Since the Eastern Orthodox Church is said to have valid Holy Orders, doesn't that indirectly mean that they have a valid Eucharist?

[Madaglan]

It was not my intent to do this. I think a careful reading of my post shows that I did not make this parallel. I was simply trying to come up with a situation where Peary would have to agree that the Eucharist was valid but not licit. To come up with a situation, I tried to think of the most egregious thing I could think of. But I never meant to say that Father Joe is like the Orthodox.0

Good stuff.

Why would you have to come up with the most egregious thing?

You could simply have said Father Joe rejected papal infallibility and preached it to the congregation. That would be enough to get him excommunicated.

There is a parallel, between the lines, even though I’m pretty sure you did not mean to place the Orthodox alongside the pro-choice priest. I realize your point is to show that in both cases, that is, in receiving from an ex-Catholic-turned-oddball priest and from an Orthodox priest, the Eucharist is illicit though valid. But I think the example could be a bit more apropos to avoid any hints of subtlety, I hope that makes sense.

 

[peary]

I did not do this. Reread my post, because you did not understand what I was saying.

Yes you are totally right. The Eucharist of the excommunicated priest is also valid.

OK, so if we can do this with the schismatic Orthodox, then how far do we go? Can we also Commune with the Old Catholic Church?

Do you believe there is such a thing as a schismatic?

If both the Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church were serious about establishing unity, they would start with lifting the ban on Communion, and, in a matter of seconds - if not minutes - could unify the church without a problem if both recognize each other as the valid Church of Christ. There have been too many political games being played here in the name of religion and making mountains out of molehills. If they really wanted to do it, it could be done immediately.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Reunification, It is not possible (?) becasue of the infallaibility of the pope in relation to some of his duties.

Since it has been declared and there will never be any doubt that the Catholic Church has declared the pope infalliable in certain conditions then it can never be changed without admitting that the Catholic Church is not the True Church and the implications that go with that.

There are other issues but most of these can be gotten around without upsetting the apple cart to much, however the infalliablity doctrine is a “do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars” brick wall to any unification.

The only hope for unification is that the Orthodox Churches accept papal infaliability, BECAUSE only they have room to move on this issue.

All we can do is basically treat each other as friendly as possible and hope that even if their is no reunification we have closer ties.

 

[peary]

Reunification, It is not possible (?) becasue of the infallaibility of the pope in relation to some of his duties.

Since it has been declared and there will never be any doubt that the Catholic Church has declared the pope infalliable in certain conditions then it can never be changed without admitting that the Catholic Church is not the True Church and the implications that go with that.

There are other issues but most of these can be gotten around without upsetting the apple cart to much, however the infalliablity doctrine is a “do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars” brick wall to any unification.

The only hope for unification is that the Orthodox Churches accept papal infaliability, BECAUSE only they have room to move on this issue.

All we can do is basically treat each other as friendly as possible and hope that even if their is no reunification we have closer ties.

Papal infallibility is something the orthodox churches have to deal with. the papacy has always exercised infallibility throughout history in the areas of Faith and morals, together with the bishops.
It is ethnic arrogance that does not permit the Orthodox from recognition of the pope as spiritual leader of the whole Church. But I still believe in my heart that it is only in the Eucharist can unity can quickly be achieved.

 

[Madaglan]

Papal infallibility is something the orthodox churches have to deal with. the papacy has always exercised infallibility throughout history in the areas of Faith and morals, together with the bishops.
It is ethnic arrogance that does not permit the Orthodox from recognition of the pope as spiritual leader of the whole Church. But I still believe in my heart that it is only in the Eucharist can unity can quickly be achieved.

Papal infallibility is something the Western Church will have to deal with. Many Catholic writers have written of Vatican I as a Council only applicable to the West (indeed, many Eastern Catholics do not regard Vatican I as ecumenical, and believe it to be only a Latin Council). Basically, if Latin were to reunite with the East, the Pope would be infallible amongst the Latins, but not amongst the East.

It is arrogance for one person to claim supremacy and universal jurisdiction, or to demand (as previous popes have) that princes and others kiss his foot. .

 

[Atreyu]

Why would you have to come up with the most egregious thing?

Because if I used a mild example, then I feared he would simply say “So? We could still receive the Eucharist!”

You could simply have said Father Joe rejected papal infallibility and preached it to the congregation. That would be enough to get him excommunicated.

