Attending Orthodox Services

[Don_Ruggero]

There is no mystery. Pope Saint John XXIII and Pope Saint Paul VI, and the College of Bishops gathered in Council with them, initiated a wholly different relationship with the Churches of the East not in communion with Rome and other Christians and with non-Christians. This is delineated in the documents of the Council and continues to unfold in our own day

The Lord Jesus, at the Last Supper, said that the Holy Spirit would lead them to the fullness of truth. The Holy Spirit intervened with the successors of the Apostles gathered in ecumenical council to realize the divine imperative that is the ecumenical movement and thus they wrote:

The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council

Pope Saint John Paul II evoked this fundamental change when he begged the forgiveness of world’s non-Catholic Christians for past failures and improprieties of the Petrine Office in his visit to the World Council of Churches – and throughout his papacy, he carried forward the Council’s mandate on a new approach and new relationships

He evokes these fundamental changes throughout his encyclical, Ut Unum Sint…notably:

/…/ the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. I have personally been able many times to observe this during the ecumenical celebrations which are an important part of my Apostolic Visits to various parts of the world, and also in the meetings and ecumenical celebrations which have taken place in Rome. The “universal brotherhood” of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another /…/

In a word, Christians have been converted to a fraternal charity which embraces all Christ’s disciples

Fortunately, it is more than just the excommunications of the past that have been consigned to oblivion. It is also attitudes and mindsets of a bygone and dead era. Past models of potential reunification have been also consigned to oblivion. It is not that non-Catholics must be converted…we must all be converted, as the Popes have articulated

 

[Genesis315]

This is the principle you’re looking for, from Vatican II’s decree on the oriental churches (this principle is repeated in the decree on ecumenism):

1. Common participation in worship which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.

However, where these things are not present, there’s no problem (there’s nothing per se wrong with praying orthodox prayers together, in the same room, with baptized non-Catholics).

Certainly, the Church in the past took a more cautious approach to this issue than is taken today, giving a blanket prohibition (with exceptions granted on a case by case basis). For better or worse, a broader permission is now simply granted, but always contingent on the divine law enunciated above.

 

[ChristMyLife]

Jn 16:13 “he [the Holy Spirit] will lead you into all truth.”

So in other words, he will guide his disciples into the fullness - all - truth.

You can argue semantics if you want, but the meaning is clear.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It goes without saying that the exact phrase “fullness of truth” does not appear since the sacred author was not writing in English.

That is how I have chosen to render in English the actual phrase: “ἐν πάσῃ ἀληθείᾳ” which is what the writer of the fourth gospel wrote.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Jn 16:13 “he [the Holy Spirit] will lead you into all truth.”

So in other words, he will guide his disciples into the fullness - all - truth.

You can argue semantics if you want, but the meaning is clear.

Quite so…

There are various ways to render the word into English.

 

[LastStand]

Allow me to rephrase that, “distinct branch of the Catholic Church”.

 

[MichaelP3]

May I ask why?

And was this on average from various Protestant Churches or more so a specific one you were invited to?

 

[MichaelP3]

I hear you and have seen similar explinations on here before.

It makes me remember when my wife’s sister and husband visited. They didn’t have a car and various other logistical issues gave two possibilities. (We do not have many Catholic Churches around here. ) either we go to our Church (the question if they will join didn’t arise as I never asked it) or we take them to the Catholic Church (also not as many Mass times as I see around the world). Without any conversation we took them and also attended the Mass. The sister and husband was very greatful and even “surprised” we attended. Why they were surprised I have no idea. I mean we drove 40 min to get here, what would I do otherwise, it is still Christian and one can ALWAYS learn something. Even though I missed my Sunday service.

Just a flashback that came up in my mind.

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

Thank you for this reply. It will definitely make me understand some of your posts better that I have seen.

My famlily probably (actually most definitely) do not give Catholicism much thought. It is a mixture of Catholcism not being relevant at all in my country and that they are not that religious.

My Polish Catholic family in law on the other hand is very religious. And how they accepted me with open arms would say a lot about them. My “possible” prejudice would be mainly because of what I see on this very forum. Luckaly I have them to compare and always prefer to see the good. (Alrhough sometimes very difficult).

What your initial post I replied to made me think of (everyone may have their reasons as you explained and maybe not you in the perticular case) is the closed mindedness that is so many times evident on here. For instance, I could have refused to take my family in law to the Catholic Church. I could have refused to enter and sit in my car for more than an hour. Or even worse I could have been angry that they cannot join us at my Church. But all these scenarios would have made me the bad guy on CAF.

Regards

 

[steve-b]

semper_catholicus:

You can’t fulfill your Sunday obligation at a schismatic Church.

I’m not sure that the Church even teaches that we are in formal schism with the Orthodox Church.

You cannot passively attend such services if there is danger of losing your own faith or causing scandal to others.

So when Pope Francis was on his Apostolic Journey to Turkey in November of 2014 and he attended the Divine Liturgy at the Patriarchal Church of Saint George in Istanbul he was in danger of losing his faith and creating scandal within the Church? He not only attending the Divine Liturgy but he addressed His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew. You can read it here.

