Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The real proof, as I explained to her, is in the respective life of each church, as borne out in their practice of the faith, their respective theological, ecclesiological, and other stances, all of which are verifiable independent of any one individuals’ experience in the church, as they are found in the writings of their Patriarchs, saints, priests, etc.

That makes sense, but it’s also pretty vague. Whenever anyone making this claim gets specific, however, suddenly they make a whole lot less sense. For instance: your fasting example. Guess what? The way you said Roman Catholics are is not my experience. My honest impression of this “our faiths are ontologically different” claim is that what it distinguishes between is not the lived experience of Orthodox Christianity and the lived experience of Catholic Christianity, but rather the lived experience of Orthodox Christianity and legalistic stereotypes of bare-minimum Catholicism.

That, presumably, was his point: that your experience and Mardukm’s are just that, your experiences and no more.

Yeah, that was what I was trying to say.

From what others have posted here on the forms, the Church of Rome was different in its theology, litergies, etc and yet it had full communion with the Orthodox churches.

Exactly.

 

[CopticChristian]

**That makes sense, but it’s also pretty vague. **Whenever anyone making this claim gets specific, however, suddenly they make a whole lot less sense. For instance: your fasting example. Guess what? The way you said Roman Catholics are is not my experience. My honest impression of this “our faiths are ontologically different” claim is that what it distinguishes between is not the lived experience of Orthodox Christianity and the lived experience of Catholic Christianity, but rather the lived experience of Orthodox Christianity and legalistic stereotypes of bare-minimum Catholicism.

Yeah, that was what I was trying to say.

Exactly.

Bone,

I agree that there is vagueness and in my opinion that is the mystery of Orhtodoxy. I also believe that this is the beauty of Orthodoxy. I believe that the West has a desire to define and explain with exactitude beliefs however I don’t mind vagueness or exactness. I wish that more Roman Catholics had the staunchness and firmness I see in the East. I just see similarity among the differences.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Bone,

I agree that there is vagueness and in my opinion that is the mystery of Orhtodoxy. I also believe that this is the beauty of Orthodoxy. I believe that the West has a desire to define and explain with exactitude beliefs however I don’t mind vagueness or exactness. I wish that more Roman Catholics had the staunchness and firmness I see in the East. I just see similarity among the differences.

I agree with you about similarity among the differences… but I wouldn’t call what eastern Christianity has “vagueness.” To me, vagueness is a bad thing. Rather, call it nuance, call it a sense of mystery, of paradox, even ambiguity… but I think “vagueness” is the wrong word. It’s not precision that Eastern theology and spirituality lacks but the explanatory exactitude you mentioned as so characteristic of western Christianity, whose extensive analogical terminology is not present in the east…

 

[dzheremi]

That makes sense, but it’s also pretty vague.

How so? You can actually see it quite clearly if you spend time in Orthodox churches and in Catholic churches, talking to Orthodox priests and Catholic priests, reading Orthodox sources and Catholic sources, etc. It is only vague if you treat one or the other form of life as being some sort of amorphous blob of Christianity. I don’t see anything vague in the Christianity of the Orthodox or of the Catholics. They’re not vague, they’re different.

Whenever anyone making this claim gets specific, however, suddenly they make a whole lot less sense. For instance: your fasting example. Guess what? The way you said Roman Catholics are is not my experience.

Good for you. Where do you attend that the Roman Catholics fast and do not substitute it by other acts in accordance with the allowances made in “Paenitemini” (Pope Paul VI’s apostolic constitution on fasting and abstinence, 1966)? I’m curious because while I know that fasting is both allowed and very much encouraged in the Roman church (and long may it be so!), the practice is really something else in many places (as to make strict fasting something extraordinary), and there are various alternatives available to you, not so much as a matter of economia in an individual situation, but as (and here I’m quoting the constitution) “extraordinary practices of penitence aimed at expiation and impetration”. Again, the difference is in what is normative for either communion. If we have this idea of “extraordinary practices of penitence” in the Coptic Church, they apparently don’t include the fasting, prostrations, and all the other things that people do. Those are ordinary. Therein lies a crucial distinction. But these are examples of externals for the sake of convenience anyway, as you detest so much the “vagueness” with which this might otherwise be explained.

