Falling for an Orthodox girl: revisited

[Tradycja]

Regardless of what the original poster had to say, I can’t help but side with Tradycja.

I am now an official hardliner!!! This feels good

Either this is a compliment or you are being sarcastic, I don’t know. I don’t like this “hardline” terminology as I said before we are Catholics not Hegelians.

 

[Tradycja]

I see you have been misled by that St. Benedict center and Fr. Feeney’s errors though. As Ghosty pointed out, the Byzantine Catholic Churches have many saints who were canonized as saint during the time we were not in full communion with the Church , such as Gregory Palamas. The Roman Church has accepted it and I beleive even encouraged his restoration to our calenders, so your strict interpretation of the teaching on “No Salvation outside the Church” is appearntly not the one that the Roman Church holds. Also, the Church has affirmed that the Orthodox Churches are almost in full communion. The language used shows that in some way they are in communion and so then in some way they are part of the Church.

First of all I would suggest you look at the document from the Diocese of Worcester regarding followers of Fr. Feeney:


http://www.scribd.com/doc/24283795/Official-Letter-from-the-Diocese-Of-Worcester-regarding-communities-founded-by-Fr-Leonard-Feeney

Second of all, Byzantine Catholic Churches being able to celebrate Orthodox saints on their calendars is a matter of discipline not doctrine. Your statement of the Orthodox being “almost” in communion goes perfectly along with what I said about good-willed individuals within those Churches. Also many of those saints never embraced schismatic or heretical ideas.

 

[StillWondering]

You might want to avoid going to Latin Churches as well, since your Pope has partaken in the Divine Liturgy with Orthodox.

I don’t think they concelebrated and I remember reading that when the Pope attended Divine Liturgy by Orthodox Patriarchs, he did not take Holy Communion.

We are Catholics, not Hegelians. It’s not a matter of more hardline or less hardline. No salvation outside the Church is a dogma thrice defined solemnly.

As I said, there may be people in the Orthodox Church that are completely in good faith and in that case they ARE Catholics (like St. Josaphat before coming into union with Rome). Of course a simple Orthodox farmer in the middle of Siberia is a different situation then Orthodox Christians in the Western world who have access to the internet and can easy study Church teaching and history.

Additionally many Orthodox accept contraception (which is against the natural law) and divorce. In the United States we have religious freedom and an Orthodox could become Greek Catholic quite easily. No one will cut his head off like they did to St. Josaphat.

I don’t see why this is problem. If the Eastern Orthodox Church were the true Church I would become Orthodox tomorrow even if it meant I had to go to a super-ethnic parish where I was a total outsider culturally. Salvation is the #1 issue. It’s not only about how beautiful the Liturgy is.

Some people on these forums act as if it makes no difference whether you are Orthodox or Catholic. It’s called indifferentism.

After reading several pages, I find I am in agreement with Tradycyja. I do not find this in anyway ultraconservative or being a hardliner. I see it as a subtle but clear understanding between the more dynamic sides.

This is my personal understanding and I hope it is orthodox. There’s a lot I need to learn. What I see is that the Sacraments in the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church are valid. However, the disposition of the recipient may or may not be in full communion with the one providing the Sacrament – Christ Himself. So if Catholics receive the Sacraments from an Orthodox priest for specifically approved reasons, they are not committing schism since they still recognize the Catholic Church as the one true faith. Orthodox who do not recognize the Catholic Church and understand the Orthodox Church as the one true faith and believes this is true would not be committing schism either because they are holding the traditions taught to them from ages past.

Given this, I personally am a Catholic (Latin Rite), and I recognize that if I were to leave the Catholic Church, I would commit grave sins because the Catholic Church is the one true Church. I also assent that those who are in good faith are in communion with Peter and through him Christ, if not here then in the next life.

EDIT: As you can see from my Religion tag, It says Catholic (working hard at it…) because I am a sinful person and cannot stay in consistent full communion with our Lord or his Bride.

 

[Tradycja]

Hmm, well I guess you just disproved their invincible ignorance.

I believe it is in the book called “Bridgebuilder between Rome and Moscow: Blessed Leonid Feodorov” where it talks about whole Russian Orthodox parishes coming into union with Rome before communism.

