Catholic Church - Apostolic Church?

[Cary.Melvin]

Does the Eastern Orthodox recognise the Catholic Church as an Apostolic Church who's Patriarch is the Bishop of Rome the successor of the Apostle Peter?

Are the sacraments given in the Catholic Church valid?

[StChristopherofPalestine]

My understanding is that the Roman Catholic Church has heterodox teachings and thus the Apostolic Succession is nulled and thus they have no true Sacraments. Doesn't mean that all Catholics are going to hell, however.

[Orthosdoxa]

The answer I normally hear (and give) is, "We don't know".

Our preference is to focus on Orthodoxy and our own salvation, promote Orthodoxy, not see how other groups outside the Church "stack up to us". I don't mean that in a curt way, I just mean we don't have opinions on most heterodox groups. Maybe the Catholic sacraments do impart grace, maybe they don't. It's not for us to judge.

LK

[DivineFiliation]

Doesn't mean that all Catholics are going to hell, however.

whew... thank God. ^_^ sorry, I found this funny. lol :)

[StChristopherofPalestine]

whew... thank God. ^_^ sorry, I found this funny. lol :)

Yeah, I just didn't want to sound like the jerk that I am. :D

[gzt]

The correct response is somewhere between "no" and "maybe a little in some sense". If we were united again, I suppose the Pope would be the Bishop of Rome who is the Patriarch of the West. I don't know how much stock we give to the idea of "the successor of Peter" either now or 1000 years ago. The bishops of Antioch are just as much the successors of Peter as the bishops of Rome.

"Valid" is also a category you don't always see in Orthodox thought, I can't comment categorically because I don't know much about these things. Possibly, but we can only know whether it really is a sacrament if it is done with teh consent of the entire Church in communion with the Church. I mean, this is why we care much less about schismatic bishops who run off and start their own little synods than the Catholics do because they're doing their ordinations apart from communion of the Church.

[Rilian]

Here's a response (http://oca.org/QA.asp?ID=200&SID=3) to a similar question that Fr. John Matusiak answered.

Does the Eastern Orthodox recognise the Catholic Church as an Apostolic Church who's Patriarch is the Bishop of Rome the successor of the Apostle Peter?

The Orthodox Church never has, and never will set up a parallel patriarchate to the one in Rome. That probably speaks for itself to a certain extent. Unfortunately historically (up until Vatican II) the western church did not take the same approach. I don't bring that up as a jab, just to as a reference to understand the current relationship.

[StChristopherofPalestine]

Hm, maybe I'm just a fiery convert. I'll talk to my priest about this.

[MORTANIUS]

Does the Eastern Orthodox recognise the Catholic Church as an Apostolic Church who's Patriarch is the Bishop of Rome the successor of the Apostle Peter?

Are the sacraments given in the Catholic Church valid?

It should if you consider that both Peter and Paul came onto a Christian Church there and inspired and guided it.

[Khaleas]

It should if you consider that both Peter and Paul came onto a Christian Church there and inspired and guided it.

Sidenote...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

/Sidenote...

[MORTANIUS]

Sidenote...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

/Sidenote...

Thank you. But to bring this discussion back on track, I find it odd that in Roman Catholicism, the story goes that St. Peter appointed St. Clement Bishop (successor) of Rome.

But St. Clement didn't become Bishop of Rome until 21 or 22 years after the execution/martyrdom of St.Peter.

Let me get back with the names of the others appointed by St. Peter. I just can't remember them off the top of my head right now.

[moses916]

but because the RC was mutually excommunicated from the Church in 1054, apostolic succession is nulled, now by all means, this does not mean that catholics are going to experience torment in the next life, there are many devout catholics, and hey, let God be the judge, he's merciful, i trust him!

[Cary.Melvin]

Thank you. But to bring this discussion back on track, I find it odd that in Roman Catholicism, the story goes that St. Peter appointed St. Clement Bishop (successor) of Rome.

But St. Clement didn't become Bishop of Rome until 21 or 22 years after the execution/martyrdom of St.Peter.

Let me get back with the names of the others appointed by St. Peter. I just can't remember them off the top of my head right now.

St. Clement was not St. Peter's direct successor. St. Linus was St. Peter's first successor, St. Anacleatus the second and then St. Clement as his third.

[Cary.Melvin]

but because the RC was mutually excommunicated from the Church in 1054, apostolic succession is nulled, now by all means, this does not mean that catholics are going to experience torment in the next life, there are many devout catholics, and hey, let God be the judge, he's merciful, i trust him!

Does the Orthodox Church have any statements from their Patriarchs on this subject?

[Cary.Melvin]

Hey I just found this:

From the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church VIIth Plenary Session, Balamand School of Theology (Lebanon), 17-24 June, 1993: "Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion."

Also known as the Balamand Statement

Article 12
Because of the way in which Catholics and Orthodox once again consider each other in relationship to the mystery of the Church and discover each other once again as Sister Churches, this form of "missionary apostolate" described above, and which has been called "uniatism", can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking.

Article 13
In fact, especially since the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context it is clear that rebaptism must be avoided.

Article 14
It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).

I guess that answers that.

[Matrona]

I guess that answers that.

The Balamand "statement" holds absolutely no sway and frankly, if I had a hard copy and lacked toilet tissue... ;) :D

[Matrona]

St. Clement was not St. Peter's direct successor. St. Linus was St. Peter's first successor, St. Anacleatus the second and then St. Clement as his third.

FYI, St. Irenaeus lists St. Linus as the first bishop of the See of Rome, not Peter.

[StChristopherofPalestine]

The Balamand "statement" holds absolutely no sway and frankly, if I had a hard copy and lacked toilet tissue... ;) :D

I was gonna post this from the link Rillian gave...

"Orthodox Christianity has not reached a consensus on the Balamand statement, in part because not all of the world's Orthodox Churches participated in the gathering, and in part because controversy has risen over the "sister church" or "two lung" theory. While there are some Orthodox who would perhaps ascribe to these notions, it is my understanding that Orthodoxy is the Church, not half or part of it. One might argue on a purely historical basis that Roman Catholicism, being the dominant faith of the Western Roman Empire, is the counterpart of the Orthodox Church as the dominant faith of the Eastern Roman Empire. In this sense, one could argue that there are indeed two halves to the whole. However, it is only my opinion that this kind of reasoning is based on the existence of a political reality which has not existed for centuries. Until all of the world's Orthodox churches come to a consensus on the Balamand statement, it is impossible to state what "the Orthodox Church" as a whole feels about it. [Recent controversy surrounding the Pope's proposed visit to Greece, especially after his visit to Romania, offers clear evidence that a consensus has yet to be achieved within Orthodoxy.]"

...but your answer works too!

[MariaRegina]

I think Father John is so very tactful...

He's a good example of a true Orthodox Christian.

[Cary.Melvin]

So I suppose the answer is that some Orthodox Churches accept Catholic Sacraments as valid (the participants in the Balamand statement) and the other Orthodox Churches either do not, or don't know or have no comment?

[MariaRegina]

So I suppose the answer is that some Orthodox Churches accept Catholic Sacraments as valid (the participants in the Balamand statement) and the other Orthodox Churches either do not, or don't know or have no comment?

Dear Cary:

The problem is with the different jurisdictions. Orthodoxy is not united under one Patriarch as is the West.

