A stranger asks for the Catholic Church

[Isaiah45_9]

I can’t speak for the EO (they are much more uniform than we are, in this regard), but that is not the case in the OO communion. The liturgies are very different. IIRC, the Ethiopians and Eritreans have 14 anaphoras. The Copts have three. I don’t know about the Armenians or Syriacs. The most common liturgy celebrated by the Syriac Orthodox is that of St. James, the oldest extant liturgy still in use (rooted in the original church of Jerusalem; because of this, it is often called “The Liturgy of St. James, the Brother of Our Lord”). We don’t usually refer to them as “rites” (unless it’s more Copts adopting RC terminology we don’t really understand like the RCs do, which unfortunately does happen, leading to a lot of confusion between some in your communion and mine), but there are certainly different liturgies, and differing usages of the same liturgy, in our churches.

Coptic Orthodox liturgy of St. Basil: youtube.com/watch?v=IV6k-I2JBg0
Syriac Orthodox qurbono of St. James, as prayed by the Malankara Orthodox Church (Indian Syriac Orthodox): youtube.com/watch?v=2R7CDzKG5E8 (note how the church is “St. Mary’s Orthodox Church”, with no ethnic identifier. )
Syriac Orthodox qurbono of St. James, as prayed by the Syriac Orthodox (Middle Eastern): youtube.com/watch?v=FnXcKYNOsAw
Armenian Apostolic Badarak for Easter: youtube.com/watch?v=4wMlKVWYyak
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Kidase: youtube.com/watch?v=AlHVnDUewgU
Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Kidase (basically the same as above, but this clip happens to be from Good Friday; the Eritreans only attained autocephaly in 1993, after they won their civil war against Ethiopia): youtube.com/watch?v=4Fqll6DpUFE

Thanks for the links!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thank you .Agree it is language from Peter and Exodus 19 I think. Disagree on the two priesthoods,or the purpose for them.Ignatius says nothing of this ministerial priesthood doing something differently in the Holy of holies.Ignatius more than anyone mentions presbyters/bishops and their role, but implies here we all have equal access to the priestly throne, the whole church has access, both your classes of priest. That is what Ignatius, like Peter and Exodus, says.

If we look at the whole of Scriptures, we can see different orders in Church Government.

We (those that are not ordained) are the laity. We are known as “saints” Romans 1:7). And yes, we are also a priesthood. We can look at a little more in 1st Peter here: 1 Peter 2:4-10. Where priesthood is mentioned twice. So yes we are a priesthood. But when we look at the rest of Scriptures, we see that there are orders in this priesthood.

We see the Deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and in Acts 6:3. So we see different responsibilities between the Deacons and the rest of the laity. However, the Deacons are still part of the laity because they come from them. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Deacons.

We see the Presbyters/Elders (Priests) in 1 Timothy 5:17, in Acts 14:23 and in Titus 1:5. This is not the same Levite Priesthood. This is a Priesthood under our High Priest - Jesus Christ. These Priests are charged to preaching and teaching, as indicated in 1 Tim 5:17 above. However, the Priests also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Priests. Or that the Deacons have the same responsibility as the Priest.

You see where this is going. Let’s continue.

We also see the Bishops (Overseers and also Elders at times) in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 and in Titus 1:7-9. The Bishops “oversee” the laity and the ordained (Deacons and Priests) in an assigned area. When we look at the Church’s 1st Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15, specifically verse 6 - we see that the non-ordained laity was not there to determine the Church’s direction - it was “The Apostles and the Elders”. The leadership of the Church. However, the Bishops also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibilities as the Bishops. Or that the Deacons and the Priests have the same responsibility as the Bishop.

And this order has been carried out since our Lord established His Church with the Apostles and the Apostles then established more of His Churches throughout the world.

When we read the Church Fathers this is incredibly clear and irrevocable.

So just because we are part of the priesthood - it does not mean that we have the same calling and responsibility of those who are ordained.

