Eastern Orthodox Teachings

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Thanks Joseph. That’s quite a list.

Nine hours from now, I will be in a Roman Catholic chapel assisting my regular Sunday EF/TLM. Twelve hours from now, I will be visiting a Western Rite Orthodox chapel for the Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Would it be too much trouble to shorten your list to maybe 2-3 key Orthodox teachings that I am likely to hear discussed during either of these services?

I just did a little search and found that the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is used by the Antiochian Orthodox Church. I have never attended St. Tikhon’s liturgy, but I will try to make some projections based on my experience with other EO Divine Liturgies (I’m familiar with the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of St. James in the Russian EOC, and a Western Rite Liturgy used by the Clerks of St. Basil Secular, who are also of Russian origin).

Those doctrinal differences between Catholic and Orthodox Churches which I already mentioned will not come up during the Divine Liturgy, unless the priest specifically brings them up in his homily.

What you will hear at the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon, will be 99.9% compatible with a Catholic Holy Mass. You see, Eastern Orthodox are not like the Protestants, who have done away with the Catholic Mass, including the Eucharist. The only differences you will hear during this Western Rite Orthodox DL, that are not Catholic, will be these:

1. They will pray for the Orthodox Patriarchs, however they will not pray for the Pope. By contrast, we at the Catholic Mass pray for the Pope and Bishops everywhere.
2. They will pray for Orthodox believers everywhere (but not for those non-Orthodox). By contrast, the Catholic Mass is offered for everybody (for the whole humanity - Catholic and non-Catholic, including those who never even heard of God, and those who reject God).

The Divine Liturgy you will hear will probably be totally compatible with a Catholic Holy Mass, except for the points mentioned above. And the Eucharist, which this Orthodox priest will consecrate, will become the same, valid Eucharist (the body and blood, soul and divinity of our lord Jesus Christ) as in the Catholic Church. Catholic discipline, at least in the USA, would even allow you to partake of the Eucharist in an Orthodox Church. However, you shouldn’t present yourself for Holy Communion at an Orthodox Church out of respect for Orthodox Church discipline, because Orthodox priests will typically not allow non-Orthodox folks to Communion, except for out-of-the-ordinary circumstances (such as when a Catholic is in serious need to partake of the Eucharist, but a Catholic church or priest is not available to take care of this person).

When an Eastern or Oriental Orthodox attends Holy Mass in a Catholic Church, our Church asks them to follow the discipline of their own Church (e.g. proper disposition and fasting rules according to their own Orthodox Church), and if those discipline requirements have been satisfied, the Catholic priest will admit the Orthodox believer to Holy Communion in our Catholic Church.

Mick, will you find out please - does this Orthodox church you plan to visit, belong to the Antiochian Orthodox Church?

 

[josephdaniel29]

1. They will pray for Orthodox believers everywhere (but not for those non-Orthodox). By contrast, the Catholic Mass is offered for everybody (for the whole humanity - Catholic and non-Catholic, including those who never even heard of God, and those who reject God).

That is categorically untrue. Where in the world do you get this stuff? With all of the half truths and misinformation you post about Orthodoxy I might look into getting a new source if I were you.

In Christ
Joe

 

[mick321]

I just did a little search and found that the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is used by the Antiochian Orthodox Church. I have never attended St. Tikhon’s liturgy, but I will try to make some projections based on my experience with other EO Divine Liturgies (I’m familiar with the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of St. James in the Russian EOC, and a Western Rite Liturgy used by the Clerks of St. Basil Secular, who are also of Russian origin).

Those doctrinal differences between Catholic and Orthodox Churches which I already mentioned will not come up during the Divine Liturgy, unless the priest specifically brings them up in his homily.

What you will hear at the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon, will be 99.9% compatible with a Catholic Holy Mass. You see, Eastern Orthodox are not like the Protestants, who have done away with the Catholic Mass, including the Eucharist. The only differences you will hear during this Western Rite Orthodox DL, that are not Catholic, will be these:

1. They will pray for the Orthodox Patriarchs, however they will not pray for the Pope. By contrast, we at the Catholic Mass pray for the Pope and Bishops everywhere.
2. They will pray for Orthodox believers everywhere (but not for those non-Orthodox). By contrast, the Catholic Mass is offered for everybody (for the whole humanity - Catholic and non-Catholic, including those who never even heard of God, and those who reject God).

