Transalpine Redemptorists pose question: Why so hard to convert the Orthodox

[Alexander_Roman]

Have the Transalpine Redemptorists fully joined the Catholic Church?

Alex

 

[wsxyz]

1. Does the Orthodox need converting? Is there anything in their beliefs that is flawed?

Yes they need to convert and their beliefs are flawed. To limit myself to one example of flawed belief, although there are many:
Vatican I 4.2.3.9:

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

 

[SouthpawLink]

1. Does the Orthodox need converting? Is there anything in their beliefs that is flawed?
2. This video makes the assumption that the Orthodox will convert to a Roman Liturgy. Even if you show a very solemn Tridentine Mass, the Orthodox will not want to convert to that. They would want to keep their own Liturgical traditions handed down by their own Church Fathers which came from the Apostles.
3. What you have seen here in the Moscow Patriarchate is done in ever Byzantine Catholic Church every Good Friday. Its the laying down of the shroud of Christ (a cloth with an icon of the entombment of Christ). So its not like there aren’t Catholics who perform this ritual today.

1. Yes, of course the Eastern Orthodox need to be converted. They err regarding original sin (wherever I look, be it on Web sites or in books, they always find fault with St. Augustine), papal supremacy (and infallibility) and possibly in a few other areas as well. At the very least, they’re in the state of schism.
2. No, they should not be expected to suddenly start offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Roman Rite. Pope Leo XIII said that if they returned to communion with the Holy See, they would be able to keep their liturgies and customs.

 

[wsxyz]

Have the Transalpine Redemptorists fully joined the Catholic Church?

They never left the Catholic Church.

But you answer your question more completely: They are fully recognized by the Church, are in communion with their local ordinary, and have full faculties to dispense the sacraments at their monastery and on the isle of Stronsay.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

They never left the Catholic Church.

But you answer your question more completely: They are fully recognized by the Church, are in communion with their local ordinary, and have full faculties to dispense the sacraments at their monastery and on the isle of Stronsay.

I know that the group on Papa Stronsay is fully in communion with Rome, but the Transalpine Redemptorists in eastern Europe?

They are in direct conflict with the Ukrainian Catholic Church in a number of ways and their view of church unity favours Russian hegemony. They are also quite unbending on this.

Alex

 

[wsxyz]

I know that the group on Papa Stronsay is fully in communion with Rome, but the Transalpine Redemptorists in eastern Europe?

They are in direct conflict with the Ukrainian Catholic Church in a number of ways and their view of church unity favours Russian hegemony. They are also quite unbending on this

I’ve never heard of those Transalpine Redemptorists. The video here comes from the Transalpine Redemptorists on Papa Stronsay.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

1. Yes, of course the Eastern Orthodox need to be converted. They err regarding original sin (wherever I look, be it on Web sites or in books, they always find fault with St. Augustine), papal supremacy (and infallibility) and possibly in a few other areas as well. At the very least, they’re in the state of schism.
2. No, they should not be expected to suddenly start offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Roman Rite. Pope Leo XIII said that if they returned to communion with the Holy See, they would be able to keep their liturgies and customs.

First of all, the term “converting” is an old Roman Catholic supremacist phrase that has, if anything, alienated the Orthodox from Rome more than anything else.

In what areas of faith are they “heretical” with respect to Roman Catholicism - apart from the pope, they differ with Latin theology in a number of respects. But these are all points of doctrine that are: 1) misunderstood by certain Roman Catholics to mean that the Orthodox actually believe something that they do not; 2) Are Roman Catholic traditions that spring from within the Latin theological context only.

As for the ugly word “schism,” that has been resolved with the rescinding of the acts of excommunication between Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras (or haven’t you heard?).

Orthodoxy sincerely believes that Rome is in heresy - another ugly term.

Both sides believe the other separated from it.

But hearing the word “schism” from Roman Catholics is truly a sad thing. Roman Catholic theologians who are involved with the Orthodox have quite differing perspectives.

I am sorry that we’re using vinegar instead of honey.

Alex

 

[dcointin]

I think I may be in a position to offer some thoughts on this subject, and if I offend anyone in what I say please forgive me, that isn’t my intention.

I converted from the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod to Orthodoxy six years ago. There were many reasons for that decision, but one was the liberal influences I saw in the worship of most LC-MS congregations. I’ve witnessed laymen preaching, women dancing, open communion, historic instruments, cantors, and choirs replaced with bands lead by lead singers with microphones, sermons focused entirely on social justice, abandomnet of vestements for suits and ties, andonment of the historic liturgical rites and rubrics for services written by the pastor, etc. One thing that strongly attracted me to Orthodoxy was its reputation for ancient, reverent worship, and I can honestly say that I’ve never, not once, see or heard of anything in an Orthodox liturgy that I would consider a liturgical abuse.