[VickiY]

While I agree in a large extent with the views expressed on Balamand, I should like to re-enforce the idea of the Orthodox Church NOT judging, because we simply do not KNOW how God will choose to save people.

I cannot imagine, for instance, a merciful God looking at, say, Mother Theresa and saying..."you believed in Me, you kept My Commandments, you showed such devotion and love that you inspired thousands to do likewise...But, you did it in the wrong Church, kindly take the down elevator to Hell"

The very idea seems ridiculous. It places limits on God, and we all know that God is limitless.

[MariaRegina]

While I agree in a large extent with the views expressed on Balamand, I should like to re-enforce the idea of the Orthodox Church NOT judging, because we simply do not KNOW how God will choose to save people.

I cannot imagine, for instance, a merciful God looking at, say, Mother Theresa and saying..."you believed in Me, you kept My Commandments, you showed such devotion and love that you inspired thousands to do likewise...But, you did it in the wrong Church, kindly take the down elevator to Hell"

The very idea seems ridiculous. It places limits on God, and we all know that God is limitless.

Amen.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to VickiY again.

[Matrona]

So I suppose the answer is that some Orthodox Churches accept Catholic Sacraments as valid (the participants in the Balamand statement) and the other Orthodox Churches either do not, or don't know or have no comment?

No, the answer is that some Orthodox individuals accept Roman Catholic sacraments as valid. No jurisdiction accepts them as valid. Representatives of some jurisdictions participated at Balamand but that doesn't mean those jurisdictions think RC sacraments are valid.

[StChristopherofPalestine]

While I agree in a large extent with the views expressed on Balamand, I should like to re-enforce the idea of the Orthodox Church NOT judging, because we simply do not KNOW how God will choose to save people.

I cannot imagine, for instance, a merciful God looking at, say, Mother Theresa and saying..."you believed in Me, you kept My Commandments, you showed such devotion and love that you inspired thousands to do likewise...But, you did it in the wrong Church, kindly take the down elevator to Hell"

The very idea seems ridiculous. It places limits on God, and we all know that God is limitless.

There's a difference, however, between saying that God will save some people outside of the Church and saying that the Roman Church's Sacraments are equal to the Orthodox Church's, though.

[VickiY]

So I suppose the answer is that some Orthodox Churches accept Catholic Sacraments as valid (the participants in the Balamand statement) and the other Orthodox Churches either do not, or don't know or have no comment?

Not even that...Balamand was not even a local council...so it is not a question of being accepted or not by the Church in any of her jurisdictions. It was a work-group, if you will...an attempt to resolve problems and understand and codify positions working toward unity.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Hey I just found this:

From the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church VIIth Plenary Session, Balamand School of Theology (Lebanon), 17-24 June, 1993: "Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion."

Also known as the Balamand Statement


Article 12

Because of the way in which Catholics and Orthodox once again consider each other in relationship to the mystery of the Church and discover each other once again as Sister Churches, this form of "missionary apostolate" described above, and which has been called "uniatism", can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking.

Article 13
In fact, especially since the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context it is clear that rebaptism must be avoided.

Article 14
It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).

I guess that answers that.
Unless the entire Orthodox Church ratifies these statements they mean nothing...

I can accept that the Vatican Catholic Church may be connected to the Church triumphant, but I would be very uneasy about saying how. Mystically would be as far as I would be willing to go. I believe that there is salvation outside the "Church militant" and this would include Vatican Catholics. I consider the Vatican Church herself to be in ruins.

As for her sacrements, we do accept them as being properly performed, yet incomplete, as there is no authority within her... in other words, should a Vatican Catholic wish to join the Orthodox Church it would be done via economy. However a Vatican Catholic can not be given communion inside the Orthodox Church.

Forgive me....

[Veritas_et_Puritas]

What an interesting thread!

There's a difference, however, between saying that God will save some people outside of the Church and saying that the Roman Church's Sacraments are equal to the Orthodox Church's, though.

Precisely.

[Cary.Melvin]

No, the answer is that some Orthodox individuals accept Roman Catholic sacraments as valid. No jurisdiction accepts them as valid. Representatives of some jurisdictions participated at Balamand but that doesn't mean those jurisdictions think RC sacraments are valid.

Matrona,

I understand that your Patriarch did not participate in this statement. But if your Patriarch assents to an agreement with another Church in good faith are you not bound to accept it?

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Matrona,

I understand that your Patriarch did not participate in this statement. But if your Patriarch assents to an agreement with another Church in good faith are you not bound to accept it?

We are not bound by the pronouncments of individuals, we are bound by statements that have been ratified by the whole Church.

Councils of Bishops, acting as equals, led by the Holy Spirit, make statements which are then subject to the ratifiaction of the whole Chruch. We do not have an individual leadership, nor can councils lead the layity blindly. Either it is ratified or it is worthless.

Forgive me....

[supp]

CHRIST'S DEPTHS ARE FAR FROM DANGEROUS, merely LIBERATING. man's fears are the greatest of his stumblingblocks, a measuring stick actually with such an important available key.

[Matrona]

Matrona,

I understand that your Patriarch did not participate in this statement. But if your Patriarch assents to an agreement with another Church in good faith are you not bound to accept it?

I'd like to see him try! :D

I'm not bound to accept anything that betrays the Apostolic Faith, which I believe Balamand does. Even if Balamand upheld the Apostolic Faith, it has no force or pull; it isn't worth the paper it's written on without the consensus of the Church.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

CHRIST'S DEPTHS ARE FAR FROM DANGEROUS, merely LIBERATING. man's fears are the greatest of his stumblingblock, our measuring stick actually and such an important key.


Supp,

First post WOW...

Welcome.... to CF and TAW.

Forgive me...

[VickiY]

No, actually...One patriarch cannot do such a thing on his own, as he is in communion with all others. The schism can only be healed by the FULL CONCILLIAR CHURCH. One guy doesn't get to decide for the Church. It would take an Ecumenical Council for that to happen.

[katherine2001]

I think Father John is so very tactful...

He's a good example of a true Orthodox Christian.

Yes, he is. I've sent him questions and he always answers them, even if he doesn't use them in the Q & A column.

[moses916]

this is like the story of St. Maximus the Confessor, the monothelitists told the saint that many Churches and patriarches accepted the heresy, yet St. Maximus stayed strong in the faith and did not betray the Church into accepting the heresy, soon the monothelitists were anathemized! so it doesn't matter how many Churches accept the balamand paper, if it is not accepted by the entire Church its not cool! :)

[Cary.Melvin]

No, actually...One patriarch cannot do such a thing on his own, as he is in communion with all others. The schism can only be healed by the FULL CONCILLIAR CHURCH. One guy doesn't get to decide for the Church. It would take an Ecumenical Council for that to happen.

Ok. So why doesn't the Othodox Church conviene an Ecumenical Council to resolve this important issue?

By the way, when was the last time the Orthodox Church had an Ecumenical Council?

[gzt]

The Seventh, in 787 AD. There are a number of local councils that are seen as binding on all Orthodox after that, though. For instance, the ones approving St. Gregory Palamas.

Why don't we convene one? We're not close to reunion yet.There'd be no point. We have a lot of ground to cover first.

