Catholic or Orthodox

[Isaiah45_9]

Your generalizing every parish. Not all parishes use guitars and praise bands. And you are wrong about not receiving both species. I receive both every Sunday. Not sure where you attended before as an ex-Catholic.

My Parish also presents both forms. But, I have been to Churches (In fact, the one I grew up) where only the Body is given.

Also true about the music. My Parish is in the middle - 4-5 instruments (acoustic) and a chorus, a wonderful chorus I might add. But I just like all forms of music, it’s an expression of our souls (without the bad words/suggestive language, of course - although that is an expression in itself nonetheless, lol).

 

[dzheremi]

The RC parish I was baptized in communed people under both species and did not use guitars or praise bands, but I still converted to Orthodoxy. I had assumed andrewstx was just being polite…

What reverence there is in the RC church is really of a different character than what you’re likely to find in the Orthodox Church. I’m not saying one is better or worse than the other, only that they’re different. I personally found after several years of trying that I could not be healthy in an RC spiritual environment, but I’m sure there are plenty who also struggle in Orthodoxy (everybody, actually; that’s kind of a big deal, particularly during this time of year). I would say as a general comment to the OP what I always say in these kinds of contexts: St. Anthony tells us to guard our tongues and our stomachs, and that’s much more important in a practical/experiential sense than finding out a priori who is ‘right’ or not. Go to each, explore each, and try to get a sense of the everyday spiritual life of the believer. Study everything with an open mind (not based on what you’ve been shown on the internet, but within the context of the brick-and-mortar parishes you’re actually visiting) and trust God to show you where you need to be.

 

[Nicea325]

My Parish also presents both forms. But, I have been to Churches (In fact, the one I grew up) where only the Body is given.

Also true about the music. My Parish is in the middle - 4-5 instruments (acoustic) and a chorus, a wonderful chorus I might add. But I just like all forms of music, it’s an expression of our souls (without the bad words/suggestive language, of course - although that is an expression in itself nonetheless, lol).

Yes,the parish/pastor has the option of providing both or one.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The RC parish I was baptized in communed people under both species and did not use guitars or praise bands, but I still converted to Orthodoxy. I had assumed andrewstx was just being polite…

What reverence there is in the RC church is really of a different character than what you’re likely to find in the Orthodox Church. I’m not saying one is better or worse than the other, only that they’re different. I personally found after several years of trying that I could not be healthy in an RC spiritual environment, but I’m sure there are plenty who also struggle in Orthodoxy (everybody, actually; that’s kind of a big deal, particularly during this time of year). I would say as a general comment to the OP what I always say in these kinds of contexts: St. Anthony tells us to guard our tongues and our stomachs, and that’s much more important in a practical/experiential sense than finding out a priori who is ‘right’ or not. Go to each, explore each, and try to get a sense of the everyday spiritual life of the believer. Study everything with an open mind (not based on what you’ve been shown on the internet, but within the context of the brick-and-mortar parishes you’re actually visiting) and trust God to show you where you need to be.

Amen! That’s the same advice I give!

 

[adf417]

Well consider: suppose I start a new denomination and call it “the Roman Catholic Church”. Would that create a problem for your faith?

And the crowd goes wild! Peter J, with the walk-off home run! (Sorry…I’ve been watching a lot of baseball lately.)

Seriously, folks…I’m not going to say that it’s ridiculous that people wonder these things (after all, it’s not your church, so it’s natural to wonder), but a lot of trouble or confusion could be saved by thinking “Would the same situation, if it were to exist in my church (or if I could admit to myself that it already does, e.g., phyletism) suddenly cause me to consider my own communion as confusing or unstable or broken or (insert your own adjective here) as I am assuming the Orthodox communion is by virtue of the fact that its ecclesiological view and structure is not exactly the same as that of my communion?” If the answer to this question is “No, it wouldn’t”, then you can safely assume that the answer for the Orthodox is the same (i.e., there may be problems, but they don’t call into question the fundamental nature of the Church or its ecclesiology).

I really thought my question was most sincere - “How does one know?”. I’m not sure how to take these two responses but honestly I still don’t know and yet it seems to be quite simple. I really am willing to add more learning to what you have gave me in the last 24 hours. Could I get a simple straight forward answer?

