A discussion of the Catholic and Orthodox views on Mortal sin and realted issues

[Mary of Bethany]

Yes, I don't dispute that. However that doesn't make them Orthodox, it just makes them non-Latin rite.

What I should have added to my last post is that, being as we were one Church at the time, they would be Orthodox Catholic. :)

Mary

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

You do make sense Vas, thanks. :) Great thread! :)

An emphasis on mystery is important, I see that. I feel I'm getting more and more out of my depth now, and should retire until I do some more homework. :P

One thing that does strike me though is the apparent incongruity between the very "Catholic" flavor of western Christendom and western theology under the saints like Augustine and Gregory the Great in the early centuries pre-schism, and the attitude by some here that in 1054 a massive guillotine came down and turned the western church hetrodox when before it was Orthodox. This seems to me to be a vast oversimplification that doesn't really do justice to the divisions between us.

[Vasileios]

Oh no, you will find I believe that most Orthodox (and probably Catholics too, but I have not really read any) identify the start of this separation from as early as the 5th century. 1054 was just the result of 500 years of steady drifting away...

[No Swansong]

Oh no, you will find I believe that most Orthodox (and probably Catholics too, but I have not really read any) identify the start of this separation from as early as the 5th century. 1054 was just the result of 500 years of steady drifting away...
I have usually understood it to have been around the 7th century. I would be interested what happened as early as the 5th?

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

Oh no, you will find I believe that most Orthodox (and probably Catholics too, but I have not really read any) identify the start of this separation from as early as the 5th century. 1054 was just the result of 500 years of steady drifting away...
Yeah, I quite agree. But then there were 500 years when were we still Orthodox enough to be considered in communion.

I also never ment to call you guys gnostic, I know you are nothing of the sort, but it seems to me that the concept of imbuned knowledged (gnosis) seems to be more of an infulence on Eastern Christianity, just as the more rational philosophy, a la Plato, is more of an influence on Western Christianity. Of course, you can't divide things as simply as that, it's a rich tapestry. :)

[zhilan]

The flesh, the world and the devil tempting you to sin is not a sin Zilhan and I don't much care if the EO says it is, they don't know what they are talking about if that is what they teach you. Jesus was tempted, did He sin?

I already explained it, not sure if you read it or not. But thanks for your kind words about us not knowing what we're talking about. Clearly you know better than all the Orthodox bishops.

and if abortion is a sin to the EO, then the ye ole pill would have to be also becuase it can act as an abortifant.

Yup, they are both sins.

If y'all say B/C pill is not sinful in Orthodoxy but say abortion is, then y'all contradict yourselves.


As I said (in an earlier post) the pill is a sin.

But i really don't think in essence orthodoxy says being tempted to sin is a actual sin and I don't think Orthodoxy allows the B/C pill. I think you are just looking for reasons to say we are vastly different from you.


I'm glad you know more about our religion than us.

[zhilan]

Sorry zhilan but this is a very poor misrepresentation of Catholic teaching.

Condemnation only comes through willful rejection.

And part of willful rejection is willfully remaining ignorant.

Catholic teachings says to us that God judges us on what we know, not on what we don't know and also on what we were capable of knowing but willfully refused to come to know.
I'm sorry but this doesn't address the issue at all. But it doesn't matter, as it's an issue of the past.

[zhilan]

The last people I would have expected to hear this from is Catholics. :scratch:

You of all people should understand our beliefs about the Church, and why we insist on Orthodox marriage, etc. Why should we say we agree on things we really don't think we do agree on?

We are not the same Church . . . . . shameful though the schism may be, it is reality, and not just a political reality, either.


Mary
Quoted for truth.

This is what I don't understand. If it were Anglicans or Protestants I would totally understand their feeling hurt, but I don't understand why Catholics say this. A Catholic has no problem telling Anglicans they can't receive communion even though the Anglicans feel hurt by this. A Catholic has no problem telling a Catholic-Anglican couple they must marry in the Catholic Church, even though an Anglican may think this is mean. Are Catholics being mean in doing this?

Why can't you understand that we feel the same way???

[zhilan]

Respectfully I think it is kind of Ironic that some Roman Catholics will complain that the Orthodox don't recognize their sacraments as valid when Rome doesn't consider Anglican sacraments as valid.
I've been saying this like some sort of record on skip, but no one seems to get it.

[zhilan]

it's a totally different ball game.
See now this is funny.

The Anglicans say to Catholics, "we're the same, we have valid succession, etc etc."

Catholics say, "Sorry, you don't."

Catholics say to Orthodox, "we're the same, we have valid succession."

We say, "sorry, you don't."

The only reason you think it's a different ball game is because in this case you are the on in the Anglicans position.

Can't you see that just how they don't see differences but you do, is the same as how you don't see differences but we do?

[zhilan]

No, that is not why it is different. The validity of the bishops and subsequently the priests ordination is in question.

There is no question that Catholic bishops within the Catholic Church are validly ordained.

Just like there is no question that Orthodoxy's bishops validly ordained bishops.

The Catholic Church does not view your bishops or diocese as invalid or illicit, why? becuase you are who you say you are. You belong there. You have business being there. You are legitimate apostolic seats. You have valid succession.

Anglicans, not so much.

Not becuase they teach heresy, but becuase they are break-aways from Peter's chair. They are not a patriarche, not a apostolic seat. IOW, they have no business doing what they do.

A validly ordained bishop teaching heresy and teaching apart from Rome is illicit and wrong becuase he has no authority to go and set up shop somewhere else teaching what he wants.

But if he is indeed a validly ordain bishop, his ordination is not invalid, he can ordain priest and other bishops and again, that is illicit and wrong and he is out of line to do that but if his ordination was validly done, he is a valid bishop as far as I know. If not, someone will have to correct me.

