Can an Eastern Catholic fulfill his Sunday obligation at an Orthodox DL?

[TP2]

That is actually exactly what the Orthodox Church believes Father and I am sorry to say you have been very, extremely misinformed or have drawn incorrect conclusions. You seem to misinterpret niceities and courtesy even here as acknowledgement and validation of your Church, so I can only surmise you have mistakingly done similarly in your dealings with Orthodox Priests and Bishops.

**If I am so misinformed, you have a Divine mandate to set me straight. Where are your references? **

 

[TP2]

I am a parishoner at St George’s Orthodox Church under the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America. Bishop +ALEXANDER is my Bishop. Do you need a Baptismal certificate as well?

No. References about your beliefs will do just fine. I will write to this Bishop that you state, if he exists. Why don’t you give me the link to your Parish? Surely your diocese has to be represented onine, no?

 

[trophybearer]

**If I am so misinformed, you have a Divine mandate to set me straight. Where are your references? **

Here’s just one instance demonstrating the extent to which you are misinformed:
23 May 2010
Pantocrator Monastery (Melissohori, Greece)
impantokratoros.gr/visit_pope-cyprus.en.aspx
Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol Speaks Out on the Upcoming Visit of the Pope of Rome to Cyprus

In an interview published today, 23 May 2010, in the Cypriot newspaper Phileleftheros, Metropolitan Athanasios distanced himself from the Archbishop’s decision to host the Pope in Cyprus. The following are excerpts from the interview:

For us Orthodox, the Pope is a heretic, outside of the Church, and, hence, not even a bishop…

He [the Pope] has been outside of the Church for ten centuries now, he is not a canonical bishop, and he has no relation whatsoever to the reality of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ. It is one thing to receive him as a canonical bishop and quite another to speak to him as [being] a heterodox in order to reveal to him the truth of the Orthodox Faith and Tradition…

Dialogue is not a bad thing when it is carried out based on correct presuppositions. However, it is wrong to say to these people that we recognise them as a Church, that we recognise the Pope as a Bishop, as our brother in Christ in the priesthood and in [the] faith. I cannot accept this, because we are lying [when we say this], since all of the Holy Fathers teach exactly the opposite. Papism is a heresy and the source of many other heresies that trouble the entire world today. A contemporary Saint of the Church, St Justin Popović, said that there have been three tragic falls in the history of the human race:
• of the first-formed Adam
• of the disciple of Christ, Judas
• of the Pope, who, when he was the first Bishop of the Church, fell from the apostolic faith

[He] was cut off from the canonical Church, and he lured away a host of people with him. God is one and the Church of God is one, and that is why we say in the Symbol of Faith [that we believe] ‘in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church’. This is the Orthodox Church, there do not exist many Churches…

When I say to the other that it doesn’t matter that you are Catholic and that we all belong to the same Church, I am playing with him [or mocking him], since all of the Holy Fathers teach that the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ is one…

The Orthodox Church preserves the faith of the Apostles and the experience of the prophets unshakeable up until our own days. The Papists, unfortunately, from the time when they were cut off from the Church, added many heretical dogmas to their [confession of] faith, changed the Symbol of Faith [the Nicene Creed], and, above all, elevated the Pope to the level of being the eminent and unique representative of God on earth…

When you add things to the Symbol of Faith that the Holy Fathers did not write, and many other false teachings, this is heresy. This is the reality of things…

---

Phileleftheros
How does the Orthodox Church encounter/deal with heretics?

Metropolitan Athanasios
With much love. We love the Pope, we love the papists just as we love every person; we do not despise them, we do not reject them as persons, but we do not accept [their] heresy, we do not accept the false teachings, we do not accept [their] delusions. Because we love them we must tell them the truth.

Phileleftheros
Do you think that dialogue can produce results?

Continued…

 

[trophybearer]

…Metropolitan Athanasios
It can, if we do it properly and base it on the right presuppositions. Unfortunately, as it is carried out today, it does not produce results, and that is why they have carried on discussions for so many years without coming to any conclusions.

Frankly, and above all, I disagree with the coming of the Pope to Cyprus, and I say with my whole soul that the Pope is a heretic, he is not a bishop, he is not an Orthodox Christian, and this is what the Holy Fathers say. If I am wrong, I am ready to be corrected, but based on the Holy Fathers, not based on the mindset of globalisation. Just because I disagree does not mean that I am being disorderly and am outside the Church [as some have claimed].

