What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[TrueLight]

It’s the reality of the diaspora. In our Eparchy we have priests who serve three parishes of considerable distance to one another (2 hours or more driving with no traffic). There is no other way than to do Divine Liturgy in one of the parishes exclusively on a Saturday. I’m guessing this is their dilema as well if they need to send the priest to another location on Sunday, or that the priest they have is coming from a different location.

Ah. I see. Thanks.

 

[dzheremi]

Speaking of that, I was looking at the website of St Mark’s Coptic Orthodox Church in Manhattan and noticed that the DL was offered only on Saturday. Do all Coptic Orthodox Churches have their DL’s on a Saturday?

stmarksmanhattan.com/

No, that is not what usually happens. What you have found there is more properly called a “Coptic Community”, which is the term used in North America for those communities of Coptic Orthodox that are currently working to establish a proper church at their location, but do not yet have a building or their own priest. I belong to one such community, St. Pishoy COC, Albuquerque. Because we are literally hundreds of miles from the nearest Church (St. Mark, Scottsdale - Phoenix), we can only have liturgy twice a month on Saturdays, as the priests from the two churches in Arizona, Fr. Marcus and Fr. Philemon, have their own congregations to tend to on Sundays and the rest of the week, so they alternate months: Fr. Marcus will serve us for our two Saturdays one month, then Fr. Philemon will come for two Saturdays the following month. It is a way of making sure that we can celebrate liturgy on a relatively regular basis, and build connections with the local priests in our diocese, while still giving them the time necessary to serve their own communities at the churches that are already established in Arizona. At this point, we have been a Coptic Community for 16 years (before that, the Copts of the area were apparently communed by the local Greek Orthodox Church, which is much older in the area than the Copts are). Since we are only about 40 people total, it is a very slow process to raise the money to get a church building, and apparently the most recent place we looked at decided that they wanted more money than we could offer. So for the foreseeable future, we will continue with the present arrangement.

If you are curious, here is the schedule at St. Mary & St. Athanasius COC in NJ, where Fr. Antonious usually serves. As you can see, it is pretty full and does have liturgy on Sundays, which is normally when the Coptic Church has them (this is different in Egypt, because Sunday is a workday there, so most churches have them on Friday, from what I’ve been told). I love Fr. Antonios, by the way. He is a very holy man according to all the people I know who have met him, and his voice is really spectacular.

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, that is not what usually happens. What you have found there is more properly called a “Coptic Community”, which is the term used in North America for those communities of Coptic Orthodox that are currently working to establish a proper church at their location, but do not yet have a building or their own priest. I belong to one such community, St. Pishoy COC, Albuquerque. Because we are literally hundreds of miles from the nearest Church (St. Mark, Scottsdale - Phoenix), we can only have liturgy twice a month on Saturdays, as the priests from the two churches in Arizona, Fr. Marcus and Fr. Philemon, have their own congregations to tend to on Sundays and the rest of the week, so they alternate months: Fr. Marcus will serve us for our two Saturdays one month, then Fr. Philemon will come for two Saturdays the following month. It is a way of making sure that we can celebrate liturgy on a relatively regular basis, and build connections with the local priests in our diocese, while still giving them the time necessary to serve their own communities at the churches that are already established in Arizona. At this point, we have been a Coptic Community for 16 years (before that, the Copts of the area were apparently communed by the local Greek Orthodox Church, which is much older in the area than the Copts are). Since we are only about 40 people total, it is a very slow process to raise the money to get a church building, and apparently the most recent place we looked at decided that they wanted more money than we could offer. So for the foreseeable future, we will continue with the present arrangement.

If you are curious, here is the schedule at St. Mary & St. Athanasius COC in NJ, where Fr. Antonious usually serves. As you can see, it is pretty full and does have liturgy on Sundays, which is normally when the Coptic Church has them (this is different in Egypt, because Sunday is a workday there, so most churches have them on Friday, from what I’ve been told). I love Fr. Antonios, by the way. He is a very holy man according to all the people I know who have met him, and his voice is really spectacular.

It appears that they do not even have a building yet, as their schedule shows the community bouncing around between an Armenian Cathedral, what appears to be a Swedenborgian Church, and a Greek Orthodox Church for their services.

