "No sacraments ouside the Church" would make sense if there were no Christians outside the Church. But unfortunately, there Christians outside the Church.

Yeah, but they separated themselves from the Church, nobody forced them to leave.
Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,103


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2013, 01:58:26 PM »

The "No sacraments outside the Church" idea what work in a neat and tidy world. But this is not a neat and tidy world. "No sacraments ouside the Church" would make sense if there were no Christians outside the Church. But unfortunately, there Christians outside the Church.

Yeah, but they separated themselves from the Church, nobody forced them to leave.

What about those born and raised Protestantism ? Sure this wasn't their choice
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 02:01:08 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,737


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2013, 02:09:16 PM »

The "No sacraments outside the Church" idea what work in a neat and tidy world. But this is not a neat and tidy world. "No sacraments ouside the Church" would make sense if there were no Christians outside the Church. But unfortunately, there Christians outside the Church.

Yeah, but they separated themselves from the Church, nobody forced them to leave.

What about those born and raised Protestantism ? Sure this wasn't their choice

Read Father Georges Florovsky for a studied Orthodox perspective.   There is something to heterodox sacraments, which is why they don't need to be repeated on entering Orthodoxy.  But there is something missing from them as well.  I'd hesitate to go any further than that. 
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #14 on: August 25, 2013, 11:17:57 PM »

I was thinking about this today.  We call them mysteries because well they are. Take the Catholics. They have the sacrament of holy orders. how can we define that when the ranks of priesthood start with being tonsured a reader. we dont use the term because it is beyond our comprehension.
Logged

JoeS2
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,113


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2013, 11:25:30 PM »

I was thinking about this today.  We call them mysteries because well they are. Take the Catholics. They have the sacrament of holy orders. how can we define that when the ranks of priesthood start with being tonsured a reader. we dont use the term because it is beyond our comprehension.

Most non Orthodox Christian religions have elements or fragments of the truth. Some look very close to Orthodoxy and others are way out there somewhere.  We believe we have the fullness of faith as passed down by Christ Himself through the Apostles.
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,033



« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2013, 01:34:53 AM »

Actually, since the past 30 or so years, the Roman Catholic Church will admit Eastern Orthodox Christians to their Sacrament of Holy Communion, if the bishop under whom is the individual approves such.  The statement is written within the preface of the Missal.

No so for the Orthodox Church.  The Eucharistic Service of the Orthodox Church, the Divine Liturgy, includes much focus on the unity of the faith and the manifestation of the Eucharistic community as the Body of Christ, surrounding Holy Communion.

From the Divine Liturgy:  

"Entreating for the unity of the faith and the Communion of the Holy Spirit...";

"The Holy Things, are for the Holy" people of God;

"We have beheld the True Light, we have received the heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity..."

If you are not of the faith that is working synergistically to prepare and serve Holy Communion, which considers itself "the true faith," of which we pray for its "unity," i.e. unity of belief, you cannot intrude, and participate in it, as you do not share the belief of the faith, and are not part of the Eucharistic community, the manifestation of the Body of Christ.

One reason for the Orthodox practice of a priest or bishop being required to celebrate only one Liturgy per day, is so that "the Eucharistic community of believers," the "Body of Christ," worships together.

Fraternal, loving, brotherly relations are one thing; compromising "the faith," quite another.

So yes, if an Orthodox Church is not near an Orthodox Christian, peasant or not, quite unfortunately, he or she cannot receive Holy Communion.  At least today, in addition to the maintenance of a prayer life, study of the scripture and other books of the church, anyone with internet access can at least view the Divine Liturgy to assist their spiritual well being, not to imply by any means that internet viewing of the Liturgy is in any way a substitute for participation in the Divine Liturgy and Holy Communion.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 01:47:23 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,693


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2013, 02:44:08 AM »

Actually, since the past 30 or so years, the Roman Catholic Church will admit Eastern Orthodox Christians to their Sacrament of Holy Communion, if the bishop under whom is the individual approves such.  The statement is written within the preface of the Missal.

... which is a touchy-feely but ultimately meaningless gesture, as no Orthodox bishop worth his salt would approve an Orthodox member of his flock to commune in a heterodox church.  Wink
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,893



« Reply #18 on: August 27, 2013, 10:24:38 AM »

Actually, since the past 30 or so years, the Roman Catholic Church will admit Eastern Orthodox Christians to their Sacrament of Holy Communion, if the bishop under whom is the individual approves such.  The statement is written within the preface of the Missal.

... which is a touchy-feely but ultimately meaningless gesture, as no Orthodox bishop worth his salt would approve an Orthodox member of his flock to commune in a heterodox church.  Wink
Depends on how you define heterodox.  Antiochians are permitted to commune in OO churches, so if you define OO as heterodox, then there is an instances of it there.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,981


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2013, 11:36:49 AM »

Depends on how you define heterodox.  Antiochians are permitted to commune in OO churches, so if you define OO as heterodox, then there is an instances of it there.