The Divine Liturgy you will hear will probably be totally compatible with a Catholic Holy Mass, except for the points mentioned above. And the Eucharist, which this Orthodox priest will consecrate, will become the same, valid Eucharist (the body and blood, soul and divinity of our lord Jesus Christ) as in the Catholic Church. Catholic discipline, at least in the USA, would even allow you to partake of the Eucharist in an Orthodox Church. However, you shouldn’t present yourself for Holy Communion at an Orthodox Church out of respect for Orthodox Church discipline, because Orthodox priests will typically not allow non-Orthodox folks to Communion, except for out-of-the-ordinary circumstances (such as when a Catholic is in serious need to partake of the Eucharist, but a Catholic church or priest is not available to take care of this person).

When an Eastern or Oriental Orthodox attends Holy Mass in a Catholic Church, our Church asks them to follow the discipline of their own Church (e.g. proper disposition and fasting rules according to their own Orthodox Church), and if those discipline requirements have been satisfied, the Catholic priest will admit the Orthodox believer to Holy Communion in our Catholic Church.

Mick, will you find out please - does this Orthodox church you plan to visit, belong to the Antiochian Orthodox Church?

The parish belongs to the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, Patriarchate of Antioch. I met the pastor and several deacons before Mass. They knew I was Roman Catholic and interested in the Western Rite Mass and Benedictine Office. They hooked me up with St. Andrews Service Book, Rule of St. Benedict and Oblate handbook. They use St. Tikhon liturgy on Sunday, St. Gregory liturgy during the week. Both are similar to Roman EF but use English language. Based on my observation, most (perhaps all) received the Eucharist both species with unleavened host always on the tongue. I was welcomed me to receive the Eucharist provided I was properly disposed. I politely declined as I had already received Holy Communion several hours earlier at my regular parish.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The parish belongs to the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, Patriarchate of Antioch. I met the pastor and several deacons before Mass. They knew I was Roman Catholic and interested in the Western Rite Mass and Benedictine Office. They hooked me up with St. Andrews Service Book, Rule of St. Benedict and Oblate handbook. They use St. Tikhon liturgy on Sunday, St. Gregory liturgy during the week. Both are similar to Roman EF but use English language. Based on my observation, most (perhaps all) received the Eucharist both species with unleavened host always on the tongue. I was welcomed me to receive the Eucharist provided I was properly disposed. I politely declined as I had already received Holy Communion several hours earlier at my regular parish.

If the priest offered the Eucharist to you knowing you were not Orthodox and his bishop found out about it the priest would very likely be excommunicated and almost certainly dismissed from his duties and defrocked.

In Christ
Joe

 

[dvdjs]

If the priest offered the Eucharist to you knowing you were not Orthodox and his bishop found out about it the priest would very likely be excommunicated and almost certainly dismissed from his duties and defrocked.

Where do you get this stuff?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I know that I have attended St Seraphims Russian Orthodox cathedral in Dallas and have talked with the bishop there. They are on the same calendar as everyone else.

They have a different understanding of original sin, they don’t exactly reject the Immaculate Conception. In fact they may have even more devotion to Our Lady than the Catholic church, and call OL the All Holy Theotokos and at the vespers service they say ‘Holy Mother of God, save us’.

This perfectly applies to Eastern Catholics as well so you cannot say they have more devotion than the Catholic Church because what the Orthodox has, the Eastern Catholics have as well so Catholics in general have it.

They most certainly beleive in the Assumption, they just call it the Dormition but they do think that OL died, the Catholic dogma just does not say for sure whether she died or not.

Many EO clergy do not wear beards, and while they prefer leavened bread for the Holy Eucharist they do not think Hosts are Heretical. not to mention pews and beards.

Perhaps you were in contact with rather extreme ROs, something like the ROCOR here in America?

