 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Gloria Mundi
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 43 |
| First Name: | Gloria Mundi | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | RC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 10:38 am |
|
Does the Orthodox Church consider conversion to the Roman Catholic Church invalid ? If so, what is the difference between being received into the Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic Church ?.
Thanks
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 08:40 pm |
|
Gloria Mundi wrote: Does the Orthodox Church consider conversion to the Roman Catholic Church invalid ? If so, what is the difference between being received into the Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic Church ?.
Catholics recognize all Orthodox sacraments, including the indelible ones (those that can be received only once). When a member of an Orthodox faith is accepted into the Catholic Church, only a profession of faith is required. No sacraments are repeated.
It is my understanding (and I may well be wrong) that Catholic indelible sacraments such as Confirmation and Holy Orders are not recognized by the Orthodox so a Catholic who joins the Orthodox faith is confirmed again, and a Catholic deacon or priest who wishes to exercise his ministry in an Orthodox Church is ordained again. The Orthodox recognize "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" so Catholics (and most Protestants, for that matter) are not baptized again.
It is a good question, and I hope one of our Orthodox brothers or sisters can either confirm or correct what I posted.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Gloria Mundi
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 43 |
| First Name: | Gloria Mundi | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | RC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31st, 2008 01:40 pm |
|
Thank you Rick, you explained that really well, even though I asked the question in a muddled kind of way.
A little while back a member logged in on this forum who was a former member of the Orthodox Church and he gave a long explanation of why he converted to Catholocism. I meant to save his post so that I can digest it when I had a bit more time, but now I can't find it. Perhaps you can help Rick.
Again, many thanks for your reply.
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 101 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 09:45 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: Gloria Mundi wrote: Does the Orthodox Church consider conversion to the Roman Catholic Church invalid ? If so, what is the difference between being received into the Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic Church ?.
Catholics recognize all Orthodox sacraments, including the indelible ones (those that can be received only once). When a member of an Orthodox faith is accepted into the Catholic Church, only a profession of faith is required. No sacraments are repeated.
It is my understanding (and I may well be wrong) that Catholic indelible sacraments such as Confirmation and Holy Orders are not recognized by the Orthodox so a Catholic who joins the Orthodox faith is confirmed again, and a Catholic deacon or priest who wishes to exercise his ministry in an Orthodox Church is ordained again. The Orthodox recognize "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" so Catholics (and most Protestants, for that matter) are not baptized again.
It is a good question, and I hope one of our Orthodox brothers or sisters can either confirm or correct what I posted.
I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to add to this, particularly about the re-ordination issue. As far as I know, there is no official stance from the Church on this issue. So depending on what jurisdiction you go to, and what part of the world you're in, you'd get a different response from different Bishops. I know there are Catholic priests who have been received into the Orthodox Church by a simple profession of faith, not re-ordained, not re-confirmed (well maybe re-confirmed, I can't remember)....a monk once known as "a monk of the eastern Church" was a Catholic priest in 1920's France, but became Orthodox and was accepted simply by a profession of faith by the local Bishop. OTH some Orthodox might require reordination. And even if they did, likely it would happen rather quickly, and a Catholic priest wouldn't be required to wait years or anything like that.
It is also true about the Chrismation thing for laymen, but it's not so much that we don't recognize the Catholic Sacrament as valid, it's sort of a "just in case something was missing" mindset. Not that there is much practical difference.
But as far as priests go, there have been cases where priests were accepted simply by profession, other times not, it really does depend on who the Bishop is, and what jurisdiction/national Church it's happening in.
Yes sadly, Orthodoxy is that disorganized at times...so when someone says, "I don't care for organized religion" I can say, "I'm not part of an organized religion, I'm Eastern Orthodox." 
|
|
|
ChildofGod
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Evangelical Christian |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 10:16 pm |
|
Northstar,
I noticed from your profile that you were once Roman Catholic. Why is it that you are now EO? If this question is inappropriate, or too personal, or something you wish not to discuss, I will understand.
I've read up on various beliefs within EO and one I find especially inspirational is that of theosis. There is very little in Protestantism that even comes close to this beautiful idea of our very natures being transformed into the likeness of Christ. I know that John Wesley had similar beliefs and recognized the truth in this teaching. However, the trend in Protestantism today is steering away from the deep mysteries of Christ and learning how suffering and offering one's total self everyday to our Lord transforms us into His image.
