Question for Catholics and Orthodox: would you follow your Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is not a fair thing to ask at all. If reunion ever happens, and I hope we are all praying for God’s Grace that it does, it will automatically mean that changes will happen. The real question should be what kind of changes will have to happen to make sure that the Church keeps her integrety and is fully able to proclaim the Gospel to the world. Would Catholics be willing to give up the current normal form of the Mass and go back to only the Extra ordinary form all in Latin? We would have to sit and think this over but this is not outside of the kinds of concessions that could be made. Would Catholics drop the Latin Rite entirely and adopt the ritual according to St. Basil, or John or James? NO, that would be going WAY TOO far. Not that I have any objections to those rituals, they are beautiful and Holy and should be an option for the Latin Rite but they should not be forced on us and have the Mass of St. Peter taken entirely away.

The bottom line is, if the reunion ever happens, there will be change. What kind of change is the real important issue. The ground work for reunion as far as theology has already been laid out. What is left if the work that needs to be done in understanding and Charity. The Byzantines will have to finally accept once and for all that Filioque means exactly what it says without trying to find a way to make it a heresy when it isn’t. All the theological ground work for this has already been dealt with centuries ago. Ex Patre Filioque; means From the Father Through the Son. Byzantines will have to stop saying that it isn’t heresy when they say it but some how it “just is” when Catholics say it.

Other issues about divorce and the proper understanding of sacrements and why Anglican Orders are invalid are areas where the Byzantines will have to come to the Catholic side because the Catholic Church just can’t budge on these and keep her integrety.

Catholics are going to have to accept that not everyone is going to have the same calendar as us. Indeed, that is even the case today within the Catholic church and most Catholics don’t realize it. We are going to have to stop snubbing our nose up at Byzantines because they don’t go to Mass every Sunday. We will have to accept that their old testament has three more books that really amounts to six additional writtings. We will have to understand that they are far removed from looking to the Pope to teach on every issue and expect theirown bishops to be strong enough in Christian living to be able to teach them correctly. If we get to reunion, it will not mean that now everyone in Greece will buy a rosary. Catholics may have to change our teachings about languages and promulgate the Cannon Law of the Church in both Latin and Greek, going back to the older way. I really don’t think the Byzantines will allow Latin Languages cannon Law, even the code that we published for the current Eastern Catholic Churches, to replace theirown Cannons and we should not expect that to happen.

Byzantines are going to do it their way and Catholics are going to do it their way, and at least at first, all reunion will actually mean is that we will not really change much but just start saying that we are one church again and then start to hammer out the issues.

Before that can really happen though, the Byzantines don’t need to reconcile with the Laitn Rite. That has been ready to happen for a LONG time. They need to reconcile with the Rites of Oriental Orthodoxy, which are represented in the Catholic Church. They will also have to reconcile with the part of the Assyrian Church of the East that is in communion with Rome. On top of all of that, there is their own in house matter of reconciling with the Ukranian Byzantine Catholic Church and the Melchite Catholic Church. These really have to happen first before Byzantine and Latin Rites can have any hope of really standing together and saying that was are united as the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH. It may well mean some of the Byzantine Rite churches loosing their identity as Eastern Catholic and becoming Byzantine.

Personally, I think there is a simple way to make this happen. If we all really realize, I mean REALLY realize, that Jesus is really there in the Eucharist, then we would be able, all of us together to come down onto our knees in front of THE Holy ONE of GOD and ask for his Grace to heal our wounds. If we all really believe that there is only one Jesus, one Eucharist, then we must all be one Church. It would also mean doing what we can to reunite with the Coptics and the Assyrians and all the others that still maintain the Sacrement and have Jesus REALLY Presant in the Eucharist.

The Pope would still have to be the Pope, that could not change. Perhaps the Latin Rite would have to sort of take a back seat and allow the Byzantines their space to Evangalize certain areas of the world where we are having trouble, like China but that is all ok if we are again ONE Church.

Really though, I think that before the Byzantines come fully back into the Catholic church, or the other way around if you live in Greece, All of the Legitimate churches have to reconcile. There may be partial reunion with the Byzantines but there will not be a FULL reunion untill all of these stop seperating the Body of Christ because of human pride and sin and a Full reunion with all happens at a great ecumenical council.
 
Gottle of Geer;3338773I think the old ways are *culs-de-sac [/quote said:
, & that if there is to be reunion it may need to be by being more “Protestant” - specifically, by being more “Evangelical” in certain ways; because Evangelical Protestantism emphasises the freeness of grace better than the CC or Orthodoxy seem to.

Sorry, but saying this invalidates anything else you could have brought to the table. I could accept the Byzantines as part of the ONE church, as I could and am willing, indeed eager, to accept the Coptics, Armenians, Syrians and Assyrians, but I will not accept protestants. Protestants have lost all of the essential elements to being Christian, the most important being the Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, consecrated by a VALID priest, there is not worship, there is not Church, there are no Christians. Without the Eucharist, you can hang it up, we are all going to hell. Thank God the Catholic Church, by the miricles of Almighty God, has been preserved in all of the heresies coming out of protestantism. I can accept the other churches that have valid priest and have a valid Eucharist, but I will never compromise on the Eucharist.

