Eastern Rite Churches, the Orthodox and the Blessed Virgin Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter sydneycatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sydneycatholic

Guest
I’ve been having discussions with both the various Eastern-rite Church members, as well as the Eastern Orthodox.

Can I ask:

(1) Do these pray the Rosary?

(2) Do these believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

I ask because of my devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and I don’t want to offend the Eastern Orthodox in particular whom I think correct me if I’m wrong) do not hold that the Blessed Mother was immaculately conceived.

And yet they accept Her Assumption, that they call Her Dormition?

Forgive me for what has probably been asked a lot before, I couldn’t find the forum, and I’ve come across a lot of conflicting answers to these questions.

Especially relating to Question (2).

I’ve been keeping Russia in prayer too in case the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was not validly carried out. And yes, I tend not to raise this with the Russian Orthodox who seem to get offended by the prayers of Catholics, as though we want to “convert” them to Catholicism.

Many thanks.
 
(1) Yes and no. For Eastern Catholics, where a lot of Latinizations and Roman Rite influence exists, it’s not suprising if one finds an Eastern rite parish having western devotions. For Orthodox however, it’s very rare to find anyone who prays the Rosary. However if there are, the person would most likely use St. Seraphim of Sarov’s version of the Rosary. I don’t remember the details, but Orthodoxy does have some criticisms of Roman Catholic spirituality (a controversial one being imaginative prayer), and I think St. Seraphim’s rosary is modified to be inline with Orthodox spirituality and theology. However I don’t know the specifics of it.

(2) If you mean that in context of the Catholic dogma, then no. We believe that she, like the rest of us, was affected by ancestral sin (which is what we call original sin). Honestly original sin vs. ancestral sin is a huge can of worms where a lot of Catholics say that they are the same thing, yet at the same time the Immaculate Conception doesn’t make much sense in view of ancestral sin (which is why in my opinion they could seem to be reconciled with specific language on both sides, yet at the same time come to different theological conclusions). Hence, a huge can of worms, and I usually just leave it at that.
 
sydneycatholic said:
I’ve been having discussions with both the various Eastern-rite Church members, as well as the Eastern Orthodox.

Can I ask:

(1) Do these pray the Rosary?

(2) Do these believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

I ask because of my devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and I don’t want to offend the Eastern Orthodox in particular whom I think correct me if I’m wrong) do not hold that the Blessed Mother was immaculately conceived.

And yet they accept Her Assumption, that they call Her Dormition?

Forgive me for what has probably been asked a lot before, I couldn’t find the forum, and I’ve come across a lot of conflicting answers to these questions.

Especially relating to Question (2).

I’ve been keeping Russia in prayer too in case the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was not validly carried out. And yes, I tend not to raise this with the Russian Orthodox who seem to get offended by the prayers of Catholics, as though we want to “convert” them to Catholicism.

Many thanks.
Click to expand...
The Eastern-rite Catholics believe exactly the same things we do and that is what makes us Catholic - possession of the whole Faith as passed down from the Apostles to their successors in union with the successor of St. Peter. I believe the Eastern Catholics have their own ways of expressing things using different theological terms form Latin Catholics but our Faith is the same. We certainly should want to convert the Eastern Orthodox to Catholicism and we are commanded to pray this by Christ and His Church. The only way the unity we are told to pray for can be achieved is if we have unity of belief and an acceptance of the true spiritual authority God has placed over us.
 
What do you mean ‘the Church has asked us not to proselytise…’? Who in the Church has told us not to try, using words, to convince the Eastern Orthodox of their error and the truth of Catholicism and to invite them to become Catholic? The Church commands us to pray for Christian unity which is impossible without the Eastern Orthodox accepting the truth of the Catholic Faith and the authority of the Pope over them.
[/quote]
 
So the writers of that declaration believe that trying to get the Eastern Orthodox to become Catholic is ‘proselytizing’. That declaration is evil. It is not simply to expand our ‘own’ church that we desire the conversion of the E.O. but for the glory of God and the salvation of the world.
 
