From to Catholicism to Orthodoxy

[Padraig1972]

I dislike those things too. That is why I attend the EF Mass.

Those masses are great, here they have cut it down from 90 to 60 minutes to make it more “suitable”. That bothers me too, it is kind of sad…

 

[Vouthon]

The Church does not teach that the Church of Christ is present within the Orthodox Church but that elements of the Church of Christ are present in it. This actually makes a difference. We need to use very precise language to discuss this topic. I hope my other post made this clear.

Pope John Paul II states in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995):

Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church. To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian communities, the one church of Christ is effectively present in them” [emphasis added].

You are not wrong in saying “elements” but neither am I in saying “present”, if you consider what the late Holy Father says above.

The Orthodox Churches are not outside the Body of Christ. They are simply in an imperfect state of Communion with the Catholic Church. As I said if they were outside then they would all be damned which we know isn’t the case since I am sure that you are well aware that “THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”

The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, found in the Successor of St. Peter in Rome with all people united with their bishops who are in turn in communion with Rome.

The Second Vatican Council taught that there are numerous elements of sanctification and of truth found outside the visible boundries of the Church, referring to the holy churches of the East known by the name of Orthodox.

Within these holy churches, the Church of Christ is built up by the Holy Eucharist, which means that the Church of Christ is present in these Churches.

Yet it is not the same as saying subsists in, since this word can only be attributed to the Catholic Church since She alone has the unity of being one as we proclaim in the Creed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is what you said in your first post in this thread: "And don’t feel bad if the person has found God in Orthodoxy. As Catholics we see the Orthodox as a true and valid Church whom we are actively seeking reconciliation with. I can guarantee you God is as much present there as He is in the Catholic Church. "

So do you deny that God could be found in the Orthodox Church?

We should be able to find God in everything and everyone, God is in the least of our brethren. Did Jesus said, “what you do to the least of your brethren, you do unto me. Unless your brethren is not Catholic, then I cannot exist in them.” In my personal experience, I have found God even in many non-Christians. And they all helped me become a better Catholic.

Also, again back to the Eucharist. If we proclaim the Eucharist of the Orthodox to be true, then again why are you insinuating that God is not with the Orthodox. A true Eucharist means Jesus, right?

This implies that you think being Orthodox is just as good as being Catholic.

Implies means you make meaning of my words that would be advantageous to you in a debate or discussion. If I didn’t say it directly, I did not mean to say it at all. Implies is always on the onus of the one making the interpretation, which is always less than objective.

You are using terms in a different way than Church documents use them. I think you are trying to say what the Church teaches, but by changing the words you are changing the meaning to something wrong. We just can’t say “The Orthodox Church is not outside the Church of Christ”. It is not what the Church teaches.

Okay then, what else does it mean to say that the Orthodox have true and valid Sacraments? Are they a bunch of godless heretics yet have the power to confer God’s grace through the Sacraments?

This topic uses precise technical language and, unless you are an expert, you are unlikely to be able to put it into your own words correctly. When discussing it, I recommend using exact quotes from Lumen Gentium , Dominus Iesus and the CDF Responsa.

I think I understand clearly what is being taught. I don’t make stuff up. I learn from others and I try to experience too and learn from it. I have been to an Orthodox temple and have participated in their prayers, which is no different from our own prayers in the Eastern Catholic Churches. I have felt God’s presence and have had my prayers answered. We learn from their saints and read their books. Is every Eastern Catholic a schismatic then?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sorry, I realized that I did not answer your question in my previous post. Valid Sacraments can exist outside the Church because elements of the Church can exist outside her structure. The fullness of the Church only exists in the Catholic Church. This is the only Church about which we can say that it is the Church of Christ. Even a true particular Church, like the Orthodox Church, lacks the fullness to make this statement.

Please read the Responsa I linked to. It may help you to understand.

PS. Catholics do not make a distinction between the Mystical Body of Christ and the visible human society of the Catholic Church.

You made a contradictory statement here because you claim that elements of the Church can exist outside of the Church. If I take out your kidney, does that kidney cease to be your kidney? Even if it is transplanted to someone else, does that kidney cease to be your kidney? Can Christ be divided?