By the way, Papal infallibility is Church infallibility since the Pope only uses it when he is speaking for the entire Church. People take Papal infallibility too far. They will say things like the the Ordinary form of the Mass should be the only one used because the Pope, who is infallible, made it. Then the other side counters with the fact that past infallible Popes promulgated the older Mass. That does not even approach what Papal infallibility actually means. Papal infallibilty is the ability of the Church, focused on the office of Peter, to declare something as part of the teachings of the Church and that we can trust this teaching just as surely as we can trust what is written in the Bible. The Assumption of Mary is just such a case. The real question is not weather the Pope should have used infallibility to strengthen that teaching, for indeed the Church has always maintained that this happened. The real question is, DID IT ACTUALLY HAPPEN. If it did, then there is no reason whey the Pope should not declair on it so that the Catholics don’t have to listen to crazy protestants who lie to them. All of the legitimate churches teach this because it is not something that Christians just made up later to explain where Mary went, but it was an event that really happened and has been remembered in the traditions of the Church.
 
I am very sorry. The schism is permanent.
This is very sad. This means that the Catholic church has to convert all of the Byzantines one by one because you are not now nor can you ever be again in the future the ONE TRUE CHURCH. Oh, but your own church fathers disagree with you and the Catholic church, whose opinion is really the one to look to in this matter, also disagrees with you as well as myself. When the Churches, by the Grace of GOD, finally are allowed to reunite, good luck going off on your own and not being able to recieve valid Eucharist.

Just so everyone here understands, the schism was caused over the Eucharist. That was the only, ONLY, issue that ever mattered. It is the only thing that should ever matter in our lives. To believe in the REAL JESUS in the Eucharist is to condemn the actions that created the schism in the first place, namely the eastern bishop that threw the consecrated body and blood of the LORD JESUS on the floor and step on it. No other issue matters, at all, AT ALL. The Latins and Byzantines have come a long way since then and appologies have already been had, forgiveness already sent and recieved. If we truely hold each other’s Eucharist to be valid, then we must reunite or be hypocrites. If the Byzantines begin to say that Catholic Eucharist is invalid again then I personally have no choice but to doubt their Eucharist highly. This is already my possition on Baptism, which I know to be 100% valid in the Catholic church but I do not have such knowledge about the Byzantines that are not in communion.

We should all think about why we say we want to be in full COMMUNION with each other. COMMUNION, aka the EUCHARIST is all the ultimately matters no matter what else comes along.
 
I keep seeing here that everyone wants to dance around Papal infalibility. That is not going away. God has protected the Holy Catholic Church all of this time. Papal infalibility is directly linked to Peter’s primacy. Peter’s Primacy is not going away. These are truths of the Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit. The protection of God Almighty will never allow these truths to be done away with. The Byzantine “orthodox” here are starting to sound like protestants. You are asking us to reject just one, just one tiny little bitty insignificant truth of the church. This entire conversation on the Infalibilty of the Pope is really just an attack on Christ’s Body. I will not reject even one, not even ONE truth of the Church founded by Jesus. I am highly offended by the “orthodox” if we can even really call them that, asking me to change any part of the faith. If the Church denys even one truth of God, then we are no longer the One True Church. That of course can not happen because God himself is protecting the Catholic Church. It is exactly this kind of racist attitude of the Byzantines that perpetuates this schism. Yes, I call it racist and a lot of people agree with me when they look at the actions of the Byzantines in relations to other races. Not just Greeks can be bishops you know.

Doctrinally, The Catholic Church is correct and has not changed or contradicted any part of the deposit of faith given to us by Jesus. Reunion can only happen when the Byzantines recongize that either our faiths are already the same or they reorganize themselves to the truth. Attacking the Latin Rite because we allow a priest with a band aid somewhere on his body to say Mass is not a legitimate agruement at all. The Latin Rite is just as old if not far older then the rites of the Byzantines since the Latin rite came from Peter, the one who shares Jesus’s own name. The only apostles, the only human being, that Jesus ever refered to as WE.

Catholics may have to give the Byzantines some room and not force them to do things our way and we may have let them hold a kind of primacy in their area but the doctines are set. Do not ask Catholics to deny a truth of the Lord Jesus, because God will not allow us to do that. The doctines of Jesus are already taught and set. We are not allowed to change them at all.
 
But it was taught as truth for many years–with no disclipline from Rome. It was taught to me as truth by the nuns when I attended Roman Catholic grade school. Now it is not to be believed! :eek:

Oh the dichotomy!
Mickey,

You know that I respect you, but you really need to let this one go. You’re trying to make an issue here where there is none. Limbo was never a dogma and was never taught as such. What it is and always has been is a theological opinion which Catholics are free to accept or reject. The recent Limbo document does not say, as you claim, that it is not to be believed. In fact, in the beginning of the article it says that it is still an acceptable opinion. The rest of the article merely confirms that the fate of the unbaptized (through no fault of their own) has not been revealed to us and that we should hope and pray for their salvation. The Orthodox and the protestants are the only ones who try to make Limbo out to be a dogma. Since the Catholic Church does not consider it as such, you really have no right to.
 