I am engaged to a Roman Catholic girl, and we attend services with each other on alternating weeks. She’s been looking for a new parish after not attending services for many years, and we’ve visited many different parishes in her search. She’s been focusing on traditional, urban parishes, and prefers a traditional OF liturgy. While I have not seen any abuses like what I mentioned above or others have in this thread, there are some things that have been stumbling blocks for me in the way that the OF is usually celebrated. One, the hymnody is very modern, mostly post 1960, and the lyrics would be suited to most Protestant churches as well. It seems highly emotional, focused on the worshiper’s feelings, and lacks dogmatic content. Two, lack of chanting. Very few parts of the liturgy seem to be chanted (e.g. the proper preface) and this detracts from the solemnity and reverence that it could provide. Three, the priest facing the congregation for the entire liturgy. This seems inappropriate to me at times, particularly during prayer or the consecration, when he should properly be facing the altar which represents the presence of God. Four, extensive use of lay eucharistic ministers. I wouldn’t minding waiting a bit longer for communion to be distributed by the priest and deacons, and find the idea of being communed by a layman disconcerting. While these are the norm in Catholic parishes, most of them would be considered liturgical abuses in Orthodoxy.

I have not yet attended an EF mass, and I know that these problems would not be present there, but if I were to convert my fiancee and I would attend services together, and neither of us is interested in worshiping in a language we don’t understand.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I’ve never heard of those Transalpine Redemptorists. The video here comes from the Transalpine Redemptorists on Papa Stronsay.

OK, those on Papa Stronsay came back to full union with Rome a few years ago (they are a marvellous community, very traditional/ascetical and very much given to prayer!).

I’ve a lot of time for them - hardly any at all for the other guys.

Alex

 

[At_Trent]

The only Transalpine Redemptorists are on Papa Stronsay and in Christchurch New Zealand. After reconciliation, since they are not of the Redemptorists C.Ss.R., they took the title of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer - F.S.S.R. as their official title.

papastronsay.blogspot.com/

papastronsay.com/

alphonsianum.blogspot.com/

papastronsaytexts.blogspot.com/

The publish the best, imo, Catholic newspaper titled “Catholic”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes they need to convert and their beliefs are flawed. To limit myself to one example of flawed belief, although there are many:

You only showed one, and its the only obvious difference of East and West faith. Can you show another?

1. Yes, of course the Eastern Orthodox need to be converted. They err regarding original sin (wherever I look, be it on Web sites or in books, they always find fault with St. Augustine), papal supremacy (and infallibility) and possibly in a few other areas as well. At the very least, they’re in the state of schism.

Do you even understand what the Orthodox believe in? Or did you just read one short paragraph that says they do not believe in Original Sin as it is defined by the Roman Catholics and they shouted, “Anathema!”?

Eastern Catholics believe pretty much the same thing their Orthodox counterparts does, yet they are Catholics.

1. No, they should not be expected to suddenly start offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Roman Rite. Pope Leo XIII said that if they returned to communion with the Holy See, they would be able to keep their liturgies and customs.

So why should it bother them how the Roman Mass is said? As long as its not heretical.

 

[wsxyz]

You only showed one, and its the only obvious difference of East and West faith. Can you show another?

One is sufficient to prove the point.

Do you even understand what the Orthodox believe in? Or did you just read one short paragraph that says they do not believe in Original Sin as it is defined by the Roman Catholics and they shouted, “Anathema!”?

While this is not addressed to me, and I am no expert in “Orthodox” doctrine, what I have read online seems contradict the following:
Trent 5.2:

If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

but I would pleased to read your explanation showing that “Orthodox” doctrine on original sin is fully compatible with this dogmatic statement.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think I may be in a position to offer some thoughts on this subject, and if I offend anyone in what I say please forgive me, that isn’t my intention.

I converted from the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod to Orthodoxy six years ago. There were many reasons for that decision, but one was the liberal influences I saw in the worship of most LC-MS congregations. I’ve witnessed laymen preaching, women dancing, open communion, historic instruments, cantors, and choirs replaced with bands lead by lead singers with microphones, sermons focused entirely on social justice, abandomnet of vestements for suits and ties, andonment of the historic liturgical rites and rubrics for services written by the pastor, etc. One thing that strongly attracted me to Orthodoxy was its reputation for ancient, reverent worship, and I can honestly say that I’ve never, not once, see or heard of anything in an Orthodox liturgy that I would consider a liturgical abuse.

