Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JD27076
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vico said:
  1. Second Prayer of Absolution: May our Lord and God Jesus Christ, through the grace and bounties of His love towards mankind, forgive thee, my child, N., all thy transgressions. And I, His unworthy priest, through the power given unto me by Him, do forgive and absolve thee from all thy sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0834/_PO.HTM

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Absolution
Click to expand...
I believe if you read my post you will see that I mentioned the Latinized version of the prayer of absolution used in the Byzantine Slav tradition. Nevertheless, the Byzantine Greek version, which is more ancient, is not worded in the same way as the Slavic prayer.
 
Vico said:
Given in 1912 by Orthodox Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny:
As to the doctrine concerning Holy Communion the Anglican Communion has no settled view. The Orthodox Church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation without going into any scientific or Roman Catholic explanation. The technical word which She uses for the sublime act of the priest by Christ’s authority to consecrate is “transmuting” (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom). She, as I have said, offers no explanation, but She believes and confesses that Christ, the Son of the living God Who came into the world to save sinners, is of a truth in His “all-pure Body” and “precious Blood” (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom) objectively present, and to be worshiped in that Sacrament as He was on earth and is now in risen and glorified majesty in Heaven; and that “the precious and holy and life-giving Body and Blood of Our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ are imparted” (to each soul that comes to that blessed Sacrament) “Unto the remission of sins, and unto life everlasting” (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom).
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hawaweeny.aspx
​
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting Bishop Raphael’s comments, and his open rejection of the Scholastic theory of transubstantiation. I of course believe that the Eucharistic elements are the true body and blood of Christ, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not subscribe to the Scholastic theory of transubstantiation.​
 
Apotheoun said:
I believe if you read my post you will see that I mentioned the Latinized version of the prayer of absolution used in the Byzantine Slav tradition. Nevertheless, the Byzantine Greek version, which is more ancient, is not worded in the same way as the Slavic prayer.
Click to expand...
Ah, so this is the form from Peter Moghila. On another forum I found the Antiochian form:
My spiritual child N., who hast confessed to my humble self, I, humble and a sinner, have not power on earth to forgive sins, but God alone. Yet through that divinely spoken word which came to the Apostles after the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, saying, “Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained,” we too are emboldened to say: Whatsoever thou hast said to my most humble self, and whatsoever thou hast not succeeded in saying, either through ignorance or forgetfulness, whatever it may be, God forgive thee in this present life and that which is to come.

God it was Who forgave David through Nathan the Prophet when he confessed his sins, and Peter weeping bitterly for his denial, and the sinful woman in tears at His feet, and the Publican, and the Prodigal Son, may that same God forgive things, through me, a sinner, both in this present world and that which is to come, and set thee uncondemned before His dread seat.

And now, having no further care for the sins which thou hast declared, depart in peace.
 
Art321 said:
Thank you for presenting this position. It may seem that I appear to a bit hostile. My apologies as I never want to make anyone feel uncomfortable.

Honestly, I don’t know about this. The Catholic Church places much emphasis by saying St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. If Peter never was, then the doctrine of the Papacy falls apart really.
Click to expand...
If Peter never was the Bishop of Rome, it was hard to understand how in hell the other Popes appeared!!!
 
Apotheoun said:
I have a collection of texts from Catholic theologians going back to the 19th century who affirm that Mary, because of her divine motherhood and immaculate conception, possessed moral impeccability, but not metaphysical impeccability, and they hold this to be the common teaching of the Western Church at least since the time of the Scholastics.
Click to expand...
The first source you produced distinguishes her sinlessness from Christ’s. It acknowledges that there is a fuller sense in which He cannot sin (because of His divinity) which does not apply to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

As your sources put it: it’s “perseverance in grace” (Theotokos) vs. “absolutely necessary” (Christ).

As your second source puts it, it would be "too little to assert that during her life-time she was incapable of sinning as the angels and saints of Heaven are now."

Fr. Pohle identifies the sources of her sinlessness as “the gift of perfect perseverance as against mortal sin, and that of confirmation in grace as against venial sin,” and her “freedom from concupiscence.”

