Examining Orthodox Theology

[Marybeloved]

Please explain to us what formal teaching is not true.

How about the idea that the pope was/is never more than a “first among equals” without the charism of infallibility or universal jurisdiction? To the CC, that is certainly a false and erroneous belief/teaching.

 

[Cavaradossi]

How about the idea that the pope was/is never more than a “first among equals” without the charism of infallibility or universal jurisdiction? To the CC, that is certainly a false and erroneous belief/teaching.

That unfortunately is what is so confusing to me. We are told that we are only in schism, and not in heresy, but wouldn’t the two be virtually the same thing after the First Vatican Council, since being out of communion with the bishop of Rome is tantamount to rejecting his supremacy over all other churches?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not in Communion with the the Church of Rome.

Eastern Catholic would be my advice, then whichever rite you prefer.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we shall put to confusion all those who… assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the Faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should convene with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, because the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere” "

For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere" St Irenaues

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orthodoxanswers.org%2Fcatholicorthodoxdebate2&ei=pzULUOy9FKfx0gGzgYXBAw&usg=AFQjCNHKpzDg8NET2AEWLKWCCCMNITYDCA&sig2=vcwiME28SvndLzryP22IlA

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orthodoxanswers.org%2Fcatholicorthodoxdebate1%2F&ei=v28SUKeNOeie6QHz94C4Cw&usg=AFQjCNG2Hz1zXki3qIolVSkDbtQRIl8Sjw&sig2=fbgXK2MeaAR5ZJ2MG3DoQg

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.therebelgod.com%2F2009%2F03%2Fwhy-im-still-not-orthodox-besides-silly.html&ei=v28SUKeNOeie6QHz94C4Cw&usg=AFQjCNGDqp3OooDDEBTS9rkPQeXCuMvPaA&sig2=EQouETWMAIygJGG_WArL8g

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ocf.org%2FOrthodoxPage%2Freading%2Fortho_cath.html&ei=Z3ESUITPN4r96gHl6IGoBg&usg=AFQjCNFxUGg6hMCI8OWy9vN97OS84c5AaQ&sig2=VH_kuUGgqgmXNlEbCQFPlQ

 

[Marybeloved]

That unfortunately is what is so confusing to me. We are told that we are only in schism, and not in heresy, but wouldn’t the two be virtually the same thing after the First Vatican Council, since being out of communion with the bishop of Rome is tantamount to rejecting his supremacy over all other churches?

Yes, it certainly is very confusing to me too. But the confusion is not peculiarly catholic. It’s present for any system of belief with the “one true church” doctrine that also recognizes bodies in schism with itself that are supposedly not also automatically heretical. What is peculiarly catholic is the more precise definition of the “one true church” structure, right up to the singular point of unity in the pope.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Never compare it with anything Roman Catholic. It is a completely different theology stemming from a different theology

Really, how about you explain this IN-DEPTH and then relate it to Communion for 11-hundred years.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh and btw IMHO I find it “lacking” not being able to attend the Consecration of the Eucharist Daily, or as often as one Needs to

There is NOTHING more desireable than a State of Grace for a Soul united with the Lord.

I find the Spiritual aspect of the Catholic Church light years ahead of all areas of Christianity. And this is my primary concern.

 

[Lucky7]

That unfortunately is what is so confusing to me. We are told that we are only in schism, and not in heresy, but wouldn’t the two be virtually the same thing after the First Vatican Council, since being out of communion with the bishop of Rome is tantamount to rejecting his supremacy over all other churches?

This I find interesting and makes me want to research it. Because if it were up to me, I would say that it is heresy. However, I recognize the Magesterium is smarter than me, so I will research what the reasons are for calling it schismatic instead.

