EO or RC. How can a Protestant decide?

[Porknpie]

The first thing to understand is that you’re presenting a false pretense.

If you’re a Evangelical Christian who holds to that which was breathed out by God as the only *infallible *rule of faith then you do indeed belong to the Apostolic faith, since every verifiable *θεόπνευστος *Apostolic teaching is found only in the inscripturated word.

the Apostolic faith is found in its fullness in the Apostolic Church.

“Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church…” Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).

Absolute truth is not predicated on the antiquity of any religious organization. It flows from that which God, who is Truth Personified, has spoken (Psalm 18:30, Prov 30:5, John 17:17).

and scripture says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth. 1 Timothy 3:15.

St Ignatius, a disciple of St John, who was taught by Christ, is clear on what Church this is, led by the Holy Spirit to all Truth on faith and morals.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

PnP

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Does everyone in Orthodoxy claim that Roman Catholics are heretics, outside the Church and therefore their Baptisms aren’t valid? Sorry if I read that wrong.

No Heterodox Baptism is “Valid” in the full sense of the Term in and of itself.

Receiving Converts by Chrismation only is an act of Economy. It recognizes that the form used was correct, but it is defective. It is an empty cup, so to speak. Chrismation retroactively corrects the “defect” and “validates” the Heterodox Baptism.

All Baptisms are Orthodox…some started off that way, some were made so by the power of the Holy Spirit later.

As for whether or not Latins are Heretics…I suppose you could also ask the question of whether or not Protestants are Heretics too. Neither question is particularly helpful in this instance.

It comes down to discernment. Prayer and more Prayer are the best thing for that. There is no magic bullet argument one way or the other…attend Services and see where God leads you.

 

[josie_L]

23 particular churches, not 23 rites.

Are you disagreeing with my statement to dronald altogether or are you just rectifying one aspect of my statement, i.e., the point I was to trying to delineate is that the Universal Church is not referred to as the Roman Catholic Church, but rather the Catholic Church which consists of 23 rites/sui iuris particular Churches. You are a member of the Catholic Church, are you not?

 

[josie_L]

Kind of like how Catholics aren’t one unified entity. You know, with the PNCC and the Old Catholics not being in communion with Rome.

You forgot the SSPX.

 

[josie_L]

The Eastern Orthodox are one, and the Oriental Orthodox are one. Each is a communion of churches, as is the Catholic Church. The fact that each one calls itself Orthodox is in no way proof, or even evidence, that either is not one “entity.” It makes no sense historically or theologically to say that the Oriental Orthodox are not one because they are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox, as it makes no sense historically or theologically to say that the Eastern Orthodox are not one because they are not in communion with the Oriental Orthodox. Their respective separations from communion with the rest of the church was separated in time by more than speak 600 years, and was for different reasons. As for the posts of mine which you quoted, I was using the term “Orthodox” to refer specifically to the Eastern Orthodox, which is what most people mean when they use the term “Orthodox” without specifying either “Eastern” or "Oriental."

So in what capacity was dronald using “Orthodox” since you seem to know what he was referring to better than I, was he speaking of the EO only or was he speaking of the OO, or was he speaking of both? The point I was trying to make is that if he was referring to both (which I believe he was) then he should mention both because they are not the same “type” of Orthodoxy.

 

[dzheremi]

I also think that the OP was referring to both communions (the title of the thread says “EO”, but he mentioned Copts in the post itself), but I also think that this particular point doesn’t matter, since the question of the OP is essentially the same whether he was meaning to refer to both or just one, i.e. – how to decide between the RCC and the Orthodox Church (either communion that refer to themselves as Orthodox) when both seem to make similar claims. It’s not as though only the EO or only the OO claim to be the true Church established by the apostles and preserving unchanged the doctrines of the early church. We both say that, as does the RCC. I took the OP to be asking how it can be proved to an outsider’s satisfaction that only one of them is right.

 

[josie_L]

No Heterodox Baptism is “Valid” in the full sense of the Term in and of itself.

Receiving Converts by Chrismation only is an act of Economy. It recognizes that the form used was correct, but it is defective. It is an empty cup, so to speak. Chrismation retroactively corrects the “defect” and “validates” the Heterodox Baptism.

All Baptisms are Orthodox…some started off that way, some were made so by the power of the Holy Spirit later.

As for whether or not Latins are Heretics…I suppose you could also ask the question of whether or not Protestants are Heretics too. Neither question is particularly helpful in this instance.

It comes down to discernment. Prayer and more Prayer are the best thing for that. There is no magic bullet argument one way or the other…attend Services and see where God leads you.

