Greek or Russian Orthodox?

[Kathers60]

I was curious if the Sacraments in either of these Orthodox Churches are valid and accepted by the Roman Catholic Church? My husband and I (both Roman Catholics) would like to check out the Orthodox Churches but do not want to change our theological beliefs, but would like to return to the old practices before Vatican II if possible. I had called a Russian Orthodox Church this morning and the lady there couldn’t answer my questions except we would have to go to confession to receive their Sacraments. This wouldn’t work for us because we are not sorry, nor sinners, for being Roman Catholic. We just want to check out the Orthodox Church if it’s accepted by the Pope.

Kathy

 

[PA650]

I was curious if the Sacraments in either of these Orthodox Churches are valid and accepted by the Roman Catholic Church? My husband and I (both Roman Catholics) would like to check out the Orthodox Churches but do not want to change our theological beliefs, but would like to return to the old practices before Vatican II if possible. I had called a Russian Orthodox Church this morning and the lady there couldn’t answer my questions except we would have to go to confession to receive their Sacraments. This wouldn’t work for us because we are not sorry, nor sinners, for being Roman Catholic. We just want to check out the Orthodox Church if it’s accepted by the Pope.

Kathy

To the best of my knowledge their sacraments are valid, but they’re in schism with the Holy Catholic Church. If you’re interested in the Divine Liturgy, I would recommend an Eastern Catholic church in your area that’s in communion with Rome.

 

[Monica4316]

I was curious if the Sacraments in either of these Orthodox Churches are valid and accepted by the Roman Catholic Church? My husband and I (both Roman Catholics) would like to check out the Orthodox Churches but do not want to change our theological beliefs, but would like to return to the old practices before Vatican II if possible. I had called a Russian Orthodox Church this morning and the lady there couldn’t answer my questions except we would have to go to confession to receive their Sacraments. This wouldn’t work for us because we are not sorry, nor sinners, for being Roman Catholic. We just want to check out the Orthodox Church if it’s accepted by the Pope.

Kathy

Hi Kathy,

I converted from Russian Orthodox to Catholic so hopefully I can help to answer your question

The Orthodox are not Catholic… which means they are not in communion with the Pope.

What they have:

• the Sacraments (yes)
• Apostolic Succession
• the Priesthood

What they do not have:

• the Pope
• doctrines such as: the Immaculate Conception
• Purgatory
• others…
• allow contraception sometimes (depending on priest)

If you are interested in Eastern litugy, I suggest an Eastern Catholic church these are fully Catholic, in communion with Pope Benedict, and still have an Eastern theology but don’t deny Catholic doctrines. And they have the exact same liturgy as the Orthodox.

but the Orthodox are NOT Catholic, - in the Catholic perspective, they are actually schismatic, and have left the Papacy. They don’t believe in the Papacy and have their own structure. The reason they have the Sacraments is because they have kept Apostolic Succession, but that is where the similarity ends. As Catholics, we can only receive the Sacraments from them if in danger of death, or with special permission (like if you’re in a country with no Catholic churches.) But even then… there needs to be permission.

I recommend the Eastern Catholic churches, or the Latin Mass if you become Orthodox, you would need to renounce your belief in the Papacy and Catholic doctrines like Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and some others. In other words: you would need to change your theological beliefs and would no longer be Catholic.

God bless

 

[Bluegoat]

In any case, they will not give you communion unless you convert to Orthodoxy - they do not have open communion.

 

[Kathers60]

Thank you both PA and Monica! I will look into the Eastern Catholic Church, as I do not want to abandon my theological beliefs such as the Papacy, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc… I believe in these doctrines and cannot renounce my faith in any way, but will look into the Eastern Catholic Churches who are still in communion with the Pope and Catholic doctrines. Thank you!

Kathy

 

[Monica4316]

Thank you both PA and Monica! I will look into the Eastern Catholic Church, as I do not want to abandon my theological beliefs such as the Papacy, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc… I believe in these doctrines and cannot renounce my faith in any way, but will look into the Eastern Catholic Churches who are still in communion with the Pope and Catholic doctrines. Thank you!

Kathy

they are exactly like Orthodox liturgically, and are fully Catholic I am Eastern Catholic and I really like the liturgies.