My honest impression of this “our faiths are ontologically different” claim is that what it distinguishes between is not the lived experience of Orthodox Christianity and the lived experience of Catholic Christianity, but rather the lived experience of Orthodox Christianity and legalistic stereotypes of bare-minimum Catholicism.

Well, I can’t speak for others on that account, but I think it would be rude for me to call my time in the Roman Catholic Church an example of “bare minimum Catholicism”, or stereotypical. It included visits to monasteries, countless hours in confession and council, home visits, worship in at least three different languages within multiple cultural and ecclesiastical traditions, etc. And I am grateful to have been blessed by God to experience all of those things. I know that, sadly, that is not everyone’s experience of Catholicism (just as not everyone’s experience of Orthodoxy is the same; we’ve had enough one time visitors here to St. Pishoy COC to know that not everyone sees in it the true church). But that also has very little to do with why I now find myself not Catholic anymore. It is not the relative spiritual level or involvement that ultimately made the difference so stark to me, but rather the spirituality itself. That’s what all this mindset/being/ontology stuff is all about. The faith, the spirituality, the way of life…whatever you want to call it, it’s different. We are ontologically different not because we fast more than you do, but because of how it is that we each exist. To go back to the Russian joke, it’s not the pencil vs. the pen, it’s the path to the discovery.

 

[CopticChristian]

How so? You can actually see it quite clearly if you spend time in Orthodox churches and in Catholic churches, talking to Orthodox priests and Catholic priests, reading Orthodox sources and Catholic sources, etc. It is only vague if you treat one or the other form of life as being some sort of amorphous blob of Christianity. I don’t see anything vague in the Christianity of the Orthodox or of the Catholics. They’re not vague, they’re different.

Good for you. Where do you attend that the Roman Catholics fast and do not substitute it by other acts in accordance with the allowances made in “Paenitemini” (Pope Paul VI’s apostolic constitution on fasting and abstinence, 1966)? I’m curious because while I know that fasting is both allowed and very much encouraged in the Roman church (and long may it be so!), the practice is really something else in many places (as to make strict fasting something extraordinary), and there are various alternatives available to you, not so much as a matter of economia in an individual situation, but as (and here I’m quoting the constitution) “extraordinary practices of penitence aimed at expiation and impetration”. Again, the difference is in what is normative for either communion. If we have this idea of “extraordinary practices of penitence” in the Coptic Church, they apparently don’t include the fasting, prostrations, and all the other things that people do. Those are ordinary. Therein lies a crucial distinction. But these are examples of externals for the sake of convenience anyway, as you detest so much the “vagueness” with which this might otherwise be explained.

Well, I can’t speak for others on that account, but I think it would be rude for me to call my time in the Roman Catholic Church an example of “bare minimum Catholicism”, or stereotypical. It included visits to monasteries, countless hours in confession and council, home visits, worship in at least three different languages within multiple cultural and ecclesiastical traditions, etc. And I am grateful to have been blessed by God to experience all of those things. I know that, sadly, that is not everyone’s experience of Catholicism (just as not everyone’s experience of Orthodoxy is the same; we’ve had enough one time visitors here to St. Pishoy COC to know that not everyone sees in it the true church). But that also has very little to do with why I now find myself not Catholic anymore. It is not the relative spiritual level or involvement that ultimately made the difference so stark to me, but rather the spirituality itself. That’s what all this mindset/being/ontology stuff is all about. The faith, the spirituality, the way of life…whatever you want to call it, it’s different. We are ontologically different not because we fast more than you do, but because of how it is that we each exist. To go back to the Russian joke, it’s not the pencil vs. the pen, it’s the path to the discovery.