Darlene
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 553 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 11:26 pm |
|
Northstar wrote:
It is also true about the Chrismation thing for laymen, but it's not so much that we don't recognize the Catholic Sacrament as valid, it's sort of a "just in case something was missing" mindset. Not that there is much practical difference.
It is a question of obedience to the bishop. Baptism is required occassionally, which is a sad thing. However, even if one comes from the Latin Rite to an Eastern Rite, one must receive Chrismation upon change of Rites.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2101 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 11:57 pm |
|
NorthStar wrote:It's not so much that we don't recognize the Catholic Sacrament as valid, it's sort of a "just in case something was missing" mindset.
In the Catholic Church, this would be a “conditional” conferring of a sacrament. It most often occurs in the case of a doubtful baptism: “If you are not baptized, I baptize you.…” Is this the way it is conferred, or is this the intent, in the Orthodox Churches?
ChildofGod wrote:I've read up on various beliefs within EO and one I find especially inspirational is that of theosis.
Don’t forget, Darlene, that in the Latin Church theosis is known as divinization, and as a doctrine it is alive and well there, too. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church §398, 1589, 1988, 2670.
Pani Rose wrote:It is a question of obedience to the bishop. Baptism is required occasionally, which is a sad thing.
Indeed. But is obedience to the bishop equated with invalidity of the other rite or Church? Or is this equivalent to a “conditional” baptism?
Even if one comes from the Latin Rite to an Eastern Rite, one must receive Chrismation upon change of Rites.
This is curious. Since Confirmation/Chrismation is a “once only” sacrament, how is the requirement explained?
David
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 553 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 12:33 am |
|
Ok, I explained it wrong. I checked with my husband. He said that that is not in effect anymore in the Churchs that are in Communion with Rome. Thanks be to God!
He says there is an agreement now between the Churches that this no longer takes place. However, depending on the Orthodox Church - some do still Chrismate to be in obedience to a particular bishop. Once the three sacraments of initiation are received this should not be done again, is not suppose to happen. But, sadly enough, it does. For instance, at least one family here, when they went from the Eastern Rite of their family to the OCA - they were Chrismated again, and even changed their childrens names. 
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2101 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 12:47 am |
|
For instance, at least one family here, when they went from the Eastern Rite of their family to the OCA — they were Chrismated again, and even changed their childrens names.
I guess for me the question remains: Is this a conditional chrismation, or is it an outright denial of the validity of the sacraments in the Catholic Church? Or is it just a silly rule? — “We don’t care where you come from or what they believe or practice there. This is the way we do things.”
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 01:20 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote: For instance, at least one family here, when they went from the Eastern Rite of their family to the OCA — they were Chrismated again, and even changed their childrens names.
I guess for me the question remains: Is this a conditional chrismation, or is it an outright denial of the validity of the sacraments in the Catholic Church? Or is it just a silly rule? — “We don’t care where you come from or what they believe or practice there. This is the way we do things.”
In the case of some Orthodox, I believe the issue is the separation of the sacraments of initiation. I don't think they consider the Latin Rite sacrament of confirmation valid unless it is administered along with baptism and Eucharist, in the Eastern fashion.
Of course, part of the problem with the Orthodox is that there is no standard practice as their is in the western Church (and the Eastern Catholic Churches). Since there is no central authority, there is some divergence of both discipline and doctrine in matters such as validity of sacraments.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 553 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 01:27 am |
|
Right! So it becomes a territorial issue, as we are seeing over in Eastern Europe at the present time. Each one has it's own Patriarcate independent of the other. However, like Rome and the Eastern Churches, they are working together in many ways. Eventually Rome and the Orthodox will work it all out and become one in agreement - in that they will agree on more than they disagree on.
Last edited on Wed Aug 13th, 2008 01:29 am by Pani Rose
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2101 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 02:17 am |
|
Thanks Rick and Rose. It sounds like you are both opting for the third choice: the autocratic “silly rule” syndrome — as you say, a “territorial rivalry.” This the one I thought might be the correct answer, because the others are not satisfying. Let us pray that sanity will eventually prevail so that issues such as this can be resolved amicably.