[Cary.Melvin]

The Seventh, in 787 AD. There are a number of local councils that are seen as binding on all Orthodox after that, though. For instance, the ones approving St. Gregory Palamas.

Why don't we convene one? We're not close to reunion yet.There'd be no point. We have a lot of ground to cover first.

They don't have to go for total reunification in one Ecuminical Council. Can't they just resolve one small issue at a time? Total reuninfication may not be the final outcome, but at least they could see what the two Churches agree on.

[moses916]

it is not our goal to see what other churches agree with us, our goal is to preserve the faith, the unchanging faith for the past 2000 years, rest assured that no changes will be made in the Orthodox Church, there has been many changes in the west, but not in the east. so to convene an Ecumenical Council to see what we agree upon is useless. :)

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You misunderstand what is meant by "Ecumenical council" to the Orthodox...

A council, any council held by Bishops acting as equals and led by the Holy Spirit can be ratified and thus become Ecumenical.

We do not "call" an Ecumenical council.... a council is ratified and becomes Ecumenical.

This is how it has always been done. To do otherwise is a departure from Holy Tradition.

Even within this, the coucil will not be ratified if it seeks to change something... the hallmark of Orthodoxy is: What has been believed by all Christians everywhere from the beginning. It must be maintained as such.

Councils are called to solve problems... specific problems.... other issues arise at council meetings... many falsehoods are spoken... but the council's primary concern is the specific problem that is was called together to address... anything else discussed or argued takes the concentration of the council away from the problem at hand.

Forgive me....:liturgy:

Forgive me...

[tdcharles]

Nevermind, don't want to debate. :)

[gzt]

Ecumenical councils are only done when they're really really needed. What you're proposing can be accomplished by simple dialogue.

[Annabel Lee]

I'd like to see him try! :D

I'm not bound to accept anything that betrays the Apostolic Faith, which I believe Balamand does. Even if Balamand upheld the Apostolic Faith, it has no force or pull; it isn't worth the paper it's written on without the consensus of the Church.

Oftentimes we are told in other Christian faiths.."You must accept this!"
And you know, it can be quite hard to accept a belief that doesn't ring true.
But you are almost considered a heretic if you are unable to accept a certain new teaching.

So, the Orthodox aren't forced to accept 'new' beliefs?

[Orthosdoxa]

So, the Orthodox aren't forced to accept 'new' beliefs?

q - how many Orthodox does it take to change a lightbulb?

a - Change? CHANGE?!?!!

[moses916]

hahaha :clap:

[sin_vladimirov]

So, the Orthodox aren't forced to accept 'new' beliefs?


Orthodox... new... beliefs.... WHATS THAT?^_^



No, Annabel Lee, the Orthodox church measure things by passing of time among other things and not through "emotionalizm of the moment"

This is what the Catholicity means. According to the WHOLE (in slavic this word is read as Saborna, Sobornaya=of the Councils, but not just in the meaning of ecumenical or local caouncils but of Orthodoxy thinking as a whole).

We tend to look at things in a way that is probably very different that anything else (most often than not this is THE CASE). All thinking, even if it comes from angel of God, is to be measured according to the whole (there is THE word again).

Just because one or two or twenty two bishops think something, that does not make it right. If (at one/some time) every single bishop and every single member of the Church think the sameway, and this is contrary to the faith of the Church, that is at at that time held by a 12 yo girl, that girl is the Church.

It is not the person that makes oppinion of the Church, it is the Church that makes oppinion of the person.

I hope it helps.

in ICXC
stefan+

[Marjorie]

Good post, Stefan... also remember that when we say "the whole Church" we don't mean "the whole Church on earth right now." We mean the whole Church period, going back to Pentecost. Everyone in the Church is still here and, as Chesterton would say, still deserves a vote.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[sin_vladimirov]

Good post, Stefan... also remember that when we say "the whole Church" we don't mean "the whole Church on earth right now." We mean the whole Church period, going back to Pentecost. Everyone in the Church is still here and, as Chesterton would say, still deserves a vote.

In IC XC,
Marjorie


OH they do, and their votes count!

Of course I was talking about Church Militant.
Heavenly part is... UNTOUCHABLE, thank GOD!

[OrthodoxTexan]

Ok. So why doesn't the Othodox Church conviene an Ecumenical Council to resolve this important issue? Who says this is an important issue? Arianism...important issue. Monophysitism...important issue. Iconoclasm...important issue. This doesn't even register.

[Marjorie]

Who says this is an important issue? Arianism...important issue. Monophysitism...important issue. Iconoclasm...important issue. This doesn't even register.

Yeah, it's about something outside Orthodoxy, at that. Why would we convene a council to deal with something *outside* the Church? Dogma is formulated only about issues pertaining directly to our salvation, not every little thing. This is not something that we need to know.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[sin_vladimirov]

Why would we convene a council to deal with something *outside* the Church?


We should, and at that council we should deal with the ammount of monosaturate fats in the McDonalds Big Mac, Microsoft Monopolly, Oil Prices and other issues.






















^_^

[Annabel Lee]

Orthodox... new... beliefs.... WHATS THAT?^_^



No, Annabel Lee, the Orthodox church measure things by passing of time among other things and not through "emotionalizm of the moment"

This is what the Catholicity means. According to the WHOLE (in slavic this word is read as Saborna, Sobornaya=of the Councils, but not just in the meaning of ecumenical or local caouncils but of Orthodoxy thinking as a whole).

We tend to look at things in a way that is probably very different that anything else (most often than not this is THE CASE). All thinking, even if it comes from angel of God, is to be measured according to the whole (there is THE word again).

Just because one or two or twenty two bishops think something, that does not make it right. If (at one/some time) every single bishop and every single member of the Church think the sameway, and this is contrary to the faith of the Church, that is at at that time held by a 12 yo girl, that girl is the Church.

It is not the person that makes oppinion of the Church, it is the Church that makes oppinion of the person.

I hope it helps.

in ICXC
stefan+

Yes it does help, thank you. :)

[Annabel Lee]

Yes it does help, thank you. :)

Especially this part

"If (at one/some time) every single bishop and every single member of the Church think the sameway, and this is contrary to the faith of the Church, that is at at that time held by a 12 yo girl, that girl is the Church."

[orthedoxy]

Is there an Ecumenical Council that says wether Eastern Orthodox recognise the Catholic Church, as an Apostolic Church who's Patriarch is the Bishop of Rome the successor of the Apostle Peter?

Is there an Ecumenical Council that says the sacraments given in the Catholic Church are not valid?

If there aren’t how else would an Orthodox know the answer to these questions?

[sin_vladimirov]

Especially this part

"If (at one/some time) every single bishop and every single member of the Church think the sameway, and this is contrary to the faith of the Church, that is at at that time held by a 12 yo girl, that girl is the Church."


It is a bit of a "stefanian narration", but in certain times (Arianism and Iconoclasm especially) there were occasions when A LOT of Episkopes and those who were in communion with them, were actually heterodox. The faith was kept by those (persecuted Epiksopes and members) who were carefull and faithfull and who did not follow the popular thinking but the Church.

If you look at the history of the Church, the statement made by Fr. Hopko rings true:

Not one heresy was brought to the Church by a murderer, rapist, idolater, harlot or any other sinner of that kind, but by a monastic, usually a bishop!



