Is the Real Presence valid in EO services?

[e61iuser]

And if it is, does that mean then one of the unique things that prove Catholicism as true and of God falls down?

Because if it’s valid with them, what’s the point of staying with Catholicism? Just because the flock was entrusted to Peter? Was not the whole deposit of Faith entrusted to all the Apostles?

Answers would be appreciated.

 

[thistle]

And if it is, does that mean then one of the unique things that prove Catholicism as true and of God falls down?

Because if it’s valid with them, what’s the point of staying with Catholicism? Just because the flock was entrusted to Peter? Was not the whole deposit of Faith entrusted to all the Apostles?

Answers would be appreciated.

What is EO?

 

[RyanML]

What is EO?

Eastern Orthodox maybe? If so then yes, their Sacraments are valid.

 

[e61iuser]

EO = Eastern Orthodox.

If their Sacraments are valid then what’s the point of staying with Catholicism? The Real Presence is there and they have valid Apostolic Succession.

 

[Joan_M]

EO = Eastern Orthodox.

If their Sacraments are valid then what’s the point of staying with Catholicism? The Real Presence is there and they have valid Apostolic Succession.

So, you would leave the Catholic Church just because the Eastern Orthodox have 98% of what we have? Why on earth would anyone do that???

 

[e61iuser]

What’s the 2% that we have that they don’t then? Please clarify it for me.

 

[mercygate]

What’s the 2% that we have that they don’t then? Please clarify it for me.

As a Convert, for me, it came down to the point that Jesus singles out Peter as the Apostolic point-man. He gives all of the apostles the ability to “bind and loose” but only to Peter does he promise the keys of the kingdom of heaven and upon whom he promised to build HIS Church. For me the discernment was a negative one, given that all of the apostolic churches enjoy apostolic privilege, it was a matter of going straight to the center: Christ’s Church may be found across the Apostolic world but the Church he called “my church” is the Church where Peter holds jursidiction. For me, Christ’s own Church is the one that is “not WITHOUT Peter.”

And no: Antioch never was a candidate.

 

[VociMike]

EO = Eastern Orthodox.

If their Sacraments are valid then what’s the point of staying with Catholicism? The Real Presence is there and they have valid Apostolic Succession.

That depends on whether you think there’s any point to believing everything God has revealed to us, as opposed to just some things. God bless the EO, and we can learn many things from them as we attempt to repair the damage of the last decades, but they do not have the fullness of truth.

 

[Ghosty]

Only the Catholic Communion has a union of all the various Apostolic groups. The Eastern Orthodox have only Churches of the Constantinopolitan (Byzantine) tradition.

They have valid Sacraments, and the Catholic Church even allows us Catholics to receive from Orthodox in certain circumstances, if we’re permitted by the Orthodox themselves. They are separated from wider Apostolic community, however, and that’s reason enough to not join them, even apart from the Petrine Ministry; if there was no Papacy question, I would still be Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox because it is only in the Catholic Communion that all traditions are present and respected.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As a Convert, for me, it came down to the point that Jesus singles out Peter as the Apostolic point-man. He gives all of the apostles the ability to “bind and loose” but only to Peter does he promise the keys of the kingdom of heaven and upon whom he promised to build HIS Church. For me the discernment was a negative one, given that all of the apostolic churches enjoy apostolic privilege, it was a matter of going straight to the center: Christ’s Church may be found across the Apostolic world but the Church he called “my church” is the Church where Peter holds jursidiction. For me, Christ’s own Church is the one that is “not WITHOUT Peter.”

And no: Antioch never was a candidate.

Why not? The Vatican has three (down from four) “Peters” there.

It intregues me that many who chose the Vatican over the Orthodox cite this: the early Church evidently didn’t:

In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth”, etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven…

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349)…

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Only the Catholic Communion has a union of all the various Apostolic groups.

At best that is only true of 800 years: it may not be really true more than just over a century (the Coptic Patriarchate, for instance, existed only on paper until 1895).

The Eastern Orthodox have only Churches of the Constantinopolitan (Byzantine) tradition.

The Western Rite Orthodox have fluctuated over the last century and a half, there are few of the Assyrian churches who joined the Russian Church, and then there is the impending reunion with the Oriental Orthodox. Then what?

They have valid Sacraments, and the Catholic Church even allows us Catholics to receive from Orthodox in certain circumstances, if we’re permitted by the Orthodox themselves. They are separated from wider Apostolic community,

?

however, and that’s reason enough to not join them, even apart from the Petrine Ministry; if there was no Papacy question, I would still be Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox because it is only in the Catholic Communion that all traditions are present and respected.

As you constantly have to remind some your coreligionists posting here.

 

[Contarini]

And if it is, does that mean then one of the unique things that prove Catholicism as true and of God falls down?

Because if it’s valid with them, what’s the point of staying with Catholicism? Just because the flock was entrusted to Peter? Was not the whole deposit of Faith entrusted to all the Apostles?

