From the USCCB’s Guidelines for the Reception of Communion:
But, from the OCA:
So, the answer to the question, “Can Roman Catholics participate in a Greek Orthodox service?” would probably be a “qualified yes” (i.e. Catholics can participate in everything except Communion).
Roman Catholics are welcome to come to any of the Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy, Pre-Sanctified Liturgy or Prayer Services like Vespers and Orthros.
While the Roman Church has no objection to Orthodox receiving communion at the Roman mass, or Romans receiving at the Greek liturgy, we request that the Greek restriction be observed in both cases.
When I was in high school, I knew this better, but I can only remember some of the differences now.
A pretty good list, certainly not definitive but it gives the OP some answers. I’ll clarify a few things.
It’s more a case of not believing it was necessary. Since we believe the taint of Original Sin is felt through the consequences of the Sin, and not through a blood born guilt. Both Christ and St. Mary would have not been removed from these consequences.
I believe you’re speaking of the Anaphora, but I’m not sure. I’ve never thought of a specific moment where the change happens, only accepted that it happens.
A pretty good list, certainly not definitive but it gives the OP some answers. I’ll clarify a few things.
Well, I said it’s been a whileThank you very much for the clarifications
Originally Posted by Rence
When I was in high school, I knew this better, but I can only remember some of the differences now.
**Thank you for the clarification, like I said, it’s been a while
- Eastern Orthodox believers do not believe in the Immaculate Conception
whereas this is a CC dogma
Really? My understanding is they are allowed to believe it but that it’s not dogmatic…that’s different than saying they DO NOT believe it.
**Yes, the first among equals, but also IIRC they still do not recognize a state of papal infallibility, which again, is a dogma. RCs must believe in it. Plus, correct me if I’m wrong but did they not have issue with the way in which the Pope was made the supreme leader? I read that they found it a political decision rather than a decision voted on by the bishops as a whole. Am I right? If not, set me straight please
- They don’t believe in papal infallibility, and believe all Bishops are equal, whereas the CC believes the Pope to be the head of the Church and over all the other Bishops.
They do concede a pre-eminence to the Bishop of Rome…he’s the first among equals in their view…
I could be wrong, but I think the Catholic position is that they do not P(name removed by moderator)OINT exactly when during this phrase transubstantiation takes place.
- Ok, I know this one is vague, maybe someone can help me out here because it’s been years: For the Eastern Orthodox, there is a prayer required that changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. While the CC also says that prayer during Mass, they think it’s like asking for somethng that was already given to them when they prayed the words: “this is my Body” and “this is my Blood” during the Consecration. It’s at this point that CC’s believe that the bread and wine was changed, not at the time of the prayer said afterwards. EOs, can you confirm or correc this one?
I was taught (by a priest) that at that moment when the priest says, “this is my body…”, that the bread turns into the Body of Christ. And when he says, “this is my blood…” that the contents of the Chalise turn into the Blood of Christ.
What does that mean exactly? How is that possible? I mean, I know there are exceptions as there are always exeptions, but how does that work exactly? Do you mean that any married Catholic man can just apply to become a priest? I know that if a convert from another religion (for example a married orthodox priest) converts to Catholicism, that convert can be a married Catholic priest. When my brother attended a seminarian preparatory high school, I can’t even count how many of the kids decided not to go on to the seminary because they couldn’t get married (including my brother). So unless something has changed, it’s not as simple as that. Or, are you saying that the Church could, at its descretion, decided to ordain married men? Either way, I’ve never met a married priest and know those who decided not to pursue a vocation in the priesthood because of that.
- Catholic priests take vows of celebacy while EO priests can be married
THIS is purely a matter of discipline, not doctrine. The Catholic Church could, if it decided to, ordain married men.
Thank you for clarifiying that
- EOs don’t approve of RC use of unleavened bread during the celebration of the Eucharist
Yep…but this is not insurmmountable.- RCs believe that those who die in a state of grace go to Purgatory for purification before being allowed to enter Heaven. EO’s don’t believe in Purgatory.
Same as the immaculate conception, I believe the EOs are free to accept or reject the idea.
With regards to everyday stuffs:
EOs do indeed have a much stricter fast.
Yes, I give you a lot of credit.
.
Epiclesis.
. Apparently you do. You write: “one should confess anything big before going”, so you do have the classification “big” presumably there are also “small” sins. Catholics would call these “mortal” and “venial”. And so would some Orthodox. I posted links to two Orthodox catechisims that use that very classification.