I am not implying that it is the situation in the Church now (God Forbid), but that we can not follow everything that we see that might in the future be done by our Bishops just because it is done by them.

Knowledge of one's faith and one's faith are really the most important factors in us being in communion. Faith is full but not stupid. Faith is simple but not uneducated.

All of us keep the same faith because it is the Orthodox faith, but devil is wise. And for this reason we need to know what is and what is not. Here lies the salvation. To know the God and One who was sent by Him. We can not love what we do not know.

Most of heresies have been fought and won by Orthodox Bishops and people knowing their faith. Because without knowledge how did the lay people decide whether Lord had one will or two wills? How did they find which bishops were Orthodox? Through their Orthodox faith and knowledge of her.


Not knowing ones faith is equal to the suicide, not saying ones faith is equal to the fratricide. (St. Nikolaj, Serbian New Chrysostom, +Ep.Velimirovich).

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Is there an Ecumenical Council that says wether Eastern Orthodox recognise the Catholic Church, as an Apostolic Church who's Patriarch is the Bishop of Rome the successor of the Apostle Peter?

Is there an Ecumenical Council that says the sacraments given in the Catholic Church are not valid?

If there aren’t how else would an Orthodox know the answer to these questions?

The short answer is no. There has not been an Ecumenical council since before the schism (the seventh Ecumenical council).

Go back a few posts and review what I said about how a council becomes Ecumenical.

As for how to know the answer.. that's easy... your either in communion with THE CHURCH or your not. It's not a case of making a decision, it's a case of looking at the facts.

Forgive me...:liturgy:

[Cary.Melvin]

Is there an Ecumenical Council that says wether Eastern Orthodox recognise the Catholic Church, as an Apostolic Church who's Patriarch is the Bishop of Rome the successor of the Apostle Peter?

Is there an Ecumenical Council that says the sacraments given in the Catholic Church are not valid?

If there aren’t how else would an Orthodox know the answer to these questions?

Well there was not an Ecuminical Council to aprove the separation of the Western Church from the Eastern Church in 1054. So I guess the excommunications between the Western and Eastern Churches were not valid. So we are not really separated from each other after all. Ok.

BTW. I'll be at the Greek Orthodox Church down the street expecting Sacraments this Sunday. With us being sister churches and all this shouldn't be a problem. Right? ;)

[sin_vladimirov]

Well there was not an Ecuminical Council to aprove the separation of the Western Church from the Eastern Church in 1054. So I guess the excommunications between the Western and Eastern Churches were not valid. So we are not really separated from each other after all. Ok.

BTW. I'll be at the Greek Orthodox Church down the street expecting Sacraments this Sunday. With us being sister churches and all this shouldn't be a problem. Right? ;)


LOL, while you at it, ask the Santa for the Christmas present!^_^

[Rilian]

Ok. So why doesn't the Othodox Church conviene an Ecumenical Council to resolve this important issue?

Because it would probably trigger a schism. Among other reasons.

[DivineFiliation]

Well there was not an Ecuminical Council to aprove the separation of the Western Church from the Eastern Church in 1054. So I guess the excommunications between the Western and Eastern Churches were not valid. So we are not really separated from each other after all. Ok.

In all seriousness, I'm wondering (and praying) that this is actually true. :)

[sin_vladimirov]

In all seriousness, I'm wondering (and praying) that this is actually true. :)


In all seriousness... IT IS NOT.

To repeat some things AGAIN:


No! We are not in communion.
No! We do not want your sacraments.
No! We will not give you ours.
No! We do not care what you think.

(All of the above are valid and present UNTIL
RCC/RC changes its/his/hers mind and denaunce heresy!)

Now, english is not my first language, but can it be any more clear?

[Rilian]

Well there was not an Ecuminical Council to aprove the separation of the Western Church from the Eastern Church in 1054. So I guess the excommunications between the Western and Eastern Churches were not valid. So we are not really separated from each other after all. Ok.

CM, I think what you're finding, and what you would see looking at the history is there is a lot of gray at the edges. Dating the schism to 1054 is more out of convenience than reality (there was even an earlier schism, the Acacian schism). There were the poorly conceived and executed Councils of Lyons and Florence/Ferrara where the western church pretty much tried to get reconciliation by running roughshod over the east. Florence/Ferrara on the surface worked and the churches were in communion until Constantinople fell in 1453. It was only rejected after the city fell to the Ottomans. Even then were was intercommunion in places up until the 18th century, the world wasn't a global village then.

[gzt]

I don't think you need a council to make a schism, you only need to stop giving communion.

Anyways, I think the problem is that we can't rule whether or not your sacraments are valid because we don't know and no amount of arguing will shed light on the issue because we can't know where God gives His grace outside the Church.

[Cary.Melvin]

I don't think you need a council to make a schism, you only need to stop giving communion.

Anyways, I think the problem is that we can't rule whether or not your sacraments are valid because we don't know and no amount of arguing will shed light on the issue because we can't know where God gives His grace outside the Church.

The question is, does schism nullify apostolic orders?

Did Judas cease to be an Apostle when he betrayed Jesus?

[gzt]

That's not the question, the question is whether schismatics can ordain.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The question is, does schism nullify apostolic orders?

Did Judas cease to be an Apostle when he betrayed Jesus?

See the first ch. of ACTS

[sin_vladimirov]

The question is, does schism nullify apostolic orders?

Did Judas cease to be an Apostle when he betrayed Jesus?


If you re-read this thread, this question has been answered couple of times already!

It is really amazing!

[orthedoxy]

The short answer is no. There has not been an Ecumenical council since before the schism (the seventh Ecumenical council).

Go back a few posts and review what I said about how a council becomes Ecumenical.

As for how to know the answer.. that's easy... your either in communion with THE CHURCH or your not. It's not a case of making a decision, it's a case of looking at the facts.

Forgive me...:liturgy:

I'm confused what if one bishop says the RC communion is valid would that make it valid?
Why should we take your personal words over bishop words?
Please clarify Thanks

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I'm confused what if one bishop says the RC communion is valid would that make it valid?
Why should we take your personal words over bishop words?
Please clarify Thanks

The Orthodox Church is Conciliar, (run by council), one Bishop, indeed even a group of Bishops, saying anything, does not make it so...:wave:

These Bishops in council are acting as equals. And any decision that they make must be ratified as being "Orthodox" by the whole Church.

The Filioque
Indulgances
Papal Supremacy
Papal Infallability
The Immaculate Conception of Mary
Purgatory
etc etc etc....

These items are not Orthodox, yet are held by the Vatican Catholic Church.

By "Orthodox", we mean that it is in keeping with: What has been believed by all Christiains, everywhere, from the beginning.

The current position of the Vatican Catholic Church will not fit that statement. Therefore any vote to state that the Vatican Catholic Church is in communion would fail ratification.

Forgive me....:liturgy:

[orthedoxy]

Would you consider a bishop that teaches RC communion is valid Orthodox?
I'm not debating i'm just trying to understand.

[sin_vladimirov]

Would you consider a bishop that teaches RC communion is valid Orthodox?

How many times are you going to ask the same thing?

How many time do you want to be given the same answer?

If you have not understood by now, you will never understand.

