If the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were united how would you feel about it?

[Alisa]

You’re right – Macedonia is a constant subject for disagreements!

 

[Steadfast]

It would be very interesting but it wouldn’t effect me one way or the other except on the level of exciting my interest.

 

[Prayerjohn]

I do want everyone to follow the Bible and be united but it does not seem likely at all.

With God all things are possible.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Rightly divide-

Why does every Catholic ask this question around here?

Because it is a prerequisite to understanding how you arrived at your bias that a) the Bible is the word of God and b) you have the entire Bible, nothing more and nothing less.

If this supposed to be like the super stumper or something?

Very simple - who’s your authority - *really ? *

I looked … and decided … I read the New Testament *…I decided their answers were flawed and

Interesting - sounds like you you were basically “leaning on your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5) Thats perfectly…natural.

I am getting continually bored explaining this to Catholics but anyway…

No problem - I understand perfectly as I am often bored listening to the explanations as well

I read the NT again and based upon my readings so no other books which can be proven to contain the words of Christ

So basically you decided for yourself based on limited information. But I understand that when you separate yourself from the Church and history that there really isnt anything left for you to appeal to other than yourself. That’s OK, I just, well , I dont have as much confidence in you as you do. I mean when you come right down to it neither one of us has the slightest clue whether the Bible is the collection of writings from the early Church. We either have to trust others to have preserved those writings or we have to have received direct revelation from God. But to say that you proof is based on the notion that nothing else you have read could be the words of Christ is pretty weak. Not only havent you read all of the literature in the world claiming to be divine, but you havent exactly revealed how you used your reasoning to exclude the books contained in the Catholic canon and the many apocryphal writings.

kept reading and reading to find out that the early Christian church was not Catholic and that the only thing I trust through faith is scripture

You found this out, eh? How early, exactly, are you talkin’ about? It sounds like you made an educated guess - a guess which many other educated people disagree with. But hey - everyone is entitled to their opinion, and God didnt leave us with anything else, right? right?

I do not think that scripture needed to be approved to be some group of men,

Well you are clearly ignorant of this portion of history. It is an historical fact that the canon of Scripture developed with time. Your speculation of the matter is inconsequential as it is 1900 years after the fact.

Christ quoted it as such and so did writers of the NT without any offical approval or council.

Again you seem ignorant of the facts. Christ didnt quote *all *of the OT that you accept - and he quoted some ot the OT which you reject. The early Church Fathers even quote apocryphal writings - it had not yet been discerned whether they were Scripture. Think about it - who got decide that NON-APOSTOLIC writings like those of LUKE were the inspired word of God? Luke certainly didnt think it was inspired, read his intro again. He was simply gathering information from actual witnesses - he wasnt the first hand witness for much of what he wrote. God had to provide a way to identify those writings as Scripture. History reveals that he used the Catholic Church to do so.

I have …who knows how many books on the…“development of the canon”. Yeah I know how we like to take credit for what God did.

It is not a question of “taking credit” for what God did, so you’ve missed the point of history. Its a question of respecting HOW GOD CHOSE to reveal Scripture to his Church. Again, it is historical fact, not speculation, that the canon required to be revealed and it was done throught the CC.

I KNOW the so called development of the canon and I know that Peter did not need anyone to call some of Paul’s letters scripture.

First off, you are making some huge leaps: you have no idea whether Peter consulted with other Apostles in making that statement - no idea whatsoever.
Secondly, Catholics view Peter as the head of the Apostles (analogous to the position our Pope holds) and had the charism of infallibility in issuing such decisions, and so we would not disagree with you here.
Lastly, Peter never bothered to identify those letters, so we have no idea if any of the letters we have are the actual letters he is speaking of. In fact, apart from the authority of the Church we dont even know that Paul actually wrote anything! Painful but true…think about it.

 

[Philthy]

I have only responded to questions. I have already said that I am only interested in what unites to the extent we are following biblicial truth. I do want everyone to follow the Bible and be united but it does not seem likely at all.

Have you ever considered that it is not God’s Will to unite everyone through private interpretation of the Bible?

Do not ignore the easily accesible, undeniable history of what has happened to Christian unity since this notion of “sola scriptura” uniting Christians was born.