David
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 553 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 03:32 am |
|
As a side thought, if you are passing a Catholic or Orthodox Church, bless yourself - Jesus is present!
|
|
|
cyanheaven
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 71 |
| First Name: | Callie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist/ Bapticostal/ Baptist/ "BaptoCatholic" |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 04:14 am |
|
*smiles
Amen.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 810 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 06:52 am |
|
If a Catholic was not able to attend mass because they were in a country where no Catholic Church was available, going to an Orthodox Church (while maybe a good idea and you are recommended to at least read the readings or payers of the day etc) even though they have valid sacraments and Apostolic succession still does not fulfill your obligation, as the obligation is to attend a Catholic Church, and if this is impossible than there is no obligation as God will not ask of us what is impossible or unreasonable. Therefore going to the Orthodox Church is good for you in some way, but not an official substitute for the Holy Day attendance.
Now at the same time, Catholics are allowed (from our side, though maybe not offered by the Orthodox) to receive the Eucharist (or penance or anointing) from Orthodox priests if it is impossible to do so from a Catholic priest and certain conditions apply. Well I will quote the canon below so as not to misquote it.
It gives conditions, but they are lossely defined. What exactly is 'necessity'? It does not say, how long you were away or if your health were in trouble like it does in other cases I am thinking of. It does not say when necessity would require. Would it be if you lived in such a place and could never get to a Catholic Church and needed to receive the Eucharist? Would it be any given week a person's travel or some situation took him or her away from where there were Catholic Churches around?
Anyway, I wondered if it was odd that going would not fulfill your Holy Day obligation, yet you could be encouraged to seek receiving comunion if it were offered to you (though it may not likely be offered as the Orthodox are more strict about instances of sharing communion with non-Orthodox). Seems funny that you could be encouraged to receive Communion without fulfilling the obligation to attend a service for the purpose of praying the liturgy and or receiving communion.
Anyway, I do not want to be critical, just that it is interesting. But I think it makes sense. In one instance the fact is that our obligation as Catholics is to worship with our Church on feast days and there is no substitute for this. Yet in charity we also allow our faithful to receive Communion (or penance, and anointing) from the Orthodox if the need were desperate and there was no other way as it is cruel to suggest such a person have no access to the sacraments if they were readily available in some way even if from a non-Catholic source.
Not sure why I brought this up. Maybe because the subject is similar and I recently learned this information. I am glad to hear I will not need to be re-confirmed/chrismated as I am in process of becoming a Byzantine Catholic and that seemed a little off to me. But I have commonly heard that the Orthodox do Chrismate those who convert from Catholicism. I do not know if they come out and openly say that they consider our sacraments invalid, but they do not say that outr sacraments hey are valid as we say of theirs; and they do consider us to be still be theologically astray, So I would lean toward saying that most Orthodox think that Chrismating a new member is a must regardless of where they come from as they do see a difference in the certainty of the validity of sacraments i.e. they know that their's are valid but do not have full confidence or belief that ours are, other than baptism. Of course, as North Star pointed out, maybe some places would differ, but I think that what I am saying is also typical. Though not being Orthodox I can not say with certainty either, but I think some tradtional Orthodox even do argue for baptizing converts as well I am finding out through reading.
"Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests,
and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided,
it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally
impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments
of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers
in whose churches these sacraments are valid" (CIC 844:2) |
Last edited on Wed Aug 13th, 2008 07:38 am by brian
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 101 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 03:18 pm |
|
ChildofGod wrote: Northstar,
I noticed from your profile that you were once Roman Catholic. Why is it that you are now EO? If this question is inappropriate, or too personal, or something you wish not to discuss, I will understand.
