Eastern Orthodox view of Catholics?

[jam070406]

No, it’s not.

The issue has been in ongoing resolution for years now. There were 300 cases in dispute a few years ago and there are less now.

Exaggeration is not necessary, and not at all becoming.
That would be a different issue entirely, assuming it were true. She does not seem to be talking about Orthodox or property in your quotes here.

*Michael *

Ok, 300 (by your account) too many then. I glazed over the number that the previous poster presented and was more focused on the heart of the atrocity itself. I apologize.
At least you acknowledge it happened.

Mary was speaking to Ukrainian Catholics Michael. The vision was at a Catholic Church. I just saw a documentary on this whole issue. And frankly I’ll believe the people that lived through it as opposed to your opinion. No offense.

 

[Hesychios]

As opposed to what?

As opposed to when asked, should Roman Catholics be baptized or just chrisimated or recieved with profession… are their priests valid priests? the answer to all of the above is “yes” “no” and “maybe”…

Who says?

The Johnstown Greek Catholics were taken in en masse with simple profession. French monks went to Athos to get baptized. ++PHILLIP has blessed the use of a revised BCP as western rite orthodox. +ANTHONY said it was a no go.

That can have as much to do with the recipient as anything else.

But what should you care? Are you considering converting? Don’t pretend to be offended, these people leave the Roman Catholic church and accept the decision of the bishop who receives them. They should be concerned, if anyone.

You seem to be upset that some people are accepted under Economy, I don’t begrudge them that at all.

If my bishop had asked that I accept baptism in the proper form, I would have accepted it, because I wanted to be Orthodox. As it was, I was told I could be accepted with a simple profession of Faith, Confession and Communion. That’s an exercise in Economy on his part.

I chose to be Chrismated with the other converts. I am still delighted. I think all converts should undertake serious study first, and at least accept Chrismation, but I accept the judgment of the local bishop in each case, because I feel he should know best and has responsibility to care for their souls.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Ok, 300 (by your account) too many then. I glazed over the number that the previous poster presented and was more focused on the heart of the atrocity itself. I apologize.
At least you acknowledge it happened.

Mary was speaking to Ukrainian Catholics Michael. The vision was at a Catholic Church. I just saw a documentary on this whole issue. And frankly I’ll believe the people that lived through it as opposed to your opinion. No offense.

No offense taken.

Did she mention the Orthodox at all?

 

[jam070406]

No offense taken.

Did she mention the Orthodox at all?

No, but Catholic priests and Bishops were being persecuted and forced to denounce their Faith and join the Russian Orthodox Church.
Matter of fact, there was just a Ukrainian priest on Catholic Answers live that said he converted to the Catholic Chuch from Orthodoxy because of the Faith he saw in the people being persecuted for their Catholic beliefs.

 

[jam070406]

Also, Mary told them to pray the rosary. Something Orthodox do not do.

 

[Hesychios]

Also, Mary told them to pray the rosary. Something Orthodox do not do.

Some Orthodox do pray the rosary, especially in Ukraine.

 

[Frank_J]

Hi Hesychios and jam070406,

When I converted to become an Orthodox Christian I was told that I would have to be Chrismation, before being allowed to receive Communion Host.

I was not rebaptized, but I was told why I had to be given Chrismation. It was because the Baptism I was given by Rome was seen by my Church as deficient. This is what I was told by my priest in the Orthodox Church. My Church is an OCA Church and it’s back ground is Russian just so that you will know.

Not all Catholics say the rosary I know a Eastern Rite Archdeacon how doesn’t use the rosary. He just used the Prayer Rope. The rosary is a Latin thing that they do not us as far as I know. I for my part thing that the Prayer Rope is better more user friendly then the so called rosary. I use to say the rosary when I was younger but gave up on it long time ago. You have to think of the different mysteries when say it. One can’t think of the mysteries and concentrate on the prayer itself when say it. I just wanted to give my option of how I see it.

Have a great night.

Frank J.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

That can have as much to do with the recipient as anything else.

But what should you care? Are you considering converting? Don’t pretend to be offended, these people leave the Roman Catholic church and accept the decision of the bishop who receives them. They should be concerned, if anyone.

You seem to be upset that some people are accepted under Economy, I don’t begrudge them that at all.

If my bishop had asked that I accept baptism in the proper form, I would have accepted it, because I wanted to be Orthodox. As it was, I was told I could be accepted with a simple profession of Faith, Confession and Communion. That’s an exercise in Economy on his part.

I chose to be Chrismated with the other converts. I am still delighted. I think all converts should undertake serious study first, and at least accept Chrismation, but I accept the judgment of the local bishop in each case, because I feel he should know best and has responsibility to care for their souls.

Michael

If you can, can’t or just don’t wish to deal with my objections or points as they are, so be it. Don’t patronize in saying things like “Are you considering converting?” and “You seem upset…”

I seem to be asking a question you seem to not be directing answering.