 

[Philthy]

Still, what do you say is meant by the term which was brought up by someone else: selling out to the Orthodox? I don;t understand what is meant by this phrase which was brought up by someone else.

Here’s the quote:

redsoxfan:

This is assuming that The Catholic Church doesn’t sell out, which it never would.

IMHO I think this person was trying to say that they hoped any unity didnt involve compromising Truth (from Catholic perspective) which is actually impossible (again from a Catholic perspective) because the Magisterium is protected against such compromises when acting in union with the Pope. I think the person started the sentence not realizing that it contradicted their own Catholic Faith, and , rather than deleting it, they tried to correct it with the caveat “which it never would”.
But then again, I overanalyze everything, and you probably simply wanted to know what concrete items they were referencing, like communion in hand, female altar servers, etc.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Very simple - who’s your authority - *really ? *

God. Who speaks through the Bible.

Interesting - sounds like you you were basically “leaning on your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5) Thats perfectly…natural.

I am sure I am like others, I prayed of course but what person does not use their own discernment?

So basically you decided for yourself based on limited information.
Do you think my information was any less than an average person who decides to become Catholic?
But yes my information was limited. Did you have more information than I did when you decided to be Catholic?

But I understand that when you separate yourself from the Church and history that there really isnt anything left for you to appeal to other than yourself.

The Church? I was never a member of YOUR church? History? I said I read history. You really wish I was still an atheist? Fascinating, and disturbing now that I am a Christian

That’s OK, I just, well , I dont have as much confidence in you as you do. I mean when you come right down to it neither one of us has the slightest clue whether the Bible is the collection of writings from the early Church.

I really do think I have a clue. I have not read anyone who contends that Bible does not come from the early church. I suppose there are some who argue for dates in the 80s and 90s but that is still early to me.

We either have to trust others to have preserved those writings or we have to have received direct revelation from God.

I trust that God will preserve his word and has chosen to reveal himself to man. Yes.

But to say that you proof is based on the notion that nothing else you have read could be the words of Christ is pretty weak.

There are some scholars who think some of the sayings in Thomas or parts of the Egerton gospel could be but having investigated them, I do not think so. Besides, logically, I do not think that God would hide his word from people. One of the reasons I do not agree with the use of the minority text, not to mention their disagreements with one another.

Not only havent you read all of the literature in the world claiming to be divine,

I have done a fairly good job but not all no of course not.
So far this exact argument is EXACTLY the reasoning when I tried to tear down the faith of Christians when I was an atheist. I smell a rat…and it stinks because I will never go back to that lifestyle and if you think you have the answers you are wrong. God will bring you joy and peace and atheism will only lead you down a dark depressing path.
I trust that you are here for a reason. God brought you here and posing as a Catholic, while smart, I give you credit for that,
The Lord be with you. I am and will remain a Christian!

 

[Joab_Anias]

In short, who knows what kind of doctrine the Church may later understand? According to you the truth is constantly being understood in new and creative ways. My friend, this is theological modernism or its brother. It’s not any concept of Holy Tradition I’ve ever learned in traditional Catholicism, Orthodoxy or my readings in the early Church. According to your belief, the heretics of the past were not condemned for not holding to the Faith, but would have been condemned because the Holy Spirit didn’t happen to support their new understanding, even while he might support someone else’s innovation. That’s absurd.

Thats not my understanding at all. My understanding is found in the irreversable Dogma of the Church.

That is not to say that if the Church who has the power to bind and loose cannot come to expound on these irreversable truths.

No modernism about it. Only progression along the Promise of the Lord that the Pillar and Foundation of all Truth 1Tim 3:15 will be lead into all truth. John 14:26

In order to understand this one must begin to earnestly pray to the Holy Spirit for an increase in wisdom and to Jesus for an increase in Mercy.

Peace.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Why is it bigotry to note that at one point in time, Prtoestants were not allowed to take Holy Communion in the RCC. Whereas now, under certain conditions, it has been allowed.

Because bigotry is obstinately adhering, through ignorance, to a social, political, or religious belief, opinion, or practice while being intolerant of the contrary views or actions of others. And it is contrary to Christs Divine Mercy.