ZP

Canon law identifies them as in schism. http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2015/07...d-an-orthodox-liturgy-instead-of-sunday-mass/

 

[ziapueblo]

Canon law identifies them as in schism. http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2015/07...d-an-orthodox-liturgy-instead-of-sunday-mass/

[/quote]

First, I think it is fair to say the the “schism” between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is ecclesiological in nature. From Pope Saint JPII encyclical Ut Unum Sint, “The resulting change found its historical expression in the ecclesial act whereby ‘there was removed from memory and from the midst of the Church’ the remembrance of the excommunications which nine hundred years before, in 1054, had become the symbol of the schism between Rome and Constantinople.” So the excommunications of 1054 where the symbol of the schism and they had been removed by Pope Saint Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I on the last day of the Council. What is going on now is a disagreement with upper management if you will.

. . .

 

[ziapueblo]

continued

@steve-b

Second, the Church recognizes that Orthodox doctrine, in general, are accurate. From the same encyclical, “In accordance with the hope expressed by Pope Paul VI, our declared purpose is to re-establish together full unity in legitimate diversity: 'God has granted us to receive in faith what the Apostles saw, understood, and proclaimed to us. By Baptism ‘we are one in Christ Jesus ’ ( Gal 3:28). In virtue of the apostolic succession, we are united more closely by the priesthood and the Eucharist. By participating in the gifts of God to his Church we are brought into communion with the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit … In each local Church this mystery of divine love is enacted, and surely this is the ground of the traditional and very beautiful expression ‘Sister Churches’, which local Churches were fond of applying to one another (cf. Decree, Unitatis Redintegratio , 14). For centuries we lived this life of ‘Sister Churches’, and together held Ecumenical Councils which guarded the deposit of faith against all corruption. And now, after a long period of division and mutual misunderstanding, the Lord is enabling us to discover ourselves as ‘Sister Churches’ once more, in spite of the obstacles which were once raised between us’. If today, on the threshold of the third millennium, we are seeking the re-establishment of full communion, it is for the accomplishment of this reality that we must work and it is to this reality that we must refer.”

I think that what I highlighted shows that the Church of the first millennium, although diverse in it’s theology and liturgical practices, both East and West are apostolic and shared the same faith. Now, I highlighted full communion because, in my opinion anyway, it shows that the Church recognizes that we have in imperfect communion with the Orthodox because we share apostolic succession and the Eucharist.

Now, before you repost the Note on the Expression Sister Churches the encyclical states, “Following the Second Vatican Council, and in the light of earlier tradition, it has again become usual to refer to the particular or local Churches gathered around their Bishop as ‘Sister Churches’.” So we can refer to each other as Sister Churches when referring to “local Churches,” and not, as the Note expresses, the Catholic Church as a whole and the Orthodox Church as a whole.

ZP

p.s.

I know that we do not see eye-to-eye on these things and I want you to know that I am not trying to "pick a fight" and although I may not always agree I do appreciate your insight.

 

[babochka]

They left the Church, and do not share apostolic succession

The do share Apostolic succession.

 

[babochka]

The Orthodox most certainly do have Apostolic succession. Without Apostolic succession, they could not have valid sacraments and the Catholic Church unambiguously teaches that the Orthodox have valid sacraments. I’m on my phone now and can’t paste appropriate references for you, but I am sure that somebody else will have gotten to it before I am able to. Otherwise, I’ll try to post some later on this evening.

 

[edward_george1]

And here’s an article that says the Orthodox do have Apostolic succession.

The Orthodox Have Apostolic Succession

Yes, the Orthodox Churches are considered to have valid Apostolic Succession. In spite of a difference in their appreciation of the office of Peter, the Catholi...

www.catholic.com

-Fr ACEGC

 

[otjm]

No. If one cannot attend Mass because it is not available, then the obligation ceases. It is not fulfilled by attending an Orthodox Mass; there is no obligation to fulfill.

Example: you find yourself in the Ukraine on a Sunday and there is no Eastern or Western Catholic church within your ability to attend. No obligation.

 

[otjm]

You really should not take sides on matters of which you do not have a solid foundation. The article you cite dose not discuss the Orthodox; it only discusses the Anglicans. Don’t presume that which is not addressed.

 

[babochka]

In spite of a difference in their appreciation of the office of Peter, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox church, and the other churches that have retained the reality of apostolic succession are at one in sharing a basic understanding of the sacramentality of the Church, which developed from the New Testament and through the Fathers, notably through Irenaeus. These churches hold that the sacramental entry into the ministry comes about through the imposition of hands with the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and that this is the indispensable form for the transmission of the apostolic succession, which alone enables the Church to remain constant in its doctrine and communion. It is this unanimity concerning the unbroken coherence of Scripture, Tradition, and sacrament that explains why communion between these churches and the Catholic Church has never completely ceased and could today be revived.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ts/rc_cti_1973_successione-apostolica_en.html

 

[edward_george1]

“Apostolic succession is the transmission by means of the sacrament of Holy Orders of the mission and power of the Apostles to their successors, the bishops. Thanks to this transmission the Church remains in communion of faith and life with her origin, while through the centuries she carries on her apostolate for the spread of the Kingdom of Christ on earth.”

None of this statement is untrue of the Orthodox. And they are in no wise heretics.

 

[edward_george1]

Sources for this, please? Magisterial documents will say that the Orthodox have Apostolic succession. The old Catholic Encyclopedia isn’t a magisterial source.