I remain interested in hearing how you hash out which theology to follow when bishops conflict in their teaching. The WRO example seems as good an example to cover as any.

I also would be curious to know what the limits are to economia, where the guidelines or canons are… How one can better understand, of if dicisions “just are” with no real reference to precedent or standards, as is the case with the widely divergent ways or recieving Catholic priests and laity.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

EXACTLY.

And there is no one to say any one party is definately wrong or definately right.

In “The Orthodox Church” which is actually a communion of national churches, you will find parties that accept Catholic priests through simple vesting and allegiance to the bishop, and parties that demand re-baptism. Then again, there are Orthodox who demand some of there fellow Orthodox be re-baptized. I am too familiar with too much to even take it personally.

In a communion that widely presents itself as a conciliar church, ask for documents from the council that deals with that Catholic Church. And then make sure the council presented to you (if one is presented) is accepted and “received” as a council universally enough to (whomever’s) understanding.

Constantinople IV (879)

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Constantinople IV (879)

OK, a name and a year is a start.

I know you have slowed down appreciably from a high of about 50 posts per day to your current 23.67 posts per day…

But if it won’t slow you down too much, can you be bothered to explain what you are intending that to illustrate?

Doing more than calling out a council (which presumes we will share a conclusion in its reading) may engender a greater sense of real interest in your making a case.

 

[Nicholas82]

As opposed to what?

As opposed to when asked, should Roman Catholics be baptized or just chrisimated or recieved with profession… are their priests valid priests? the answer to all of the above is “yes” “no” and “maybe”…

Who says?

The Johnstown Greek Catholics were taken in en masse with simple profession. French monks went to Athos to get baptized. ++PHILLIP has blessed the use of a revised BCP as western rite orthodox. +ANTHONY said it was a no go.

It would not be wrong to recieve a Roman Catholic by baptism in any case. The individual Bishop may decide, for pastoral reasons(which he knows and you are not privy to) to recieve a Roman Catholic simply by Chrismation. This is in no way a recognition of your Sacraments, this is trusting the Holy Spirit to fill what was lacking in said baptism, which was performed outside the Church. Simply put: there are no Sacraments outside of the Church.

The same goes for Roman Catholic priests. If they are recieved simply by vesting, don’t take that as a pronouncement on the “validity” or otherwise of their former ordination(as it were), but as a decision rightfully made by the Bishop.

Having been a former Roman Catholic, I know that can be a hard pill to swallow; but certainly it’s no harder to hear than what a potential Anglican convert might hear concerning the “validity” of their Holy Orders and Sacraments.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It would not be wrong to recieve a Roman Catholic by baptism in any case. The individual Bishop may decide, for pastoral reasons(which he knows and you are not privy to) to recieve a Roman Catholic simply by Chrismation. This is in no way a recognition of your Sacraments, this is trusting the Holy Spirit to fill what was lacking in said baptism, which was performed outside the Church. Simply put: there are no Sacraments outside of the Church.

The same goes for Roman Catholic priests. If they are recieved simply by vesting, don’t take that as a pronouncement on the “validity” or otherwise of their former ordination(as it were), but as a decision rightfully made by the Bishop.

Having been a former Roman Catholic, I know that can be a hard pill to swallow; but certainly it’s no harder to hear than what a potential Anglican convert might hear concerning the “validity” of their Holy Orders and Sacraments.

From their Nicholas I would be interested in knowing what the basis of the theology for understanding Catholics to be “outside the church” and who is fit to pronounce or rule on that.

I would also like to see a formulated and consistent apologetic for the bishops having the authority to have that economia.

The Anglican comparison falls short in as much as their is a consistency in understanding how it is valid or how it is not. I suppose this is a distinction with little difference to you as an ex-Catholic. But whereas the Roman Church rules something valid or not, apologists for an Eastern school of thought present an argument or ideal that a bishop enjoys (I suppose by virtue of his episcopal dignity in Holy Orders) a great deal of autonomy on paper…

The questions then arise for how one is to handle the divergence in praxis between autonomous parties. If the question is resolved to be left unresolved trusting that the “Holy Spirit Provides” (which is fair enough…)

One is left to wonder who can pronounce the Catholic Church to constitute a body that is “outside the church”? Short of a clear understanding of a definative teaching to that effect, one could just as well accept and believe that the Holy Spirit provides for the whole of the Catholic Church’s endeavor. Really, why couldn’t they?

 

[Hesychios]

From their Nicholas I would be interested in knowing what the basis of the theology for understanding Catholics to be “outside the church” and who is fit to pronounce or rule on that.

Simple,

You appear to be obsessing over this issue.

You are not Orthodox. The church does not know anything about you until you show up at the door asking to be admitted. The bishop will decide, end of story.

No, the fact that you are a Roman Catholic does not entitle you to just walk right in to the Orthodox Faith, you need to approach this humbly, or stay where you are.

