Eastern Catholics defending Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholics

[Isaac14]

The problem I have with that interpretation is:

• We already have the Eucharist
• But the RC Church is saying, “But you’re still incomplete (!) - you also need the Pope.”
• As if even while possessing Jesus Himself we are somehow still deficient (?!) until we have the Pope (?!!)

Which is nonsense: if we have Jesus, we are complete. He lacks nothing. We don’t need anything else.

It would seem that we Orthodox have stolen the Eucharist since we’re:

partaking in it unlawfully

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

It would seem that we Orthodox have stolen the Eucharist since we’re:

Technically, that is the term. Of course, it is theological term so it isn’t literal theft. It’s akin to Protestants baptizing or so… they are doing what Church does but they aren’t doing it with unity with the Church. Sacraments were given to Church but even people outside the Church can perform them. Yet, they are proper to the Church.

It is also why Schism is actually a serious thing. I can’t imagine Schism being a serious thing if Branch Theory applies.

 

[Isaac14]

As I said, one can (is able to physically, not that it is allowed) receive Eucharist even if one does not believe - does that make such person complete? Satanists can steal Eucharist and receive it- does that make them complete? Valid Eucharist is a great thing but don’t mistake grace with Salvation.

St. Paul says that whoever partakes unworthily brings condemnation upon themselves, so obviously, no the Eucharist does not make a satanist complete. Are you saying saying the Orthodox receive unworthily because we “stole” the Eucharist from the Catholic Church?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Were these two bishops commissioned to speak on behalf of the Church of Greece, much less any of the other churches?

Yes. And it is quite commendable might I add. They operate under assumption Orthodox Church is True Church of Christ and as such their actions are correct response to that assumption. Of course as a Catholic I can not assume that Orthodox Church is True Church of Christ and hence that falls down from my viewpoint.

Are you saying saying the Orthodox receive unworthily because we “stole” the Eucharist from the Catholic Church?

No, on the contrary I said it is instrument of grace for Orthodox. But instrument proper and belonging to Catholic Church.

 

[Isaac14]

Yes.

I didn’t see it in the document, can you point me to where they’re speaking with the authority of the Holy Synod?

No, on the contrary I said it is instrument of grace for Orthodox. But instrument proper and belonging to Catholic Church.

You really need to get yourself on the Pontifical Commission for the dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I didn’t see it in the document, can you point me to where they’re speaking with the authority of the Holy Synod?

I apologize, I misread your question. Anyhow, they claim to be following Orthodox teaching, haven’t
been criticized by anyone (and correctly so, if you assume Orthodox Church isn’t false).

It says:

With due respect and sincere love, we send you this Episcopal letter, the purpose of
which doesn’t come from any selfish motive, but from pure, sincere and selfless Christian
love, from Christian duty, from an essential commandment of our Savior Christ, Who
“desires all men to be saved and to come to a full knowledge of the truth,”1
and finally
from a warm and ardent desire for your salvation. Because of this we feel it to be our
holy and mandatory duty, as the least of the members of the All-holy and All-pure Body
of Christ, and especially as Orthodox Bishops, who belong as such to the Holy Synod of
the Holy Autocephalous Church of Greece, which is our highest ecclesiastical authority,
as to the whole and Undivided One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, to
endeavor with all our might to restore you to the Mother Orthodox Catholic Church, from
which you left and from which you were cut off, a work which we hope, the Uncreated
Divine Grace of the Lord cooperating, shall be achieved. This holy obligation of the
return of heretics to the Orthodox Church has, of course, holy canonical grounds and
basis and is supported by the 131st, 132nd, and 133rd holy Canons of the Local Council of
Carthage (418 or 419 A.D.).

You really need to get yourself on the Pontifical Commission for the dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

Why? This is what Catholic Church teaches and has taught repeatedly. I am a Catholic who follows teaching of the Church. Same as your Bishops say they do not mean to use “Papist” as derogatory term but as explanatory term (and I think that’s great) with love to actually describe that which they perceive as error, I can say that which I perceive as error in Orthodoxy, correct? In the end pretending everything is okay gets us nowhere, dialogue, explanation and search for truth is much more powerful than some false charity and respect.