Dizzy,

I have to agree with you. There is no way to explain what you are talking about. I recall speaking to a Byzantine Priest about Spirituality and other such things. I mentioned something about Zen, Buddhism, and all sorts of other so called Eastern religions…I cannot recall the question I asked however the best I can recall was something like this…

With all these people looking elsewhere in the East does the Church in the East have much to find and the answer was one word…

much

He spoke no further words to me.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Hi Paul theApostle. Just to make sure we’re on the same page, you agree that that’s still allowing people to switch sides, right?

Having said that, I agree that #22 is very significant.

From memory of these statements of thought it was against people switching sides

i guess im wrong

From Cardinal Caspers words ,seems as though Catholics going over to Orthodoxy is ok??

or at least to be respected…but ive read alot of times on this forum people discouraging people who want to go from RC to EO calling it a grave act even and can jeopardise salvation breaking union with the Pope

 

[Vico]

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Cardinal Kasper:

OSV: “The Russian Orthodox does not accept that the Roman Catholic Church, the Latin rite Church can evangelize in Russia.”

Cardinal Kasper: "This problem is linked with the Russian Orthodox understanding of their canonical territory. The Catholic Church recognizes that Russia has a longstanding Christian tradition and culture. We recognize all the sacraments, the episcopate and the priesthood of the Russian Orthodox Church. Thus, while Catholic Christians living in Russia may clearly give witness of their Catholic faith, there cannot be an evangelization as such, as this can only be undertaken in a pagan context. Therefore, it is not our policy or strategy to convert the Orthodox to the Catholic Church. There may be some priests who do something imprudent – you can never exclude such a thing – but this is not the Catholic Church’s policy. We do not undertake missionary work in Russia as we do in the pagan regions of the world. We want to collaborate with the Russian Orthodox in missionary work and in evangelization, which is needed in modern Russia after more then 70 years of atheistic propaganda and education.

If one member of the Orthodox faithful, by reason of his or her conscience, wants to become Catholic, we cannot shut the door to that person. There are also Catholics who become Orthodox. This is a question of religious freedom, and we have to recognize and to respect it from both sides."

According to the canon law of the Catholic Church a Catholic who (will reflection and knowledge) leaves the Catholic Church to join the Orthodox Church is subject to major excommunication. This is because it is a dogma of faith that a Catholic Church has the fullness of faith in the common faith, sacraments, and government.

Cardinal Kaspar may seem to be speaking against the canons but they have not changed. Notice that he did not say, with regard to Catholics who become Orthodox, that the Catholic Church cannot excommunicate that person. See CCEO 1436, 1437, 1440.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P13W.HTM

 

[dzheremi]

Well that saves me a stamp, I guess.

 

[ConstantineTG]

According to the canon law of the Catholic Church a Catholic who (will reflection and knowledge) leaves the Catholic Church to join the Orthodox Church is subject to major excommunication. This is because it is a dogma of faith that a Catholic Church has the fullness of faith in the common faith, sacraments, and government.

Cardinal Kaspar may seem to be speaking against the canons but they have not changed. Notice that he did not say, with regard to Catholics who become Orthodox, that the Catholic Church cannot excommunicate that person. See CCEO 1436, 1437, 1440.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P13W.HTM

I’ve been given information from a reliable source that excommunication in this instance is not automatic. You have to stand before a tribunal first before you are excommunicated for becoming Orthodox. Not sure if the Church would pursue that unless there’s a very good reason.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’ve been given information from a reliable source that excommunication in this instance is not automatic. You have to stand before a tribunal first before you are excommunicated for becoming Orthodox. Not sure if the Church would pursue that unless there’s a very good reason.

It seems to me that if you’re willing to stand before a tribunal it means you’ve gone back to the Catholic Church, in which case excommunication is a bit late.

Of course that is looking at excommunication from the Catholic view of it being the ultimate punishment which cuts one off from the Church, as opposed to the Orthodox idea that it is a pretty normal punishment that has a set end, and which only denies a person communion under normal circumstances.