So some of their bishops and preist may be valid although illicit. I think the deal with the Anglicans is, no one actually knows who is valid and who isn't. That's why they are in question. but i could be wrong about that.

But in any event, they just have no business doing what they do valid or not.

The Orthodox does have business, becuase the Orthodox are true churches. True apostolic seats.

You didn't rebel and break off of Rome, you are your own chair... you just decided that you no longer recognize Rome as having any authority, you kind of made your individual seats authority unto yourselves and you branded Rome as heretics in order to justify shunning us.

But the Anglicans are breakaways from Rome. They are supposed to be under Rome's authority, and they have blown him off and are doing their own thing in totally autonomy/rebellion.

The bishop of Rome as never been under the authority of any of the Eastern patriarche. So how could he have broken away?

Rome was always been since the first days, the final court so to speak on matters concerning the faith.

This is what is in dispute, whether or not Rome has said authority as the final court.

Not whether or not Rome is valid.. of course it is! It is Peter's chair... no one has the power to just up and say, the patriarch of Rome is no longer valid or licit. He has business being there just as the Orthodox has business being where they are.

Holy orders is a sacrament- just like marriage is a sacrament. And just as the Orthodox church has no business allowing divorce becuase what God puts asunder no man, not even a bishop can take apart, you can not just up and invalidate an apostolic seat that God almighty instituted. It just doesn't work that way.

What cracks me up is the offense taken at papal authority... no pope has ever been so brazen to think he can invalidate a whole apostolic chair.
You know there are plenty of Catholics on here who disagree with us. Many that even disagree strongly with us.

I have no problem with most of them.

But there is no one else on here who I feel so completely does not even attempt to understand us. You simply tell us "you're wrong, we're right."

You don't even give us the dignity of acknowledging our position.

It's sad. =(

[zhilan]

I have no desire to argue this with you. I don't particularly care if either the Roman Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox accept Anglican Orders as valid. You see I am one of those Anglicans who believe the Anglican Church to be the Church of Christ on earth and that the other two bodies while part of the Church are doctrinally in error.

Like it, don't, it makes little difference to me. I only intended to make the comment that it was Ironic that some Catholics are quick to point the finger and forget about the other three pointing back. It was not my intention to derail the thread and I apologize for doing so.

I like your style :thumbsup:

[zhilan]

I asked, in reference to what they do to their own bishops mind you, how they think they can just kick a bishop out of communion becuase he is a heretic and then claim he is no longer a bishop.

They have no power to do that.

Yeah, if the bishop is teaching crazy stuff and he won't stop then kick him out and the bishop would be illicit if he went off and set up shop doing his own thing and sure, he would no longer be considered an Orthodox bishop but to say he no longer is a valid bishop is not within their power to say.

I would like an explanation as well.
It's funny because you keep telling us what we do and do not have the power to do, what is a sin and what isn't, what is valid and invalid as if that has any bearing whatsoever on our Church.

You seem to be forgetting that we are not Catholic. You might as well go to India and tell them what gods prefer what type of food.

[zhilan]

I understand that. It's the same reason why I would not receive communion in a SSPX church.

But i realize the SSPX are Catholic, they are rebelling, doing their own thing and they need to come back under the pope but they are Catholic none the less.

I just wish we would be respected for being Catholic.
You are respected for being Catholic. 100%. And the Anglicans are respected for being Anglican. No one is trying to say any different. What we are saying is you are not Orthodox and we are not Catholic. That's all.

[Benedicta00]

I already explained it, not sure if you read it or not. But thanks for your kind words about us not knowing what we're talking about. Clearly you know better than all the Orthodox bishops.



Yup, they are both sins.



As I said (in an earlier post) the pill is a sin.



I'm glad you know more about our religion than us.
Then you need to clue EC in.

[No Swansong]

I like your style :thumbsup:
;Thank you that is very kind of you to say.

[Benedicta00]

You know there are plenty of Catholics on here who disagree with us. Many that even disagree strongly with us.

I have no problem with most of them.

But there is no one else on here who I feel so completely does not even attempt to understand us. You simply tell us "you're wrong, we're right."

You don't even give us the dignity of acknowledging our position.

It's sad. =(
well then this is the end of the road for us.

[xristos.anesti]

Seriously, I think that we should concentrate our efforts to re-communing with Anglican communions and Oriental Orthodox communions as it is obvious that Rome is far gone -

It is also obvious that there is no point in arguing with Latins on anything - they know what they need to do before we can start talking, we also know they will never do it - therefore it is a waste of time -

Many years.

[No Swansong]

Seriously, I think that we should concentrate our efforts to re-communing with Anglican communions and Oriental Orthodox communions as it is obvious that Rome is far gone -

It is also obvious that there is no point in arguing with Latins on anything - they know what they need to do before we can start talking, we also know they will never do it - therefore it is a waste of time -

Many years.
I think there are a number of the Anglican provinces that are very close doctrinally. Additionally many of the "continuing Anglican" Churches would also be very close.

There is a wonderful Coptic Church in the city I belong in. My wife contacted the Abouna there to ask for an interview (for school) He spent the entire day with us, offered us lunch, answered every question gently and with love. He invited us to the liturgy anytime we wish. (He apologized over and over again that he could not commune us) All in all a very gracious and loving man. It was a wonderful experience.

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

See now this is funny.

The Anglicans say to Catholics, "we're the same, we have valid succession, etc etc."

Catholics say, "Sorry, you don't."

Catholics say to Orthodox, "we're the same, we have valid succession."

We say, "sorry, you don't."

The only reason you think it's a different ball game is because in this case you are the on in the Anglicans position.

