How appropriate are ecumenical prayer services with Protestants, were people we don't believe have apostolic succession or valid orders take an active part on the altar ?

What exactly do you mean by "take an active part on the altar?"

As during a prayer service for an example if a Church of Christ Minister (women)where to give a homily .

If it is just a prayer service, e.g. scripture readings and the Lord's prayer, I see no problem if a non-Catholic minister gives a speech.

However, during a Catholic Mass, only a Catholic bishop, priest or deacon is allowed to give the homily.

... But is it even right for them to be on the Altar?

Yes I know Vatican II promoted Ecuminisim but I think somtimes we just go to far.

David

I think everyone involved in such a service is quite aware, or should be, of what separates one from the other. I would hope we can celebrate and rejoice in what we do have in common.

On second thought maybe I should refrain from participating in the singing of the "National Anthem" at the next public gathering I attend in case the guy next to me holds totally differing political views than myself.

I guess it all comes from my view that only those tonsured or ordained should be allowed to be on the Altar (besides Altar Boys).

Altar Boy,

I understand. As I'm sure you know, the Roman Church is not as strict when it comes to who is allowed into the altar area. I would think, and at least hope, if such a service is to take place in a Catholic church the Eucharist is not reserved during such an event.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Do you think our Lord should be removed from the tabernacle during ecumenical services, or what?

Ideally, of course, there would be no need for ecumenical services, as everyone would be a Catholic

However, given that we live in an imperfect world where everyone is not a Catholic, I think that for an ecumenical service we may want to be a little flexible, e.g. by allowing non-Catholics in the sanctuary, as long as we do not compromise fundamental principles, i.e. no "intercommunion" and no laypeople preaching during Mass.

But by being flexible at events like this the lay faithful get the Idea that the sactuary is just another spot and people are free to come and go as they please.

I understand your concern and agree to some extent, but I'm not sure that's quite true. The female Church of Christ minister that you refer to was only there by invitation, wasn't she? I trust people would not just walk on to the sanctuary for no reason, would they?

It was a pastoral aliance prayer service for thanksgiving and it was my parishes turn to host

Don't worry, there's nothing wrong with a prayer service, as long as everyone understands that it is not the same as Holy Mass. We should all be happy that Catholics and non-Catholics alike can meet and pray together as baptized Christians and disciples of the Lord.

What we should not do is allow laypeople (including protestant ministers) to preach during Holy Mass, or invite baptized non-Catholics who don't believe in the Real Presence to share Holy Communion.

I remember the first time being anywhere near the altar made me feel very strange. I can't explain the feeling but I was uncomfortable. I recently learned that Eastern Rite and Orthodox don't allow women near the altar. Maybe it has something to do with my upbringing in the Eastern Rite since I only go near the altar if absolutly needed. Sometimes I need to move the Lord for Adoration of the blessed sacrament. My daughter is an altar server and is being trained too. There are some things that women can't do in the Latin Rite Catholic church such as becoming a priest. I guess if I had to relate a difficult practice with one of yours that you see nothing wrong with it would be married priests. I do not think a priest can properly serve his community and raise a family in a home life at the same time. Just my opinion I know many that agree but that doesn't mean I am right. I think of the Catholic Church as being very strict and I feel the same way about Eastern Rite and Orthodox. It is just different areas of strictness. I see it as perfectly natural for women and children to come to the Lord to get as close as possible with reverence and training of course. Just as you may see it as perfectly natural for a married man to serve God and His people. ( We call them Deacons.) I know a married priest can not become a Bishop. etc etc. Not looking to change the subject just to make a point.
Why do we want to keep people from the Lord? The Lord did say let the children come to me....He didn't say just the boys. The Lord said to Mary "Do not touch me because I have not yet ascended to the Father" He didn't say You are not worthy to touch me he would have said the same thing to a man. I see it perfectly natural for women to care for the Lord today just as they did at the foot of the cross. How many men were at the foot of the cross again? I know the Lord loves us all even with our crazy ideas. How many times did He have to repeat himself to get through to the apostles yet they still didn't get it. Even though you may not agree that women can be near the altar you can at least see a view from the other side. I love the Lord just as much as the next believer. Pray about it and the Lord will guide you to find peace with things that are beyond your control. I hope this helped. It isn't written to change the subject or start an argument. Oh I just noticed you are from the Latin Rite. I think anyone invited needs to have special instructions from the priest as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable within your church. Women could be allowed to speak at the end of Mass or during a prayer service.
Peace

"Eastern Rite" is not the name of any religion; there are good reasons to avoid that expression completely.

