SPLIT: The Catholic Church too legalistic

  • Thread starter Thread starter trophybearer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe this is germane to this topic - the teaching of Pope Saint Gregory the Great that the three Patriarchates which
existed in his time -Rome, Alexandria and Antioch- founded by Peter, were equal in power and authority. This is something from
one of the Church’s greatest Popes which you will never see in any Catholic work on the papacy.

Note well:
  1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing the keys with Rome
  2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and Alexandria and Antioch
  3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one See over which the three bishops preside.
-oOo-

St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius
Patriarch of Alexandria.

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius] has spoken much in your letter to me about
the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he
himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the
dignity of such as preside [he means the bishops], but even in the
number of such as stand [he means the faithful].
But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to
me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. …And to him it is
said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And
when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once
more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi.
17).

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the
principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has
grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to
rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to
which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself
established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for
seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See,
over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever
good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”

(Book VII, Epistle XL)
 
Requiring Catholics to attend Catholic Mass on Sundays - remembering that there is nothing preventing them, having done so, from ALSO attending Orthodox DL, though they are not to receive Communion there - is no different nor more legalistic than requiring an Orthodox priest to celebrate ONLY the Orthodox divine liturgies!

What on earth would the faithful of an Orthodox Church think if their priest turned around one Sunday and said to his congregation ‘you know, I’m bored with DL, all Christians are one body anyway, so today I"m going to say Mass according to the High Anglican Rite/hold a Baptist-style worship service/get Joel Osteen in to do his thing for you instead’

What would the faithful at a Baptist church think, on the other hand, if their pastor got up one Sunday and said ‘let’s mix it up a little - I’m going to say a Catholic Mass/Orthodox DL for you today instead of the usual’.

Being a member of a faith grouping is like choosing to be a citizen of a particular country - you may not really think it’s better or worse in EVERY respect than EVERY other country out there, but you’re going to be loyal to it, and you’re not going to wilfully refuse to do what a citizen must - say, pay your taxes or what have you.
 
trophybearer said:
Disobeying God or disobeying the legaslistic obligation the Catholic Church places on its flock? “Go to a Catholic Eucharistic service on Sunday or you’ll be guilty of mortal sin for disobeying… even if it’s an Apostolic Church- if they aren’t under the Pope it doesn’t count!” I’m not denying that it may be sinful to purposely miss Divine Services on Sunday, but on what basis does the Catholic Church bind Catholics to this strict observance?
Click to expand...
If one is a Catholic of the Roman Rite then one is expected to accept the obligations involved in that acceptance. This is not an unreasonable expectation for any member of any group.
Considering the statistics for attendance at Mass, on any given Sunday the mojority of Catholics throughout the world are guilty of mortal sin and bound for hell!
Click to expand...
This may be true. We cannot know for sure since we cannot see into another’s heart. But Christ did say that they way is narrow and that few find it. There is also the parable of the seed which demonstrates that many will not make it to heaven.

I willm for the edification of yourself and others tell you that i am one of those unable to attend mass regularly due to my wife’s illness. (She has Alzheimer’s) In our case, the first time I missed mass I confessed it to my confessor and discussed the matter with him. He told me that if I needed to be home then that was OK. I do try to make it to mass at least once a week and, if not, have communion brought to the house so that we can at least recieve our Lord that way.

Gotta go now - the wife is up

Peace
James
 
LilyM said:
Requiring Catholics to attend Catholic Mass on Sundays - remembering that there is nothing preventing them, having done so, from ALSO attending Orthodox DL, though they are not to receive Communion there - is no different nor more legalistic than requiring an Orthodox priest to celebrate ONLY the Orthodox divine liturgies!

What on earth would the faithful of an Orthodox Church think if their priest turned around one Sunday and said to his congregation ‘you know, I’m bored with DL, all Christians are one body anyway, so today I"m going to say Mass according to the High Anglican Rite/hold a Baptist-style worship service/get Joel Osteen in to do his thing for you instead’

What would the faithful at a Baptist church think, on the other hand, if their pastor got up one Sunday and said ‘let’s mix it up a little - I’m going to say a Catholic Mass/Orthodox DL for you today instead of the usual’.

Being a member of a faith grouping is like choosing to be a citizen of a particular country - you may not really think it’s better or worse in EVERY respect than EVERY other country out there, but you’re going to be loyal to it, and you’re not going to wilfully refuse to do what a citizen must - say, pay your taxes or what have you.
Click to expand...
That analogy doesn’t really fit.
 
Let’s put this another way.
You seem concerned that the Church has too many “rules” in your opinion and that breaking some of these rules can incur Mortal sin where you feel it is not Justified. Perhaps this is the case, but consider this.

The Church to which you belong, Instituted by Christ Himself and given authority to Speak in His name has told you that it is of Prime importance that you attend mass on the First day of each week. Thus beginning your week praising God and, hopefully, recieving Jesus in the most holy and blessed sacrament.
Because the Church has told you that you need to do this, it is the same as Jesus telling you to do this.
Now - Are you obedient to Christ? Do you do as He commands?
If you obstinately do not do as Christ, through His Church, commands for insufficiant reason, have you not incurred a sin? Because it is considered important (Grave matter) and you knowingly and obstinately neglect to go to mass, does this not meet the requirements for a mortal sin?
So - Who is at fault here. Christ through His Church for making a rule you consider too strict? Or you for obstinately refusing to obey Our Lord.

