Official Catholic View re: Eastern Orthodox Not in Communion with the See of Rome

[Prometheum_x]

However, we are still (at least) material schismatics and heretics according to your Church. Since when did the ancient Church ever commune material heretics and/or schismatics? Such a thing would have been blasphemous to even suggest to the Holy Fathers and even to your Church before Vatican II. As you can see, your allowance of us to receive Holy Communion in your Church is just another reason why we cannot be in union. We cannot be in union with a Church that continually introduces innovative teachings and practices. I would also add that even the Protestants are allowed to commune in your Church if they are dying and believe in the true nature of the Holy Eucharist (bypassing their need to actually be formal members of the Church). This is sadly another innovative practice.

God bless,

Adam

We are compelled into this by force of logic. We strongly defend the validity of the sacraments outside the Catholic Church (baptism for the Protestants, and all of the Orthodox sacraments). This puts us into a conflict – how can we refuse you the Eucharist when you already partake of the Eucharist?

Hence, we have this language of “imperfect unity” or “Churches with a defect”, which is quite frankly confusing to me because it almost sounds like we are saying, “Though you aren’t in communion with the Church, you are in communion with the Church.” Ghosty tried to explain this to me, saying that I was making too much out of the issue of union with the Pope, but I am still confused by this.

Perhaps I can ask this of the Orthodox: How do you account for the faith in Christ that seems apparent in many Protestants, especially if they are family members or close friends (as is the case with me). How can they have faith in Christ if they are not in some way Christian? And how can they be Christian unless they are in some way a part of the Church?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

We are compelled into this by force of logic. We strongly defend the validity of the sacraments outside the Catholic Church (baptism for the Protestants, and all of the Orthodox sacraments). This puts us into a conflict – how can we refuse you the Eucharist when you already partake of the Eucharist?

Hence, we have this language of “imperfect unity” or “Churches with a defect”, which is quite frankly confusing to me because it almost sounds like we are saying, “Though you aren’t in communion with the Church, you are in communion with the Church.” Ghosty tried to explain this to me, saying that I was making too much out of the issue of union with the Pope, but I am still confused by this.

Perhaps I can ask this of the Orthodox: How do you account for the faith in Christ that seems apparent in many Protestants, especially if they are family members or close friends (as is the case with me). How can they have faith in Christ if they are not in some way Christian? And how can they be Christian unless they are in some way a part of the Church?

How do you account for the faith in God of Jews and Muslims when Christ plainly says we know what we worship, and they (and that includes the Jews now) don’t, because no one comes to the Father but by Him?

 

[Irenicist]

I accept that practice and discipline organically develops in the Church. However, your Church’s change of discipline on who is able to receive Holy Communion is a doctrinal issue and only per accidens, disciplinary. Ergo, this is a subtle change of doctrine (as you even confirmed by stating that all baptized people, regardless of fidelity to the Faith, are formal members of the Church) that expresses itself in discipline. This isn’t true of the organic development of our liturgical rites.

I see, and what are we to make of the varying Orthodox practices regarding the validity of Catholic sacraments?

Are we to conclude that this diversity represents a consistent reflexion of primitive historical practice and ecclesiology within each local church (and that the differences have no doctrinal import), or is this apparent confusion of the essence of unchanging praxis and doxis in Orthodoxy, or do the sacraments have nothing to do with liturgy?

You are obviously comfortable where you are. I accept that, and won’t taunt you for your choice. Your criticism of Catholicism on this count is just a cheap attempt at point scoring, however. If you were to argue that you personally found greater stability of practice in Orthodoxy and that this comforted you in your choice, I would tell you I was happy for you. But as for proclaiming this highly contentious and historically dubious proposition as objective evidence of identity with the One True Church, you have lost me.

If you really want me to, I can go through a list of what I see as radical changes in Orthodox ecclesiology and liturgy over the centuries driving it farther and farther away from the primitive model, but I would rather not go there, and we would just end up into arguments over cases and interpretation.

Irenicist

 

[bilop]

Soooo, we’re Plan B: In case of the unity of the pope and the magisterium fail, break glass…

Well, it wouldn’t be the Pope and the Magisterium failing, it would be Catholic Bishops and Priests failing to follow them.

But, if all the Catholic Priests in an area were acting so as to no longer be real Priests, then yeah, the Orthodox are plan B.

Real priest and sacraments, out of communion with Rome, is better than invalid sacraments.

God bless

 

[Marina14]

Well, it wouldn’t be the Pope and the Magisterium failing, it would be Catholic Bishops and Priests failing to follow them.

But, if all the Catholic Priests in an area were acting so as to no longer be real Priests, then yeah, the Orthodox are plan B.

Real priest and sacraments, out of communion with Rome, is better than invalid sacraments.

God bless

In that case, perhaps I didn’t leave the Catholic Church but was just exercising my right as a Catholic under Canon 844? Interesting.

 

[Prometheum_x]

How do you account for the faith in God of Jews and Muslims when Christ plainly says we know what we worship, and they (and that includes the Jews now) don’t, because no one comes to the Father but by Him?

They may worship God, whom they don’t know, seeking Him, but they are not Christians.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

In that case, perhaps I didn’t leave the Catholic Church but was just exercising my right as a Catholic under Canon 844? Interesting.

I guess that’s the reason to reject authority that we keep on being told said reason doesn’t exist.

 

[Marina14]

I guess that’s the reason to reject authority that we keep on being told said reason doesn’t exist.

Perhaps it’s because I’m so sleepy, but this sentence is confusing me.