Fr. Serge

I don't see the need to remove the Blessed Sacrament from the Tabernacle for an ecumenical prayer service.

Shalom,
Memo

Memo,


My reasoning for not reserving the Blessed Sacrament during an ecumenical prayer service is out of reverence for the sacrament.
I do see your point, though. We don't need to change our own behavior because guests are in the house. Christians of other denominations attend Mass at weddings and funerals and on other occasions and are welcome to be there but they usually don't genuflect or kneel or join in certain prayers.

"What we should not do is allow laypeople (including protestant ministers) to preach during Holy Mass, or invite baptized non-Catholics who don't believe in the Real Presence to share Holy Communion."

This is not only what we should not do, it is flat out not permitted in the Catholic Church.

Preaching should not be part of an ecumenical "prayer" service either. Comments can be made as to why the assembly is taking place, but no preaching.

Let's keep in mind also that these prayer services aren't something that take place on any regular basis. At least not where I live. They are usually spawned by an event or need in a given community.

I myself have preached a few times at ecumenical services, and have attended such services at which someone else preached. What is the objection?

It would be well for such preaching either to address a question which had something to do with the convoking of such a service, or to lay stress on the beliefs which unite Christians (the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption come to mind at once). As part of a good preparation, the prospective homilist could do worse than to read C. S. Lewis.

Fr. Serge

Yes Father Serge, I once again stand corrected. I guess I equate "preaching" with something that touches on the core tenets of the faith and rouses the "Catholic guilt complex" in me, and not your everyday sermon, homily or lesson. Billy Graham can "preach" to a general Christian audience without stepping on any denominational toes.

I understand you reading into that Father. Eastern Rite is Catholic just as much as the Latin Rite is Catholic. I know this and will becareful how I promote Catholisism and Orhtodoxy. Most Catholics are not even aware of the Eastern rite that exists with in thier own religion and consider them Orthodox. You must be able to see why they are confused.

Eastern Rites do exist, but it's not people considering different rites and being ignorant of their existence, but of the existence of Eastern Churches in the Catholic Communion.

Sorry, but Cmoore's response to me contains within it part of the reason that we would do well to avoid the expression "the Eastern Rite"

Consider this example:


How's that again? It is entirely possible for a church to use an "Eastern Rite" without either having or wanting any connection at all with Rome (the monks of the Holy Mountain would be infuriated if someone tried to tell them that because they use "Eastern Rite" they must be Catholics!) For that matter, it is entirely possible for a church to use such a liturgical form without any connection with either Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy - schizophrenic, but it goes on.

Moreover, the phrase "the Eastern Rite" is thoroughly ambiguous, since there are quite a number of liturgical forms used in the Christian East - is the reference to the Chaldeans, the Ethiopians, the Syro-Malankarese, the Armenians, or something else?

The Eastern Churches in communion with Rome are not normally offended at being considered Orthodox, and in fact one can find quite a lot of liturgical diversity. By the same token, does "the Latin Rite" designate the Roman Liturgy, the Ambrosian Liturgy, the Mozarabic Liturgy, the Gallican Liturgy, one or another of the monastic Liturgies . . ? And does the "Latin Rite" cease to be so in places where the Roman Liturgy is done in Church-Slavonic, Greek, Armenian . . .?

So again, imprecise terminology does not resolve confusion; it adds to the existing confusion.

For the sake of Christ, forgive me.

Fr. Serge

In the Novus Ordo there's a lot of latitude here. An Episcopal priest who's an online friend and I talked about it once. She may read the epistle and the petitions at a Mass (like at an RC friend's wedding or funeral) but not the gospel nor preach, and of course concelebration (standing near the altar would be inappropriate) and receiving Communion are out of the question (not to do with her sex but simply being an Episcopalian).

I think services other than Mass are freer; ministers from other churches may preach.

That said I think ecumenical services, while not heretical/relativistic when done according to Rome's rules, are passé and hokey (very early 1970s), and when the liturgically liberal try to honour the Orthodox with such new, made-up services it comes off patronising.

(The mainline Protestants are all merging but nobody thinks Catholic/Protestant union will happen like some ill-informed and relativistic thought 40 years ago. The fruit of the latter ecumenism is the two sides largely don't misrepresent and badmouth each other any more, which of course is great.)

