Attending Orthodox Services

[ziapueblo]

I guess you’ve never read any of the documents from the Second Vatican Council.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Those not united with that head have never been regarded as part of the tree let alone having apostolic succession.

Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, speaking on the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome, “These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy.”

ZP

 

[edward_george1]

Your quote from Lumen Gentium doesn’t actually say anything demonstrating that the Orthodox don’t have valid Apostolic succession. If it did, then Unitatis Redintegratio, quoted above, wouldn’t have said that, since they were both promulgated by the same ecumenical council. The teaching of the Church is that the Orthodox have valid sacraments and Apostolic succession. Full stop.

 

[ziapueblo]

I guess us Byzantine Catholics are heretics! I better let my priest know about this

 

[ziapueblo]

As eastern Catholics we recognize that the Latin Church has formulated it’s own expression of the faith just as we have our own.

ZP

 

[AlNg]

I guess us Byzantine Catholics are heretics!

Is it true, that Byzantine Catholics do not believe in the strict distinction between venial and mortal sin?
also do Byzantine Catholics believe in the same teaching as the Orthodox church when it comes to Church approved divorce and approval of artificial birth control for a married couple under certain limited conditions or do Byzantine Catholics disagree with the Orthodox teachings on that?

 

[twf]

I wonder how many of these folks (American traditonalists only) would be all up in arms over me attending my Protestant wife’s church for a routine service, but would gladly sacrifice all to be at, say, the Protestant funeral service of a figure like Donald Trump…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

No. That is not case. The reality is that is not the true sense that the Church has understood Apostolic Succession…

First: In arguing with Father Edward George, you are arguing with a priest. That is wrong. It is not acceptable behaviour. Father has, in each & every instance, given the correct answer in reply to the answers you are posting. He is to be thanked

As long as they refuse to submit to the authority of the Catholic Church they are as much outside the Catholic Church as the Protestant variations

Second: the quote above is egregiously wrong & offends current Magisterial teaching. The Holy See has articulated the very unique & special relationship that the Catholic Church [that is to say the Occidental Church together with the Sui Juris Churches of the East in communion with Rome] and the Churches not in communion with Rome enjoy. These venerable Churches of the East are in a completely different category from Reformed Christians

The Catechism of the Catholic Church to that end declares authoritatively:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church"

With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist"

This is to be held by the Catholic faithful as Church teaching. Failure to do so would put the person in dissent from the Magisterium and its teachings

A further example is had in the address of Pope Saint John Paul II to His Beatitude The Orthodox Archbishop of Athens and the Primate of Greece. The Saint of God’s words included:

1 - In the joy of Easter, I greet you with the words of the Apostle Paul to the Church in Thessalonica: " May the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times and in every way " (2 Th 3:16). It gives me great pleasure to meet Your Beatitude in this Primatial See of the Orthodox Church of Greece. I offer heartfelt greetings to the members of the Holy Synod and all the hierarchy. I salute the clergy, the monastic communities and the lay faithful throughout this noble land. Peace be with you all!

1. I wish first of all to express to you the affection and regard of the Church of Rome. Together we share the apostolic faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour; we have in common the apostolic heritage and the sacramental bond of Baptism; and therefore we are all members of God’s family, called to serve the one Lord and to proclaim his Gospel to the world. The Second Vatican Council called on Catholics to regard the members of the other Churches “as brothers and sisters in the Lord” ( Unitatis Redintegratio, 3), and this supernatural bond of brotherhood between the Church of Rome and the Church of Greece is strong and abiding

 

[Don_Ruggero]

-continuation of Pope Saint John Paul II:

1. At this meeting, I also wish to assure Your Beatitude that the Church of Rome looks with unaffected admiration to the Orthodox Church of Greece for the way in which she has preserved her heritage of faith and Christian life. The name of Greece resounds wherever the Gospel is preached. The names of her cities are known to Christians everywhere from the reading of the Acts of the Apostles and the Letters of Saint Paul . From the Apostolic era until now, the Orthodox Church of Greece has been a rich source from which the Church of the West too has drawn for her liturgy, spirituality and jurisprudence (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio , 14). A patrimony of the whole Church are the Fathers, privileged interpreters of the apostolic tradition , and the Councils, whose teachings are a binding element of all Christian faith . The universal Church can never forget what Greek Christianity has given her, nor cease to give thanks for the enduring influence of the Greek tradition.

1. The Second Vatican Council stressed to Catholics the Orthodox love of the liturgy, through which the faithful “enter into communion with the Most Holy Trinity and become sharers in the divine nature” ( Unitatis Redintegratio, 15). In offering liturgical worship pleasing to God through the centuries, in preaching the Gospel even in dark and difficult times, in presenting an unfailing didaskalia, inspired by the Scriptures and the great Tradition of the Church, the Orthodox Church of Greece has brought forth a host of saints who intercede for all God’s People before the Throne of Grace. In the saints we see the ecumenism of holiness which, with God’s help, will eventually draw us into full communion, which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, 27)

These statements – a few among many many others – express what is the mind of the Church in the midst of and in the wake of Vatican II…not statements from before the most recent ecumenical council. A whole methodology was borne from the College of Bishops and the Second Vatican Council

Those not united with that head have never been regarded as part of the tree let alone having apostolic succession. That claim would be a mere pretense to say the least.