In the EO does Chrismation leave an indelible mark, i.e., is it something which cannot be repeated? Also, according to this North American Catholic/Orthodox dialogue:

Also revealed in the “Agreed Statement on Baptism and ‘Sacramental Economy’” is an erroneous Orthodox understanding of the sacrament of Chrismation (Confirmation). In the instances where the baptisms of Catholics are admitted, such converts find themselves received into Eastern Orthodoxy by Chrismation even though such persons had also been previously confirmed in the Catholic Church. Here there is clear rejection of Catholic doctrine that the Sacrament of Confirmation (Chrismation) imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual mark and thus the sacrament of Chrismation cannot be repeated. There may be individual Orthodox theologians who say that the anointing with chrism is not a repetition of the Sacrament of Chrismation but other theologians have no hesitancy in asserting that it is the Sacrament of Chrismation that is administered in the reception of converts from Catholicism.

In his “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, Ludwig Ott noted:
“The Orthodox Church denies the existence of the [indelible] character in Confirmation” (p. 367).
It has become clearer that there remains a regrettable confusion among the Eastern Orthodox with respect to a doctrine of “sacramental economy” (“oikonomia”) which results in invalid sacraments becoming valid by “pastoral discretion”. As the authors of the “Agreed Statement on Baptism and ‘Sacramental economy’” candidly declared:

“This interpretation of “oikonomia” endows the hierarchy with a virtually infinite power, capable as it were, of creating ‘validity’ and bestowing grace where it was absent before. This new understanding of ‘economy’ does not, however, enjoy universal recognition in the Orthodox Church. We have already noted that the East Slavic Orthodox churches remain committed to the earlier understanding and practice of the Byzantine era which does not imply the possibility of making valid what is invalid, or invalid what is valid. Even within Greek-speaking Orthodoxy, ‘sacramental economy’ in the full Nicodemean interpretation does not command universal acceptance. As a result, within world Orthodoxy, the issue of ‘sacramental economy’ remains the subject of intense debate”.

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/dialogue.htm

 

[josie_L]

I also think that the OP was referring to both communions (the title of the thread says “EO”, but he mentioned Copts in the post itself), but I also think that this particular point doesn’t matter, since the question of the OP is essentially the same whether he was meaning to refer to both or just one, i.e. --** how to decide between the RCC and the Orthodox Church (either communion that refer to themselves as Orthodox) **when both seem to make similar claims. It’s not as though only the EO or only the OO claim to be the true Church established by the apostles and preserving unchanged the doctrines of the early church. We both say that, as does the RCC. I took the OP to be asking how it can be proved to an outsider’s satisfaction that only one of them is right.

This is just my opinion, but I believe this would cause confusion, i.e., people will not know that “Orthodox Church” is referring to two Apostolic Churches claiming to be the one true Orthodox Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Sacrament of Baptism is the living word of God in scripture, there is nothing lacking, but the fullness of truth, all are called to be in communion with the unity of the Church. That is what is lacking, communion of unity. The Lord Himself sanctifies His own sacraments. If Baptism did not exist but in the Church, then God does not exist but in the Church, then it would not exist in those who depart from the Church. But it does exist, which is why its not repeated, they do not need to receive it again, for they never lost what they were already blessed by the Lord with. Nor can we underestimate the desire of the soul to be in communion with the Redeemer.

Let me put this another way. If your priest has fallen from grace and administers the Sacraments of the Church, the Sacraments are valid to the receiver. It is Gods grace to Redeem those who truly seek Him.

 

[josie_L]

The Sacrament of Baptism is the living word of God in scripture, there is nothing lacking, but the fullness of truth, all are called to be in communion with the unity of the Church. That is what is lacking, communion of unity. The Lord Himself sanctifies His own sacraments. If Baptism did not exist but in the Church, then God does not exist but in the Church, then it would not exist in those who depart from the Church. But it does exist, which is why its not repeated, they do not need to receive it again, for they never lost what they were already blessed by the Lord with. Nor can we underestimate the desire of the soul to be in communion with the Redeemer.

Let me put this another way.** If your priest has fallen from grace and administers the Sacraments of the Church, the Sacraments are valid to the receiver. **It is Gods grace to Redeem those who truly seek Him.

There was a heresy in the 4th or 5th century concerning this, i.e., “Donatism”. The belief that the sacraments performed by a priest who was in mortal sin was invalid.

The second question was the validity of sacraments celebrated by priests and bishops who had been apostates under the persecution. The Donatists held that all such sacraments were invalid; by their sinful act, such clerics had rendered themselves incapable of celebrating valid sacraments. This is known as ex opere operantis, Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting. The Catholic position, according to Augustine, was ex opere operato — from the work having been worked; in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God’s work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly. Hence, to the Donatists, a priest who had been an apostate but who repented could speak the words of consecration forever, but he could no longer confect the Eucharist. To Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ’s Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest’s faults.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism

 

[GaryTaylor]

There was a heresy

I’m glad your wide awake and full of research fervor. I was reluctant to add the priest part, coffee got the best of me.

Merry Christmas

 

[josie_L]

I’m glad your wide awake and full of research fervor. I was reluctant to add the priest part, coffee got the best of me.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, Gary!

 

[Peter_J]

This is just my opinion, but I believe this would cause confusion, i.e., people will not know that “Orthodox Church” is referring to two Apostolic Churches claiming to be the one true Orthodox Church.