 

[floresco]

You are not wrong in saying “elements” but neither am I in saying “present”, if you consider what the late Holy Father says above.

Note that the word “present” is qualified in that quote. We just can’t make a simple statement that the Church is present in any church other than the Catholic Church. If we are talking about other churches or communions, we can say the Church is present to some extent or that the Church is imperfectly present.

The Orthodox Churches are not outside the Body of Christ. They are simply in an imperfect state of Communion with the Catholic Church. As I said if they were outside then they would all be damned which we know isn’t the case since I am sure that you are well aware that “THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”

You cannot say “The Orthodox Churches are not outside the Body of Christ.” unless you have a statement in a Church document that says that. You are deducing this from Church teaching (incorrectly) but it does not actually say that.

 

[neokarny]

Or let’s take ROCOR. When I was considering converting, I was told not to attend and commune in Greek, Antiochian, Romanian EO Churches that use the New Calendar. But they said I was allowed to attend EO churches that used the Old Calendar.

But ROCOR is not in communion with New Calendar Churches such as the Greek and Antiochian, or the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

You’re referring to a situation that is not current. ROCOR is no longer independent of the Moscow Patriarchate, having mended the schism after the Soviet infiltration/takeover of the early 20th century. They are in full communion with all canonical Churches.

And as an aside, when one canonical Orthodox Church excommunicates another, it is usually the hierarchs that are excommunicated and not the laity.

 

[Vouthon]

Note that the word “present” is qualified in that quote. We just can’t make a simple statement that the Church is present in any church other than the Catholic Church. If we are talking about other churches or communions, we can say the Church is present to some extent or that the Church is imperfectly present.

You cannot say “The Orthodox Churches are not outside the Body of Christ.” unless you have a statement in a Church document that says that. You are deducing this from Church teaching (incorrectly) but it does not actually say that.

Sister Floresco, let me ask you a question:* Do you accept that the Orthodox saints, Seraphim of Sarov and Gregory Palamas (for example) are in heaven?* They are accepted by Holy Mother Church as actual saints, reflected in the fact that they are commemorated in the Eastern Catholic calendars of saints and were specifically referred to as “Saints” by Pope John Paul II.

Now they both existed after the schism, and so from your perspective, these two saints lived outside the Body of Christ.

Now, we know that “THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”, so how do you reconcile this? How can Orthodox be outside the Church of Christ and yet receive salvation?

Nowhere does any magisterial document post-Vatican II say that Orthodox are outside the Body of Christ. It is merely stated that they are in an imperfect communion with Holy Mother Church - quite different.

 

[floresco]

So do you deny that God could be found in the Orthodox Church?

We should be able to find God in everything and everyone, God is in the least of our brethren. Did Jesus said, “what you do to the least of your brethren, you do unto me. Unless your brethren is not Catholic, then I cannot exist in them.” In my personal experience, I have found God even in many non-Christians. And they all helped me become a better Catholic.

God is present everywhere. We do not conclude from this that it does not matter which church (if any) we attend.

Also, again back to the Eucharist. If we proclaim the Eucharist of the Orthodox to be true, then again why are you insinuating that God is not with the Orthodox. A true Eucharist means Jesus, right?

Yes, the Eucharist is valid in the Orthodox Churches and Christ is therefore present. We cannot conclude from this that it does not matter if we attend their liturgy or join their Church.

Okay then, what else does it mean to say that the Orthodox have true and valid Sacraments? Are they a bunch of godless heretics yet have the power to confer God’s grace through the Sacraments?

The Orthodox are Christians. They have more elements of the Church present than any other non-Catholic Christians. But we do not tell people that it is OK to convert to Orthodox. It is not OK to go from the fullness of the Church to an imperfectly present Church.

I think I understand clearly what is being taught. I don’t make stuff up. I learn from others and I try to experience too and learn from it. I have been to an Orthodox temple and have participated in their prayers, which is no different from our own prayers in the Eastern Catholic Churches. I have felt God’s presence and have had my prayers answered. We learn from their saints and read their books. Is every Eastern Catholic a schismatic then?