Third: This statement above is also completely unacceptable in light of Church teaching. Again the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares:

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris , and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."

Catholics are required to assent to this teaching.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

cont’'d

Fr. Rumble in his well known Radio Replies explains this obvious point

Fourth: “Radio Replies” is a resource of no utility relative to modern ecumenical movement. The former is an apostolate that began in the 1930s, decades before Vatican II, which charted an entirely different course on ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue and which is now the point of reference for all work done by Catholics in the ecumenical movement.

As we read in Unitatis Redintegratio, Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism:

1. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church

 

[Vico]

This sounds kinda goofy but I had no clue that Eastern Catholicism was a thing. I just thought that all Eastern Catholics were Orthodox.

http://www.cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=123&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1

 

[steve-b]

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

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.

. . .
[/quote]

Excommunication was removed, schism remains.

 

[steve-b]

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

[snip for space]

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.

Re: Definitions from the CCC
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. " Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

Schism is schism.

ziapueblo:

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.**

the qualification is necessary. Otherwise there is confusion

ziapueblo:

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.

Thanks for the nice thoughts & clarification.

As an aside, If St, JPII changed canon law in any area, or on a particular subject, it would be changed. Canon law as I quoted, still refers to the Orthodox as being in schism.

 

[babochka]

Don,

You are apparently unaware that the “Don” in Don Ruggero is a title and not a name. The poster that you are addressing is a priest.

 

[twf]

You, friend, are completely at odds with the mind of the Church. The living Magisterium takes precedence over your personal interpretation of documents of a bygone era. Truth, as you said, does not change, but the Church’s understanding of the nature of the Orthodox Churches, and her approach towards them, has indeed changed.

Your history is also wrong. There certainly was a Byzantine Church governed by its own Patriarch and synod long before the Schism… yes it was in full communion with Rome and yes it recognized Rome’s primacy, but no new Church arose after the Schism. The same local Church continued and continues to this day…

Father was right to correct you, even if you have decided not to heed his words.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

They left the Church, and do not share apostolic succession, and are now outside the Church. Hence they are Schismatic.

Let us be clear: Again to emphasise the seriousness of the error of your statement concerning the Orthodox, the following quote is from Father Grondin, who is an apologist with Catholic Answers. Forum Rules demand that one can not argue with the answer of one of Catholic Answers Apologists – you are obliged to accept it without argument. Father Grondin writes:

Answer​

"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 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 ( Catholic Teaching on Apostolic Succession , International Theological Commission, 1973)

Also relevant to this discussion is Pope Pius XI encyclical on fostering to Christian unity.

The encyclical of Pope Pius XI is relevant only as a historical artifact that has been superseded. It is not a documents guiding the Catholic Church in the ecumenical movement of the modern era. Rather, the documents guiding ecumenical endeavours and inter-religious dialogue include:

1. The Decree on Ecumenism by the Pope and College of Bishops assembled at Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
2. The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions by the Pope and College of Bishops assembled at Vatican II, Nostra Aetate: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ts/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
3. The Encyclical of Pope Saint John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint: Ut Unum Sint (25 May 1995) | John Paul II
4. The Holy See’s dispositive Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, promulgated by the Saint of God, Pope John Paul II: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You keep referencing documents or actions from many centuries ago that are simply no longer relevant. These books’ contents no longer accord with the Church’s thought or action in the ecumenical movement. Pope Benedict of the error of attempting to apply the words of Saint Cyprian to contemporary controversies. The attempt, he said, is not valid and is disrespectful to the saint. The place to look for answers is with the Church’s contemporary Magisterium.

Monsignor Van Noort’s writings are superceded by the determinations of the Council Fathers and the writings of the Popes during and after Vatican II.

Any respect for Monsignor you may have must be surpassed by deference and obedience for the Church’s living Magisterium – for the Council Fathers and for the Popes of Vatican II and its aftermath. After all, three of these Popes are to be venerated as canonized saints of the Church.

Having worked on the initiatives of the Second Vatican Council throughout my priestly life, frankly my interactions with any Catholic who does not fully embrace the Council and assent unconditionally to its teachings is limited – limited to saying that is their duty to do so.

 

[edward_george1]

Just curious, how does it make sense to say that a church can have valid sacraments, but not Apostolic succession?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Pope Saint John Paul II greeting to the Orthodox Archbishop of Athens and Primate of Greece answers your question: Jubilee Pilgrimage to Greece, Syria and Malta: Courtesy visit to His Beatitude Christodoulos, Archbishop of Athens and Primate of Greece - Orthodox Archdiocesan Palace of Athens (May 4, 2001) | John Paul II

1. I wish first of all to express to you the affection and regard of the Church of Rome. Together we share the apostolic faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour; we have in common the apostolic heritage

Of course they are apostolic in origin. They are successors to the apostles.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It seems you may not be able to grasp the point being made, from what you have written.

The one who is not grasping what the Church teaches in these matters is not TWF…it is you.