Just during this very thread, this very question was naswered at least 20 times. Not to even mention threads that you have started in the last 4 weeks or indeed any Roman Catholic that was ever answered.

The plethora of answered people just becomes bigger and bigger. The problem is not that new people are coming and asking the very same questions but what really amazes me is that SAME PEOPLE ASK THE SAME QUSTION TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

Indeed, Orthedox, did you ever asked anything else?

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Would you consider a bishop that teaches RC communion is valid Orthodox?
I'm not debating i'm just trying to understand.

NO

[tdcharles]

By "Orthodox", we mean that it is in keeping with: What has been believed by all Christiains, everywhere, from the beginning.
Orthedoxy would argue that the OO are actually that faith. He even might argue against EO "innovations" ironically in the same way EO argue against Roman "innovations".

I believe it was Chrysostomos (from TAW) that said EO isn't the exact same faith of the twelve apostles, it is rather a continuation of the same faith of the twelve apostles. I think that is more representative of EO.

[sin_vladimirov]

Orthedoxy would argue that the OO are actually that faith. He even might argue against EO "innovations" ironically in the same way EO argue against Roman "innovations".

I believe it was Chrysostomos that said EO isn't the exact same faith of the twelve apostles, it is rather a continuation of the same faith of the twelve apostles. I think that is more representative of EO.

Brother Charles, I see your point, however, I have beem following the writting of brother Orthedoxy on this forum and other forums (all of them on CF) for a while. His writting has nothing to do with Armenian Church or indeed with Oriental Churches.

He holds that veneration of Icons is Idolatry.

His post here are exclusively aimed at proving that Orthodox Church is UNDER the Vatican! Yes, under the Vatican.

Now, I thought his questions to be honest and serious when I answered him for the first time a month ago.

Since then I have come to belive that in him, there is not a single atom of any true wish to learn.
Nor is there any wish to use the information provided by the people that answer him indeed wating their time in doing do.

His track record will prove that the only thing he is interested in doing is to by twisting the history, ignorance to the answers, and denial, prove that somehow, God knows how, Orthodox Church is still under Rome.

Now, there is an honest line of inquiry and there is what he is doing.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

O.K. That's enough... and getting close to debate.

I'm asking for a MOD.

Forgive me...

[orthedoxy]

Brother Charles, I see your point, however, I have beem following the writting of brother Orthedoxy on this forum and other forums (all of them on CF) for a while. His writting has nothing to do with Armenian Church or indeed with Oriental Churches.

He holds that veneration of Icons is Idolatry.

His post here are exclusively aimed at proving that Orthodox Church is UNDER the Vatican! Yes, under the Vatican.

Now, I thought his questions to be honest and serious when I answered him for the first time a month ago.

Since then I have come to belive that in him, there is not a single atom of any true wish to learn.
Nor is there any wish to use the information provided by the people that answer him indeed wating their time in doing do.

His track record will prove that the only thing he is interested in doing is to by twisting the history, ignorance to the answers, and denial, prove that somehow, God knows how, Orthodox Church is still under Rome.

Now, there is an honest line of inquiry and there is what he is doing.


Why are you misrepresenting me? we do pray in our church to saints i don't have a problem with that. I was asking in our forum to see if venerating the saints could ever become idolatry.

[sin_vladimirov]

Why are you misrepresenting me? we do pray in our church to saints i don't have a problem with that. I was asking in our forum to see if venerating the saints could ever become idolatry.


orthedoxy
Lusavorchagan

Armenians don't bow down to Idles in church and the church doesn't teach us to do so.
Are other Oriental Orthodox taught to bow down before an icon? I thought it was only EO that bowed down before Icons.

How can icons become idols? What does it mean to worship?
bassed on what these people tell me many people don't know much about God all they know if they pray to this saint then they are doing the right thing.
Satan asked Jesus to bow down and worship him what do you think he was telling him to do?

I read what you said and it was great i agree with alot of the things you said.I'm Oriental Orthodox.
I see abuse of the icons mainly in the EO churches. I don't know about your Coptic Church but in our Church we don't have statues. we have pictures but we are not taught to bow before a picture. I don't think there is anything wrong if you are using the image to pray to God but don't you think at some point it becomes worshiping the image? What happens when they are actualy trusting the image insted of God?
Even if it's my best friend or my wife if they were to kneel before me i would tell them get up i'm only a servant.
Maybe you can explain what is an idolater and what is meant by worship?






These come from:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1652341-icons.html&page=1&pp=30



I am sorry if I misrepresented you. I would even apologize, however both you and me know that you do have your view and that no ammount of what is said can change that.

And that goes not only for Icons but the question in regard to "continuos rule" of the pope of Rome over the Orthodox Church.

I am sorry, I am just slightly sceptical.

The reason for this is not really your oppinion about icons, but what kills me is that you are an armenian who posts what Roman Catholic Apologist say about Orthodox, ( :doh: ).

[orthedoxy]

I'm asking questions that's all. Is there something wrong with asking?
I'm not debating and have no intentions.
I want to find out why are EO in communion with some heterodox Churches that teach RC have a valid communion and not in communion with RC?
Is this wrong for me to ask? I'm only trying to learn.

[orthedoxy]

The reason for this is not really your oppinion about icons, but what kills me is that you are an armenian who posts what Roman Catholic Apologist say about Orthodox, ( :doh: ).


I'm trying to find out things about EO from you guys but you are not letting me.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I'm asking questions that's all. Is there something wrong with asking?
I'm not debating and have no intentions.
I want to find out why are EO in communion with some heterodox Churches that teach RC have a valid communion and not in communion with RC?
Is this wrong for me to ask? I'm only trying to learn.

Name these Chruches that the EO is in communion with as you state.

Forgive me...

[sin_vladimirov]

I'm asking questions that's all. Is there something wrong with asking?
I'm not debating and have no intentions.
I want to find out why are EO in communion with some heterodox Churches that teach RC have a valid communion and not in communion with RC?
Is this wrong for me to ask? I'm only trying to learn.


I do apologize, but please try to understand that I am just perplexed by your abbility to ignore what is said to you.

How many times are you going to ask ONE SAME THING to be given ONE SAME ANSWER and to conclude ONE SAME WRONG CONCLUSION?


Just on this thread alone all that you wanted to know and ignored to read has been answered so many times.

I can not believe that after 70-something posts in this thread alone you come back with this question!

Please!





You were told before:

We are not in communion with the Rome.
Pope was never infallable in the east.
Not every council is recognized by everyone.
Not what latins say but what the canons say is what we hold (in regard to that quote of yours from the Acts of the Chalcedon).
Not what RC says about us but what we says about us is what we hold.
Not what RC Apologist say about us but what we say about us is what we hold.
Not what one person ot ten or million of them who might consider themselves Orthodox say about us (if that what they say is not Orthodox) be that bishop or angel from the sky-is what we hold, but what was held by all, everywhere and always is what we hold.



How many times do we have to say this?


I do apologize Orthedox, but I just can not believe your ignorance. After 70-something posts of this thread, you come and ask what is colored red above... What do you want me to do but to think that you are just, simply, not reading anything that is EVER told to you by us.

[Benedicta00]

I have a question, a real serious question.

If you say that Catholics teach heterodoxy and that is why we are in valid… who says so? What authority determined this? A council, sacred tradition, sacred scripture? What, who? Who said error is what invalidates bishops succession?

