Dear Brother Ed:

Let me refer you to the works of Karl Rahner, and I quote: "Such a man may assume he is an atheist: he may grieve at the thought that he does not believe; concrete Christian doctrine may seem outlandish to him. Let him but press on, following the light there in his heart of hearts, and he is on the right road; and the Christian has no fear that such a man will not reach the goal, even though he has not managed to turn his anonymous Christianity into explicit Christianity. It is a Christian truth that a man who seeks has already been found by the One he is honestly looking for, albeit anonymously. All roads lead to him. 'In him we live and move and have our being'(Acts 17, 28). Comprehending all things, he is comprehended by none. And therefore Christianity, faith in God through Christ in one Spirit, is child's play, because all it says is that we are called into the immediate mystery of God, waiting for the revelation of that which already is so--'that God [is] everything to everyone."
from Do You Believe
in God
A mere seeker of God;

John

Dear Brother Ed,
If you want to call me Brother Robert that's okay by me. I am an Antiochian Orthodox Christian who was baptised under the Jerusalem Patriarchy in Jordan. Regarding the heresy of relativism, I do not have any specific books which I do know are available. There are a couple of books that might be of interest. The book,"The Empty Church," by Thomas Reeves and "The American Religion" by Harold Bloom. Both books reveal what is happening to the demise of American/Western Christianity. The focus is more on Protestantism than on Catholicism. However, Catholicism and Protestantism are in many ways no different than each other. They both claim authenticity and authority. Both are always inventing new teachings to adjust to modernity at the expense of neglecting Apostolic teachings. They are opposites of the same coin. It is unfortunate for the Melikites(Byzantine Catholics) to have made communion with Rome in 1724AD. I have some relatives and friends who are Melikites. My parents were married in their church. After studying the history of how Rome tried to conquer the Middle East and convert the Orthodox to Roman Catholics it became quite clear in my mind that Rome was an antagonist and sheep-theif. The Orthodox Church never went out of Her way to establish a Greek Patriarchy in Rome as opposed to Rome's Latin Patriarchy in Jerusalem. There is no doubt of a spiritual and political struggle with Rome. The Melikites were sincere Orthodox Christians who apostazied and came into union with Rome. They hoped and continue to hope that Rome will accept them as equals when their past history has indicated otherwise. I will pray for you on your journey into the fullness of the faith. Please checkout the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese Home Page at http://www.antiochian.org. I know of a former Anglican Priest who converted to Orthodoxy by the name of Fr. Patrick Reardon who serves in my archdiocese and in my city of Chicago. You can find info about him through the above web page and ask to speak to him. He has told me the terrible stories of what had happen with the Anglicans and why he decide to become Orthodox rather than Roman or Byzantine Catholic. God bless.
In Christ,
Brother Robert

Dear Servant of God, Robert

Glory to Jesus Christ !

Thank you for posting the Antiochian web site link. I went there and found a link for the Antiochian Village in Ligonier, PA. I enjoyed perusing this link, since this is the location where our annual Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh Great Fast Retreat will be held this March 24-26, 2000. Ukranian Catholic Father George Appleyard will be the retreat master. I am happy and I applaud the Antiochian Church for allowing a Catholic Ruthenian Church to hold such a spiritual fulfilling event on Eastern Orthodox property.

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner

Dear Joe Prokopchak,
I am glad you found the Antiochian website and discovered the site you will attended with your church. As you probably know we do have good relationships with the Melikites, Marionites, Syrians, Coptics, etc. We have much in common except when it comes to discussions of being in communion with Rome. Byzantine Catholics are the nearest to us in the Antiochian Church. I know of the Melikite and Marionite priests in Chicago who have good relationships with my priest and attend our functions and we attend theirs as well. When we have our worship service with their presence we will not give them the Eucharist, and at the same time we would not accept their Eucharist during their worship services. There are very good reasons for this which I have stated in many posts. God-willing we will wait for their return to Holy Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

[This message has been edited by Robert Sweiss (edited 02-01-2000).]