 

[steve_b]

I don’t think harshness is really an issue here. I myself don’t take a very positive view of people leaving Catholicism …

is it because of # 846 ?
P:

and, for that matter, I don’t expect Eastern Orthodox to take a very positive view of people leaving Eastern Orthodoxy (or Oriental Orthodox to take a very positive view of people leaving Oriental Orthodoxy).

yet whole Churches as you know, left Orthodoxy and returned to full communion with the Catholic Church catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0246.html

 

[pocohombre]

A priest is not a bishop, but a bishop besides being a bishop is also a priest.
either way, both positions (ministerial priest, or bishop) are different positions than the priesthood of believers.

It all depends what time period we are talking about. Many have agreed, even here, that at the very beginning bishop and presbyter were interchangeable, as in Pauline epistles. Later on, when am not sure, bishop became more than priest. Agreed a priest /presbyter is not same as lay preisthood. The lay priesthood has context of OT priest .The word is heirus, as opposed to “elder’/bishop”. The ministerial priesthood is no longer for "sacrifice, but more for teaching and shepherding,presiding at meetings for order sake. A christian does not need an intermediary any more as in OT, hence we are priests in our own rite. But yes we need teachers,shepherds,and many other giftings in the body(prophets,apostles,healers etc)

 

[pocohombre]

If we look at the whole of Scriptures, we can see different orders in Church Government.
We (those that are not ordained) are the laity. We are known as “saints” Romans 1:7). And yes, we are also a priesthood. We can look at a little more in 1st Peter here: 1 Peter 2:4-10. Where priesthood is mentioned twice. So yes we are a priesthood. But when we look at the rest of Scriptures, we see that there are orders in this priesthood.
We see the Deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and in Acts 6:3. So we see different responsibilities between the Deacons and the rest of the laity. However, the Deacons are still part of the laity because they come from them. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Deacons.
We see the Presbyters/Elders (Priests) in 1 Timothy 5:17, in Acts 14:23 and in Titus 1:5. This is not the same Levite Priesthood. This is a Priesthood under our High Priest - Jesus Christ. These Priests are charged to preaching and teaching, as indicated in 1 Tim 5:17 above. However, the Priests also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Priests. Or that the Deacons have the same responsibility as the Priest.
You see where this is going. Let’s continue.
We also see the Bishops (Overseers and also Elders at times) in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 and in Titus 1:7-9. The Bishops “oversee” the laity and the ordained (Deacons and Priests) in an assigned area. When we look at the Church’s 1st Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15, specifically verse 6 - we see that the non-ordained laity was not there to determine the Church’s direction - it was “The Apostles and the Elders”. The leadership of the Church. However, the Bishops also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibilities as the Bishops. Or that the Deacons and the Priests have the same responsibility as the Bishop.
And this order has been carried out since our Lord established His Church with the Apostles and the Apostles then established more of His Churches throughout the world.
When we read the Church Fathers this is incredibly clear and irrevocable.
So just because we are part of the priesthood - it does not mean that we have the same calling and responsibility of those who are ordained.

Agree with all pretty much. I would add that of course when we ordain, lay hands, commission, it is to the Lord as scripture says, or to the High Priest as you say. Ignatius says ,and scripture, that we are all under and commisioned to the High Priest, as the Royal Prieshood. CC, Orthodox and Protestants have deacons elders , priests/presbyters, and even bishops/overseers of “an area”, pretty much as per your good outline. Thanks.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by P
and, for that matter, I don’t expect Eastern Orthodox to take a very positive view of people leaving Eastern Orthodoxy (or Oriental Orthodox to take a very positive view of people leaving Oriental Orthodoxy).

Ah yes, that reminds me that I owe you an example to show that it has gone both ways.

For whatever reason, the example that springs to mind is the Coonan Cross Oath, which led to the formation of the Malankara Orthodox Church by former Catholics. (I won’t try to give the details, since these kinds of events are always pretty sensitive matters and I’d be afraid of misstating something.)

 

[steve_b]

It all depends what time period we are talking about. Many have agreed, even here, that at the very beginning bishop and presbyter were interchangeable, as in Pauline epistles. Later on, when am not sure, bishop became more than priest.

Bishop priest and deacon were all positions from the beginning
catholic.com/tracts/bishop-priest-and-deacon
p:

Agreed a priest /presbyter is not same as lay preisthood. The lay priesthood has context of OT priest .The word is heirus, as opposed to “elder’/bishop”. The ministerial priesthood is no longer for "sacrifice, but more for teaching and shepherding,presiding at meetings for order sake.

