Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?

[babochka]

Is that true? I’m Orthodox, I’ve only ever heard it called Chrismation, and I’ve seen plenty of Catholics get Chrismated. There is, literally, no difference in how they are received vs. Protestants and Evangelicals. I don’t think it matters if you were Chrismated as a Catholic from an Orthodox perspective.

The reception of converts into Orthodoxy or Catholicism and the recognition of previously received Holy Mysteries has a long and complex history. While the Catholic Church mostly has uniformity of practice these days, the Orthodox Church does not.

https://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html

. The Orthodox Church in America receives non-Orthodox by three rites:

1. Those converting from Judaism, paganism, and Islam, as well as those who distort or do not accept the dogma of the Holy Trinity, or where the baptism is performed by a single immersion, by means of baptism .
2. Those whose baptism was valid but who either do not have sacrament of chrismation or who lack a hierarchy with apostolic succession (or if it is questionable), by means of chrismation . This group includes Lutherans, Calvinists and Episcopalians (Anglicans).
3. Those whose hierarchy has apostolic succession and whose baptism and chrismation (or confirmation) was performed in their church, by means of repentance and repudiation of heresy, following instruction in Orthodoxy. This group includes persons of the Roman Catholic and Armenian confessions. If it happens that they were not chrismated or confirmed in their churches or if there is any question about this, they are anointed with the Holy Chrism.

From a parish of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (https://www.holyorthodox.org/member)

Exactly the same rules are found in all the non-Greek Orthodox Churches in America and Canada.

• If you are confirmed Roman Catholic , our Archdiocese receives Roman Catholics into the Church based on the canonical principles of the 6th Ecumenical Council, that is, by profession of Faith and reception of Communion. Profession of Faith usually takes the form of Confession, but in any case entails profession of the original form of the Creed (which we do every Sunday in Liturgy) and belief in the principles of the Faith found HERE, and then receiving Holy Communion. At that point, you will be Orthodox Catholic, that is, an Orthodox Christian in full Communion with the God’s Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church. The same holds true for Oriental Christians (Copts, Armenians, Syriacs, etc.).

Actual practice at the parish level seems to vary. I’ve known baptized and confirmed Catholics who have been received by baptism into the OCA. (I believe the priest decided, in good faith, that there was doubt about their original Protestant baptisms and the sacraments were conditional.)

 

[Michael16]

Wow, @babochka. That sounds a little confusing.

So, if I’m understanding you right; the Orthodox will receive Catholics by Confession only?

Other posters have stated by Chrismation; what we Latins call Confirmation.

 

[babochka]

Of all the self-imposed Latinizations, these are among the most confusing. Obviously, if our churches chose to adopt these practices (which they did), it is not a violation of the Union of Brest because we were not compelled to adopt them, but it makes me wonder why it happened, since those who drew up the agreement considered them important enough to specifically mention them.

For example, Greek Catholic Church of Slovakia considers Filioque to be part of their tradition and unity with Apostolic See

1. Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

On Holy Thursday & Good Friday wooden clappers are used esp when processing around the Church.

1. Likewise that we should not be compelled to have the blessing of fire, the use of wooden clappers, and similar ceremonies before Easter, for we have not had such ceremonies in our Church until now, but that we should maintain our ceremonies according to the rubrics and the Typicon of our Church.

 

[babochka]

Wow, @babochka. That sounds a little confusing.

So, if I’m understanding you right; the Orthodox will receive Catholics by Confession only?

Other posters have stated by Chrismation; what we Latins call Confirmation.

Orthodox practice is all over the place. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and sometimes even from parish to parish. Some Baptize almost always (Serbians), some Chrismate, others by Confession alone. Sometimes priests are received by vesting, other times they are re-ordained.