Eastern Catholics are part of the Catholic Church. Therefore they are part of the Church of Christ.

You seem to be trying to figure this out from your feelings and experiences. That won’t work. This is a complex area of Church doctrine. You need to study the relevant documents and try to understand them.

 

[floresco]

Nowhere does any magisterial document post-Vatican II say that Orthodox are outside the Body of Christ. It is merely stated that they are in an imperfect communion with Holy Mother Church - quite different.

There is a magisterial document that says that Vatican II did not change the Church’s teaching on this.

I accept that whoever the Church has declared is a Saint is a Saint. This is possible because the elements of the Church that are present among non-Catholics can effect salvation and sanctification. This does not make it correct to refer to non-Catholics as not “outside of the Body of Christ.” We have to limit ourselves to what the Church actually teaches, not deduce all these extra things that some people are adding. Unless there is Church teaching which explicitly says they are part of the Body of Christ, we should not use that expression.

 

[floresco]

You made a contradictory statement here because you claim that elements of the Church can exist outside of the Church. If I take out your kidney, does that kidney cease to be your kidney? Even if it is transplanted to someone else, does that kidney cease to be your kidney? Can Christ be divided?

I am not claiming this. I am referring to Church teaching that I referenced earlier in the thread. Please read the documents that I have cited or linked to.

 

[Vouthon]

There is a magisterial document that says that Vatican II did not change the Church’s teaching on this.

I accept that whoever the Church has declared is a Saint is a Saint. This is possible because the elements of the Church that are present among non-Catholics can effect salvation and sanctification. This does not make it correct to refer to non-Catholics as not “outside of the Body of Christ.” We have to limit ourselves to what the Church actually teaches, not deduce all these extra things that some people are adding. Unless there is Church teaching which explicitly says they are part of the Body of Christ, we should not use that expression.

Floresco

I’m sorry but this is like logical cart-wheeling too me. I feel, but may be wrong, that you are skirting around the obvious logic of what I am saying rather than addressing it head on. One cannot avoid the salvation issue I am raising.

Vatican II did not change the Church’s teaching, and I explicitly said that above in my previous post. The Second Vatican Council didn’t change the Catholic teaching that the Catholic Church, which is comprised of the Bishop of Rome and all people united with their bishops, who in turn are united with Rome is the Mystical Body of Christ. Rome teaches the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church subsists within the Catholic Church in all its fullness, yet that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are true and valid churches in regards to their sacraments, liturgies, etc but that they lack something as particular churches not in communion with the Pope. I find it immensely irritating that you seem to think I am implying otherwise.

The Church does not have the power to declare someone a Saint if they are outside of her. If they are outside of her, then they cannot be saved. There is no qualification to this.

You write:

“…This is possible because the elements of the Church that are present among non-Catholics can effect salvation and sanctification…”

But this surely cannot be reconciled with, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”. If you interpret “elements of the Church” as you say above, then you are effectively saying that the Church has contradicted itself by teaching that one can be saved outside the confines of the Church by merely having “elements” of her. That is illogical, surely.

The Church has never and does not qualify this statement with “oh but there is an exception when you have elements of the Church”. A person is either in or out pure and simple.

So I ask you: Were Saints Seraphim of Sarov and Gregory Palamas INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH AND WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

It is late at night here in the UK, so I may answer you tommorrow (or not if I can manage it before bed) but I desire a simple answer to this.

 

[Vouthon]

As an aside, you might like this pre-Vatican II statement from Pope Pius XI, sister Floresco:

“…Catholics are sometimes lacking in a right appreciation of their separated brethren, and are even wanting in brotherly love, because they do not know enough about them. People do not realize how much faith, goodness, and Christianity there is in these bodies now detached from the age-long Catholic truth. Pieces broken from gold-bearing rock themselves bear gold. The ancient Christian bodies of the East keep so venerable a holiness that they deserve not merely respect but complete sympathy…”

***- Pope Pius XI, 1927 (cf. Radio Replies, Volume 2, pp. 76). ***

And also this nice one from the young Blessed Pope John XIII:

“…Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who were the cause of these disagreements have been dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ…”

- Angelo Roncalli (Blessed Pope John XXIII) 1926, Letter to Young Bulgarian Orthodox Christian

 

[ConstantineTG]

God is present everywhere. We do not conclude from this that it does not matter which church (if any) we attend.