Of course 'ecumenism' is a sort of swear-word among online Orthodox, a slur certain types throw at their enemies.

Anyway...

When this issue came up on another board - an Orthodox was scandalised that Orthodox clergy went to an RC ecumenical thingy in church (they didn't break any Orthodox rules; they were in clerical garb but not vested) - I suggest the best Roman approach in church regarding relations with the Orthodox ought to mirror what the Orthodox historically did with the Anglicans. The Orthodox clergy can come in riassas, mantias and hats and happily sit in the choir stalls or sedilia in the sanctuary off to one side, not actively participating... and the Romans can have solemn Vespers with Gregorian chant, their authentic tradition and analogous to what the Orthodox do. (From the conservative Orthodox view, St John of Shanghai and San Francisco: Rome's 'venerable liturgies are older than its heresies.')

Better than a modern service with an icon here, a bit of Eastern music there in one big hash.

BTW Metropolitan Anastassy (Gribanowski) once preached at St Paul's Cathedral in London (about 60 years ago?). He was the first hierarch of ROCOR back then.

Yes, just saying 'Eastern Rite' doesn't make sense literally as it's not a description of one church or faith but in the context of this board it makes sense. In everyday Roman Catholic speech it's short for 'Eastern Rite Catholic'.

This makes sense?

I ask again: to which 'Eastern Rite' does this refer?

Fr. Serge

I'm beginning to think I like it better when Roman Catholics don't try to help us so much.

Fr Serge,

In ordinary RCspeak, all of them!

What does that mean?

What does this mean?

please remember that some may have been studying longer than others. I don't claim to know much of anything. The one thing I do know is The Lord! Why he wants me to study I have no idea but He does!

If "Eastern Rite" means all of the Eastern Catholic Churches, then things have deteriorated still further, linguistically speaking. Whatever else about "Eastern Rite", it is clearly in the singular form, but the Christian East includes a plurality of liturgical traditions.

Using a single form to designate plural phenomena is not a satisfactory way of seeking to dispel confusion!

Fr. Serge

May I suggest that we use the word "rite" to describe a liturgical action or a liturgical tradition, for example the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults or the Byzantine Slavonic rite.

But when we talk about Churches, let us call them by name: the Eastern Catholic Churches (plural), the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches (plural), the Russian Orthodox Church, etc.

Fr Archmandrite Serge, for example, is a priest of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Therefore he serves the liturgy according to the liturgical rites and traditions of that church.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Armenian Catholic Church and all the other Eastern Catholic Churches are not "rites"; they are Churches which follow their own liturgical rites and traditions.

The Latin Church too is not a "rite" but a Church; indeed there are many liturgical rites in use in the Latin Church: Roman, Ambrosian, Carthusian, Mozarabic, etc, some connected to places and some connected to religious orders.

To reduce a church to just a "rite" is to deny its existence.

This is because a church is more than just a liturgical rite. It is also a synod, dioceses/eparchies, parishes, a body of canon law, a theological tradition, a monastic tradition, and much else besides.

To take a counter example: the Carthusians, Dominicans, and other religious orders have or used to have their own liturgical rites, but that did not make them churches.

So we need to separate between Churches on the one hand and liturgical rites on the other hand.

Thanks! That is a great explanation in detail to explain the topic. There is so much to learn and I have to say it isn't fun. Somedays I feel like I know a great deal. Then there are other days that I feel as if I know very little. Much of which seems to depend on to whom I am speaking with. I am finding a wealth of knowledge here and I have to say I may make many more mistakes along the way so please be patient with me. I didn't know Fr Serge is from the UGCC. Why I thought he was Orthodox I have no idea. Is there a listing of where I might find such info? He will not be able to answer my other posting from the view point that I was in search of. Maybe someone else will step up and answer. I will try the Orthodox contact that I have that is not affiliated with this site.

If you wish to know about a poster's affiliation - click on their name and go to their Profile.

Fr Archimandrite Serge's states that he is Greek Catholic

Thank you! I see that now. I submitted my profile as being Catholic. Greek Catholic may or may not mean Ukrainian Greek Catholic? I am so lost. There is so much to learn.

"Greek Catholic" is a term used as a synonym for "Byzantine Rite Catholic Church in Union with Rome" of which there are 14 churches sui iuris (self governing), of which the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is the largest.

