Orthodox catholics

[TEPO]

The Catholic Eucharist is also dedicated to Mary the virgin mother of God , the Apostles and the Marters, the Pope and Bishops, the Saints and the Angels. Together the Church in heaven and the Church on earth celebrate the mystery of the Eucharist as one.

 

[TEPO]

The eucharist is also the eucharistic synaxis, because the eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful, which is the visible expression of the church. If those faithful are not joined in the fullness of the faith of the visible church (united with the pope of rome) then the eucharistic synaxis is lacking as a visible expression of the church.

 

[TEPO]

It’s more of a matter of unity. That’s what communion is all about, and I’ve never been to a Mass where the Pope was excluded from this unity… His name, along with the Bishop’s Mary, Martyrs, etc. - is always mentioned or at least not excluded.

A Eucharist that is not of unity lacks a mystical aspect.

 

[dzheremi]

I do not understand that point. Every Orthodox liturgy commemorates their own Patriarchs (including Popes, the case of the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox and the Chalcedonian Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria, in their respective communions), and the Fathers, the Martyrs, etc. So how is there LESS unity among the Orthodox in the celebration of the liturgy? The only thing it doesn’t include, of course, is the commemoration of the Roman Pope, as he is not Orthodox. This is no different than how your masses don’t commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch, as he is not in communion with you. (I realize that it is different for YOU, as there is a special significance to communion with Rome from a Catholic perspective; I’m just saying that functionally, in terms of a show of unity, it is not different – you commemorate those you are in communion with, and not those you are not in communion with, same as we do.)

“Epithi Epchois” - “Verily O Lord”: The Commemoration in Coptic

Nobody can say that we do not have unity…or at least not on the basis of commemoration of the Patriarchs, Saints, and Martyrs, as this is not a uniquely Catholic phenomenon (and, I must point out, that even the very abbreviated recording above, it takes about 10 minutes to recite the invariable names given above…which is about 1/6th of the total time of the average Catholic liturgy…and that this is not the only place in which we commemorate our Fathers, so it seems like an argument you shouldn’t want to make if you are a Catholic, as we spend much more time commemorating our Patriarchs, etc. than you do, so “we don’t leave anybody out, therefore we have a mystical unity that you Orthodox lack” kind of works against you in this case).

 

[Peter_J]

Interesting. Does the same reasoning work the other way? That is to say, if tomorrow Rome decided that Catholic communion is only for Catholics, does it follow that our consecrations would not be blessed with the Spirit of unity through “one body one Spirit” in Christ?

I truly do not understand what it is exactly that you’re asking.

Well, alright I guess.

However, unless someone else posts here with the name “Tepo”, you’re the one who said:

Originally Posted by TEPO forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*But if the Orthodox only allow their own to receive
…
then that consecration was not blessed With the Spirit of unity through “one body one Spirit” in Christ… *

 

[TEPO]

Well, alright I guess.

However, unless someone else posts here with the name “Tepo”, you’re the one who said:

Yes, the Catholic Church allows the Orthodox to receive, but the Orthodox refuse the “Roman church” because we are considered to be not “in Grace”. Why they believe this, I have no idea -but that does not express Catholic unity. That is in opposition to the communion of Saints. It’s also a little insulting to the Roman Pontiff, and his flock.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I don’t want to say that you’re nit-picking but

Do you really think it’s nitpicking? Isn’t there a major difference between whether we have the same liturgy, theology, spirituality, beliefs, prayers, etc., and whether we have the same faith?

I can’t imagine you really don’t think it’s an important distinction. After all, Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics have distinctly different beliefs, right? But we’re still united in our faith, right? If not, why are we in communion with each other? And if so, doesn’t the fact that we’re so different in spite of our unity in faith demonstrate this crucial difference?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Yes, the Catholic Church allows the Orthodox to receive, but the Orthodox refuse the “Roman church” because we are considered to be not “in Grace”. Why they believe this, I have no idea -but that does not express Catholic unity. That is in opposition to the communion of Saints. It’s also a little insulting to the Roman Pontiff, and his flock.

TEPO, it’s not insulting. You make it sound like it’s personal, and it’s not. I do not believe the Orthodox insult us. Yes, they think that the Church of Rome - and therefore all in communion with her - are heterodox. But that is not an insult. We mustn’t take it personally.

We are not - repeat, not - entitled to their Eucharist until full communion is restored with them. And they have every right not to acknowledge communion with us as long as they are truly, honestly convinced that the Church of Rome is in heresy.