Depending upon how far he took it, yes. I just wasn’t sure that Peary would agree that rejecting Papal Infallibility would be an offence worthy of excommunication. I was hoping that he would see that supporting abortion is.

There is a parallel, between the lines, even though I’m pretty sure you did not mean to place the Orthodox alongside the pro-choice priest. I realize your point is to show that in both cases, that is, in receiving from an ex-Catholic-turned-oddball priest and from an Orthodox priest, the Eucharist is illicit though valid. But I think the example could be a bit more apropos to avoid any hints of subtlety, I hope that makes sense.

It does, and I certainly apologise if there was any hint that I think of the Orthodox as being alongside oddball pro-choice priests. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love the Orthodox, so much that it breaks my heart.

 

[Atreyu]

If both the Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church were serious about establishing unity, they would start with lifting the ban on Communion, and, in a matter of seconds - if not minutes - could unify the church without a problem if both recognize each other as the valid Church of Christ. There have been too many political games being played here in the name of religion and making mountains out of molehills. If they really wanted to do it, it could be done immediately.

But our respective bishops have utterly condemned this action! You must be obedient to your bishop!

Please think about this and pray about this for a while. I know that you might feel helpless, but there really is nothing we can do other than to pray for reunification. I certainly try to teach as much as I can and to the best of my ability, and I think this is also a worthy goal. But when it comes down to it, it will be the bishops and the clergy that bring about reunification. It is their job - their vocation - not ours. We must not use any evil means in order to bring about what we know is good. And being disobedient to your bishop definitely is not a good thing. Can you agree with me on this?

And by the way, never underestimate the power of prayer!!!

 

[bobzills]

**
It is ethnic arrogance that does not permit the Orthodox from recognition of the pope as spiritual leader of the whole Church. .**

This may be one of the reason why the Eastern Orthodox Church does not want to join with the Roman Catholic Church. Too many people are going around falsely and uncharitably accusing the Eastern Orthodox of ethnic arrogance.

 

[peary]

Papal infallibility is something the Western Church will have to deal with.

The Church in the West has ALWAYS dealt with it. It’s not going away. The Chair of Peter is a great tradition and necessary for unity.

Many Catholic writers have written of Vatican I as a Council only applicable to the West (indeed, many Eastern Catholics do not regard Vatican I as ecumenical, and believe it to be only a Latin Council). Basically, if Latin were to reunite with the East, the Pope would be infallible amongst the Latins, but not amongst the East.

That depends.

It is arrogance for one person to claim supremacy and universal jurisdiction, or to demand (as previous popes have) that princes and others kiss his foot. .

**One person does not claim supremacy. The Church has always maintained that Christ put Peter in charge of the Church as His emmissary or “prime minister”. And Peter’s name is mentioned in Scripture more than any other apostle, and because of this, he was always the ‘head’ of the apostles. That’s a given.

Unfortunately, you have an incredibly naive and middle-age perspective on the papacy which keeps you from understanding the Truth.**

 

[Lilyflower]

Now I thought a Catholic CAN attend an Orthodox Liturgy AS LONG AS s/he makes it a point to still fulfill their obligation at their own church AND they don’t partake of the Orthodox church’s eucharist?

Essentially can’t a Catholic attend an EO church (or any church for that matter) just as a “spectator”?

My understanding was that a Catholic could fulfill their Christian duty in respect of ‘keeping holy the sabbath’ by attending an EOC

 

[Madaglan]

Because if I used a mild example, then I feared he would simply say “So? We could still receive the Eucharist!”

Depending upon how far he took it, yes. I just wasn’t sure that Peary would agree that rejecting Papal Infallibility would be an offence worthy of excommunication. I was hoping that he would see that supporting abortion is.

It does, and I certainly apologise if there was any hint that I think of the Orthodox as being alongside oddball pro-choice priests. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love the Orthodox, so much that it breaks my heart.

no problem.

 

[Madaglan]

My understanding was that a Catholic could fulfill their Christian duty in respect of ‘keeping holy the sabbath’ by attending an EOC

I do not believe this to be the magisterial teaching of the Latin Church. Now, a Latin Catholic may fulfill his or her duty by attending an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy.

 

[Madaglan]

**One person does not claim supremacy. The Church has always maintained that Christ put Peter in charge of the Church as His emmissary or “prime minister”. And Peter’s name is mentioned in Scripture more than any other apostle, and because of this, he was always the ‘head’ of the apostles. That’s a given.