 

[Lucky7]

*Per Canon Law 751:

Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.*

Apparently, schism is specifically about refusal of submission to the Pope.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Yes, it certainly is very confusing to me too. But the confusion is not peculiarly catholic. It’s present for any system of belief with the “one true church” doctrine that also recognizes bodies in schism with itself that are supposedly not also automatically heretical. What is peculiarly catholic is the more precise definition of the “one true church” structure, right up to the singular point of unity in the pope.

The “confusion” is uniquely Catholic in that the Church has made the definitive and exceptional gesture of unilaterally allowing Orthodox Christians to receive the Holy Eucharist in the Catholic Church, which is the ultimate expression of unity. It is clear at this time that Orthodoxy does not accept the role and functional authority of the Papacy as it exists today. No other Church evolved the Papacy other than the Roman Catholic Church. We as Catholics must strive to understand this both in light of Catholic teaching and in light of the views of recent Pontiffs themselves, including Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Oh and btw IMHO I find it “lacking” not being able to attend the Consecration of the Eucharist Daily, or as often as one Needs to

There is NOTHING more desireable than a State of Grace for a Soul united with the Lord.

I find the Spiritual aspect of the Catholic Church light years ahead of all areas of Christianity. And this is my primary concern.

Your desire to have ample opportunity through the Church to sustain you in your journey is clear. Yet, I’m having trouble understanding your first statement. Are you suggesting that the Orthodox Churches do not have daily DL intentionally, and that is somehow indicative of a defect or lack of desire to provide fully for the needs of the faithful?

It is the norm in Orthodoxy to have daily DL, and indeed the entire daily cycle of worship, in the monasteries. In areas where Orthodoxy is most prevalent, it is more often the case that local monasteries are more accessible to the faithful than here in the U.S., for example (and generally, in the diaspora). The larger, urban churches and Cathedrals often have daily Divine Liturgy to serve the needs of the larger number of faithful in the cities during business days.

I would only point out that many Eastern Catholic churches do not have daily Divine Liturgies. In some cases, it is pastorally impossible (supply of priests) or impractical (lack of faithful in attendance during weekdays). In the Ruthenian Church, sadly not even our Cathedral parishes have daily DL these days, but that is not an indicator of a lack of desire to serve the faithful. Ironically, given the norms in Orthodoxy, some might even consider daily DL a “Latinization”. Bear in mind that, unlike the Latin Catholic Mass, a Divine Liturgy cannot be served by a priest alone, so a priest offering DL would have to be reasonably certain that there would be at least one person in attendance. Our parish offers weekday Liturgies for special intentions, when those requesting the DL are sure to be present.

The presence of a greater number of Latin Catholic parishes provides ample opportunity for ECs to attend daily Mass if desired, yet be served on Sunday and Days of Precept in their own church, if it is impractical to have daily DL in their own local EC church. Our communion in the Catholic Church affords us that great opportunity.

 

[Madaglan]

Oh and btw IMHO I find it “lacking” not being able to attend the Consecration of the Eucharist Daily, or as often as one Needs to

There is NOTHING more desireable than a State of Grace for a Soul united with the Lord.

I find the Spiritual aspect of the Catholic Church light years ahead of all areas of Christianity. And this is my primary concern.

If my memory serves me, daily Mass did not take off in the West until the Franks; it did not take hold in the Eastern Churches.

I do not think the early Christians, Western & Eastern, were “lacking” because they did not have access to daily consecration of the Eucharist. During the week, Christians could give alms, visit the sick, profess the Gospel in word and action, and partake in the liturgy of the hours.

The Eucharist is meant for consumption, by the Christian who has prepared himself and who is, in Western terms, in a “state of grace.” Regular prayer, confession and the giving of alms unite one with the Lord. Daily attendance of the consecration of the Eucharist is fine and pious, although I think it secondary to living the Christian life outside of church.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

This I find interesting and makes me want to research it. Because if it were up to me, I would say that it is heresy. However, I recognize the Magesterium is smarter than me, so I will research what the reasons are for calling it schismatic instead.