It’s nothing personal.

 

[TEPO]

By the way, I’m done here because I’ve already made my point -which was not in my last post, but was earlier in the thread.

 

[Peter_J]

Do you really think it’s nitpicking? Isn’t there a major difference between whether we have the same liturgy, theology, spirituality, beliefs, prayers, etc., and whether we have the same faith?

Yes, I agree that there’s a major difference. The problem is hearing someone say “We’re the same.” and assuming that they mean “We have the same liturgy, theology, spirituality, beliefs, prayers, bingo, etc.” (Although, in retrospect, maybe I should have said “literalistic” rather than “nitpicking”.)

 

[Peter_J]

By the way, I’m done here because I’ve already made my point -which was not in my last post, but was earlier in the thread.

Alright. I don’t know how much more time I’m going to spend on this thread myself – both b/c I don’t have much free time to spare anyhow, and b/c I don’t like to keep repeating the same question. (Incidentally, it hasn’t escaped my notice that you once again, in post 264) referenced my question without really addressing it. Just saying. )

 

[TEPO]

Alright. I don’t know how much more time I’m going to spend on this thread myself – both b/c I don’t have much free time to spare anyhow, and b/c I don’t like to keep repeating the same question. (Incidentally, it hasn’t escaped my notice that you once again, in post 264) referenced my question without really addressing it. Just saying. )

Well, as busy as I am myself (I just took in a new job in L.A.), I can’t leave here knowing that this conversation was left unfinished…

Are you asking me if the Catholic Church would be in opposition to unity if she one day declared as truth that the Eucharist could only be administered to Catholics who are in communion with the Pope?

If this is in fact what you are asking, then my answer would be no, because unity includes the Pope. But keep in mind that Jesus will return again and take the throne here on earth for Himself. Until then we require a Supreme Pontiff, and he doesn’t have to be Roman… Our current Pope is German… I see no harm in that.

 

[TEPO]

Yes, we do insult them -but then again our Church is working on that too… I just discovered this recently, but wouldn’t it be something if the Church brought back the old Sarum Rite traditional Mass that was used in England 1000 years ago? It would be even better if some of the Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Anglicans would return to the Holy Church and regain the extinct Sarum Rite that they left abandoned prior to the reformation… They could even have their own Canons just like the Eastern parts of the Church (I believe England used to have their own Canons anyways under St. Osmund)… All in communion with the Pontiff.

I started a few threads on it here, just go to CAF search option and type Sarum Rite… (it’s just a hassle for me to post links from my phone)…

 

[TEPO]

BTW, what is the current situation with the Cathedral in Salisbury…?

 

[mardukm]

Yes, the Catholic Church allows the Orthodox to receive, but the Orthodox refuse the “Roman church” because we are considered to be not “in Grace”.

There’s a misunderstanding here. Catholics would be refused communion in an Orthodox Church NOT for the reason that we are not “in Grace,” but simply because we don’t share the same dogmatic Faith. The Catholic Church does not admit Orthodox to communion either who don’t believe they share that dogmatic Faith with us. There’s a little premise in the allowance of a non-Catholic apostolic Christian to receive the Catholic Eucharist that perhaps you don’t seem to fully understand or appreciate. Canon law states that the non-Catholic apostolic Christian must him/herself request the Catholic Eucharist. That indicates (to me at least) that such a person actually believes there is something true about the Catholic Faith that other apostolic Christians might not accept. I have met non-Catholic apostolic Christians (Orthodox and otherwise) who don’t really understand what the schism is about, have a very simple Faith and don’t really find anything wrong with the Catholic Faith. It is such as these who will actually approach the Catholic Eucharist if appropriate circumstances permit them, and it is FOR such as these that the Canons make allowance to receive the Catholic Eucharist. I am 99.9999999% sure that a non-Catholic apostolic Christian who has a different attitude about the Catholic Faith will NEVER ask to approach the Catholic Eucharist, and so the Canon does not and cannot apply to them.

Perhaps you are also under the mistaken impression that the Catholic canons on non-Catholic apostolic Christians receiving Catholic Sacraments is some sort of CORPORATE admission for the Orthodox Church(es). It is not. Corporately speaking, the Orthodox Church(es) does not have and is not in communion with the Catholic Church(es), and the same is true from the Catholic perspective - corporately speaking, the Catholic Church(es) does not have and is not in communion with the Orthodox Church(es). The Catholic canon law only applies to INDIVIDUALS who will approach the Catholic Eucharist. It might interest you to know that there are many examples of INDIVIDUAL Catholics receiving in Orthodox Churches also. Just because it is not in their canon law does not mean it does not happen under the Orthodox principle of oikonomia.