Oh no you di'int! 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,893



« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2013, 11:43:36 AM »



Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #21 on: August 28, 2013, 07:34:49 AM »

A. If you are baptised Orthodox then you are never baptized again. Even if you are ""baptised'' catholic or protestant, no. You just then repent.
B. Valid baptism is only in the Eastern Orthodox. If you are baptised in other churches you have to be baptised.
C. If you were Orthodox and changed and return no need. If you have been "chrismated'' by another church then yes.
D. Only in Eastern Orthodox is the Body and Blood of our Lord.
E. Yes we are different. There can only be One church.
F. Those born and raised heretics or non must search. Ii was not raised as Eastern Orthodox.
I answered most things here. Smiley
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
Regnare
Elder
*****
Online Online

Faith: Inquiring into Orthodoxy
Posts: 295



« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2013, 11:42:37 PM »

So a convert must be rechrismated? Because I've heard that many jurisdictions require only a profession of faith, which would imply that Catholic priests must be able to validly confer at least confirmation, if not the others (and why not the others, if confirmation?). As for baptism, I was always taught that any baptised Christian could baptise others with water and in the name of the Trinity (although obviously one would prefer a priest whenever possible), so any Trinitarian church's baptisms would be valid. Even I didn't know the thing about non-Christian emergency baptisms (and I can't imagine this ever happening).

And what's this about Antiochians being allowed to take communion in Oriental churches?
Logged

"To believe [the Paraclete] when you wish it, and then disbelieve him when you wish it, is to believe nobody but yourself." --St. Augustine, Contra Faustum XXXII.16
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,577



« Reply #23 on: September 05, 2013, 12:51:14 AM »

So a convert must be rechrismated?

In some jurisdictions, yes.

Because I've heard that many jurisdictions require only a profession of faith,

That is true of the Russians in Russia, I think, but most will chrismate, and some will baptize.

which would imply that Catholic priests must be able to validly confer at least confirmation, if not the others (and why not the others, if confirmation?).

That is not true, because of how sacramental economy works. The idea is that while the form of certain sacraments was conferred properly, they are still defective, lacking the grace of the Holy Spirit. These forms, being defective may be repeated upon one's reception into the Church without sacrilege (for they lack the grace of the Holy Spirit), but one also can be received without repeating these forms, and when one is received into the Church in this fashion, those forms are filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit. This is not ideal, but it is an acceptable circumstance.

As for baptism, I was always taught that any baptised Christian could baptise others with water and in the name of the Trinity (although obviously one would prefer a priest whenever possible), so any Trinitarian church's baptisms would be valid. Even I didn't know the thing about non-Christian emergency baptisms (and I can't imagine this ever happening).

In general, the Orthodox do not hold to this. Outside of the Church there can be a form which resembles baptism, but lacking the grace of the Holy Spirit, such forms are incomplete, and are not baptism proper.

And what's this about Antiochians being allowed to take communion in Oriental churches?

It is bad ecumenism which is disguised under the visage of a pastoral provision.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,893



« Reply #24 on: September 05, 2013, 08:05:51 AM »

And what's this about Antiochians being allowed to take communion in Oriental churches?

It is bad ecumenism which is disguised under the visage of a pastoral provision.

...or so say some.  Roll Eyes

Priests of the two may not concelebrate, but Antiochians may commune in OO parishes and OO may commune in Antiochian parishes. It is widely viewed in the Antiochian Church that the split resulting from the Council of Chalcedon was more due to a linguistic issue rather than a matter of doctrine, and many have begun to accept the miaphysite explanation as being consistent with, though worded differently than, the Chalcedonian explanation.

And now that I have opened the can of worms, I'm sure there will be furious debate.  laugh
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 08:06:29 AM by TheTrisagion » Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #25 on: September 05, 2013, 10:01:19 AM »

And what's this about Antiochians being allowed to take communion in Oriental churches?

It is bad ecumenism which is disguised under the visage of a pastoral provision.

...or so say some.  Roll Eyes

Priests of the two may not concelebrate, but Antiochians may commune in OO parishes and OO may commune in Antiochian parishes. It is widely viewed in the Antiochian Church that the split resulting from the Council of Chalcedon was more due to a linguistic issue rather than a matter of doctrine, and many have begun to accept the miaphysite explanation as being consistent with, though worded differently than, the Chalcedonian explanation.

And now that I have opened the can of worms, I'm sure there will be furious debate.  laugh

What did the Saint such as St John of Damascus and others, and also Oecumenical Councils said about the OO-non chalcedonians? I think it is more important than what the Antioch Patriarchate may think about them.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,893



« Reply #26 on: September 05, 2013, 10:18:40 AM »

And what's this about Antiochians being allowed to take communion in Oriental churches?

It is bad ecumenism which is disguised under the visage of a pastoral provision.

...or so say some.  Roll Eyes

Priests of the two may not concelebrate, but Antiochians may commune in OO parishes and OO may commune in Antiochian parishes. It is widely viewed in the Antiochian Church that the split resulting from the Council of Chalcedon was more due to a linguistic issue rather than a matter of doctrine, and many have begun to accept the miaphysite explanation as being consistent with, though worded differently than, the Chalcedonian explanation.

