How do Catholics View Orthodox Christians ?

[MissytheButterfly]

Hi All. I was just wondering how do practicing Catholics view the Orthodox Christian Church ?.

I have know that both churches believe in Apostolic Succession and also believe they are "thee" church instituted by Jesus and his apostles.

So with both churches believing that.. How do Catholics view the claim of Orthodox Christians that they are "thee" Church ? Are you both "thee" church or what ?

Please no one start arguing about how wrong or right either church is..I just wanted to know from PRACTICING CATHOLICS what their view of the Orthodox Christian church is in relation to it's claim of Apostolic Succession and being "thee" church.

Missy

 

 

 

[ZooMom]

Catholics and Orthodox both claim the SAME Apostolic Succession. IOW, both churches orders are recognized and considered valid by both. They trace their Succession through the same Apostles, and were up until 1058 (?) the same Church. The Orthodox even recognize the validity of the Successor of Peter, but only up to the point of him being 'first among equals'. I'm really still not sure how this differs from the Catholic view of the Pope, but I haven't really made a study of it. *shrug* I have hope that eventually the schism can be healed, but until then we are still 'sister' churches.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but can't Orthodox receive the Eucharist in Catholic Mass, and vice versa?

[MissytheButterfly]

Hmm..now your take is interesting ZooMom. From some Orthodox Christians..I hear something a little different. Not the about the separating part..I know about that from reading history.

But some Orthodox Christians have expressed that their faith is quite different from that of the Roman Catholic Faith.

It's interesting how you say they are "sister" churches. That a nice way of looking at it.

But I hope someone does answer about the Eucharist..because if you are indeed sister churches..why would you refuse your blood to share in thought of as so special as the Eucharist ? Not "you" as in you personally but the Roman Catholic Church..I mean.

Thanks for replying Zoomom.

Missy

[Hoonbaba]

To my knowledge, both Orthodox and Catholics are allow to partake in each other's Eucharist, since both groups acknowledge the same Apostolic Succession origin.

God bless!

-Jason

[dignitized]

1054 and can partake in the others communion only if that is all that is available.

[isshinwhat]

The Catholic Church allows Orthodox Christians to partake of Communion, and allows Catholics to take Communion at an Orthodox Church if there is not a Catholic Church nearby. The Orthodox Church differs a little, as it varies depending upon who you talk to if they will allow a Catholic to partake of Communion. I believe it varies from eparchy to eparchy depending upon the decision of the metropolitan.

The differences between the Orthodox and Catholic faith are not as great as they might appear to some, the different views on Original Sin and the Papacy being the roots of most of them.

The differing terminology regarding Original Sin makes it difficult for an Orthodox Christian to accept say, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, because in their view Original Sin is not so much a stain, as the entrance of death into the world. Thus we do not share the guilt of Adam's sin, only the penalty for it; death. To an Orthodox, then, Mary was nothing special because they believe we are all born free from every stain of sin. Note, though: I do not believe this has been dogmatically proclaimed, so dialouge in this area could prove fruitful.

The issue with the Papacy is similarly vague. They viewed the Pope as the Patriarch of the West and the greatest among equals of the Bishops of the Church: Primacy of Honor, but not Jurisdiction (which the Pope claims). After the Great Schism, this place fell to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Again, the Orthodox have no dogmatically defined ecclesiology, so there remain a great many possibilities for dialouge between the two Churches on this issue.

I believe there will be a reunification, and within the last few weeks, steps have been taken in that direction. Squalid Wanderer and brewmama, why don't you drop your opinions here, too.

God Bless,

Neal

P.S. It's good to see you here again, Missy. :)

[jukesk9]

The guidelines for those receiving Communion in a Catholic Church are listed in the back of the missal. Orthodox are allowed to receive Communion in a Catholic Church.

I view them as a sister church as they preserve the Seven Sacraments, believe in the Communion of Saints, believe in the Real Presence, pray for the dead (they just don't call it Purgatory) and believe in Apostolic Succession. The Eastern Orthodox have a great love for the Theotokus and, IMHO, venerate her more than the Catholic Church does.