 

[Izdaari]

I think the Orthodox branch of Christianity has some theology more right than Catholics or Protestants do. And I think each of the three main branches have some things more right than the other two.

On panentheism, and heaven and hell, I’m Orthodox. But that’s not enough to convince me to convert.

I will remain Episcopalian, while welcoming all orthodox (small “o”) Christians from whatever tradition as siblings in Christ.

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, I know. That’s why I admitted that it doesn’t apply to the Oriental Orthodox. (Perhaps I should have left the “perhaps” out.)

He doesn’t consider Pope Leo I to be a saint, though. He is, after all, a member of the non-Chalcedonian Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and St. Leo the Great confirmed Chalcedon himself.

Yes. But the reason why I brought up the letter to St. Dioscoros (written c. 445, IIRC; St. Dioscoros was deposed in 451) was to show that it was not just a matter of non-Chalcedonian sour grapes, because your original question was “why was Pope Leo allowed to do this then, but subsequent Popes were not?” This is one case wherein the answer to that is very different from an OO perspective, so I used the letter to show that, in our view, it was never a matter of granting the Roman Bishop some kind of prerogative over how the Church is run, so he didn’t get away with it back then, either. It isn’t just a matter of Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Where is it that you “clearly stated” you were talking about baptism?

“SIGH” “conversion through “Baptism” of the sprinkled Water/Blood thus the infusion of the Holy Spirit”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It is done daily at monasteries perhaps, except during Great Lent when the liturgy is not permitted to be celebrated on weekdays. In normal parish practice, there are several considerations which make a daily divine liturgy impractical. The first is that a liturgy needs people to respond. If the priest gets up and intones “blessed be the kingdom…” without receiving an amen in response, it’s time for him to pack up and go home, as the liturgy cannot be done without the people responding. Secondly, even with the people responding, a chanter with good knowledge of how liturgical services are constructed is needed to do the moveable parts of the liturgy, especially the singing of the apolytikia and kontakia during the third antiphon, not to mention to manage the various substitutions that happen in the liturgy during the season after Easter (at least having a dedicated chanter for the day solves the first problem). Chanters are also a requirement to do whatever morning service precedes the liturgy, especially orthros (matins), which is an incredibly intricate service. Yet another problem is that the liturgy under normal circumstances should begin by the third hour (approximately 9 am). There is no luxury of holding a 12:00 pm liturgy like many Roman Catholic Churches do. Most parishes probably can’t even afford to do a daily liturgy.

Ok I see. The CC here anyway has the daily Mass at different times. Not sure how it differs where you are. Here I’ll show you.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theimmaculate.com%2FChurchInfo.htm&ei=2dMFUPuxGqPc6wHbtKXLCA&usg=AFQjCNHsT3LGPQbkGJ1Q-4gf3NJpybwK2w&sig2=D6vFsCOi5Yh2S-jATcmmOg

I imagine funding is an issue everywhere, Friend of mine bought the home next to the Russian Orthodox church which was its Rectory at some point. I remember the weekends though they both did well. I want to get back over there and check it out. Something that just never crossed my mind 10-years ago.

 

[babochka]

He sees communion in the same theological concept we see communion with Christ. We form one body. The blood that circulates the hand also circulates to the foot. We breathe the same air. So Latin influence will never cease on the Eastern Catholic Churches.

And why is this necessarily a bad thing? Christ intended us to be one body. Although I think that it is vital that the eastern Catholic churches maintain their eastern identity, theology and traditions, I agree with Pope John Paul II that the east and west represent the two lungs of the church and it is only with both lungs that we are complete. As you mentioned, the eastern influence should also be present on the western church. Without the free exchange of theology and spirituality, we tend to barricade ourselves behind the position that our way of thinking is the only valid way of thinking. It becomes and “us and them” mentality.

 

[TEPO]

Well said. I’m glad somebody pointed this out; I wouldn’t want this thread’s non-Catholic participants to think the Catholic Church believes we can add new revelation. That would make us some kind of weirdo post-Christian offshoot, not a church that adheres to the orthodox and apostolic faith.