Can't you see that just how they don't see differences but you do, is the same as how you don't see differences but we do?
No. Did you even read the post addressing this? The whole point of debate is that you, you know, counter agruements rather than just finding everything amusing. :P

If Anglicans were in schism and in heresy, as long as their bishops went on conferring the sacrament of ordination they would have valid bishops. In Rome's view (a view which is outside the bounds of papal infallibility or anything like that, for the record), the wording of the book of Common Prayer was such that it was an acceptance of the priesthood of all believers as proposed by Luther, and so the ordinations did not take place as there was no intent to ordain in the true sense, and so the line was cut. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Orthodox probably agree that if there was no intent to ordain, no ordination took place, right?

In the case of the Orthodox, we think you have valid bishops, because while you may be in schism, your bishops still validly conferred ordination on the successors, that's the difference.

I have to admit, I was a bit confuzzled as to why you guys didn't return the favor, but I have to say I've come to understand where you guys are coming from a bit more, even if I still disagree. I mean, just because your Church doesn't explicitly recognise our Bishops as valid, it doesn't say they're not either. In once sense it'd just be simpler if you said that because we are in schism, none of our sacraments are valid. At least then Benadicta and I could go away with the satisfaction of a theological explanation, rather than woolly uncertainty, but I get that you think it's better not to do that.

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

You are respected for being Catholic. 100%. And the Anglicans are respected for being Anglican. No one is trying to say any different. What we are saying is you are not Orthodox and we are not Catholic. That's all.
That's the point I wanna make here - why on earth are you respecting us for being Catholic?

I don't respect you for being Orthodox, I respect the Orthodox church because they are close to the Catholic Church in terms of theology, have valid sacraments, and faithfully hold on the much of the tradition of the Church.

Just the same as I don't respect Protestants for being Protestant, I respect them for preaching Christ crucified.

Likewise I don't want to be respected for being Catholic by someone of the Orthodox faith, that's just meaningless sentiment. I want to be respected for a mutual heratige, what we do have in common, and yet from post one in this thread you seem out to deny that we have anything in common.

[zhilan]

Then you need to clue EC in.
What does the EC have to do with anything I said?

[zhilan]

I think there are a number of the Anglican provinces that are very close doctrinally. Additionally many of the "continuing Anglican" Churches would also be very close.

There is a wonderful Coptic Church in the city I belong in. My wife contacted the Abouna there to ask for an interview (for school) He spent the entire day with us, offered us lunch, answered every question gently and with love. He invited us to the liturgy anytime we wish. (He apologized over and over again that he could not commune us) All in all a very gracious and loving man. It was a wonderful experience.
Coptic priests are universally awesome (in my own opinion =) )

[zhilan]

Seriously, I think that we should concentrate our efforts to re-communing with Anglican communions and Oriental Orthodox communions as it is obvious that Rome is far gone -

It is also obvious that there is no point in arguing with Latins on anything - they know what they need to do before we can start talking, we also know they will never do it - therefore it is a waste of time -

Many years.
I think more and more I agree with you. If anything this forum has convinced me that we have more common ground for discussion (even if in some regards we may be theologically further apart) with the Anglicans than the Catholics. At least with the Anglicans I feel like we can begin a discussion.

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

I think more and more I agree with you. If anything this forum has convinced me that we have more common ground for discussion (even if in some regards we may be theologically further apart) with the Anglicans than the Catholics. At least with the Anglicans I feel like we can begin a discussion.
Sorry you feel that way Z (can I call you "Z"... it's cool. :P), I feel I've taken a lot from this thread myself. :)

[zhilan]

No. Did you even read the post addressing this? The whole point of debate is that you, you know, counter agruements rather than just finding everything amusing. :P

If Anglicans were in schism and in heresy, as long as their bishops went on conferring the sacrament of ordination they would have valid bishops. In Rome's view (a view which is outside the bounds of papal infallibility or anything like that, for the record), the wording of the book of Common Prayer was such that it was an acceptance of the priesthood of all believers as proposed by Luther, and so the ordinations did not take place as there was no intent to ordain in the true sense, and so the line was cut. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Orthodox probably agree that if there was no intent to ordain, no ordination took place, right?

In the case of the Orthodox, we think you have valid bishops, because while you may be in schism, your bishops still validly conferred ordination on the successors, that's the difference.

I have to admit, I was a bit confuzzled as to why you guys didn't return the favor, but I have to say I've come to understand where you guys are coming from a bit more, even if I still disagree. I mean, just because your Church doesn't explicitly recognise our Bishops as valid, it doesn't say they're not either. In once sense it'd just be simpler if you said that because we are in schism, none of our sacraments are valid. At least then Benadicta and I could go away with the satisfaction of a theological explanation, rather than woolly uncertainty, but I get that you think it's better not to do that.

This is the problem. You are saying, "the difference is that Anglicans don't have valid succession but we do" but not failing to see that appointing yourself a valid doesn't make it so to us anymore than the Anglicans claiming they have a valid succession makes it ok for them to receive Catholic sacraments. The argument you're basically making is "well the Anglicans are obviously wrong so anyone can see why we can't commune with them." But that is just silly. No one is obviously wrong otherwise no one would be that religion. I'm sorry, but you're never going to get a report card on who has valid sacraments from the Orthodox. We don't put those outside the Church on a gradient. In the opening of the book The Orthodox Church, Ware begins by taking about Catholicism as being + A and Protestantism as being -A. Both of them are just + and - of the same thing. To us it doesn't matter that you are + A and Anglicans are - A. Neither are Orthodox and thus, neither can share communion. We're never going to say, "oh it's better to be + A so we'll let CAtholics commune but not [insert other group]." We believe that communion means being part of the fullness of the Truth. We aren't trying to be mean (just like you're not trying to be mean to the Anglicans), but we can't make false unity.

