Catholic/Orthodox question

[Hesychios]

I’ve become aware (through reading and personal experience with other Christians) of two viewpoints -

1. the idea that the Pope is the be-all and end-all of all things in the Church. This would include the idea that the Pope is above an ecumenical Council. This idea is propagated by extremist Latins and polemical anti-Catholics.
2. The idea that the Papacy is an office of service, not overlordship, who respects the prerogatives of his brother bishops.

I think you have never come across the second idea because you have often either 1) argued extremist Latins about the issue when you were Eastern Catholic or 2) that is all you hear from anti-Catholic polemicists in your Church presently.

If that is your experience, that is fine. I have met others of like mind as myself, however.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

Those are not two viewpoints, they are not mutually exclusive. It is a false dichotomy.

There is really only point #1 as far as the Church is concerned. That has been clearly documented by the Vatican pseudo-Council I since 1870AD. How well the bishop of Rome accomplishes your point #2 is subject to debate. Ideally he should be able to do both. In the real world though…well…he’s only human

Another option is for a truly conciliar church, which is not mutually exclusive with point #2 either! But in fact it is more conducive to it because there are no pretensions to greatness or importance, just service.

Now if you expect Orthodox to believe that there are natural limits to Papal authority in the ecclesiology of your church, you are dreaming. Nobody will fall for that.

Orthodox and traditional Catholics are in perfect agreement on the claimed role and powers of the Papacy. No one I know is deceived about it.

The only dispute we two groups have is whether or not it should be that way, whether this complex was intended by Christ. This is what we have been discussing for hundreds of years. It is still the focus of discussion between our churches at the highest level!

Michael, your brother

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Somehow I missed this one earlier it seems:

Granted. I’m just wondering why brother Michael thought I gave no proof. I’m glad you have a level head about the matter. I’m wondering if you have the same benefit-of-the-doubt attitude towards polemic reports against the Eastern Catholic St. Josaphat, since the only “proof” that he did any bad things was from an anti-Western politician.

Leonas Sapiega/Lew Sapieha/Lev Sapiega (I’m not going to disentangle his nationality: he was Latin, which is enough for our purposes) an anti-Western politician? The only thing that would qualify him for that would be his support for the Poland-Lithuania-Moscovy personal union, but as the Jesuits and other papal emmisaries were firm supporters of that (the idea to expand the union of Brest), hardly anti-Western. He also supported the invasion of Moscow and the attempts of the Polish king/Lithuanian Grand Duke to take over the Russian throne. Would he be less anti-Western if he supported an invasion of Germany and attempts to take over the supposed Holy Roman imperial throne?

As for anything else anti-Josaphat, I have to confess I must have lived a shelttered existence as an Orthodox: decades I can’t recall ever hearing of him (and I spent a good part of my time with the descendants of the submitters of Brest). I only heard of him first here, and the it has all been Latins who have brought up his misdeeds. I’ve only now seen more on him, in connection to the “Priestly Society of St. Josaphat.” Interesting group: Latinization forever. Why be Eastern?

Why is it an anachronism? There is ample proof that the Pope resisted the Norman invasion.

Sooo, the pope wasn’t as free of the rulers thumb as those who accuse us of caesaropapism would let us believe?

And what does it prove that the Crusades were set in motion by the ecclesiastical power? It was not the ecclesiastical power that set up the Latin patriarchates (except perhaps the one in Constantinople after the Eastern patriarch had fled). It was not the ecclesiastical power that directed the Crusaders to Constantinople. What is your purpose for mentioning this?

Btw Lateran IV (1215) affirmed Constantinople in second place, her Latin patriarch that is. Canon 5. By that time the Crusaders has set up the three Latin patriarchs in the East. Alexandria never made it, but remained titular.

One of interest to you and me: Lyons called and sent the Seventh Crusade to invade Egypt. The Latin patriarch in waiting had been created 30 years earlier.

And by the way, the council of Lyon issued an “Apostolic Constitution” imposing a levy for the relief of the Latin Empire of at Constantinople (as I said “crocodile tears”).
legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM13.HTM#202

or perhaps it wasn’t the ecclesiastical power running your ecumenical councils. Caesaro-papism?

When has Rome ever withheld help for the East because of a lack of ecclesiastical submission?