That’s incorrect.

The ministerial priesthood still offers the once for all sacrifice.
catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass
p:

A christian does not need an intermediary any more as in OT, hence we are priests in our own rite. But yes we need teachers,shepherds,and many other giftings in the body(prophets,apostles,healers etc)

Consider the following. No Protestant no matter the stripe can fulfill the following as a Protestant. It requires a validly ordained priest.

deliberately missing mass on the “day” ie, Sunday, brings horrendous consequences down on the individual soul

Heb 10: (all emphasis mine)
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. 26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27* but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. 28* A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29* How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Notice

• deliberately missing mass on Sunday, is already a very serious sin worthy of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries
• because there is no sacrifice for sins as a result of one deliberately missing mass.
• It is a profaning of the blood of the covenant for deliberately missing mass
• It spurns the son of God and outrages the spirit of grace for deliberately missing mass

Now I’m sure you’re asking yourself, why does missing mass do all that?

• the sacrifice for sin and blood of the covenant refers to the Eucharist. The summit of our faith.
• [Matthew 26:26-28 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Matthew Chapter 26).This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.Jesus the son of God said those words instituting the Eucharist the night before He died.*. *Jesus further describes the importance of the Eucharist for the soul.
• Jn 6:53 unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you*. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day*. Life of the soul is grace in the Eucharist*.*

Therefore, the one who deliberately misses the Eucharist on Sunday, after being given the knowledge of truth, says in effect to Jesus, I’m interested in other things more than receiving you.

so for them, to recap

• no sacrifice for sin is left for THEM.
• they profane the blood of the covenant
• they spurn the son of God & outrage the spirit of grace
• judgment awaits them

Yeah, all that for deliberately missing mass on Sunday!!!

I didn’t make that up poco. It’s right from scripture.

the consequences for deliberately missing mass i.e. the Eucharist, on Sunday, describes committing a mortal sin. One who dies in mortal sin won’t be going to heaven

 

[steve_b]

Ah yes, that reminds me that I owe you an example to show that it has gone both ways.

For whatever reason, the example that springs to mind is the Coonan Cross Oath, which led to the formation of the Malankara Orthodox Church by former Catholics. (I won’t try to give the details, since these kinds of events are always pretty sensitive matters and I’d be afraid of misstating something.)

I looked them up. malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=363&Itemid=473

The word Catholicos that they use, is not Catholic as we are using it. newadvent.org/cathen/03454a.htm

They claim to be founded by Thomas the apostle in 52 a.d… But where is their early history? malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=122&Itemid=150

 

[steve_b]

Ah yes, that reminds me that I owe you an example to show that it has gone both ways.

For whatever reason, the example that springs to mind is the Coonan Cross Oath, which led to the formation of the Malankara Orthodox Church by former Catholics. (I won’t try to give the details, since these kinds of events are always pretty sensitive matters and I’d be afraid of misstating something.)

I looked them up. malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/ I see what you mean about trying to give details…seems like there are big gaps in their timeline

It looks like they embraced Nestorianism in their timeline and have remained that way. They observe the 1st 3 Councils only, It also looks like this church had its own internal schisms particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries. 1/2 of them broke off from the Malankara in the 17th century, and united with Rome, becoming Chaldean rite. …is that how you read it? Am I understanding this correctly about the Malankara being Nestorian

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Agree with all pretty much. I would add that of course when we ordain, lay hands, commission, it is to the Lord as scripture says, or to the High Priest as you say. Ignatius says ,and scripture, that we are all under and commisioned to the High Priest, as the Royal Prieshood. CC, Orthodox and Protestants have deacons elders , priests/presbyters, and even bishops/overseers of “an area”, pretty much as per your good outline. Thanks.

steve b addressed this post already. But I’d like to add that there is also form and intent when conferring Holy Orders.

 

[dzheremi]

I looked them up. malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/ I see what you mean about trying to give details…seems like there are big gaps in their timeline

Are you looking at the same timeline as I am on that website? Because here’s what it says about their Church:

*"The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church was founded by St. Thomas, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ, who came to India in A.D. 52.