I am engaged to a Roman Catholic girl, and we attend services with each other on alternating weeks. She’s been looking for a new parish after not attending services for many years, and we’ve visited many different parishes in her search. She’s been focusing on traditional, urban parishes, and prefers a traditional OF liturgy. While I have not seen any abuses like what I mentioned above or others have in this thread, there are some things that have been stumbling blocks for me in the way that the OF is usually celebrated. One, the hymnody is very modern, mostly post 1960, and the lyrics would be suited to most Protestant churches as well. It seems highly emotional, focused on the worshiper’s feelings, and lacks dogmatic content. Two, lack of chanting. Very few parts of the liturgy seem to be chanted (e.g. the proper preface) and this detracts from the solemnity and reverence that it could provide. Three, the priest facing the congregation for the entire liturgy. This seems inappropriate to me at times, particularly during prayer or the consecration, when he should properly be facing the altar which represents the presence of God. Four, extensive use of lay eucharistic ministers. I wouldn’t minding waiting a bit longer for communion to be distributed by the priest and deacons, and find the idea of being communed by a layman disconcerting. While these are the norm in Catholic parishes, most of them would be considered liturgical abuses in Orthodoxy.

I have not yet attended an EF mass, and I know that these problems would not be present there, but if I were to convert my fiancee and I would attend services together, and neither of us is interested in worshiping in a language we don’t understand.

Perhaps she could find an Anglican group that is going to or has gone to Rome?

 

[Bluegoat]

One is sufficient to prove the point.

While this is not addressed to me, and I am no expert in “Orthodox” doctrine, what I have read online seems contradict the following:

but I would pleased to read your explanation showing that “Orthodox” doctrine on original sin is fully compatible with this dogmatic statement.

I don’t know about the dogmatic statement, but the Eastern Catholics use the same understanding of what they don’t call original sin as the Orthodox do.

 

[WetCatechumen]

I’ve met traditional Catholics online who would say (sadly) that you are wrong.

Yeah. That Dancing Deacon was a sight! I’m sure he was reprimanded after the fact. Liturgical dancing is not permitted DURING the Liturgy according to the rubrics of the Latin Catholic Church. I notice that the link given by wsxyz does not have a Dancing Deacon. What occurred at the New Mexico conference (I think it was in New Mexico) was probably the only time it happened, and the deacon did it of his own accord (which was wrong).

Blessings,
Marduk

It was in Los Angeles, thank you very much. Not in my neighborhood, thank God.

Not that liturgies like that don’t happen here - but our Metropolitan (Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe) would not preside over a Mass like that.

 

[WetCatechumen]

The Eastern Catholic view is Catholic and fine. Some Orthodox have a perfectly fine belief about Original Sin.

Other Orthodox are obstinant and insist that the Catholic Church has a flawed theology of original sin due to their (the Orthodox) failure to distinguish between reata and culpa, both translated into English as “guilt”.

It’s quite frustrating, because, well, frankly, there is no difference of belief here but some Orthodox attempt to make a false distinction. However, in doing so, I think some of them end up becoming Semi-Pelagian.

 

[santamonica]

Also, why doesn’t the person who made the video compare a Good Friday service from the Eastern Orthodox Church with a Good Friday service from a Latin Catholic Church? I’m willing to bet that any Novus Ordo Good Friday service from a Latin Catholic Church will be reverential.

True. The comparison in the video is rather misleading, since it compares the best of one tradition with the worst in another. The videos from that religious ed. conference (yes, it’s in LA) circulate around every year precisely because it’s beyond the pale - this is simply NOT representative of what Roman Catholics do in their liturgies.

 

[wsxyz]

I’m just asking a question. Is the “Orthodox” understanding of original sin compatible with the dogmatic statement of Trent?

 

[ConstantineTG]

One is sufficient to prove the point.

Problem here is Eastern Catholics believe the same thing about “original sin” as the Orthodox to. So please explain why they are Catholics and the Orthodox are heretics from your P.O.V.?

While this is not addressed to me, and I am no expert in “Orthodox” doctrine, what I have read online seems contradict the following:

but I would pleased to read your explanation showing that “Orthodox” doctrine on original sin is fully compatible with this dogmatic statement.

Again, same point above. Eastern Catholics profess everything the Orthodox do except for the view on the Papacy. So why is it acceptable for Eastern Catholics to hold their view and the Orthodox needs conversion?

 

[wsxyz]

Problem here is Eastern Catholics believe the same thing about “original sin” as the Orthodox to. So please explain why they are Catholics and the Orthodox are heretics from your P.O.V.?

Is the Eastern Catholic (and “Orthodox”) belief compatible with the dogmatic statement of Trent I have quoted above?

Again, same point above. Eastern Catholics profess everything the Orthodox do except for the view on the Papacy. So why is it acceptable for Eastern Catholics to hold their view and the Orthodox needs conversion?

To reject one dogma of the Catholic faith is to reject the Catholic faith. Persons who reject the Catholic faith need conversion.