Florence…

Wasn’t it always the Eastern emperors who OFFERED that possibility as a bargaining chip? Why blame the bishop of Rome for that?

Because he acted as if the emperor could deliever, that the emperor was the one who determine the diptychs of the Orthodox Church. Caesaro–papism?

A little more thought, a little less emotion…

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael

Those are not two viewpoints, they are not mutually exclusive. It is a false dichotomy.

There is really only point #1 as far as the Church is concerned. That has been clearly documented by the Vatican pseudo-Council I since 1870AD. How well the bishop of Rome accomplishes your point #2 is subject to debate. Ideally he should be able to do both. In the real world though…well…he’s only human

Well, you are certainly the ONLY EO I’ ve heard claim that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Another option is for a truly conciliar church, which is not mutually exclusive with point #2 either! But in fact it is more conducive to it because there are no pretensions to greatness or importance, just service.

Except the EO concept of a “conciliar” church is a church without a head bishop, or a head bishop that is only a figurehead, which is opposed to the ecclesiology of the early Church, the Catholic Church ,and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. So the EO also need to reacquire the ideal of the undivided Church before any meaningful progress can be made.

Now if you expect Orthodox to believe that there are natural limits to Papal authority in the ecclesiology of your church, you are dreaming. Nobody will fall for that.

No one needs to fall for it. I don’t think there is any systematic arguments promoting it. It is something that everyone should readily come to conclude if they studied Church history on their own without benefit of the polemics of their particular Churches. The model you reject is the model of the Catholic Church. That you don’t believe this is the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church demonstrates you are invincibly ignorant of Catholic ecclesiology. I’m quite certain you have never read anything indepth about Vatican I than what EO polemics have told you, so I don’t blame you for your views.

Orthodox and traditional Catholics are in perfect agreement on the claimed role and powers of the Papacy. No one I know is deceived about it.

You two can fight it out all you want and willfully contradict our Lord’s prayer for unity in the process. There are many Eastern, Oriental and Latin Catholics I know who share my view. We’re helping to keep the Church together, despite the factiousness of others.

It seems your method of avoiding being “decieved” consists completely of avoiding the evidence. If I recall correctly, in the old thread “Papal prerogatives,” I gave a whole list of canons demonstrating the “limits” on papal prerogatives. Those canons were up for about a month, and no one refuted my appeal to them to prove my point - not extremist Latins, nor polemic Orthodox.

Would you like me to re-post those canons? Maybe you can back up your statements by actually responding to them this time (I’ll grant that you may have not read them throughout the entire period the canons were up for perusal before the Old Forum was closed).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[peary]

**Quote:**The question I have is: after the Bull was dropped on the altar, did Roman Catholic bishops all over western Europe stop communing Eastern Catholics traveling through? Could they tell a Greek speaking Antiochian from a Greek speaking Athenian or Alexandrian?

I don’t see why they should stop communing Eastern Catholics. As already often stated, the excommunication by Humbert and the legates were by their own initiative, not the Pope’s, and was directed at three specific hierarchs in the Eastern Church, not the Eastern Church as a whole.

**It is my understanding that there is controversy over as to whether or not the Bull was even legitimate as the pope had died prior to it being presented. **

 

[bobzills]

**Quote:**The question I have is: after the Bull was dropped on the altar, did Roman Catholic bishops all over western Europe stop communing Eastern Catholics traveling through? Could they tell a Greek speaking Antiochian from a Greek speaking Athenian or Alexandrian?

I don’t see why they should stop communing Eastern Catholics. As already often stated, the excommunication by Humbert and the legates were by their own initiative, not the Pope’s, and was directed at three specific hierarchs in the Eastern Church, not the Eastern Church as a whole.

**It is my understanding that there is controversy over as to whether or not the Bull was even legitimate as the pope had died prior to it being presented. **

What is the position of those who either are ordained by an excommunicated bishop or those clergy who follow an excommunicated bishop. Further, what is the position of the laity who follow the excommunicated bishop. Is it not true that they also become excommunicated? Or is it no problem for a Catholic to follow an excommunicated bishop and adhere to his schism?
My understanding was that if Catholics follow and adhere to the schism of the excommunicated bishop, they themselves incur this penalty.