The term Rite is defined in canon law, and refers to a shared tradition and patrimony, and using the same liturgical forms. Currently, they are Roman, Byzantine, Armenian, Chaldean, Syrian Coptic. Arguably, the Gaulican and Ge'ez are separate rites from their respective parent Roman and Coptic Rites.

The term Greek Catholic is derived from "Greek Rite Catholic", a reference to the Greek church using the Byzantine Rite.

The major Byzantine Rite Churches:
UGCC
Ruthenian [Greek-]Catholic Church
Melkite Church
Romanian Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church

There are 9 others, as well. The Italo-albanians are major not because of size nor leadership, but because of their history of remaining in union from before the great schism.

The other rites have fewer churches; the Armenian Rite comprises the Armenian Catholic Church and the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church... one in union, one not.

The Roman Church uses the term Rite for it's various liturgical usages out of tradition; really they fall in the category of sub-rites, since they all share the same patrimony and traditions; they differ in liturgical forms only mildly. They don't meet the canon law definition of Rite. (Nor does RICA, for that matter, but that is a different meaning of the term...)

"Why I thought he was Orthodox I have no idea."

Nonetheless, Father Serge will be both pleased and flattered. We are, after all, Orthodox Christians in communion with the Church of Rome.

Thank you, dear brothers. In case you are wondering, I call myself simply "Greek-Catholic" because my ethnic-national identity is Irish, and while "Irish Greek-Catholic" would be accurate it would also add to the confusion.

CMore-keep plugging away. Like many such things, the deeper you go, the more interesting it becomes.

Fr. Serge

I always think of you as Patriarch Pro Tempore of the Hiberno-Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

How about "Metropolitan of Luna City, Exarch of the Moon, Patriarch of the Planets and the Spaces Between"?

Fr. Serge

You're only titular of Luna City, that place having been torn down and reduce to another faceless housing development some years ago.

Oh, dear - 'twas ever thus. How about Metropolitan of Marsopolis?

Fr. Serge

Coptic is a Church, not a Rite; Alexandrian is the Rite - which is why Ge'ez is not a Rite, despite continued use of the term by the Ethiopians.

Many years,

Neil

Ge'ez is the name of a language.

Fr. Serge

Of course. I would agree to that, if we were talking about a cultural event or something like that, not exactly an act of worship, but something that might be appropriate to do in the church.

However, a prayer service is, by definition, an act of worship. As long as we are talking about Christian prayer, I do not see an issue in doing so in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

Shalom,
Memo

Hey! I'm also an Orthodox Christian in communion with the Church of Rome - I am, after all, a Roman Catholic.

Alexis

As long as you are willing to concede that the Orthodox are Catholic Christians not in communion with the Church of Rome.

Indeed, it is - now only used as the liturgical language of the Ethiopians, Thus, using it as a desriptor of 'Rite' is akin to decribing the Ruthenians or Ukrainians as being of the Church Slavonic Rite.

Irish makes the proper point--one can speak of a Ge'ez rite which is, in a number of ways, different from the Coptic rite, though both are "Alexandrine" rites. Perhaps one could elevate the Alexandrine liturgies to a "family" in the taxonomy of rites, which would allow one to speak of Coptic and Ethiopian rites, or one could demote the Coptic and Ethiopian rites to "usages", in the sense that the Byzantine rite has Greek and Slavonic usages, and several variants under each of those.

On the other hand, looking at the Latin Church, there are indeed various "Rites" that are distinct from one another: Roman, Ambrosian, Mozerabic, Gallic--each with several distinct usages. The so-called Sarum rite, for instance, is actually a usage within the Roman rite.

The unfortunate problem is nobody has established a clean taxonomy or agreed on a single set of terminology and definitions.

I certainly don't concede that. That doesn't mean I don't like them.

Alexis

Well, I do concede it. If the Orthodox are deficient because they are not in communion with Rome, Rome is deficient because it is not in communion with the Orthodox. Nous somme tous schismatiques, to quote a wise Greek Catholic bishop.

Sorry but tous schismatiques is branch-theorism or 'there is no church'. No sale for Rome or the Orthodox. The standoff continues.

Christ is Risen!!

Whether Catholics in Communion with the Bishop of Rome like it or not, Orthodox Christians have as much claim to being the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that we mention in reciting the Nicene Creed as we do. The local Church is the fullness of that in its own way and we are still coming to understand what that means. We ave focused on the universality of the Church because of our historical experience and the Orthodox Church has focused a bit more on wht it means to be the Church in a particular place. Both focuses are simultaneously needed for a full appreciation of the Mystery of what constitutes the Church.