 

[Nine_Two]

There’s a lot of reason,

Oh?

1. the use of the old and new calendar, which cause schism on the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Not doctrinal

1. the acceptance of new Autocephalous churches, caused schism on the EO

I assume you refer to the Orthodox Church in American which is accepted by some as autocephalous, but not all. It’s rather a moot point since that is simply an administrative disagreement, everyone agrees we are fully Orthodox.

1. Ecumenism issue with the EO churches - cause schism to the EO and Mt.Athos monks

There is no schism with “Mt. Athos Monks”, there are some monks who became schismics and were removed, but that is not he same as a schism with the monks of Mt. Athos. Also it is not doctrinal.

1. the degrading morality and use of contraception in the orthodox church still unresolved.

Not doctinal, and if your claim is that the Orthodox fully accept the use of contraception (which is wrong), then having a meeting of any type over it is not going to change anything.

1. etc…etc…etc…there’s a lot reason to hold an Ecumenical council, oh by the way, i forgot, its already a dead empire.

What’s a dead empire? What do empires and emperors have to do with anything?

 

[bpbasilphx]

\
Quote:

1. the use of the old and new calendar, which cause schism on the Eastern Orthodox Church.
   Not doctrinal\

**Not according to Old Calendarists themselves.

No less a hierarch than Abp. Dmitri of Dallas said that having an Orthodox Ecumnical council now would do nothing but finalize such splits and harden them into definite schism.**

 

[Formosus]

Second of all, Byzantine Catholic Churches being able to celebrate Orthodox saints on their calendars is a matter of discipline not doctrine. Your statement of the Orthodox being “almost” in communion goes perfectly along with what I said about good-willed individuals within those Churches. **Also many of those saints never embraced schismatic **or heretical ideas.

Well what exactly do you define as “schismatic ideas”? I take you don’t know a lot about st. Gregory Palamas or st. Photius? Both of whom are commemorated on my Church’s calender.

 

[Ghosty]

Well what exactly do you define as “schismatic ideas”? I take you don’t know a lot about st. Gregory Palamas or st. Photius? Both of whom are commemorated on my Church’s calender.

Just for reference, St. Gregory Palamas believed that the Latins were heretical (a position not accepted by the various Eastern Catholics), and specifically rejected the filioque (vehemently) and Papal Infallibility (implicitely).

Interestingly St. Gregory Palamas spoke eloquently on the Immaculate Conception and the “doctrine of the Mediatrix of All Grace”, and left no ambiguity about them essential to the Faith, and yet St. Thomas Aquinas, and most Dominican Saints, denied the Immaculate Conception outright.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Second of all, Byzantine Catholic Churches being able to celebrate Orthodox saints on their calendars is a matter of discipline not doctrine.

They’re called Saints by the Catholic Church, and that obviously indicates that they are in Heaven. If they could not receive Grace from the Sacraments, due to their explicitely anti-Roman views, then how are they in Heaven now?

If all you are trying to say is that those who aren’t properly disposed to receive Grace from the Sacraments don’t receive Grace, then you are simply stating the obvious. What you can’t say is that the Sacraments in the Orthodox Church don’t confer Grace because the are “outside the Church”. Orthodox Sacraments aren’t “without Grace” just because they aren’t in the Catholic Communion, but individuals might not benefit from them in certain circumstances; the same is true for Catholics who approach the Eucharist while embracing sin, or who lie in Confession.

Such factors have nothing to do with Sacraments in the Orthodox Churches, and everything to do with the disposition of the individual. In short, Sacraments in the Orthodox Church DO confer Grace just as much as in the Catholic Church, but sinners don’t avail themselves of it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Tradycja]

What you are essentially saying is that it makes absolutely no difference whether one is Catholic or Orthodox. Therefore St. Josaphat, Blessed Leonid Feodorov, Vladimir Soloviev, Fr. Andrey Udovenko, Fr. Sergei Golovanov, and Jim Likoudis are basically in error or at least their conversion to Catholicism was completely superfluous.