No, it's not too personal. I was once Roman Catholic essentially in name only. I was baptized as an infant, due to a promise my mother made to her dying aunt that she would baptize her first born. (of course I ended being an only child) Her aunt was VERY devout, but my mom had grown angry at the Church and stopped going (but never converted to anything else). So I was baptized, but never raised in the Church. My parents decided to let me choose what religion I wanted to be a part of, but because my dad is anti all Churches, I literally never set foot in a Church until I was 18 yrs old for a wedding. When I was 19 I began to read the bible, and study more about Christianity, and had a friend who was moderate Evangelical and I eventually had a born again or Damascus type experience. (which I now prefer to call it) Went through lots of different Protestant denominations/beliefs (pretty much all the flavors of the day) until I was 25 or 26, when i first heard of something called the Orthodox Church (actually Coptic Church) and began reading the early Church fathers. I was shocked to find the earliest Christians believed in the Real Presence, Apostolic Succession, prayers for the dead had icons, prayed to the saints, etc... Why had the protestants kept all this a secret I wondered. I read a lot of "journey home" type literature and books as well.
I was heavy into radical Christian Zionism and "support Israel or die" kind of a mindset by that time, (I was a John Hagee supporter so...LOL!) so the historic teaching on the end times was probably the hardest for me to overcome and accept. I basically despised anything Liturgical, and thought that the Orthodox "were worse than the Catholics"....but over time God changed my heart. Eventually I found a Church who had a great priest, and eventually was chrismated/confirmed and received my first Communion. My mom came (but my dad did not, he wasn't angry he's just indifferent to religion in general but does believe in God, so he's not an atheist or anything, and I would consider him a Christian in a general sense. My mom actually still comes to my Church ocassionally and I think it makes her feel "at home" because she hated what happened to the Church after Vatican II. Alot of the Churches where she lived then were all "white washed" and she still talks about that ocassionally. (that's not why she left the Church though, that was for other personal reasons)
That's the basic story, long story short type of thing... but I couldn't fit that into just a few words in my profile.
before someone asks, what about Rome? Well I DID read up on Roman primacy, and pretty much saw the Orthodox understanding, but more than that there were a few definitions of dogmas in the West that I didn't think could be found in the early fathers. Not that it couldn't be deduced from them, but one would have to accept the development of Dogma doctrine in it's western form, and I adhered to the Orthodox understanding. In all honesty I probably didn't delve deep enough into the Catholic Church at the time, but all in retrospect. Besides the priest we had was a simply a holy man, filled with the Spirit of Love and compassion and the Liturgy, the worship of the Church is what "completed" my conversion as it were. No amount of reading or studying would have changed me to the extant that the Divine Liturgy did, and any lingering doubts I had about "Liturgical Churches" melted away at my first Paschal service.
It seemed very much like the early Church where the worship spoke for the faith.
Hope that's not too long....and it certainly doesn't mean I don't have my doubts, (one of my weaknesses) and it doesn't mean ALL Orthodox Churches or priests are like this. Sadly, since that priest died (he was only 48), I've come to see Orthodoxy is just as screwed up as anything else....but I wouldn't trade those 2 years under his guidance and as our Liturgist for anything...(and I've literally thought about it as if I could go back and change things)....I wouldn't, I can honestly say.
Hope that helps, and I should have just PMd this, but figured other people might be wondering the same thing.
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 101 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 03:30 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: NorthStar wrote:It's not so much that we don't recognize the Catholic Sacrament as valid, it's sort of a "just in case something was missing" mindset.
In the Catholic Church, this would be a “conditional” conferring of a sacrament. It most often occurs in the case of a doubtful baptism: “If you are not baptized, I baptize you.…” Is this the way it is conferred, or is this the intent, in the Orthodox Churches?
It depends on who you ask...LOL! But for the most part yes that is exactly how it is looked upon. Especially the Greeks see it that way. The Russians, well..... Some Russian Orthodox might come right out and say a Roman Sacrament definitely is NOT valid...but they are about the most anti-western of all the Orthodox. They even condemn (in word not literally in deed) other Orthodox for accepting Roman baptism. Strangely the saints they revere the most, like St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Theophan, and even the 20th century St. John of Shanghai and San Franscisco were not in any way anti-western or anti Roman.
In the Coptic Church (Oriental Orthodox) they will rebaptize Catholics who convert, but NOT because they see the Sacrament as invalid at all. They simply do it for the sake of preserving their ancient rite and for the sake of unity within their rite,(this is how we do, we're not saying they're doing it wrong, but this is how we do it) but they totally and completely accept Catholic Sacraments, and have said so in many Papal writings. (Their Patriarch is called Pope as well) That's basically how most Orthodox see it, but ask 1 question in a room with 3 bishops, you'll get about 100 different opinions.
