What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

[Hesychios]

Likewise, I find it ironic that people can note that we had bad popes or that they were put in by their families…this particularly so during the time of St. Catherine of Siena…but they do not read up as to how this situation was corrected and reformed and a better structure beginning to develop.

Yet, no one finds issue with nationalistic Orthodox churches tied to their political, temporal governments rather than to the rock of Peter that continues up to today while our issues were resolved at the Council of Trent after the Protestant Reformation.

The Church reformed, but the Protestants did not in regards to restoring Christian unity.

The Orthodox will not forgive the Latin Church for the Norman Crusaders and what they did to the Greeks hundreds of years ago…that shows ethnic passions vs the universal Catholic church that is one of the signs of the Roman Catholic Church…

Where does all this come from?

Did someone mention bad Popes, rampaging crusaders and all that stuff? What has all this got to do with the subject of the thread?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Rome has always wished for other churches to come to them but they refuse to reach out for unity with others. This is why it hasn’t and never will happen in my opinion.

Not true

Rome has opened the doors for Angelicans. The EO is a bit of a different situation due to apostolic succession and the two churchs in history.

Nonetheless, Pope Paul started this present ecumenism in the 60’s. 2010 was the last meeting with the EO.

 

[kylemccloughan]

Not true

Rome has opened the doors for Angelicans. The EO is a bit of a different situation due to apostolic succession and the two churchs in history.

Nonetheless, Pope Paul started this present ecumenism in the 60’s. 2010 was the last meeting with the EO.

That’s not what I am talking about Gary. Those Anglicans can only keep their traditional identity as Anglicans. Their doctrine goes by the wayside. They must accept the supremacy of the pope.

 

[GaryTaylor]

They must accept the supremacy of the pope.

Your talking about the Primacy:thumbsup: Yes, that was established as the “proto” at NIcaea. Yes, thats given by Divine Providence to Peter by Jesus Christ in Matthew. Yet when the Pope speaks not only do Catholics listen the world does. And the world doesn’t always like what they hear.

As far as Angelicans what does that have to do with the IC? Angelicans venerated the Feast of the IC before Catholics.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am referring to local jurisdictions resolving their own issues…

But the whole point in regards to the issues regarding the proclaimations and bulls brought out here by Anna awhile back was to avoid the very issue I see prevalent in the Orthodox churches is that they come across more ethnic bound…and in being ethnic…there are these stubborn attitudes where people refuse to forgive…

This is an often repeated accusation against the Orthodox. Whether or not the Orthodox are “ethnic” has nothing to do with reunion because reunion only has to do with issues faith. Either way, you won’t get any Orthodox Christians to support reunion with Rome if you insult them by calling them a bunch of ethnic Greeks, Slavs and Arabs.

The Latin Church works very hard to see the local people develop their own charisms,…a long as these charisms bear the totality of truth of Who Jesus Christ is in the deposit of faith. But it is also the reason why the Church takes so long to address cases and resolve them within the universality of faith…

I should be able to go into any Roman Catholic Church, see beyond the local charisms and customs, but know the norms of the Mass, and have full confidence that I am receiving the totality of the Word of God in the context of the Catholic faith–that looks at Scripture from the context of its whole as the Word of God…which is no other than Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God…and that we profess together the Nicene Creed, and that I am receiving proper Eucharist…the Word Made Flesh.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has done this too. What makes you think otherwise?

The beauty of Christianity is to see how many people, saints, cultures…in working with the full deposit of faith in the Church bear truth to Jesus Christ present in the world…

Agreed

We will accept the Orthodox to receive our Eucharist…but we are instructed to go to the Orthodox priest, introduce ourselves and wait for permission from him to receive the Eucharist…but from what I have read…and I do not know if this is true or not, but that in many cases, Roman Catholics are refused the Eucharist…excuse me…and correct me if I am wrong here…

But we were taught from childhood that the Orthodox Eucharist is licit…because the beginning founders of Orthodox were among the original 12 apostles…

The Eastern Orthodox do not do this to be rude; it is simply that those who do not profess the faith of the Church (i.e., are heterodox) are not allowed to take communion, nor are those who are within the Church permitted to take communion from a Church which does not profess the faith of the Eastern Orthodox Church. To do so would be to imply a false union. It is only in extreme situations that inter-communing of this sort is allowed as a matter of economy.

And we as Catholics, when we look for authenticity of doctrine…look to faith that only comes from the apostles.

I would also say that the Holy Spirit must be at work in the role of the Holy Father because the presence of the Pope does communicate to the world…and the world does respond and acknowledge him…I do not see such reaction to other religious leaders in the world.