The opinion on Catholic practices vary from Eastern Church to Eastern Church, from Eparchy to Eparchy, and sometimes from Parish to Parish. Indeed some priests may be more accepting of Catholics than others.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I just did a little search and found that the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is used by the Antiochian Orthodox Church. I have never attended St. Tikhon’s liturgy, but I will try to make some projections based on my experience with other EO Divine Liturgies (I’m familiar with the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of St. James in the Russian EOC, and a Western Rite Liturgy used by the Clerks of St. Basil Secular, who are also of Russian origin).

Those doctrinal differences between Catholic and Orthodox Churches which I already mentioned will not come up during the Divine Liturgy, unless the priest specifically brings them up in his homily.

What you will hear at the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon, will be 99.9% compatible with a Catholic Holy Mass. You see, Eastern Orthodox are not like the Protestants, who have done away with the Catholic Mass, including the Eucharist. The only differences you will hear during this Western Rite Orthodox DL, that are not Catholic, will be these:

They are 99.99999% compatible with an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy as well

1. They will pray for the Orthodox Patriarchs, however they will not pray for the Pope. By contrast, we at the Catholic Mass pray for the Pope and Bishops everywhere.

In an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy, we also pray for the Pope, the Patriarch, Metropolitan and Bishop of the Eparchy. In a Roman Mass usually its just the Pope and the diocesan Bishop. But of course the Pope already inherently is the Patriarch of the Roman Church as well as the Supreme Pontiff. That distinction is clear in the East because its different persons.

1. They will pray for Orthodox believers everywhere (but not for those non-Orthodox). By contrast, the Catholic Mass is offered for everybody (for the whole humanity - Catholic and non-Catholic, including those who never even heard of God, and those who reject God).

Eastern Catholics pray for Orthodox Christians and Orthodox faith as well. Of course if you ask the Orthodox, some of them will say Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox Christians. Eastern Catholics see themselves as Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome. Although in my Divine Liturgy book, the term “orthodox” is not capitalized.

The Divine Liturgy you will hear will probably be totally compatible with a Catholic Holy Mass, except for the points mentioned above. And the Eucharist, which this Orthodox priest will consecrate, will become the same, valid Eucharist (the body and blood, soul and divinity of our lord Jesus Christ) as in the Catholic Church. Catholic discipline, at least in the USA, would even allow you to partake of the Eucharist in an Orthodox Church. However, you shouldn’t present yourself for Holy Communion at an Orthodox Church out of respect for Orthodox Church discipline, because Orthodox priests will typically not allow non-Orthodox folks to Communion, except for out-of-the-ordinary circumstances (such as when a Catholic is in serious need to partake of the Eucharist, but a Catholic church or priest is not available to take care of this person).

When an Eastern or Oriental Orthodox attends Holy Mass in a Catholic Church, our Church asks them to follow the discipline of their own Church (e.g. proper disposition and fasting rules according to their own Orthodox Church), and if those discipline requirements have been satisfied, the Catholic priest will admit the Orthodox believer to Holy Communion in our Catholic Church.

Mick, will you find out please - does this Orthodox church you plan to visit, belong to the Antiochian Orthodox Church?

Although most Orthodox will not seek Communion in a Catholic Church for many reasons, even in cases of necessity.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Where do you get this stuff?

Church canons both local and universal prescribe canonical penalties for celebrating sacraments with heretics. Look at the recent case of a Romanian priest being defrocked for concelebrating with a Catholic priest and offering the Eucharist to Catholics.

What would happen to a Catholic priest who offered the Eucharist to a Southern Baptist?

In Christ
Joe

 

[ConstantineTG]

Church canons both local and universal prescribe canonical penalties for celebrating sacraments with heretics. Look at the recent case of a Romanian priest being defrocked for concelebrating with a Catholic priest and offering the Eucharist to Catholics.

What would happen to a Catholic priest who offered the Eucharist to a Southern Baptist?

In Christ
Joe

Probably not defrocked unless its a habitual thing. Of course the first course of action is to try to correct him through instruction. You’d hope that priests were well trained in the seminary. But if you think about it, how many of us do actually put a lot of what we learned in school to good use with our jobs? They’re only humans, so a reminder would be in order. If they persist, then suspension might be next.