There are two Orthodox churches in my area. One day I'm going to go visit one of them to see what the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom looks like.

[pax]

Originally posted by jukesk9
There are two Orthodox churches in my area. One day I'm going to go visit one of them to see what the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom looks like.

It's beautiful.  EWTN broadcasted one a while back.  I really do admire the Eastern Liturgies.

[dignitized]

pax: the Chrysostom liturgy is beautifl and LONG. The Liturgy of St James is also interesting :) Its wonderful to be able to see how different and yet how the same these services are :D

[MissytheButterfly]

Thank you all for your replies. It's very interesting to see the unity that Catholics seem to want with Orthodox. Unfortunately, I havent gotten the same response of Catholics from various Orthodox people I have spoken with..

I have to say..this is indeed a pleasant surprise.

Blessings all,
Missy

[brewmama]

I just saw this thread, or I would have answered sooner. I concur with most everything said, except that the Greek , Antiochian, and Russian churches I am familiar with will not allow a non-Orthodox to partake of communion; this includes Roman Catholics. Perhaps some other jurisdictions are different. From what I have seen, the national churches are not particularly interested in reuniting with Rome, although I think that in America this may be different. There is still some bad blood over the 4th Crusade.
As for myself, I am an ardent admirer of the current Bishop of Rome and his attempts to re-unite. I pray that one day it will happen.

[brewmama]

Another point I wasn't clear about, isshenwhat, is what you said about Mary not being something special to us. I guess you mean that we don't have the IC doctrine? You're right about the difference in original sin, but we regard Mary as pure and spotless too, and certainly venerate her. We also regard her to have assumed into Heaven, although it's more a tradition than a doctrine. I have some beautiful icons of the Theotokos!

The liturgy is indeed beautiful and inspiring, but be prepared not to take the Eucharist, although you can go forward for a blessing and piece of fellowship bread. Also be prepared for a lot of standing, and not much kneeling, (except during Lent when there are a lot of prostrations)
Since Pascha is usually celebrated on a different day than Western Easter, you could visit a lot during Holy Week, it would blow you away!

[brewmama]

You also should know that there are some Orthodox Churches that are Western Rite, and use either the Tikhon Liturgy (very similar to the old Anglican liturgy) or the Gregorian Liturgy- both in English. The service is much more traditional for Westerners, and will put you in mind of the pre-Vatican II mass, except no Latin.
If the church is ethnic ( Greek or Russian for example) than be prepared for a lot of non-English! Unless it's mostly converts, which is a lot of churches nowadays.

[The Squalid Wanderer]

brewmama is correct. As far as I know, the Orthodox Church would not reciprocate Catholicism open communion.

It has to do with ecclesiology. While Orthodoxy isn't strictly Cyprianic, it is closer to that view than Catholicism in its understanding of the sacraments and how they relate to the Church.

isshinwhat was correct in identifying Hamartiology (theology relating to sin), and the Papacy, which touches upon matters of ecclesiology, to be two of the largest sticking points, as well as their Pneumatology regarding the filioque, although I have found Roman Catholic explication of this to be satisfactorily orthodox, even if I do disagree with the manner in which it was formally accepted into the creed (again relating back to the Papacy).

I recently finished some intense discussions with a few Catholics from another forum as well as James Likoudis, a well known convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, over a Cyprianic proposal for a compromise ecclesiology (http://www.christianforums.com/threads/28710.html). The results were that Catholicism was unable to make any sort of compromise and that any reunion for Catholicism and Orthodoxy will have to come on Catholicisms own terms. I do not see Orthodoxy making a complete capitulation to Catholic ecclesiology and thus I cannot see reunification in the near future.

If any are interested in the above discussion, I can supply them with the results.

[isshinwhat]

Another point I wasn't clear about, isshenwhat, is what you said about Mary not being something special to us. I guess you mean that we don't have the IC doctrine? You're right about the difference in original sin, but we regard Mary as pure and spotless too, and certainly venerate her. We also regard her to have assumed into Heaven, although it's more a tradition than a doctrine. I have some beautiful icons of the Theotokos!