At least from the fourth century the Indian Church entered into a close relationship with the Persian or East Syrian Church. From the Persians, the Indians inherited East Syrian language and liturgies and gradually came to be known as Syrian Christians.

In the sixteenth century Roman Catholic missionaries came to Kerala. They tried to unite the Syrian Christians to the Roman Catholic Church and this led to a split in the community. Those who accepted Catholicism are the present Syro-Malabar Catholics. Later Western Protestant missionaries came to Kerala and worked among Syrian Christians; That also created certain splits in the community.

In the seventeenth century the Church came to a relationship with the Antiochene Church which again caused splits. As a result of this relationship the Church received West Syrian liturgies and practices.

The Church entered into a new phase of its history by the establishment of the Catholicate in 1912.

At present the Church is using the West Syrian liturgy. The faith of the Church is that which was established by the three Ecumenical Councils of Nicea (A.D. 325), Constantinople (A.D. 381) and Ephesus (A.D. 431).

The Church is in communion with the other Oriental Orthodox Churches namely, Antiochene, Alexandrian, Armenian, Eritrean and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches"*

I have HH Mor Ignatius Aphram Barsoum’s “History of the Syriac Dioceses” which covers the period of 1687-1774 (HH Mor Ignatius Jirjis II to HG Gregorius Anton, Bishop of Gargar). I may have overlooked something before this date, but India appears to be first mentioned in the entry on Metropolitan Iyawannis Yuhanna “The Iconoclast” (1740-1755), who was entrusted with the care of the diocese of Malabar c.1746 by HH Mor Ignatius Jirjis III, Syriac Orthodox at the time, so they must’ve had some preexisting relationship with the Syriac people of Malabar (though what exactly it was remains unclear; the Malankara Orthodox people I’ve talked to, anyway, seem to tie their relationship to the SOC back to events that happened in the wake of the Coonan Cross Oath, which occurred in 1653; it’s not unreasonable, though HH’s history does not make that claim). This matches what the Malankara Orthodox history says above.

It looks like they embraced Nestorianism in their timeline and have remained that way.

What? What are you basing this conclusion on? We do not allow Nestorians in our communion, heaven forbid. The Malankara Orthodox are in no way Nestorian, despite the East Syriac connections of the Syriac Christians in India. They are of the same confession as the rest of the OO, as they are in communion with us.

They observe the 1st 3 Councils only

As do all OO. The Nestorians observe only the first two councils.

It also looks like this church had its own internal schisms particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries. 1/2 of them broke off from the Malankara in the 17th century, and united with Rome, becoming Chaldean rite. …is that how you read it? Am I understanding this correctly about the Malankara being Nestorian

No, you’re not. A very simplified history would paint the Syriac Indians as part of the East Syriac world from some indeterminate point until the Portuguese showed up at some point in the 1500s or thereabouts and started messing with their ways doing things (Portuguese India began in 1505, though since the Coonan Cross Oath didn’t happen until near the mid-15th century, I don’t know what they were doing before that). As a result, some who had previously been East Syriac/Nestorian came into union with the Syriac Orthodox Church, though there was apparently some kind of preexisting relationship there for HH Patriarch Mor Ignatius Jirjis III to be sending people to oversee the diocese of Malabar. Syriac Orthodox Indian acquaintances of mine have said that there are ancient inscriptions in Goa dating from roughly the 6th century that talk about “Yoldath Aloho” (the Theotokos), which is not a term that Nestorians would ever use, so perhaps there was some preexisting Syriac Orthodox presence that had since been forgotten or willfully abandoned or something (the SOC had dioceses in a lot of places we now consider basically entirely “East Syriac”, like various places in Persia proper, up until around the 16th century, so it’s not unimaginable that East Syriac people could be Orthodox even before this time; you certainly find a lot more videos on YT for Malankara Orthodox liturgies searching in East Syriac than you do in West Syriac, anyway, and isn’t that the most scientific measurement of anything? ). We’ll probably never know the real story, given the sad factionalism that plagues the Indian Christians overall (related to issues of autocephaly, history, territorial claims, etc). At any rate, the point is that the Malankara Syriacs have been allied with the West Syriac world ever since the 16th century, using the West Syriac liturgy in common with the SOC, and holding to all the beliefs of the other OO churches, including a very stern stance against Nestorianism.

