Eastern Rite Churches, the Orthodox and the Blessed Virgin Mary

[recentrevert]

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.

Christi

That is pure heresy. A sort of ‘branch theory’. These churches are separated from the Church and profess a faith which was corrupted by their predecessors. It may be that there are many members of these Churches who are in invincible ignorance but even these do not have the guidance of the Church to help them in their spiritual battle. Their sacraments are valid and they profess a faith which is almost complete but they do not possess the full means of salvation nor are they a legitimate authority nor are they the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ.

If the Archbishop of Washington DC (I assume there is one) for instance, decided to reject the Pope and a couple of Dogmas, together with everything the Pope taught after this schism, but otherwise carry on as normal, he and his successors would not be a part of the Church. His successors might have been validly ordained and could be joined to the Church in spirit, not knowing any better, but they would not have any legitimate authority over the diocese or anywhere else. Their false beliefs would not be equal to the truth - not even if the schism lasted a million years.

 

[recentrevert]

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.

We do need a mission to the E.O. because it is the duty of the Church to bring all mankind to a knowledge of the truth. The E.O. do not have the full means of salvation themselves and the existence of these churches is bound to be a stumbling block to many. It can be hard enough for a Catholic to get to heaven. The only reason there is not a mission is because there is a hope that these churches as a whole will return and a mission could be an obstacle to that - because the E.O. really don’t seem to like Catholics trying to convert them or at least their leaders don’t.

The only possible way of achieving unity is the conversion of the E.O. and a Catholic cannot deny this. It is far better that many E.O. should be converted and yet the churches themselves should continue to exist as separate from the Church than that none of them should be converted at all.

Does anyone know if there is anything in Scripture or Tradition to suggest that there will be no separated churches at the end of time? I am not against ecumenism at all but ultimately the individual must convert.

I assume though, that on an individual and parish level there are ‘missions’ to the E.O. in places where both Catholics and E.O. reside - just not anything from the top.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

We do need a mission to the E.O. because it is the duty of the Church to bring all mankind to a knowledge of the truth. The E.O. do not have the full means of salvation themselves and the existence of these churches is bound to be a stumbling block to many. It can be hard enough for a Catholic to get to heaven. The only reason there is not a mission is because there is a hope that these churches as a whole will return and a mission could be an obstacle to that - because the E.O. really don’t seem to like Catholics trying to convert them or at least their leaders don’t.

The only possible way of achieving unity is the conversion of the E.O. and a Catholic cannot deny this. It is far better that many E.O. should be converted and yet the churches themselves should continue to exist as separate from the Church than that none of them should be converted at all.

Does anyone know if there is anything in Scripture or Tradition to suggest that there will be no separated churches at the end of time? I am not against ecumenism at all but ultimately the individual must convert.

I assume though, that on an individual and parish level there are ‘missions’ to the E.O. in places where both Catholics and E.O. reside - just not anything from the top.

I’m sorry but I find this highly offensive. The Orthodox have valid sacraments and Apostolic succession. The Catholic Church is NOT seeking to convert them to the Latin Church! Proselytism is not Catholic teaching!

 

[recentrevert]

I’m sorry but I find this highly offensive. The Orthodox have valid sacraments and Apostolic succession. The Catholic Church is NOT seeking to convert them to the Latin Church! Proselytism is not Catholic teaching!

The fact that they have valid sacraments and Apostolic succession does not mean that they profess the true Divine Faith or have legitimate authority. Any bishop can defect and then continue to ordain more bishops and priests and teach them according to his own private convictions. That is what happened to the churches in the east. That is why your church, a sister church of Rome, was established - to provide a home for those in the east who wished to re-unite with Rome and who professed the true Faith where they could continue their own legitimate traditions (small t) and govern themselves ( Under the authority of the Pope who has universal jurisdiction).

Converting others to become Catholic is one of the main purposes and duties of the Church and that means absolutely everyone. The Church authorities are seeking to convert the E.O. as a whole so that they would be sister churches again as before the schism. They would still have to accept the universal authority of the Pope as all Catholics must. This effort does not remove the responsibility to attempt to convert others individually. It could sadly be that the E.O. as a whole never convert. I do not oppose ecumenism in any way but I do not know of anything in Scripture or Tradition which tells us there will be no separated churches or ‘ecclesial communities’ left on the last day because they have all accepted the teachings and authority of the Church.

Edit: When I wrote the above I was under the impression you were a badly informed Eastern Catholic but I think that you are an Eastern Orthodox, am I right?

