The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Melkite4Life, son of the desert, chchannel, OrbisNonSufficit, SergLts
5,657 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 160 guests, and 141 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
by likethethief, June 12
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,881
Posts412,878
Members5,657
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 13 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 12 13
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324
If you ask me, I think it's tired old church politics and tired old prejudices that cause the Catholics and the Orthodox to grumble about the validity and legitimacy of each others' orders and sacraments...and nothing more.

Tell me, who do people turn to whenever they need an exorcist? If certain elements of Orthodox Church want to question the legitimacy of the Latin Church's priesthood and Sacraments, they can read report after report of successful exorcisms performed by Roman Catholic priests across the years. Clearly the Devil and his mignons realize that the Latins are legit.

If Roman Catholics want to question the legitimacy of the Orthodox, they need to pull their heads out of their private apparition diaries and read a history book for a change, not to mention the acts of the magisterium of their own hierarchy with respect to the Holy Orthodox Church.

What we all need to do, on all sides, I think, is grow up and get a grip. Questionable validity, indeed. Give me a break. It will come out in the end that we are and have been all along one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church made up of sinful children who run with scissors and don't know how to play right with one another.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
And I read that as the sad state of affairs that the OCA has become.


Then what of the Russian Orthodox Church who also accept Latin/Byzantine Catholic priests through vesting only?

What is the practice of the Greek Orthodox? I believe it also through vesting.

Now the acceptance of a priest through vesting doesn't necessarily mean that the OCA accepts all Catholic sacraments as valid. Most Catholics, as far as I understand, are Chrismated when they enter the Orthodox Church including the OCA. This would mean that the sacraments that one received prior were lacking and the fullness of them is given in the Orthodox mystery.


No argument here. Think ROCOR ten years ago. Or even twenty years. With the way it is now..........

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear brother Otsheylnik,

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure how commemorating a bishop violates anyone's ecclesiology.

Just to be clear, I am not saying the commemoration is the cause of communion, but merely a sign of it (the cause of communion is the Eucharist). I think it is important at this time to give a sign to visitors and inquirers that the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches they might visit are indeed in communion with Rome. Once reunion is acheived, we would no longer need this. But it would be premature at this time while schism yet exists between our Churches to remove commemoration of the bishop of Rome as part of Catholic Liturgies anywhere in the world.

Blessings

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
Originally Posted by mardukm


Originally Posted by StuartK
4. Commemoration of the Pope only in Patriarchal liturgies, and commemoration of other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs at same.

Disagree. I believe the commemoration of a local bishop indicates that the local parish is in communion with all other parishes in the eparchy/diocese. Commemoration of the Patriarch indicates that the local parish and diocese is in communion with all other eparchies dioceses in the Patriarchate. Commemoration of the Pope of Rome indicates that the local parish, diocese, and patriarchate is in communion with all other patriarchates in the universal Church. I am also not aware of any restriction for a particular Church to commemorate all other Patriarchs in a patriarchal liturgy. That's really up to the local Patriarch.


What you describe does not reflect Orthodox ecclesiology. As a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, I am in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is senior to my Patriarch (and depending on your understanding has "the primacy" in the Orthodox Churches). I am also in communion with bishops of other Orthodox Churches who are in the same city as me (Serbian, Greek, etc.) The Patriarch of Constantinople is not commemorated in my liturgies, nor are any of the hierarchs of other Orthodox Churches who abide in my city. This is because non Russian hierarchs have zero role in the management of my Church. This is as it should be. It does not mean we are not in communion, it just means we are autonomous.

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 167
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 167
I think we should head back straight to the first recorded council of the organized Christian church: Jerusalem in Acts 15. Does the text give any indication that St. Peter called the Council and that St. Peter was the only authority whose judgment was heeded?

Does Papal Supremacy find any grounding in the pastoral event of the Council of Jerusalem? And did the other Apostles submit wholly to outright supremacy from St. Peter?

Last edited by BenjaminRH; 01/14/13 03:48 AM.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Originally Posted by mardukm
Dear brother Otsheylnik,

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure how commemorating a bishop violates anyone's ecclesiology.



It's ecclesiology because it represents what Church you belong to. Essentially, we commemorate those who we are in direct communion with, through our local church. It's just that, in the Orthodox diaspora, local means jurisdiction - our metropolitan is sitting in Moscow or wherever, not in a city nearby - the patriarch of Moscow is in some sense though still a local hierarch for me. The Greek Bishop of Sydney or the Bishop of Rome however are absolutely not a part of this "local" structure.

Quote
Just to be clear, I am not saying the commemoration is the cause of communion, but merely a sign of it (the cause of communion is the Eucharist).


Agreed, but this is manifested first and foremost on a local, or within jurisdiction level, not an inter-Church level. Remember, for clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church, they need permission from their bishop to con-celebrate at a non-Russian Church. Their fealty is to their own "local" Church in the first place. To "go from city to city" (jurisdiction to jurisdiction in the modern sense) needs each "local" bishops permission.

Quote
I think it is important at this time to give a sign to visitors and inquirers that the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches they might visit are indeed in communion with Rome. Once reunion is acheived, we would no longer need this. But it would be premature at this time while schism yet exists between our Churches to remove commemoration of the bishop of Rome as part of Catholic Liturgies anywhere in the world.