 

[Tradycja]

I suppose you are speaking of the Balamaand agreement? Funny that no Eastern Catholic bishops were invited to the meeting where the Balamaand document was concocted. This agreement is not binding on us. How can a document which keeps people from Catholic sacraments be valid? Also according to the logic of this document those missionaries who went to create the Melkite union were in error.

Saying that our Church is only the “fullness of Faith” and not absolutely necessary for salvation at first glance may sound merciful but actually it is a position filled with pride.

Let us examine the situation which exists if non-Catholics can be saved as non-Catholics. This, of necessity, means that there is more than one way to get to Heaven: The Catholic way, and the other way(s).

This is like the situation with cars; there are really good, expensive cars (BMWs, etc.) and then there are the kind I drive (FORDs: Fix Or Repair Daily). Both will get you where you want to go, but if you arrive at the Country Club in the BMW people will be impressed. If you arrive in the Ford (after a few repairs and a little later), you will
not make an impression.

That is you will not make an impression on the people there. The fact that you are at your location, and this is the ONLY true purpose of a car, becomes irrelevant. The car’s function becomes secondary; its status (i.e. its price) becomes primary. Someone I know used to drive a school bus in Scarsdale, which is a VERY rich part of Westchester. The people did NOT put their cars in their garages, as then the neighbors could not see them.
Now, if the Catholic way to Heaven is merely a BETTER way (the BMW of religions), then he who chooses to be Catholic is a better person than he who is going to Heaven by Ford . . . or even a public bus.

If, however, there is only one way to Heaven–if we ALL have to take the bus–then there is no way for us “superior” types to identify ourselves and separate ourselves from the peasants. The heretical catholic holds that all men are equal and all have an equal chance of getting to Heaven no matter what religion he professes and practices . . . however, some of us are more equal than others.

IF there is only one way to Heaven THEN none of us can boast about being in the better system or church. IF it really is but the grace of God which saves us, THEN nothing I do, nothing I select saves me.

We are not saved because we “select” a true faith and follow it. We are saved because we respond to God’s grace and accept HIS unvarying system of salvation.

One of the old customs of Catholic High Schools was to makes the girls all wear the same uniform. This prevented the more wealthy from “showing off” their more expensive clothes. You could not tell by merely looking who was rich and who was poor. It was a good system. By denying the dogma of “only Catholics and only one way” the prideful catholic allows himself self-praise by choosing a better way.

And he expects you to praise him too. After all he does not HAVE to be Catholic to be saved, you know.

 

[malfunkshun]

In my rebuttals I’ve taken pains to post historical facts, so if you think I’ve made a mistake then I’d be happy to hear about it. As far as assumptions go, I have talked to some folks since I made this thread and I realize that not all Roman Catholics are closed minded egoists with superiority complexes. So, I’m not feeling sour about Roman Catholics. I’ve heard that Pope Benedict XVI is pretty cool, for lack of better knowledge about him.

I’m unwavering in my belief however that the Roman Catholic Church should re-join the Orthodox Church.

 

[malfunkshun]

Really? the fifth century? So, then, who was the first pope?

Peter was the first Pope, but the first Pope to assume the powers associated with papal infallability was Pope Saint Leo the Great in 445 AD.

All of this is very simple information that can be looked up.

Most (if not all) historians will tell you that the term “Orthodox” (which translates from the Greek to mean “correctly believing” or “correctly glorifying”) was only adopted by the Orthodox Churches after the Great Schism so that they could distinguish themselves from the Catholic Church.

Ok, so? It’s still the Roman Catholic Church that branched away. What difference does it make what the church calls itself? Technically, the Orthodox Church is the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. However, as you said, to distinguish itself from the more widespread Catholic Church, then perhaps it was useful to use the word Orthodox to describe the One True Church.

 

[AnneElliot]

Regardless of what the original poster had to say, I can’t help but side with Tradycja.

Because Tradycja is right. This is supposed to be a Catholic forum. Yes, the Church is trying to foster a relationship with the Orthodox to draw them back into unity with the Church of Christ… but until that unity is firmly established, it is a mistake to rejoice that one has rejected the Truth of the Catholic Faith.

