Does the catholic church accept the orthodox churches real presence?

[prodromos]

The Bishop of Rome is still recognized as the Bishop of Rome, and the Patriarch of the West (although Rome has recently rejected that title). If he weren’t there would be a rival Bishop of Rome. There isn’t.

The Orthodox Church has deliberately not created further barriers to Rome’s return to Orthodoxy.
There is, however, an Orthodox bishop of Italy, HH Gennadios Zervos, who oversees approximately 50 Greek churches throughout Italy and Southern Europe.

 

[prodromos]

For myself, having been a practicing adult Catholic for 25 years, I have no doubt that the Catholic sacraments are efficacious (if received worthily) and that grace exists in the Catholic Church. A lot of Orthodox would agree with me.

At least you make it clear that this is your personal opinion and not the official position of the Orthodox Church.

 

[quies]

I ask this very question on Ask an Apologist. If you can find it, it gives the answer. I can’t find it.

here?

 

[Expatreprocedit]

At least you make it clear that this is your personal opinion and not the official position of the Orthodox Church.

There is no official position on this matter. As far as I’m concerned, it’s more than an opinion.

 

[prodromos]

There is no official position on this matter. As far as I’m concerned, it’s more than an opinion.

You don’t consider the 1848 Encyclical from Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem to be an official position?

legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.asp

 

[KjetilK]

Orthodox bishops recognize the Bishop of Rome as a fellow bishop, as the Patriarch of Rome and the West, and as the first among equals.

That is not always the case. Many Orthodox bishops claim that the Roman Pontiff is a heretic and that Roman Catholic Holy Orders are invalid.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

You don’t consider the 1848 Encyclical from Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem to be an official position?

legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.asp

1. It isn’t a declaration of an ecumenical council, obviously. Russia was not a signatory.
2. In addition, I don’t see where it says that Roman orders or sacraments are devoid of grace, which is the point that was in contention, I thought. I’ve read it before, and I skimmed it again now. It clearly declares the Bishop pf Rome to be schismatic, and heretical in some of his teachings. No surprise there. But I couldn’t find the “no grace” part.

But maybe it is there. If you wouldn’t mind quoting the part of it that you believe goes against my statement, I would appreciate it.

 

[Muzhik]

I can state from personal experience that the Patriarchate of Moscow (i.e., Russian Orthodox) consider Roman Catholicism to be heterodox and apostate. One reason for the growing tension between Moscow and Constantinople is the growing peace between Constantinople and Rome, which Moscow considers to be a very real threat to the purity of Orthodoxy.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I can state from personal experience that the Patriarchate of Moscow (i.e., Russian Orthodox) consider Roman Catholicism to be heterodox and apostate. One reason for the growing tension between Moscow and Constantinople is the growing peace between Constantinople and Rome, which Moscow considers to be a very real threat to the purity of Orthodoxy.

And yet Patriarch Kirill of Moscow recently had a cordial meeting with Pope Francis. I would suggest rather that Moscow and Constantinople are in competition for leadership of the Orthodox Church, and both are competing to see who can “represent” Orthodoxy in relations with Rome.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

I ask this very question on Ask an Apologist. If you can find it, it gives the answer. I can’t find it.

May I receive communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church?

Eucharist in a Church not in Communion with Rome?

I did an advanced search using adamhovey1988 as the poster and the word Orthodox as the word to search for.

A search that employs a certain poster and a slightly unusual polysyllabic word is often successful.

 

[prodromos]

1. It isn’t a declaration of an ecumenical council, obviously. Russia was not a signatory.

Everything I have read claims the declaration was fully endorsed by Saint Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.

1. In addition, I don’t see where it says that Roman orders or sacraments are devoid of grace, which is the point that was in contention, I thought. I’ve read it before, and I skimmed it again now. It clearly declares the Bishop pf Rome to be schismatic, and heretical in some of his teachings. No surprise there. But I couldn’t find the “no grace” part.

But maybe it is there. If you wouldn’t mind quoting the part of it that you believe goes against my statement, I would appreciate it.

I don’t recall that being my point of contention, however since the bishop of Rome and all those in communion with him have been outside the Orrhodox Church for centuries now, whatever Grace may or may not remain in their sacraments is entirely up to God. It goes without saying though that any branch removed from the vine must eventually wither and die.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Everything I have read claims the declaration was fully endorsed by Saint Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.