If we look to the miracle of feeding the masses with bread found in scripture we will see that Jesus pre-empted the Eucharist. He sent the 12 to feed the people. They continued to do so regardless of the sin of those they fed because they came to Him and them.

Jesus then went on to teach us that His body is life giving. To come to His life giving body and a belief in it is to come to Jesus who in His Divine Mercy refuses no one who comes.

It is true that He who recieves Him unworthily draws judgement upon himself however Jesus never refuses His coming. Though He may set him straight afterward. This is the purpose of catechesis. It is not possible to know a persons intent in coming to the Eucharist unless one knows the person or something about them. If they sincerely want to be a part of the body of Christ then they will become known.

Lastly, I know of no conditions that a protestant may recieve the Eucharist legally. They must enter the RCIA catechetical process and come in at Easter. Perhaps you speak of a death bed conversion or other grave circumstance that the RCIA is not possible and there is a desire to repent and convert.

Peace.

P.S. Remember that our ignorance is directly related to our sin and concupiscent natures. Its a result of original sin as well.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Lastly, I know of no conditions that a protestant may recieve the Eucharist legally. They must enter the RCIA catechetical process and come in at Easter. Perhaps you speak of a death bed conversion or other grave circumstance that the RCIA is not possible and there is a desire to repent and convert.

Canon 844
§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

“these same sacraments” refers to “penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick”, as referenced in §2 of the same Canon.

Many years,

Neil

 

[bobzills]

Lastly, I know of no conditions that a protestant may recieve the Eucharist legally. .

Please see:
catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp
"The circumstances in which Protestants are permitted to receive Communion are more limited, though it is still possible for them to do so under certain specifically defined circumstances.

Canon law explains the parameters: “If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed” (CIC 844 § 4).

It is important to remember that, under the rubrics specified above, even in those rare circumstances when non-Catholics are able to receive Communion, the same requirements apply to them as to Catholics. "

 

[Joab_Anias]

Canon 844
§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

“these same sacraments” refers to “penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick”, as referenced in §2 of the same Canon.

Many years,

Neil

Just what I thought. The Mercy of the Lord. Thanks for that Canon.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Please see:
catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp
"The circumstances in which Protestants are permitted to receive Communion are more limited, though it is still possible for them to do so under certain specifically defined circumstances.

Canon law explains the parameters: “If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed” (CIC 844 § 4).

It is important to remember that, under the rubrics specified above, even in those rare circumstances when non-Catholics are able to receive Communion, the same requirements apply to them as to Catholics. "

Yes and in that instance they are Catholic. I would hope they would also request to be baptized if not already.

 

[kaygee]

Not to get too personal, but
could we ask why you converted?

Quite simply, in a nutshell, it was the recognition of the primacy of the Chair of Peter and the unity of the Faith. My story is a lot longer than that – emotional highs and lows – much research and prayer – complete rejection by many, many, dear friends – but, quite frankly, at this point in my life, I have very little time right now to spend on the web to share the details. Sundays and the Great Feasts are spent at my small Eastern parish (where, other than the commemoration of the Holy Father in the Liturgy, is otherwise indistinguishable from the Orthodox church I left), weekdays I often attend Mass at a nearby Western parish. Inhale deeply I love breathing with both lungs.

 

[bobzills]

Quite simply, in a nutshell, it was the recognition of the primacy of the Chair of Peter and the unity of the Faith. My story is a lot longer than that – emotional highs and lows – much research and prayer – complete rejection by many, many, dear friends – but, quite frankly, at this point in my life, I have very little time right now to spend on the web to share the details. Sundays and the Great Feasts are spent at my small Eastern parish (where, other than the commemoration of the Holy Father in the Liturgy, is otherwise indistinguishable from the Orthodox church I left), weekdays I often attend Mass at a nearby Western parish. Inhale deeply I love breathing with both lungs.

Thank you. Your reflections could be helpful to many people here.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Jesus then went on to teach us that His body is life giving. To come to His life giving body and a belief in it is to come to Jesus who in His Divine Mercy refuses no one who comes.