As a side question, do you disagree with this letter that Greek Bishops sent? If so, why?

 

[ReaderT]

If you flip that around, it means that Eastern Orthodox attitude towards Oriental Orthodoxy is illogical. That Russia’s attitude towards Ecumenical Patriarchate is illogical etc. Why is there even a need for formal unity of the Church and hierarchy or common faith if Eucharist would be all that is needed? Why is there need for other Sacraments if Eucharist is sufficient?

Orientals: Either there was a “linguistic misunderstanding” with them and we’ve always had the same faith (and Eucharist), or they actually have a different faith and we shouldn’t take their eucharist. But in either case they wouldn’t “have a true Eucharist and are yet incomplete” as Rome says of EOs.

EP: I don’t see an issue here either.

Why is there even a need for formal unity of the Church and hierarchy or common faith if Eucharist would be all that is needed?

The Hierarchy ordains priests who confect Eucharist

We receive Him, but do we have Him? As I said, one can (is able to physically, not that it is allowed) receive Eucharist even if one does not believe - does that make such person complete? Satanists can steal Eucharist and receive it- does that make them complete? Valid Eucharist is a great thing but don’t mistake grace with Salvation.

Rome never said there was anything wrong or lacking in the way that (properly disposed) EO’s receive their Eucharist. In fact the Catechism says “These Churches … possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” (1399)

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

or they actually have a different faith and we shouldn’t take their eucharist

In that case, would their Eucharist be True Christ or no?

EP: I don’t see an issue here either.

So there is no reason for EP or Russia to mend their relations at all, since they have valid Eucharist and are complete? Because if there is reason to mend their relations then their relations aren’t complete yet they both have valid Eucharist that unites them…

The Hierarchy ordains priests who confect Eucharist

Not entirely. One Bishop is enough to keep Priests. Three Bishops are more than enough to keep their successors and hence entire “new hierarchy”.

Rome never said there was anything wrong or lacking in the way that (properly disposed) EO’s receive their Eucharist.

It isn’t that much about receiving as it is about having Christ. After all, Protestants can validly baptize and that doesn’t change much either. Sacraments are important but they are not sole principle of unity of the Church.

 

[Isaac14]

As a side question, do you disagree with this letter that Greek Bishops sent? If so, why?

Frankly, I don’t have neither the time nor the desire to read 80+ plus pages of two Greek bishops to be able to say definitively whether I agree or disagree. I would expect there are points they make with which I would agree, but overall, through a very brief skim of the document, they seem to be intent on laying what they perceive as the ills of the world on Pope Francis’ feet.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Frankly, I don’t have neither the time nor the desire to read 80+ plus pages of two Greek bishops to be able to say definitively whether I agree or disagree.

I see. Well, do you think they are correct to try and convert Pope Francis to Orthodoxy?

 

[ReaderT]

In that case, would their Eucharist be True Christ or no?

It’s not my place to sort through 29,000 non-Orthodox churches and judge all of their sacraments. If I do, I’ll quickly forget about working on my own sins. I do know one place where Christ is though.

When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain until I return, what is that to you? You follow Me!”

All that being said, I’m not communing at an Oriental church until all our Bishops say it’s okay.

So there is no reason for EP or Russia to mend their relations at all, since they have valid Eucharist and are complete? Because if there is reason to mend their relations then their relations aren’t complete yet they both have valid Eucharist that unites them…

Do they?
(Or rather: does the EP?)

Sacraments are important but they are not sole principle of unity of the Church.

I thought Rome called the Eucharist “the source and summit of our faith”

 

[Isaac14]

I see. Well, do you think they are correct to try and convert Pope Francis to Orthodoxy?

In a black and white, ignore the real world sense, sure, they’re correct.

In the actual world sense of working towards unity, no. Real restoration of communion between East & West is not going to built on forcing one or the other to give up and submit to the other.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Do they?
(Or rather: does the EP?)

Doesn’t he? That’s the point. It’s something needed to clarify.

It’s not my place to sort through 29,000 non-Orthodox churches and judge all of their sacraments.