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 101 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 03:39 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: Thanks Rick and Rose. It sounds like you are both opting for the third choice: the autocratic “silly rule” syndrome — as you say, a “territorial rivalry.” This the one I thought might be the correct answer, because the others are not satisfying. Let us pray that sanity will eventually prevail so that issues such as this can be resolved amicably.
David
Yeah, it pretty much is a silly rule! However it is in part because while the Church might officially say Roman Sacraments are valid, I guarantee you most Orthodox do NOT agree with that. It is indeed sad. I will defend the Coptic Church however on the "silly rule" issue, in that for that specific Church, remember they are a 10-15% Christian minority in a Muslim country, and so they are pretty protective of their rite for fear of losing it. However if you ever get a chance, go to a Coptic Church....if there was one Church I'd suggest a Catholic go to, it would an a Coptic Church. The people are VERY friendly, open and loving, and the Coptic Church has a great relationship with the See of Rome. Much better than the Greeks and Russian Churches have with each other, that's for sure.
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 101 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 03:58 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote:
Of course, part of the problem with the Orthodox is that there is no standard practice as their is in the western Church (and the Eastern Catholic Churches). Since there is no central authority, there is some divergence of both discipline and doctrine in matters such as validity of sacraments.
Well, as most Orthodox would argue, this IS how it was done in the ancient Church. So the Orthodox would say we're adhering to a more ancient form of Christianity. And technically they'd be right. I don't just mean the various rites both east and west, but the semi-chaotic way the Church existed. Look at St. Cyprian of Carthage how adamant he was about re-baptizing "heretics", yet other Churches didn't require it. (that's just one minor example of dozens) So the Orthodox are following the more ancient pattern and thus are "correct"...or so they'd say....BUT, with that said....let me throw in my 2 cents as an Orthodox Christian; there is something to be said for unity and a central authority. Just because the ancient Church did something one way, doesn't make it the right way. At one time the ancient Church was 98% Arian so...LOL! The ancient Church was also Iconoclastic, at least in Byzantium, so.....
However just because the Church was semi-chaotic in 250AD, or 451AD, doesn't mean it's the BEST way to do things in 2008AD. This is one issue I'm dealing with right now out of practical circumstances that I won't go into, but just because a central authority may have "evolved" over time, doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as the Church grew larger, certain things were needed practically speaking that weren't in the 4th century.
Oddly enough, the Oriental Orthodox (the Coptic, Syriac, Indian, Armenian, Ethiopian and Eritrean) Churches don't have nearly the chaos that the EO have, and they have the most diverse rites from one another that you could ever imagine. So yeah, it's a territorial, ethnic, and political thing, and so I am seeing more and more why an absolute central authority is needed, from a practical perspective.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 07:30 pm |
|
NorthStar wrote: there is something to be said for unity and a central authority.
Keep in mind also that all of the Orthodox Churches have Catholic counterparts that follow the same basic doctrine and liturgy, but maintaining full union with Rome and without the chaos of doctrine, discipline and practice that exists within the Orthodox community. One Church (I believe it's the Maronites) have maintained complete union with Rome; there is no Orthodox counterpart.
There are some minor differences in governance. For example, there is no Russian Catholic Church out of deference to the Russian Orthodox, and there is no Ukrainian Orthodox Church to match their Catholic counterpart, but since both are liturgically and doctrinally Byzantine, that's more a matter of governance than real difference, and that seems to me to be the major "sticking point" preventing reunion at this time. And of course, through the OCA, the Russian Orthodox patriarch claims the Americas as his territory.
The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church has, to this point, refused to even meet with the pope, although both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have expressed their desire to meet with him, and even to travel to Moscow to do it. After many years of living under Communist domination, John Paul II helped to reestablish the Russian Orthodox faith, and his failure to visit Moscow and greet his brother patriarch on his own soil was something he considered his greatest disappointment.
So unity is possible while maintaining the traditions of the various Churches and rites, as the Eastern Catholic Churches prove. The primary stumbling block at this point would have to be the Patriarch of Russia. And Moscow isn't even an apostolic see!
(I am not an expert on the structures of either the Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Churches so if I said anything that is incorrect, someone please correct me!)