Laudetur Jesus Christus!
Dear TruthSeeker,
I would advise You to seek some help in The Catechism Of the Catholic Church. Remember please that it is valid for all Churches in union with Rome, although I supose our Eastern hosts on this forum are of opinion that in some places it is too westernized.
Also for question 2 read:
#1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."[199] In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."[200] "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."[201]
Note that #1373 speaks about another ways of Christ presence which is also 'real'.
#1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church:[195] in his word, in his Church's prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"[196] in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,[197] in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."[198]
Coception of substantial change of elements is already known in Roman Church in 11th century ( Creed of Berengarius, 1079).
The change is substantial, because during consecration species of bread and wine become as identical with Body and Blood of Christ, God and man, as Son of God is substantially identical (consubstantial) with God The Father (see Nicene Creed), as Jesus Christ, Incarnated Word of God, is consubstantial to us in his humanity (see decrees of Council of Chalcedon).
so the idea of'transsubstantiation' is not so much scholastic, since it uses cocepts evolved for explanation of ourfaith durin early councils common for East and West.
I'm able to understand eastern scepticism about this matter, because it was worked out by Western Church alone, and not on common Ecumenical Council, but Byzantinians, especially Catholics, should remember that their Churches have never faced doctrines deniing real presenc of Christ in Eucharist.
I'm strongly convinced, and CCC confirms that in #1399, that eastern Churches, catholic, orthodox and nonchalcedonian, have valid Eucharist.Words are not as important, as common faith is.
#1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."[235]

Now about question 3:
#1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing[178]) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).
In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

#1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:
It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.[202]
And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed.... Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.[203]

This last one article is especially interesting, since it cites St.John Chrysostom. I may only add that generally Easterners care more about epiclesis, and Westerners about institution narrative.
Question 5; here some more articels:
I. THE CHURCH IS ONE
"The sacred mystery of the Church's unity" (UR 2)
813 The Church is one because of her source: "the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit."[259] The Church is one because of her founder: for "the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body."[260] The Church is one because of her "soul": "It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church's unity."[261] Unity is of the essence of the Church:
What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her "Church."[262]

814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church's members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."[263] The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."[264]

815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."[265] But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:
- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.[266]

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it.... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."[267]
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."[268]

Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."[269] The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism[270] - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.[271]

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."[272]

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"[273] are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."[274] Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,[275] and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."[276]

Toward unity
820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."[277] Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."[278] The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.[279]

821 Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:
- a permanent renewal of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;[280]
- conversion of heart as the faithful "try to live holier lives according to the Gospel";[281] for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ's gift which causes divisions;
- prayer in common, because "change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;"'[282]
-fraternal knowledge of each other;[283]
- ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of priests;[284]
- dialogue among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;[285]
- collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind.[286] "Human service" is the idiomatic phrase.

822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."[287] But we must realize "that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts." That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."[288]

I'd stress #817.Catholics belive that the Only Church of Christ exists in catholic church ruled by The Successor of St.Petr, but it seems this faith does not exclude Its existence in other eathly Churches.
Question 6;
1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."[236] It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."[237]

So Anglicans and Lutherans beliving in real presence in Eucharist are in fact closer to Apostolic Faith than your "nominal catholic", although they err considering Eucharist in their churches as valid.
As for the Church of England its orders were defined as invalid by LeoXIII in 1896 due to certainevents in 16th century, which broked off Apostolic Succession in this Church.
ThruthSeeker, forgive me if I answer a few words to Robert Sweiss.
Robert, You have chosen following reading from The Gospel:Matthew 7:13-14 states "Enter by the NARROW gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way which leads to destruction, and there are many who go by it. Because NARROW is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
Considering all your opinions i've read on this forum I suggest you to read another one: Luke 18:9-14 ;
9
He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else.
10
"Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
11
The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector.
12
I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.'
13
But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner.'
14
I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
piotr c, still trying to be humble.
Full text of CCC is to be found http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html

Dear piotrc,
I should tell you the truth about all the Catechism quotes you posted as well as about the book in general. It's mixed with false teachings commingled with with Orthodox teachings. This is a horrible place for a non-Orthodox believer to start. You remind very much of a Protestant who fills up the entire message board with Biblical quotes to prove his heretical points. According to 817 of the Catechism, the sins that cause divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes originated in the Roman Catholic Church. That's how I interpret your bad medicine. I am glad of the existence of the Catechism which can be demonstrated as fallacious which the Latin church rests upon. I will be more than happy to engage you on the Catechism teachings of the filioque, Papacy, Eucharist, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Indulgences, etc. I am also aware of how the elements of Orthodox teachings are manipulated and exploited to present greater credibility to the Roman Catholic Church. Rome needs to return to Holy Orthodoxy by eradicating the Papacy.

Dear Brother Ed,

The schism has the same effect on me. What a sadness.

In our body, we feel the pain of a fracture or tear. We should feel no less pain (but rather greater) that our sin and hate has torn the Body of Christ. We have cut Christ's seamless robe!