That does not mean she somehow had no free will. That alone was me and twf’s point. She is a model for us, not an inhuman automaton whose situation is so utterly incomparable to ours as to be irrelevant as an example.

We’re talking past each other, in other words. We don’t disagree with your quotes, but proceeding from their precision to a blanket statement like, “The Theotokos couldn’t sin” is, if offered without further clarification, inappropriate and may give a false impression.

But you just offered further clarification. Thank you.
 
Apotheoun said:
Although Eastern Christians do not believe that the words of institution consecrate the bread and wine of the Eucharist into the body and blood of Christ in the way that the Western Scholastics taught, that is ultimately beside the point, because the priest or bishop in the Eastern tradition does not speak those words in place of Christ who is held to be absent (i.e., as His vicar), but as His icon signifying His ever abiding presence in the liturgical synaxis.

Finally, as far as the formula of absolution is concerned, the East does not use the same formula as the Roman Church, and so once again the priest or bishop is not acting as a vicar - i.e., as one standing in for Christ who is in fact absent - but instead acts as a witness to the penitents confession, which is made in the presence of Christ’s icon. The words used in the Byzantine Greek tradition make it very clear that Christ, and not His earthly minister, is the one who forgives the penitent. The Byzantine Slav tradition emphasizes this notion as well, but does add a latinized absolution formula that in some ways mimics the form used in the Roman Church.
Click to expand...
I can see your point, but I still feel that we are talking past each other to a degree… are you really suggesting that Latin Catholics believe, contrary to Eastern belief, that Christ is absent from the Church? Doesn’t our own liturgy prove otherwise? If we are fully conscious of the fact that Christ is present, then I do not see how the Latin Church can understand the use of the title vicar in the sense that you are suggesting. The etymology of the word is only relevant to a point - the Church often adopts profane words and gives them a more subtle meaning when incorporated into her theological language. Christ is “absent” in the sense that He is no longer visible - and if you disagree that Christ is absent in any sense, then I do not see how the Ascension can play a role in Eastern theology. Christ does indeed affirm that He will always be with His Church, but He also tells the apostles that He must leave so that the Spirit may come…clearly in some sense He is not present as he was 2000 years ago - even if present in other ways (I.e. the eucharist). The bishop shares in the priesthood of Christ so that he may carry out those functions that Christ does not physically carry out on this earth and is a vicar in that sense - even if He is never apart from Christ (and can’t be for every sacred action of the Church is an action of Christ). Latin theology does not teach that the bishop/priest’s words “I absolve you” or “This is my body” is something done for an absent master - on the contrary, the priest, by virtue of his ordination (and most especially the bishop) shares in the very priesthood of Christ in such a way that Christ Himself speaks through, in, and with the priest. It is Christ Himself who consecrates the gifts on the altar. It is not simply the bishop acting for Christ - he is acting in Christ. The use of the word vicar can’t be reduced to its original profane meaning. If that is your argument…then baptism can’t be anything more than a washing…
The Orthodox employ the title priest - does that imply that a Christian priest is the equivalent of pagan priests of ancient Greece? The functions are the same? Of course not. The Church gives her own much more profound and nuanced definitions to the human terms she adopts to express the sacred mysteries.
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
The first source you produced distinguishes her sinlessness from Christ’s. It acknowledges that there is a fuller sense in which He cannot sin (because of His divinity) which does not apply to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

As your sources put it: it’s “perseverance in grace” (Theotokos) vs. “absolutely necessary” (Christ).

As your second source puts it, it would be "too little to assert that during her life-time she was incapable of sinning as the angels and saints of Heaven are now."

Fr. Pohle identifies the sources of her sinlessness as “the gift of perfect perseverance as against mortal sin, and that of confirmation in grace as against venial sin,” and her “freedom from concupiscence.”

That does not mean she somehow had no free will. That alone was me and twf’s point. She is a model for us, not an inhuman automaton whose situation is so utterly incomparable to ours as to be irrelevant as an example.

