Eastern Catholics defending Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholics

[LostSheep7]

Interesting that your Patriarch, the Pope of Rome, has not problem allowing you to commune in our Church. Why would he allow you to partake in an illicit Sacrament?

I can only receive the sacraments in Orthodox parishes in extremis or if there’s no catholic Church in the place

 

[LostSheep7]

Here is an article from EWTN on Honoring Eastern Orthodox Saints .

God bless!

I will read the article.
God bless you too!

 

[LostSheep7]

We don’t need Rome to approve our Saints.

Even if those saints hated Rome?

 

[Lobster_Johnson]

I can only receive the sacraments in Orthodox parishes in extremis or if there’s no catholic Church in the place

This is primarily because the Orthodox will not allow you to. The Catholic Church allows the inverse - Orthodox Christians can freely receive in any Catholic church.

Even if those saints hated Rome?

Hated or disagreed with?

Either way, I don’t think distaste for Rome is a deal breaker. I can hardly blame them, considering how poorly Rome treated the Eastern churches that she is in communion with.

 

[LostSheep7]

Hated or disagreed with?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/qasgpp.pdf

Could you take a look at this article?

 

[LostSheep7]

Either way, I don’t think distaste for Rome is a deal breaker. I can hardly blame them, considering how poorly Rome treated the Eastern churches that she is in communion with.

How is hatred for the See of Peter not a dealbreaker? It’s interesting that this excuse is the same given by heretics, jews, Mohammedans, heathens etc.

 

[Anesti33]

@LostSheep7

Sacraments confected outside the Catholic Church do not carry aspects of “illicit” or “licit”. Because liceity is whether something is done according to the law of the Church, and those outside the Church are not subject to her merely ecclesial laws, the Church does not pronounce “illicit” sacraments of, e.g. the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Sacraments which require jurisdiction are also valid, which is very telling in how we understand the Eastern Churches to be configured.

 

[Anesti33]

[citation needed]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ziapueblo]

According to the Catholic Church we Orthodox have valid Apostolic Succession. Where does the Catholic Church say that the Orthodox have valid but “illicit” Sacraments?

What you say seems to contradict Vatican II and what recent Popes have said on the matter.

ZP

 

[Anesti33]

Without jurisdiction, Absolution and Confirmation are invalid.

We went over this with the SSPX.

Nobody needs jurisdiction for baptism. Who would give it to grandma baptizing babies in the bathtub? Still valid, licit in danger of death.

 

[Lasse]

In a previous translation one version read (in the next prayer) “for our Divinely-appointed emperor . . . “

I’ve thought of amending it slightly someday to see how the faithful would react if I chanted, “for our Divinely-appointed President, Donald . . . “

I am sorry to respond to this late, after the discussion took a different turn, but where I live, we certainly commemorate our Monarch. I just wondered how this is done in countries with no royalty. I have attended liturgies when visiting the US, but I never thought about it then…

 

[Isaac14]

In my OCA parish, we pray (in line with our service books) “for this country, its president, and all civil authorities…”

 

[ziapueblo]

I think one thing to keep in mind is that many, not all, but many Eastern Catholics see themselves as Orthodox. Fr. David Anderson has been doing a study on God With Us Online entitled The Art of Catechesis in the Orthodox Tradition. Many here may have been tuning into these studies. Fr. David Anderson, by the way, is a priest of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Chicago.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Full definition of Apostolic Succession

You’ve got to be kidding me!?!?

Orbis, I know you have read Unitatis Redintegratio in its entirety (at least I assume you have) but I’ll just cite one portion from the document in its section, I. The Special Consideration of the Eastern Churches:

" These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. 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." (my bold emphasis added)

One more thing I’d like to add, the document says nothing of our Sacraments being illicit. Now, Unitatis Redintegratio can say whatever it wants, I’m Orthodox, so it holds no weight for me, but I am quite amused by the number of Catholics (albeit small, because I know many Catholics personally that hold what this document says in high esteem) that seem to play gymnastics on what it clearly states.

ZP

 

[Isaac14]

This document is after all in effort of Ecumenism, hence it uses Ecumenical (not theologically precise) definition of Apostolic Succession.

This is document about Ecumenism, not necessarily theological accuracy.

If your assertion here is correct, why would Rome engage in Ecumenical dialogue using theologically inaccurate language? What good would come of any agreement founded on such inaccuracies and why should the Orthodox and others trust Rome in their respective dialogues if indeed Rome is using imprecise and inaccurate language?

 

[ziapueblo]

Yes, and as I said, Vatican II needs to be read in Light of Tradition.

I’m sorry, but that just does not add up. Vatican II then should not have said anything, but, I’ll listen to the Eastern Catholic Bishops that believe that we Orthodox are true Churches, sister Churches and that we have apostolic succession and the Sacraments, oh, and Vatican II. It seems as if some Catholics, not all and not most, but some, have a real big problem with the Church recognizing our Sacraments and apostolic succession.

Again, the Catholic Church may say what she pleases.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

. . . .

It seems as if some Catholics, not all and not most, but some , have a real big problem with the Church recognizing our Sacraments and apostolic succession.

They shouldn’t. Sacraments and valid Episcopacy (which is what Catholic Church recognizes that Orthodox Church does possess) is indeed in Orthodox Churches. It just doesn’t have implications that some, on either side, tend to imply.

 

[ziapueblo]

In Ecumenical dialogue, using terms accepted by other side is beneficial.

Isn’t the truth more important in ecumenical dialogue? If the Catholic Church says we Orthodox have apostolic succession on one side of their mouth but on the other side of their mouth deny it, then the ecumenical dialogue should just end, wouldn’t you agree?

ZP

 

[Isaac14]

Which is why we recognize that in context of Ecumenism, Apostolic Succession = valid Episcopacy. However outside this context, for Catholics and in theologically correct perspective, Apostolic Succcession also contains communion with Rome.

Why does the Catholic definition of Apostolic Succession change depending on context? How are differing definitions helpful to dialogue? Being precision and accurate with language is of utmost importance. While I understand your point about “how” you talk about something to differing audiences may change, the actual meaning doesn’t change. What you are (or seem to be) suggesting is that the actual meaning changes depending on context.

 

[Isaac14]

You miss the point. Only one definition exists for sake of dialogue. Other definition exists for sake of theology and ecclesiology.

Apparently I do miss the point. I’ll confess I have no clue then why the Catholic Church would apply one definition of Apostolic Succession to ecumenical dialogue while using a different definition internally for theology and ecclesiology. Are theology and ecclesiology not a critical part of that dialogue?

Should an agreement come between the Orthodox & Catholics, would we Orthodox be agreeing to the ecumenical definition or the internal Catholic definition?