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

The fact that they have valid sacraments and Apostolic succession does not mean that they profess the true Divine Faith or have legitimate authority. Any bishop can defect and then continue to ordain more bishops and priests and teach them according to his own private convictions. That is what happened to the churches in the east. That is why your church, a sister church of Rome, was established - to provide a home for those in the east who wished to re-unite with Rome and who professed the true Faith where they could continue their own legitimate traditions (small t) and govern themselves ( Under the authority of the Pope who has universal jurisdiction).

Converting others to become Catholic is one of the main purposes and duties of the Church and that means absolutely everyone. The Church authorities are seeking to convert the E.O. as a whole so that they would be sister churches again as before the schism. They would still have to accept the universal authority of the Pope as all Catholics must. This effort does not remove the responsibility to attempt to convert others individually. It could sadly be that the E.O. as a whole never convert. I do not oppose ecumenism in any way but I do not know of anything in Scripture or Tradition which tells us there will be no separated churches or ‘ecclesial communities’ left on the last day because they have all accepted the teachings and authority of the Church.

Edit: When I wrote the above I was under the impression you were a badly informed Eastern Catholic but I think that you are an Eastern Orthodox, am I right?

gee thanks for the judgement… since you asked I am canonically a memebr of the UGCC and I sit on the fence between the UGCC and the Antiochian Orthodox Church. It’s not a pleasant position to be in and frankly I want to get off the fence and land somewhere so I can grow spiritually.

FWIW the Orthodox will never accepted universal jurisdiction unless it implies to the Latin Church only. Perhaps you can follow your Patriarch’s example when dealing with your Orthodox breathern. HH Pope Francis has the right attitude…

 

[recentrevert]

gee thanks for the judgement… since you asked I am canonically a memebr of the UGCC and I sit on the fence between the UGCC and the Antiochian Orthodox Church. It’s not a pleasant position to be in and frankly I want to get off the fence and land somewhere so I can grow spiritually.

FWIW the Orthodox will never accepted universal jurisdiction unless it implies to the Latin Church only. Perhaps you can follow your Patriarch’s example when dealing with your Orthodox breathern. HH Pope Francis has the right attitude…

The Church desires that all people accept the fullness Divine Revelation. You need to look for the marks of the Church. The Orthodox might accept universal jurisdiction but then they would of course have converted to Catholicism! Just getting along nicely with the Orthodox is not the aim of ecumenism - the aim is conversion. The Orthodox leaders would like Catholics to either deny the Faith by denying the office of Peter which holds the church together or at least not to try and convert members of their churches( as if they had some sort of rights over them).

The marks of the Church are apostolicity, universality, holiness and unity.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

The Church desires that all people accept the fullness Divine Revelation. You need to look for the marks of the Church. The Orthodox might accept universal jurisdiction but then they would of course have converted to Catholicism! Just getting along nicely with the Orthodox is not the aim of ecumenism - the aim is conversion. The Orthodox leaders would like Catholics to either deny the Faith by denying the office of Peter which holds the church together or at least not to try and convert members of their churches( as if they had some sort of rights over them).

The marks of the Church are apostolicity, universality, holiness and unity.

whatever, I’m done dealing with the sort of ridiculous rhetoric you’ve been spouting off…

Blessed Lent to you.

 

[malphono]

I wish it was only déjà vu!!! This thing has turned into some sort of monster. :bigyikes:

 

[Augustine]

That is pure heresy. A sort of ‘branch theory’…

There you go again like a broken record… It is not the so called branch theory, which you lazily resort too over and over again.

Please, become familiar with the magisterial declarations of our own Catholic Church about the Eastern Orthodox Churches before retorting unproductively.

Pax Christi

 

[Augustine]

I’ve come across some Orthodox, mainly Russian Orthodox, that claim that England, Ireland, Rome, etc etc was “Orthodox” before the Great Schism.

And they are correct, because, as the orthodox understand themselves, they do not mean that the Church then was like the Eastern Orthodox Churches after the Great Schism, but that the whole Church professed the same faith and understood it more or less the same way. This is of course factually true.

Think of the term orthodox in this context the same as we Catholics use it: adhering to the correct teachings. This is actually a promising foundation to build up the understanding of one about the other. For, after the Great Schism, the understandings of the same faith grew farther apart in different directions, requiring today a bridge hopefully not too far to mend the chasm between the East and the West.

BTW, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have continued calling themselves Catholic in their own languages.

We need unity more than ever before.

Indeed we do, but being more ultramontane than the pope, as others seem to wield in this forum, is not the charitable attitude that’ll bring about unity.

Pax Christi

 

[recentrevert]

There you go again like a broken record… It is not the so called branch theory, which you lazily resort too over and over again.

Please, become familiar with the magisterial declarations of our own Catholic Church about the Eastern Orthodox Churches before retorting unproductively.