Zabdi_Premjit said:
Definition of “proselytise,” as per Oxford Dictionary:
“Convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another”

🍿
Click to expand...
That is not what is usually meant by proselytism. That word usually means using aggressive or underhanded means to attain converts. One man’s zeal for souls could easily be labelled ‘proselytism’ by those who do not see the importance of conversion.
 
"As with all the results of the joint dialogue commissions, this common document belongs to the responsibility of the Commission itself, until the competent organs of the Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Churches express their judgement in regard to it. "
 
recentrevert said:
That is not what is usually meant by proselytism. That word usually means using aggressive or underhanded means to attain converts. One man’s zeal for souls could easily be labelled ‘proselytism’ by those who do not see the importance of conversion.
Click to expand...
Actually, the definition I gave reflects accurately how I normally encounter the word being used/ The way you used it is a usage I only encounter in a minority of people who try to use synonyms that sound more benign; these people, in my encounters, are often people actively engaged in or supporting proselytisation, and who therefore have a vested interest in trying to avoid a word that may send up red flags to others.

Of course, we may run in different circles, so maybe you are just around more people who mistakenly think “to proselytise” implies aggressive or underhanded techniques. I don’t think we should ignore the real meaning of the word, just because some people don’t understand what it means though. Do you?
 
Zabdi_Premjit said:
Actually, the definition I gave reflects accurately how I normally encounter the word being used The way you used it is a usage I only encounter in minority of people who try to use synonyms that sound more benign; these people, in my encounters, are often people actively engaged in or supporting proselytisation, and who therefore have a vested interest in trying to avoid a word that may send up red flags to others.
Click to expand...
But you really don’t want Catholics to try and convert members of your church to Catholicism, do you? You have a vested interest in making Catholics believe that in trying to convert others they are doing the evil ‘proselytising’.
 
You are aware that the extract I quoted came from the document itself? The document that is, which is “the responsibility of the commission itself”
 
recentrevert said:
But you really don’t want Catholics to try and convert members of your church to Catholicism, do you? You have a vested interest in making Catholics believe that in trying to convert others they are doing the evil ‘proselytising’.
Click to expand...
No, I have no vested interest in “making Catholics believe that in trying to convert others they are doing the evil ‘proselytising’.”
 
Zabdi_Premjit said:
Definition of “proselytise,” as per Oxford Dictionary:
“Convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another”
Click to expand...
That’s why there’s no proselytizing the Orthodox. Such Churches are truly Apostolic Churches with the fullness of the means of Salvation as revealed to the Apostles by Our Lord and passed on through their successors. They too are the One, Hole, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, along with the 25 Catholic Churches in communion with the Latin Catholic Church.
🍿
Click to expand...
🍿

Pax Christi
 
recentrevert said:
The Eastern-rite Catholics believe exactly the same things we do and that is what makes us Catholic - possession of the whole Faith as passed down from the Apostles to their successors in union with the successor of St. Peter. I believe the Eastern Catholics have their own ways of expressing things using different theological terms form Latin Catholics but our Faith is the same. We certainly should want to convert the Eastern Orthodox to Catholicism and we are commanded to pray this by Christ and His Church. The only way the unity we are told to pray for can be achieved is if we have unity of belief and an acceptance of the true spiritual authority God has placed over us.
Click to expand...
I’ve come across some Orthodox, mainly Russian Orthodox, that claim that England, Ireland, Rome, etc etc was “Orthodox” before the Great Schism.

I cannot get my head around this. It appears A LOT like the Protestant sects out there that believe the Church lost its Apostolic Succession and didn’t “reclaim” it, ie, that the true Apostles going back to Christ somehow emerged after the Reformation. The type of thinking held by some of the Baptists, Mormons and others.

I am NOT implying the Orthodox in any way, shape or form are ANYTHING like these groups that are very anti-everything-they-are-not (ie, the independent Baptists, some mainline Baptists, the Mormons, SDAs etc whose roots are anti-Catholicism and whose raison d’etre is to teach that the Catholic Church is the Harlot Church).

However, when I get into discussions with some Orthodox, mostly from the Russian and some Greek side, I get this sense that yes we Catholics are schismatics and that they have forgotten that the mutual excommunications following the Second Vatican Council never took place.