 

[dvdjs]

Church canons both local and universal prescribe canonical penalties for celebrating sacraments with heretics. Look at the recent case of a Romanian priest being defrocked for concelebrating with a Catholic priest and offering the Eucharist to Catholics.

First, we were talking about the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America ruled by Metropolitan Philip.

Second, in Romania was the discipline for concelebration with a Catholic priest or for communing Catholic laity?

Do you have any honest idea, informed by facts not principles, of how frequently inter-communion already takes place and what fraction of those events lead to any disciplinary action?

 

[Hesychios]

Church canons both local and universal prescribe canonical penalties for celebrating sacraments with heretics. Look at the recent case of a Romanian priest being defrocked for concelebrating with a Catholic priest and offering the Eucharist to Catholics.

What would happen to a Catholic priest who offered the Eucharist to a Southern Baptist?

In Christ
Joe

http://www.getreligion.org/wp-content/photos/clinton_communion1.jpg

 

[Nine_Two]

First, we were talking about the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America ruled by Metropolitan Philip.

Second, in Romania was the discipline for concelebration with a Catholic priest or for communing Catholic laity?

Do you have any honest idea, informed by facts not principles, of how frequently inter-communion already takes place and what fraction of those events lead to any disciplinary action?

That’s rich coming from you.

 

[dvdjs]

That’s rich coming from you.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Do you have any honest idea, informed by facts not principles, of how frequently inter-communion already takes place and what fraction of those events lead to any disciplinary action?

How am I supposed to get statistics on how often Orthodox priests violate Church canons and commune non-Orthodox? If/when it does happen the priests in question definitely wouldn’t broadcast it to the world as it would certainly bring canonical penalties.

In Christ
Joe

 

[JohnVIII]

There are certain practices that the EO regard as acceptable, but we Catholics must reject them as gravely immoral. These practices, if done with full kowledge of the fact that they are sinful, qualify as mortal sins and are sufficient for the eternal damnation of the soul. The ones I know are artificial birth control (ABC) and ecclesiastical divorce.

ABC is forbidden as gravely immoral by the CC - this includes condoms, surgical procedures such as vasectomy (men) and tubal ligation (women), the pill, intrauterine devices etc…

I personally know of a Russian Orthodox man who had a vasectomy and confessed this sin to an Orthodox bishop. He was told that it would be best if he repented by getting a vasectomy reversal, but if he could not do that he would have to be banned from communion for 3 years. I’m sure that it is true that not all Orthodox fathers would be this strict in giving penance, but it seems to me that you don’t really abject to any “practice”, rather you abject to the fact that all of Orthodoxy is not united under every word of the Pope. Am I wrong?

And as for “ecclesiastical divorce” the Pope never condemned this practice in the East in the 10 century’s that East and West were in communion. And from what I have read, the Pope today has said that he would not let this practice stand in the way of re-union between Rome & Orthodox. Hence, you cannot label the Roman contrary practice as “infallible”, seeing that the Pope has never required it upon the whole Church, but only Rome. Personally, I find the stricter Roman Practice considerably less loving than the Eastern and therefore very well could stand in the way of a mans eternal salvation in some cases if forced upon him at all costs!

When the Pope requires something of Rome it does not automatically mean it is required on the whole Church. Rome is but one of several Catholic churches, it is not, by itself, the whole Church. So if the Pope has made it clear that he has not spoken to the whole Church, but only to the Roman Church, then it is not St Peter that has spoken.

 

[Bluegoat]

And from what I have read, the Pope today has said that he would not let this practice stand in the way of re-union between Rome & Orthodox.

That would be very surprising to some Catholics! Where did he say that?

 

[josephdaniel29]

That would be very surprising to some Catholics! Where did he say that?

I have never read that specifically but it certainly seems to be implied in some of the things I have read. Of course it only makes sense as there were canons prior to the schism prescribing certain penances for the sin of divorce and remarriage. It is obvious that at least in the east divorce and remarriage has always been viewed as a grave sin, but one that could be repented of and that eventually the penitent could received back into communion with the Church.

