N
Novocastrian
Guest
Because of the first sentence you quoted, if for no other reason.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Could you elaborate. You’ll have to clearly explain yourself. ThanksBecause of the first sentence you quoted, if for no other reason.
Specifically Baptism is for the remission of sin in relation to- Adam? Or is there explicit documentation otherwise from pre 300?
T
twf
Guest
The two sides of the same coin thing is often repeated by some Orthodox (though not necessarily by the Orthodox Christians I know in real life - some of whom agree that Catholicism and Orthodoxy ultimately share much more in common, though expressed differently), but it will never be accepted by any Catholic. Protestants, at least more traditional Reformation traditions, may use similar terminology, language, and frameworks in developing their theology, but their conclusions are radically different. The approach between Catholics and Protestants may be similar in many cases, but the CONCLUSIONS are at radical odds. The substance of what Catholics believe, when the philosophical framework is stripped away, is much closer to what the Orthodox believe in the vast majority of cases. The end result…Whereas we Orthodox see Catholicism and Protestantism as two sides of the same coin.
No, the decisions of the Council of Florence were not accepted by the Orthodox. There was no brief union.
-Catholics and Orthodox believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Most Protestants reject this.
-Catholics and Orthodox believe that we truly become like Christ through the sacraments (theosis / deification). Protestants tend to see “justification” as a mere declaration by God.
-Catholics and Orthodox venerate Mary and the saints and seek their intercession. Protestants reject this.
-Catholics and Orthodox believe that the bishops guide the Church as the successors of the apostles. Most Protestants reject this.
-Catholics and Orthodox believe that divine worship should be liturgical and rooted in tradition. Most Protestants reject this.
Take the specific example of the Eucharist. Do the Orthodox and Catholics have different understandings of the Eucharist? There are differences to be sure. But we both come to the same conclusion: HE IS PRESENT. We both bow down in adoration with this knowledge. Protestants look at the same Eucharist and say “its just bread”. To me the substance is that conclusion…not the theological or philosophical framework underlining the belief. I have friends and family who are Evangelical Protestants. I have friends and family who are Orthodox Christians. In face to face conversations of faith, I always find FAR more in common with the latter, and they agree with me. I don’t know why my experience of Orthodox Christians on the internet and those I have met in real life is so different on this particular point.
I could go on. What does it matter if the approach or philosophy is similar if the conclusions, what it ultimately points to, are radically different? Catholics and Orthodox approach theology differently but the end result is often much closer.
T
twf
Guest
Does not baptism also impart the indwelling divine life of the Trinity? Would the Orthodox not agree with that? At conception, are we all saints? If so, what was the consequence of Adam’s fall? At the end of the day, that is the most important end result of baptism for Catholics. We “put on Christ” and are given a share of the divine life. This is true for infants or for adult converts. If the Orthodox do not believe this, if they believe that we are all conceived as saints, then we are at odds. But I don’t think that is the case.Baptism is a participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. For those who have personal sins, baptism also has the effect of washing them away.
Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion are the threefold sacraments through which we are grafted into the body of Christ.
Likewise, the Immaculate Conception fundamentally is not about original sin…fundamentally it is our belief that Mary was full of divine life, in full communion with the Blessed Trinity, from the first moment of her conception. The rest of us do not “put on Christ” until baptism. Orthodox I have talked to in real life, including an Orthodox priest, acknowledge that Mary was special in this sense, but without accepting the Latin language of original sin.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The Mass is a big difference. An Orthodox might tell you that he finds the Orthodox liturgy to be more reverent.The two sides of the same coin thing is often repeated by some Orthodox (though not necessarily by the Orthodox Christians I know in real life - some of whom agree that Catholicism and Orthodoxy ultimately share much more in common, though expressed differently), but it will never be accepted by any Catholic. Protestants, at least more traditional Reformation traditions, may use similar terminology, language, and frameworks in developing their theology, but their conclusions are radically different. The approach between Catholics and Protestants may be similar in many cases, but the CONCLUSIONS are at radical odds. The substance of what Catholics believe, when the philosophical framework is stripped away, is much closer to what the Orthodox believe in the vast majority of cases. The end result…
-Catholics and Orthodox believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Most Protestants reject this.