We’re talking past each other, in other words. We don’t disagree with your quotes, but proceeding from their precision to a blanket statement like, “The Theotokos couldn’t sin” is, if offered without further clarification, inappropriate and may give a false impression.

But you just offered further clarification. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Theology is very nuanced…I think this distinction is very important. She was not unable to sin by nature, as is the case with the Lord, but rather by sanctification. So intimate was the union between the divine and the Mother of God that she possessed all the graces necessary to overcome all sin - and so great was her love for God that the idea that she would sin is laughable… but that is not to say that she was deprived of freewill. Could she have sinned by nature? Yes. Would she have sinned by grace? No.
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
If Peter never was the Bishop of Rome, it was hard to understand how in hell the other Popes appeared!!!
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t know how many popes have appeared in hell - Alexander VI is perhaps the most probable candidate.

As the Chief of the Apostles, St Peter consecrated the first bishop at Antioch and at Rome and wherever he travelled. So the Pope of Rome is descended from St Peter who consecrated the first Primate of the See of Rome. That shouldn’t be hard to understand at all.

Also, where has the contemporary Roman Catholic Church said, officially, that St Peter was the first Bishop of Rome - or of any place?

Alex
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
The first source you produced distinguishes her sinlessness from Christ’s. It acknowledges that there is a fuller sense in which He cannot sin (because of His divinity) which does not apply to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

As your sources put it: it’s “perseverance in grace” (Theotokos) vs. “absolutely necessary” (Christ).

As your second source puts it, it would be "too little to assert that during her life-time she was incapable of sinning as the angels and saints of Heaven are now."

Fr. Pohle identifies the sources of her sinlessness as “the gift of perfect perseverance as against mortal sin, and that of confirmation in grace as against venial sin,” and her “freedom from concupiscence.”

That does not mean she somehow had no free will. That alone was me and twf’s point. She is a model for us, not an inhuman automaton whose situation is so utterly incomparable to ours as to be irrelevant as an example.

We’re talking past each other, in other words. We don’t disagree with your quotes, but proceeding from their precision to a blanket statement like, “The Theotokos couldn’t sin” is, if offered without further clarification, inappropriate and may give a false impression.

But you just offered further clarification. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard Latin Catholics (in high school and university) make the claim that our Lady “could have sinned, but didn’t” since she had free will.

To equate “free will” with a possibility of sinning is a modern corruption of what “free will” is all about. Mary was free to choose God, Christ and holiness which she did all the time because of the Grace she was bestowed with as the true Temple of the Holy Trinity.

The idea that she “could have sinned if she wanted to” is not a necessary condition to prove that she had free will.

Alex
 
twf said:
Exactly. Theology is very nuanced…I think this distinction is very important. She was not unable to sin by nature, as is the case with the Lord, but rather by sanctification. So intimate was the union between the divine and the Mother of God that she possessed all the graces necessary to overcome all sin - and so great was her love for God that the idea that she would sin is laughable… but that is not to say that she was deprived of freewill. Could she have sinned by nature? Yes. Would she have sinned by grace? No.
Click to expand...
The distinction is a false one since it presupposes the capability to sin as a condition for having free will.

This is ultimately a Protestant view that some Latin Catholics have bought into over time.

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
Well, I don’t know how many popes have appeared in hell - Alexander VI is perhaps the most probable candidate.

As the Chief of the Apostles, St Peter consecrated the first bishop at Antioch and at Rome and wherever he travelled. So the Pope of Rome is descended from St Peter who consecrated the first Primate of the See of Rome. That shouldn’t be hard to understand at all.

Also, where has the contemporary Roman Catholic Church said, officially, that St Peter was the first Bishop of Rome - or of any place?

Alex
Click to expand...
That matter is semantics anyway. Everyone acknowledges that the Apostles’ ministry inherently included a great deal of mobility, and that Saint Peter wasn’t “bishop” of anything in the sense that a bishop’s ministry is limited to his city/church.