God bless!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thank you both PA and Monica! I will look into the Eastern Catholic Church, as I do not want to abandon my theological beliefs such as the Papacy, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc… I believe in these doctrines and cannot renounce my faith in any way, but will look into the Eastern Catholic Churches who are still in communion with the Pope and Catholic doctrines. Thank you!

Kathy

The Immaculate Conception and Purgatory are also not present in the Eastern Catholic Church. Although being Catholic, they are more accepting of the concept and the belief is that the core of the faith is the same, even though the development of the definition of the dogma is different.

The understanding of Adam’s sin and the fall of man is different. How Original Sin is defined in the East is different from the West. That is why the Immaculate Conception is not part of the belief. We believe that Mary is pure and unstained by sin from conception to death. But because the understanding of Adam’s sin is different, we do not have the same definition of Original Sin, thus Immaculate Conception is not compatible with Eastern theology.

As for purgatory, same thing. Eastern Catholics do not like defining things more than what is taught in scripture, tradition or by the Church Fathers. We believe in praying for the dead and this will help them get to heaven. But defining purgatory as specifically defined by the Roman Catholic Church is not part of the belief of Eastern Christians.

 

[Monica4316]

The Immaculate Conception and Purgatory are also not present in the Eastern Catholic Church. Although being Catholic, they are more accepting of the concept and the belief is that the core of the faith is the same, even though the development of the definition of the dogma is different.

The understanding of Adam’s sin and the fall of man is different. How Original Sin is defined in the East is different from the West. That is why the Immaculate Conception is not part of the belief. We believe that Mary is pure and unstained by sin from conception to death. But because the understanding of Adam’s sin is different, we do not have the same definition of Original Sin, thus Immaculate Conception is not compatible with Eastern theology.

As for purgatory, same thing. Eastern Catholics do not like defining things more than what is taught in scripture, tradition or by the Church Fathers. We believe in praying for the dead and this will help them get to heaven. But defining purgatory as specifically defined by the Roman Catholic Church is not part of the belief of Eastern Christians.

that is true, but what I meant is that the Eastern Catholics don’t consider the West heretical for believing these things, and their understandning doesn’t contradict these doctrines. The authority of the Pope to declare these dogmas is also accepted. So they’re accepted theologically, the East just has a different theological outlook… but the Orthodox outright reject them.

So an Eastern Catholic wouldn’t be asked to stop believing in the Immaculate Conception or Purgatory… I think… they woudln’t be considered heretics. But in the Orthodox church, they would be asked to change their view.

I talked to an Eastern Catholic priest about this, and basically he said that the Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics are saying essentially the same things but in different words/different ways. That’s the difference I see between Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox… (and also the Papacy)

 

[ConstantineTG]

that is true, but what I meant is that the Eastern Catholics don’t consider the West heretical for believing these things, and their understandning doesn’t contradict these doctrines. The authority of the Pope to declare these dogmas is also accepted. So they’re accepted theologically, the East just has a different theological outlook… but the Orthodox outright reject them.

So an Eastern Catholic wouldn’t be asked to stop believing in the Immaculate Conception or Purgatory… I think… they woudln’t be considered heretics. But in the Orthodox church, they would be asked to change their view.

I talked to an Eastern Catholic priest about this, and basically he said that the Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics are saying essentially the same things but in different words/different ways. That’s the difference I see between Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox… (and also the Papacy)

Well, the difference in the Immaculate Conception really is how the East understands Original Sin. I actually agree with the Eastern view, I think the Western view has so many complications. If Mary didn’t receive Original Sin, why does she then suffer its effects? Its really a problem of the understanding of Original Sin. But if you look at everything else, there really is no disagreement between West and East. Mary was pure and immaculate from conception 'til death. My opinion on the matter is its hard to teach Eastern Theology and accept it and at the same time accept the Immaculate Conception, because the IC hinges on Original Sin which is not part of Eastern Theology.

Yes, you are correct that its not a big deal to be an Eastern Catholic and believe in the Immaculate Conception. But then you become Latinized in theology and thats not really living the Eastern faith.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was curious if the Sacraments in either of these Orthodox Churches are valid and accepted by the Roman Catholic Church? My husband and I (both Roman Catholics) would like to check out the Orthodox Churches but do not want to change our theological beliefs, but would like to return to the old practices before Vatican II if possible. I had called a Russian Orthodox Church this morning and the lady there couldn’t answer my questions except we would have to go to confession to receive their Sacraments. This wouldn’t work for us because we are not sorry, nor sinners, for being Roman Catholic. We just want to check out the Orthodox Church if it’s accepted by the Pope.