-Catholics and Orthodox believe that we truly become like Christ through the sacraments (theosis / deification). Protestants tend to see “justification” as a mere declaration by God.
-Catholics and Orthodox venerate Mary and the saints and seek their intercession. Protestants reject this.
-Catholics and Orthodox believe that the bishops guide the Church as the successors of the apostles. Most Protestants reject this.
-Catholics and Orthodox believe that divine worship should be liturgical and rooted in tradition. Most Protestants reject this.
Take the specific example of the Eucharist. Do the Orthodox and Catholics have different understandings of the Eucharist? There are differences to be sure. But we both come to the same conclusion: HE IS PRESENT. We both bow down in adoration with this knowledge. Protestants look at the same Eucharist and say “its just bread”. To me the substance is that conclusion…not the theological or philosophical framework underlining the belief. I have friends and family who are Evangelical Protestants. I have friends and family who are Orthodox Christians. In face to face conversations of faith, I always find FAR more in common with the latter, and they agree with me. I don’t know why my experience of Orthodox Christians on the internet and those I have met in real life is so different on this particular point.
I could go on. What does it matter if the approach or philosophy is similar if the conclusions, what it ultimately points to, are radically different? Catholics and Orthodox approach theology differently but the end result is often much closer.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Here is an example of an Orthodox comparison between the two liturgies from an Orthodox pov:An Orthodox might tell you that he finds the Orthodox liturgy to be more reverent.
youtube.com/watch?v=fHZtbnaXuGk
T
twf
Guest
I’ve been to Orthodox liturgies. I’ve also been to Eastern Catholic liturgies that are essentially the same liturgy. The Mass can also be celebrated with great reverence and beauty. What we see in many post-Vatican II parishes is not the ideal upheld by the Church nor a universal experience. I believe the banality many Catholics have experienced in their liturgies is a passing phase of the current era. At my Latin Catholic cathedral in Vancouver, the mass may be celebrated according to the “Novus Ordo” and in the vernacular, but it is chanted, copious amounts of incense is used, the faithful receive Our Lord kneeling at the altar rail, etc. The masses I experienced in Rome were likewise. Deviations from the Church’s ideal do not equate to a fundamental difference between Catholics and Orthodox.The Mass is a big difference. An Orthodox might tell you that he finds the Orthodox liturgy to be more reverent.
T
twf
Guest
Most Catholics on this forum would find the mass used for this particular example most distasteful. I would walk out. That is not the Catholicism I know. See my earlier post.Here is an example of an Orthodox comparison between the two liturgies from an Orthodox pov:
youtube.com/watch?v=fHZtbnaXuGk
It is incredibly unfair, especially as a Patriarchal divine liturgy is used, yet the Orthodox creator of this video deliberately sought out what the vast majority of Catholics on this forum would consider a liturgy riddled with abuses. It would be a fair comparison had they used a papal mass (as a patriarchal liturgy was used for the Orthodox). Have you watched papal masses on television? Particularly Pope Emeritus Benedict’s? I’ve experienced both Orthodox divine liturgies and papal masses in Rome first hand…the latter is as grand, as solemn, and as reverent as you can get. Chant, incense, processions, beautiful vestments…
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
But sadly it’s the Catholicism as practiced in the vast majority of North America.Most Catholics on this forum would find the mass used for this particular example most distasteful. I would walk out. That is not the Catholicism I know. See my earlier post.
T
twf
Guest
I’m not sure about that. Widespread in some dioceses…but the vast majority? Not sure. Maybe I’ve just been blessed, but I’ve always been able to find traditional, reverent liturgies in my travels throughout North America. Of course some dioceses are better than others.But sadly it’s the Catholicism as practiced in the vast majority of North America.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Why are these Masses allowed?Most Catholics on this forum would find the mass used for this particular example most distasteful.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
But I don’t understand why this is necessary for someone who has no sin. If an infant dies without being baptized, what’s the big deal? He has not sinned.Infants and the intellectually challenged still need to be joined to Christ’s body for their salvation. As I said before, Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion achieve this.