 

[malfunkshun]

I hope you really studied history. Many early Church fathers clearly testify to the primacy of Rome. In addition, Rome was often the rock of orthodoxy in the early church. The east many,many times appealed to Rome to settle matters. Look at Ephesus and Chalcedon and Pope St.Leo.

Yes, and all of that was before the great schism. The Byzantine Church had no problem giving Rome the right of primacy, but this doesn’t mean that they were going to lie down and accept decisions made by the Pope in Rome without consultation. Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia, in the twelfth century wrote to the Papacy:

“My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office… How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.”

And this remains the problem with an infallible Pope to this day. The Pope can retain his title of Pope, but his vote should still only be one of an entire council of bishops. His supposed right to issue decrees and make decisions for the Church as a whole is what could be argued as heretical.

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Orthodox have VALID sacraments and Apostolic Succession. If Rome didn’t have primacy to settle the monophysite heresy (which Leo did), how would it have been settled? By “acceptance” of the faithful?

Oh, I don’t know… possibly by a council of bishops who all voted together as a college, the way the Arian heresy was settled?

I wonder, what is your take on the Oriental Orthodox? They aren’t in communion with the Eastern Orthodox. By your arguments, they would be the first Protestants!

The Oriental Orthodox didn’t give rise to the Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church did. Therefore, to argue that the Oriental Orthodox were the first protestants is like saying apples gave rise to oranges.

 

[5Loaves]

Most (if not all) historians will tell you that the term “Orthodox” (which translates from the Greek to mean “correctly believing” or “correctly glorifying”) was only adopted by the Orthodox Churches after the Great Schism so that they could distinguish themselves from the Catholic Church.

There was no Catholic Church before the Great Schism. So if one wants to talk about naming in order to be distinguished the two groupings post schism then it’s correct to say the Catholic Church also named itself the Catholic Church.

 

[malfunkshun]

Because Tradycja is right. This is supposed to be a Catholic forum. Yes, the Church is trying to foster a relationship with the Orthodox to draw them back into unity with the Church of Christ… but until that unity is firmly established, it is a mistake to rejoice that one has rejected the Truth of the Catholic Faith.

Funny, but I would argue that it is the Roman Catholic Church that needs to be drawn back to the Truth of the Orthodox faith.

The Catholics separated from the Orthodox Church. It is historical fact. The infallibility of the Pope was not given to him by a council of Bishops, it was given to him by an emperor, Valentinian III of Rome. Valentinian III issued an imperial decree which recognized the primacy of the Roman bishop because Pope Leo appealed to him. Why didn’t Pope Leo appeal to the council of bishops? They would have been the only authority with the power to bestow papal primacy. And how does an emperor, who is not a patriarch or bishop or in any way affiliated with the Church, obtain the right to bestow divine powers? I’d like for a Roman Catholic, without bias shaped by their loyalty to Roman Catholic beliefs, to please explain to me, after reading what I just posted, exactly how the Pope has the right to these powers of primacy and infallibility.

Wow, what am I doing… I know it’s futile to argue logic to people who have grown up believing a certain thing, but if one were to look at Church history without any preconceptions or prejudices, then I really don’t see how it is possible for one to regard the Orthodox Church as somehow separated from the One True Catholic Faith. The facts of history are glaring and simple.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malfunkshun,

Funny, but I would argue that it is the Roman Catholic Church that needs to be drawn back to the Truth of the Orthodox faith.

The Catholics separated from the Orthodox Church. It is historical fact. The infallibility of the Pope was not given to him by a council of Bishops, it was given to him by an emperor, Valentinian III of Rome. Valentinian III issued an imperial decree which recognized the primacy of the Roman bishop because Pope Leo appealed to him. Why didn’t Pope Leo appeal to the council of bishops? They would have been the only authority with the power to bestow papal primacy. And how does an emperor, who is not a patriarch or bishop or in any way affiliated with the Church, obtain the right to bestow divine powers? I’d like for a Roman Catholic, without bias shaped by their loyalty to Roman Catholic beliefs, to please explain to me, after reading what I just posted, exactly how the Pope has the right to these powers of primacy and infallibility.