Peace!!!

 

[Nelka]

Catholic or Orthodox

I am curious as to which version of Christianity is more correct, and the arguments for and against each branch or sect of Christianity.

Catholic.

 

[dzheremi]

I really thought my question was most sincere - “How does one know?”. I’m not sure how to take these two responses but honestly I still don’t know and yet it seems to be quite simple. I really am willing to add more learning to what you have gave me in the last 24 hours. Could I get a simple straight forward answer?

Peace!!!

A straight forward answer to what? Whether an entity calling itself the ‘Catholic Church’ shakes my faith? I’m pretty sure the answer to that is no.

How one knows whether or not their church is the true Catholic Church is simple enough, too, if that’s what you’re getting at. Catholicity is not actually about what bishop you’re in communion with in any kind of absolute sense, but rather what faith that bishop holds. I don’t have time to look it up right now for a citation or link, but I know that the word ‘Catholic’ comes from a Greek phrase meaning ‘throughout the whole’, so we might call true Catholic doctrine that which is believed throughout the whole, true Catholic practice that which is practiced throughout the whole, etc. Complete and admitting no deviation from the Orthodox faith, if you will. The question of course then is finding out which faith is truly Orthodox, and in that I know better than to forget where I am and post about what the Orthodox see as novelties introduced by heterodox people, of which we believe Rome is guilty of admitting (and hence we are separated from her, not for lack of ecclesiastical authority or love for it, but for solid doctrinal reasons). Until or unless such novelties are removed, however, there can be no doubt for the Orthodox what is what and who is what – what is truly Catholic and truly Orthodox, that is. (And I know Roman Catholics would say the same, but with their church in place of mine in the above paragraph, and mine in place of theirs. How is someone foreign to either tradition supposed to know, then? By becoming less foreign to it! By going to both, visiting the parishes, talking to the people, seeing how they live their faith, etc. All the stuff I said a few posts ago. That’s why you can’t really make your decision based on the internet, because the internet is not a parish.)

 

[josie_L]

A straight forward answer to what? Whether an entity calling itself the ‘Catholic Church’ shakes my faith? I’m pretty sure the answer to that is no.

How one knows whether or not their church is the true Catholic Church is simple enough, too, if that’s what you’re getting at. Catholicity is not actually about what bishop you’re in communion with in any kind of absolute sense, but rather what faith that bishop holds. I don’t have time to look it up right now for a citation or link, but I know that the word ‘Catholic’ comes from a Greek phrase meaning ‘throughout the whole’, so we might call true Catholic doctrine that which is believed throughout the whole, true Catholic practice that which is practiced throughout the whole, etc. Complete and admitting no deviation from the orthodox faith, if you will.

I believe you are referring to St. Vincent of Lerins:

A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity.

[4.] I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

What is to be done if one or more dissent from the rest.

[7.] What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

[8.] But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in various times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation.

newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

 

[Cavaradossi]

That you have an erroneous understanding of what phyletism is. As per the words of Metropolitan Jonah (Sept 2008) of the Orthodox Church in America:

And:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletism

The condemnation of phyletism came about in direct response to the Bulgarians attempting to establish a separate ministry to ethnic Bulgarians in Constantinople. This is the example par excellence of what phyletism is. Anything else is one attempting to use the condemnation of phyletism to bolster their own pet causes.

The list given by Fr. Josiah is frankly just wrong. If points 1 and 2 are in themselves signs of phyletism, then he would have to concede that St. Basil was a phyletist, as was St. Nikodemos, and as were the Russians when they decided in 1620 to receive all Latins by baptism. If points 3-7 were signs of phyletism, then we should have to condemn all bishops as phyletists when they exercise their right as oikonomos (as the steward of the house) to interpret the canons and to determine whether or not suicides should be given proper Orthodox burial, whether one should be penanced after an ecclesiastical divorce or only when seeking a second marriage, etc. If points 8-9 are phyletism, then we should have to condemn as phyletists the numerous bishops and clergymen who decided to remain in communion with hierarchs after they had been unjustly deposed. For example, what of the bishops who remained supporters of St. John Chrysostom after his deposition, were they phyletists? What of Pope Zosimus? Was he a phyletist for having received Apiarius after the Synod of Carthage excommunicated him, determining that his ordination was illicit?