 

[Hesychios]

Dear brother Michael

Well, you are certainly the ONLY EO I’ ve heard claim that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Even a king can be benign, Marduk.

The question is, and has been… Did Christ intend the bishop of Rome to be a king for the church?

The best title I ever heard for the Pope was Servant of the Servants of God. And that is as it should be. It would be an appropriate title for any primate or Patriarch. “The first shall be last”, I imagine Jesus washing the feet of the apostles.

Great Lent, Holy Week, and Pascha in the Orthodox Church - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America - Orthodox Church

Great Lent is a period of time when the people are more conscious of their spiritual character. The passages of the Gospels and the Epistles, the hymnology and prayers, the spirit of the Church - all endeavor to help the Christian cleanse himself spiritually through repentance.

www.goarch.org

That is the model of Christian primacy, the example for every Patriarch.

Except the EO concept of a “conciliar” church is a church without a head bishop, or a head bishop that is only a figurehead, which is opposed to the ecclesiology of the early Church, the Catholic Church ,and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

There is primacy operative throughout the Orthodox church my brother. You know this.

It is just that the primates do not have “line item vetoes” over every act of the synod…
…They get one vote, like everyone else.

In concelebration, they are the chief celebrant.

They should carry moral authority in their very being, not because of the office they hold, they should bring it with them to the task and know that they are liable to be removed, if necessary, by the synod. They should know they are accountable.

They should be powerful Christian men, holy respected men, but not men who hold a powerful unassailable office.

They get to “do the honors” and speak for the synod. They are not “powers” in their own right who routinely act unilaterally and by fiat, they are really nothing in their own right but simple monks, but there is no one above them to inhibit them and the synod but Christ himself.

So the EO also need to reacquire the ideal of the undivided Church before any meaningful progress can be made.

What are you talking about? It does not follow, you are not being logical.

No one needs to fall for it. I don’t think there is any systematic arguments promoting it. It is something that everyone should readily come to conclude if they studied Church history on their own without benefit of the polemics of their particular Churches. The model you reject is the model of the Catholic Church. That you don’t believe this is the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church demonstrates you are invincibly ignorant of Catholic ecclesiology. I’m quite certain you have never read anything indepth about Vatican I than what EO polemics have told you, so I don’t blame you for your views.

Marduk my brother, I have forgotten more about the Roman Catholic church than you have learned.

But I am old, so maybe that’s why

You two can fight it out all you want and willfully contradict our Lord’s prayer for unity in the process. There are many Eastern, Oriental and Latin Catholics I know who share my view. We’re helping to keep the Church together, despite the factiousness of others.

I don’t actually know one person posting o these forums who agrees with your theories about the equality of Papal authority and Ecumenical Councils.

Please invite them to respond here, so I can see it with these tired old eyes myself.

It seems your method of avoiding being “decieved” consists completely of avoiding the evidence. If I recall correctly, in the old thread “Papal prerogatives,” I gave a whole list of canons demonstrating the “limits” on papal prerogatives. Those canons were up for about a month, and no one refuted my appeal to them to prove my point - not extremist Latins, nor polemic Orthodox.

Would you like me to re-post those canons?

I think I remember that. If I recall you were responded to, but you did not accept that. I would love to see the reaction of the people here on this “non-Catholic” section. But don’t be surprised if it gets moved to Apologetics, or somewhere else.

So yes, please do. On any appropriate forum here.

Maybe you can back up your statements by actually responding to them this time

If you blitz the board with many posts like last time it will require a dissertation to respond adequately and comprehensively for your benefit, but I’ll try. I never waste time responding to something if it has been addressed adequately by another poster. But if you want this time I will post a or a or maybe a to let you know I am reading.

In any case I believe you are not interpreting any of those canons like the rest of us…I don’t know why. I will spare you the veiled insult of invincible ignorance.

 

[peary]

What is the position of those who either are ordained by an excommunicated bishop or those clergy who follow an excommunicated bishop. Further, what is the position of the laity who follow the excommunicated bishop. Is it not true that they also become excommunicated? Or is it no problem for a Catholic to follow an excommunicated bishop and adhere to his schism?
My understanding was that if Catholics follow and adhere to the schism of the excommunicated bishop, they themselves incur this penalty.

**But the excommunication only affected the bishops who excommunicated each other, as far as I know. It didn’t affect the laity.