[Benedicta00]

LOL

I like that one!

Do you know the about...?
Sin, if it’s all the same to you- I’d rather someone else answer me because I am quite serious.

I’m asking based on a post from the first page that basically said, the Catholic Church succession is invalid because of heterodox teaching,. I am asking for someone who has knowledge, on what is this based? What s the source that says the succession of any bishop can be invalidated based on erroneous teachings?

[sin_vladimirov]

Sin, if it’s all the same to you- I’d rather someone else answer me because I am quite serious.

I’m asking based on a post from the first page that basically said, the Catholic Church succession is invalid because of heterodox teaching,. I am asking for someone who has knowledge, on what is this based? What s the source that says the succession of any bishop can be invalidated based on erroneous teachings?

Ah sorry, Shelb.

You are right.

ALREADY answered!

If you really bothered to read this thread alone-not to mention what we have been saying last 1000 years you would notice answers like posts nuber: 12, 57, 62, 64.

Most of them are made by serious people.

Anyway, seriously:

There is no need to have a council to declare anyone anything, we just stop being in communion.

Communion!

That is what it takes.

As far as authority is concerned I think that the fact that NO ORTHODOX BISHOP in the last 1000 years remained Orthodox if he recognized Rome or was in communion with it, should be a hint.

[Benedicta00]

I read those posts, Sin and they all provide no source that gives shows any authority to invalidate a bishop’s succession other than because you say so.

I guess it will fall into the two different opinions the two churches look two, Augustine and I don’t know the ECF the east looks to on this matter but the west understands that we can not invalidate a succession even if the person falls into heresy or disobedience.

We do recognize the succession and sacraments of the EO bishops.

[sin_vladimirov]

I read those posts, Sin and they all provide no source that gives shows any authority to invalidate a bishop’s succession other than because you say so.

I guess it will fall into the two different opinions the two churches look two, Augustine and I don’t know the ECF the east looks to on this matter but the west understands that we can not invalidate a succession even if the person falls into heresy or disobedience.

We do recognize the succession and sacraments of the EO bishops.

Well I am truly sorry. Go into any Orthodox Church and say to the priest that you are RC and that you want to take a communion and see what he is going to tell you.

Just the fact that you believe something, does not make it Orthdox view. Again, Roman Catholic Theology IS NOT Orthodox Theology. That is why even on CF we have TWO DIFFERENT FORUMS.

As far as validity of your sacraments is concerned, Orthodox Church just does not care whether they are valid or not. That is a western argument. We just do not talk about things like that. We believe that Orthodox Church is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Chruch. We have no sister churches that we are not in communion with. We believe that we have fullnes of faith and that is it.

If you think that we have valid orders being a RC good, we just do not think about yours. Because, we are not in communion!

Again, we are not in communion. That is what makes the Churches sister Churches. Communion.

Anyway, you are welcome to come to Orthodox Church and see for yourself.

I apologize if I am not the most tactfull person you ever met, I just wanna be Orthodox and talk to Orthodox.

I just do not see why is it so important to you what we think of your orders. I do not care what you think of mine! So, why would you care what I think of yours?

It is just irrelevant. We are Orhthodox because we are in communion with each other. Communion is THE AUTHORITY!

Communion means that we believe and confess the same!

Communion is the Church.

Communion is the salvation!

[Benedicta00]

Don’t worry I have no intentions on going to a Orthodox Church to receive sacraments, I don’t have I can receive them in my own parish Church. I don’t know what I posted that ever gave you the impression that I planned on doing that.

Again, I have no clue what your issues are but I asked one question and you went off n a tangent that has zero to do with what I ask.

I did NOT ask to go to, receive sacraments in a EO church, nor didn’t I say that I cared what you think of our Church but yet- you went off on a tangent. You seem to like doing that for some reason but I am not longer going to subject myself to this anymore.

TAW is not a place I feel I can learn about Orthodoxy from.

[katherine2001]

Nobody is allowed to take Communion in an Orthodox church other than Orthodox and Orthodox are not allowed to take Communion or participate in the Sacraments in another church. That is what being in communion means.

[sin_vladimirov]

Don’t worry I have no intentions on going to a Orthodox Church to receive sacraments, I don’t have I can receive them in my own parish Church. I don’t know what I posted that ever gave you the impression that I planned on doing that.

Again, I have no clue what your issues are but I asked one question and you went off n a tangent that has zero to do with what I ask.

I did NOT ask to go to, receive sacraments in a EO church, nor didn’t I say that I cared what you think of our Church but yet- you went off on a tangent. You seem to like doing that for some reason but I am not longer going to subject myself to this anymore.

TAW is not a place I feel I can learn about Orthodoxy from.



:doh:

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Shelb5,

In all fairness to your question... which is basically "Does valid Apostolic succession end because of error or transgression?" And if so... at what point do these errors and / or transgressions invalidate Apostolic succession?

The answer is "We don't know."

I am just a layman, so these decisions operate outside my realm of duties.

However, In reviewing scriptures... I was able to find reference to one who might be set as an example.... ACTS 1:25 deals with the replacement of Judas.... not because he is dead (which is true), but because of his transgressions.

The question in my mind is this... How far can we deviate from what we were given by the Apostles and still maintain that we are "executing our charge" of retaining the complete deposit of Christian faith. In my mind, the answer is simple.... do not change.

If you as a person are not in agreement with the Church then you find yourself outside her...

If "a Church" finds herself in disagreement with the whole.... then she finds herself outside.... not because someone put her there or pronounced that she should be cast away... but only for the fact that she is in disagreement with the whole.

In short, it doesn't take an authority to place yourself outside the Church... it's just what happens when you don't agree with the whole.

Forgive me.....

[Benedicta00]

Shelb5,

In all fairness to your question... which is basically "Does valid Apostolic succession end because of error or transgression?" And if so... at what point do these errors and / or transgressions invalidate Apostolic succession?

No that’s not my question. I know that is what you believe, my question is on what do you base this and if this is what you base it on …

However, In reviewing scriptures... I was able to find reference to one who might be set as an example.... ACTS 1:25 deals with the replacement of Judas.... not because he is dead (which is true), but because of his transgressions.

Transgression or lack of repentance?

[OrthodoxyUSA]

No that’s not my question. I know that is what you believe, my question is on what do you base this and if this is what you base it on …



Transgression or lack of repentance?

Perhaps you could read it yourself.... tell me what you think.

I would be interested to hear your comments on the rest of my post.

The question in my mind is this... How far can we deviate from what we were given by the Apostles and still maintain that we are "executing our charge" of retaining the complete deposit of Christian faith. In my mind, the answer is simple.... do not change.

If you as a person are not in agreement with the Church then you find yourself outside her...

If "a Church" finds herself in disagreement with the whole.... then she finds herself outside.... not because someone put her there or pronounced that she should be cast away... but only for the fact that she is in disagreement with the whole.

In short, it doesn't take an authority to place yourself outside the Church... it's just what happens when you don't agree with the whole.


Forgive me...

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Going back to post #83 I see the root of your question.... would that be correct?

Forgive me....