I recall how hurt Pope John Paul II was when he went to Greece in 2001 and there were some unforgiving Monks and others who called the Pope the Anti-Christ if I recall and wouldn’t forgive the Church despite its attempt to ask forgiveness for its historical transgressions.

Same with PJPII wanting to go to Russia to return the Holy Icon of the Theotokos or Our Lady of Kazan. The previous Moscow Patriarch wouldn’t allow it and so it was sent anyway in 2004 before the death of Saint John Paul II the following year.

And then you have relations I have heard with the Moscow Patriarch with people like Franklin Graham - evangelicals. And I recall the previous Moscow Patriarch had issues with PJPII accusing him of poaching Orthodox in Russia when it was all those Protestant sects.

And I recall that if Russia was regarded as “Orthodox lands” by which Catholics were to “lay off”, why are the Orthodox allowed to “convert” Catholics and others in the West?

It is no surprise to me that there are certain Protestants becoming Orthodox, which I like since they can enter into Churches that have Apostolic Succession. However, many of these also enter into various Orthodox Churches holding onto anti-Catholic prejudices.

Anyhow, my apologies for this. I ABSOLUTELY LOVE the Orthodox. I don’t see any “mission” to them. But I wish they would be more open to unity, the Schism has gone on long enough and with the state of the world right now, with the growth in

(1) Atheism/Secularism of a Totalitarian nature that is specifically anti-Christian in the West,

(2) Ditto, Islam, and

(3) the virulent anti-Catholic Protestant and non-Trinitarian sects particularly in Latin America and Eastern Europe/Russia, but also worldwide,

we need unity more than ever before.
 
“Queen of Heaven” is not really an expression we use. The most common expression is “wider than the heavens”, which is a reference to her womb containing the One who is uncontainable.
 
prodromos said:
“Queen of Heaven” is not really an expression we use. The most common expression is “wider than the heavens”, which is a reference to her womb containing the One who is uncontainable.
Click to expand...
The most common expression is actually Theotokos/Bohorodica, with Panagia being very common among Greeks.

However, we do call her our Queen too! Here is a quote from St. John of Kronstadt:
There exists on earth many societies and entire governments that do not consider the need nor the obligation to call upon and glorify the Queen of heaven and earth, the Mother of Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ, and other saints and angels; to submissively serve Her lovingly, as the true Mother of God. Sadly in Russia nowadays we have heretics (among us) who actively dishonor the Mother of God, the saints, their icons, their relics and their festivals. O, if only they also unanimously with us glorified the worthy Queen of heaven and earth!
Click to expand...
Source: oca.org/fs/sermons/sermon-on-the-dormition-of-the-most-holy-theotokos
Click to expand...
Also, from St. John of Shanghai:
The Queen of Heaven gave victory in battles to the Byzantine Emperors, which is why they had the custom to take with them in their campaigns Her Icon of Hodigitria (Guide).
Click to expand...
…]
Click to expand...
You will say, ‘One must glorify the Mother of God as much as Possible.’ This is true; but the glorification given to the** Queen of Heaven **demands discernment. This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications, possessing as She does true crowns of glory and signs of dignity. Glorify the purity of Her flesh and the sanctity of Her life. Marvel at the abundance of the gifts of this Virgin; venerate Her Divine Son; exalt Her Who conceived without knowing concupiscence and gave birth without knowing pain.
Click to expand...
Source: stmaryofegypt.org/files/library/st_john/on_veneration_of_the_theotokos.htm
Click to expand...
 
Zabdi_Premjit said:
The most common expression is actually Theotokos/Bohorodica, with Panagia being very common among Greeks.

However, we do call her our Queen too! Here is a quote from St. John of Kronstadt:

Also, from St. John of Shanghai:
Click to expand...
Yes, the title appears occasionally in some writings of the Saints, but do you find it used in the Liturgy, in any of the many hymns of the Church to the Theotokos?

It certainly isn’t wrong to refer to her as Queen of Heaven. I’m simply pointing out that it is not common in Orthodoxy. Not that we lack in lofty titles for the Mother of God 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top