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

This is the problem. You are saying, "the difference is that Anglicans don't have valid succession but we do" but not failing to see that appointing yourself a valid doesn't make it so to us anymore than the Anglicans claiming they have a valid succession makes it ok for them to receive Catholic sacraments. The argument you're basically making is "well the Anglicans are obviously wrong so anyone can see why we can't commune with them." But that is just silly. No one is obviously wrong otherwise no one would be that religion. I'm sorry, but you're never going to get a report card on who has valid sacraments from the Orthodox. We don't put those outside the Church on a gradient. In the opening of the book The Orthodox Church, Ware begins by taking about Catholicism as being + A and Protestantism as being -A. Both of them are just + and - of the same thing. To us it doesn't matter that you are + A and Anglicans are - A. Neither are Orthodox and thus, neither can share communion. We're never going to say, "oh it's better to be + A so we'll let CAtholics commune but not [insert other group]." We believe that communion means being part of the fullness of the Truth. We aren't trying to be mean (just like you're not trying to be mean to the Anglicans), but we can't make false unity.
Z, I'm getting really fustrated here - are you even reading my posts at all?

"The argument you're basically making is "well the Anglicans are obviously wrong so anyone can see why we can't commune with them.""
That's NOT WHAT I SAID!!!!! READ MY POST! Gahhh!

For us, (not for you, I agree) validity is about which people have the capacity to give out the sacraments - not about who's in communion with who, that's a whole other question. We're not in communion with the Orthodox, but we think you have valid sacraments. Just like we're not in communion with the SSPX, but think they have valid sacraments. I don't want to share communion with you (well, actually I would love to, but you get my point :P), the arguement isn't about that.

[zhilan]

That's the point I wanna make here - why on earth are you respecting us for being Catholic?

I don't respect you for being Orthodox, I respect the Orthodox church because they are close to the Catholic Church in terms of theology, have valid sacraments, and faithfully hold on the much of the tradition of the Church.

Just the same as I don't respect Protestants for being Protestant, I respect them for preaching Christ crucified.

Likewise I don't want to be respected for being Catholic by someone of the Orthodox faith, that's just meaningless sentiment. I want to be respected for a mutual heratige, what we do have in common, and yet from post one in this thread you seem out to deny that we have anything in common.

By that I mean I'm not trying to harass you or call you an idiot for being Catholic. Bendetta seems to be implying that she is someone not being "respected" or allowed to be Catholic. I don't think she's an idiot for being Catholic. I understand that there are very devout and intelligent people who truly believe in the Catholic Church. I don't have a problem with that. But Bendetta likes to make sweeping statements about all religion based on her beliefs as if we are some sort of belligerent idiots for not being Catholic. She has stated that the only reason we are Orthodox is because we are running away from personal problems with the Church and she tells us what our Church has the authority to do and believe. And then she pretends to be a victim like she is being attacked for being Catholic. The only person I see making flat out attack statements again other faiths is her. I may have qualms with Catholic theology, but I certainly don't believe that the only people who are Catholic are either idiots or deliberate deniers of the truth. Unfortunately she does not return that favor.

I don't ask for you to agree with Orthodox teaching, only to at least try and attempt to see where we are coming from.

[zhilan]

Z, I'm getting really fustrated here - are you even reading my posts at all?

"The argument you're basically making is "well the Anglicans are obviously wrong so anyone can see why we can't commune with them.""
That's NOT WHAT I SAID!!!!! READ MY POST! Gahhh!

For us, (not for you, I agree) validity is about which people have the capacity to give out the sacraments. not about who's "in communion" with who, that's a whole other question. We're not in communion with the Orthodox, but we think you have valid sacraments.

I know that you think that. I read your posts. I know that you think we have valid but illicit sacraments. And I know that you think that Anglicans have neither. But Eastern Orthodox do not view things in the same way. For Catholics it is about validity and who has it, but for us it is not about that. For us, there is not a difference between Catholic communion and Anglican communion. So for you the fact that you do not define the Anglicans have having a valid order means they cannot receive. To the Anglicans, they believe they have a valid order and do not understand why they can't receive. Are you being mean? No, you are guarding the chalice based on how you understand the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Because of the way Anglicans understand the Sacraments, they do not understand and feel hurt by you're not allowing them. Under their understanding you can receive. But under your understanding (ie it's about validity) they cannot.

Because of the way that you define it, you accept our validity and thus allow us to receive and feel hurt by us not returning the favor. But because of the way that we define things (ie we don't determine the validity of non-Orthodox churches), you cannot receive.

So do you see what I am saying? In both cases it is about different understandings of the Sacraments. For you it's about validity, for us it's not. We are not being anymore more "mean" than you are to the Anglicans.

[zhilan]

Sorry you feel that way Z (can I call you "Z"... it's cool. :P), I feel I've taken a lot from this thread myself. :)

Sure you can call me Z, although the Z actually makes a J sound (Zhi is pronounced like "jur" as in "jury"). But Z does seem cooler than J...which wouldn't make sense to anyone who doesn't know pinyin.....:)

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

Well, as I said in my post, I agree - but with point that the Anglicans, unlike us, get a valid theological point as to why we think their sacraments aren't valid. The Orthodox don't give us anything - which is a little strange to us, but like I said, I can see the wisdom in that even if I don't agree with it. :)

And by the way, you're still setting up a false equality between validity and full communion. If the Anglicans had valid sacraments, I would still not commune with them or tell them to commune with me because we are in schism, just like I wouldn't take communion at an SSPX mass or a EO mass (even if you did let us take communion). What we have trouble swallowing isn't that you guard the cup, it is right and proper to do that, its that you don't even acknowledge that when one of our priests says mass anything is happening. I get that view now, but it was that that we found harsh, not the guarding the cup bit. :)