I meant that she wasn't special in regards to her birth only, brewmama. I appreciate the traditions of the Orthodox regarding the Blessed Virgin, and apologize for not making myself clearer. I find it interesting that the Orthodox do not really differ on the meaning of the IC, but rather the need to proclaim it because of the differing concepts of Original Sin.

Squalid... Could you perhaps PM me or start a new thread explaining for me in detail why the Orthodox will not, in most cases, reciprocate inter-Communion since the mutual excommunications were lifted. Thank you in advance.

Neal

[Karpousi]

According to the Catholic Church, Orthodox Christians may receive communion in the Catholic Church. However, Orthodox Christians are not permitted to participate.

[jukesk9]

Why not?

[Karpousi]

Here is a good article on the topic. I would post the url, but I'm such a Newbie that I can't. It explains the topic much better than I ever could.

----------------------------------------
Holy Communion and the Church
Can we(Orthodox) receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church?
by Rev. Dr. Stanley S. Harakas

There is a very close relationship between Holy Communion and the Church. Baptism, Chrismation, and Holy Communion define us as members of the Church. In Baptism we die and are resurrected with Christ to a new existence, what Saint Paul calls a "new creation." He said, "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come." (2 Corinthians 5:17) As soon as we are baptized, we are chrismated, that is, we are anointed with the "seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit," and with that we assume our place as laypersons in the Church. Immediately following that, we manifest our membership in Christ and the Church by receiving Holy Communion.

Through Holy Communion we are not only united with Christ by receiving His Body and Blood, but also with all the other members of the membership in the Body of Christ, the Church. Saint Paul put it this way: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:16)

The next step to understand is that one of the ways the Church disciplines its members for violations of the Christian way of life is to "excommunicate" a member, for either a limited, life-long or permanent time. Excommunication means that the member may not receive Holy Communion. A person who has sinned grievously, for example, may be prohibited from receiving Holy Communion for a year or more. A person who has entered into a marriage outside the Church is prohibited from receiving Holy Communion until his or her situation is regularized in some way. A person who is a schismatic—having separated himself from the canonical Bishop—or who has been condemned for holding and promoting false teachings may be excommunicated per-manently. That is, the person is no longer a member of the Orthodox Church.

This same practice occurs when groups, large or small, separate themselves from the Church. This occurs when there is a division, such as occured about a thousand years ago, between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. Because we are divided on issues of faith and order, there is no sharing of Holy Communion. Until steps are taken that will make it possible for the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics to overcome their differences on issues of faith and order, it is inconsistent and contradictory for us to share in each other’s Holy Communion. Sharing in Holy Communion means that these obstacles have been overcome, and that therefore we are united in faith and order. Holy Communion, then, manifests that union. That is why the Orthodox Church is in ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, working toward a legitimate and theologically proper reunion. Sharing in Holy Communion is not the means to reunion, it is the end result of reunion.

A Difference About Our Differences
What I’ve outlined above is the position of the Orthodox Church, which sees the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism as dealing with both doctrine (the Filioque) and church order (the Pope). However, while the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges our division, they hold that the division is only one of church order. Consequently, they feel that the division is less severe than the Orthodox do. As a result, since their Vatican II Council (1962- 1965) they have approved that Orthodox Christians may receive Holy Communion in their parishes under certain circumstances.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church hold essentially the same teaching about the relationship of Holy Communion and Church membership. The difference is that the Roman Catholic Church sees their differences with the Orthodox Church as consisting of secondary features, that do not break the unity of faith with them. The Orthodox, however, understand their differences as including substantial differences on issues of doctrine and beliefs. These will need to be overcome, as far as the Orthodox are concerned, before the time can come so that we can implement our unity in faith, by sharing in Holy Communion as members of one re-united Church.

Conclusion and Practice
So, until that takes place, you ought not receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church. As an Orthodox Christian, among the many things that happen when you receive Holy Communion, is that you manifest your identity as an Orthodox Christian and affirm your membership in the Orthodox Church.
------------------------------------------

[The Squalid Wanderer]

The same question was asked awhile back and I wrote this thread in response:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/30872.html

[jukesk9]

Well I admit that makes sense. Thanks for the response. Oh, and Karpousi, it's easy to post a url. You just copy it and paste it like anything else.