The Pope always speaks in a formal manner, he says things which are customary [to his position], as he will say now that he will come to Cyprus, but he will do nothing of essence, because he is not the leader of the Church, but a political person, who cannot come into conflict with the political establishment and system. Did the Pope ever speak up for the Orthodox Church? … However, I am not going back [to a distant past]. The reasons I am reacting today are purely theological. When I was consecrated a bishop, I pledged to preserve the Orthodox Faith.

Phileleftheros
The Pope said that he wants to make a pilgrimage following the footsteps of the Apostle Paul.

Metropolitan Athanasios
With the exception that the Apostle Paul didn’t travel using a bulletproof car which cost 500,000 euros (19.584 million Roubles 627,700 USD 433,364 UK Pounds), which, I read, the Cypriot government bought for the Pope to travel around Cyprus for the two days he will be here. I was personally quite scandalised by this news and said that a bulletproof car does not fit the Vicar of Christ. For the people to have to pay such a price in the midst of an economic crisis…

Phileleftheros
The announcement from the representatives of the Pope says that he is coming to Cyprus in order to promote human and Christian values and principles, and that he wants to walk in the steps of the Apostle Paul and in a spirit of the brotherhood meet the Orthodox Church with a good disposition.

Metropolitan Athanasios
I do not doubt his good will… may it be that this is the case. May it be that he resembles the Apostle Paul and that he encounters the riches of the Orthodox Church. We pray that he return to the Orthodox Church and becomes once again an Orthodox Bishop as he was before the schism. This alone is the proper path to unity.

Phileleftheros
What do you think is the hidden agenda?

Metropolitan Athanasios
The Vatican does not take steps thoughtlessly or naïvely. Every tour of each Pope has as its aim to present him as the worldwide leader of Christianity. At this point, however, he is neither a canonical Bishop, nor Orthodox, such that he is in no place to present himself as having the first place among bishops.

Phileleftheros
Are there hidden political interests at stake here?

Metropolitan Athanasios
I don’t know; I don’t think that we [the Cypriot people] have anything to gain politically from the visit of the Pope… only a lot of expenses and great upheaval in the consciences of the faithful.

Phileleftheros
The Archbishop said that all those who disagree would place themselves outside the Church.

Metropolitan Athanasios
I am not aware of the Archbishop’s statements, but I don’t think that whoever disagrees with the coming of the Pope places himself outside the Church. I disagree, I say it boldly and frankly, and I am not outside the Church.

If you have read “The Mountain of Silence” and its companion volume, Metropolitan Athanasios is the “Father Maximos” of those books.

 

[trophybearer]

More of the interview:

oodegr.com/english/papismos/pope_visit_cyprus.htm

Cyprus has 8 Bishops: 5 of them declared themselves against the Pope’s visit- not even his Primacy or anything so lofty, but even his visit.

 

[trophybearer]

No. References about your beliefs will do just fine. I will write to this Bishop that you state, if he exists. Why don’t you give me the link to your Parish? Surely your diocese has to be represented onine, no?

Please do!

antiochian.org/ (the Archdiocesean website)

antiochian.org/canam (the diocese)

antiochian.org/BishopALEXANDER (Bishop +ALEXANDER)

 

[TP2]

Please do!

antiochian.org/ (the Archdiocesean website)

antiochian.org/canam (the diocese)

antiochian.org/BishopALEXANDER (Bishop +ALEXANDER)

OK. I see no mention of Patriarch Bartholomew or any relationship to other Orthodox Churches which leads me to believe The Antichian Church is not in union with “NEW ROME”. I sent them an email so I will await an answer. Look, I don’t know everything and this shows me Orthodox Churches are not all in Union with All the other Orthodox Churches. Very confusing.

 

[trophybearer]

OK. I see no mention of Patriarch Bartholomew or any relationship to other Orthodox Churches which leads me to believe The Antichian Church is not in union with “NEW ROME”. I sent them an email so I will await an answer. Look, I don’t know everything and this shows me Orthodox Churches are not all in Union with All the other Orthodox Churches. Very confusing.

We are most definitely in communion with New Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

Dear father,

OK. I see no mention of Patriarch Bartholomew or any relationship to other Orthodox Churches which leads me to believe The Antichian Church is not in union with “NEW ROME”. I sent them an email so I will await an answer. Look, I don’t know everything and this shows me Orthodox Churches are not all in Union with All the other Orthodox Churches. Very confusing.