Kathy

Here’s the cold hard truth. There are 6 Rites in the Catholic Church and 5 of these Rites are Eastern Rites. Every Eastern Rite has an Orthodox counterpart. Do not expect the theologies of these Churches in these Rites to be 100% the same as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The theologies developed separately and the context of the culture where the faith is expressed is different in every Rite.

This is the problem of every “Latin refugee” that comes into the parish. The come expecting a traditional Liturgy, which many Eastern parishes has. The issue is what is traditional in the East is their own traditions and not the Latin traditions that you are looking for. We have full participation in Liturgies where everyone is expected to sing, unlike the TLM where you have a cantor or choir who’d do most of the singing. We do not kneel for Communion or after Communion, so for those looking for reverence through kneeling will not find it in an Eastern Church. We don’t fuss about translations or vernaculars. If the Synod says we use these words, we use those words even though another Church in the same Rite would translate the same prayer from Greek differently to English. We do not have the same legalistic approach to the faith.

Its the same faith expressed in a completely different way. If you are looking for the Roman Catholic faith in the East, you will never find it. If you want to be an Eastern Christian, then you would have to embrace Eastern theology. Otherwise you’d feel wanting when you don’t find what you are looking for.

 

[Monica4316]

Well, the difference in the Immaculate Conception really is how the East understands Original Sin. I actually agree with the Eastern view, I think the Western view has so many complications. If Mary didn’t receive Original Sin, why does she then suffer its effects? Its really a problem of the understanding of Original Sin. But if you look at everything else, there really is no disagreement between West and East. Mary was pure and immaculate from conception 'til death. My opinion on the matter is its hard to teach Eastern Theology and accept it and at the same time accept the Immaculate Conception, because the IC hinges on Original Sin which is not part of Eastern Theology.

Yes, you are correct that its not a big deal to be an Eastern Catholic and believe in the Immaculate Conception. But then you become Latinized in theology and thats not really living the Eastern faith.

I don’t know… the Eastern Catholic priest I spoke to said the two ideas are not that different. But I do see the difference about original sin. I think that Mary suffered the effects of original sin because Jesus did, - and of course He didn’t have original sin. (ye He suffered and died). Mary didn’t have the weakened nature that original sin results in, or concupiscence.

I’ve never really seen it as a big problem to mix the East and the West a little, - maybe that’s because my spirituality is very Latin but I’m technically Eastern, - I don’t know if that means I should switch, lol, but I’ve never felt that is a problem when I go to an Eastern parish. I spoke to my priest about this too because I was worried, and he said, just focus on the unity of the Church… we are all Catholic, Eastern Catholic or Roman Catholic.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know… the Eastern Catholic priest I spoke to said the two ideas are not that different. But I do see the difference about original sin. I think that Mary suffered the effects of original sin because Jesus did, - and of course He didn’t have original sin. (ye He suffered and died). Mary didn’t have the weakened nature that original sin results in, or concupiscence.

I’ve never really seen it as a big problem to mix the East and the West a little, - maybe that’s because my spirituality is very Latin but I’m technically Eastern, - I don’t know if that means I should switch, lol, but I’ve never felt that is a problem when I go to an Eastern parish. I spoke to my priest about this too because I was worried, and he said, just focus on the unity of the Church… we are all Catholic, Eastern Catholic or Roman Catholic.

The big question about the Immaculate Conception is, if Adam brought death into the world through his sin and Mary did not inherit Original Sin, why did she die? A further complication is that with the Assumption dogma, the Roman Catholic Church used creative language to hide the fact of Mary’s death. Ultimately, they do not want to say whether she did die or was assumed into heaven at the immediate moment before her death. Whereas the long standing tradition of the Dormition confirms that Mary did die and her body was only assumed into heaven on the third day.