Yes, to be preserved *in unity. *That’s the primary reason to be Catholic, from my perspective as someone who can’t quite persuade himself to make the leap.

I don’t understand posts of the type “why stay Catholic if Catholics don’t have such-and-such special privileges.” Shouldn’t you stay Catholic because you don’t want to tear the Body of Christ apart any further? Even supposing that Catholicism is no truer or better than any other church, that’s a reason to stay put, not leap about in search of a church that suits your inclinations.

Edwin

 

[jfoges]

And if it is, does that mean then one of the unique things that prove Catholicism as true and of God falls down?

Because if it’s valid with them, what’s the point of staying with Catholicism? Just because the flock was entrusted to Peter? Was not the whole deposit of Faith entrusted to all the Apostles?

Answers would be appreciated.

The sacraments are valid in the Eastern Orthodox church because they have the same intention when convecting the Eucharist and because they have valid Holy Orders.

It’s true the deposit of faith was entrusted to the apostles. But, Peter as first of the apostles is the final authority on matters of faith and morals.

 

[e61iuser]

Yes, to be preserved *in unity. *That’s the primary reason to be Catholic, from my perspective as someone who can’t quite persuade himself to make the leap.

I don’t understand posts of the type “why stay Catholic if Catholics don’t have such-and-such special privileges.” Shouldn’t you stay Catholic because you don’t want to tear the Body of Christ apart any further? Even supposing that Catholicism is no truer or better than any other church, that’s a reason to stay put, not leap about in search of a church that suits your inclinations.

Edwin

Good question Edwin. I guess it’s more of a search for ultimate Truth, which is Jesus Christ. If Jesus is as present in the Catholic Church as well as the Eastern Orthodox, what’s the point then? I don’t want to stay in a church just because of my personal inertia. I want it because I want Christ.

 

[Ghosty]

At best that is only true of 800 years: it may not be really true more than just over a century (the Coptic Patriarchate, for instance, existed only on paper until 1895).

We don’t live 800 years ago, though, so this is a moot point.

The Western Rite Orthodox have fluctuated over the last century and a half, there are few of the Assyrian churches who joined the Russian Church, and then there is the impending reunion with the Oriental Orthodox. Then what?

The Western Rite Orthodox are not a true Latin Orthodox Church, so they’re irrelevant at this point; the Assyrians who joined the Russian Church became Russian Orthodox and/or vanished, as they no longer exist as an identifiable group. As for reunion between the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox, I’ll believe it when I see it. As of now there is no “impending reunion”, only warming relations (same is true of the Catholic Communion and the Oriental Orthodox, incidentally). Even if the two groups did finally reunite, there’d still be the fact that one billion Latin Apostolic Christians (a larger group by far than these two communions put together) would be in the Catholic Communion, a huge point against the Catholicity of an Eastern/Oriental Communion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jean8]

Eastern Orthodox maybe? If so then yes, their Sacraments are valid.

LCMS believe in the Real Presence.

God bless,
jeann8

 

[e61iuser]

What’s the LCMS jean8?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

We don’t live 800 years ago, though, so this is a moot point.

The Protestants would be glad to hear that.

Among us Orthodox we call Protestants who know history “converts.”

Catholic is not just a spatial term: it is temporal as well.

The Western Rite Orthodox are not a true Latin Orthodox Church,

and why not?

so they’re irrelevant at this point; the Assyrians who joined the Russian Church became Russian Orthodox and/or vanished,

largely helped by the Turks

as they no longer exist as an identifiable group.

I’ve come across them from time to time.

As for reunion between the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox, I’ll believe it when I see it.

See the wedding of EO and OO “mixed” marriage. We both recognize the marriages of each other (we don’t recognize any one else’s), and that the family will be brought up in the Holy Mysteries of the Church that blesses the union.

As of now there is no “impending reunion”, only warming relations (same is true of the Catholic Communion and the Oriental Orthodox, incidentally).

I’ve communed Miaphysite Churches, including the Syriac Patriarch Cathedral, which his holiness presding, with the full knowledge of the priests that I am Ruumi.

Even if the two groups did finally reunite, there’d still be the fact that one billion Latin Apostolic Christians (a larger group by far than these two communions put together) would be in the Catholic Communion, a huge point against the Catholicity of an Eastern/Oriental Communion.

Our Lord told us “Fear not little flock,” so we are not worried.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What’s the LCMS jean8?

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, I believe.

The Lutheran version of the Real Presence is not the same thing, somthing I didn’t find out until I left Lutheranism for Holy Orthodoxy.

 

[mercygate]

Good question Edwin. I guess it’s more of a search for ultimate Truth, which is Jesus Christ. If Jesus is as present in the Catholic Church as well as the Eastern Orthodox, what’s the point then? I don’t want to stay in a church just because of my personal inertia. I want it because I want Christ.

So is Jesus Christ MORE present in the East than in the West?

No.