Honestly, the variety of practice confuses me. Some say that Catholic sacraments are entirely without Grace, yet they will receive Holy Communion from a priest who was Baptized, Confirmed and Ordained a Catholic priest and received into Orthodoxy by Confessions? They are all in communion with each other, but the practice on something so important as the Holy Mysteries has such variety and that is not considered to be a problem? Or perhaps it is a problem and a matter of great dispute within Orthodoxy worldwide and I just don’t know about because the resources aren’t in English. I have heard of Orthodox converts going to Mt. Athos and being baptized and chrismated, even after years practicing Orthodoxy.

 

[Michael16]

That doesn’t make any sense, @babochka.

There should be consistency in practice. That’s one of the many reasons why I went to Rome and left Protestantism behind.

 

[babochka]

That doesn’t make any sense, @babochka.

There should be consistency in practice. That’s one of the many reasons why I went to Rome and left Protestantism behind.

Here are two excellent articles which delve into the history, from different perspectives.

From a Greek perspective: Fr. George Dragas - The Manner of Reception of Roman Catholic Converts into the Orthodox Church

From a Russian perspective: On the reception into the Orthodox Church

Bear in mind that the Catholic Church has also grappled with this over the centuries and has not always had a consistent approach, either.

 

[Michael16]

To be fair @babochka, yeah. You’re right.

When I read documents from Vatican 2, I get the impression things were quite different than what they are now in regards to non Catholic Christians.

Like maybe, prior to V2; we were saying that there’s no salvation outside of the Church, we were still fighting the Counter Reformation with the Protestants and eye balling the Orthodox as rebellious heretics in opposition to us.

I’m glad things changed; if my impression is correct.

The more I read V2, the more I realize how much of an epoch making shift in the Church it was and it’s nowhere near as bad as some Trads make it out to be.

 

[ziapueblo]

Council started as local one.

If Eastern councils can modify the Creed, but the West can’t; that’s hypocritical. Inconsistent to say the least.

I don’t see how this is hypocritical. Obviously Rome accepted the council.

breaks in communion are still fractures of unity.

So you would agree that the Church of Rome has fractures of unity since it is not in communion with the East?

If Jesus set Saint Peter in honor over the whole Church; then Saint Peter has undeniable authority over the whole Church. The Church is subject to Rome as the Successor of Saint Peter.

Really?

Using the father over his children analogy; there’s no denying papal supremacy.

And where do you get this? Sirach 3:2-6, 12-14? Is this the historical context of Sirach, submission to the Pope of Rome?

ZP

 

[Michael16]

@ziapueblo,

The analogy I made was because Orthodox consistently accept Rome’s primacy of honor; yet say they can disregard Rome at will. As if they’re not subject to Saint Peter.

 

[ziapueblo]

@Michael16

The above priest is Melkite, and I’m sure you would be appalled that he does not think like you, a Roman Catholic. This holy priest was run out of this forum by Roman Catholics not to long ago, yet he teaches Roman Catholics about their faith every week on the Institute of Catholic Cultures Sunday Gospel Reflection. I find it quite hilarious!

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

They are not!

ZP

 

[Michael16]

@ziapueblo, can you prove that honoring yet disregarding Rome at will is consistent with the concept of honor?

Allow me please to demonstrate.

Rome is the Archbishop of the Holy Synod of the Church. The Primate of Holy Mother Church.

In early Church ecclesiology, bishops are the Protos of their diocese. The same for Archbishops, Metropolitans and Patriarchs. The bishops under a Protos are subject to him.

Rome has primacy of honor above all of the Patriarchal Sees. Thus, Rome is the Protos of the whole Church.

Thus, the whole Church is subject to the Holy Father.

If all of the bishops under the, let’s say; the EP are subject to him; all of them must obey him, correct?

If that’s correct; why does the Eastern Sees have such a problem with being subject to papal jurisdiction?

It should be clear as a bell.