[ZooMom]

jukes, I think he meant that his post count wasn't high enough to allow him to post links. ;)

Welcome, Karpousi. :)

[jukesk9]

Oh. Well, thanks!

[Gideon4God]

24th December 2002 at 05:48 AM brewmama said this in Post #11 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=526684#post526684)

I just saw this thread, or I would have answered sooner. I concur with most everything said, except that the Greek , Antiochian, and Russian churches I am familiar with will not allow a non-Orthodox to partake of communion; this includes Roman Catholics. Perhaps some other jurisdictions are different. From what I have seen, the national churches are not particularly interested in reuniting with Rome, although I think that in America this may be different. There is still some bad blood over the 4th Crusade.
As for myself, I am an ardent admirer of the current Bishop of Rome and his attempts to re-unite. I pray that one day it will happen.



No one but an Orthodox Christian is allowed to take Holy Communion in any jurisdiction that is in union with the Patriarch in Greece.  He is not a "Pope" but is a syboml of the Faith.  I have heard (don't know if it's true) that Orthodox can take Communion from a Latin Father but is prohibited from doing so. 

As for union with Rome...too many differences in Faith.  It's sad all round. 

Gideon

[sklippstein]

I view Orthodox Christians as my brothers and sisters in Christ. I know that as a Catholic I might stand alone in this belief, but I do not think they are in schism with the church just because they disagree on some issues. (AGAIN, that is my own personal opinion).

[Gideon4God]

Today at 05:23 PM sklippstein said this in Post #24 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=715315#post715315)

I view Orthodox Christians as my brothers and sisters in Christ. I know that as a Catholic I might stand alone in this belief, but I do not think they are in schism with the church just because they disagree on some issues. (AGAIN, that is my own personal opinion).



Many teachings seperate Orthodox Catholics and Latin Catholics:

In modern times, since Vatican II of thirty years ago, that major, if not tragic attempt, to "update" Roman Catholicism (e.g., the revision of canon law), the differences between Orthodoxy and the followers of the Pope have widened.


Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to defend and explain her Faith. Unlike Roman Catholicism, she does not build on the results of philosophy and science. The Church does not seek to reconcile faith and reason.

The Orthodox Church does not endorse the view that the teachings of Christ have changed from time to time; rather that Christianity has remained unaltered from the moment that the Lord delivered the Faith to the Apostles (Matt. 28: 18-20).  On the other hand, Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."  Dr. Scott Hahn said sometime to the effect that the Orthodox Church was too "primitive."

Roman Catholicism teaches that human reason can prove that God is, following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that the knowledge of God is planted in human nature and that is how we know Him to exist.

Following the holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that Christ, on the Cross, gave "His life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28). "For even the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). The "ransom" is paid to the grave.  Jesus pays the debt by dying on the Cross. His death makes up for what Adam had done; the offense is removed. God is no longer angry with man. Christ rises from the dead, the promise or "earnest" of the believing man's future. For a long time, the Latins, whether among ordinary Catholics or intellectuals, little attention was given to the idea of deification. Not much attention was devoted to the concepts necessary to understanding this doctrine.  Roman Catholic theology is customarily legalistic and philosophical.

The Latins teach that the visible head of the Church is the Pope, the successor to St. Peter, who was appointed to that sacred position by the Lord Himself with the words, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church . . . " (Matt. 16:18).&nbsp;&nbsp; The Pope is, then, "the Bishop of the Catholic Church," her teacher, the vicar (agent, deputy) of Christ on earth. He is the interpreter of the Christian Tradition. When he speaks for the whole Church (<I>ex cathedra</I>), the Holy Spirit does not permit him to err. He is, therefore, infallible on matters of morals and doctrine. Other bishops are his lieutenants. He is the symbol of the episcopate's unity. The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. The president of a synod of bishops is called archbishop (Greek custom) or metropolitan (Russian custom). http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_cath_diff.htm

The above is a list of just a few differances that exist between the two...