You are only confused because you are just beginning to investigate these things. Most Catholics (myself included) have had to go through the same discovery process, because at first we are only familiar with the Papal ecclesiology (and we generally tend to project that back into time to the pre-schism church, which confuses us).

It helps if one can grasp the ecclesiology of the early church. I quick read of The churches the Apostles left behind by Father Raymond Brown could give a clue as to the primitive origins of this type of ecclesiology. The churches have relationships through communion, but most of these are entirely self-governing. The famous Pentarchy (which included the See of Rome) represented the five most significant autocephalous churches, but there were others even then (most notably mentioned being Cyprus).

Some churches, such the church in Japan, are autonomous, not autocephalous, because they still retain a semi-mission status in relation to the mother church. The development of the churches in western Europe had similar beginnings (with the church synod of Gaul being headed by the bishop of Arles for example, at least for a time).

The glue which holds the self-headed churches together is communion. Communion between autocephalous churches is based upon a common theology. In such an arrangement maintaining communion is the highest goal of every church, which means that we are all answerable to our fellows, because they set the conditions for communion (much as sovereign nations set the conditions for diplomatic relations with other nations). In order to be as one with our counterparts elsewhere we are under constant pressure see that we do not diverge from the Faith as handed to us. There is no greater external sign of unity than communion/concelebration which is based upon a common Faith.

That’s the problem between your autocephalous church and the Orthodox churches. The theology has diverged, so restoration of communion is not possible. Under the Orthodox system, agreement in theology is an absolute precondition for the sharing of communion, but an integrated corporate structure is not.

 

[Diak]

No Catholic bishop will make someone attend Mass again if they have gone to an Orthodox liturgy for genuine spiritual benefit. It’s that simple. The only one who ever told me other wise was Richard Williamson, and his status is less than regular.

Directories are not dogma, Magisterial teaching and are mutable. Check Unitatis Redintegratio especially 15:

Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to **be encouraged. **

as well as 17:

All this heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in its various traditions, this holy synod declares to belong to the full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church.

Orientale Lumen states in 5:

Here, with respect and trepidation, I want to approach the act of worship which these Churches express, rather than to identify this or that specific theological point which has emerged down the centuries in the polemical debates between East and West.

This ludicrosity of “dual obligation” most certainly does not agree with the late Holy Father’s desire for greater respect, esteem and admiration for the Christian East.

In 1 of OL the Holy father states:

Since, in fact, we believe that the venerable and ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the heritage of Christ’s Church, the first need for Catholics is to be familiar with that tradition, so as to be nourished by it and to encourage the process of unity in the best way possible for each.

In 24 of OL the Holy Father also states:

. I believe that one important way to grow in mutual understanding and unity consists precisely in improving our knowledge of one another.

How in the world do you know the Eastern Churches without experiencing them in their fullness, namely in their Liturgy?

One should always refer to the Magisterial documents when there is a question and not only rely on “directories”, law and guidance. The rescinding of the 1967 directory was done hastily and several (including Fr. Taft) have commented on the apparent lack of review and inconsistency with existing Vatican documents when it was done. This type of short-sighted legalism has no place in the greater work of Catholic-Orthodox unity, especially when it may impede a genuine spiritual good (i.e. the experiencing of the Christian East). And in 21 of OL the Holy Father states

And conversion is also required of the Latin Church, that she may respect and fully appreciate the dignity of Eastern Christians

. This sort of legalism is not an outward manifestation of conversion, dignity or respect.

 

[TP2]

We are most definitely in communion with New Rome.

Yes, I know. I just got an email from the diocese. But it also said things you were totally off base on. Showing once again how tumultuous and uninformed an Orthodox you really are or choose to be. Sewing confusion like you did… If your priest teaches you these absurdities I will be more than happy to inform him his Diocese does not stand with him. The Antiochian Church’ Office said unambiguously that it is not only in Union with Patr. bart but that it does RECOGNIZE ALL Roman Catholic Priests and Bishops’ as having VALID ORDERS.

**Just a reminder. Sewing confusion deliberaltely is a Mortal Sin. And there ain’t no icon here that can describe it!!! **

 

[TP2]

Dear father, You are only confused because you are just beginning to investigate these things. Most Catholics (myself included) have had to go through the same discovery process, because at first we are only familiar with the Papal ecclesiology (and we generally tend to project that back into time to the pre-schism church, which confuses us).