 

[Gicutzu]

Ukrainian Orthodox in Crimea have to pray in mosques because their Russian Orthodox “brethren” won’t give them access to churches.

Romanian Orthodox in Serbia who wanted church services in their native language were shot at by their Serbian Orthodox “brethren”.

I have yet to see an Orthodox country where the Church is not “confused with the destiny of a single nation or a single race”.

The Orthodox have condemned phyletism as a heresy but they are guilty of it, and unity across national borders is limited to official engagements between high-ranking hierarchs, but that doesn’t say much since it happens between Orthodox and Catholics as well.

And please don’t give me the “unity of faith” routine, because otherwise I might start believing that the Protestants’ “invisible Church” is real.

 

[andrewstx]

Your generalizing every parish. Not all parishes use guitars and praise bands. And you are wrong about not receiving both species. I receive both every Sunday. Not sure where you attended before as an ex-Catholic.

I am truly very happy for you. (no sarcasm) But here in my small town there is only one Latin Catholic parish. They use mariachi bands for music and Spanish for the Mass. They give the host only for Holy Communion. I was never sure if the priest understood me in confession.

 

[andrewstx]

Ukrainian Orthodox in Crimea have to pray in mosques because their Russian Orthodox “brethren” won’t give them access to churches.

Romanian Orthodox in Serbia who wanted church services in their native language were shot at by their Serbian Orthodox “brethren”.

I have yet to see an Orthodox country where the Church is not “confused with the destiny of a single nation or a single race”.

The Orthodox have condemned phyletism as a heresy but they are guilty of it, and unity across national borders is limited to official engagements between high-ranking hierarchs, but that doesn’t say much since it happens between Orthodox and Catholics as well.

And please don’t give me the “unity of faith” routine, because otherwise I might start believing that the Protestants’ “invisible Church” is real.

I think that phyletism is being fought in at least two jurisdictions in America. The Orthodox Church in America, and the Antiochian archdiocese. I have been to both and I prefer the OCA. Both churches have members from different ethnicities giving
no overwhelming weight to just one. Both of those churches use mostly English for the Divine Liturgy. And many in both churches are non-ethnic Americans.

But what about phyletism in the Latin church? In the larger cities there are Irish, German, Polish and Mexican parishes. Sounds a lot like phyletism to me at least.

 

[Nicea325]

I am truly very happy for you. (no sarcasm) But here in my small town there is only one Latin Catholic parish. They use mariachi bands for music and Spanish for the Mass. They give the host only for Holy Communion. I was never sure if the priest understood me in confession.

That is unfortunate. As for not receiving both bread and wine? Perhaps the pastor had a reason? Who knows? I for one am of Hispanic background and let me tell you, I also do not care for the majority of the Spanish music sung at Masses. I find Mariachi music liturgically incorrect. I understand your pain…trust me.

 

[spina1953]

It has been my experience that in general most average Catholic’s do not understand what Orthodoxy is and think that all Orthodox are the same that is in communion with each other which really is not the case from what those Orthodox who post say. Some orthodox are in communion with each other and some are not. The average Catholic are not very informed even about Eastern Rite Catholic’s or other Catholic Rites. This may not be true of posters on this CAF forums but of those outside of chat rooms and forums.

 

[adf417]

A straight forward answer to what? Whether an entity calling itself the ‘Catholic Church’ shakes my faith?

No!

How one knows whether or not their church is the true Catholic Church is simple enough, too, if that’s what you’re getting at.

Not at all!

I know how to determine if a catholic church is in communion with the Bishop of Roam or not. My question was how does one determine if an orthodox church is “_" fill in the blank with term for those EO’s that are in communion with one another. As opposed to the orthodox who are not in communion with the "”.

I’m not trying to defend anything here, just trying to understand how does one, unfamiliar with all the orthodox verities, know.

Sorry for my ignorance on the terminology.

Peace!!!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Is it me, or does it seem like almost every Catholic/Orthodox thread turns into a fight?