I get that. Yet it is important to know that because of reverence we show towards Eucharist (even Schismatic Eucharist).

In the actual world sense of working towards unity, no. Real restoration of communion between East & West is not going to built on forcing one or the other to give up and submit to the other.

Well point is that both sides aren’t completely right. Either Orthodoxy is correct and we ought to all be Orthodox for sake of our immortal souls. Or Catholicism is correct and we ought to all be Catholic for sake of our immortal souls. Or none are correct and in that case let’s run as fast as possible from Churches that aren’t authentically Christ’s.

If Orthodox Church is correct, they are correct to offer Salvation to Pope Francis. He deserves it. I don’t necessarily think that unity will come when we ignore our differences or set aside dogmatically defined truths- doing so is actually “submitting to the other”. Perhaps I am wrong and unity will come through that, though it will surely be much weaker than what happened at Florence, Lyons and will do more harm than good.

 

[OraProNobis333]

Eastern Catholics don’t view the Orthodox as being in schism. The branch theory doesn’t mean that there was a gap for a thousand years with no Apostolic Church. It just means that the Catholic Church is a whole lot bigger than we thought (meaning that the Eastern Orthodox are indeed as much the Catholic Church as we are). We may not maintain visible ties, but we are still invisibly tied by Jesus Christ through the Sacraments. How can we say they are not the true Church when Christ is present in their Liturgies, in their Eucharist, in their life giving Sacraments? When we receive Communion on Sunday and they receive Communion on Sunday, are we really suggesting that we are not one when we have the same Lord Jesus Christ within us? I’m not talking about a post modern “we’re all mystically joined to the body of Christ through baptism” hokey nonsense. I’m talking about their Church and ours being the same thing in practice and effect. Truly, there aren’t even real theological issues keeping us apart anymore. It’s more politically motivated than anything. I guarantee, if Rome and the Eastern Patriarchs could come to an understanding on what papal primacy is and what it looks like in practice, than all the other differences would be overcome or ignored for the sake of unity. And thank God, Pope Francis and his predecessors seem willing to take that hard road on being open to the redefinition of papal primacy.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

It’s more politically motivated than anything. I guarantee, if Rome and the Eastern Patriarchs could come to an understanding on what papal primacy is and what it looks like in practice, than all the other differences would be overcome or ignored for the sake of unity.

Of course. That’s definition of being in Schism…

And thank God, Pope Francis and his predecessors seem willing to take that hard road on being open to the redefinition of papal primacy.

If anything is “redefined” you will see more Schism than there already is… Papal Infallibility is a dogma. One can perhaps clarify some things but one can not cancel what was defined. It would be like cancelling Dogma of Holy Trinity so we could be united with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Church is foremost guardian of Truth. Unity comes after Truth, not before it.

How can we say they are not the true Church when Christ is present in their Liturgies, in their Eucharist, in their life giving Sacraments?

How could we say that about Donatists? About several other heretics? Historically there were quite many heresies that still retained valid Sacraments. It doesn’t prove they were authentically part of Church of Christ.

The branch theory doesn’t mean that there was a gap for a thousand years with no Apostolic Church.

It does, because if Branch Theory is Apostolic Doctrine then Church simply forgot about it. If it isn’t then there is no point in it because it is false. We need Apostolic Faith, not empty compromises.

When we receive Communion on Sunday and they receive Communion on Sunday, are we really suggesting that we are not one when we have the same Lord Jesus Christ within us?

Well as I said above, even Satanist can eat Eucharist. Church is defined by visible communion. Invisible communion, or rather visible lack of communion is not compatible with unity of the Church.

Eastern Catholics don’t view the Orthodox as being in schism.

Some. But officially they do recognize Orthodox as being in state of Schism. They acknowledge there is separation (= schism). Yes, there are extremists on that side too (as much as there are Latin Catholics who think Protestants are in reality same as we are and have valid Sacraments) but that doesn’t prove anything. Is there anything official you are quoting or is that just sentiment of people you’ve met?

I’m not talking about a post modern “we’re all mystically joined to the body of Christ through baptism” hokey nonsense.