Why they believe this, I have no idea -but that does not express Catholic unity. That is in opposition to the communion of Saints. It’s also a little insulting to the Roman Pontiff, and his flock.

Your point here is…well…pointless for two reasons:
(1) We don’t share the same dogmatic Faith with the Orthodox (at least as far as current understanding allows). So it’s a non-sequitur to bring up “Catholic unity” if the dogmatic Faith is not shared.
(2) The Eucharist is not just about the “communion of saints.” It is just as much about the VISIBLE communion of FAITH among laity and hierarchs. Your rationale sounds strangely like the invisible church theory of some Protestants.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TEPO]

I’d love to discuss it further -just drop into one of the other forums, if you want , and we can take it from there… I’ve actually got two similar threads going on involving the traditional Roman Catholic Rite of the Sarum Mass.

 

[Peter_J]

Are you asking me if the Catholic Church would be in opposition to unity if she one day declared as truth that the Eucharist could only be administered to Catholics who are in communion with the Pope?

If this is in fact what you are asking, then my answer would be no,

Interesting, considering

                          Originally Posted by **TEPO**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9729384#post9729384)                 
             *But if the Orthodox only allow their own to receive

…
then that consecration was not blessed With the Spirit of unity through “one body one Spirit” in Christ… *

(Well, “interesting” inasmuch as some people consider ecumenism to be a two-way street.)

 

[TEPO]

I can say for sure, that there is a definate misunderstanding here… On several fronts. I’ll respond to the bolded sections in order.

• I don’t think it should be seen as an insult… I just think it has become that way in a world that continues to grow smaller.
  -I don’t think any “Catholic” should wish to receive the Orthodox Eucharist at all.
• I don’t think that the Orthodox intentionally did anything of the sort.

 

[TEPO]

There’s a misunderstanding here. Catholics would be refused communion in an Orthodox Church NOT for the reason that we are not “in Grace,” but simply because we don’t share the same dogmatic Faith. The Catholic Church does not admit Orthodox to communion either who don’t believe they share that dogmatic Faith with us. There’s a little premise in the allowance of a non-Catholic apostolic Christian to receive the Catholic Eucharist that perhaps you don’t seem to fully understand or appreciate. Canon law states that the non-Catholic apostolic Christian must him/herself request the Catholic Eucharist. That indicates (to me at least) that such a person actually believes there is something true about the Catholic Faith that other apostolic Christians might not accept. I have met non-Catholic apostolic Christians (Orthodox and otherwise) who don’t really understand what the schism is about, have a very simple Faith and don’t really find anything wrong with the Catholic Faith. It is such as these who will actually approach the Catholic Eucharist if appropriate circumstances permit them, and it is FOR such as these that the Canons make allowance to receive the Catholic Eucharist. I am 99.9999999% sure that a non-Catholic apostolic Christian who has a different attitude about the Catholic Faith will NEVER ask to approach the Catholic Eucharist, and so the Canon does not and cannot apply to them.

Perhaps you are also under the mistaken impression that the Catholic canons on non-Catholic apostolic Christians receiving Catholic Sacraments is some sort of CORPORATE admission for the Orthodox Church(es). It is not. Corporately speaking, the Orthodox Church(es) does not have and is not in communion with the Catholic Church(es), and the same is true from the Catholic perspective - corporately speaking, the Catholic Church(es) does not have and is not in communion with the Orthodox Church(es). The Catholic canon law only applies to INDIVIDUALS who will approach the Catholic Eucharist. It might interest you to know that there are many examples of INDIVIDUAL Catholics receiving in Orthodox Churches also. Just because it is not in their canon law does not mean it does not happen under the Orthodox principle of oikonomia.

Your point here is…well…pointless for two reasons:
(1) We don’t share the same dogmatic Faith with the Orthodox (at least as far as current understanding allows). So it’s a non-sequitur to bring up “Catholic unity” if the dogmatic Faith is not shared.
(2) The Eucharist is not just about the “communion of saints.” It is just as much about the VISIBLE communion of FAITH among laity and hierarchs. Your rationale sounds strangely like the invisible church theory of some Protestants.

Blessings,
Marduk

So is the faith of the Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Catholic Church exactly the same to a “T”…?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

So is the faith of the Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Catholic Church exactly the same to a “T”…?

What are the “Eastern parts” of the Roman Catholic Church?