 

[ziapueblo]

Did Rome Have Universal, Ordinary, and Immediate Jurisdiction at the Council of Ephesus? | Part I | Rebuttal to Catholic Apologist Erick Ybarra – Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia

Did Rome Have Universal, Ordinary, and Immediate Jurisdiction at the Council of Ephesus? | Part II | Rebuttal to Catholic Apologist Erick Ybarra – Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia

Was the Tome of Pope St. Leo Ex Cathedra? | Rebuttal to Catholic Apologist Erick Ybarra – Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia

You have a problem with the article, leave a comment:

https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2019/07/08/example-post/

And check out the rest of his stuff.

By they way, have you read any of the Eastern fathers other than quotes from Catholic Answers tracts or Roman Catholic apologetics websites?You’d be surprised that they almost never, if at all, mention a guy in Rome who has supreme jurisdiction over the entire Church.

ZP

 

[Michael16]

@ziapueblo,

You haven’t answered the question: If the Holy Father is the undeniable Archbishop of the Holy Synod of the Church ( As accepted by the polemical author you quoted ) as the Successor of Saint Peter, then why all the equivocation about jurisdiction?

As for your quip of the Eastern Fathers: Yes, I have read them. I read about all of the Greek Doctors of the Church. None mentioned that Rome WASN’T the head of the Church.

Please, ZP. Answer the question.

 

[Isaac14]

In early Church ecclesiology, bishops are the Protos of their diocese. The same for Archbishops, Metropolitans and Patriarchs. The bishops under a Protos are subject to him.

Yet according to Apostolic Canon 34, the first among the bishops may do nothing without the consent of all. This is why, in the Orthodox Church, the primate has duties and responsibilities his brother diocesan bishops don’t, they are not subject to him in a subordinate way.

 

[Michael16]

@Isaac14,

Which is exactly what the Holy Father does in council with the college of bishops. Unless he invokes infallibility ex cathedra. Which had only been invoked maybe 4 times since Vatican 1? Plus, I’m not sure if you guys understand that Catholic Bishops are vicars of Christ in their own right. Not servile vicars of the Holy Father.

For me, the question remains: How can Rome be honored as Primate; yet disregarded as it suits the Eastern Sees?

I’m trying to understand how can Rome be honored, that means treated with deference, respect and obedience; yet lower Sees can defy Rome as they see fit.

To my mind, that’s just a formula for chaos. Like the contention between federalism and states’ rights in the antebellum United States.

 

[Isaac14]

Which is exactly what the Holy Father does in council with the college of bishops. Unless he invokes infallibility ex cathedra. Which had only been invoked maybe 4 times since Vatican 1?

Is that really the case? Did Amoris Laetitia reflect the will of all the bishops? Given the hue and cry that’s come from bishops, priests, lay people, I’m not sure.

Plus, I’m not sure if you guys understand that Catholic Bishops are vicars of Christ in their own right. Not servile vicars of the Holy Father.

And yet the Pope appoints every single bishop around the world, presumably with no (name removed by moderator)ut from the diocese in question. In the Orthodox Church, the people have to respond “he is worthy; axios, axios, axios” for the newly appointed bishop.

For me, the question remains: How can Rome be honored as Primate; yet disregarded as it suits the Eastern Sees?

I suspect because from the Orthodox viewpoint, Rome departed from the Apostolic faith a thousand years ago. The East still honors Rome by not setting up another bishopric there. The way you speak seems to assume that these matters are something the Orthodox just make up on a whim changing their mind day by day.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Thank you for the excerpts from the Union of Brest. I’ll have to ask Father what to do with the clappers.

 

[Michael16]

I’ll have to do some research on the bishopric appointments; but it’s my understanding that the bishop is elected locally and has to be approved by the Holy Father. Not appointed by Rome.

As for Amoris Laetitia, I’ll have to do some research on that to give an answer to that in all fairness and honesty.

As for the changing whims on a day to day basis; that’s not my intention. My confusion is just this: If Rome is above, then why argue the fine details of jurisdiction? In my mind, that implies the right to ignore Rome at will.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

This holy priest was run out of this forum by Roman Catholics not to long ago,

WHY???