[zhilan]

Well, as I said in my post, I agree - but with point that the Anglicans, unlike us, get a valid theological point as to why we think their sacraments aren't valid. The Orthodox don't give us anything - which is a little strange to us, but like I said, I can see the wisdom in that even if I don't agree with it. :)

And by the way, you're still setting up a false equality between validity and full communion. If the Anglicans had valid sacraments, I would still not commune with them or tell them to commune with me because we are in schism, just like I wouldn't take communion at an SSPX mass or a EO mass (even if you did let us take communion). What we have trouble swallowing isn't that you guard the cup, it is right and proper to do that, its that you don't even acknowledge that when one of our priests says mass anything is happening. I get that view now, but it was that that we found harsh, not the guarding the cup bit. :)
But we do give you an explanation. We believe that communion means we are in communion - 100%. Not that we love each other or are almost there or anything. We only commune with those we are in full communion with. I mean, look at the situation with the OO. We are at least 99% in communion in terms of theology. Many theologians on both sides would argue that we are 100% in agreement. But sadly, we have not yet reached full communion with each other. Even though my Coptic friends and I see eye to eye on pretty much everything, share the same holidays, share the same traditions, same world views, etc. when I go to their Church I cannot receive communion.

I think another problem, again with our different understandings, is that you are projecting Catholic theology onto Orthodoxy. You said that because we don't commune with you that we think that during a Mass nothing is happening. That's not true. We could never limit the Holy Spirit like that, we simply do not know where the Holy Spirit is.

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

I agree about communion Z. :) We aren't in communion with you, I agree, alas...

And respectfully, I didn't say that you thought that nothing happened, I said that you didn't make a positive acknowledgement that anything does happen. That is always going to be a stumbling block.

[Vasileios]

I think, with respect, that the only valid theological point one can give is the Orthodox explanation. We don't know. I will refer you to my previous posts, to the part where our Fathers say that Theology is reserved for those with theoria, ie the members of the Church who have with God's Grace reached theosis, or at the very least illumination.

I appreciate that you see a wisdom in our stance but I think it goes beyond that. It is not an intellectual safety valve sort to speak. It is the only allowable position one must hold if we are to adhere to what Tradition teaches.

Every mystery of the Church (your sacraments), is intended for the life of the Church. If for whatever reason one is outside the Church (and I am talking about the visible Church here, the rest is something we simply do not see, as we are not in theoria and the mystical is hidden from us) then we have no opinion whatsoever. We cannot have one. It's not mere precaution. Can we see the Holy Spirit? No. So how can we tell where He goes? We know from the time of the Apostles that He is most definitely in the Church. That is it.

To be honest, I like on a superficial level that the Catholic Church recognizes as a true Church. But to be honest I don't get why. I very much disagree with these terms of valid and invalid, illicit and so forth. If you search the Fathers you will see that all these terms (and most importantly the very *concept*) are completely absent. So, why do it?

This is the classic example of using rationality to come to a conclusion that does not agree with the Fathers. Your theologians have started from the premise that an ordination somehow "locks" the Holy Spirit's grace inside a man. We have nothing of that sort in our Tradition (which should raise some red flags but anyway). So, after a person abandons his rightful place, *logic* dictates that the Holy Spirit's grace is still "locked" inside him and you need to address the problem of schismatic groups, and you have the concept of validity and illicit and all that.

But this is so utterly foreign to the understanding of the Church Fathers! Forgive me, but it is turning the incredible mysterious gift of God to something we can quantify, measure and evaluate. And it is honestly both an innapropriate and a shallow approach.

Before you asked me about the 5th century as the beginning of the separation of our Churches. There is no major event that marks the 5th century as a special startpoint. But it is the period that the approach of St. Augustine in theology began to be used more. That is the approach of using logic, scholasticism, philosophy, ie wordly, fallen, temporal, approaches to the mystery of God. This from the side of the theology, while on the other hand the absence of hesychasm (which is the true approach to theology) and the shifting of the role of the bishop of Rome from exclusively spiritual governing to more political (esp. as we appoach the schism) are what lead to the various events that finally lead to the 1054 schism.

Outwardly, we may resemble each other a great deal as far as terms go and basics. But our whole approach is based on very different things and we submit we hold to the original base of things. So, as much as we wish for reconciliation (and we do!), how can we let what we believe are errors to creep back in the Church? Can we now say that after all, it *is* OK to use philosophy and logic to interpret scriptures? Can we now say that it is OK to proclaim that we know where the Holy Spirit works outside the Church? Can we say that your mystics who we believe are preaching errors are acceptable?

It is a complicated matter and we have to go past the "give me something so I know you respect me". Because what you ask us to give is what we are forbidden to give: Compromise in matters of faith.

I don't know if you have been reading the thread in Nicene theology where I and Benedicta exchanged some posts (http://foru.ms/t5921432-the-accusation-of-you-believe-only-what-you-want-to.html) but I think it demonstrates that we have serious reasons to believe that we have big differences in belief. I wish you wouldn't think that it is an unfair treatment.

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

Well, yeah, that's what I mean when I say I gained something from this thread, I see the difference in the EO perspective is now, and I'm not offended by it. I still strongly disagree, I think rationality must have a central place in theology for it to have any meaning, but as you say, there we part.

If I can lob this one out there - if quantifying the faith is so bad, why do you even have a creed? Why the first seven ecumenical councils?

[Benedicta00]

That's the point I wanna make here - why on earth are you respecting us for being Catholic?

