Orthodox and Catholic representatives meet in Rimini

[Dee_Dee_King]

i always find it interesting that at the council of florence the two lungs of the church were united, at least at an episcopal level. then the laity in the orthodox world rejected it. it wasn’t until then that the two churches were permanently split.

maybe the catholic church should approach the oriental orthodox first. there may be less obstacles. i think that the orthodox, especially the russians, are mostly to blame for the continuing schism. union with rome requires too much humble pie for the russians to accept. there may be churches in the eastern orthodox communion who would be open to reunion.

just think, the great hagia sofia in constantinople would still be ours if we were not split up. the devil divides and conquers. i don’t think it will happen until the end of days.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t expect it either, in my lifetime. Churches move slower than tortises. Since the Orthodox say the Catholics are in heresy, and the Eastern theology is apophatic, it may be perpetually opposed to the Catholic positive doctrines, as heretical. Since neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic want to hold to what they have learned is the Truth, there is extreme caution of accepting what is already rejected or rejecting what is already accepted.

I don’t expect administrative unity, nor do I particularly care about it - but I would not be at all surprised by sacramental unity in the near future.

You should be cautious about ideas like “the Orthodox say the Catholics are in heresy”. Some do. Some don’t. Some want “repudiation” and vindication, others don’t. (Just as some want vocal confirmation of repudiation of heresy before an RC could received by baptism into and EO church, and others require this and receive RC’s by chrismation alone.) Don’t let the internet or the writings selected for quotation there be your guide to assessing the position of “the Orthodox”.

Consider this: In contrast to the relationship between OO and EO churches, there has never been an ecumenical council establishing any dogmatic difference between Catholics and EO as heretical. And notwithstanding even the councils very many EO’s see themselves as extremely close to OO’s - and are even willing to put aside the findings of the fathers in ecumencial council as a misunderstanding over semantics. If this is possible then, the the resolution with the Catholic church should be even easier.

At any rate, this situation help to clarify the real nature of the antipathy shown by some EO’s toward the Catholic Church.

 

[Vico]

I don’t expect administrative unity, nor do I particularly care about it - but I would not be at all surprised by sacramental unity in the near future.

You should be cautious about ideas like “the Orthodox say the Catholics are in heresy”. Some do. Some don’t. Some want “repudiation” and vindication, others don’t. (Just as some want vocal confirmation of repudiation of heresy before an RC could received by baptism into and EO church, and others require this and receive RC’s by chrismation alone.) Don’t let the internet or the writings selected for quotation there be your guide to assessing the position of “the Orthodox”.

Consider this: In contrast to the relationship between OO and EO churches, there has never been an ecumenical council establishing any dogmatic difference between Catholics and EO as heretical. And notwithstanding even the councils very many EO’s see themselves as extremely close to OO’s - and are even willing to put aside the findings of the fathers in ecumencial council as a misunderstanding over semantics. If this is possible then, the the resolution with the Catholic church should be even easier.

At any rate, this situation help to clarify the real nature of the antipathy shown by some EO’s toward the Catholic Church.

I hear you, however this is what I read from OCA, (certainaly not “the Orthodox” but “some Orthodox”) which is what I mean by “heresy”, even if the term is incorrect somehow:

“For Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist is a visible sign of unity; to receive the Eucharist in a community to which one does not belong is improper. If one does not accept all that the Church believes and teaches and worships, one cannot make a visible sign of unity with it.”

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

“For Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist is a visible sign of unity; to receive the Eucharist in a community to which one does not belong is improper. If one does not accept all that the Church believes and teaches and worships, one cannot make a visible sign of unity with it.”

this is the traditional catholic teaching as well. after VII, the church decided to let apostolic christianity intercommune. this is a prudential decision which may be a mistake. i agree with the orthodox but there may be individuals who can’t receive communion at their respected church so that they must go to a sister church who aren’t in communion. in this situtation, i can see the pastoral approach of permitting intercommunion between orthodox and catholic churches. but if they randomly choose a orthdox or catholic church on weekend, they shouldn’t be admitted. it should be the exception and not the rule.