Yes, well the Orthodox were too busy being martyred by the millions during the past century, so perhaps one might forgive them for having a weaker reputation than the Roman Catholic Church in the West. Perhaps this will change over the course of the 21st Century.

 

[Kristin234]

The Eastern Orthodox do not do this to be rude; it is simply that those who do not profess the faith of the Church (i.e., are heterodox) are not allowed to take communion, nor are those who are within the Church permitted to take communion from a Church which does not profess the faith of the Eastern Orthodox Church. To do so would be to imply a false union. It is only in extreme situations that inter-communing of this sort is allowed as a matter of economy.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that a member of the Orthodox Church is not permitted to take communion in a Catholic Church because they don’t believe their communion to be valid. Or is it that they just don’t know if it is or isn’t so they don’t risk it?

I remember when I was younger I went to a Catholic Church and my father (an orthodox deacon) told me not to take part in the communion because it was invalid.

Yes, well the Orthodox were too busy being martyred by the millions during the past century, so perhaps one might forgive them for having a weaker reputation than the Roman Catholic Church in the West. Perhaps this will change over the course of the 21st Century.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Are you serious? There were 45-Million “CHRISTIANS” martyred last century. So many whom were Catholic we are still sorting out names.

As far receiving Communion in one or the other of the Two Churchs while being a member of one. Its not a practice of either church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are you serious? There were 45-Million “CHRISTIANS” martyred last century. So many whom were Catholic we are still sorting out names.

As far receiving Communion in one or the other of the Two Churchs while being a member of one. Its not a practice of either church.

There were 12 million Orthodox Christians starved in the Ukraine alone. The Orthodox Church was basically outlawed for 80 years in Warsaw Pact nations. The Patriarchate of Constantinople was reduced from millions of faithful in Constantinople to just 4000 at the turn of the 21st century due to emigration caused by ruthless persecutions of Greeks in Turkey (read about what happened to Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Smyrna for a taste of how nicely Christians were treated by the Turks). I do not mean to say that the Roman Catholic Church did not also produce many martyrs in the last century, but to say that in the past century, the RCC was persecuted to the same extent as the Eastern Orthodox Church was persecuted borders on the absurd.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I believe what KathleenGee is speaking about would relate to this article…

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/orthodox_receiving_catholic_communion.htm

Gary

 

[dvdjs]

The Orthodox Church was basically outlawed for 80 years in Warsaw Pact nations.

What is the meaning in your remark of “basically”? I think here it means “not”. Perhaps you mean the Greek Catholic Churches; they were outlawed in Warsaw pact nations.

 

[GaryTaylor]

to say that in the past century, the RCC was persecuted to the same extent as the Eastern Orthodox Church was persecuted borders on the absurd.

The difference is only in degree:shrug: Exact numbers validate what?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that a member of the Orthodox Church is not permitted to take communion in a Catholic Church because they don’t believe their communion to be valid. Or is it that they just don’t know if it is or isn’t so they don’t risk it?

I remember when I was younger I went to a Catholic Church and my father (an orthodox deacon) told me not to take part in the communion because it was invalid.

I think the position we take is in fact one of those, “we don’t know if it’s valid or not,” positions, but I’m not so sure if validity is the real problem. If truly the question were one of validity, then I don’t think it would matter. If it’s invalid, then when the Catholic Priest got to the consecration the bread would remain bread and the wine would remain wine, and there would be no problem with eating it, since it would just be a cracker and some watered-down wine. If it’s valid, then it would be the flesh and blood of Christ, in which case, what’s the problem with eating it, since it’s valid?

I think it has more to do with the fact that taking communion from a priest outside of the Church means that you have severed your connection with the Orthodox Church and the Body of Christ as you cannot be in communion with both a group outside of the Body of Christ (the heterodox) and the Body of Christ at the same time (as Orthodox Christians, we are compelled to believe that the heterodox are not part of the visible Body of Christ upon this earth; perhaps after death, it is a different story as they might become members of the invisible Church which exceeds the boundaries of life, death and time, but in the here and now, they are excluded). It’s taken rather seriously should one inter-commune with the heterodox, and I think they’ll ask that one reconcile through confession and being unable to take communion for some amount of time (perhaps for several months to a year) or in extreme cases, where it’s clear that the person has left the Church to join a heterodox Church (and now wishes to be received back into Orthodoxy), re-chrismated.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The difference is only in degree:shrug: Exact numbers validate what?