Yes, the Eucharist is valid in the Orthodox Churches and Christ is therefore present. We cannot conclude from this that it does not matter if we attend their liturgy or join their Church.

The Orthodox are Christians. They have more elements of the Church present than any other non-Catholic Christians. But we do not tell people that it is OK to convert to Orthodox. It is not OK to go from the fullness of the Church to an imperfectly present Church.

Eastern Catholics are part of the Catholic Church. Therefore they are part of the Church of Christ.

You seem to be trying to figure this out from your feelings and experiences. That won’t work. This is a complex area of Church doctrine. You need to study the relevant documents and try to understand them.

So the elements of the Church is not the Church? Its like claiming the arm of Christ is not Christ unless it is attached to Him. You are claiming that the Church, the body of Christ, can be divided. If it is a dead body, then yes it can be divided. But He is alive, therefore His body cannot be divided. The division that we have on earth is a petty disagreement, not a divine reality.

 

[Vouthon]

So the elements of the Church is not the Church? Its like claiming the arm of Christ is not Christ unless it is attached to Him. You are claiming that the Church, the body of Christ, can be divided. If it is a dead body, then yes it can be divided. But He is alive, therefore His body cannot be divided. The division that we have on earth is a petty disagreement, not a divine reality.

Amen!

The real problem is much deeper though, since if our dear sister Floresco is committed to her current viewpoint then she is effectively saying that one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church, and implying that the Catholic Church post-Vatican II has changed its stance on EENS, since it is very crystal clear historically that there is no salvation outside of Holy Mother Church. And so the recognition, not only of the validity of Orthodox orders and Eucharist and expressions of faith, but of canonised Orthodox saints naturally tells us that they cannot be outside the Church. They are simply in imperfect communion, but through the presence of the Church of Christ operating through their valid sacraments, they receive salvation from imperfect but true membership in the Body of Christ due to their belonging to particular churches wounded from lack of the fullness of catholicity which SUBSISTS ONLY IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

 

[floresco]

So the elements of the Church is not the Church? Its like claiming the arm of Christ is not Christ unless it is attached to Him. You are claiming that the Church, the body of Christ, can be divided. If it is a dead body, then yes it can be divided. But He is alive, therefore His body cannot be divided. The division that we have on earth is a petty disagreement, not a divine reality.

The concept of elements of the Church is not the same as the concept of the fullness of the Church. They are different things. I am not making any claims or presenting any personal opinions. All I am saying is that we need to stick to the actual teaching of the Church. You have a tendency to treat as interchangeable concepts that are not. You really do not seem to understand this.

 

[floresco]

Amen!

The real problem is much deeper though, since if our dear sister Floresco is committed to her current viewpoint then she is effectively saying that one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church, and implying that the Catholic Church post-Vatican II has changed its stance on EENS, since it is very crystal clear historically that there is no salvation outside of Holy Mother Church.

I am committed to not going beyond what is actually stated in Church documents on this subject. This is not something that any of us should be trying to reason out for ourselves. If you think that what the Church has said means that the Church has changed her stand on EENS, then you need to study it further.

 

[floresco]

So I ask you: ]Were Saints Seraphim of Sarov and Gregory Palamas INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH AND WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Anyone who has been declared a Saint is inside of the Church. We cannot deduce from this anything about the Orthodox Church in general. We have to stick to what the Church has explicitly taught. This is not a matter for people who do not have advanced training in theology to be speculating about.

 

[L_piperatus]

You’re referring to a situation that is not current. ROCOR is no longer independent of the Moscow Patriarchate, having mended the schism after the Soviet infiltration/takeover of the early 20th century. They are in full communion with all canonical Churches.