I don't respect you for being Orthodox, I respect the Orthodox church because they are close to the Catholic Church in terms of theology, have valid sacraments, and faithfully hold on the much of the tradition of the Church.

Just the same as I don't respect Protestants for being Protestant, I respect them for preaching Christ crucified.

Likewise I don't want to be respected for being Catholic by someone of the Orthodox faith, that's just meaningless sentiment. I want to be respected for a mutual heratige, what we do have in common, and yet from post one in this thread you seem out to deny that we have anything in common.
:thumbsup:

[Benedicta00]

Seriously, I think that we should concentrate our efforts to re-communing with Anglican communions and Oriental Orthodox communions as it is obvious that Rome is far gone -

:doh:

It is also obvious that there is no point in arguing with Latins on anything - they know what they need to do before we can start talking, we also know they will never do it - therefore it is a waste of time -

Many years.

You act as if you are entitled to your stubbornness. The pride and the unwillingness to 'listen' goes both ways.

[Benedicta00]

I agree about communion Z. :) We aren't in communion with you, I agree, alas...

And respectfully, I didn't say that you thought that nothing happened, I said that you didn't make a positive acknowledgement that anything does happen. That is always going to be a stumbling block.
I'm still wanting to know why they believe they have the power to undo a valid ordination?

But then again, they believe they also have the power to undo a valid sacramental marriage too.

What God as joined, no man can take apart.

[Benedicta00]

I will refer you to my previous posts, to the part where our Fathers say that Theology is reserved for those with theoria, ie the members of the Church who have with God's Grace reached theosis, or at the very least illumination.

I'd like to know where our Fathers have said this.

[Benedicta00]

to be honest, I like on a superficial level that the Catholic Church recognizes as a true Church. But to be honest I don't get why

Because your patriaches are the successor to the other apostles.

We have no power to nullify that just because you fell into error.

[kamikat]

But then again, they believe they also have the power to undo a valid sacramental marriage too.

What God as joined, no man can take apart.

Divorce is allowed in the bible.
Matt 19:9
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
This means that adultery is grounds for divorce.

[Vasileios]

Now we are in *error*? That's a new one. We went from beautiful eastern theology to error... I wonder what those errors are...

Anyway, as for your question concerning who is entitled to theology, I refer you to St. Gregory Nazianzen the Theologian: First theological Orration against the Eunomians:
III. Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the Subject is not so cheap and low; and I will add, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits.

Not to all men, because it is permitted only to those who have been examined, and are passed masters in meditation, and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or at the very least are being purified.


And that is a pretty bad translation btw. Where it says "passed masters of medidation" it actually reads in Greek those who have passed in theoria. Medidation is a pretty weak word...

That is one just example... I urge you to look in the Desert Fathers to find similar warnings.

But tell me: You doubt that the Church Fathers warned about the danger of interpreting the Holy Scriptures for himself? Do you doubt that what I am telling you is the unanimous consesus of the Fathers?

Fine.

As for the ordination grace, I have already told you extensively why we disagree. You still haven't addressed my points concerning those matters. It is your turn, not mine. When a person is ordained he does not possess new "powers" by God to do anything. Outside of the Church he is nothing. Simple as that.

[zhilan]

I'm still wanting to know why they believe they have the power to undo a valid ordination?

But then again, they believe they also have the power to undo a valid sacramental marriage too.

What God as joined, no man can take apart.
I don't get your point at all...I'm sorry. Luther was a priest, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? If someone falls into heresy they are no longer part of your Church.

And don't even get me started on annulments. That needs a whole new thread.

[Benedicta00]

Divorce is allowed in the bible.
Matt 19:9

This means that adultery is grounds for divorce.
No, it isn't. Jesus said Moses allowed it for the Jews because of the hardness of their hearts.

Adultery isn't grounds for divorce. Only in the secular world it is.

[Benedicta00]

Now we are in *error*? That's a new one. We went from beautiful eastern theology to error... I wonder what those errors are...

Rejection of the papacy, and some of your moral teachings.

Now maybe you can grasp the differences between us. You can be in error and still be a valid church that has much truth to it.

You don't see it that way, do you? It's all or nothing with you, isn't it?

[zhilan]

No, it isn't. Jesus said Moses allowed it for the Jews because of the hardness of their hearts.

Adultery isn't grounds for divorce. Only in the secular world it is.
Then why does Jesus say that it is?

[zhilan]

Rejection of the papacy, and some of your moral teachings.

Now maybe you can grasp the differences between us. You can be in error and still be a valid church that has much truth to it.

You don't see it that way, do you? It's all or nothing with you, isn't it?
Yes, it is. We don't compromise the truth. I would think, of all people, Catholics would understand that.

[Benedicta00]

That is one just example... I urge you to look in the Desert Fathers to find similar warnings.

But tell me: You doubt that the Church Fathers warned about the danger of interpreting the Holy Scriptures for himself? Do you doubt that what I am telling you is the unanimous consesus of the Fathers?

Fine.

I acknowledge that... we are not to self interpret which is why I do not understand how you can reject the papacy.

Let me give to you an example. St. Theresa Little Flower was made a doctor of the Church becuae of her "Little Way."

Pope John Paul who has authority declared her writings so profound that they had to have been inspired by the HS. "Theoria" as you call it.

So we do agree. These 'revelations' are delivered to the saints.

But we are talking about the deposit of faith that Christ taught to the 12 who in turn passed it down to His Church. The Church guards the truth from those who seek to destroy it.

Revelation delivered to the saints, leads us into a deeper understanding of our faith.

The Church is who has the authority to test the spirits.

Who in your church has the authority to test what is delivered to the saints to determine if it is in line with Tradition or not?

Who in your church was given the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, will not allow error creeping in through these saints revelations?