And for those who don't wish to concede it, I'd suggest reading again the documents of Vatican II. While we may say--and do say--that the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed susbsistit in the visible Communion of the Bishop of Rome, it also says that there are degrees of being in communion with the visible Catholic Church and that the Orthodox Church is in the greatest degree of being in that communion though not visibly. Gone are the days when we referred to our Orthodox brethren as schismatics. Today it is a matter of grieving that we cannot find the way to visible communion when we share already the Mysteries visibly shared in the first millenium.

In fact, when we consider the stumblings we Catholic Christians have had in the past century and during the second millenium, we have the greatest need for the prayers, experience, holiness, and common heritage of our Orthodox brethren, a heritage that they have faithfully lived, preserved, and sanctified through lived experience and suffering. And a past triumphalism that looks down on the Orthodox Church is simply sinful pride that has helped keep alive a schism that began with diverse ways of looking at the same Mystery but evolved into the current situation because of two men who surely lacked humility and the love commanded by Christ for brethren by Baptism. So the whole world took up opposite positions over time because one tried to excommunicate the other without even having tghe authority. (Oh, that we'd had cell phones in 1054!!)

BOB

CHRIST IS RISEN!

There is no drastic shortage of Roman Catholics who take Metropolitan Elias (Zoghby's) thesis as set forth in his book Tous Schismaticque quite seriously. One can also find Orthodox Christians who take the same thesis equally seriously.

Fr. Serge

Different strokes. I'm pretty sure no minds are going to be changed here. It's been discussed ad nauseam on this Forum. I've yet to see someone with a complete change of heart.

Perhaps it is better to focus on that with which we can all agree.

Alexis

"However, a prayer service is, by definition, an act of worship. As long as we are talking about Christian prayer, I do not see an issue in doing so in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament."

Amongst the difficulties is that Protestant clergy are unlikely to make the proper signs of reverence to the tabernacle and the Catholic clergy cannot omit them.

So when they enter the sanctuary the priest must genuflect and the Baptist minister according to his beliefs must not. This kind of split seems opposed to the idea of an ecumenical service.

But they both stand together before the Lord who made them, and offer Him praise

Exactly!

Shalom,
Memo

Actually, it would be more useful (and accurate) to speak of Coptic and Ethiopian 'Traditions' within the Alexandrian Rite, as with the Greek and Slav Traditions within the Byzantine Rite.

Many years,

Neil (who thinks it may be time to resurrect and/or update our thread on the taxonomy of the Rites & Churches)

Dear All,

We are about to have the annual Clonard Novena here in Belfast, and the tradition is that speakers from other churches are invited to preach at the masses. They are always well received and it does a great deal for inter-church relations, which are (to put it mildly) somewhat strained in this part of the world!

Interestingly, though, we've yet to have a speaker from the Orthodox church (there is an Antiochian parish, St Ignatius of Antioch, on the Antrim Road in North Belfast - the only Orthodox presence in the North of Ireland, to my knowledge). And I wondered: Fr Serge, have you ever been invited to Clonard to speak?

Best regards to all

Craig

Craig,

Off topic, but ...

I'd welcome you to the forum, but I see that you've been here a year and just escaped my notice until now (despite some very interesting posts). Just wanted to say hello to someone from the northern province (my sister and family live in Derry).

Many years,

Neil

Thank you very much, Neil - my wife's family is from Kilrea, Co Derry; anywhere near your folks (or are they in Derry city)?

Craig

Craig,

They're in the city. Quite a few cousins there as well, and some just across the border in Donegal.

Many years,

Neil

I am gratified by the charity extended by the members of this forum. Yes, there are differences between us, but there is also more areas that we share in common.

Because of the wide variance of beliefs among Protestant Christians, the Church must be aware of what is true and what is heretical among us. I am acutely aware of the errors expressed and practiced by certain "mainline" denominations.

It is for this reason that the Church must preserve truth as it has been given by our Lord and the early Fathers of the Church. At the same time, I am always grateful to pray with my Roman Catholic brethern and share the Gospel at ecumenical services.

I believe that all must approach the King of Glory with awe, humility and love.

God's Peace!

Preachy Dad

Welcome to Byzcath Pastor Preachy Dad

I look forward to your input here , giving us another slant on things .


hear hear !!