The sin is not incurred for not attending mass - but for refusing to obey Him who has redeemed you and you have proclaimed your King by belonging to His Church.

Now - as many have said there are times when one may not be able to attend mass. If it is predictable you may want to check with your confessor ahead of time for a dispensation (Partying Saturday night is not sufficient). If it is unpredictable, check with your confessor afterwards and see if it was a sin and of what magnitude. (inadvertantly missing mass is likely no more than a venial sin)

Many people look at these rules and say - Oh That’s Hard or That’s unfair, or I don’t understand that. Instead look at the reasons for the rules, the thought behind it and the benefits from obeying them.

Peace
James
 
trophybearer said:
Are you aware that your Eastern Catholic brothers under the Pope of ROme use leavened bread as well? Remove all doubt!
Click to expand...
No I was not, I am unfamiliar about Eastern Catholic practices, a subject which I am trying to find a good book about. I read Bokenkotters book on the History of the Church, but it’s Western biased.
 
trophybearer said:
I believe this is germane to this topic - the teaching of Pope Saint Gregory the Great that the three Patriarchates which
existed in his time -Rome, Alexandria and Antioch- founded by Peter, were equal in power and authority. This is something from
one of the Church’s greatest Popes which you will never see in any Catholic work on the papacy.

Note well:
  1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing the keys with Rome
  2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and Alexandria and Antioch
  3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one See over which the three bishops preside.
-oOo-

St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius
Patriarch of Alexandria.

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius] has spoken much in your letter to me about
the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he
himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the
dignity of such as preside [he means the bishops], but even in the
number of such as stand [he means the faithful].
But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to
me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. …And to him it is
said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And
when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once
more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi.
17).

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the
principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has
grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to
rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to
which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself
established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for
seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See,
over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever
good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”

(Book VII, Epistle XL)
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t expect the Church to change its current perspective regarding the papacy anytime soon though. Moreover, Papal supremacy is a great stumbling block for myself since it does not exist.
 
trophybearer said:
That’s not legalisam. There are no Sacraments outside the Church. Legalism would be to say, "well, this guy was ordained by Bishop so-and-so who, although not a part of the Church, can trace his ordaination to two “validly” consecrated Bishops, so he has the ‘power’ to confect the Sacrament even if he does it in his clown suit with face paint on while standing on his head. ":rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I don’t know how to reply to a post that a christian makes that demeans the priesthood in such a way. I know there are abuses (just a brief viewing of liturgy and sacraments threads can do that for you in a snap) but, isn’t that a bit much?

What can I say?

I am surprised you are a form over matter type comes to mind. Are you the type that would choose a solider based on how shiny his shoes were and how well ironed his pants were to go represent you in battle?

Or would you take your best man for battle?

Is the Mass or Divine Liturgy about your personal benefit, or is it about something bigger than that?

I don’t know either yet, so feel free to disreagard my commentary. I just wonder if you would run out screaming if you knew I may be the one sitting next to you when you worship.

What is most important to you about worshiping God? The right songs be sung? The right vestments be worn?

I thought it was about Jesus and his body and blood.
 
This is one bizarre post? It’s the first “leaving an Orthodox Church only to get hit by a bus” post since joining CAF?🤷

The poster makes missing Mass to sound trivial and seems to scratch his head as to why missing Mass is a mortal sin? Upon thinking about it, consider this…

Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is making His sacrifice on Calvary manifest, present to you at a holy celebration. Furthermore He is making His full presence available for you to consume, the Eucharist, the medicine of Heaven, to take into yourself and commune with Him. The Son who has paid the ultimate price for your sins is giving Himself to you and asking you to sing to Him, worship Him, and join with your Christian brethren in recognizing this salvific act. And yet, with full knowledge of this, you stay home. You’re not sick. You’re not suffering from exhaustion. You’re not working at a job that won’t let you off. You’re totally available and able to go but you purposely decide, “no thanks, Lord.” How could that be anything but mortal sin? It involves grave matter, consent of the will, and it’s a full-on rejection of grace and charity to God?

This seems like a no-brainer to me?:confused:
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
This is one bizarre post? It’s the first “leaving an Orthodox Church only to get hit by a bus” post since joining CAF?🤷

The poster makes missing Mass to sound trivial and seems to scratch his head as to why missing Mass is a mortal sin? Upon thinking about it, consider this…

Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is making His sacrifice on Calvary manifest, present to you at a holy celebration. Furthermore He is making His full presence available for you to consume, the Eucharist, the medicine of Heaven, to take into yourself and commune with Him. The Son who has paid the ultimate price for your sins is giving Himself to you and asking you to sing to Him, worship Him, and join with your Christian brethren in recognizing this salvific act. And yet, with full knowledge of this, you stay home. You’re not sick. You’re not suffering from exhaustion. You’re not working at a job that won’t let you off. You’re totally available and able to go but you purposely decide, “no thanks, Lord.” How could that be anything but mortal sin? It involves grave matter, consent of the will, and it’s a full-on rejection of grace and charity to God?