 

[steve_b]

Are you looking at the same timeline as I am on that website? Because here’s what it says about their Church:

"The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church was founded by St. Thomas, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ, who came to India in A.D. 52.

At least from the fourth century the Indian Church entered into a close relationship with the Persian or East Syrian Church. From the Persians, the Indians inherited East Syrian language and liturgies and gradually came to be known as Syrian Christians.

From 52 a.d. to the 4th century, is quite a gap in time. Then it gaps to the 15th century. The gaps is what I was referring to
d:

In the sixteenth century Roman Catholic missionaries came to Kerala.

[snip] yes I saw that history. It’s the gaps I was referring to

What? What are you basing this conclusion on? We do not allow Nestorians in our communion, heaven forbid. The Malankara Orthodox are in no way Nestorian, despite the East Syriac connections of the Syriac Christians in India. They are of the same confession as the rest of the OO, as they are in communion with us.

As do all OO. The Nestorians observe only the first two councils.

In my questioning I’m trying to understand who’s who.

• Where is the Christological controversies between EO Churches in particular
• and learn the differences in EO Churchesin general

For example

The Malankara site had the following Q/A on Christology

Q: How come the teaching concerning Jesus Christ led to divisions in the Church?

A: Understanding and explaining who Jesus Christ is, was the most formidable task of the early Church. The fact that Christ was God the Son who became incarnate was settled more or less in an acceptable way during the 4th century. The councils of Nicea in 325 and Constantinople in 381 took landmark decisions in this regard. Then in the 5th century, the question how the incarnation was to be affirmed came up for discussion at the councils of Ephesus in 431 and Chalcedon in 451. By then the Church had developed three distinct traditions – of Alexandria, of Antioch and of Rome. The three could not agree, which led to two divisions and three ecclesiastical groupings.

Q: What are these groupings?

A: The groupings are: (i) The Church tradition that respects the teaching of the Antiochene Theological School represented by Nestorius; (ii) The teaching of Church fathers who belong to the Alexandrine Theological School opposing the council of Chalcedon; and (iii) The tradition built up on the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon.

Q: How do these ecclesiastical groupings define their doctrine?

A: The first group insists that in Jesus Christ God the Son and Jesus the man remain united; though one person, the duality between God the Son and Jesus the man is preserved in a way that the title ‘Mother of God’ with reference to Mary is not affirmed. The Second group emphasizes the unity of Christ; composed of the two natures of Godhead and manhood, there is no confusion or division. Mary is indeed ‘the Mother of God’. The third group maintains that Jesus Christ is one person made known in the two natures of Godhead and manhood. The expression ‘the Mother of God’ with reference to Mary is accepted.

In EO who believes in which school?
d:

As a result, some who had previously been East Syriac/Nestorian came into union with the Syriac Orthodox Church, though there was apparently some kind of preexisting relationship there for HH Patriarch Mor Ignatius Jirjis III to be sending people to oversee the diocese of Malabar.

Malancar’s name came into that, and I was asking for clarification
d:

Syriac Orthodox Indian acquaintances of mine have said that there are ancient inscriptions in Goa dating from roughly the 6th century that talk about “Yoldath Aloho” (the Theotokos), which is not a term that Nestorians would ever use,

I see that, but the gaps I referred to, had none of that history to the timeline to help understand that.
d:

so perhaps there was some preexisting Syriac Orthodox presence that had since been forgotten or willfully abandoned or something (the SOC had dioceses in a lot of places we now consider basically entirely "East Syriac", like various places in Persia proper, up until around the 16th century, so it’s not unimaginable that East Syriac people could be Orthodox
even before this time; you certainly find a lot more videos on YT for Malankara Orthodox liturgies searching in East Syriac than you do in West Syriac, anyway, and isn’t that the most scientific measurement of anything? ). We’ll probably never know the real story, given the sad factionalism that plagues the Indian Christians overall (related to issues of autocephaly, history, territorial claims, etc). At any rate, the point is that the Malankara Syriacs have been allied with the West Syriac world ever since the 16th century, using the West Syriac liturgy in common with the SOC, and holding to all the beliefs of the other OO churches, including a very stern stance against Nestorianism.

thanks for the clarification.