This is truly a wonderful place to be. Speaking of Ecumenical Services....

I was invited to participate in city-wide celebration of the "Lady in Blue" (Sor Maria de Jesus de Agreda).

Though bi-location, this 17th century nun miraculously evangelized the Jumano Indians. I don't try to explain how God works through His creation. I gess it's enough for me to know that His ways are wonderful and very, very good!

To learn more, please visit

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2009/jun/20/mission-ongoing-for-jumano-indians/

Pastor Art
http://zoarcommunitychurch.org

From the POV of a conservative Orthodox Christian...

Both the Fathers and the canons of the Church severely frown on ("forbid" is probably the more honest term) worshiping with the non-Orthodox. That said in the modern world a certain amount of flexibility on this point has come to be tolerated. Speaking from an admittedly conservative perspective; I think such things should be avoided in so far as possible, especially with Protestants with whom we have very little in common. The Lord's Prayer is probably the only prayer that I think could be recited in common without causing scandal in the classical sense of the term. Active participation in any kind of sacramental service should be out of the question.

Attendance at heterodox services when necessitated by common courtesy (weddings, funerals and the like) should be characterized by polite silence.

In ICXC
John

"Both the Fathers and the canons of the Church severely frown on ("forbid" is probably the more honest term) worshiping with the non-Orthodox."

Of course, back then the "non-Orthodox" basically mean the heretics, whether Arians or gnostics or whatever. By the time of the schism, there were efforts to include the Latins as well, but as the repeated injunctions against worshiping with them show, this was largely ignored (as were similar Latin injunctions against worshiping with the Orthodox).

As a general rule, today Catholics and Orthodox worship together at the Liturgy of the Hours, the Akathistos, Paraclesis, and Molebens--just about everything, in fact, that does not involve the Eucharist.

And I ought to know, having been an altar server for many such services, where the main celebrants were either Orthodox or Catholic or both together (generally the case with the paraliturgical services such as the Akathistos. If Orthodox bishops in good standing have no problem with the practice, then neither should you.

StuartK,
My comments were primarily directed at joint worship with Protestants. Recognizing that a greater degree of commonality with Roman Catholics, I am a bit less reserved, though even there I think we have been going too far in some cases. I mean isn't it a bit odd to be holding joint services with people who have anathematized us?

As for bishops having no problems with all of this, I guess that depends on which bishops you are referring to. Are we referring to the Antiochians or the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad? What do the monks of the Holy Mountain think of all this? The simple truth is that the Orthodox world is not of one mind on how far we should be going in ecumenical dialogue with Rome. And while I certainly respect the right of a bishop to act according to the dictates of his conscience (within the Faith), I do tend to get leery when people tell me to ignore canons of the church.

Until such time as the matter is resolved authoritatively I presume that I am at liberty to hold and express my own opinions on the subject.

In ICXC
John (the anathematized)

"I mean isn't it a bit odd to be holding joint services with people who have anathematized us?"

Enumerate these anathemas, please. Be specific.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

- Decrees of the First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 3.

And...

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Decrees of the First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 4.

Ignoring the many issues which divide east from west for the moment these two will suffice. They are carved in stone dogmas of the Roman Church. Their wording leaves no wiggle room. And I know of not a single Orthodox bishop priest or layman who could give their assent to these decrees. If they have been repealed or amended in any way, I missed the memo.

Under the mercy,
John (the anathematized)

Well, there are dogmas and there are dogmas. Anathema places one outside of the Church; it makes one a heretic tout court. So Vatican I says that those who don't accept Pastor Aeternus are heretics, and the sacraments of heretics are not valid, nor can heretics be part of the Church.

Yet, Vatican II's Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio both identify the Orthodox as true Churches with a true Eucharist and valid sacraments. The Catholic Church allows the Orthodox to receive the Eucharist from its ministers without renunciation of the Orthodox faith. It allows Catholics to receive the Eucharist from Orthodox ministers without prejudice.

If, as Vatican I states, those who do not concur with Pastor Aeternus are outside the Church, its current policies are sacrilegious and place the souls of its own adherents at risk. It would take a pretty cynical view of the Church of Rome to think it capable of such an act.

The alternative explanation is Pastor Aeternus is not really a dogma at all, but rather a particular doctrinal expression of the Latin Church, conditioned by the time and place of its composition, and thus subject to reinterpretation by the Latin Church in accordance with other elements of its doctrine. In this case, it is quite obvious, all ultramontane protestation not withstanding, that Vatican II contradicts and supersedes the anathemas of Vatican I.