Wow, what am I doing… I know it’s futile to argue logic to people who have grown up believing a certain thing, but if one were to look at Church history without any preconceptions or prejudices, then I really don’t see how it is possible for one to regard the Orthodox Church as somehow separated from the One True Catholic Faith. The facts of history are glaring and simple.

I think the error in your point of view is your idea that primacy is/was obtained from secular or even ecclesiastical powers. The doctrine of primacy has a more primordial origin than that - it came from Christ and the Apostles, and was passed down through the apostolic succession. Since the inception of the Church by Christ, there has always been one who held/holds the primacy. That is the model on which the Church is based, and that is the model reflected in the OT as well. Give heed to the Scriptural warning reflected in the episode between Moses and Korah. Christ himself stated that he would set ONE SERVANT over his household, and that this unique servanthood would exist when He returns (see Matthew 24:45ff).

In Oriental Orthodoxy, as well, the notion of primacy (whether on the level of the Metropolitan See or the Patriarchal See) has always been regarded as being handed down from Christ and the Apostles - nothing so novel as certain EO would have it, that the primacy was institued by secular powers.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malfunkshun]

Dear brother Malfunkshun,

I think the error in your point of view is your idea that primacy is/was obtained from secular or even ecclesiastical powers. The doctrine of primacy has a more primordial origin than that - it came from Christ and the Apostles, and was passed down through the apostolic succession. Since the inception of the Church by Christ, there has always been one who held/holds the primacy. That is the model on which the Church is based, and that is the model reflected in the OT as well. Give heed to the Scriptural warning reflected in the episode between Moses and Korah. Christ himself stated that he would set ONE SERVANT over his household, and that this unique servanthood would exist when He returns (see Matthew 24:45ff).

Dear Marduk:

Firstly, that verse you refer to isn’t a statement, it is a question:

“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?” Matthew 24:45

Interpretation of Bible verses has always been a tricky business. I can see how that verse might be interpreted to mean that The Pope should have primacy over the bishops of the church, but I don’t see any evidence that this is in fact what the verse means. In fact, if we’re interpreting Bible verses here, then it seems as though it might even be questioning whether or not primacy should be given to a Pope in the first place, since the verse is a question.

Were those particular Bible verses (Matthew 24:48-51) ever brought up by an ecumenical council of bishops with the decision on their collective meaning; that one Pope should have primacy over all of the bishops and should have the power to make arbitrary decisions for the Church without consulting a proper representative council of bishops?

If Matthew 24:45 does in fact tell us that a Pope should hold supreme authority over the church, then Matthew 24:48-51 seems to warn against that power being abused or corrupted; a common form of corruption being the use for political purposes:

“But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 24:48-51

The seven ecumenical councils were held in order to make decisions regarding issues such as these; to flesh out and develop the early Church and to answer the inevitable questions which arose during its beginnings.

If you can provide evidence that a council of bishops did, in fact, decide that Matthew 24:45 was to be taken to mean that one Pope should hold ultimate authority over the Church, then I’ll have some serious thinking to do. However, if that one Bible verse is the only support you have for the legitimacy of papal primacy, then I’d say that’s a pretty weak argument.

In Oriental Orthodoxy, as well, the notion of primacy (whether on the level of the Metropolitan See or the Patriarchal See) has always been regarded as being handed down from Christ and the Apostles - nothing so novel as certain EO would have it, that the primacy was institued by secular powers.

Blessings,
Marduk

The early Byzantine patriarchs never tried to deny Rome her seat at the head of the five churches. She deserved special recognition; being the capitol city, and possibly the Roman patriarch’s opinion might have even held a certain amount of respect and therefore influence among other patriarchs, but this is the limit of the notion of primacy. Anything beyond this, like it or not, WAS instituted by secular powers, and you have provided no real evidence that papal primacy, as practiced by the Roman Pope, was in any way legitimately organized or recognized by the Church.

In Christ,
Ash

 

[dzheremi]

Wow. This thread got nasty rather quick. It’s a shame that most threads with “Orthodox” in the title seem to go that way. Anyway, I’m not in the spiritual position at the moment to be taking sides in any of this fighting (and I should hope that if I were so sorted out I would see the futility in such divisiveness), so I just want to say that it made me quite happy to read the OP. Congratulations to you, Malfunkshun.