 

[Peter_J]

I looked them up. malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/ I see what you mean about trying to give details…seems like there are big gaps in their timeline

It looks like they embraced Nestorianism in their timeline and have remained that way.

No. I’m not at all convinced that the Assyrian Church of the East is “Nestorian”, but that’s beside the point because the church in question is part of the Oriental Orthodox Communion.

Anyhow my primary point, in bring them up, is just that “unions” have gone in both directions i.e. Catholic-to-Orthodox as well as Orthodox-to-Catholic. (I use the word “unions” and not “uniatism” advisedly, because calling the aforementioned union an example of “uniatism” would be unfair and simplistic, IMO.)

 

[steve_b]

“unions” have gone in both directions i.e. Catholic-to-Orthodox as well as Orthodox-to-Catholic.

union in this case doesn’t go in both directions.

Catholic to Orthodox = division
Orthodox to Catholic = union

I’m still not seeing your point with the Malancara Orthodox unless you’re making the distinction of what happened at the schism where it was the Catholic Church in the East breaking into Orthodox Churches, and post schism, we have some Orthodox Churches returning to union with the Catholic Church

 

[dzheremi]

union in this case doesn’t go in both directions.

Catholic to Orthodox = division
Orthodox to Catholic = union

I think Peter’s use of the word “union” is different than yours. If we take “union” in a non-polemical sense to mean “church body X comes into formal ecclesiastical and Eucharistic/sacramental union with church body Y”, then we can indeed say that union has happened in both directions. The Malankara Orthodox are the result of the reception of those Malankaran Syriacs who were (thanks to the Portuguese) not allowed to continue being East Syriacs (this was centuries before Rome embraced its current more enlightened attitude toward the Eastern churches, including its own compatriots, who at that time from among the Syriacs would have only included the West Syriac Maronites; the use of the term “Chaldean” in an Indian context in particular is misleading, as those who call themselves “Chaldeans” in India are a part of the Assyrian Church of the East/Nestorians, not a part of the East Syriac Church based in Iraq that goes by that name which originally broke off from the ACoE only a short time after the Portuguese began to colonize India) and so came into union with the West Syriac (Syriac Orthodox) Church of Antioch. Perhaps they were Catholics for the 150 or so years between the arrival of the Portuguese and the Coonan Cross Oath, but it was clearly not by choice or else the Coonan Cross Oath would never have happened in the first place.

I’m still not seeing your point with the Malancara Orthodox unless you’re making the distinction of what happened at the schism where it was the Catholic Church in the East breaking into Orthodox Churches, and post schism, we have some Orthodox Churches returning to union with the Catholic Church

:ehh: Hmmm. Peter’s point is quite clear. Hopefully one of our Syriac Indian friends will show up to in this thread to provide an insider’s view of the history of the Syriac churches in India (user Syro-Malankara, where are you? ), as all at least agree on their origins from St. Thomas and their long history of East Syrian influence. What you make of whatever happened later, particularly after the Portuguese arrived, says more about your own communal and doctrinal allegiances than about history itself.

 

[pocohombre]

Bishop priest and deacon were all positions from the beginning

Position yes, roles no.

That’s incorrect.
The ministerial priesthood still offers the once for all sacrifice.

Not incorrect for many churches, who only have a president (presider) for the commemorization. No where does Paul cite Timothy or others elders to transubstantiate the bread and wine.

FONT=Arial]Notice

• deliberately missing mass on Sunday, is already a very serious sin worthy of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries
• because there is no sacrifice for sins as a result of one deliberately missing mass.

First of all , it is not called “mass”. Secondly, it does not say how often, for it is apparently different for some, according to his words, “as some do”. Missing a mass is not sin, at least in your quote. The willful sin is falling away from faith. You reject the sacrifice (the cross) then there is nothing else, no other sacrifice that can help you. He is not talking of the sacrifice of communion. He is talking about Calvary, having once tasted forgiveness where there is no more offering for sin (vs. 17) , then turning away.