Yes, we’re not talking about whose martyrdom is bigger than the other person’s martyrdom here. I’m just giving an explanation as to why the Eastern Orthodox Church is not as influential socially in the Western world as the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church emerged in the 20th century into a strange situation where the Greeks were freed of oppressive Ottoman hegemony (but only after massive anti-Greek riots drove them out of the Ottoman Empire) and the Slavs were plunged into what were probably the worst persecutions in the history of the Christianity. The RCC has enjoyed a little more political stability (not to say that there weren’t rough patches along the way) in the past century.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What is the meaning in your remark of “basically”? I think here it means “not”. Perhaps you mean the Greek Catholic Churches; they were outlawed in Warsaw pact nations.

You’re kidding yourself if you think that the Communists really only outlawed Eastern Catholicism or were somehow allied with Orthodoxy. I say basically because the persecution was not as heavy in some nations (like Romania) and because in some places like Russia, whether or not Christianity was legal was simply up to the whim of the dictator at the time. To say that it simply was illegal for 80 years would be an oversimplification, which is why I said “basically illegal.” Let’s not play semantics here.

 

[dvdjs]

You’re kidding yourself if you think that the Communists really only outlawed Eastern Catholicism or were somehow allied with Orthodoxy. I say basically because the persecution was not as heavy in some nations (like Romania) and because in some places like Russia, whether or not Christianity was legal was simply up to the whim of the dictator at the time. To say that it simply was illegal for 80 years would be an oversimplification, which is why I said “basically illegal.” Let’s not play semantics here.

Saying “basically” is the semantic game.

The communists outlawed Eastern Catholicism. They infiltrated, controlled, and used Orthodoxy. There is a difference. But inevitably EOs have the most difficult time recognizing it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I believe what KathleenGee is speaking about would relate to this article…

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/orthodox_receiving_catholic_communion.htm

Gary

What St. Ambrose writes about, though, are differences in practice. We’re talking about differences in fundamental belief. How can I commune with people who don’t even recite the same Nicene Creed that I do? There was a time when the Catholic Church had the same position towards the Orthodox Church that the Orthodox still hold towards the Catholic Church today: that Catholics were forbidden from communing with the Orthodox. There is only one Body of Christ, and if you claim that you are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, then anybody who does not profess the faith of your Church should not be receiving your Eucharist and you shouldn’t take their Eucharist because then you would be in false union. I look forward to the day when I can inter-commune with Catholics, but that can only happen when we are in real union, not just because we’ve decided that the theological mumbo-jumbo doesn’t matter. To inter-commune before that point only cheapens the real significance of the Eucharist by placing the cart before the horse and could be spiritually deleterious.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Saying “basically” is the semantic game.

The communists outlawed Eastern Catholicism. They infiltrated, controlled, and used Orthodoxy. There is a difference. But inevitably EOs have the most difficult time recognizing it.

So then you would say that the communists also did not outlaw Eastern Orthodoxy? They did in some nations and did not in others, which is why I said basically, because they did not totally outlaw Orthodoxy. If people want to get more of a grasp on it, they can easily read the history behind it. You’re the one who’s playing the semantic game by trying to equate “basically” with “not”. Clearly, “basically” represents a state between “absolutely” and “not at all”. At any rate, I’m not going to continue playing this ridiculous game with you.

And please, ROCOR objected to reunification with the Russian Orthodox Church for nearly 15 years after the fall of communism because of the fear that she was still infiltrated by KGB agents. The EO are not stupid, and there’s certainly still quite a bit of mistrust within Eastern Orthodoxy towards the Russian Orthodox Church which she will have to address in the coming decades.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I look forward to the day when I can inter-commune with Catholics, but that can only happen when we are in real union, not just because we’ve decided that the theological mumbo-jumbo doesn’t matter.

Right, “Closed Communion” or martyrdom in Christianity are not new . The theological mumbo jumbo does matter and does relate to the OP.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Right, “Closed Communion” or martyrdom in Christianity are not new . The theological mumbo jumbo does matter and does relate to the OP.

Precisely.

 

[Kristin234]

I think it has more to do with the fact that taking communion from a priest outside of the Church means that you have severed your connection with the Orthodox Church and the Body of Christ as you cannot be in communion with both a group outside of the Body of Christ (the heterodox) and the Body of Christ at the same time (as Orthodox Christians, we are compelled to believe that the heterodox are not part of the visible Body of Christ upon this earth; perhaps after death, it is a different story as they might become members of the invisible Church which exceeds the boundaries of life, death and time, but in the here and now, they are excluded). It’s taken rather seriously should one inter-commune with the heterodox, and I think they’ll ask that one reconcile through confession and being unable to take communion for some amount of time (perhaps for several months to a year) or in extreme cases, where it’s clear that the person has left the Church to join a heterodox Church (and now wishes to be received back into Orthodoxy), re-chrismated.

Thank you for the information