It helps if one can grasp the ecclesiology of the early church. I quick read of The churches the Apostles left behind by Father Raymond Brown could give a clue as to the primitive origins of this type of ecclesiology. The churches have relationships through communion, but most of these are entirely self-governing. The famous Pentarchy (which included the See of Rome) represented the five most significant autocephalous churches, but there were others even then (most notably mentioned being Cyprus).

Some churches, such the church in Japan, are autonomous, not autocephalous, because they still retain a semi-mission status in relation to the mother church. The development of the churches in western Europe had similar beginnings (with the church synod of Gaul being headed by the bishop of Arles for example, at least for a time).

The glue which holds the self-headed churches together is communion. Communion between autocephalous churches is based upon a common theology. In such an arrangement maintaining communion is the highest goal of every church, which means that we are all answerable to our fellows, because they set the conditions for communion (much as sovereign nations set the conditions for diplomatic relations with other nations). In order to be as one with our counterparts elsewhere we are under constant pressure see that we do not diverge from the Faith as handed to us. There is no greater external sign of unity than communion/concelebration which is based upon a common Faith.

That’s the problem between your autocephalous church and the Orthodox churches. The theology has diverged, so restoration of communion is not possible. Under the Orthodox system, agreement in theology is an absolute precondition for the sharing of communion, but an integrated corporate structure is not.

How about a better and easy idea? Try ascending to the faith of your Early fathers and Mine? Sounds novel, I know. The Orthodox Church is not Unified Doctrinally and Morally. Can’t you get that? Can’t you read matthew 16? What is it about “To you I give the keys of the Kingdom…” don’t you understand? If you know a little teency weency Greek, you will know that Christ was speaking to Peter ALONE. The English grammar is called “SINGULAR TENSE”. That means… “to One Person or entity”… Not a collective one… no pun…

Look at all these Eastern Fathers. Did you ever actually read any of them?

Short clips…
bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

Loooooong clips…
fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

 

[Hesychios]

How about a better and easy idea? Try ascending to the faith of your Early fathers and Mine? Sounds novel, I know. The Orthodox Church is not Unified Doctrinally and Morally. Can’t you get that? Can’t you read matthew 16? What is it about “To you I give the keys of the Kingdom…” don’t you understand? If you know a little teency weency Greek, you will know that Christ was speaking to Peter ALONE. The English grammar is called “SINGULAR TENSE”. That means… “to One Person or entity”… Not a collective one… no pun…

I tried to be polite and give you an explanation. Your reponse surprises me for someone who is so poorly informed. You didn’t address one point in my post, but throw out this red herring.

For Orthodox, all bishops are Peter. It is the faith expressed by Peter that is the foundation of the church. All bishops have the power to bind and loosen and that contines to the present day in Holy Orthodoxy.

Nothing you have posted addresses the historical fact that the bishops of Rome had no administrative function in the other autocephalic churches. Outside of Metropolitan central Italy the bishops of Rome did not do these things for the rest of the church which they claim exclusive power to do today…

• erect dioceses and eparchies anywhere
• call councils, and suppress councils
• name bishops, transfer them and remove them
• regulate the liturgy
• codify the canons
• canonize saints
• unilaterally declare dogma

In the early church, only heretics proclaimed dogma upon their own authority, today however Popes claim to be able to do it.

 

[TP2]

I tried to be polite and give you an explanation. Your reponse surprises me for someone who is so poorly informed. You didn’t address one point in my post, but throw out this red herring.

For Orthodox, all bishops are Peter. It is the faith expressed by Peter that is the foundation of the church. All bishops have the power to bind and loosen and that contines to the present day in Holy Orthodoxy.

Nothing you have posted addresses the historical fact that the bishops of Rome had no administrative function in the other autocephalic churches. Outside of Metropolitan central Italy the bishops of Rome did not do these things for the rest of the church which they claim exclusive power to do today…

• erect dioceses and eparchies anywhere
• call councils, and suppress councils
• name bishops, transfer them and remove them
• regulate the liturgy
• codify the canons
• canonize saints
• unilaterally declare dogma

In the early church, only heretics proclaimed dogma upon their own authority, today however Popes claim to be able to do it.

All Bishops Are “PETER”? Really. Where is that in Scripture? I’m waiting. Cause in My bible Jesus is Picking Peter from all the others in Mt 16 for a separate ministry apart from the others. Where in the Early Fathers does anyone state in a Letter that “PETER” is equivalent to ALL the bishops?

