- Mar 28, 2024
- 256
- 23
- 39
- Country
- Russian Federation
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
You forgot that there are Greek Catholics practicing the Byzantine rite.
Upvote
0
Why would you assume that I forgot any such thing?You forgot that there are Greek Catholics practicing the Byzantine rite.
"Transubstantiation as a Roman Catholic doctrine is the use of Aristotelian philosophical categories of “substance” (what makes a thing what it is) and “accidents” (incidental attributes of a thing) to explain how it is that the bread and wine of the Eucharist still appear to be bread and wine (in their “accidents”) while having undergone a change in their “substance” to be the Body and Blood of Christ. This explanation goes beyond simply stating that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood.
The modernists say. Turn on the logic, I have given you the Byzantine iconography above, which depicts transubstantiation. I have quoted to you from Theophylact, which speaks directly about transubstantiation, I have given you two stories from the Ancient Patericus, which speaks about transubstantiation, I have given you a story told by the Russian Saint Ignatius Bryanchaninov, talking about transubstantiation. I have given you quotes from saints, including a Russian, a quote from a Greek theologian, who speak about the same understanding of Redemption among Catholics and Orthodox. There are modernists in theology who think that the traditional understanding that has always been there is supposedly a "Latin captivity", but they are mistaken and betray their modernism.Why would you assume that I forgot any such thing?
I reiterate: what I see Orthodox authors say consistently, is that the Orthodox understanding of ministry and sacraments is not the same as the Catholic understanding.
Why would you assume that I forgot any such thing?
I reiterate: what I see Orthodox authors say consistently, is that the Orthodox understanding of ministry and sacraments is not the same as the Catholic understanding.
Why would you assume that I forgot any such thing?
I reiterate: what I see Orthodox authors say consistently, is that the Orthodox understanding of ministry and sacraments is not the same as the Catholic understanding.
The modernists say. Turn on the logic, I have given you the Byzantine iconography above, which depicts transubstantiation. I have quoted to you from Theophylact, which speaks directly about transubstantiation, I have given you two stories from the Ancient Patericus, which speaks about transubstantiation, I have given you a story told by the Russian Saint Ignatius Bryanchaninov, talking about transubstantiation. I have given you quotes from saints, including a Russian, a quote from a Greek theologian, who speak about the same understanding of Redemption among Catholics and Orthodox. There are modernists in theology who think that the traditional understanding that has always been there is supposedly a "Latin captivity", but they are mistaken and betray their modernism.
If the Orthodox denied transubstantiation, they would not keep the Body and Blood of Christ in the tabernacle, they would not keep the Gifts in the tabernacle, then there would be no practice of pre-consecrated Gifts. That's it for sure now, I won't answer anymore.
That’s true, although the differences are often subtle except where it relates to the filioque, the nature of apostolic succession (the Orthodox largely believe, after St. Cyprian of Carthage, that heretical bishops cannot confer Apostolic Succession or perform valid ordinations, which is a huge departure from the Augustinian model of ex opere operanto, and then there is a difference of approach, wherein without invalidating Western marriages, the Eastern churches, including oddly enough the Eastern Catholic churches, all have liturgical theologies in which the priest causes the man and wife to be married in the service of Holy Matrimony as opposed to the couple confecting the sacrament on themselves, which I would argue is actually a Scholastic innovation and we see traces of a Byzantine-like sacrament when even in Anglicanism the minister pronounces the marriage, but of course I feel obliged, having, as a former US president once quixotically admitted, strong opinions that I often disagree with, to point out that as Confession demonstrates, we can pronounce things without having actually performed them.
Catholicism also has modernism, and there is traditionalism. John Paul and Francis expressed modernist ideas. Lubeck is also considered a modernist theologian, as is Chardin. This is as an example. In Catholicism, we must look for something that is closer to traditionalism, tradition.
The Russian Church accepts Catholic priests, recognizing the Ihsan, recognizing them in their true dignity!
Here is the proof:
1) Гавриил (Бунге) — Википедия
2) Константин (Симон) — Википедия
If the text is in Russian, then translate it into English by an online translator.
Bull of the Lion 13:
"To this essential defect of form is added the defect of intention, which is equally essential for the sacrament. The Church does not judge about a thought or intention (intention), as far as it, by its very essence, is something internal; but it must judge about it, as far as it manifests itself outside. So, if anyone, when performing and teaching the sacrament, reverently and according to the order uses matter and proper form, he is recognized for this very reason as having the intention to do what the Church does. This is the basis of the teaching, according to which the sacrament is really taught, even by a heretic or not baptized, as long as it is taught according to the Catholic order. On the contrary, if the rite is changed with the explicit purpose of introducing another one that is not accepted by the Church, and the one that she performs is rejected, and which, according to Christ's establishment, refers to the very essence of the sacrament; then it is obvious that not only does
the sacrament lack the necessary intention, but this intention is even contrary to the sacrament and destroys it."
Папы Льва XIII предположительно.
Transubstantiation is a point of possible harmony given that some Orthodox fathers used the term and we certainly share a belief in the real presence. The problem is really that Pope Francis is prepared to admit the blessing of sodomites who should be excommunicated until they repent, and then subject to canonical penances as prescribed in the Rudder.
Why would you assume that I forgot any such thing?
I reiterate: what I see Orthodox authors say consistently, is that the Orthodox understanding of ministry and sacraments is not the same as the Catholic understanding.
To the best of my knowledge, that rite is not authorised for use in the Anglican Church of Australia. It is possible that permission has been given somewhere and I don't know of it (we have 23 dioceses, and I have only served in two of them).I wanted to ask you a question: do you serve the Sarum rite in Australia?