The saints are NOT infallible or outside of Satan's attacks. They can be deceived by him which is why Christ gave us a Church to protect Truth.

As for the ordination grace, I have already told you extensively why we disagree. You still haven't addressed my points concerning those matters. It is your turn, not mine. When a person is ordained he does not possess new "powers" by God to do anything. Outside of the Church he is nothing. Simple as that.

A ontological change has taken place. :confused:

Do you believe baptism is a sacrament that can also be revoked becuase of rebellion and/or error? Since you think holy orders and matrimony can.

[zhilan]

I acknowledge that... we are not to self interpret which is why I do not understand how you can reject the papacy.

Exactly because of this. I'd like to see where the Early Church fathers talk about the Infalliblity of Rome or any of the innovations since the Shcims.


Who in your church has the authority to test what is delivered to the saints to determine if it is in line with Tradition or not?

Who in your church was given the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, will not allow error creeping in through these saints revelations?

Men are fallible. Thus we do not rely on any sinful man to "test" revelations, but test each one against what has been handed down through the centuries. If a revelation or teaching goes against the teaching of Orthodoxy, we will reject it. This has worked for 2,000 years, no reason to stop now.

A ontological change has taken place. :confused:

Do you believe baptism is a sacrament that can also be revoked becuase of rebellion and/or error? Since you think holy orders and matrimony can.

We believe that only in baptism does an ontological (or something like that I'm not to clear on this word) change take place. Thus we recognize Baptism even if it takes place outside the Church (eg. I did not have to be baptized when I became Orthodox). However, we do not claim, like the CAtholic Church, that sometimes for some reasons sacraments "don't happen" (conveniently usually when the couple wants a divorce).

[kamikat]

No, it isn't. Jesus said Moses allowed it for the Jews because of the hardness of their hearts.

Adultery isn't grounds for divorce. Only in the secular world it is.

So, what is your interpratation of Matt 19:9?
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

[Benedicta00]

So, what is your interpratation of Matt 19:9?
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
3And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said:

5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?

8 He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Jesus teaches us from the beginning a lawful marriage can not be taken apart. A lawful marriage joined two ppl, a man and a woman together as one.

Fornication, where the parties are not lawfully married is the exception.

Unless you are a fornicator, one who is not lawfully married or one who has relations with someone with out the benifit of marrige, you are NOT free to marry.

Those who are lawfully married are not free to marry another person just becuase they have a bill of divorce.

Unfaithfulness between two who have been made one does not break this covenant, nothing does.

Tell me truthfully, every divorce the Orthodox church allows was due to unfaithfullness? Are you sure about that?

There are many divorcees that have come into your church, were they all divorced becuase of unfaithfullness?

[kamikat]

Jesus teaches us from the beginning a lawful marriage can not be taken apart. A lawful marriage joined two ppl, a man and a woman together as one.

Fornication, where the parties are not lawfully married is the exception.
I see no "lawfully married" in that verse. Where does it say "unlawfully married" in Matt 19:9


Tell me truthfully, every divorce the Orthodox church allows was due to unfaithfullness? Are you sure about that?
Considering that I don't know every single person in the ORthodox Church, I'd say "I have no idea"
Are you sure that every annullment in your church is between two people who lawfully married? (there's at least one couple in my family who were told they just needed to make a larger "donation" in order to get theirs through).

There are many divorcees that have come into your church, were they all divorced becuase of unfaithfullness?
What happens prior to becoming Orthodox is of no concern. One comes into the Church as a new babe in Christ.

[Benedicta00]

I see no "lawfully married" in that verse. Where does it say "unlawfully married" in Matt 19:9

It says, accept for fornicators. What is a fornicator? one who sleeps with someone they are not married to.

Read the verse again, And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

The exception to "re-marry" is for those who are not lawfully married, for fornicators. Those are who is free to "put away their wife" and marry another. Why? because they were never lawfully married in the first place.

Where does Jesus say this? Read the verses, He explains to the Pharisees what a lawful marriage is and it is what GOD joins together as one flesh and said that no man can take what HE joins apart.

No where did he say that adultery takes two who were joined by God as one, apart. No where does He say that.

What He said was, fornicators, those who were not join together as one flesh by God, are free to marry. They are free to marry becuase they were never married to begin with.

And further more, the Pharisee and Jesus are discussing who is free to marry.

Read it again, The Pharisee ask, is it lawful to put away you wife for any old reason?

Jesus said, from the beginning God intended man and women to be joined together as one flesh. So from the beginning God said it was not so. Once God joins two ppl together as one, they are one and no man can undo that.

So then, Jesus goes on to say, anyone who does do that, who puts his wife away and tries to re marry- will commit adultery ( a serious sin to the Jews) and anyone who will try to marry a woman who was put away, also will commit adultery.

The ones who are free to put their wives away and marry are those who were never really married in the first place.

Only God can marry. Only death breaks the covenant.

Considering that I don't know every single person in the Orthodox Church, I'd say "I have no idea"
Are you sure that every annulment in your church is between two people who lawfully married? (there's at least one couple in my family who were told they just needed to make a larger "donation" in order to get theirs through).

That's a shame, they are being lead into sin. The Church does not 'teach' that bribery breaks the covenant. This is what clerics and divorced ppl choose.

It's sad indeed, but a divorced person could go about it honestly and insist on a honest process. If one party paid off the Church the other party can always contest it.

So no the Church does not 'teach' that divorce is okay. That is the difference between us, your does.


What happens prior to becoming Orthodox is of no concern. One comes into the Church as a new babe in Christ.

So you also claim you have the power to say a lawful marriage between two baptized Protestants or between two baptized Catholics was invalid?? Nice how you can say that grace never flowed or how you think you can just take it away when it did.