And now that I have opened the can of worms, I'm sure there will be furious debate.  laugh

What did the Saint such as St John of Damascus and others, and also Oecumenical Councils said about the OO-non chalcedonians? I think it is more important than what the Antioch Patriarchate may think about them.
You actually bring up an excellent example of what I was saying by mentioning St. John Damascus. He identifies all non-Chalcedonians as monophysites thereby demonstrating his confusion on what the non-Chalcedonians were indeed teaching.  The Oriental Orthodox Church has refuted monophysitism just as we Chalcedonians have.  I am not saying there are no differences and we can just pretend that we are all the exact same entity, but I am saying there is certainly room for expanded dialogue between the two parties and in many parts of the world, the difference between the two is just in name only.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,880



« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2013, 10:30:38 AM »

You're not going to get one answer on "validity" of sacraments outside of Orthodoxy. Some will deny "validity" as a useful category, as it comes from a legal framework (which we all know is Western anathema!). Some will admit sacramental grace in Roman Catholic or Oriental Miaphysite rituals. Some will say "we don't know". Some will say that there is no sacramental grace outside of the church. Some will say that you cannot divide grace into categories such as sacramental and charismatic, as grace is simply the presence of God, so this is Latin influence (anathema!). So basically, the best answer is blarg and blarg.
Logged
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2013, 10:39:20 AM »

And what's this about Antiochians being allowed to take communion in Oriental churches?

It is bad ecumenism which is disguised under the visage of a pastoral provision.

...or so say some.  Roll Eyes

Priests of the two may not concelebrate, but Antiochians may commune in OO parishes and OO may commune in Antiochian parishes. It is widely viewed in the Antiochian Church that the split resulting from the Council of Chalcedon was more due to a linguistic issue rather than a matter of doctrine, and many have begun to accept the miaphysite explanation as being consistent with, though worded differently than, the Chalcedonian explanation.

And now that I have opened the can of worms, I'm sure there will be furious debate.  laugh

What did the Saint such as St John of Damascus and others, and also Oecumenical Councils said about the OO-non chalcedonians? I think it is more important than what the Antioch Patriarchate may think about them.
You actually bring up an excellent example of what I was saying by mentioning St. John Damascus. He identifies all non-Chalcedonians as monophysites thereby demonstrating his confusion on what the non-Chalcedonians were indeed teaching.  The Oriental Orthodox Church has refuted monophysitism just as we Chalcedonians have.  I am not saying there are no differences and we can just pretend that we are all the exact same entity, but I am saying there is certainly room for expanded dialogue between the two parties and in many parts of the world, the difference between the two is just in name only.

Oh ok. But then what about Oecumenical Councils? Did they touch on the issue? What did the councils say about communion with them?
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,893



« Reply #29 on: September 05, 2013, 10:43:30 AM »

I am not aware of any ecumenical council decree that forbids communing a non-Chalcedonian. If you know of any, I would be interested in seeing it.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2013, 10:49:26 AM »

I am not aware of any ecumenical council decree that forbids communing a non-Chalcedonian. If you know of any, I would be interested in seeing it.

I do not, so i ask  Smiley But i thought Orthodoxinfo had good articles on the issue http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx

Like what do we have to think about it:

Quote
457: Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite "saint") condemns Saint Cyril on account of the agreements:

"Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ" [Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].

Severos also condemns St. Cyril's Agreements:

"The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril's" [Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXIX, Col. 103D. Saint Anastasios of Sinai preserves this quote of Severos in his works; quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12].
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_history.aspx
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 10:52:26 AM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,880



« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2013, 11:12:40 AM »

I am not aware of any ecumenical council decree that forbids communing a non-Chalcedonian. If you know of any, I would be interested in seeing it.

I am not aware of any ecumenical council decree that forbids communing a Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, etc.
Logged
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2013, 11:22:09 AM »

I am not aware of any ecumenical council decree that forbids communing a non-Chalcedonian. If you know of any, I would be interested in seeing it.

I am not aware of any ecumenical council decree that forbids communing a Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, etc.

If an oecumenical Council declares some people to be heretics and contains or ratifies canons that forbid communion with heretics, it would forbid it. But i'm asking because i dont know about it. When you see even the rule for prayers with heretics....

http://www.oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/ou_dei.htm
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 11:23:31 AM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,981


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2013, 12:00:50 PM »

I am not aware of any ecumenical council decree that forbids communing a non-Chalcedonian.

Neither do I, considering the Orthodox Church recognises only three. 

(Trisagion, even without my comment, you walked right into that one.  Tongue)
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2013, 12:31:20 PM »

Go to the private section with your ping-pong.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,893



« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2013, 12:55:43 PM »

I am not aware of any ecumenical council decree that forbids communing a non-Chalcedonian.

Neither do I, considering the Orthodox Church recognises only three. 

(Trisagion, even without my comment, you walked right into that one.  Tongue)

Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Tags: sacraments  Baptism  indelible 
Pages: 1   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 0.156 seconds with 65 queries.