But of course an Eastern Catholic priest won’t use language that could be deemed hostile again the Roman Catholic faith. We do not want to be perceived as schismatics. We don’t disagree, but we don’t really fully agree either. Its just that the understanding and view of the faith is different. You can’t apply the Immaculate Conception to the Eastern faith because you cannot apply Original Sin to Eastern faith. But East and West would definitely agree that Mary is immaculate in the sense that at no point in her existence was she tainted by sin.

 

[dvdjs]

The big question about the Immaculate Conception is, if Adam brought death into the world through his sin and Mary did not inherit Original Sin, why did she die?

Not a question at all, provided one understands the idea of the stain of original sin from which, according to the dogma of the IC, Mary was preserved. Please read here, for example, about the “Nature of original sin.” The hereditary stain is not death (or suffering or concupiscence) but spiritual death, the absence of sanctifying grace. newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm Your big question is actually a big non sequitur.

A further complication is that with the Assumption dogma, the Roman Catholic Church used creative language to hide the fact of Mary’s death. Ultimately, they do not want to say whether she did die or was assumed into heaven at the immediate moment before her death. Whereas the long standing tradition of the Dormition confirms that Mary did die and her body was only assumed into heaven on the third day.

Well, I don’t know about the creative language claim. The language and point are plain:

… according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. … the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul. … Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. … she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body… she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven …

That idea is completely consistent with the claims made in the church services of the EOs.

Is “dormition” creative language. I think it is, and very meaningfully so. If we believe in the victory over death, if we believe in the sharing of immortality, and if especially if we believe that Mary has been delivered from corruption in the tomb and translated to heaven, then what is this “death” that you are quibbling about? .

Does the Eastern tradition hold to a three-day burial for Mary? Does Munificentissimus Deus hold otherwise? Is this time-line dogmatic in any tradition?

 

[ClamDigger]

I was curious if the Sacraments in either of these Orthodox Churches are valid and accepted by the Roman Catholic Church? My husband and I (both Roman Catholics) would like to check out the Orthodox Churches but do not want to change our theological beliefs, but would like to return to the old practices before Vatican II if possible. I had called a Russian Orthodox Church this morning and the lady there couldn’t answer my questions except we would have to go to confession to receive their Sacraments. This wouldn’t work for us because we are not sorry, nor sinners, for being Roman Catholic. We just want to check out the Orthodox Church if it’s accepted by the Pope.

Kathy

All Eastern Orthodox Churches (whether Russian, Greek, Romanian, etc…) have valid sacraments because they have valid Apostolic Succession. We disagree on a couple of things (the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the place of the Roman Pontiff, the Filioque clause in the Creed to name a few), but they still have legitimate Apostolic Succession and therefore have valid sacraments.
If you would like to go back to pre-Vatican II liturgies without becoming Eastern Orthodox, then you can find parishes where the Latin form of the Mass is still said at this website: web2.airmail.net/carlsch/MaterDei/churches.htm

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not a question at all, provided one understands the idea of the stain of original sin from which, according to the dogma of the IC, Mary was preserved. Please read here, for example, about the “Nature of original sin.” The hereditary stain is not death (or suffering or concupiscence) but spiritual death, the absence of sanctifying grace. newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm Your big question is actually a big non sequitur.

Death is a consequence of the Original Sin we inherit from Adam. The difference is Original Sin denotes we inherit something instead of our nature itself becoming fallen and thus we are born into this fallen world now. Because if you do not inherit the stain, then shouldn’t you be preserved from its consequences?

Well, I don’t know about the creative language claim. The language and point are plain:
That idea is completely consistent with the claims made in the church services of the EOs.

Is “dormition” creative language. I think it is, and very meaningfully so. If we believe in the victory over death, if we believe in the sharing of immortality, and if especially if we believe that Mary has been delivered from corruption in the tomb and translated to heaven, then what is this “death” that you are quibbling about?

The creative language I was talking about is when the dogma on the Immaculate Conception was written in such a way that it says, “when her earthly life was complete.” It could be interpreted as one completing life and died. Or one completed earthly life and was just about to die. So there even a split in opinion by many RCs as to whether Mary did actually die, or if she was assumed into heaven body and soul at the same time the exact moment before her death. And it contradicts already established tradition.

Does the Eastern tradition hold to a three-day burial for Mary? Does Munificentissimus Deus hold otherwise? Is this time-line dogmatic in any tradition?