The excommunication was officially lifted on September 5, 1965.**

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t see why they should stop communing Eastern Catholics. As already often stated, the excommunication by Humbert and the legates were by their own initiative, not the Pope’s, and was directed at three specific hierarchs in the Eastern Church, not the Eastern Church as a whole.

**It is my understanding that there is controversy over as to whether or not the Bull was even legitimate as the pope had died prior to it being presented. **

OK, I have heard/read this argument before. And I understand the logic so I have sympathy for that possibility.

The problem is, Cardinal Frederic (Legate companion to Humbert) became a Pope shortly (not immediately) afterward. He was well born, and a cousin of Leo IX, so he had an inside track to the high office. He was a trusted aide to the other Pope. He was a central figure in the Gregorian Reformation era Papacy (1050AD to 1080AD) when everything about Roman church governance was being revisited.

The very next Pope (Victor) did not rescind the Bull, or clarify it at all, and when Frederic became Pope Stephen he did nothing to rectify the earlier “mistake” if that is what it was. He was in a better position than anyone else to know the true circumstances of the Bull and whether it was valid. In fact Frederic (Pope Stephen) named Humbert a Cardinal (again?) according to written accounts (apparently, men were not appointed to the Cardinalate permanently in those days). So these two knew each other, traveled together and worked together.

These people knew what had happened, and knew that they were out of communion with Constantinople and had a chance to make the argument right at that time, that the Bull was not valid. They did not, they must have considered it valid.

 

[peary]

The very next Pope (Victor) did not rescind the Bull, or clarify it at all, and when Frederic became Pope Stephen he did nothing to rectify the earlier “mistake” if that is what it was. He was in a better position than anyone else to know the true circumstances of the Bull and whether it was valid. In fact Frederic (Pope Stephen) named Humbert a Cardinal (again?) according to written accounts (apparently, men were not appointed to the Cardinalate permanently in those days). So these two knew each other, traveled together and worked together.

These people knew what had happened, and knew that they were out of communion with Constantinople and had a chance to make the argument right at that time, that the Bull was not valid. They did not, they must have considered it valid.

I don’t think they cared, actually. It was the start of corrupt papacies which continued for several centuries.

 

[Hesychios]

**But the excommunication only affected the bishops who excommunicated each other, as far as I know. It didn’t affect the laity.

The excommunication was officially lifted on September 5, 1965.**

I think the only way to resolve this is to read the accounts and rationale from both sides and read “between the lines” to get a composite view.

I always heard that the “anathemas” were lifted. It may surprise you but I think the Orthodox and Roman Catholics have slightly different interpretations of the impact of an anathema. So I would not be surprised if the lifting of them have slightly different interpretations as well.

In any case, I think most Orthodox would like to see some reconciliation with Roman Catholicism. But OC principles have not changed, the RC teaches some things as doctrine (dogma, actually) that are not known to OC. There is a moral imperative to reach a resolution about these and that drives the dialog along. But if they do actually resolve these other matters, at least the anathemas will not be in the way anymore.

Naturally, each side will be trying to draw the other in their direction of understanding. I would expect nothing less.

Interestingly, the Roman Catholic church allows Orthodox and Old Catholics to receive communion. It is not unconditional but they do not make the condition that these guests accept the Papal doctrines. At the same time however, the church’s official position is to excommunicate latae sententiae it’s own members who deny these dogmas!

To Orthodox this is completely inconsistent. Orthodox expect the same from their guests of other jurisdictions that they expect from their own members. One must be in total agreement doctrinally to receive. The only way a Roman Catholic could partake would be if his church was understood to be Orthodox. Then he would have to satisfy all of the other conditions Orthodox must routinely satisfy: the prayer and fasting, the very recent confession, the abstaining from conjugal relations…

Most Roman Catholics are nowhere near ready for the rigors of partaking in an Orthodox church. Our church would have to agree to waive these disciplines or your church would have to agree to restore them.

No one has been talking about any of this yet. We are very far from intercommunion on the practical level alone.

Michael

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by** peary **

The excommunication was officially lifted on September 5, 1965.

 

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by** peary **

The excommunication was officially lifted on September 5, 1965.

Umm…you are not related to Marduk, are you?

Twins, perhaps?