It’s actually rare to meet one who knows the doctrine of Purgatory. But Orthodox are steadfast in offering prayers for the dead.
Nonetheless the topic was immaculate conception, the majority of Orthodox believe it to be something which was unnecessary.
The definition of “venial” and “mortal” is not simply “big” and “little”, additionally unlike the Catholic Church we do not have official catechisms and I have no idea what links you are refering to.
We do pray for the dead, however that does not mean we hold to the doctrine of purgatory, that is we do not hold to a doctrine that there is a middle state one must pass through to have all their sins purged from them. There are a few equivalent beliefs which some hold to (such as toll houses), but these are not doctrine either. All we know is that the Last Judgement comes at the End of the Age so we have plenty of time to pray for the souls of those who have fallen asleep.
A categorical “do not believe” is not entirely true when one considers the long history of liturgical prayers mentioning the Theotokos’ incomparable purity-- she is called all-holy, immaculate, spotless, ever pure, etc. There are some Orthodox who believe that Mary sinned, but until recently the overwhelming majority agreed she was at least free of actual sin. It seems that most Catholic/Orthodox differences on the Immaculate Conception have more to do with Orthodox objections to papally defined dogmas and imprecise discussions of the meaning of original sin than anything else.
I think you’re referring to the epiklesis. I don’t think many Orthodox Christians are so precise on this matter as you suggest, though.
Only celibate men are ordained by the Latin Church; the Eastern Catholic Churches ordain either celibate or married men.
At the Orthodox church where I used to live, confession was infrequent, but few people went up to receive the Eucharist. I’d like to know how typical that is in other Orthodox churches.
Neither of these is entirely accurate either. Catholics don’t believe that everyone who dies in a state of grace needs purgation, only that it is possible (and for many probable). The Orthodox say they do not believe in purgatory, but they do pray for the dead and traditionally believe that purification after death awaits many. All of St. Mark of Ephesus’ proposed alternatives to purgatory are, from a Catholic perspective, purgation by another name.
This depends on the law of the Catholic Church to which one belongs. There are at least 22 in full communion with Pope Benedict.
Catholics likewise. “Original sin” is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a state and not an act, not a personal sin. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, “original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.”
We Catholics would say they endured some of the consequences of our first parents’ sin (e.g. death) but not all of the consequences (e.g. the lack of divine life supplied to children at baptism, the inclination to sin rooted in the dis-integration of human nature).
Good clarification. Likewise Catholic priests.
Yes.
Do you mean “unnecessary” in the sense that no one needs to believe it, or “unnecessary” in the sense that God did not have to do it? We would agree with the latter, not the former.
Of course not. But your sense of “big”, meaning a sin that, until confessed, would keep you from communion, is a good functional criterion of a mortal sin.
But there are not shortage of unofficial ones by Orthodox clergy (and saints). Amny are published on line. See post #66 (and #64) of the “Disagree w/ or want argue Orthodox Church teaching” thread.
Not only do you pray for the dead, but you pray for their salvation - that is, you hold to the idea that your prayers can be of consequence for their salvation. Those concepts are the de fide content of the doctrine of purgatory. Other elements that you might be thinking of, like fire are not doctrine - as was stipulated in Florence. They are probably more akin to ideas of ATH and souls roaming the earth.
And even a bunch of smaller sins, added up could also restrict one from recieving the Eucharist.
You’re correct that there are no shortage of unofficial ones. By being unofficial their authority is somewhat less. If you are truly Catholic you should know that just because a saint or a learned man says something does not make it proper doctrine. You’ll also find a number of Orthodox doctrines which use the Catholic term “Sacraments” and number them at seven, even though this is not doctrine we hold. We borrow language from the West to make it easier on those who are looking at the church, just because the same term is used does not mean it is the exact same concept.
SO you’re saying that the doctrine of purgatory extends only so far as the idea that our prayers can assist the dead in the achievement of salvation and go no further? Can you provide something which says this. If this is the modern definition of Purgatory, then you’re right, we would agree. However given the tymological roots of the word, I find it hard to believe.
But the difference is the Orthodox Church does not hold any of it as doctrine. One is free to believe the precise Catholic idea of Purgatory or not, it makes no difference.
aspirant;6149444 said:
Well I am not sure of your point anymore. I think that it is often the case that Orthodox, while to a large extent eschewing Catholic terminolgy, actually hold much the same ideas. And some even use the Catholic words. In such cases, I think it misleading to suggest that there is a real distinction between the Catholic and Orthodox.