[kamikat]

So you also claim you have the power to say a lawful marriage between two baptized Protestants or between two baptized Catholics was invalid?? Nice how you can say that grace never flowed or how you think you can just take it away when it did.

When Protestants come into the Catholic church, they have to get remarried. Isn't that saying that the Catholic church says a lawful marriage didn't happen?

[Benedicta00]

When Protestants come into the Catholic church, they have to get remarried. Isn't that saying that the Catholic church says a lawful marriage didn't happen?
ah, no they don't. If they were both baptized and married in their faith lawfully, meaning neither being a divorcee. Their marriage is recognized by the Church.

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

I'm still wanting to know why they believe they have the power to undo a valid ordination?

But then again, they believe they also have the power to undo a valid sacramental marriage too.

What God as joined, no man can take apart.
Actually I did my *own* research, and it seems the Orthodox will generally not require a Catholic priest who converts to be ordained again, though they do require an Anglican one to be ordained on conversion. They have a theological principal called "economy".

See, they do have theology! http://www.scoba.us/resources/economy.asp

(They just don't like to admit it. :P )

[kamikat]

ah, no they don't. If they were both baptized and married in their faith lawfully, meaning neither being a divorcee. Their marriage is recognized by the Church.

Hmm, ok. Could it vary from location to location, ie a more liberal or more conservative priest saying something else? My neighbors claim that their priest required them to get remarried just after their confirmation service when they were brought into the church.

[zhilan]

This thread is 31 pages long....

I suggest we agree to agree to start a NEW thread on this whole divorce topic....

Can we come together as Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox to take a stand against ridiculously long threads that have nothing to do with the OP?

[No Swansong]

Actually I did my *own* research, and it seems the Orthodox will generally not require a Catholic priest who converts to be ordained again, though they do require an Anglican one to be ordained on conversion. They have a theological principal called "economy".

See, they do have theology! http://www.scoba.us/resources/economy.asp

(They just don't like to admit it. :P )
I'm sorry but this is completely contrary to my own research of just a year or so again. I specifically have spoken about the issue to a Greek Orthodox Bishop, an OCA priest, and an Antiochian priest. All tell me the same thing that if a Roman Catholic priest were to convert and want to serve as a priest he would have to be ordained, (two of them even said he would have to be chrismated)

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

Well, yeah - even that source in the end chalks it up to spiritual discernment, hence the term generally, but I did see another one that was clearer.

Well wikipedia says it is a matter of "much debate" in EO, which would be accurate, but to say flat out that Orthodoxy doesn't recognise any sacraments outside its own communion seems to be a vast oversimplification at best, especially seeing as they are willing to recognise the non-RC/Anglican apostolic churches outside Orthodoxy.

[xristos.anesti]

It really depends on the decision of a bishop in charge -
I do think that the general experience is that priests will be ordained (it is not considered to be re-ordination)...

However, it does really depend on the bishop.

I am sure that Serbs would definitely ordain those coming from Latin confession while Anglicans may or may not have to be ordained (Serbs in diaspora generally have extremely large respect for Church of England - even after 1999 bombing and current UK policy towards Serbia) - depending on which particular confession they come from -

Also, I am not an expert - this is just what I've been told by our priesthood and bishop here in Australia.

Many years.

[Benedicta00]

Actually I did my *own* research, and it seems the Orthodox will generally not require a Catholic priest who converts to be ordained again, though they do require an Anglican one to be ordained on conversion. They have a theological principal called "economy".

See, they do have theology! http://www.scoba.us/resources/economy.asp

(They just don't like to admit it. :P )
Interesting.

[RobNJ]

This thread is 31 pages long....

I suggest we agree to agree to start a NEW thread on this whole divorce topic....

Can we come together as Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox to take a stand against ridiculously long threads that have nothing to do with the OP?

Change to 40 posts/page... it'll only be on page 8 then!! ;)

[Benedicta00]

Hmm, ok. Could it vary from location to location, ie a more liberal or more conservative priest saying something else? My neighbors claim that their priest required them to get remarried just after their confirmation service when they were brought into the church.
Kamikat, you're going to run out of gas on this one.

I could care less about who is liberal and who isn't. Clerics and bishops disobey the Church all the time. It's sad but true.

We are talking about what the Church actually teaches.

Valid marriages outside of Catholicism, we recognize that grace does flow to those who are validly baptized outside the Church.

When ppl come into the Church, the Church will look at the circumstances of their marriage and determine if it was valid or not. There are many many things to determine, I couldn't possibly discuss all the scenarios.

When I went through RCIA 15 years ago to be confirmed, me and my husband, who is also Catholic had to 'get married' becuase we were two baptised Catholics who got married by a judge. We had no business doing that, we were not lawfully married in God's eyes.

Do you get it? It all depends.

What the point here is, we do not TEACH that you can divorce your spouse for any reason if you have a valid, sacramental marriage.

Even two unbaptized Atheist coming into the Church might not have to be married again if they only received a civil marriage.

Their marriage would be considered valid, but not a sacramental for obvious reasons, they aren't baptized.

I'm not a 100% sure but after baptism and entrance into the Church, I think then the grace would naturally flow to them, I dont believe they would have to have a ceremony.

So again the difference is recognizing that baptized persons outside the Church indeed has the grace of God.

[kamikat]

Kamikat, you're going to run out of gas on this one.

I could care less about who is liberal and who isn't. Clerics and bishops disobey the Church all the time. It's sad but true.



Do you always have to be so short? I just put that forth because that's what I've been told. I'm not pushing it, I'm just asking for clarification.

[Benedicta00]

Do you always have to be so short? I just put that forth because that's what I've been told. I'm not pushing it, I'm just asking for clarification.
No I don't have to be, sorry.