Pax Christi

To say that the separated Churches are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is blasphemous, heretical nonsense. The Church cannot be divided. These churches are separated from the Church Christ founded upon the rock of Peter (and from each other). Where do you get your novel ideas from? Certainly not from the Sacred Magisterium. How could they be the Church when they affirm as true what the Church condemns as contrary to Faith and morals and deny what the Church proclaims to be revealed by God or a law of God? They and we cannot both be the Church or the Church would be contradicting itself and certainly teaching false doctrine.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

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

I understand. I just wanted to add clarification. Thank you though, for adding clarification to my clarification.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

To say that the separated Churches are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is blasphemous, heretical nonsense. The Church cannot be divided. These churches are separated from the Church Christ founded upon the rock of Peter (and from each other). Where do you get your novel ideas from? Certainly not from the Sacred Magisterium. How could they be the Church when they affirm as true what the Church condemns as contrary to Faith and morals and deny what the Church proclaims to be revealed by God or a law of God? They and we cannot both be the Church or the Church would be contradicting itself and certainly teaching false doctrine.

What you write is highly offensive.

Please read the rules of this forum:
Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

Likewise, the use of the terms schismatic or heretic may not be used as generic descriptors for any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox.

An example of acceptable usage of the terms is a direct quote of a third-party document which is otherwise pertinent to an ongoing discussion. Care should be taken by all posters that their choice of words foster an environment in which it is possible to discuss, dialogue, dissent, and even debate without causing offense or acrimony between posters.

Note that ascribing these terms to the faithful or to individual members of any of the Apostolic Churches is absolutely unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
*

 

[recentrevert]

What you write is highly offensive.

Please read the rules of this forum:
Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

Likewise, the use of the terms schismatic or heretic may not be used as generic descriptors for any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox.

An example of acceptable usage of the terms is a direct quote of a third-party document which is otherwise pertinent to an ongoing discussion. Care should be taken by all posters that their choice of words foster an environment in which it is possible to discuss, dialogue, dissent, and even debate without causing offense or acrimony between posters.

Note that ascribing these terms to the faithful or to individual members of any of the Apostolic Churches is absolutely unacceptable and will not be tolerated*.

Father, for a Catholic (as Augustine is) to say that the separated churches ARE the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ really is heresy. It is a form of branch theory.

 

[sydneycatholic]

What you write is highly offensive.

Please read the rules of this forum:
Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

Likewise, the use of the terms schismatic or heretic may not be used as generic descriptors for any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox.

An example of acceptable usage of the terms is a direct quote of a third-party document which is otherwise pertinent to an ongoing discussion. Care should be taken by all posters that their choice of words foster an environment in which it is possible to discuss, dialogue, dissent, and even debate without causing offense or acrimony between posters.

Note that ascribing these terms to the faithful or to individual members of any of the Apostolic Churches is absolutely unacceptable and will not be tolerated*.

I didn’t realize you were a Father.

Can I ask you, is it not offensive that the Orthodox (Eastern), from what I’ve learnt, DO NOT accept the Sacraments of Catholics as being Valid (see later below)??

I mean, following the lifting of the mutual excommunications of the Pope of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople following the end of the contentious Second Vatican Council in 1965, and Catholics have been apologizing forever for historical grievances, the Orthodox keep on being uncharitable by not forgiving the historical transgressions of Catholics, eg, as those Monks in Greece did when John Paul II visited Greece in 2001 and they called him AntiChrist?

Sorry, more to my point about the mutual validity of Sacraments that I’ve learnt - to my sadness - is that the Catholics allow the Eastern (and Oriental) Orthodox church members to be administered the Blessed Sacrament, etc, IF there are none of their Parishes or Priests nearby. This is obviously true in the West so few are Orthodox, eg, the Pew Forum said 0.5% of the US was Orthodox and most are in those parts of the country where Orthodox immigrants their descendants live and more metropolitan areas.

I learnt from a Catholic contact in Boston, MA, who is married to a Greek Orthodox but didn’t convert to Greek Orthodoxy that she is not allowed to partake in Holy Eucharist in the Greek Church. I found this was the same in the Greek Orthodox Church located in my suburb.

So, should we not be offended by this lack of recipocrity? I am NOT saying let’s start a “mission” to the E.O.

In fact the E.O. are Christologically more similar to the Catholics than the Oriental Orthodox - the Patriarch of Alexandria (Copts), the Armenians, etc. And yet I ALWAYS see the E.O. get along with the Oriental Orthodox despite THIS huge theological problem (while obsessing over matters like the Filoque issue with the Catholics, when the Orietnal Orthodox being Monophysites is more problematic. The relations of the E.O. and O.O extend to the point of communing in their Churches, but not sure if they are allowed to mutually take part in the Sacraments since they are technically not in Communion.