When you do ask to become Orthodox, the bishop will decide. Until then cool your jets.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Simple,

You appear to be obsessing over this issue.

You are not Orthodox. The church does not know anything about you until you show up at the door asking to be admitted. The bishop will decide, end of story.

No, the fact that you are a Roman Catholic does not entitle you to just walk right in to the Orthodox Faith, you need to approach this humbly, or stay where you are.

When you do ask to become Orthodox, the bishop will decide. Until then cool your jets.

Michael,

You appear to be avoiding the issue and obfuscating.

I am Orthodox as it stands, in communion with the See of Peter as is tradition, scripturally warranted and supported by patristics.

But all your tacit ad hominem barbs - that I am obsessive or in need of cooling my jets - does little more than avoid a question that no one will, can or wants to answer. The notion that I am looking for a “right to walk into Orthodoxy” is a red herring - I am not fighting for some right.

I am looking for an understanding of where this assumed responsibiltiy, authority or power of bishops is coming from, and where it is spelled out, how it is limited, and how it is to be understood. I would also like to see a formulated and consistent apologetic for the bishops having the authority to have that economia.

What I normally get met with - if I get answers at all - is “for thus is All Holy Orthodoxy” or “for thus is tradition” or “You can’t understand, you are a westerner, and the west is bad and you are being legalistic!”

I guess it is a real catch-22. So long as I keep asking a question no one wants to answer in the first place, the door opens wide to simply dismissing me as “obsessed.” (Making it my problem that you can’t or won’t answer my question…) It works in politics too…

So adding cute emoticons and dismissing the arguments as “obsessed” and then telling me to “cool my jets” (Which I found ridiculously condescending at a personal level!) just seems to underscore that you can’t or won’t answer these questions.

So if you could actually come up with a consistent reason, or an agreed upon litmus test and understanding for how “economia” may be applied, or how it is limited… That would be a great thing.

 

[Hesychios]

I am Orthodox as it stands, in communion with the See of Peter as is tradition, scripturally warranted and supported by patristics.

I am sorry brother.

But nothing I have read from you gives me that impression. If all you do is attend an Eastern Catholic parish, and persist in the notions you have carried since your time in the Roman Catholic church, you are not Orthodox.

So if you could actually come up with a consistent reason, or an agreed upon litmus test and understanding for how “economia” may be applied, or how it is limited… That would be a great thing.

You have been told. It is up to the bishop, who is the one who decides within his own diocese. If his synod has mutually agreed to follow a certain policy as a whole, he will follow the policy his synod has agreed upon. Otherwise, he will use his own best judgment in individual cases, and his community will obey.

Peace and all good things,
Michael

 

[Mickey]

and then telling me to “cool my jets”

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_5_24.gif

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I am sorry brother.

But nothing I have read from you gives me that impression. If all you do is attend an Eastern Catholic parish, and persist in the notions you have carried since your time in the Roman Catholic church, you are not Orthodox.

No need to be sorry brother - I just cannot agree with you.

As an Orthodox priest who has joined the Melkite Church has written:

I proclaim it, I affirm it, and I deny the assertion that to do so is to not be Orthodox.

If I worship the same (“ortho-doxia”) and my practice of the Faith is the same (“ortho-praxis”), in what way am I not Orthodox?

Because you say so?

Or the Patriarch of Moscow?

Or the Patriarch of Constantinople?

Who has the authority in the Orthodox Church to pass judgment on this question?

I will ascede that my worldview is not parochial or always as byzanto-centric (to coin a phrase) as some Eastern Christians both in communion and out of communion with Rome…

But really, who are you to set this somewhat arbitrary and self-serving litmus test as to who is Orthodox?

Because I don’t adopt contradistinctions to the West and have no shame about with whom I am in communion or would at times avail myself of Roman thought or spiritual practices such as the Rosary or attending Mass on my lunch hour? Because I recognize and affirm that synthesis can be achieved between East and West?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

OK, a name and a year is a start.

I know you have slowed down appreciably from a high of about 50 posts per day to your current 23.67 posts per day…

But if it won’t slow you down too much, can you be bothered to explain what you are intending that to illustrate?

Doing more than calling out a council (which presumes we will share a conclusion in its reading) may engender a greater sense of real interest in your making a case.

Constantinople IV condemned a number of things that were beginning to divide the West from the rest of the Church, and explicitely, reiterating the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, condemned the filioque. You asked for a council, accepted by all Orthodox, that condemned Latin innovations. So you have it.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Constantinople IV condemned a number of things that were beginning to divide the West from the rest of the Church, and explicitely, reiterating the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, condemned the filioque. You asked for a council, accepted by all Orthodox, that condemned Latin innovations. So you have it.

Is that an ecumenical council then?

 

[Nicholas82]

Is that an ecumenical council then?

Not without the Pope’s signature, right?