Mickey,You know that I respect you, but you really need to let this one go.
My dear brother in Christ,

I know that it is not a RC dogma. I have never said that it was. The only point I was making had to do with how I was taught regarding limbo. Nuns and clergy taught me in the RC Church when I was a wee tike. They taught that reposed unbaptized infants were not saved. Now the teaching has been changed. I know I am not alone when it comes to this unfortunate dichotomy.

That is all I was saying.

Nothing more–nothing less.

Peace,
Mickey
 
By the way, Papal infallibility is Church infallibility since the Pope only uses it when he is speaking for the entire Church. People take Papal infallibility too far.
"I am Tradition!"
(Pope Pius IX)
 
"I am Tradition!"
(Pope Pius IX)
All well and good but When, Where, and what is the rest of the quote. You probably don’t know and I can bet you he didn’t say it in English. This quote doesn’t damage the Catholic faith at all by the way, it actually reinforces it and gives us an insight into the truth, but you Byzantines, like the protestants can’t see that far because God is not guiding you to the truth as he does his ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH founded by JESUS.
 
This quote doesn’t damage the Catholic faith at all by the way
An excerpt from the book “You Are Peter” by Olivier Clement

(regarding an incident that ocurred at the Vatican I Council)


The courageous Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, Gregory II Youssef, proclaimed that the Church “was not an absolute monarchy.” After he expressed his view to Pius IX that the definitions prepared were not in accordance with Tradition, there came the famous reply: “I am Tradition.” And when, taking leave at the end of the council, the archbishop prostrated himself to kiss the papal slipper, Pius IX rudely placed his foot on the nape of his neck and, putting his weight on it, cried out: “A stiff-necked fellow!”
God is not guiding you to the truth as he does his ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH founded by JESUS.
The Holy Orthodox Church believes that She is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. 👍
 
Reunification can only be achieved around the Eucharist Who is validly proclaimed among all Orthodox and Catholic believers. The churches can work out doctrine later, probably at a true ecumenical council that is all-inclusive of both church traditions.
But reunification can happen tomorrow if they want it to occur by proclaiming the unity in the Eucharist, and then work from there.
 
Reunification can only be achieved around the Eucharist Who is validly proclaimed among all Orthodox and Catholic believers.
I most emphatically disagree.

The basis of unity can be nothing other than agreement in Universal Truth. This rules out all Protestant and (to a lessor extent, but nonetheless serious) Latin innovation.

After which, we can commune and our hierarchs can mutually concelebrate.

If you want to believe that Orthodox already have a valid Eucharist, go for it. But we wouldn’t care if you did not, it has no impact upon Holy Orthodoxy one way or the other.

Michael
 
I most emphatically disagree.

The basis of unity can be nothing other than agreement in Universal Truth. This rules out all Protestant and (to a lessor extent, but nonetheless serious) Latin innovation.

After which, we can commune and our hierarchs can mutually concelebrate.

If you want to believe that Orthodox already have a valid Eucharist, go for it. But we wouldn’t care if you did not, it has no impact upon Holy Orthodoxy one way or the other.

Michael
Then actually, your belief in the Eucharist is superficial, and I can’t help you with that.
 
I most emphatically disagree.

The basis of unity can be nothing other than agreement in Universal Truth. This rules out all Protestant and (to a lessor extent, but nonetheless serious) Latin innovation.

After which, we can commune and our hierarchs can mutually concelebrate.

If you want to believe that Orthodox already have a valid Eucharist, go for it. But we wouldn’t care if you did not, it has no impact upon Holy Orthodoxy one way or the other.

Michael
Amen.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif
 
You are incorrect. Do not try to impose your Latin understanding upon others.
Why are you even in here? To cause division? I am sure there are orthodox forums you can visit willing to put up with your arrogant remarks. I am Catholic and I will offer my opinions in here whether you like it or not. If you have an issue with that, put me on ignore.
 
Why are you even in here? To cause division? I am sure there are orthodox forums you can visit willing to put up with your arrogant remarks.
Michael is one of the most civil and irenic members of these fora. Your comments are aggressive and rude. 😦
 
Visible, Institutional “unity” is a chimaera.

It is also unnecessary.

We have all the unity we need, and it, like we, will be perfected and sealed in Holiness and conformity when Christ returns.

This is Jesus’ church and it is not broken.
 
Michael is one of the most civil and irenic members of these fora. Your comments are aggressive and rude. 😦
Well, you can put my on ignore too or choose not to read my opinions. I simply stated my opinion that, spiritually, the Eucharist unites both churches and that should be the binding force of unity. Obviously, both of you disagree, but offer no valid reason why.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top