Unfortunately, you have an incredibly naive and middle-age perspective on the papacy which keeps you from understanding the Truth.**

The Chair of Peter is a great tradition, I agree, but the Chair of Peter does not equate the cathedra of Rome exclusively.

Could you please find me one Church Father from the 1st millenium who refers to Peter (and the Bishop of Rome for that matter) as prime minister (you are referencing, I take it, Eliakim of the Davidic kingdom).

Peter has a primacy; he is the first of the Apostles; first called and the representative of the Apostolic body. I acknowledge this. But nowhere in Scripture does it mention Peter as “in charge” over the other Apostles, or over the Church for that matter.

 

[Madaglan]

But our respective bishops have utterly condemned this action! You must be obedient to your bishop!

Please think about this and pray about this for a while. I know that you might feel helpless, but there really is nothing we can do other than to pray for reunification. I certainly try to teach as much as I can and to the best of my ability, and I think this is also a worthy goal. But when it comes down to it, it will be the bishops and the clergy that bring about reunification. It is their job - their vocation - not ours. We must not use any evil means in order to bring about what we know is good. And being disobedient to your bishop definitely is not a good thing. Can you agree with me on this?

And by the way, never underestimate the power of prayer!!!

Yes, you are right on the communion issue. Obedience is definitely important, too. As is prayer.

 

[peary]

The Chair of Peter is a great tradition, I agree, but the Chair of Peter does not equate the cathedra of Rome exclusively.

**The Church understands that when the pope speaks “ex cathedra” or “from the chair” he speaks with the authority invested in Peter as Christ’s vicar in the Church. Infallibility means that in areas of Faith and morals, the pope, together with the bishops (both of whom are called the Teaching Magisterium) cannot err in these matters, protected in a special way by the Holy Spirit. **

Could you please find me one Church Father from the 1st millenium who refers to Peter (and the Bishop of Rome for that matter) as prime minister (you are referencing, I take it, Eliakim of the Davidic kingdom).

Early Church Fathers such as Pope Clement I, Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch, Hegesippus, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, Iranaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyprian of Carthage, Firmilian, Pope Julius 1, Jerome, Augustine - all of these in the first two-three hundred years of the Church’s existence - all make reference in one form or another to the supremacy of the chair of Peter in the Church.

Peter has a primacy; he is the first of the Apostles; first called and the representative of the Apostolic body. I acknowledge this. But nowhere in Scripture does it mention Peter as “in charge” over the other Apostles, or over the Church for that matter.

Matthew 16:18, for starters.

 

[Madaglan]

Matthew 16:18, for starters.

Huh? Haven’t heard of that verse before.

 

[Atreyu]

Could you please find me one Church Father from the 1st millenium who refers to Peter (and the Bishop of Rome for that matter) as prime minister (you are referencing, I take it, Eliakim of the Davidic kingdom).

Well I don’t think they really need to. The parallels between the two Biblical texts are too obvious to claim that “since the Church Fathers did not mention it, it is not true”.

Cyprian of Carthage says:

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source.

What do you think that means?

Huh? Haven’t heard of that verse before

Lol!

 

[Mickey]

What do you think that means?

It means that St Peter’s succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved. What do you think it means?

 

[Lilyflower]

It means that St Peter’s succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved. What do you think it means?

I struggle with one fact of Orthodoxy, it seems the early Church was organised along Orthodox lines rather than one unified Church.

Now we accept that actually there was evidence of a unified Church by the letters of Clement [Peter’s Disciple and Scribe, writer of 1Peter and author of 2 Peter] who assumed an authority or seniority over the Bishops who were heads of each of the individual Churches.

But the fact remains they were ‘Churches’ not ‘Church’. Indeed St Paul speaks in such a way too.

Orthodox were also there with us in the very beginning. Therefore, it seems to me that Orthodox and Catholic are two sides of the SAME coin.

I look forward to the day [if it ever comes] when the Patriachs take their rightful place in the College of Cardinals in a unified Catholic Orthodox Church.

Blessings and peace

 

[Mickey]

Therefore, it seems to me that Orthodox and Catholic are two sides of the SAME coin.

Sadly, the Patriarchate of Rome veered from the other four Patriarchates and began to adopt innovated doctrines. I also look forward to the day when the Church of Rome returns to the fold of Holy Orthodoxy.