 

[bobzills]

Orthodox expect the same from their guests of other jurisdictions that they expect from their own members. One must be in total agreement doctrinally to receive.

I don’t know how widespread this is or what the general rule is on this, but an Eastern Orthodox priest told me that he allowed an Oriental Orthodox to receive.

 

[anthony022071]

Dear brother Anthony,

Please show us an authoritative document to support this assertion. Until then, I would disagree (I’ve never read or heard of the idea from orthodox Catholics).

Blessings

The proof is in the historical fact that the ecumenical councils obtained the approval of the popes,whereas the heretical councils did not.
Had it been left up to the majority of bishops and laity to determine what was orthodox doctrine,some regions of the East would have become officially Arian and Monophysite. Constantinople was an Arian see at the time of the Council of Constantinople 1. The Emporer Constantine was himself a semi-Arian,and Justinian favored the Monophysites. The Emporers didn’t really care so much about Christianity orthodoxy,they just wanted Christendom to be united in faith,so that there would be political stability.
The councils were called by the Emporers to poll the bishops,but they recognized that,traditionally,the approval of the pope was needed. That’s why Pope Honorius was arrested and taken to Constantinople and held there until he gave his decretal letter.

“How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her Pontificate …even as all these things all are equally subject to her (the church of Rome) according to sacerdotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic church of Rome.” (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

“Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of Headship among the Apostles.” (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

“Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred.” (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.” (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

 

[peary]

Umm…you are not related to Marduk, are you?

Twins, perhaps?

Athenagoras’s 1964 meeting with Pope Paul VI in Jerusalem led to the mutual lifting of the Bulls of Excommunication that resulted in the Great Schism of 1054. This was a significant step towards restoring communion between Rome and Constantinople. It produced the Catholic-Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965, which was publicly read on December 7, 1965, simultaneously at a public meeting of the Second Vatican Council in Rome and at a special ceremony in Istanbul. The declaration did not end the schism, but showed a desire for greater reconciliation between the two churches.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t know how widespread this is or what the general rule is on this, but an Eastern Orthodox priest told me that he allowed an Oriental Orthodox to receive.

I think that there is more of that elsewhere “under the radar” so to say.

Especially in Syria and Lebanon. Possibly in Ukraine.

I know some Copts have come to Orthodox churches for baptisms of their children, sometimes they succeed, but everyone knows they won’t be back. My pastor turned one down last year, referring him to the Coptic Orthodox parishes (some distance away, but not difficult to reach with a car).

Theoretically it should not happen, and on a formal level it requires agreement. The churches cannot dialog at the highest level if they are disrespecting each other at the lower levels.

For instance, the Episcopal church will commune just about anybody. In a way that is disrespecting every Apostolic church, the RC included. What good is that? The church is not worth dialogging with anymore, their “open communion” is equivalent to a lack of theological integrity.

 

[bobzills]

I think that there is more of that elsewhere “under the radar” so to say…Theoretically it should not happen, and on a formal level it requires agreement.

So you would not agree with an Eastern Orthodox priest hearing confession or giving Holy Communion to an Oriental Orthodox? Even in a semi-emergency? BTW, is there disagreement on this among Eastern Orthodox?

 

[anthony022071]

Your are correct…it’s hard to obtain an adequate explanation for this.

Initially earlier Popes condemned the addition, one of whom went so far as to post it in either silver or gold (I don’t recall which precious metal right now) over one of the entry ways of St. Peter’s Basillica in Rome without the Filioque Addition, but eventually one of the Popes approved it as he received, in return for approving it’s addition, was given permission (forgive misspellings) to crown Charlamain King.

Anyway, if you believe in Papal Infallibility, the Early Popes teaching the doctrine were right and then when the later Pope was allowed by God to make the addition used his “Keys” to change the reality of the Most Holy Trinity he was right too. You’ve got to believe what the most current Pope teaches Infallibly because they, in this instance at least, can contradict themselves. But that’s okay, because whoever is current Pope…his teachings on Faith and Morals are the correct ones because he can change reality with the “Keys” to bind and loose in Heaven.