But we don’t need to nitpick at those who call Saint Peter “the first bishop of Rome,” since those who do so aren’t intending to claim that he was “bishop of Rome” in that proper sense anyway.
Alexander_Roman said:
I’ve heard Latin Catholics (in high school and university) make the claim that our Lady “could have sinned, but didn’t” since she had free will.

To equate “free will” with a possibility of sinning is a modern corruption of what “free will” is all about. Mary was free to choose God, Christ and holiness which she did all the time because of the Grace she was bestowed with as the true Temple of the Holy Trinity.

The idea that she “could have sinned if she wanted to” is not a necessary condition to prove that she had free will.

Alex
Click to expand...
Alexander_Roman said:
The distinction is a false one since it presupposes the capability to sin as a condition for having free will.

This is ultimately a Protestant view that some Latin Catholics have bought into over time.

Alex
Click to expand...
Yes, “freedom to commit sin” is ultimately antithetical to everything free will most truly is.

Again, that’s beside our point. We vehemently object to the caricature of Latin theology which belittles the possibility of our Lady being a great model for us. No one has said this on this thread, but have you ever heard some eastern Christians object to Catholic teaching on the Blessed Virgin Mary with the quip, “She’s the great example, not the great exception”?

All I’m trying to say is that her sinlessness does not make her an “exception,” an automaton, or a creature intrinsically unlike you and I. That’s all.
 
Then I agree with you!

As for the Bishop of Rome and St Peter thing - don’t let word get around, but there are some who really get angry about the idea that St Peter may not have been the “bishop of Rome.”

I’m content to not go after those who do say that.

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
Then I agree with you!

As for the Bishop of Rome and St Peter thing - don’t let word get around, but there are some who really get angry about the idea that St Peter may not have been the “bishop of Rome.”

I’m content to not go after those who do say that.

Alex
Click to expand...
Alex, if I may, I would like to answer the claim you made here from the other thread that is on the Non-Catholic Religion Forum.

In that thread, you said:
Alexander_Roman said:
The point of the argument against St Peter actually being the first Bishop of Rome is that he was an Apostle with all the powers of a bishop but who: 1) established the Church at Rome (the fact that others preached Christianity there prior to him or that St Paul also ordained clergy does not take away from that); 2) Consecrated the first Primate of the Church of Rome in addition to others who became successors of that first Primate; 3) was not himself the bishop of the place since, as an Apostle, that was not his role and; 4) also established Churches and consecrated their primates and bishops in many other places.

There can be NO doubt that the Pope of Rome is St Peter’s successor as the successor of the Apostle himself. Whether or not Peter was the Bishop of Rome has NO bearing on that. The fact that Peter was the founder and consecrator of the Bishops of Rome is what is important.
Click to expand...
And I do agree. I suppose that it is not right to claim that St. Peter was the first bishop in the strictest sense since as you say, the Apostle Peter was moving from place to place spreading the Word of God.

But nevertheless, Peter was the one who founded the Church of Rome and in this sense, I suppose the Church views him as a bishop and more importantly as the first Pope. And thus his Successors get the role what was given to Peter by Christ as the visible Shepherd of the whole Church.
 
Art321 said:
Alex, if I may, I would like to answer the claim you made here from the other thread that is on the Non-Catholic Religion Forum.

In that thread, you said:

And I do agree. I suppose that it is not right to claim that St. Peter was the first bishop in the strictest sense since as you say, the Apostle Peter was moving from place to place spreading the Word of God.

But nevertheless, Peter was the one who founded the Church of Rome and in this sense, I suppose the Church views him as a bishop and more importantly as the first Pope. And thus his Successors get the role what was given to Peter by Christ as the visible Shepherd of the whole Church.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in what you say, sir, that I do not agree with 100%! BTW, I attended an Anglican Use Mass on Sunday where about a dozen Anglicans came into full communion with Rome and more are on the way (so get ready! 😉 ).

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
I keep promising myself to leave this forum - but how can I really with wonderful people like you and Art? 🙂

Alex
Click to expand...
I like your posts. You manage to make such good, level-headed contributions in an environment which at times can become not-so-level-headed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top