 

[dvdjs]

I hear you, however this is what I read from OCA, (certainaly not “the Orthodox” but “some Orthodox”) which is what I mean by “heresy”, even if the term is incorrect somehow:

“For Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist is a visible sign of unity; to receive the Eucharist in a community to which one does not belong is improper. If one does not accept all that the Church believes and teaches and worships, one cannot make a visible sign of unity with it.”

I know this very well. But I also know of many exceptions being made to this thinking. Eventually those who think that such exceptions are bad will become a minority.

 

[dcointin]

I don’t expect administrative unity, nor do I particularly care about it - but I would not be at all surprised by sacramental unity in the near future.

You should be cautious about ideas like “the Orthodox say the Catholics are in heresy”. Some do. Some don’t. Some want “repudiation” and vindication, others don’t. (Just as some want vocal confirmation of repudiation of heresy before an RC could received by baptism into and EO church, and others require this and receive RC’s by chrismation alone.) Don’t let the internet or the writings selected for quotation there be your guide to assessing the position of “the Orthodox”.

Consider this: In contrast to the relationship between OO and EO churches, there has never been an ecumenical council establishing any dogmatic difference between Catholics and EO as heretical. And notwithstanding even the councils very many EO’s see themselves as extremely close to OO’s - and are even willing to put aside the findings of the fathers in ecumencial council as a misunderstanding over semantics. If this is possible then, the the resolution with the Catholic church should be even easier.

At any rate, this situation help to clarify the real nature of the antipathy shown by some EO’s toward the Catholic Church.

 

[dcointin]

I don’t expect administrative unity, nor do I particularly care about it - but I would not be at all surprised by sacramental unity in the near future.

You should be cautious about ideas like “the Orthodox say the Catholics are in heresy”. Some do. Some don’t. Some want “repudiation” and vindication, others don’t. (Just as some want vocal confirmation of repudiation of heresy before an RC could received by baptism into and EO church, and others require this and receive RC’s by chrismation alone.) Don’t let the internet or the writings selected for quotation there be your guide to assessing the position of “the Orthodox”.

Consider this: In contrast to the relationship between OO and EO churches, there has never been an ecumenical council establishing any dogmatic difference between Catholics and EO as heretical. And notwithstanding even the councils very many EO’s see themselves as extremely close to OO’s - and are even willing to put aside the findings of the fathers in ecumencial council as a misunderstanding over semantics. If this is possible then, the the resolution with the Catholic church should be even easier.

At any rate, this situation help to clarify the real nature of the antipathy shown by some EO’s toward the Catholic Church.

I spoke to my priest (who is Antiochian Orthodox) once about the reception of Catholics into Orthodoxy. He said that the practice differed by jurisdiction, but that he had heard of them being received by profession of faith only. There are some jurisdictions where rebaptism is popular, but most repudiate that as heretical since there is one baptism, an issue that was settled in the 3rd century. Likewise, I see chrismation the same way. Chrismation (which is the equivalent of confirmation) is the annointing with oil and laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit; like baptism, chrismation is a sacrament that is performed once. I don’t see the logic of chrismating Catholics since they’ve already been confirmed! A simple profession of faith should be sufficient.

 

[Gogetters1]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Harpazo]

I spoke to my priest (who is Antiochian Orthodox) once about the reception of Catholics into Orthodoxy. He said that the practice differed by jurisdiction, but that he had heard of them being received by profession of faith only. There are some jurisdictions where rebaptism is popular, but most repudiate that as heretical since there is one baptism, an issue that was settled in the 3rd century. Likewise, I see chrismation the same way. Chrismation (which is the equivalent of confirmation) is the annointing with oil and laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit; like baptism, chrismation is a sacrament that is performed once. I don’t see the logic of chrismating Catholics since they’ve already been confirmed! A simple profession of faith should be sufficient.