I don’t recall that being my point of contention, however since the bishop of Rome and all those in communion with him have been outside the Orrhodox Church for centuries now, whatever Grace may or may not remain in their sacraments is entirely up to God. It goes without saying though that any branch removed from the vine must eventually wither and die.

Any church that can produce a Thomas Merton, a Dorothy Day, a John XXIII, a Mother Theresa et al has not died, IMO.

 

[Duane1966]

Does you accept Real Presence of the Anglicans?

No, the Catholic Church believes that Anglicans lost Apostolic Succession, so we do not believe their priests can confect the Eucharist. So in the Catholic Church’s view, no Real Presence.

Disclaimer: This answer is not meant to start a dialogue about the validity of Anglican Orders.

 

[twf]

Everything I have read claims the declaration was fully endorsed by Saint Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.

I don’t recall that being my point of contention, however since the bishop of Rome and all those in communion with him have been outside the Orrhodox Church for centuries now, whatever Grace may or may not remain in their sacraments is entirely up to God. It goes without saying though that any branch removed from the vine must eventually wither and die.

From your perspective, the Oriental Orthodox have been separated from Orthodoxy for about 15 centuries…yet many Eastern Orthodox seem quite quick to accept their sacraments.

 

[Deconi]

So that there is NO CONFUSION…

The Orthodox (East) and Rome (West) both have Apostolic Succession where the bishops ‘lay their hands on the ordained’ and have continued that lineage from the times of the Apostles, through the schism (1054) when they split, and still continue the formula from the Apostles to now!

That is why both have valid orders.

In regards receiving the Eucharist; Catholics can receive without much ado in the East. However, due to the East’s stance becoming ‘varied’ according to each bishop (almost) the East have conditional or provisional hurdles for Orthodox to receive in the West.

The Bishop of Rome is ‘recognised’ as either legitimate or invalid from the East, but he is still Bishop of the Roman See, just as Constantinople See has their Bishop, et al

 

[Deconi]

The reason Anglicans is said not to have valid orders anymore is that when Henry separated them from Rome and the ensuing centuries since then, there are no records nor credible evidence that the ordained maintained that formula from bishop to priest to now.

If the A/Bishop of Canterbury can trace the ‘validity’ of his ordination to a bishop that split from Rome during Henry’s reign, then he might have a case!

But that case may include some of the ‘heretical issues’ within Anglican history since then…

But that’s another thread all together.

 

[rcwitness]

The Bishop of Rome is ‘recognised’ as either legitimate or invalid from the East, but he is still Bishop of the Roman See, just as Constantinople See has their Bishop, et al

If this is true, I find it to be quite a significant matter to be mixed up about. But, if we didn’t have a superior bishop, I have no doubt the west would suffer this division.

 

[Deconi]

If this is true, I find it to be quite a significant matter to be mixed up about. But, if we didn’t have a superior bishop, I have no doubt the west would suffer this division.

That emboldened bit has been going since even the time of St Ignatius in Antioch! That suggests there’s always been dissentions and disagreements between Sees over a variety of reasons and NOT NECESSARILY the Leadership or Primacy of Rome.

Rome is not superior; it’s Primary or First due to Peter having died whilst Bishop there.

West suffered a different kind of division; it splintered! (Protestantism)

 

[rcwitness]

That emboldened bit has been going since even the time of St Ignatius in Antioch! That suggests there’s always been dissentions and disagreements between Sees over a variety of reasons and NOT NECESSARILY the Leadership or Primacy of Rome.

Rome is not superior; it’s Primary or First due to Peter having died whilst Bishop there.

the Catholic Church does use the term Superior. I believe it is synonymous with “prime”, and not in any way alluding to God showing partiality to one bishop. All bishops are equal in one sense, but one stands alone regarding g a special (and superior) office.

West suffered a different kind of division; it splintered! (Protestantism)

That’s true, but quite a different situation. Protestantism did not split from the West only, but nearly equally from the East, no?

 

[rcwitness]

West suffered a different kind of division; it splintered! (Protestantism)

I realize Protestantism came “out of the West”, but did the Protestant reformers move closer to the East or farther away?

The Catholic Church recognizes “very little” in the way of fullness of Tradition and unity with the East. IOWs, the Bishop of Rome has very little, if anything to “add to the Churches of the East”!