It is true that He who receives Him unworthily draws judgment upon himself however Jesus never refuses His coming. Though He may set him straight afterward. This is the purpose of catechesis. It is not possible to know a persons intent in coming to the Eucharist unless one knows the person or something about them. If they sincerely want to be a part of the body of Christ then they will become known.

I’m not sure that I understand you, brother Joab. Several Catholic Bishops in the United States have said that they would refuse to commune pro-abortion politicians. And the Vatican commands priests to refuse Holy Communion to non-Catholics or even Catholics who are public heretics (except in the well-defined cases of Orthodox Christians and some Protestants). The Roman Catholic Church clearly agrees with refusing Holy Communion in certain cases. Orthodoxy is even stricter on who can commune, but I have no doubt that Rome supports and admires the strictness of the East and will seek to tighten up her own standards in the coming years.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Joab_Anias]

I’m not sure that I understand you, brother Joab. Several Catholic Bishops in the United States have said that they would refuse to commune pro-abortion politicians. And the Vatican commands priests to refuse Holy Communion to non-Catholics or even Catholics who are public heretics (except in the well-defined cases of Orthodox Christians and some Protestants). The Roman Catholic Church clearly agrees with refusing Holy Communion in certain cases. Orthodoxy is even stricter on who can commune, but I have no doubt that Rome supports and admires the strictness of the East and will seek to tighten up her own standards in the coming years.

This is all well and Good brother. Lets be clear though what constitutes protest or disunity can be overcome by the Holy Spirit in an instant as set aside for in the case of death bed conversion. To call upon Jesus and the Church in those last moments must be indicative of that conversion.

I feel somewhat baited by your claims to not understand because I find you very intelligent but never the less will do my best to answer charitably.

In the case of public heresy it’s a duty to:

• 1Ti 5:20 The ones sinning before all, rebuke, that the rest also may have fear.
• 1Ti 5:24 Some men’s sins are manifest, going before to judgment: and some men they follow after.

The ones following after form their conscience in a like manner yet their sins my not be manifest. The ones in the public spotlight are undeniable and indicative of a greater underlying problem of conforming to the world rather than to the will of God.

• 1Ti 5:25 In like manner also good deeds are manifest: and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.

We mustn’t rebuke the good. Knowingly following a contrary conscience or openly preaching a heresy is not good. It makes the person culpable and worthy of rebuke if they persist or propogate their deciet. Some however claim a right to follow a malformed conscience yet the moral foundation of the Church remains constant. If they are sincere in following Jesus this will weigh on them. If not they usually cease to practice anyway.

This is why I think it’s a mistake and not orthodox for the EO to refuse communion to God fearing Catholics who by no fault of their own are doing their best to follow Gods will. I feel that is stubborn and here’s why:

• 2Co 8:14 In this present time let your abundance supply their want, that their abundance also may supply your want: that there may be an equality

If this policy of anathema toward Rome by the EO was efficacious in the Mercy of the Lord towards the people of the Earth then wouldn’t you want to build up your brothers in the Lord rather than shut them out?

• 1Co 10:23 All things are lawful to me, but not all things profit. All things are lawful to me, but not all things build up.

I often get the sense that many are intent on only tearing down.

• 1Co 14:12 So also you, since you are zealots of spiritual things, seek to build up the assembly that you may abound.

We must point out here which Church abounds.

• 1Th 5:11 Therefore, encourage one another, and build up one another…

What Rome offers is only to build up in what it has carefully discerned and deliberated as Gods will through the power of the Holy Spirit to lead into all truth.

• Col 2:8 Watch that there not be one robbing you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ.

We do not reject you because you hold fast to your traditions. It feels like it’s the EO who rejects us because we do not adopt your traditions. It would seem the tides have turned and now by you refusing unity you’re doing what you claim we did to the east in the time of the schism. I wish I had an answer that would promote healing instead of division. I think Jesus does have that answer in His examples of Mercy and justice.

I see the act of perpetuating discord as a philosophy robbing us of what each other has to offer. Eastern Catholics understand this as such and are in union yet retain their culture. There are even separate cultures within the western church herself in the form of devotions and heritage and cultural traditions yet we come together in one Lord.

• Mar 7:9 And He said to them, Well do you to set aside the commandment of God (mercy) so that you may keep your tradition?