Well technically that part is true. Baptism as Sacrament is Sacrament of Initiation that actually unites one with Church. If valid Baptism isn’t enough to make us “One” then how can valid Eucharist be? Baptism is much more important than Eucharist (which is why everyone can baptize but only Priests can consecrate Eucharist).

 

[OraProNobis333]

Pope does not equate to Catholic Church. He has his role in the Catholic Church but he is not the defining feature of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a sacramental Church, not a papal one (exclusively). This is where there’s a gap between Eastern and Western thinking. The East has never thought of the Bishop of Rome as anything more than first among equals. Even when Eastern Catholics were muscled into accepting Vatican I, it hardly changed how the East viewed the Roman Pontiff.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Well, this applies to Catholic (Eastern and Western as they both accepted Vatican I)

If anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not true and proper jurisdiction which he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself, let him be anathema.

Also, from Sunday of Orthodoxy service:

To the blasphemers of the Christian Faith, the ecumenists who say that they do not
confess the Orthodox Eastern Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, but
madly say that the true Church seems to be a combination of various heresies,
ANATHEMA!

To those apostatize from the Orthodox Faith and accept other beliefs, to the scandal of
our brethren, and fall into schism, ANATHEMA

Even when Eastern Catholics were muscled into accepting Vatican I

How were they muscled? I remember one Patriarch having reservations and even he signed documents but wisely added clause from Council of Florence.

it hardly changed how the East viewed the Roman Pontiff

If you do study history a bit, you will see that Eastern Catholics were sometimes even more ultramontane than Latins but yes, Vatican I did not change that hopefully.

Pope does not equate to Catholic Church. He has his role in the Catholic Church but he is not the defining feature of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a sacramental Church, not a papal one (exclusively).

Of course. Problem is that you can’t equate Church with valid Sacraments. Church indeed is an institution. Church was defined as “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic” and that carries weight. Anyhow, where is Church defined as being sacramental? I find that definition very easy to confuse rather than do good which is probably why you won’t find any Church document (East, West or Orthodox) to support it.

 

[OraProNobis333]

As Roman Catholics we hold the belief that there is no salvation outside the Church. We accept that God is not limited to His own rules and can save souls, individually, as He wishes. But the normative means of salvation are through the Sacraments. This is a contradictory position. The Orthodox who have all 7 valid Sacraments have salvation in their Church, even though we claim it is not the true Church. If this is true, then ultimately, being Catholic is not necessary for salvation.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

If this is true, then ultimately, being Catholic is not necessary for salvation.

Exactly. Which would invalidate Catholic Church as it would be Church of Lie, not Church of Truth. But then we see another thing- we see that Church defined that it is necessary to be Catholic despite the fact that other Churches can have valid Sacraments. Why is that? Because Sacraments bring Grace, not necessarily Salvation. Salvation without Sacraments is not normatively possible but they do not assure it either. Church is Ark of Salvation, not the Sacraments.

Imagine this. There is only one ship that sails to your destination. This ship has food and water. Even if you are on the ship, if you don’t drink water and don’t eat food you will die. In middle of the night, some other people steal some of water and food. They take it to their ship. They die and generations later, their children eat the food and drink the water. They do not realize it has been stolen, they simply say how great it is and partake in it, receiving as much profit from it as people on the ship.

There are therefore 4 groups of people;
Those who are on the ship (who are inside Catholic Church) and eat food and drink water (partake in Sacraments) - they can reach goal.
Those who are on the ship but don’t take food and water (who are inside Catholic Church but don’t live Sacramentally) - they die before goal is reached.
Those who are not on the ship but have food and water from the ship (valid Sacraments but outside Catholic Church) - they have grace necessary to live and survive and even search for Truth but ultimately aren’t on the ship that sails towards Salvation
Those who aren’t on the ship, don’t eat food and don’t drink water- they can’t reach the goal.

I hope that explains it.

 

[Isaac14]

Those who are not on the ship but have food and water from the ship (valid Sacraments but outside Catholic Church) - they have grace necessary to live and survive and even search for Truth but ultimately aren’t on the ship that sails towards Salvation

Am I interpreting your example correctly to mean that it is impossible for the Orthodox to be saved since we’re outside the church?