[Xpycoctomos]

This is my take on the OP:

The Orthodox Church is not the Catholic Church. We have no official statement on anything that happens outside of the Church because that is not our jursidiction . What we KNOW is that the God's Grace is made manifest through the Sacraments (and in other ways) in the Orthodox Church. We have no doubt aobut this. Apart from that, it is all opinion. That doesn't mean there is no correct or incorrect response (so perhaps "opinion" is not the right word), it just means that (as Anonykat said) we simply do not KNOW. We may come to logical conclusions... but how many times has human logic lead us to error?

In the end, our opinion on the Catholic Church is inconsequential. We believe we are the Church that Christ laid down and how he intereacts with those outside of the visible boundaries is God's business and NOT ours ever.

[Benedicta00]

Perhaps you could read it yourself.... tell me what you think.

I would be interested to hear your comments on the rest of my post.



Forgive me...
What do I think of the rest of your post?

That Catholics see things way differently. Excommunication is just that and it does not equal invalid succession. We are speaking about two absolutely different things here.

Since this is your forum, I don’t want to disagree with you but I have read and heard for myself from your own bishops that our pope does sit in the chair of St. Peter and that we do have valid sacraments but like I said, I’m not getting into that with you here, I do think many of you do not represent Orthodoxy as it truly is when it comes it’s the relationship with the Catholic Church. And that’s all I have to say about that.

[Benedicta00]

Going back to post #83 I see the root of your question.... would that be correct?

Forgive me....
My question was quite simple; on what do you base that our succession is invalid?

[Benedicta00]

This is my take on the OP:

The Orthodox Church is not the Catholic Church. We have no official statement on anything that happens outside of the Church because that is not our jursidiction . What we KNOW is that the God's Grace is made manifest through the Sacraments (and in other ways) in the Orthodox Church. We have no doubt aobut this. Apart from that, it is all opinion. That doesn't mean there is no correct or incorrect response (so perhaps "opinion" is not the right word), it just means that (as Anonykat said) we simply do not KNOW. We may come to logical conclusions... but how many times has human logic lead us to error?

In the end, our opinion on the Catholic Church is inconsequential. We believe we are the Church that Christ laid down and how he intereacts with those outside of the visible boundaries is God's business and NOT ours ever.
And here’s the difference- we believe the same… that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established and that the EO are that Church because of your diocese and because of you bishops but you want nothing to do with us so you continue on your own outside of the unity of the Church.

[sin_vladimirov]

My question was quite simple; on what do you base that our succession is invalid?


Hi Shelb,

on the fact that RCC is not in communion.

That is to say even though all your bishops can indeed trace the undisturbed chain of succession to Apostles, the fact that we are out of cummunion will mean that we just do not recognize your succesion as "valid" (really not Orthodox term, but I will use it because it sort of "fits" the sense).

This is also why we do not think that Oriental Churches have the valid succession.

Now, the reason for this is nothing to do with anything, but the out-of-communion "thing".

If (God willing) we all come back together that moment your succession become valid.

In Orthodox Theology, succesion is valid only if communion exists, and the moment that is broken, it fails.

For example so called "Old Calendarist" schizmatics.
Until "yesterday" they were normal off the shelf Orthodox. But the moment they fell out of communion, their succesion (even some of them ordained by Bishops, who are still Orthdodox) fails to be "valid".

I hope this helps.

[Benedicta00]

So do you have any source that say if we are not in union with one another that will invalidate sacraments, succession and orders? Something from the ECF perhaps?

[sin_vladimirov]

So do you have any source that say if we are not in union with one another that will invalidate sacraments, succession and orders? Something from the ECF perhaps?

Sorry, whats ECF?

[Cary.Melvin]

12) Because of the way in which Catholics and Orthodox once again consider each other in relationship to the mystery of the Church and discover each other once again as Sister Churches, this form of "missionary apostolate" described above, and which has been called "uniatism", can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking.

13) In fact, especially since the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context it is clear that rebaptism must be avoided.

14) It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).



Shelb5,

I am way more inclined to take the statements made by official Patriarchs of the various Orthodox Churches (Including the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople) as the belief of the Orthodox Church, than individual members of the Orthodox communion. If these individual Orthodox wish to decalare these particular churches and patriarchs heretical, then I don't know what to say. For me the Balamand Statement answered my question.

Cary

[Benedicta00]

Shelb5,

I am way more inclined to take the statements made by official Patriarchs of the various Orthodox Churches (Including the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople) as the belief of the Orthodox Church, than individual members of the Orthodox communion. If these individual Orthodox wish to decalare these particular churches and patriarchs heretical, then I don't know what to say. For me the Balamand Statement answered my question.

Cary
That is what I always thought. I just want to know where does anyone get the authority to declare anyone, anything?

[Benedicta00]

Sorry, whats ECF?
Early Church Fathers.

[sin_vladimirov]

Shelb5,

I am way more inclined to take the statements made by official Patriarchs of the various Orthodox Churches (Including the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople) as the belief of the Orthodox Church, than individual members of the Orthodox communion. If these individual Orthodox wish to decalare these particular churches and patriarchs heretical, then I don't know what to say. For me the Balamand Statement answered my question.

Cary

I am sorry, this point has already been discussed. Plus No need to be offensive, we little ones are of the Church same way as the "big ones".




Shelbs, I would not really like to use Fathers, because when they talk about those out of communion the do use words that you might find offensive (that is if I used them in context of RCC;
so following what I promised today in the PM I really do not wish to come close to offending you).

The fathers usually talk about Arians, Pelagians and such... later about Monophysites and Monothelites and such and so on. So, I do not think that you will appreciate RCC placed on the same rank as them.

Also, Rome has not been mention in such light until 700 years after that Period that is some 700 years after Ante-Nicene period (lasted from I until III century), and 300 years after the Post Nicene Period (that lasted from IV until VIII century, if I am not mistaken).


stefan+

[Benedicta00]

I am sorry, this point has already been discussed. Plus No need to be offensive, we little ones are of the Church same way as the "big ones".




Shelbs, I would not really like to use Fathers, because when they talk about those out of communion the do use words that you might find offensive (that is if I used them in context of RCC;
so following what I promised today in the PM I really do not wish to come close to offending you).

The fathers usually talk about Arians, Pelagians and such... later about Monophysites and Monothelites and such and so on. So, I do not think that you will appreciate RCC placed on the same rank as them.

Also, Rome has not been mention in such light until 700 years after that Period that is some 700 years after Ante-Nicene period (lasted from I until III century), and 300 years after the Post Nicene Period (that lasted from IV until VIII century, if I am not mistaken).


stefan+
You kind of lost me - post Nicene fathers call us heretics? Cite?

[sin_vladimirov]

You kind of lost me - post Nicene fathers call us heretics? Cite?


What I said is that the fathers do not mention RCC (we were all one then) but when they talk about those out of communion like the followers of Arius, and such they call them heretics.

There is plenty of canons that mention these, you can find them on ccel and such sites.



Not until the schizm of the IX century and XI century (Michael Cerularius) did the east and west started calling themselves by such terms.

You can find these reading the history of the Church by Schaff for example.

[Rilian]

That is what I always thought. I just want to know where does anyone get the authority to declare anyone, anything?