[CopticOrthodox]

The oppinion of the Catholics of the Orthodox is quite clear in their Catechism: "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."<SUP>322</SUP> Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."<SUP>323</SUP> <I>With the Orthodox Churches</I>, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."<SUP>324</SUP> "

The issue of unity between the Oriental Orthodox (of which the Coptic Orthodox Church is a part) and the Catholics is a separate issue than the Eastern Orthodox, although our positions are similar.

In 1971 our patriarch, H.H. Pope Shenouda III met with H.H. Pope Paul VI, the Catholic Pope at the time.&nbsp; They discussed the Nature of Christ, the issue that separated us in 451 A.D., and agreed that we hold the one faith, and that it had been a misunderstanding.&nbsp; Pope Shenouda asked for the anathamas (the laws that separate us) to be lifted, but Pope Paul said he had to consult with the cardinals.&nbsp; The cardinals advised him that we are a small and heavily persecuted Church, and that if he waited a little more, we'd beg to be received as a daughter Church rather than a sister Church, so he refused.&nbsp; We know this because two of the cardinals were so disgusted by the unchristian behaviour that the converted and serve as Coptic bishops in France.

Even if the anathamas had been lifted, it wouldn't be quite enough to reestablish Communion.&nbsp; For us Communion is not just a symbol, but a great Mystery, where the believer partaking is united both with Christ, and with other Christians in the Commuion of Saints.&nbsp; For us to share the Eucharist with Catholics would be a false proclimation that we are one, when in fact we are divided on many issues.&nbsp; Full unity can not be possible as long as Catholics hold that the faith progresses, that the Pope is infallible, that the Virgin was conceived immaculatly, and many other things that they have changed since the 10th century or so.&nbsp; What we must now strive for is to treat each other with Christian Charity, and pray that God removes the scandal that we have caused through our separation.

[Gideon4God]

Holy Communion is not an ecumenical device but the core of Orthodoxy itself. We must believe exactly the same things to be in Communion/union.

[isshinwhat]

The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop.

I believe the Catholic Church teaches the same thing. The difference between the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Toledo is their ministry and the gifts that belong to each, not in their ordination. None is "more a bishop," but the gifts given to each particular minister do differ.

Full unity can not be possible as long as Catholics hold that the faith progresses, that the Pope is infallible, that the Virgin was conceived immaculatly, and many other things that they have changed since the 10th century or so.

I am convinced that many of these issues can be worked out through proper dialouge. I see misunderstanding from both sides regarding the theological positions of the other. This will not change unless dialouge is established. We must be willing to discuss these issues, and keep discussing them. Pettiness such as Cardinals saying the Copts would "beg to be received as a daughter Church rather than a sister Church" and other such insanity must be stopped, and I urge everyone to make that their prayer. We can be one, it will just take prayer. Veni Sancti Spiritus!

[isshinwhat]

Holy Communion is not an ecumenical device but the core of Orthodoxy itself. We must believe exactly the same things to be in Communion/union.


Amen! But I would like to add that a different theological approach to the same truth does not necessarily make an Eastern or Western Church's Faith differrent. A difference in theology does not have to equal a difference in Faith.

God Bless,

Neal

[CopticOrthodox]

Today at 12:33 PM isshinwhat said this in Post #28 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=721274#post721274)
I am convinced that many of these issues can be worked out through proper dialouge. I see misunderstanding from both sides regarding the theological positions of the other. This will not change unless dialouge is established. We must be willing to discuss these issues, and keep discussing them. Pettiness such as Cardinals saying the Copts would "beg to be received as a daughter Church rather than a sister Church" and other such insanity must be stopped, and I urge everyone to make that their prayer. We can be one, it will just take prayer. Veni Sancti Spiritus!



What are some such misunderstandings you see?&nbsp; What are examples of stuff that we think is incompatible but isnt?

[isshinwhat]

Our varying views on Original Sin would take way too long to go into, and I am not truly capable of explaining either side's view fully, but I am convinced that the differences can be resolved. That is the root of the problem with the Immaculate Conception, IMO. A faithful Orthodox can believe that Mary never sinned, and in fact, some do. I will post a passage from Anthony Dragani on the subject, as he can explain it much more faithfully, being an Eastern Catholic.