St. Paul tells us there is One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism. If it is a different faith, then it was a different baptism. It is not a rebaptism. There is no such thing. Many bishops exercise economia in this regard in receiving Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy by Chrismation alone. Having said that, it is NOT a recognition of their baptism as some like to think. It completes whatever was lacking in it. As hard as it is for some people to accept, we do not recognize the Holy Mysteries outside of Orthodoxy.

Years ago, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Jews and others being received into Orthodoxy had to renounce their particular beliefs considered erroneous by the Orthodox. For example, Roman Catholics had to denounce the post-schism Papal doctrines, Muslims had to denounce Muhammad, and Jews their dependence on the Law or some such thing. This is not as common place as it once was, but is still practiced. I heard that during the Ordination of a priest in the Armenian Church, the candidate being ordained has to denounce all the heretics that ever lived (including Joseph Smith).

As Alveus said, we are still miles apart and any hope for union within our lifetime I see as an impossibility, too. I would love to be able to share the same Chalice as my Latin brethren, but that day has not come yet and will not come until there is a real unity of faith.

St. Mark of Ephesus, pray to God for us!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dcointin]

If I understand you correctly, the reception of converts by Chrismation completes whatever was lacking in their Baptism?

 

[MrAkirafication]

 

[Nine_Two]

I spoke to my priest (who is Antiochian Orthodox) once about the reception of Catholics into Orthodoxy. He said that the practice differed by jurisdiction, but that he had heard of them being received by profession of faith only. There are some jurisdictions where rebaptism is popular, but most repudiate that as heretical since there is one baptism, an issue that was settled in the 3rd century. Likewise, I see chrismation the same way. Chrismation (which is the equivalent of confirmation) is the annointing with oil and laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit; like baptism, chrismation is a sacrament that is performed once. I don’t see the logic of chrismating Catholics since they’ve already been confirmed! A simple profession of faith should be sufficient.

Actually there is no belief that Chrismation is only to be done once. There are instances of it being done multiple times to people in the church, though Western Christians usually do believe it can only be done once, there is no canon or creed which states this.

 

[Vico]

…
Consider this: In contrast to the relationship between OO and EO churches, there has never been an ecumenical council establishing any dogmatic difference between Catholics and EO as heretical. …

I want to mention the issue of the eighth ecumenical council.

Catholic: Constantinople in 869-870, confirmed depositon of St. Photius, reinstated Ignatius, reaffirmed icons and holy images, anathematized those with belief in two human souls.

Some Orthodox: Constantinople in 879-880, restoring St. Photius, anathematizing those that alter the Creed (filioque).

Other Orthodox: Constantinople in 879-880 was not ecumenical.

 

[Diak]

I know this very well. But I also know of many exceptions being made to this thinking. Eventually those who think that such exceptions are bad will become a minority.

Excellent point. I’ve long ago lost count of the number of Orthodox communicants in our UGCC churches and vice-versa with full knowledge of the clergy on both sides. It already is happening at the “ground level” in spite of the “higher level” polemicists and has been for several decades.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Yes, there have actually. A great deal of blood has been spilled on this issue, by both sides.

Yes, I agree - Holy Orthodox New Martyrs for Christ, pray unto God for us!

I was being a bit facetious referring to Russian Orthodox martyrs for Rome . . .

Not too many of those, from what I understand . . .

Alex

 

[Hesychios]

… I see chrismation the same way. Chrismation (which is the equivalent of confirmation) is the annointing with oil and laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit; like baptism, chrismation is a sacrament that is performed once. I don’t see the logic of chrismating Catholics since they’ve already been confirmed! A simple profession of faith should be sufficient.

Chrismation is a repeatable Holy Mystery (sacrament), and it is sometimes applied to Orthodox more than once, so I don’t see an issue here at all.