BTW---- Did you know that The Orthodox Church claims to have the Power To Canonize Saints today? Yeahh… Hmmmmm… Getting jealous?

BTW— When you canonize a Saint… You state with that horrible non Orthodox word—Infallibly—That the person IS IN HEAVEN. Yeah… Ya do. When an Orthodox Bishop says a saint is in heaven, he is exercising INFALLIBILITY. ohhhhh…But wait… I thought that was a Papal ERROR…

 

[TP2]

I tried to be polite and give you an explanation. Your reponse surprises me for someone who is so poorly informed. You didn’t address one point in my post, but throw out this red herring.

For Orthodox, all bishops are Peter. It is the faith expressed by Peter that is the foundation of the church. All bishops have the power to bind and loosen and that contines to the present day in Holy Orthodoxy.

Nothing you have posted addresses the historical fact that the bishops of Rome had no administrative function in the other autocephalic churches. Outside of Metropolitan central Italy the bishops of Rome did not do these things for the rest of the church which they claim exclusive power to do today…

• erect dioceses and eparchies anywhere
• call councils, and suppress councils
• name bishops, transfer them and remove them
• regulate the liturgy
• codify the canons
• canonize saints
• unilaterally declare dogma

In the early church, only heretics proclaimed dogma upon their own authority, today however Popes claim to be able to do it.

You have never bothered to study the writing of the early fathers otherwise you would never speak such … ehem… malarkey? God forgive me.

 

[trophybearer]

Orthodox Church is not Unified Doctrinally and Morally. Can’t you get that? Can’t you read matthew 16? How about a better and easy idea? Try ascending to the faith of your Early fathers and Mine? Sounds novel, I know. The What is it about “To you I give the keys of the Kingdom…” don’t you understand? If you know a little teency weency Greek, you will know that Christ was speaking to Peter ALONE. The English grammar is called “SINGULAR TENSE”. That means… “to One Person or entity”… Not a collective one… no pun…

Look at all these Eastern Fathers. Did you ever actually read any of them?

Short clips…
bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

Loooooong clips…
fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

Christ then gives the keys to every Apostle when he gives them the power to forgive sins and tells them what they bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what they loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. What on earth are you supposed to do with “keys” except bind and loose?

You’re beginning to become sarcastic and a tad arrogant. "Orthodox Church is not Unified Doctrinally and Morally. Can’t you get that? Can’t you read matthew 16? How about a better and easy idea? Try ascending to the faith of your Early fathers and Mine? Sounds novel, I know. The What is it about “To you I give the keys of the Kingdom…” don’t you understand? " Is this way of speaking to others really becoming of a Priest of God? Maybe if you spent a little more time reading and a little less time insulting me you might have a better grasp on this. I am taking your word for it that you are, in fact, a Catholic priest by the way. Frankly, I have no way of knowing whether this is true or not. Do you perchance have any credentials to back up your claim?

Again you throw a bunch of quotes around from your fisheaters website. Is that supposed to be convincing? I don’t find it so.

The word is “assenting” by the way, not “ascending”. You give your “assent” to an idea, you “ascend” a flight of stairs.

 

[Hesychios]

… I am taking your word for it that you are, in fact, a Catholic priest by the way. Frankly, I have no way of knowing whether this is true or not.

I am glad you brought this up.

This was my thought as well. I went so far as make the comment and then deleted it. I can’t believe that a person could get through the seminary like this.

My first impression was that this person is probably not a priest, but I will have to take his claim at face value and give him the benefit of the doubt for the present.

 

[TP2]

Christ then gives the keys to every Apostle when he gives them the power to forgive sins and tells them what they bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what they loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. What on earth are you supposed to do with “keys” except bind and loose?

You’re beginning to become sarcastic and a tad arrogant. "Orthodox Church is not Unified Doctrinally and Morally. Can’t you get that? Can’t you read matthew 16? How about a better and easy idea? Try ascending to the faith of your Early fathers and Mine? Sounds novel, I know. The What is it about “To you I give the keys of the Kingdom…” don’t you understand? " Is this way of speaking to others really becoming of a Priest of God? Maybe if you spent a little more time reading and a little less time insulting me you might have a better grasp on this. I am taking your word for it that you are, in fact, a Catholic priest by the way. Frankly, I have no way of knowing whether this is true or not. Do you perchance have any credentials to back up your claim?