The people I know are some formerly ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) priests and laity within the reunited Russian EO Church. Priests in the reunited Church keep instructing the faithful, after ROCOR’s reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2006, not to attend or commune in Greek and Antiochian EO Churches that use the New Calendar. The Russian faithful I know, will rather drive close to three hours to attend Divine Liturgy two states and more than 100 miles away (some even drive 400 miles to the closest Old Calendar church) in a ROCOR church under the umbrella of the reunited ROCOR-MP, rather than attend the New Calendar Greek EOC some 10 minutes away in the city, or the New Calendar Antiochian EOC which is also right there in the city some 20 minutes away.

Please see also posts #61 and 62 in this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=663730 , regarding ROCOR’s position on the New Calendar EO Churches after its reconciliation with Moscow. In short, ROCOR did not change any of its beliefs or policies.

And as an aside, when one canonical Orthodox Church excommunicates another, it is usually the hierarchs that are excommunicated and not the laity

.

I wonder how is it working in practice, in Ukraine. The former Metropolitan of Kyiv under the authority of the Moscow Patriarch, decided to become autocephalous. Now he is the Patriarch of the UAOC - Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. But the Moscow Patriarch excommunicated the Patriarch of the UAOC. In effect, I’ve read recently that the Ukrainian EO Church is split into three: we have this UAOC whose Patriarch has been excommunicated by Moscow, we also have a second Moscow-independent EO Church in Ukraine which is not in communion with Moscow, and third, we have an EOC with a Metropolitan still loyal to Moscow. According to what I’ve read, one of the Ukrainian Presidents used to attend alternatively the services of the Moscow-independent autocephalous UAOC, and the services of the Metropolitan loyal to Moscow.

It’s quite an interesting concept and totally foreign to Catholicism, that someone would attend one Sunday the services of a Metropolitan loyal to Moscow, and next Sunday would attend service at the new Kyiv Patriarch who has been excommunicated by Moscow. Since my “Moscow” is Rome , there’s no way I would attend Mass one Sunday in a Catholic Church loyal to Rome, and next Sunday in a Church whose head has been excommunicated by Rome.

To my mind, that’s what the unity of the Church means - all Catholic Churches are in communion with each other and none of the Catholic clergy within the Church are under excommunication by some other bishop or by the Pope. And I perceive the EO Churches as fractured, precisely because we have situations like these, where the Kyiv Patriarch is not recognized and has been excommunicated by the Moscow Patriarch, yet both insist to be within Orthodoxy.

Or, take the case when the Moscow Patriarch broke communion with the EP of Constantinople, and Moscow dropped the EP from the diptychs - this happened during the 1990s. Here we had the spiritual leader of world Orthodoxy (this is the EP’s own claim, from its own website, however the claim is hotly disputed by the Moscow Patriarch) out of communion with the Patriarch of the largest EOC, the Russian Orthodox Church! :bigyikes:

I perceive these things as lack of unity within the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but I understand that my EO brothers and sisters do not necessarily agree with me. After all, that’s why they choose to be Orthodox, while I choose to be Catholic.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The concept of elements of the Church is not the same as the concept of the fullness of the Church. They are different things. I am not making any claims or presenting any personal opinions. All I am saying is that we need to stick to the actual teaching of the Church. You have a tendency to treat as interchangeable concepts that are not. You really do not seem to understand this.

Yes, and the actual teaching of the Church is that the Orthodox Churches are true and valid Apostolic Churches.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Amen!

The real problem is much deeper though, since if our dear sister Floresco is committed to her current viewpoint then she is effectively saying that one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church, and implying that the Catholic Church post-Vatican II has changed its stance on EENS, since it is very crystal clear historically that there is no salvation outside of Holy Mother Church. And so the recognition, not only of the validity of Orthodox orders and Eucharist and expressions of faith, but of canonised Orthodox saints naturally tells us that they cannot be outside the Church. They are simply in imperfect communion, but through the presence of the Church of Christ operating through their valid sacraments, they receive salvation from imperfect but true membership in the Body of Christ due to their belonging to particular churches wounded from lack of the fullness of catholicity which SUBSISTS ONLY IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

That is very true. Floresco seems to think it is an all-or-nothing deal. That is not true. Even scripture says so, “those who are not against us is for us”. In faith at least, the Orthodox are not against us. We do have petty arguments with each other, but isn’t that normal in every family? Sibling rivalry.