That was Pope Leo 3 who opposed the addition of the filioque to the universal creed,but that was because he was concerned not to alienate the Eastern churches. He agreed with the theology of the filioque.

usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

< The different liturgical traditions with regard to the Creed came into contact with each other in early-ninth-century Jerusalem. Western monks, using the Latin Creed with the added Filioque, were denounced by their Eastern brethren. Writing to Pope Leo III for guidance, in 808, the Western monks referred to the practice in Charlemagne’s chapel in Aachen as their model. Pope Leo responded with a letter to “all the churches of the East” in which he declared his personal belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. In that response, the Pope did not distinguish between his personal understanding and the issue of the legitimacy of the addition to the Creed, although he would later resist the addition in liturgies celebrated at Rome.

Taking up the issue of the Jerusalem controversy, Charlemagne asked Theodulf of Orleans, the principal author of the Libri Carolini, to write a defense of the use of the word Filioque. Appearing in 809, De Spiritu Sancto of Theodulf was essentially a compilation of patristic citations supporting the theology of the Filioque. With this text in hand, Charlemagne convened a council in Aachen in 809-810 to affirm the doctrine of the Spirit’s proceeding from the Father and the Son, which had been questioned by Greek theologians. Following this council, Charlemagne sought Pope Leo’s approval of the use of the creed with the Filioque (Mansi 14.23-76). A meeting between the Pope and a delegation from Charlemagne’s council took place in Rome in 810. While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it. Pope Leo stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was permissible, but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing scandal it would be better if the Carolingian court refrained from including it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the Liber Pontificalis, the Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peter’s, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin. Despite his directives and this symbolic action, however, the Carolingians continued to use the Creed with the Filioque during the Eucharist in their own dioceses. >

 

[Hesychios]

Hi bobzills,

So you would not agree with an Eastern Orthodox priest hearing confession or giving Holy Communion to an Oriental Orthodox? Even in a semi-emergency? BTW, is there disagreement on this among Eastern Orthodox?

I have no well formed opinion on this subject. The case I cited was a man living in Chicago who was non-practicing, his family thought it was important to get the child baptized, but not important enough to become a parishioner somewhere. There were no health or safety issues attached to this incident.

However I am personally inclined to charity in matters where a soul may be yearning to reconnect with Christ. There may be times when, for the sake of ones spiritual well being, the door should not be closed upon them. Medical emergencies are one example, another can be a person psychologically driven or tormented, or needing spiritual counsel. Like a soul on the edge of a knife.

This is utterly different from the case where a person or persons are out on a field trip, just sampling the varieties. Or those who take the attitude that the church is merely providing a service, and take it for granted (“just baptize my son and I won’t bother you again, isn’t my money good here?” or “Gee, that icon thingy would make a great backdrop for our wedding pictures, what kind of church did you say this is?”).
If I were a priest and approached by someone, I would follow the policy of my bishop and trust his judgment, setting aside my personal opinion. My bishop probably knows or has met the other (Oriental Orthodox) bishop and they may have a protocol to notify each other when troubled souls show up at the door.

I believe that when my pastor sent the Copt over to a Coptic parish, he was probably following standing instructions from our bishop.

Michael*

 

[bobzills]

Hi bobzills,

I have no well formed opinion on this subject. The case I cited was a man living in Chicago who was non-practicing, his family thought it was important to get the child baptized, but not important enough to become a parishioner somewhere. There were no health or safety issues attached to this incident.

However I am personally inclined to charity in matters where a soul may be yearning to reconnect with Christ. There may be times when, for the sake of ones spiritual well being, the door should not be closed upon them. Medical emergencies are one example, another can be a person psychologically driven or tormented, or needing spiritual counsel. Like a soul on the edge of a knife.

This is utterly different from the case where a person or persons are out on a field trip, just sampling the varieties. Or those who take the attitude that the church is merely providing a service, and take it for granted (“just baptize my son and I won’t bother you again, isn’t my money good here?” or “Gee, that icon thingy would make a great backdrop for our wedding pictures, what kind of church did you say this is?”).
If I were a priest and approached by someone, I would follow the policy of my bishop and trust his judgment, setting aside my personal opinion. My bishop probably knows or has met the other (Oriental Orthodox) bishop and they may have a protocol to notify each other when troubled souls show up at the door.

I believe that when my pastor sent the Copt over to a Coptic parish, he was probably following standing instructions from our bishop.

Michael*

OK. Thanks for the explanation.