• It is a profaning of the blood of the covenant for deliberately missing mass

Has nothing to do with Mass. You profane the blood, Calvary , by understanding it, or professing it then turning away. The assembling yourself is to help you stay true, to encourage one another, to “remember” and avoid carnal ordinances of the past, which could not give a perfect conscience (vs-9,10).

• It spurns the son of God and outrages the spirit of grace for deliberately missing mass

Declaring unholy what you once declared holy is worthy of fiery judgement. So if you miss mass, the assembling together, cause you now think them unholy, you are in trouble. But if you skip mass/assembling cause you are lazy , or sick or tired or even spiritually sloppy,that is something else and not what he is talking about here.

Now I’m sure you’re asking yourself, why does missing mass do all that?

No. I am asking why do you put a bat in God’s hand for this when He does not ?

• the sacrifice for sin and blood of the covenant refers to the Eucharist. The summit of our faith.

Not how you word it. The blood of the covenant, the sacrifice for sin is Calvary. There is no more offering for sin (vs 18). Hooray ! which we remember by eucharist or giving thanks, a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Do you need a priest to give “thanksgiving” for our High Priest ?

• Jn 6:53 unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you*. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day*. Life of the soul is grace in the Eucharist*.*

Yes, He inhabits the praises of His people,the Royal Priesthood, even when they “remember” in eucharist. A sacrifice of praise continually and forever, before Him

Therefore, the one who deliberately misses the Eucharist on Sunday, after being given the knowledge of truth, says in effect to Jesus, I’m interested in other things more than receiving you.

Perhaps, but that is not what Hebrews is about. The one who calls it unholy, who once called it holy is in big trouble.

• no sacrifice for sin is left for THEM.

That is right. Once you reject Calvary, you are toast.

]I didn’t make that up poco. It’s right from scripture.

The conclusion, I fear, is made up.

the consequences for deliberately missing mass i.e. the Eucharist, on Sunday, describes committing a mortal sin. One who dies in mortal sin won’t be going to heaven

Understand it as part of you tradition, and Church dogma. Not sure I would use Hebrews for it though ,but otherwise very well put together.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m still not seeing your point with the Malancara Orthodox unless …

If you’re referring to when I said this:

Anyhow my primary point, in bring them up, is just that “unions” have gone in both directions i.e. Catholic-to-Orthodox as well as Orthodox-to-Catholic. (I use the word “unions” and not “uniatism” advisedly, because calling the aforementioned union an example of “uniatism” would be unfair and simplistic, IMO.)

then, in brief, I would say that the formation of the Syro-Malankara Orthodox Church was not a case of “uniatism” because it wasn’t the result of proselytizing. (Of course, a protracted discussion is possible.)

 

[aidanbradypop]

I’ve seen an argument repeatedly deployed on these forums, taken from Augustine’s Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:

Some posters here see this as a strong argument for the Roman Catholic Church’s claim * to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed.

The problem is this: what would you do if someone asked where the Orthodox Church meets? Would you direct him to your local RC Church, or to one in communion with Constantinople, Moscow, etc.? Or if someone asked where the Evangelical Church meets?

How can this argument be deployed without implicitly recognising that - by the same standard - one must abandon the claim to be orthodox, evangelical, or indeed any other title that is more commonly applied to a separate church?*

I would make sure which Church they were asking about. If you are in communion with Rome…go to “A”…If you are Anglo Catholic go to “B”…if you are Eastern Catholic…go to “C”…etc.

 

[steve_b]

I think Peter’s use of the word “union” is different than yours. If we take “union” in a non-polemical sense to mean “church body X comes into formal ecclesiastical and Eucharistic/sacramental union with church body Y”, then we can indeed say that union has happened in both directions.