In Christ
Joe

 

[dvdjs]

How am I supposed to get statistics on how often Orthodox priests violate Church canons and commune non-Orthodox? If/when it does happen the priests in question definitely wouldn’t broadcast it to the world as it would certainly bring canonical penalties.

OK, so you are speaking about some principles but without “statistics”. Maybe, apart from statistics, you know some anecdotal facts about the intercommunion with non-EOs in the Antiochian church. Maybe you know none. But you were quick to expressed certainty about this matter would be handled in the Antiochian church. From the anectdotes that I know of, I think that you are wrong. Sorry to disagree.

 

[josephdaniel29]

OK, so you are speaking about some principles but without “statistics”. Maybe, apart from statistics, you know some anecdotal facts about the intercommunion with non-EOs in the Antiochian church. Maybe you know none. But you were quick to expressed certainty about this matter would be handled in the Antiochian church. From the anectdotes that I know of, I think that you are wrong. Sorry to disagree.

So you have anecdotal evidence of Antiochian bishops here in the States allowing their priests to knowingly commune non-Orthodox?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

As is the case with most contended hierarchs, there are varying accounts about St. Photius. The Latin version portrays him as an illegitimate schemer and castigator. The Greek version has him as a defender against papal encroachment, and a sound teacher of Trinitarian doctrine.

When the filioque began spreading outside of Spain and amongst the Franks, the Popes of Rome resisted the addition of the filioque. The Latin side holds that this resistance was not theological disagreement but rather a consideration of the conciliar prohibition against adding to the Creed.

If you’re interested in more, I’ve heard that Francis Dvornik’s The Photian Schism is an excellent treatment of the Photian issues.

Thanks for the info, Madaglan. This Photian schism is an excellent example, I think, why there should be talks between Orthodox and Catholic Church representatives. I mean, we may disagree on theological issues, but it surely is worth trying to come to a more unified view of history than putting forward two versions that seem to contradict each other.

I was in for quite a surprise when I mentioned St. Josaphat Kuncevyc, in another thread. It turned out that Catholic historians describe him as someone who was venerated, shortly after his martyrdom, by the very people who opposed him and who were instrumental in his death (including his rival EO Archbishop), because they saw him as innocent and as a saintly man. But then, I learned a different version of history put forward by Orthodox historians, according to which he was “Josaphat the malevolent”, someone who attacked EO believers in their own worship tents, and he was killed by them at an EO worship tent, while he was in the very process of attacking the EO believers. Which is countered by Catholic historians saying that this version is total bunk and a bunch of lies, because St. Josaphat never attacked the EO, and in fact he was killed not at an EO worship tent, he was killed rather at his own residence, his own home, by EO folks who came to attack him at his own home. And Catholic historians add that EO laypeople converted in droves to Catholicism after his death, and even the rival EO Archbishop who was his chief opponent during his life, converted to Catholicism after his martyrdom, which goes to show that St. Josaphat’s contemporaries regarded him not as a criminal but as an innocent man and a saint, and that those later stories of “Josaphat the malevolent” were only invented well after his death, by people who wanted to re-write history with slander and character assassination.

So, these are the cases that make me think - we should at least try to get together and agree on a common version of history, if nothing else.

I guess the same consideration would help with the filioque, too. Even if we will ultimately disagree on whether the filioque is heretic or not, at least try to clear up the history of it.

I tend to think that the Pope would not feel himself bound by a conciliar prohibition against adding to the filioque. I base this on two things. 1. Historically, the Popes believed they had the right to veto the resolutions of Ecumenical Councils, which means that they regarded themselves, rather than the Councils, as the ultimate authority. 2. The EC of Nicea (321) prohibited anyone from coming up with a different Creed, but then a bit later, the council of Constantinople (381) added some stuff to the Creed of Nicea. Based on this precedent of adding stuff to the Nicean Creed, it seems appropriate that the Council of Toledo would add yet more stuff to the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed, believing that what they added did not amount to a different Creed, it just amounted to a further addition and clarification in order to combat a specific heresy in their territory.