People like Mormons believe in new public revelation. True (Nicene) Christians do not.

I like the way you explained that, Constantine.

Too often in these discussions, people - sometimes especially Orthodox - give or get the mistaken impression that Catholics believe we can add new truths, new revelations, to the faith when we cannot.

Even controversial dogmas like, say, those taught by Vatican I are, from the Catholic point of view, not additions or changes to the faith any more than the beliefs dogmatized by first millennium councils are.

Maybe I’m not understanding your definition of revelation, but how can you say that there can be no new truths or changes to the faith, as time progresses? Isn’t cannon law a Catholic doctrine that comes from the Holy Spirit that works directly through the Magesterium -post Apostolic age? Surely we don’t believe that the Magesterium just simply tweak teachings out of their own worldly imaginations.

Honestly, I’d like to draw similarities between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches too, but I’m not interested in ‘cover-ups’… I believe in being honest, not that I think you aren’t, but if the Spirit does not work through the Magesterium, then I should convert to Orthodox.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Maybe I’m not understanding your definition of revelation, but how can you say that there can be no new truths or changes to the faith, as time progresses? Isn’t cannon law a Catholic doctrine that comes from the Holy Spirit that works directly through the Magesterium -post Apostolic age? Surely we don’t believe that the Magesterium just simply tweak teachings out of their own worldly imaginations.

Honestly, I’d like to draw similarities between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches too, but I’m not interested in ‘cover-ups’… I believe in being honest, not that I think you aren’t, but if the Spirit does not work through the Magesterium, then I should convert to Orthodox.

The Catholic Church’s stance on revelation is that there can be NO New Public Revelation after Jesus Christ’s Ascension, but there can be new private revelation. This is why Marian Apparitions can be “approved” by the Church as worthy of belief, but that belief in Marian Apparitions can Not be binding on the Faithful.

**The Catholic Church also has a stance on the Development of Doctrine - that the original deposit of Public Revelation can develop over time. ** This is why the Infallibility of the Pope & the Immaculate Conception could be declared as Dogma in the 1800’s and all the Faithful are required to believe. Those are considered Developed Doctrine rather than new doctrine.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Why not?

I’ve heard that Eucharistic Adoration only began approximately 100 years ago in our Catholic Church, is that true? If so, why didn’t we worship Jesus in the Eucharist before then?

 

[TEPO]

The Catholic Church’s stance on revelation is that there can be NO New Public Revelation after Jesus Christ’s Ascension, but there can be new private revelation. This is why Marian Apparitions can be “approved” by the Church as worthy of belief, but that belief in Marian Apparitions can Not be binding on the Faithful.

**The Catholic Church also has a stance on the Development of Doctrine - that the original deposit of Public Revelation can develop over time. ** This is why the Infallibility of the Pope & the Immaculate Conception could be declared as Dogma in the 1800’s and all the Faithful are required to believe. Those are considered Developed Doctrine rather than new doctrine.

Thanks…
This I’ve been replaying the post I quoted over and over in my mind last night and all day today. I’m really not interested at all in pandering our beliefs towards some agenda. I’m into honest truth. Otherwise, for me, everything comes to a screeching hault.

 

[Nine_Two]

Why not?

I’ve heard that Eucharistic Adoration only began approximately 100 years ago in our Catholic Church, is that true? If so, why didn’t we worship Jesus in the Eucharist before then?

If the practice is only 100 years old in the Catholic Church, then that is probably why we don’t practice it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Why not?

I’ve heard that Eucharistic Adoration only began approximately 100 years ago in our Catholic Church, is that true? If so, why didn’t we worship Jesus in the Eucharist before then?

Well… not that recent I believe.

On Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul VI said:

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6myster.htm

However, there is no need to assemble many testimonies. Rather let us recall that firmness of faith with which the Church with one accord opposed Berengarius, who, yielding to the difficulties of human reasoning, was the first who dared deny the Eucharistic change. More than once she threatened to condemn him unless he retracted. Thus it was that our predecessor, St. Gregory VII, ordered him to pronounce the following oath:

“I believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine which are placed upon the altar are, by the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the Redeemer, substantially changed into the true and life-giving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ Our Lord, and that after the Consecration, there is present the true Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and, offered up for the salvation of the world, hung on the Cross and now sits at the right hand of the Father, and that there is present the true Blood of Christ which flowed from His side. They are present not only by means of a sign and of the efficacy of the Sacrament, but also in the very reality and truth of their nature and substance.”[56]

However, the adoration itself is suspected to have been started by St. Francis of Assisi:

ewtn.com/library/homelibr/historea.txt

St. Francis of Assisi, who was never ordained a priest, had a great
personal devotion to Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. His first
admonition on the Holy Eucharist could not have been more precise.

Sacred Scripture tells us that the Father dwells in “light
inaccessible” (I Timothy 6:16) and that “God is spirit” (John 4:24)
and St. John adds, “No one at any time has seen God” (John 1:18).
Because God is a spirit He can be seen only in spirit; “It is the
spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63). But
God the Son is equal to the Father and so He too can be seen only in
the same way as the Father and the Holy Spirit. That is why all those
were condemned who saw our Lord Jesus Christ in His humanity but did
not see or believe in spirit in His divinity, that He was the true
Son of God. In the same way now, all those are damned who see the
Sacrament of the Body of Christ which is consecrated on the altar in
the form of bread and wine by the words of our Lord in the hands of
the priest, and do not see or believe in spirit and in God that this
is really the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It was this clear faith in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist that
sustained Francis during his severest trials. It was this same faith
which inspired a whole new tradition among religious communities of
women. Convents had the Sacrament reserved for adoration–apart from
Mass and Holy Communion.

It would later develop into what we see today.

Peace,

Jose

 

[ConstantineTG]

And why is this necessarily a bad thing?

Hey, that is my line

Christ intended us to be one body. Although I think that it is vital that the eastern Catholic churches maintain their eastern identity, theology and traditions, I agree with Pope John Paul II that the east and west represent the two lungs of the church and it is only with both lungs that we are complete. As you mentioned, the eastern influence should also be present on the western church. Without the free exchange of theology and spirituality, we tend to barricade ourselves behind the position that our way of thinking is the only valid way of thinking. It becomes and “us and them” mentality.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with it. But it just douses some cold water on those (which included me in the recent past) who believe that Eastern Catholics can matinain 100% Orthodox traditions and beliefs while being in communion with Rome.

Why not?

I’ve heard that Eucharistic Adoration only began approximately 100 years ago in our Catholic Church, is that true? If so, why didn’t we worship Jesus in the Eucharist before then?

There is actually a certain type of Eucharistic Adoration present in the Byzantine Rite which predates the RC practice. In the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, a procession similar to the Great Entrance is held. But instead of bread and wine being brought to the altar, the Sacred Species which was consecrated at another Divine Liturgy are brought to the altar. There is total silence and the people make a full prostration during the procession until the priest reaches the holy table (altar). But otherwise we do not expose the Blessed Sacrament for people to adore for a prolonged period and outside of Liturgy. The commandment Christ gave us is to eat His body and drink His blood, so that is what we do with the Eucharist. Nothing more, nothing less.

And by we I am saying Byzantine Rite Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[babochka]

Why not?

I’ve heard that Eucharistic Adoration only began approximately 100 years ago in our Catholic Church, is that true? If so, why didn’t we worship Jesus in the Eucharist before then?

I believe it is perpetual adoration that began in the 20th century. Here is a bit from Wikipedia’s article on Eucharistic Adoration:

The Franciscan archives credit Saint Francis of Assisi (who died in 1226) for starting Eucharistic Adoration in Italy. This process then spread from Umbria to other parts of Italy by the Franciscans.[29][30] Francis had a deep devotion to the Eucharist and Saint Bonaventure commented that Francis would be swept in ecstasy after receiving Communion. For Francis the adoration of the Eucharist amounted to “seeing Christ”.[31]
The theological basis for the adoration was prepared in the 11th century by Pope Gregory VII, who was instrumental in affirming the tenet that Christ is present in the Blessed Host; In 1965 the confession of belief that Gregory imposed on Berengarius was quoted in Pope Paul VI’s historic encyclical Mysterium Fidei:[4] “I believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine that are placed on the altar are, through the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the Redeemer, substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, and that after the consecration they are the true body of Christ”[32]
This profession of faith began a “Eucharistic Renaissance” in the churches of Europe.[4] As of the eleventh century in the Western Church devotions began to focus on the Eucharistic gifts as the objective presence of the risen Christ and the Host began to be elevated during the liturgy for the purpose of adoration.[4]
The lay practice of adoration formally began in Avignon, France on September 11, 1226. To celebrate and give thanks for the victory over the Albigensians in the later battles of the Albigensian Crusade, King Louis VIII asked that the sacrament be placed on display at the Chapel of the Holy Cross.[33] The overwhelming number of adorers brought the local bishop, Pierre de Corbie, to suggest that the exposition be continued indefinitely. With the permission of Pope Honorius III, the idea was ratified and the adoration continued there practically uninterrupted until the chaos of the French Revolution halted it from 1792.
In the thirteenth century the Feast of Corpus Christi was instituted. From this point devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, both within and outside the Mass, became central in the piety of Western Christians.

 

[babochka]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with it. But it just douses some cold water on those (which included me in the recent past) who believe that Eastern Catholics can matinain 100% Orthodox traditions and beliefs while being in communion with Rome.

But couldn’t that argument be used by Orthodox against the idea of unity altogether? And in reality, it is used in that way. " Look what happened to the Eastern Catholics! Wouldn’t that happen to any Orthodox entering Communion with Rome?" Yes, it is a danger. The numbers of the Roman Church dwarf the numbers of Orthodox and Eastern Catholics combined. Is that a valid reason for continued disunity? I know, of course, that isn’t the only reason for disunity, or even the primary one. But to use that line of thinking that Eastern Catholics cannot be in Communion with Rome and maintain 100% Eastern identity and that it is a bad thing almost precludes the two being in Communion with one another. Besides, what is 100% Eastern identity, and have the Orthodox truly maintained it in western nations anyway? As I’ve mentioned on this forum before, our local Greek Orthodox church has pews, an altar rail and a pipe organ.

At certain points in history, there was less delineation between east and west. Ideas were accepted as Christian or orthodox (as in right-believing) whether they came from a western father or eastern father. Not universally, not always, but it happened with regularity. I think we need to realize that theology is not the same thing as dogma. It is vital that we maintain our traditions and tragic that the western church has seemingly abandoned so many. I believe that it is amazingly short-sighted and weak. The Orthodox are right to be concerned, but it does not equal heresy. I think that the Catholic Church has made great strides in recent decades in being open to the Orthodox (thanks to the much maligned Vatican II?), realizing that we are of one faith and being willing to at least try to look past centuries of talking over each other and entrenched defensive positions. The most recent popes have even acknowledged that unity will require the Catholic church to change the way the office of the Bishop of Rome functions. Are the Orthodox willing to meet us halfway? To enter into serious dialog with us and abandon a defensive entrenched position that if it comes from Rome it must be wrong?

 

[Nine_Two]

But couldn’t that argument be used by Orthodox against the idea of unity altogether? And in reality, it is used in that way. " Look what happened to the Eastern Catholics! Wouldn’t that happen to any Orthodox entering Communion with Rome?"

If union is what the average Roman Catholic visualizes unity to be, then yes. That’s exactly why we reject that sort of union though. We aren’t looking to become Sui juris churches under the Pope.

 

[dzheremi]

“Easterness” is not a goal in itself. It’s the “Orthodoxy” part that matters, and that’s what the Orthodox don’t see coming from Rome…and not because it’s never been there, but because it hasn’t been there in a long time.

 

[babochka]

If union is what the average Roman Catholic visualizes unity to be, then yes. That’s exactly why we reject that sort of union though. We aren’t looking to become Sui juris churches under the Pope.

That’s not what I’m saying at all, and I’m not sure how you read that into my statement. I’m just saying that it is not wrong to be open to the ideas of the east or west (depending on your perspective) and integrating them whenever it is appropriate. When two churches are considered one body, some crossover of thought will happen. The only way to prevent it entirely is to maintain and entrenched, defensive position that the ideas of the opposing side are bad.