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 101 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 08:18 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: NorthStar wrote: there is something to be said for unity and a central authority.
Keep in mind also that all of the Orthodox Churches have Catholic counterparts that follow the same basic doctrine and liturgy, but maintaining full union with Rome and without the chaos of doctrine, discipline and practice that exists within the Orthodox community. One Church (I believe it's the Maronites) have maintained complete union with Rome; there is no Orthodox counterpart.
I've been meaning to read more about the Maronite rite. Partly because I heard Fr. Mitch Pacwa talk about it a lot, and I really like him as a teacher and historian.
One thing I wouldn't say is that we (Orthodox) have chaos of doctrine. We're just as unified as the West is I believe, (ok maybe not THAT unified but) however we don't feel the need to dogmatically define every thing that comes up. Most Orthodox (at least before 1900) totally accepted the Immaculate Conception, but when it was dogmatically defined in the 1950's (I think that's when it was) by Rome, the Orthodox took a stand against it. Silly I know, but we see something like the IC as part of the inner faith of the Church, reserved and understood and believed by those who are part of the organic structure of Orthodoxy, and not as a dogma that one must believe to be Orthodox. The same goes with Toll Houses (which I do not accept) and some other doctrines. You're free to believe or disbelieve it....with toll houses it's uniquely a "Russian" doctrine, but the IC is pretty much accepted by all Orthodox, even if they refuse to call it that. BTW I started out as not accepting the IC but do now. So once someone really partakes of Church life alot of these doctrines end up being believed anyway. So I wouldn't say we have chaos in doctrine, but certainly in practical things, yes indeed, there is. It's an oxymoron to say the least.
The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church has, to this point, refused to even meet with the pope, although both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have expressed their desire to meet with him, and even to travel to Moscow to do it. After many years of living under Communist domination, John Paul II helped to reestablish the Russian Orthodox faith, and his failure to visit Moscow and greet his brother patriarch on his own soil was something he considered his greatest disappointment.
I just came from a website that had a picture from the feast of St. Peter and Paul this year with Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew standing inside St. Peter's in Rome listening to the Gospel being chanted....it made me want to cry, because alot of it is just plain stubborness and pride that keep us seperated. I'm only speaking from the Orthodox POV of course. I think it's a crime and a scandal that the Russian Patriarch will not meet with the Pope...some Orthodox think it has to do with the whole "3rd Rome" theory most Russians adhere to. I do not know if that's it or not, but I think it's unacceptable.
So unity is possible while maintaining the traditions of the various Churches and rites, as the Eastern Catholic Churches prove. The primary stumbling block at this point would have to be the Patriarch of Russia. And Moscow isn't even an apostolic see!
Hence the 3rd Rome theory! (the idea that Rome fell, then Byzantium became Rome, then Byzantium fell, and Russia became the third Rome, ie: the center of the Christian world).
Yes unity is posisble without losing our rites, traditions and eastern theology, but some Orthodox aren't quite there yet. I continue to pray for it.
Chuck
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2101 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 02:02 am |
|
For Brian: We need to make some distinctions to make sense of the various provisions of canon law.
Yes, the Catholic Church officially recognizes the Orthodox Divine Liturgy as a valid Eucharistic celebration and the Eucharist there confected as true Eucharist. And it likewise recognizes the validity of the priesthood and the other sacraments within the Orthodox Churches. However, the Catholic Church does not recognize the liceity (legality) of the Orthodox sacraments because those bodies are not in union with the Catholic Church. Therefore, it cannot recommend the Orthodox Divine Liturgy or their sacraments as an “official substitute” for Catholics.
The validity is the reason why it is allowable for Catholics to receive the Orthodox sacraments when they are prevented from receiving Catholic sacraments. But the lack of liceity is the reason Catholics are not to regard attendance at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy as equal to attendance at a Catholic Mass or Divine Liturgy. The result of the latter is that attendance at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy does not fulfill a Catholic’s obligation regarding the observance of Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation.
This does not prevent one from passively attending the Orthodox services, provided that one’s obligation is otherwise fulfilled or dispensed. In the case of a Catholic who is prevented from attending a Catholic Mass or Divine Liturgy, he is dispensed from that obligation, so there is never a need for him to attend a non-Catholic service.
David
|
|
| | |