Your profile has the same issue. It says “Religion: Catholic” but it doesn’t specify whether you belong to the Roman Communion or whether you belong to the Polish National Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Are you disagreeing with my statement to dronald altogether or are you just rectifying one aspect of my statement, i.e., the point I was to trying to delineate is that the Universal Church is not referred to as the Roman Catholic Church, but rather the Catholic Church which consists of 23 rites/sui iuris particular Churches.

There are no “rites/sui iuris particular Churches”. A sui iuris (particular) church (for example, the UGCC) uses a rite (in their case, the Byzantine Rite). There is no such thing a rite/church.

I’m not going to try to tell you what opinion you should hold of Eastern Catholics, but at least do not call us “rites/sui iuris particular Churches” if you please.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Dronald, this has been a really interesting thread. I have studied and prayerfully considered this for a while now. As a Lutheran, it would be a pretty short swim to either the RC or the EO. I am in agreement with probably 95% of each of their doctrines. But it’s the 5% that is source of my angst. In the end, it will come down to submission either way, just as I also submit myself to the confessions of the Lutheran church. I pray for an easy answer, “go here” or “go there” and hear silence. The answer seems to be “not now” - or maybe it is “I am using you here, wait on Me.”

May our Lord give you peace as He leads you.

 

[Peter_J]

Dronald, this has been a really interesting thread. I have studied and prayerfully considered this for a while now. As a Lutheran, it would be a pretty short swim to either the RC or the EO. I am in agreement with probably 95% of each of their doctrines. But it’s the 5% that is source of my angst. In the end, it will come down to submission either way, just as I also submit myself to the confessions of the Lutheran church. I pray for an easy answer, “go here” or “go there” and hear silence. The answer seems to be “not now” - or maybe it is “I am using you here, wait on Me.”

May our Lord give you peace as He leads you.

Although I’m Catholic, I can relate to your frustration. In fact, whenever someone says that the Catholic-or-Orthodox choice is simple, I have to suspect that he/she may not have explored the question very well.

 

[Porknpie]

Dronald, this has been a really interesting thread. I have studied and prayerfully considered this for a while now. As a Lutheran, it would be a pretty short swim to either the RC or the EO. I am in agreement with probably 95% of each of their doctrines. But it’s the 5% that is source of my angst. In the end, it will come down to submission either way, just as I also submit myself to the confessions of the Lutheran church. I pray for an easy answer, “go here” or “go there” and hear silence. The answer seems to be “not now” - or maybe it is “I am using you here, wait on Me.”

May our Lord give you peace as He leads you.

Still -

Consider attending Eucharist Adoration for an hour once a week at a local Catholic Church until you decide. Meditating in His presence often helps with discernment.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There are no “rites/sui iuris particular Churches”. A sui iuris (particular) church (for example, the UGCC) uses a rite (in their case, the Byzantine Rite). There is no such thing a rite/church.

I think we are getting lost in terms and in how they are being used. Just to add more specific information:

Catholic Rites and Churches

A Rite represents an ecclesiastical tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. Each of the sacraments have as their core an essential nature which must be satisfied for the sacrament to be confected or realized. This essence of matter, form and intention derives from the divinely revealed nature of the particular sacrament and, thus, is not changeable by the Church. Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium, tells us what is essential in each of the sacraments. When the apostles brought the gospel to the major cultural centers of their day the essential practices of the faith were inculturated in them, the essential was clothed in the symbols and trappings which conveyed the desired spiritual meaning to that culture. This included the sacraments. There are three major groupings of Rites based on this initial transmission of the faith, the Roman, the Antiochian (Syria) and the Alexandrian (Egypt). Later on the Byzantine derived as a major Group of Rites from the Antiochian, under the influence of the St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. From these four derive the over 20 liturgical Rites present in the Church today.

Suggestions/Corrections are welcome.

 

[RyanBlack]

Are you disagreeing with my statement to dronald altogether or are you just rectifying one aspect of my statement, i.e., the point I was to trying to delineate is that the Universal Church is not referred to as the Roman Catholic Church, but rather the Catholic Church which consists of 23 rites/sui iuris particular Churches. You are a member of the Catholic Church, are you not?

I was only referring to your use of the term “rites” to refer to particular churches.

 

[RyanBlack]

So in what capacity was dronald using “Orthodox” since you seem to know what he was referring to better than I, was he speaking of the EO only or was he speaking of the OO, or was he speaking of both? The point I was trying to make is that if he was referring to both (which I believe he was) then he should mention both because they are not the same “type” of Orthodoxy.

In my post which you quoted, I wasn’t discussing whether the OP was referring to the EO, the OO, or both. I was discussing the contention made by some that the fact that the EO and the OO are not in communion with each other proves the Orthodox are not one–a contention I reject as making no sense historically or theologically. Most people, when referring to “the Orthodox,” mean the EO, as most people are not even aware of the distinction between the EO and the OO, if they are even aware of the existence of the OO.