Really, what is representative of mainstream Catholicism? What IS mainstream Catholicism? I am only familiar with Catholicism, as taught by the Magisterium. Any type of “Catholicism” at odds with it is wrong and cannot be rightly called “Catholicism” but rather an aberration.The interpretation of subsidiarity, the proper role of government, and “collectivism” (which seems to mean any effort for the common good) prevalent on these forums is certainly not representative of mainstream Catholicism.
Edwin
Please state where I ever claimed that the Orthodox Church is in communion with the Catholic Church.Dude the Orthodox church is not in communion with Rome…Athenagoras may have been Ecumenical Patriarch but he doesn’t have the Authority to speak for all Orthodoxy, ask any orthodox christian and you will get the same response. ORTHODOXY IS NOT IN COMMUNION WITH ROME, There has been no Eucharistic sharing, Most Orthodox don’t believe Roman orders are Valid…some may, but the general feeling is that they are not. in many cases if a Catholic is received into the Orthodox Church they may have to be re baptized (although the more common way today is through conformation, but the Russians still insist on re-baptism) I don’t know where your getting your information from but trust me I’m from an multi-faith family (catholic and Orthodox and now Anglican of course) if the RCC and the EOC were in communion with one another I’d know about it!!!
The whole documents is available here:Anglicans and Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The real communion with Christ crucified and risen presupposes his true presence, which is “effectually signified by the bread and wine which, in this mystery, become his body and blood.”[89] “What is here affirmed is a sacramental presence in which God uses the realities of this world to convey the realities of the new creation: bread for this life becomes the bread of eternal life. Before the Eucharistic Prayer, to the question: ‘What is that?’, the believer answers: ‘It is bread’. After the Eucharistic Prayer, to the same question he answers: ‘It is truly the body of Christ, the Bread of Life’.”[90] While Christ is present and active in a variety of ways in the entire eucharistic celebration, so that his presence is not limited to the consecrated elements,[91] the bread and wine are not empty signs: Christ’s body and blood become really present and are really given in these elements.[92]
As Catholics, we accept the Pope’s authority on the matter. Certitude enough for us.You have metaphysical certitude about the validity of other Christians’ sacraments?
I find it hard to imagine the state of mind that could have anything remotely capable of being confused with certitude on such a subject. And I don’t much want to imagine such a state of mind, frankly.
Edwin
Oh, I’d agree with you there. I’ve said it before but CAF is not an accurate representation of the political attitudes of most Catholics, or indeed, the Bishops.The interpretation of subsidiarity, the proper role of government, and “collectivism” (which seems to mean any effort for the common good) prevalent on these forums is certainly not representative of mainstream Catholicism.
Edwin
sorry but if that was the case then u were NEVER an Orthodox…that is against every cannon in the EO church. that would be the same as a pagan becoming a christian without baptism…it simply isn’t possible.Please state where I ever claimed that the Orthodox Church is in communion with the Catholic Church.
I was born and baptized Catholic and I was received into the Orthodox Church with a simple meeting with the priest. No rebaptism, no reconfirmation, nothing. All of my sacraments were accepted as valid. So…I don’t know where YOU get your information, but most of it is wrong. Again, I will attributed it to your divorce agitation from the Catholic Church and continue to pray for your peace of mind.
If the Pope releases an encyclical that decrees that the Anglican and Catholic Church are in agreement on the form and substance of the Eucharist, who am I to argue against it? Has he done that yet and I missed it?Why would any Catholic be anxious to tell Anglicans what Anglicans believe about the Eucharist (or anything)? They believe what they believe and what right do we have to teach them their own theology? For what its worth, the Catholic and Anglican Churches have been discussing our theological commonalities and differences for 40-odd years, and the Church recognizes that Catholics and Anglicans are mostly in agreement as to the Eucharist. From the Vatican’s website:
The whole documents is available here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20070914_growing-together_en.html
More on Anglican/Catholic relations is available here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_anglican-comm.htm
Wow, now you have the verve to declare that I wasn’t what a priest and his bishop said I was! And you brand ME a theological authority.sorry but if that was the case then u were NEVER an Orthodox…that is against every cannon in the EO church. that would be the same as a pagan becoming a christian without baptism…it simply isn’t possible.
if this did happen (which I highly doubt as Orthodox Christians are very hardcore about these things) then it wouldn’t be valid anyway. its against the cannons of the church. u were always a Catholic and NEVER an Orthodox Christian
dude…My grandfather was a priest! I know what the church teaches. and it isn’t possible. Catholics are in Schism as far as orthodoxy is concerned. the canons of the church are clear that you could never have been an Orthodox Christian.Wow, now you have the verve to declare that I wasn’t what a priest and his bishop said I was! And you brand ME a theological authority.
Me neither. I wish I could find a good Spiritual Director. Many people use the confessional for it, but that is not its purpose. Also, most people don’t realize that a priest has to be trained to be a Spiritual Director. Most priests are not. I know that sounds weird, but spiritual direction is a little more than people think it is.Yes that’s how some do it. The penitent will tell their sins to a spiritual advisor, then the priest will confer the absolution which is done quickly just before the Liturgy. This allows for a more thourough Confession dialogue experience I believe. I have no problem with it.
Okay, keep thinking what you want. I know what I was, what I was told, and what the bishop told me. Maybe he was a bad bishop who didn’t know Orthodox theology as well as you do!dude…My grandfather was a priest! I know what the church teaches. and it isn’t possible. Catholics are in Schism as far as orthodoxy is concerned. the canons of the church are clear that you could never have been an Orthodox Christian.
heck the EO church is still unsure about the validity of Catholic Baptisms…cause its done by sprinkling…there is no way u could have become an Orthodox christian without at least being chrismed into the church to fix up your faulty baptism (not my belief but the teaching of the EO Church)
I’d be curious to know the name of the Bishop, the Eparchy he belonged to and his jurisdiction.Okay, keep thinking what you want. I know what I was, what I was told, and what the bishop told me. Maybe he was a bad bishop who didn’t know Orthodox theology as well as you do!
You are representing Orthodoxy as more monolithic than it is.sorry but if that was the case then u were NEVER an Orthodox…that is against every cannon in the EO church. that would be the same as a pagan becoming a christian without baptism
I don’t remember. It was in 1989. St. Sophia Church in New London, Ct. Father Charles Simones was the priest and served that church for 45 years.I’d be curious to know the name of the Bishop, the Eparchy he belonged to and his jurisdiction.
But that’s hardly *metaphysical *certitude.As Catholics, we accept the Pope’s authority on the matter. Certitude enough for us.
Since I accept that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and has the power and authority of binding and loosing as granted by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit, it certainly is metaphysical certitude.But that’s hardly *metaphysical *certitude.
Edwin
Sure it is.But that’s hardly *metaphysical *certitude.
Edwin
it’s true that Orthodoxy is unsure…but its cause of that Unsureness that I know for a fact he wouldn’t have been accepted into Orthodoxy unless it was via one of the Mysteries…when in doubt Orthodox always make sure. but preforming some Sacramental action. to my Knowledge it has never happened that a schismatic was received into the EO Church without one mystery (sacrament) or another.You are representing Orthodoxy as more monolithic than it is.
It is not universally accepted among Orthodox that the traditional canons for dealing with heretics apply to Catholics.
Edwin
:yup:Since I accept that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and has the power and authority of binding and loosing as granted by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit, it certainly is metaphysical certitude.