 

[Randy_Carson]

There were other more trivial reasons. I dislike the Novus Ordo Mass, and guitars and 'praise bands" in church. I also dislike getting only the body of Christ and not his blood. We are given both in Orthodoxy.

Maybe it’s not too late to get your money back.

I’ve been a Catholic for 35 years this August, and I’ve received the Eucharist under both forms in every parish I’ve ever attended. That includes several foreign countries where I traveled.

More important from a theological perspective is this fact: when someone receives only the host, they are receiving the body, and the blood, and the soul and the divinity of Jesus. IOW, both species contain both His body and His blood. Scripture is clear on this:

1 Co 11:23-29
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant of my blood; do this, whenever you drink of it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

Paul says that anyone who eats OR drinks in an unworthy manner sins against both the body AND the blood. IOW, if you eat the bread unworthily, you sin against the body and blood

OR

if you drink the cup unworthily, you sin against the body and the blood.

Therefore, there is no problem for parishioners who do not receive the cup.

Now you know.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Maybe it’s not too late to get your money back.

I’ve been a Catholic for 35 years this August, and I’ve received the Eucharist under both forms in every parish I’ve ever attended. That includes several foreign countries where I traveled.

More important from a theological perspective is this fact: when someone receives only the host, they are receiving the body, and the blood, and the soul and the divinity of Jesus. IOW, both species contain both His body and His blood. Scripture is clear on this:

1 Co 11:23-29
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant of my blood; do this, whenever you drink of it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

Paul says that anyone who eats OR drinks in an unworthy manner sins against both the body AND the blood. IOW, if you eat the bread unworthily, you sin against the body and blood

OR

if you drink the cup unworthily, you sin against the body and the blood.

Therefore, there is no problem for parishioners who do not receive the cup.

Now you know.

Here’s a tip for you: the First Letter to the Corinthians, as was all of the New Testament, was originally written in koine Greek, not English. So trotting out the grammar of a particular English translation of a passage that most likely was not intended to deal with the issue at hand in the first place is not particularly persuasive.

Here is what I DO find persuasive on this issue: “Drink, ALL OF YOU…”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here’s a tip for you: the First Letter to the Corinthians, as was all of the New Testament, was originally written in koine Greek, not English. So trotting out the grammar of a particular English translation of a passage that most likely was not intended to deal with the issue at hand in the first place is not particularly persuasive.

Here is what I DO find persuasive on this issue: “Drink, ALL OF YOU…”

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forum! I hope you will enjoy your visit.

Does the host alone contain the body, blood, soul and divinity?

If not, does this mean that Christ can be divided?

Thanks!

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forum! I hope you will enjoy your visit.

Does the host alone contain the body, blood, soul and divinity?

If not, does this mean that Christ can be divided?

Thanks!

Thank for your welcome Randy. Here is my answer: I believe that when one receives consecrated (by the priest and the Holy Spirit) bread and wine, one receives the Body and Blood of Christ. I believe that Christ clearly indicated at the Last Supper that He intended the Faithful to recieve both the consecrated “elements”: I quoted the pertinent words in my last post. There is nothing that I am aware of that to indicate that it was not normative and routine in the Church, east and west, from Pentecost up to roughly 1300AD in the west, for communicants, clerical and lay, to receive both at regular liturgies. There were instances of monastics and also the sick and shut-ins from recieving one or the other element. In those cases, I believe that God is quite capable of communicating both His Son’s body and blood through one element. That does not mean that it was Christ’s intention that only one element be routinely offered to the laity at Mass. Since they did not have access to the Cup, I do not believe God withholds his full grace from them, even though they partake of only one element. That does not mean that those in the Church responsible for initiating and perpetuating the practice of withholding the Cup were not culpable in innovating on the Eucharist. I do not believe it is necessary or helpful to try and ascertain the exact process whereby Christ gives to us his Body and Blood in the Eucharist. For whatever reason, He intended to the bread to be outward symbol under which his Body is received, and the Cup to be that under which His blood is received. That is enough for me. Whether or not that makes Christ “divided” is not a huge problem for me; if it does make Him “divided” it would only be in a very limited sense. I hope that was helpful.