The second is Purgatory. As it has been officially defined, I see no conflict at all with Orthodox theology. I see Purgatory as a necessary part of the final theosis. Our sanctification will become complete during Purgatory. The sin that has hindered our relationship with God will become known to us after Judgment, then we will be blessed with the Beatific Vision. One cannot have sanctification without realization of sin, and I feel that is what Purgatory will be... Our realization of sin and final sanctification.

God Bless,

Neal

[CopticOrthodox]

It is an Orthodox belief that St. Mary never comitted a personal sin, we call her the undifiled. But this is different from being conceived immaculately. We believe that our human nature is fallen, and that St. Mary had the same fallen human nature as us. Otherwise either she could have saved us being sinless, or Christ couldn't have since He wouldn't have been assuming our nature, but unfallen human nature. As you say though, this hinges on different understandings of original sin, and there isn't much point in talking about it without dealing with that issue first.

But what about more straightforward issues? Either doctrine progresses or it does not. Either the Pope is infallible or he is not. How do you see resolution being reached here? I'm not trying to be offensive, I just don't see how the two views are reconcilable.

[isshinwhat]

We believe that our human nature is fallen, and that St. Mary had the same fallen human nature as us. Otherwise either she could have saved us being sinless, or Christ couldn't have since He wouldn't have been assuming our nature, but unfallen human nature. As you say though, this hinges on different understandings of original sin, and there isn't much point in talking about it without dealing with that issue first.

What are you saying in the bolded portion? I am not certain I understand you correctly. Are you stating that Christ suffered from Original Sin?

As for Mary saving mankind since she was sinless, she was saved, therefore could not have acted as a sacrifice who was perfect by nature. She was still save by Jesus.

Either doctrine progresses or it does not.

Does our understanding not deepen? Progression does not mean change, it means that our understanding deepens. Look at the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed. It has two names because their understanding of the Faith had deepened since Nicea, thus changes were made to the Creed.

Either the Pope is infallible or he is not.

The Pope has invited dialouge on this topic. It is quite possible that neither side understands fully what infallibility truly entails.

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties."
Council of Chalcedon,Session III (A.D. 451),in NPNF2,XIV:259-260

If, as the Council of Chalcedon ruled, Peter "...is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith..." then I believe there is room for dialouge regarding the place of his successor in the Church. I hardly feel that Infallibility can be fully understood without Ecumenical dialouge, which is what the Pope has called for.

God Bless, and I am glad you are here.

Neal

[CopticOrthodox]

No, I'm not saying Christ suffered from Original Sin, never mind, let's leave that since the whole discussion isn't a good starting point. Let's just stick to the more straight forward stuff.

"Does our understanding not deepen? Progression does not mean change, it means that our understanding deepens. Look at the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed. It has two names because their understanding of the Faith had deepened since Nicea, thus changes were made to the Creed."

No, in our beliefs, our understanding does not deepen. How can we do better than what Christ, God, taught us? How can we dig deeper than what was revealed to us? At Nicea the divinity of Christ was questioned, and so the ancient faith was upheld, and the Nicean creed produced to express this. At Constantinople attacks had been made on the ancient faith regarding the Holy Spirit, and so they were put down, and the part of the creed refering to the Holy Spirit was added. At Ephesus, it was decreed that anyone who changes the creed should be in anathama, so clearly they were not anticipating deveolopment. What new faith was understood for the first time at these councils? Do you think the Church at Nicea was too ignorant to say anything about the Holy Spirit, and that's why it wasn't added until Constantinople

"If, as the Council of Chalcedon ruled, Peter "...is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith..." then I believe there is room for dialouge regarding the place of his successor in the Church. I hardly feel that Infallibility can be fully understood without Ecumenical dialouge, which is what the Pope has called for."