I would say, this is not about polemics, it’s about obedience to the faith delivered once and for all to the saints. The argument over union and primacy was already waged in the upper room and settled in the upper room by Jesus. All the apostles sit on thrones, but Peter is the one the apostles are to follow because Jesus prays especially for him as the leader. That’s the hierarchy established by Jesus. Luke 22:30-32 united to Peter
d:

The Malankara Orthodox are the result of the reception of those Malankaran Syriacs who were (thanks to the Portuguese) not allowed to continue being East Syriacs (this was centuries before Rome embraced its current more enlightened attitude toward the Eastern churches, including its own compatriots, who at that time from among the Syriacs would have only included the West Syriac Maronites; the use of the term “Chaldean” in an Indian context in particular is misleading, as those who call themselves “Chaldeans” in India are a part of the Assyrian Church of the East/Nestorians, not a part of the East Syriac Church based in Iraq that goes by that name which originally broke off from the ACoE only a short time after the Portuguese began to colonize India) and so came into union with the West Syriac (Syriac Orthodox) Church of Antioch. Perhaps they were Catholics for the 150 or so years between the arrival of the Portuguese and the Coonan Cross Oath, but it was clearly not by choice or else the Coonan Cross Oath would never have happened in the first place.

the Portugese were trying to unite all that division. Why all this division in the first place?
d:

:ehh: Hmmm. Peter’s point is quite clear. Hopefully one of our Syriac Indian friends will show up to in this thread to provide an insider’s view of the history of the Syriac churches in India (user Syro-Malankara, where are you? ), as all at least agree on their origins from St. Thomas and their long history of East Syrian influence. What you make of whatever happened later, particularly after the Portuguese arrived, says more about your own communal and doctrinal allegiances than about history itself.

The history I present is Church unity under Peter. That’s what Jesus established therefore that’s what He wants… All this other stuff, is Satan sifting people like wheat. Just as Jesus said. Luke 22:30-32

 

[dzheremi]

I would say, this is not about polemics,

Easy to say after you’ve posted your fair share, Steve.

it’s about obedience to the faith delivered once and for all to the saints. The argument over union and primacy was already waged in the upper room and settled in the upper room by Jesus.

Ah, you mean the house of St. Mark’s mother? Guess which Church that traditionally belongs to? I’ll give you a hint: We’ve been talking about it in this thread, and it’s not Rome or the Nestorians’.

the Portugese were trying to unite all that division. Why all this division in the first place?

If it’s really about “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints”, why don’t you know basic Christian history? The East Syriac/West Syriac division is imperial (no different in that respect than Eastern Romans and Western Romans, which you could hardly call a true division until you began anathematizing each other), having to do with who was within what Empire. The West Syriacs were mostly within Byzantine territories, and the East Syriacs mostly within Persian ones. There was at least some degree of crossover or spill-over. Their doctrinal division dates to the Council of Ephesus and the condemnation of Nestorius, which is not a point that any Chalcedonian would normally seize upon as a “division”, since Rome went along with that decision, too. So I don’t know what kind of point you think you’re making, but you’re not making it very well.

The history I present is Church unity under Peter.

Funny you should mention that, since St. Peter founded the Church at Antioch, and it is to this Petrine See that the Syriac Orthodox trace their origins. We are in union with the See of Peter and his true successor in the person of HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, thank you very much.

That’s what Jesus established therefore that’s what He wants… All this other stuff, is Satan sifting people like wheat. Just as Jesus said. Luke 22:30-32

I appreciate that this is your view, but I disagree. Believe it or not, to those not in union with Rome (and even to a minority of those who are, like many Eastern and Oriental Catholics), the world does not revolve around the Roman Pope and proof-texting designed to justify uniquely Roman claims about him. I’m sorry that you can’t see any other way for the Church to function because you believe that Jesus Christ gave all authority in the world to the successors of one man in perpetuity throughout the universe despite the fact that He never said anything close to that in anything that is recorded in the Scriptures or the writings of those who learned at the feet of the Apostles, who somehow stores that preeminence in only one of the three Sees that the ancient Church recognized as being rooted in St. Peter’s evangelism (those of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch), but your ignorance and ability to make your faith look bad by being an unflappable ideologue doesn’t change the fact that this is one historical narrative of many, and a rather late one at that. You’re going to have to try much better than the ham-fisted psuedo-apologetics that you constantly peddle here that have even caused some of your fellow Catholics to tire of your posts if you want to arouse any response from me beyond bored yawning and further iterations of posts like this one.

You seem well versed in the modern RC take on history, but you might as well be telling it to me in Klingon for as much sense as it makes to me and as much good as it’s doing to represent your faith.