In fact, the Church really doesn’t even refer to the present state as schism, but rather “imperfect communion”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not in Communion with the the Church of Rome.

Eastern Catholic would be my advice, then whichever rite you prefer.

Such advice should never come from Roman Catholics. You’d be surprised how different in many cases an Orthodox parish is from an Eastern Catholic parish. I am speaking from experience here.

Really, how about you explain this IN-DEPTH and then relate it to Communion for 11-hundred years.

Sure, you got 11-hundred years?

Oh and btw IMHO I find it “lacking” not being able to attend the Consecration of the Eucharist Daily, or as often as one Needs to

As noted earlier, access to daily Divine Liturgy would vary depending on the congregation itself of a parish. Besides, there is more to daily spiritual life than Mass. To tell you the truth, I find Roman Catholicism here in North America very lacking for lack of any religious activity besides Mass. No wonder priests have been experimenting left and right with the Masses here. When you go to a parish all you can do is Mass. I appreciate our Liturgical services especially during Holy Week, with all the different prayer services and processions.

There is NOTHING more desireable than a State of Grace for a Soul united with the Lord.

Well, there is no such thing as a concept of a state of grace with the Orthodox, or even the Eastern Catholics (subject to Latinizations). This is why at the very beginning I said do not compare to anything Roman Catholic.

I find the Spiritual aspect of the Catholic Church light years ahead of all areas of Christianity. And this is my primary concern.

I agree. But being “stuck in the past” is much better

 

[ConstantineTG]

In fact, the Church really doesn’t even refer to the present state as schism, but rather “imperfect communion”.

Semantics. You are either in communion or not. What does “imperfect communion” even mean?

 

[Madaglan]

Semantics. You are either in communion or not. What does “imperfect communion” even mean?

I once pictured it as small boats being towed by the Ark.

 

[Lucky7]

Semantics. You are either in communion or not. What does “imperfect communion” even mean?

I think this may be the one time you and I agree. I tend to think Imperfect communion means…schismatic. However, because the Church is trying to dialogue and unify with the EO, it is trying to use less inflammatory language. I guess that’s understandable, but it’s really saying the same thing IMHO.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Your desire to have ample opportunity through the Church to sustain you in your journey is clear. Yet, I’m having trouble understanding your first statement. Are you suggesting that the Orthodox Churches do not have daily DL intentionally, and that is somehow indicative of a defect or lack of desire to provide fully for the needs of the faithful?

It is the norm in Orthodoxy to have daily DL, and indeed the entire daily cycle of worship, in the monasteries. In areas where Orthodoxy is most prevalent, it is more often the case that local monasteries are more accessible to the faithful than here in the U.S., for example (and generally, in the diaspora). The larger, urban churches and Cathedrals often have daily Divine Liturgy to serve the needs of the larger number of faithful in the cities during business days.

I would only point out that many Eastern Catholic churches do not have daily Divine Liturgies. In some cases, it is pastorally impossible (supply of priests) or impractical (lack of faithful in attendance during weekdays). In the Ruthenian Church, sadly not even our Cathedral parishes have daily DL these days, but that is not an indicator of a lack of desire to serve the faithful. Ironically, given the norms in Orthodoxy, some might even consider daily DL a “Latinization”. Bear in mind that, unlike the Latin Catholic Mass, a Divine Liturgy cannot be served by a priest alone, so a priest offering DL would have to be reasonably certain that there would be at least one person in attendance. Our parish offers weekday Liturgies for special intentions, when those requesting the DL are sure to be present.

The presence of a greater number of Latin Catholic parishes provides ample opportunity for ECs to attend daily Mass if desired, yet be served on Sunday and Days of Precept in their own church, if it is impractical to have daily DL in their own local EC church. Our communion in the Catholic Church affords us that great opportunity.