I know nothing of Chalcedon, I'm Oriental Orthodox (aka non-Chalcedonian) :-) sorry, couldn't resist.

thank you for your discussion, I am enjoying this, but it still seems what you are proposing is that we admit that we're wrong and you're right, that doctrine does progress, and needs and has an infallible Pope to guide it.

[isshinwhat]

I know nothing of Chalcedon, I'm Oriental Orthodox (aka non-Chalcedonian) :-) sorry, couldn't resist.

thank you for your discussion, I am enjoying this, but it still seems what you are proposing is that we admit that we're wrong and you're right, that doctrine does progress, and needs and has an infallible Pope to guide it.

Nahhhh..... ;) What I am promoting is honest dialouge. I expect a fuller understanding of the Pope's place in a unified Church to come of it. I believe that will have to happen for unity, but it will be interesting to see what exactly his role will be. I do believe infallibility will be retained, as I feel it is a truth of the Faith, but I think we have only scratched the surface of what it truly means. I offer these few links as a wonderful example of what I am talking about.

God Bless,

Neal

http://www.cired.org/chalde/joint.html
http://www.cired.org/cat/index.html

[isshinwhat]

No, I'm not saying Christ suffered from Original Sin, never mind, let's leave that since the whole discussion isn't a good starting point.

OK. The reason I asked was I had an Orthodox lady on another board tell me that Jesus suffered from original sin, and had to in order for us to be cleansed of it. :scratch: So much for a perfect sacrifice....

God Bless,

Neal

[MissytheButterfly]

My goodness... I didn't even know this thread was still going on that I started...

[brewmama]

Today at 07:27 PM isshinwhat said this in Post #36 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=723825#post723825)



OK. The reason I asked was I had an Orthodox lady on another board tell me that Jesus suffered from original sin, and had to in order for us to be cleansed of it. :scratch: So much for a perfect sacrifice....

God Bless,

Neal


Hmm, interesting. The only way this makes sense to me is that original sin is not a stain on each individual, but fallen human nature in general and the inevitability of death. So in this regard Jesus did suffer from "original sin", just not in the way you mean.

[isshinwhat]

But Jesus never suffered from a fallen human nature.

God Bless,

Neal

[Matthias]

Interesting.

[thereselittleflower]

Yes, and I fnd it a wonderful encouragement that the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, first among equals of the Eastern Orthodox Church, has formally accepted the Pope's apology for the sacking of Constantinople . . This was a necessary step to the eventual reunification of the Churches. I know growing up in the Eastern Orthodox Church, this was a very dear issue for the Orthodox . . now the door is open to healing . ..

"The spirit of reconciliation is stronger than hatred," Bartholomew said during a liturgy, attended by Philippe Barbarin, the Archbishop of Lyon, France. "We receive with gratitude and respect your cordial gesture for the tragic events of the Fourth Crusade."
Bartholomew said his acceptance came in the spirit of Easter. "The spirit of reconciliation of the resurrection ... incites us toward reconciliation of our churches," the patriarch said.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/144/story_14438_1.html

:)

Peace in Him!

[katherine2001]

Jesus had the ability to fall in His human nature. He didn't fall, but if He didn't have the ability to fall, He would not have been fully human. If He wasn't fully human, then we are not saved. He had both a human and devine nature and human and devine wills.

[prodromos]

That which is not assumed is not healed.

[OrthodoxSeeker]

To an Orthodox, then, Mary was nothing special...

As a cradle Roman Catholic on my way to Orthodoxy I believe that the above statement is totally inaccurate if not downright scandalous.

Regards,
Douglas

[OrthodoxSeeker]

I meant that she wasn't special in regards to her birth only, brewmama. I appreciate the traditions of the Orthodox regarding the Blessed Virgin, and apologize for not making myself clearer.
Neal

Clarification understood. Thank you.