Because reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation. Do Orthodox infants line up in their strollers every week? Or do you simply place a teeny weeny bit of host and wine on their lips one time just to say that it has been done?Why does the Catholic Church excommunicate infants when the early Church did no such thing? Why does the Catholic Church bar the little ones from Christ’s life giving blood and the bread of immortality?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I might, too, but that does not make the Catholic mass invalid.The Mass is a big difference. An Orthodox might tell you that he finds the Orthodox liturgy to be more reverent.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
:nope:But sadly it’s the Catholicism as practiced in the vast majority of North America.
I’ve been to mass in many parts of North America.
I’ve never seen anything like the YouTube video.
T
twf
Guest
Why did the Arian heresy survive for so long in so many places? The Church has had many difficult periods in her long history. We are living in one of them right now. Yes, I believe these sorts of masses are objectively wrong (valid sure…)…they fall short of the norms of divine worship the Church has given us. My archbishop wouldn’t stand for it. As noted, at his cathedral we still receive Our Lord kneeling at the altar rail…the mass is still chanted (though in English not Latin)…reverence and decorum in all things.Why are these Masses allowed?
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
I had a professor once who is an Eastern Orthodox priest, who I think supports the end of the Schism (he knows my views), but saying stuff like the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraceptives “isn’t infallible” (and he does know how Catholics use it), tells me he may went to read a little more into history. I think he was raised Baptist, so that’s definitely an improvementThe vital fact to focus on is that Christ established His Church with the dogma and doctrine which St Peter and his successor popes teach infallibly. What the Church teaches is the key not what some believe.
The Orthodox have put themselves in the position of have fallen into the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, and rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
There is no longer any unity, any identifiable “official” position of Orthodoxy as such, in regard to unnatural methods of birth control. Some authorities continue to reprobate these practices, while others – probably the majority by now – condone them. Increasingly, Orthodox married couples are advised just to follow their own conscience on this issue.
P
prodromos
Guest
If an infant has not been baptised, they have not been joined to the Church which is Christ’s body. I cannot understand the mentality behind such a question. Why would any Christian parents not want their infant children to be joined to the Church and be able to receive the abundant Grace found within.But I don’t understand why this is necessary for someone who has no sin. If an infant dies without being baptized, what’s the big deal? He has not sinned.
Are you kidding me? So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.Because reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation.
Their parents or godparents bring them every week to receive Christ’s flesh and blood. Why would they ever deny their children such abundant grace?Do Orthodox infants line up in their strollers every week? Or do you simply place a teeny weeny bit of host and wine on their lips one time just to say that it has been done?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Well, Catholics agree with you, of course. We just disagree on the issue of original sin, and I’m trying to illustrate that obvious defect in your theology. Thus far, you haven’t given me any real reasons why it’s important to baptize a child.If an infant has not been baptised, they have not been joined to the Church which is Christ’s body. I cannot understand the mentality behind such a question. Why would any Christian parents not want their infant children to be joined to the Church and be able to receive the abundant Grace found within.
But the ECF’s argued for baptizing immediately and not waiting? Why the urgency? What was the risk, prodromos?
Are you kidding me?
The very passage I expected you to quote. So, can people who are baptized but never receive the Eucharist go to heaven or not?So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
Thank you for this information. I did not know what your common practice is. So, infants of three, six, nine months, etc, are given communion every week at Divine Liturgy?Their parents or godparents bring them every week to receive Christ’s flesh and blood. Why would they ever deny their children such abundant grace?
I’m just making sure I understand you. Thanks.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Actually yes, this is true for Eastern Catholics too.Well, Catholics agree with you, of course. We just disagree on the issue of original sin, and I’m trying to illustrate that obvious defect in your theology. Thus far, you haven’t given me any real reasons why it’s important to baptize a child.
But the ECF’s argued for baptizing immediately and not waiting? Why the urgency? What was the risk, prodromos?
The very passage I expected you to quote. So, can people who are baptized but never receive the Eucharist go to heaven or not?
Thank you for this information. I did not know what your common practice is. So, infants of three, six, nine months, etc, are given communion every week at Divine Liturgy?
I’m just making sure I understand you. Thanks.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Well, I have no objections to the practice for obvious reasons, but it’s not something I’ve had any personal experience with either as a child or as a parent.Actually yes, this is true for Eastern Catholics too.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.