I’m not sure what your saying about the “monasteries”. Do you worship in the monasteries? I have no idea what the Eastern Catholic churches do either. I attend the Latin Rite. Hows this work in the EO who do not have the opportunity as you say to attend the Latin Church?

So the questions remians can you attend you church “daily” in the EO and receive the sacrament? And what does the monasterie aspect have to do with the daily church aspect?

 

[Jlcastagna]

Other Rites include the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, Chaldean, Melkite (also known as the Greek Catholic Church), the Malankara Church, the Syro-Malabar Church, and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. They are different from the Latin rite in many ways but still recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and are in communion with Rome.

My suggestion is try any of these which are in communion with Rome. I have attended the Chaldean Catholic Church in my area and like it. If I understood the language I would go there alot more often.

 

[Madaglan]

IHows this work in the EO who do not have the opportunity as you say to attend the Latin Church?

So the questions remians can you attend you church “daily” in the EO and receive the sacrament? And what does the monasterie aspect have to do with the daily church aspect?

Many Orthodox parishes have services throughout the week for the laity to attend. At my parish, we have daily vespers every Wednesday, great vespers on Saturday, and akathist on Thursday morning, in addition to Divine Liturgy every Sunday. During the fasts, additional services are added. Presanctified Liturgy is served Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent. The 3rd and 6th hours are read before the Divine Liturgy every Sunday.

In Orthodoxy, many services are offered before a culminating feast (e.g. Pascha) as preparation. So, the emphasis is different in the East: whereas in the Latin Church today pious lay people go to “Mass” several times per week and perhaps pray the rosary daily, in the Eastern Churches, the pious lay people attend various liturgical services at church (e.g. vespers, akathists, canons, presanctified liturgies,etc.)–in addition to praying morning and evening prayers privately at home. Orthodox who live close to a monastery often have more opportunities to partake in the full liturgical life of the Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Such advice should never come from Roman Catholics. You’d be surprised how different in many cases an Orthodox parish is from an Eastern Catholic parish. I am speaking from experience here.:

You shouldn’t “assume” I was speaking on those in “Communion” with Rome since Communion has been a point of this conversation.

Sure, you got 11-hundred years? :

Right it was the 11-Century, is this play semantics now? 1054 was what century? How about answering the question instead of dancing around it now?

As noted earlier, access to daily Divine Liturgy would vary depending on the congregation itself of a parish.:

Depending doesn’t answer the question, what “exactly” can you attend “where” you are in the relation to the DL, you seem very up the Roman Rite schedule would have to assume this was another evasive answer. Seems to be exactly what the link I posted earlier here relates about in relation to the EO.

Besides, there is more to daily spiritual life than Mass. .:

Church is the “MOST” IMPORTANT" aspect of Christianity, Whats more important than Church?

To tell you the truth, I find Roman Catholicism here in North America very lacking for lack of any religious activity besides Mass…:

I live in North America and can attend 20-different church’s “daily”. And receive the Sacrament.

No wonder priests have been experimenting left and right with the Masses here. When you go to a parish all you can do is Mass…:

In the EO, thats to bad. Are the Sacraments valid? I wouldn’t worry about it then.

I appreciate our Liturgical services especially during Holy Week, with all the different prayer services and processions.:

I appeciate the TLM, the Rosary Mass, Daily Eucharist etc etc etc. Your point is?

Well, there is no such thing as a concept of a state of grace with the Orthodox, or even the Eastern Catholics (subject to Latinizations). This is why at the very beginning I said do not compare to anything Roman Catholic.:

Well when you receive the Sacrament [Confession/Communion] what does it accomplish?

And right as to your last sentence you totally avoided my question which btw didn’t go un-noticed. So how do you explain this theological difference since the churchs were in Communion how long? And how do you explain the Churchs being in Communion and what does this means to you, since it “was” a constant in your previous dialogue. Which also seem you now want to abandon which the Eastern Catholic spin.

I agree. But being “stuck in the past” is much better

Could you elaborate?