-Douglas

[Rising_Suns]

I view Orthodox Christians as my brothers and sisters in Christ. I know that as a Catholic I might stand alone in this belief, but I do not think they are in schism with the church just because they disagree on some issues. (AGAIN, that is my own personal opinion).You do not stand alone on this belief. The Catholic Church Herself desires unity and seeks to find commonalities between us (like allowing Orthodox to receive communion, compromising on the Filioque, etc), but the Orthodox Church doesn't see it this way. From what I have learned, the EO Church sees us as heretics, essentially. (please correct me if i am wrong on this one)

[nikephoros_spatharios]

There is little hope of either the Orthodox or the Catholics changing their positions on any of the matters that separate the two. Perhaps in the 11th century mending the schism could have been easier, but today it is impossible for either the Catholics to retract their numerous innovations, or for the Orthodox to accept them.

[MariaRegina]

You do not stand alone on this belief. The Catholic Church Herself desires unity and seeks to find commonalities between us (like allowing Orthodox to receive communion, compromising on the Filioque, etc), but the Orthodox Church doesn't see it this way. From what I have learned, the EO Church sees us as heretics, essentially. (please correct me if i am wrong on this one)

Some but not all Orthodox Priests view the Catholics as only schismatic, and not heretical, especially those Catholics who belong to the Melkite Church.

Hope this helps.

Elizabeth

[Matthias]

Chanter is always full of knowledge!

[Moros]

As schismatics.

[Michael the Iconographer]

To my knowledge, both Orthodox and Catholics are allow to partake in each other's Eucharist, since both groups acknowledge the same Apostolic Succession origin.

God bless!

-Jason

This is not correct, Catholics may or may not allow Orthodox to partake of Catholic Eucharist, but Orthodox insist that you must be Orthodox to partake of the Eucharist. When an Orthodox is visiting another Orthodox Church and approaches the chalice, the priest will often ask the Orthodox Christian who his priest and his parish are before allowing him/her to partake.

[nicodemus]

When an Orthodox is visiting another Orthodox Church and approaches the chalice, the priest will often ask the Orthodox Christian who his priest and his parish are before allowing him/her to partake. I know our priest asks about your parish, priest, bishop and time of last confession if he doesn't know you.

[katherine2001]

I have been taught that if you are going to visit another parish (like when you're out of town or something) to always contact the priest ahead of time and let him know that you will be visiting his church and that you would like to take communion. For one thing, you can give him all that information and find out whether he will want you to do confession or not. Also, you can find out any other relevant information.

[nikephoros_spatharios]

I know our priest asks about your parish, priest, bishop and time of last confession if he doesn't know you.
This never happens in Greece.

[nicodemus]

This never happens in Greece. But virtually 100% of the population of Greece is Orthodox. It is a common protestant belief that they should be able to commune anywhere and in any church and I've heard stories of non-Orthodox people trying to fool priests so they can commune. He does it as a safety precaution.

[nikephoros_spatharios]

But virtually 100% of the population of Greece is Orthodox. It is a common protestant belief that they should be able to commune anywhere and in any church and I've heard stories of non-Orthodox people trying to fool priests so they can commune. He does it as a safety precaution.
Yes, but asking the person for "parish, priest, bishop and time of last confession" when he is approaching the chalice is a bit too much in my opinion. I don't think that's a good time to have such a conversation.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Yes, but asking the person for "parish, priest, bishop and time of last confession" when he is approaching the chalice is a bit too much in my opinion. I don't think that's a good time to have such a conversation.


Most Orthodox know that when travelling they should arrive early enough to liturgy to say hi to the priest before liturgy and introduce themselves, therefor there wont be any questions when approaching the chalice.

[prodromos]

Yes, but asking the person for "parish, priest, bishop and time of last confession" when he is approaching the chalice is a bit too much in my opinion. I don't think that's a good time to have such a conversation.


See what happens next time you go forward to have communion in a monastery in Greece ;) (oh, and it will be one of the monks or nuns asking you before you go up to the priest, not the priest himself.)

John.

[Matthias]

This is creepy!

[nicodemus]

Yes, but asking the person for "parish, priest, bishop and time of last confession" when he is approaching the chalice is a bit too much in my opinion. I don't think that's a good time to have such a conversation.
Exactly, it's not a good time, that's why he asks. A request to introduce yourself in advance is on our website as well as the materials handed out to visitors. If someone hasn't met him prior to approaching the chalice, it also says in those materials that they should expect to be questioned.