This seems like a no-brainer to me?:confused:
Click to expand...
I’m working from a different point of reference here, we don’t use the terms “mortal” and “venial”. It’s not trivial, it’s this automatic damnation implied by “mortal sin” and the fact that the Catholic Church takes an opportunity to legalistically make damnation easier for the faithful that bothers me.

For an Orthodox Christian it’s just kind of assumed that the person wants to be there. Yes, its sinful to essentially blow off the Divine Liturgy, and serious and probably symptomatic of other spiritual illness in one’s life. You miss out on immense spiritual Good. But to go so far as to define that any Orthodox Christian who misses the Divine Liturgy without a good enough reason is automatically damned and headed for hell from the time they miss that service until the time that they get their lazy butt to confession would seem like an overly legalistic and unnecessary use of the authority that a bishop has. Shouldn’t a Catholic want to be there, or is it really necessary to scare the living something-or-other out them to get them to Church? Is this about allowing the Physician of our souls to heal us and to Worship our God or about obligation and penalty?
 
StrawberryJam said:
I don’t know how to reply to a post that a christian makes that demeans the priesthood in such a way. I know there are abuses (just a brief viewing of liturgy and sacraments threads can do that for you in a snap) but, isn’t that a bit much?

What can I say?

I am surprised you are a form over matter type comes to mind. Are you the type that would choose a solider based on how shiny his shoes were and how well ironed his pants were to go represent you in battle?

Or would you take your best man for battle?

Is the Mass or Divine Liturgy about your personal benefit, or is it about something bigger than that?

I don’t know either yet, so feel free to disreagard my commentary. I just wonder if you would run out screaming if you knew I may be the one sitting next to you when you worship.

**What is most important to you about worshiping God? The right songs be sung? The right vestments be worn?

I thought it was about Jesus and his body and blood**.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to comment briefly on the highlighted part.
You are right it is all about Jesus Body and Blood and the Redemptive power there-in.
As far as the vestments and songs and other things, these have developed over the centuries and each has a very specific purpose and importance. That is why they are given weight. So in normal circumstances the proper vestments and music etc are necessary aspects of the celebration of mass.
However -
In extra-ordinary circumstances, anything not absolutely essential can be dispensed with. Priests, properly trained know which is which.

Peace
James
 
There’s a reason that Sunday mass is an obligation. But looking at this legalistically isn’t the right approach. Here is James Likoudis’ site and which states what should be the focus of this - participating in the sacramental life of the Church:

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=164
Too often, the requirement to attend Mass on Sunday is seen as a rule or precept that is imposed on the faithful by the Catholic Church. We should strive to understand this requirement in the fuller, evangelical sense. The Eucharistic liturgy is the source and summit of our lives as Catholics, where we personally encounter Christ and abide in Him (cf. Jn. 15:1-10). The minimum requirement of the Church to participate in sacred liturgy is nothing other than a recipe for a life centered in Christ—the essence of growing in holiness. Assuredly, living the sacramental life—which includes (at least) weekly Mass, regular Confession, and daily prayer—will help us with God’s grace to root out the other moral difficulties in our lives and keep us oriented toward our true good: God Himself and eternal life with Him.
Click to expand...
Given that the theological terms for sin are defined a bit differently, here’s my concrete question. If you are an OC and deliberately miss Sunday Divine Liturgy (you don’ t go anywhere, in fact), and you choose not to confess that, can you receive the Eucharist the following Sunday as a member in good standing? This isn’t a litmus test for me, but I’m curious as to what the answer is.
 
bpbasilphx said:
A strict interpretation of the traditional rubrics about who is commemorated at the appropriate places says that the Pope would be commemorated ONLY in a Liturgy celebrated by a patriarch, as the rule is “one step up.”

The priest commemorates the bishop (and then any bishop who might be present as a courtesy), the bishop commemorates the patriarch, the patriarch the pope.
Click to expand...
I’ve been at DL’s where the Pope is commemorated as the “Bishop of Rome.” It’s in the same place that the Ecumenical Patriach is commemorated here:

aggreen.net/liturgics/C-R_Div_Lit.html

There is also kneeling recommended during parts of the Anaphora and Pre-Communion prayer, but most of the people remain standing. The Priest doesn’t use the Filioque and it’s left optional in the 1984 Basilian Ukrainian text.
 
Missing Sunday Mass. Yes, it is a moral sin if you have no excuse. The Catholic Church is the ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Taking Communion is of course a reflection of our unity. The Orthodox Church is not part of the Catholic Church, and we do not share the essentially communal sacrament of the Holy Eucharist with people who are not part of this community. Yes, this means exclusion of non-Catholics from the Eucharist (though certainly not Mass).

Taking Communion at a non-Catholic Church is in many ways equivalent to the heresy of indifferentism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top