The problem is the kind of communion that requires the commemoration of a non-local hierarch is not a form of communion the Orthodox understand to be communion. As an Orthodox priest said to me, "if you commemorate the bishop of Rome at the liturgy, you are a Roman Catholic." I am a Russian because the patriarch of the Russian Church is commemorated at services I attend, and is my hierarch. The communion of the Russian Church as an entity with the Greek Church is a separate matter.


Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
I think we should head back straight to the first recorded council of the organized Christian church: Jerusalem in Acts 15. Does the text give any indication that St. Peter called the Council and that St. Peter was the only authority whose judgment was heeded?

Does Papal Supremacy find any grounding in the pastoral event of the Council of Jerusalem? And did the other Apostles submit wholly to outright supremacy from St. Peter?


I have heard it said that the part about everyone falling silent shows submission to Papal Supremacy. (If you don't agree with that ... well, I can't really blame you as I don't buy it either.)

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
The problem is the kind of communion that requires the commemoration of a non-local hierarch is not a form of communion the Orthodox understand to be communion. As an Orthodox priest said to me, "if you commemorate the bishop of Rome at the liturgy, you are a Roman Catholic."



To follow up on this point Metropolitan George of Mount Lebanon (Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch) has said:

Quote
In mentioning the Pope of Rome in the Eastern Liturgies we are inviting the Churches to a practice the East has never known.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Basically, commemoration is vertical to the level of the particular Church; i.e., priests commemorate their bishop and their or autonomous metropolitans; after that; at the Episcopal level, commemoration is both vertical and horizontal, i.e., bishops commemorate the other bishops in their synod, as well as their metropolitan or patriarch; metropolitans and patriarchs commemorate the bishops of their synod and the other metropolitans and patriarchs with whom they are in communion. So, the Patriarch of Moscow commemorates the bishops of the Church of Moscow, plus the other Orthodox patriarcharchs and metropolitans to whom he is speaking this particular Sunday.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
If you ask me, I think it's tired old church politics and tired old prejudices that cause the Catholics and the Orthodox to grumble about the validity and legitimacy of each others' orders and sacraments...and nothing more.

Tell me, who do people turn to whenever they need an exorcist? If certain elements of Orthodox Church want to question the legitimacy of the Latin Church's priesthood and Sacraments, they can read report after report of successful exorcisms performed by Roman Catholic priests across the years. Clearly the Devil and his mignons realize that the Latins are legit.

If Roman Catholics want to question the legitimacy of the Orthodox, they need to pull their heads out of their private apparition diaries and read a history book for a change, not to mention the acts of the magisterium of their own hierarchy with respect to the Holy Orthodox Church.

What we all need to do, on all sides, I think, is grow up and get a grip. Questionable validity, indeed. Give me a break. It will come out in the end that we are and have been all along one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church made up of sinful children who run with scissors and don't know how to play right with one another.


Agreed.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
I don't know of any reputable Orthodox or Catholic authorities who do NOT recognize the legitimacy and validity of each other's orders and sacraments. That's a red herring.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
Originally Posted by StuartK
I don't know of any reputable Orthodox or Catholic authorities who do NOT recognize the legitimacy and validity of each other's orders and sacraments. That's a red herring.

Well... if that is true, then I don't understand.
At St. Innocent of Moscow Orthodox Church, here in Carol Stream, IL, Catholic converts are baptized.
Why would they re-baptize if they recognized the legitimacy of Catholic sacraments?
In speaking to Father Jeremiah over there a few years ago, it seemed to me that they didn't recognize that the Catholic sacraments were grace-filled.

Would this count as some sort of "conditional" baptism like we Latins do for some Protestants coming into full communion with the Catholic Church?
(Does the East even perform conditional baptisms?)

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by StuartK
I don't know of any reputable Orthodox or Catholic authorities who do NOT recognize the legitimacy and validity of each other's orders and sacraments. That's a red herring.

Can you back up that statement? (Of course, you could always hide behind the qualifier "I don't know of any". wink ) I think it would be more accurate to say that the Orthodox do not have an official statement to the tune of "Catholic sacraments are absolutely null and utterly void."

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by StuartK
I don't know of any reputable Orthodox or Catholic authorities who do NOT recognize the legitimacy and validity of each other's orders and sacraments. That's a red herring.


And this is a flaming. Or drive by if you will. Please do tell me it all hinges on what you consider reputable? That would be an untestable premises and an invalid argument. I rather enjoy your post. They always liven things up.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,833
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,833
Originally Posted by danman916
Originally Posted by StuartK
I don't know of any reputable Orthodox or Catholic authorities who do NOT recognize the legitimacy and validity of each other's orders and sacraments. That's a red herring.

Well... if that is true, then I don't understand.
At St. Innocent of Moscow Orthodox Church, here in Carol Stream, IL, Catholic converts are baptized.
Why would they re-baptize if they recognized the legitimacy of Catholic sacraments?
In speaking to Father Jeremiah over there a few years ago, it seemed to me that they didn't recognize that the Catholic sacraments were grace-filled.

Would this count as some sort of "conditional" baptism like we Latins do for some Protestants coming into full communion with the Catholic Church?
(Does the East even perform conditional baptisms?)

Some Orthodox are agnostic on whether or not there is grace in Catholic sacraments.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
With all respect, the questions of rebaptism, etc. are a little off the topic of the place of the papacy.

Page 6 of 13 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 12 13

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5