 

[Vico]

Chrismation is a repeatable Holy Mystery (sacrament), and it is sometimes applied to Orthodox more than once, so I don’t see an issue here at all.

From another thread, there are three Holy Mysteries which should not be repeated per Catholic underatanding.

The “indelible mark” for three sacraments (which should not be repeated) was declared by Pope Eugene IV in 1439 and confirmed in the Council of Trent.

(1547 A.D.) Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon 9:

“If anyone says that in three sacraments, namely, baptism, confirmation and order, there is not imprinted on the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible mark, by reason of which they cannot be repeated, [Eugene IV in decr. ad Armenos (Denzinger, no. 695)] let him be anathema.”

ewtn.com/library/councils/trent7.htm

Denzinger 695:

Decree for the Armenians * [From the Bull “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439]

695 In the fifth place we have reduced under this very brief formula the truth of the sacraments of the Church for the sake of an easier instruction of the Armenians, the present as well as the future. There are seven sacraments of the new Law: namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, which differ a great deal from the sacraments of the Old Law. For those of the Old Law did not effect grace, but only pronounced that it should be given through the passion of Christ; these sacraments of ours contain grace, and confer it upon those who receive them worthily. Of these the five first ones are ordained for the spiritual perfection of each and every one in himself, the last two for the government and increase of the entire Church. For, through baptism we are spiritually reborn; through confirmation we increase in grace, and are made strong in faith; reborn, however, we are strengthened and nourished by the divine sustenance of the Eucharist. But if through sin we incur the disease of the soul, through penance we are spiritually healed; spiritually and corporally, according as is expedient to the soul, through extreme unction; through orders the Church is truly governed and spiritually propagated; through matrimony corporally increased. All these sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing as the Church does; if any of these is lacking the sacrament is not fulfilled. Among these sacraments there are three, baptism, confirmation, and orders, which imprint an indelible sign on the soul, that is, a certain character distinctive from the others. Hence they should not be repeated in the same person. The remaining four do not imprint a sign and admit of repetition.

catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma7.php

 

[Hesychios]

From another thread, there are three Holy Mysteries which should not be repeated per Catholic underatanding.

I understand that, however that is not the Orthodox position, so it is not intended as an insult and not thought of in any demeaning way. Although it is the kind of thing that would have to be clarified if we come close to reconciliation. I doubt the Orthodox would be willing to be held to Exultate Deo and made to give up their longstanding spiritual practice and understanding.

Orthodox Chrismate Orthodox more than once, it is a medicinal … healing sacrament. Digressing a little bit I theorize that Annointing of the Sick is actually just another Chrismation, for another specific purpose (in other words both may have evolved from a common early Christian annointing), but even if not so the comparison can illustrate the sense in which this Mystery is held among the Orthodox.

When I was a Catholic I was highly offended by the practice of re-Chrismating Catholic converts. In fact I railed against this “offense against the Holy Ghost”. Utlimately, when I decided to become Orthodox I had come to understand the Orthodox perspective more clearly and fully expected to be re-Chrismated, however my bishop (bishop Job of Chicago, Memory Eternal!) decided that it was not necessary, I would be received by confession and communion!

I myself decided that I wanted to be Chrismated, and so it was. This was a 180 from my position of just a few short years before. I am glad I did, it was a very powerful charismatic moment.

 

[Nine_Two]

While I can see Catholics taking offense when Orthodox re-baptise, since we claim to believe in “One Baptism for the Remission of sins”, the strong implication being that we don’t believe your baptism is valid, when it comes to Christmation since we have no such belief, and therefore being christmated has no implications on Catholic Confirmation.

 

[Diak]

There is no single “Orthodox position”; I know of priests who were received into Orthodoxy from a Greek Catholic Church by simply vesting and profession of Faith (and assumably sacramental confession). No rechrismation.