Is the EO somehow doing this by not universally accepting what is efficacious for the faithful in their own culture in favor of holding fast to its traditions?

Wouldn’t it be better to:

• Mat 5:16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

Peace.

 

[ForeverAdam]

This is why I think it’s a mistake and not orthodox for the EO to refuse communion to God fearing Catholics who by no fault of their own are doing their best to follow Gods will.

In other words, you’re saying that it is a mistake and not orthodox for our Church to refuse Holy Communion to those who are not practicing members of the Church. Do you realize that you’ve just condemned nearly two millennia of Christian practice? Your Church innovated the Tradition by letting those who aren’t faithful members of the Church (even if in pious ignorance) to receive Holy Communion. If you condemn us for not following your innovation, you condemn the whole ancient Church in the process. If you are content in doing this, how can you honestly say that the early Church is the Roman Catholic Church?

If this policy of anathema toward Rome by the EO was efficacious in the Mercy of the Lord towards the people of the Earth then wouldn’t you want to build up your brothers in the Lord rather than shut them out?

Those who aren’t Orthodox aren’t fully our brothers. We respect the non-Orthodox, who call upon the name of Christ and see them as our brothers in a sense, but full unity of Faith is lacking and this precludes us from allowing non-Orthodox to commune in our Church.

What Rome offers is only to build up in what it has carefully discerned and deliberated as Gods will through the power of the Holy Spirit to lead into all truth.

Current truth cannot contradict past truth. It was once the belief of your Church that those not visible members of your Church were ineligible for receive Holy Communion. This is no longer true in your Church. The Holy Spirit leads us to preserve the truth, not to replace it with other beliefs. Which spirit is leading your Church?

We do not reject you because you hold fast to your traditions. It feels like it’s the EO who rejects us because we do not adopt your traditions. It would seem the tides have turned and now by you refusing unity you’re doing what you claim we did to the east in the time of the schism. I wish I had an answer that would promote healing instead of division. I think Jesus does have that answer in His examples of Mercy and justice.

The problem is not that you won’t adopt our traditions, but that you rejected them. We didn’t invent our discipline on Holy Communion. Christ did and it has always been maintained in Holy Orthodoxy. What gives your Church the right to change this immemorial part of the Holy Tradition? You are fond of quoting Holy Scripture. However, divorced from the traditional interpretation of the Church, all your quotes are no better than those of Protestants, who likewise divorce Scripture from its traditional interpretation. Besides, if Orthodoxy came into union with Papal Rome, we would be conceding the principle that Tradition can change whenever the Popes want it too. This would be an act of surrender to innovation, which would remove any safeguard against this happening in our own Churches. It would be the end of the patristic understanding of Holy Tradition in the Orthodox Church. Apparently, you want this of us. This reveals how far your Church is from the ancient and true Church of Christ.

I see the act of perpetuating discord, as a philosophy robbing us of what each other has to offer. Eastern Catholics understand this as such and are in union yet retain their culture. There are even separate cultures within the western church herself in the form of devotions and heritage and cultural traditions yet we come together in one Lord.

Your Church’s innovations are perpetuating discord. We wouldn’t be having this discussion 50 years ago. Whose fault is the discord, again?

Is the EO somehow doing this by not universally accepting what is efficacious for the faithful in their own culture in favor of holding fast to its traditions?

God’s will as revealed in the Holy Tradition of the Church is what is efficacious for the faithful. Arbitrary innovations only lead to ruin, for they aren’t based on immutable truth.

God bless,

Adam

 

[swariffin]

Why does every Catholic ask this question around here? If this supposed to be like the super stumper or something? .

Because you, yourself said that your opinions are supported in the Bible. That’s what we want to know from you. In fact,s if we continue in this thread, I agree that it will be off-topic. Why don’t you start a new thread confirming your ideas and we will talk about them.

 

[swariffin]

BTW dear RD,

I do happy that you converted from an atheist into a christian, regardless of what denomination you presently are. It is understandable to me that you criticize the CC for to our big T. If you could start a new thread as I invited you in previous posting (for the sake of not becoming off-topic), I would like to know your position of christianity in which we are in an agreement such as the Trinity, perhaps?.