Shelb, an individual bishop or patriarch could in theory come out and explicitly say Catholic sacraments and orders were valid. He would have the authority to do that. He would be acting out of step with the church though, and fundamentally Orthodoxy views itself as conciliar. Most likely such a unilateral action would sever communion between that hierarch and the other hierarchs and create an internal division within his flock.

The Ecumenical Patriarch does have the authority to convene a pan-Orthodox council which could as a whole say Catholic sacraments and orders are or are not valid. That would be a binding statement, though again the likelihood of division is high if and when such a thing should ever happen.

I hope that makes sense.

[Benedicta00]

Shelb, an individual bishop or patriarch could in theory come out and explicitly say Catholic sacraments and orders were valid. He would have the authority to do that. He would be acting out of step with the church though, and fundamentally Orthodoxy views itself as conciliar. Most likely such a unilateral action would sever communion between that hierarch and the other hierarchs and create an internal division within his flock.

The Ecumenical Patriarch does have the authority to convene a pan-Orthodox council which could as a whole say Catholic sacraments and orders are or are not valid. That would be a binding statement, though again the likelihood of division is high if and when such a thing should ever happen.

I hope that makes sense.
Yes it makes sense but I'm still trying to figure out just who is that speaks for the Orthodox Church? - Can you explain the document that Cary posted?

[Benedicta00]

What I said is that the fathers do not mention RCC (we were all one then) but when they talk about those out of communion like the followers of Arius, and such they call them heretics.

There is plenty of canons that mention these, you can find them on ccel and such sites.



Not until the schizm of the IX century and XI century (Michael Cerularius) did the east and west started calling themselves by such terms.

You can find these reading the history of the Church by Schaff for example.





I’m talking from the deposit of faith Stephan, that was left- do you have anything from the deposit of faith or from witnesses of the deposit of faith such as a ECF that indeed say one can invalidate the succession of authentic apostolic seat?

I’m not talking about excommunication, heresy or unity- I’m talking about making the lineage from the apostle to the bishop null and void, who has that authority to do that?

[OrthodoxyUSA]

This has turned from explaination to debate.

[Benedicta00]

This has turned from explaination to debate.
No it hasn’t. If there is no answer or if you don’t have one, then say so but don’t tell me I'm debating because you can’t answer or won’t answer- I have not challenge any of your answers or beliefs…and believe me- I could.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

It is my belief that you would have a "single authority" answer to your question.... the Orthodox Church is run by council.

What is left of the Vatican Catholic Church does not reflect the deposit of faith, thereby she has left communion, of her own accord, and now finds herself outside like a drunk who has stumbled through the doorway and out into the rain.

If you can see to your own salvation out in the rain... then God be with you, but don't expect us to come out into the rain.

That is your answer.

*END OF MY RESPONSES TO THIS QUESTION*

Forgive me....

[Benedicta00]

It is my belief that you would have a "single authority" answer to your question.... the Orthodox Church is run by council.

What is left of the Vatican Catholic Church does not reflect the deposit of faith, thereby she has left communion, of her own accord, and now finds herself outside like a drunk who has stumbled through the doorway and out into the rain.

If you can see to your own salvation out in the rain... then God be with you, but don't expect us to come out into the rain.

That is your answer.

*END OF MY RESPONSES TO THIS QUESTION*

Forgive me....

So I'm a drunk, who stumbles in the rain and my salvation is left too out in the rain…

That is just lovely, thank you.

[sin_vladimirov]

I’m talking from the deposit of faith Stephan, that was left- do you have anything from the deposit of faith or from witnesses of the deposit of faith such as a ECF that indeed say one can invalidate the succession of authentic apostolic seat?

I’m not talking about excommunication, heresy or unity- I’m talking about making the lineage from the apostle to the bishop null and void, who has that authority to do that?

I think that was answered already.

Your succession has been rendered null and void the moment you have left the Church (the moment you excommunicated us and the moment we stopped being in communion).

Since then a whole plethora of new teaching have been dogmatized by the RCC that makes this state of out of communion even wider.

The authority of this is the Church that professes the faith in fullness of it. All those out of communion are out of it and they do not posses fullness of the faith.

Apostolic Succession is such only if the Bishops profess the right faith.
According to the Orthodox Theology the fact that St. Andrew, St. Chrysostom, St. Photius (all the Bishops of Constantinople, to name but a few) have professed the right faith does not mean that if current Ecumenical Patriarch says that grass is orange, that will be so, he would be simpy wrong.

Only by being in communion with the rest of the brothers, one bishop (and his Church) are being Orthodox.

[Benedicta00]

I think that was answered already.

Your succession has been rendered null and void the moment you have left the Church (the moment you excommunicated us and the moment we stopped being in communion).

Since then a whole plethora of new teaching have been dogmatized by the RCC that makes this state of out of communion even wider.

The authority of this is the Church that professes the faith in fullness of it. All those out of communion are out of it and they do not posses fullness of the faith.

Apostolic Succession is such only if the Bishops profess the right faith.
According to the Orthodox Theology the fact that St. Andrew, St. Chrysostom, St. Photius (all the Bishops of Constantinople, to name but a few) have professed the right faith does not mean that if current Ecumenical Patriarch says that grass is orange, that will be so, he would be simpy wrong.

Only by being in communion with the rest of the brothers, one bishop (and his Church) are being Orthodox.

Is there any post schism early reference to this? Like a canon from before the schism? Yes or no will be fine- if its yes, can you reference it?

[sin_vladimirov]

Give me a second!

[Benedicta00]

Is there any post schism early reference to this? Like a canon from before the schism? Yes or no will be fine- if its yes, can you reference it?
I mean pre schism! The first 300- 400 years maybe?

[The Prokeimenon!]

How many minutes before this thread gets closed?

Moses

[OrthodoxyUSA]

tick tick tick tick....

How may Bishops were excommuicated because they would not comply with the findings of an Ecumenical (Orthodox definition) council?

What happens when someone teaches erroroneously? These things have all happened before... nothing new...

Forgive me...

[Benedicta00]

How many minutes before this thread gets closed?

Moses

It should be after a visitor is liken to a drunk who stumbles in the rain.

Honestly… I have never been more insulted than I have been from last night to this morning.

If y’all don’t want to answer honest tough questions then maybe that should be made part of the rules of the forum.

"Do not ask questions that we dislike" and give a list of those dislikes.

If I was ever going to convert to Orthodoxy- I couldn’t because these would be my questions that I would need answered and it seems that no one has the patience for them.

[moses916]

The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter's name in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgement against him, creates a schism, the holy Synod has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a schism, and disrupt the union of the Church. But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions. Canon XV of the 1st & 2nd

i could only find this one...taken from http://www.orthodox.net/gleanings/schism.html

[Benedicta00]

tick tick tick tick....

How may Bishops were excommuicated because they would not comply with the findings of an Ecumenical (Orthodox definition) council?

What happens when someone teaches erroroneously? These things have all happened before... nothing new...

Forgive me...
We already gotten through this part… I know this is what you guys believe, now if you can cite the source why you believe this, that would be really great!

…or you can just liken me to a drunk again- I’m sure that would work fine for you.

[RobNJ]

How many minutes before this thread gets closed?

Moses

Stop timing Now

Mod hat ON
OK people, I'm shutting this one down, so you all can cool off & I can get this mess sorted out...
/Mod hat OFF

[RobNJ]

It's Time for some peace &and quiet