It is what is in the traditions and on the icon. Mary was laid in a tomb and a short time later her body was assumed into heaven. And as a reversal of what we will celebrate this Sunday, it will be St. Thomas who will be the sole witness to this as opposed to being the only Apostle to miss the first appearance of Jesus to the 10.

 

[ClamDigger]

And as a reversal of what we will celebrate this Sunday, it will be St. Thomas who will be the sole witness to this as opposed to being the only Apostle to miss the first appearance of Jesus to the 10.

I heard differently. What I was taught was that St. Thomas arrived after the rest of the Apostles and didn’t believe that she had been assumed, but rather that someone had stolen her body. Then Mary cleared it all up by appearing and handing him the girdle around her waist, thereby showing him that she wasn’t just a spirit or ghost, but a real flesh-and-blood human being in physical clothes.
Not to derail, but has anyone else heard this version of events?

 

[dvdjs]

Death is a consequence of the Original Sin we inherit from Adam. The difference is Original Sin denotes we inherit something instead of our nature itself becoming fallen and thus we are born into this fallen world now. Because if you do not inherit the stain, then shouldn’t you be preserved from its consequences?

I take it that you did not read the link. You are fuzzy in your idea of Original Sin and that fuzziness is leading you to assert contradictions where none exist.

The creative language I was talking about is when the dogma on the Immaculate Conception was written in such a way that it says, “when her earthly life was complete.” It could be interpreted as one completing life and died. Or one completed earthly life and was just about to die. So there even a split in opinion by many RCs as to whether Mary did actually die, or if she was assumed into heaven body and soul at the same time the exact moment before her death. And it contradicts already established tradition.

The language is no more “creative” than the language of “dormition”. In any case, shat is this “dying” that you are talking about? She completed her earthly life and has been translated to heaven. You are quibbling about how long between her last breath and her arrival in heaven. I am not sure, but I don’t believe that this interval is specified in any church tradition. The EO synaxarion states only that when Thomas arrived after three days and peered into the tomb, she was gone.

I am not certain about the time-line for the development of the various aspects of these traditions, so I cannot say what was “already established”. I am curious, however, what are your sources on this.

 

[dvdjs]

I heard differently. What I was taught was that St. Thomas arrived after the rest of the Apostles and didn’t believe that she had been assumed, but rather that someone had stolen her body. Then Mary cleared it all up by appearing and handing him the girdle around her waist, thereby showing him that she wasn’t just a spirit or ghost, but a real flesh-and-blood human being in physical clothes.
Not to derail, but has anyone else heard this version of events?

Parts of what you say are found in this link to a Syriac Orthodox page
syrianorthodoxchurch.org/news/2010/08/06/feast-of-the-dormition-shoonoyo-assumption-of-the-virgin-mary/ . I wonder when this version was estabished.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I heard differently. What I was taught was that St. Thomas arrived after the rest of the Apostles and didn’t believe that she had been assumed, but rather that someone had stolen her body. Then Mary cleared it all up by appearing and handing him the girdle around her waist, thereby showing him that she wasn’t just a spirit or ghost, but a real flesh-and-blood human being in physical clothes.
Not to derail, but has anyone else heard this version of events?

He was late for the burial, not the Assumption. When he arrived he visited the tomb where he received the vision of Our Lady’s body being assumed into heaven and she dropped her girdle to him as his proof of the Assumption.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I take it that you did not read the link. You are fuzzy in your idea of Original Sin and that fuzziness is leading you to assert contradictions where none exist.

Okay then.

The language is no more “creative” than the language of “dormition”. In any case, shat is this “dying” that you are talking about? She completed her earthly life and has been translated to heaven. You are quibbling about how long between her last breath and her arrival in heaven. I am not sure, but I don’t believe that this interval is specified in any church tradition. The EO synaxarion states only that when Thomas arrived after three days and peered into the tomb, she was gone.

I am not certain about the time-line for the development of the various aspects of these traditions, so I cannot say what was “already established”. I am curious, however, what are your sources on this.

No, I’m saying that the tradition is conclusive on the death while the dogma on Assumption tries to be sly by not being conclusive on it. They opened up the language enough that some people are led to believe that she was assumed into heaven prior to death, similar to Elijah and Enoch.