Again you throw a bunch of quotes around from your fisheaters website. Is that supposed to be convincing? I don’t find it so.

The word is “assenting” by the way, not “ascending”. You give your “assent” to an idea, you “ascend” a flight of stairs.

There is no sarcasm in speaking the Truth. I don’t see it. If I caused sarcasm, I apologize.

No. He doesn’t give the Keys To All The Apostles. If that was the case he would have done the same thing to ALL those same Apostles He did for Peter in Mt 16. He didn’t. He Only and Soley gives them the Power of binding and Loosing. He gives the Keys ONLY to Peter in Mt 16. You need to study your bible and early fathers more. He is speaking**“SINGULARLY”**, not collectively. Even the Fathers Of The Church concur. Do you not know what The Early Fathers had to say about this? Are you really kidding me?

Which early Eastern Father Taught That The Keys of The kingdom were given to ALL the Apostles. Go ahead… Search.

 

[Aramis]

Rev. Father TP2, you’ve come across quite triumphalist here intentional or not.

Truth is, some EO churches state they don’t accept catholic orders as valid, including many primates of EO churches. Including the Russian Orthodox; this is a turn about from their prior view.

Some do. Others, like the OCA, officially say “We are not certain” and trust in economia and supplied jurisdiction when they accept Catholic clerics by vesting, and not all clerics are accepted by vesting even then. (It’s the receiving bishop’s call.)

The Catholic position is that all Canonical EO orders are valid, and so are many non-canonical EO orders, like the Ukrainian Orthodox - Kyiv Patriarchate’s…

The Orthodox posters here, however, tend towards the “don’t” side, and its never been corporately decided, in part, because the EO are a collection of independent churches on the same path as each other, not a united corporate body, and in part because, except for a pan-orthodox council there is no person nor group that can definitively define the status of Catholics in a binding manner, and in part because no particular body within Orthodoxy seems to want to make that definition an issue for a council to be called.

On the ground, in the parishes, the views vary widely. Some consider Catholics anathematized and barred from the liturgy in entirety; some consider Catholics close enough to be admitted to communion under economia. I’ve personally encountered OCA priests of both extremes; the Antiochian clergy I’ve discussed it with are all of the “Unless you’re Melkite, no confession nor eucharist” or “Catholic? no, you may not even confess here.”

 

[TP2]

Rev. Father TP2, you’ve come across quite triumphalist here intentional or not.

Truth is, some EO churches state they don’t accept catholic orders as valid, including many primates of EO churches. Including the Russian Orthodox; this is a turn about from their prior view.

Some do. Others, like the OCA, officially say “We are not certain” and trust in economia and supplied jurisdiction when they accept Catholic clerics by vesting, and not all clerics are accepted by vesting even then. (It’s the receiving bishop’s call.)

The Catholic position is that all Canonical EO orders are valid, and so are many non-canonical EO orders, like the Ukrainian Orthodox - Kyiv Patriarchate’s…

The Orthodox posters here, however, tend towards the “don’t” side, and its never been corporately decided, in part, because the EO are a collection of independent churches on the same path as each other, not a united corporate body, and in part because, except for a pan-orthodox council there is no person nor group that can definitively define the status of Catholics in a binding manner, and in part because no particular body within Orthodoxy seems to want to make that definition an issue for a council to be called.

On the ground, in the parishes, the views vary widely. Some consider Catholics anathematized and barred from the liturgy in entirety; some consider Catholics close enough to be admitted to communion under economia. I’ve personally encountered OCA priests of both extremes; the Antiochian clergy I’ve discussed it with are all of the “Unless you’re Melkite, no confession nor eucharist” or “Catholic? no, you may not even confess here.”

I try to tell the Truth. You are completely correct in your assesments. That just shows how disunified Orthodoxy is. I have only been trying to make that attempt transparrent. I am not intentionally trying to be Triumphalistic, but clear. If someone wants to tell me that EO’s have it all… They don’t. They don’t even have a comprehensive Catechism that they can all rely on. I am just trying to push their buttons so that maybe they can push back and give me something to work with.

But you are absolutely correct and you make my point that EO’s sadly are not a unified Body of believers. That’s why dialogue with them on an individual level is the only way. My only issue is that if their First Among Equals accepts the validity of our Orders, shouldn’t they be inclined to? Doesn’t that make them look kinda silly?