 

[Vico]

I’ve been given information from a reliable source that excommunication in this instance is not automatic. You have to stand before a tribunal first before you are excommunicated for becoming Orthodox. Not sure if the Church would pursue that unless there’s a very good reason.

There are two ways, one for Latin Catholics (given in CIC) and for eastern Catholics (given in CCEO). There is no automatic excommunication in CCEO, but there is in CIC. The Church does try to make it difficult for excommunication to occur.

Example: CIC Can. 1314 Generally, a penalty is ferendae sententiae, so that it does not bind the guilty party until after it has been imposed; if the law or precept expressly establishes it, however, a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed.

 

[Vico]

It seems to me that if you’re willing to stand before a tribunal it means you’ve gone back to the Catholic Church, in which case excommunication is a bit late.

Of course that is looking at excommunication from the Catholic view of it being the ultimate punishment which cuts one off from the Church, as opposed to the Orthodox idea that it is a pretty normal punishment that has a set end, and which only denies a person communion under normal circumstances.

The Catholic view is expressed in , ed. by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Paulist Press, 2000, p. 63New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law:

“Even those who have joined another religion, have become atheists or agnostics, or have been excommunicated remain Catholics. Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

It seems to me that if you’re willing to stand before a tribunal it means you’ve gone back to the Catholic Church, in which case excommunication is a bit late.

Of course that is looking at excommunication from the Catholic view of it being the ultimate punishment which cuts one off from the Church, as opposed to the Orthodox idea that it is a pretty normal punishment that has a set end, and which only denies a person communion under normal circumstances.

Not sure if you even need to actually stand in the tribunal. I’m thinking they would do this if the person who converts is influential enough to get people to move to the Orthodox Church. Say, a modern-day St. Alexis Toth.

 

[DadDave]

Excommunication for going to Orthodox? Huh?
If I were on a business trip to, say Russia, I could take communion at an Orthodox church (in theory). But if I come back to US and become Orthodox then it’s excommunication?
That makes no sense to me.

 

[Apotheoun]

Excommunication for going to Orthodox? Huh?
If I were on a business trip to, say Russia, I could take communion at an Orthodox church (in theory). But if I come back to US and become Orthodox then it’s excommunication?
That makes no sense to me.

I agree it does not make sense, but that is because legalism in matters of faith rarely makes sense.

Moreover, when a person converts to a new Church I doubt he cares one iota what his former Church says or does in his regard.

For example, when I became Catholic in 1988 I really did not care what my former Church (i.e., the Episcopal Church) thought about my conversion.

 

[Peter_J]

…but ive read alot of times on this forum people discouraging people who want to go from RC to EO

I would certainly expect so. Catholic are going to discourage other Catholics from swimming the Bosphorus, and similarly, Orthodox are going to discourage other Orthodox from swimming the Tiber.

 

[Peter_J]

Excommunication for going to Orthodox? Huh?
If I were on a business trip to, say Russia, I could take communion at an Orthodox church (in theory). But if I come back to US and become Orthodox then it’s excommunication?
That makes no sense to me.

I think you misunderstood. Receiving communion in an Orthodox church doesn’t make you Orthodox.

I don’t know what you mean by “Excommunication for going to Orthodox”.

 

[dzheremi]

I would certainly expect so. Catholic are going to discourage other Catholics from swimming the Bosphorus, and similarly, Orthodox are going to discourage other Orthodox from swimming the Tiber.

Awesome! The Nile gets a free pass!

Hahaha. Nobody remember we’re out here…

 

[Wisely]

Awesome! The Nile gets a free pass!

Hahaha. Nobody remember we’re out here…

The day the Catholics and the Orthodox reconcile it will be either the Bosphorus or the Nile

 

[Peter_J]

The day the Catholics and the Orthodox reconcile it will be either the Bosphorus or the Nile

Many of my Orthodox acquaintances speak as though the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox are the ones who going to unite, not the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics.