Attending Orthodox Services

[twf]

There is a state of schism, yes, but by virtue of their apostolic succession, they are in an “imperfect”, but still real, communion with the Catholic Church. There can be no apostolic succession nor sacraments outside of the Catholic Church, thus they logically are still, imperfectly, Catholic.

Regarding their origin, the apostles and their immediate successors established many local churches. Some of these are now Orthodox Churches.

By the living Magisterium we mean the reigning (and recent) popes (some who are saints), the most recent ecumenical Council, and the universally binding Catechism. All this trumps the personal interpretation of individuals as to what constitutes “unchanging tradition”.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I saw it.

Your thesis is incorrect.

The Churches of the Orthodoxy did not become churches founded by men at the time of the schism. They were what they had been from their founding…Churches founded by the apostles which went on to found other Churches.

Communion between various particular Churches was lost by some and maintained by others. As the Popes since the Council have reiterated, the fault from this tragedy lies with men on both sides…and was exacerbated by both sides.

Now we are arrived to a phase of healing, thanks in large part to the initiative of the Saint of God, Pope Paul VI. It is difficult to overstate just how great a saint he actually is. In just over 50 years, we are arrived to the moment when very little prevents us from a common celebration of the Eucharist.

The tragedy is that if the Church of 1000 was what the Church of 2018 is, the schism would have not happened.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Given the implicit disrespect to the Magisterium, whose servant I am as both priest and theologian, that comment is unworthy of response.

 

[MichaelP3]

The tragedy is that if the Church of 1000 was what the Church of 2018 is, the schism would have not happened. (Catholics on here like to point to the problem but do not like to acknowledge their problem)

With all respect I have to ask this question?

What would be the main differences between the year 1000 and now. And also, can the question not also be asked " have the Catholic Church not be the Church of the 1500’s", would the Reformation not have happened?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

With all respect I have to ask this question?

What would be the main differences between the year 1000 and now. And also, can the question not also be asked " have the Catholic Church not be the Church of the 1500’s", would the Reformation not have happened?

I think that question was very ably answered by the Joint Commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation that was just concluded by Catholics and Lutherans.

 

[MichaelP3]

Please refer me to a document about that.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

From Conflict to Communion

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html

 

[MichaelP3]

This is a pretty lengthy document. I will most definitely make some time to go through it but I may miss your point

I am personally very of the opinion that if the Catholic Church of the 1500’s were the Church of today that the Reformation would not have happened. ( I mean let’s be honest.) That is why your post about the 1054 schism intrigued me.

 

[edward_george1]

This is extremely disrespectful and irreverent, and certainly not a productive way to discuss anything.

Flagged.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Canvas]

I have no words. The key to a fruitful discussion is respect.

 

[Feanor2]

What do you mean you don’t “culturally” fit in?

What is it about the ROC that you feel more comfortable with “culturally” speaking?

 

[LastStand]

Why does that matter?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Just like my title says, I am inquiring about the morality of attending Russian Orthodox mass on Sunday. The parishes in my area tend to be extremely modern to put it politely with their approach to mass and I do not fit in well culturally either. I have no desire to evangelize and I would rather just go where I might fit in better.

If you believe (as the Roman Catholic Church teaches) that Russian Orthodox are not in full communion with the Church than it makes no sense to do this. Regardless of whether you like the modern Mass or not, it is a valid Catholic Mass while the Russian Orthodox one will not fullfill your obligation. Surely, one of your nearby cities has a Roman Catholic Church saying Latin Mass, an Eastern Rite, Byzantine, or Maronite Church. All of these would have a Mass that would “fit” you culturally.

 

[LastStand]

My question was already answered by thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is a pretty lengthy document. I will most definitely make some time to go through it but I may miss your point

I am personally very of the opinion that if the Catholic Church of the 1500’s were the Church of today that the Reformation would not have happened. ( I mean let’s be honest.) That is why your post about the 1054 schism intrigued me.

I would agree with you completely.

Do try to plod through From Conflict to Communion, as you are able. I think you will find the insights very useful – and it also gives an excellent insight into the mind of the Holy See today about the Reformation and ecumenism in general, which is why I recommended it in this context.

So much has been revised as a result of re-examination of that era in light of new paradigms regarding historical research. That is why so many old history texts that were once staples are now simply set aside as woefully inadequate if not outright polemical. The same could be said regarding the 10th and 11th centuries.

I conclude with one of my personal favorites from the document, which can be applied more broadly:

1. Catholics and Lutherans realize that they and the communities in which they live out their faith belong to the one body of Christ. The awareness is dawning on Lutherans and Catholics that the struggle of the sixteenth century is over. The reasons for mutually condemning each other’s faith have fallen by the wayside.

Happy Christmas to you and yours.

 

[dochawk]

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

And you can’t call the Orthodox “schismatic” without disobeying Rome . . .

You’re missing the point.

You are required to not instruct others contrary to these laws . . . noone (except you) suggested an obligation to attend Orthodox services . . .

But what would @Don_Ruggero know . . . he’s just one of those pesky “presbyters” . . .

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

This thread is just full of statements in direct contradiction of Papal teaching . . .

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

Uh, oh . . .

another pesky presbyter bringing actual church teaching into the discussion . . .

 

[Arwing]

I don’t have anything to say on the topic of this thread, but how is it not correct to say that the Orthodox are in schism? I thought that just meant refusal to submit to the Roman Pontiff.

 

[dochawk]

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?

Except that neither of those are actually teaching of any Orthodox Church.

How they handle a situation is not the same thing as “approving” or “allowing”.

hawk

 

[AlNg]

Except that neither of those are actually teaching of any Orthodox Church.

I thought that under certain conditions some Antioch Orthodox priests may allow a married couple to use artificial birth control? For example, if the couple already has four children and is under a financial strain? At least that is what I was told by an Antioch Orthodox priest. This is not the same in the Byzantine Catholic Church, is it?
And here is what Orthodox wiki says:
" The dominant view, represented by the Church of Moscow[3], the Greek Archdiocese, the Orthodox Church in America[4], and by the bioethicists Engelhardt and Stanley S. Harakas, may be fairly described as the teaching that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one’s spiritual father, and if it is not used to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons.

The position of the Greek Archdiocese of America was given by Harakas: “Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.”
" As Paul Evdokimov wrote, “In the age of the Church Fathers, the problem of birth control was never raised. There are no canons that deal with it.”[1] The Orthodox bioethicist H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., agrees, writing, “Despite detailed considerations of sexual offenses by ecumenical councils, and by generally accepted local councils, and despite a recognition that marriage is oriented toward reproduction, there is no condemnation of limiting births, apart from the condemnation of abortion.”["
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Birth_Cont...x_Teaching_on_Birth_Control_and_Contraception

 

[dochawk]

I thought that under certain conditions some Antioch Orthodox priests may allow a married couple to use artificial birth control?

Ekonomia (choose a spelling) is an Orthodox practice that handles things that should not happen, or our fallen state, or such issues.

What may be accepted by Economic in certain cases does not make it teaching or practice of that church.

Individual opinions on generality do not change this.