I think the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and the 100th year anniversary of Fatima next year in 2017 may be something to watch out for and to continue praying IN CASE (as per Fr. Gruner’s Fatima Apostolate) the Consecration wasn’t validly done.

And looiking at the State of the World with all of the Errors of the West having spread to the West just as the Blessed Mother told Sister Lucia, in particular that “the reign of Satan would begin with attacks on marriage and the family”, it is hard to believe otherwise.

We are living in the Age of Mary, awaiting the Coming Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as Em. P Benedict XVI said in 2010, and awaiting the Glory of the Most Holy Trinity. He said this when he was in Fatima, Portugal to beatify Blessed Jacinta whose face was found to be incorruptible.

And remember, the Papacies of JPII, BXI AND Francis (if not even before JPII) have ALL been Consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary AND Our Lady of Fatima.

We cannot forget for a second Our Lady of Fatima’s Message… all the blasphemies against Our Mother’s Immaculate Heart.

Are the Orthodox blaspheming Our Mother by claiming She was somehow a Sinner? Sorry but I have been told so often by Protestants who have called me Mary-worshiper, that Our Mother was a Sinner (May God forgiven them and have mercy on them).

Just to put this in some perspective.

May God bless the Holy See, Russia and the Eastern (& Oriental) Orthodox and

May We Be One Just as Our Lord Jesus Christ prayed that we be SO THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE as the world goes up in flames before our very eyes with the aggressive spread of Atheism and Islam.

 

[RyanBlack]

The Oriental Orthodox aren’t monophysites.

The Orthodox do not claim that the Theotokos (Blessed Virgin Mary) was a sinner.

 

[sydneycatholic]

The Oriental Orthodox aren’t monophysites.

The Orthodox do not claim that the Theotokos (Blessed Virgin Mary) was a sinner.

Ryan, they do by implication say she was a sinner in need of “saving” by rejecting the Immaculate Conception.

Or that’s how I take it.

A Russian Orthodox who was a former Catholic told me that we should focus on Our Lady being Immaculate NOW and not focus on Her Immaculate Conception?

Why? Why can’t the Orthodox just accept that Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception is so importance since as I understand it the Orthodox claim that Our Lady was born with sin!!

How could the most perfect of God’s human creations, the Most Pure and Immaculate Mother be tainted in any way, shape or form by SIN?!

After all, it is entirely because of Our Lady, Our Queen Mother, that we have Our King, our Lord and Savior. And BOTH Our Queen and our King were and are forever without one ounce of impurity, sin, etc.

By the way, do the Orthodox believe that Our Lady was Co-Redemptrix?? Surely, they must.

Ad Jesum per Mariam.

 

[RyanBlack]

Ryan, they do by implication say she was a sinner in need of “saving” by rejecting the Immaculate Conception.

Or that’s how I take it.

A Russian Orthodox who was a former Catholic told me that we should focus on Our Lady being Immaculate NOW and not focus on Her Immaculate Conception?

Why? Why can’t the Orthodox just accept that Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception is so importance since as I understand it the Orthodox claim that Our Lady was born with sin!!

How could the most perfect of God’s human creations, the Most Pure and Immaculate Mother be tainted in any way, shape or form by SIN?!

After all, it is entirely because of Our Lady, Our Queen Mother, that we have Our King, our Lord and Savior. And BOTH Our Queen and our King were and are forever without one ounce of impurity, sin, etc.

By the way, do the Orthodox believe that Our Lady was Co-Redemptrix?? Surely, they must.

Ad Jesum per Mariam.

I assure you–and I used to be Orthodox–that the Orthodox do not call the Theotokos a sinner. As for Co-Redemptrix, I don’t think you’re likely to hear that terminology very much among the Orthodox. However, Marian devotion among the Orthodox is very strong. She is honored because of her role in the Incarnation and for being sinless. This is made obvious in the Divine Liturgy, where she is honored multiple times.

 

[prodromos]

Ryan, they do by implication say she was a sinner in need of “saving” by rejecting the Immaculate Conception.

Or that’s how I take it.

Orthodox theology has no requirement for Mary being born ‘immaculate’ in order to live a life free from sin.

 

[Augustine]

Ryan, they do by implication say she was a sinner in need of “saving” by rejecting the Immaculate Conception.

The do not reject this dogma as regard it as unnecessary. In the Eastern theology, shared by both the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox, there is no original sin, but rather a sort of defect or wound in human nature due to the sin of our first parents. In this sense, their theology never veered into the debates in the West about since which point in time the Mother of God was devoid of original sin. As a matter of fact, the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox have not even debated whether the Mother of God was devoid of such wounded nature, but have always believed that she has always been sinless.

Pax Christi