When we cease to feel the pain of this tragedy (or yearn for its healing), the Evil One's work is complete.

Let us pray for healing and reconciliation. Let it come soon, O God!

Elias, monk

Dear in Christ Brother Ed,

May God Bless you!

I am quite sure that the pharmaceutical companies are full of theologians to assure the plentiful need for aspirin in light of their arguments.

The simplest thing I can say to you in the face of Apologetics is to make a sincere prayer that Our Lord Jesus Christ lead you by the Holy Spirit, and then follow your HEART and not your HEAD. Remember that the Pharisees were all "head" and thus had no place in their hearts, since these had turned to stone, to receive Christ when he came.

I fear that you will not find a resolution in these forums, especially when the "apologetic" fever begins to rise. First it is polite, although snidely so; then the gloves come off and the combatants end up calling one another heretics. Then I step in to chide both sides, it quiets down for a while until some innocent asks the simplest question.Sometimes the clanking cymbals are deafening!!!

I think that you already know where your "heart" is leading you, why not follow
it and be at peace.

unworthy servant

+Kyrill

Laudetur Jesus Christus!
Dear Ed,
I think that we are HEART and NEAD, therefore we try to express in words what we belive in our hearts. You asked a few question in which, and also in further posts, you showed certain misunderstanding of western teachings. (pity that it was sometimes caused by catholic priests). By citing CCC my only intention was to show you what can be considerd as authoritatively catholic.
I don't want quarel about words or liturgical habits. For me eastern Christians belong to the Churches which share the same Apostoli Faith with us roman Catholics. They are neither schismatics nor heretics, although, shamefully, visibly we are still divided. I mean not only Byzantinian Orthodohs, but also nonchalcedonians or Oriental Orthodoxs and Assyrians.
Their Churches as well as Roman have valid Apostolic Succesion, valid Sacraments, all sources of God's grace.
If you will decide to join Orthodox Church, you still will be my brother in Christ, member of sister Church. I only hope you will not share Robert Sweiss's opinions about catholics.
EXTRA ECLESSIA NULLA SALUS. Interestingly enough it is opinion of St,Cyprian, Bishop of Carthagina in mid 3rd century (he was latin). Ed, please do not mix this ECLESSIA with any earthly Church. God is almighty, we are not able to dictate Him anything. Excuse me last one quotation from CCC:
#1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[59] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[60] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[61] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Your brother in Christ piotr c

Dear piotrc and Brother Ed,
Know this that my opinons do not count but only the historical, theological facts established within Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church is full and complete as well as indivisible and infallible. These attributes are lacking and contrary to Rome and her Protestant progenies. I only speak the truth when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church's false teachings. I dont play "politically correct" games if people take offense at my truthfully and sincere writings about heretics or heterodoxes. Please do not believe for one moment that The Roman catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are "sister Churches" because that relationship died a thousand years ago. There is no hope for Rome if she does not return to Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy will not defy Her very own teachings for the sake of unity with Rome or others who do not believe the same. I hope and pray for Brother Ed to find the True Church in Christ that is full of grace. Catholicism does not cut it but squanders it.

Dear Brother Ed:

If you ask any Byzantine Catholic what the doctrinal differences are between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, the answer is there really aren't any. There is merely a difference in approach. The RC church is more rational (i.e. scientific in its approach) and therefore tends to define things (i.e. the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, original sin, etc.). These teachings are not contrary to Orthodox teaching. By this I mean, that if an Orthodox Christian held these views, he or she would still be faithful to the Orthodox faith. Rather, the Eastern mindset views these things as mystical and therefore beyond definition and human understanding. The attempt at defining these things is limiting and therefore not complete. (This is also not contrary to RC teaching. The limitations of language and the difficulty in achieving the nuance of meaning as one translates from one language to another and from one era to another typically results in a vast oversimplification in the Roman doctrine).
The understanding of church is also a little different. The Eastern churches are first and foremost local under one bishop; the Western church tends to view itself first as universal under the Pope.
The beauty of being Byzantine Catholic is in recognizing all of this. We do not like the term Uniate as it connotes passivity on our part. It presumes an "artificial" ecclesiology; we were duped into union. Yet, I am sure that every Byzantine Catholic that participates in this forum has seriously discerned the question: Am I Eastern or ma I Catholic? We have all concluded that we are both. We proscribe to the divine tension: East vs West, rationalism vs mysticism, local vs universal. And as a result, we are fulfilled.

A humble sojourner:

John

error

[This message has been edited by Petrus (edited 02-05-2000).]