The same, of course, goes for all the various anathemas that the Latin Church pronounced in the second millennium that were really nothing more than elevation of its own particular usage. Since none of these apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches (certainly in the eyes of two of the most important Churches, the Greek Catholic Churches of Kyiv and Antioch), they can hardly apply to the Orthodox.

It is a common error on the part of many to take a literal and legalistic reading of Roman documents, rather than to see how the Roman Church itself has applied them at specific times and circumstances.

Stuart,

The Catholic Church absolutely does not teach that Sacraments of heretics are invalid. You're building up straw men and knocking them down.

What the two Councils say fits perfectly. Those who do not accept the abovementioned dogmas about the Pope are anathema, yet they can still (and do) have valid Sacraments.

We're not Cyprianic.

Although, this does raise a (to my mind, far more interesting) question: this position seems to necessitate an Augustinian view of sacramental validity, for all Catholics (not just Roman Catholics). What do others have to say about this? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Not that I'm against a necessarily Augustinian view for the entire Church...but I'd assume many here would be.

Alexis

Sorry, don't buy it. A true dogma is a belief necessary for salvation. Obviously, papal infallibility doesn't count. And, inter alia, for pretty close to a 800 years, the Catholic Church did teach that the sacraments of the Orthodox Church were not valid.

The real problem is, during the second millennium, the Latin Church got really sloppy about how it used the term "dogma" to apply to just about anything, and not merely to the central facts of the mystery of salvation. As a concomitant, it also had the nasty tendency to label any divergence from Latin theology, spirituality and doctrine as heresy and pronouncing anathema on those who disagreed.

Really, there is no need for the Catholic Church to be right all of the time, Not in the cold light of history.

Logos-Alexis,
Thank you for your comment. It is awkward for a non-Catholic to inform a professed Catholic that he/she is gravely mistaken regarding the teachings of their own church. On to the question you posed...

Generally speaking the Orthodox Church is not much enamored of Blessed Augustine's views on grace and the dual nature of the Church. Cyprian's views are almost universally the accepted position of the Orthodox Church. All of this said, we do not presume to always know with certainty the exact boundary lines on one side of which lies The Church and the grace of Orthodox sacraments, and on the other those outside the Church whose sacraments are empty of grace. We also understand (as does Rome) that there are degrees of error.

For instance, Rome's preservation of at least the external forms of Apostolic Succession and a generally Orthodox understanding of the Holy Mysteries has made it possible through oikonomia to frequently receive converts without baptizing them. And in Rome's case the Russian Church even extends this to Holy Orders (something not done with any others save the non-Chalcedonians). However, it is still done by economy. Even the Russian Church has expressly stated that its policies regarding reception of converts in no way implies acceptance of the grace of non-Orthodox sacraments.

In ICXC
John (the still anathematized)

Stuart,
If you are correct in your assertions, which are absolutely NOT the views held by the Latin Church, then you are saying you believe the Roman Church to be heretical. I personally don't have an issue with that conclusion, as it's one I happen to agree with. But if you believe this to be the case, why are you in communion with them?

Under the mercy,
John (the still anathematized)

No, I am saying that you are wrong in asserting that there are any outstanding and effective anathemas against the Orthodox Church. Papal infallibility is not a real dogma, nor do I think it ever could be one.

Stuart,
The Roman Church believes otherwise, strongly enough that they attached anathemas to their decrees. It sounds like you are the personification of the "cafeteria catholic." Unless you can point to where those decrees were expressly repealed they remain the official teaching of the Roman Church.

Under the mercy,
John (yes, the still anathematized)

"Obviously, papal infallibility doesn't count. And, inter alia, for pretty close to a 800 years, the Catholic Church did teach that the sacraments of the Orthodox Church were not valid."

Do you have anything to back up either of these claims?

No one said the Catholic Church is right all the time. Clearly not. But in terms of, as you said, what's necessary for salvation and holding fast to the Apostolic Faith, it is indeed necessary!

Are the Orthodox Churches, in your opinion, "right all the time"?

Alexis

Nobody is right "all the time".

"But in terms of, as you said, what's necessary for salvation and holding fast to the Apostolic Faith, it is indeed necessary!"

So, is belief in papal infallibility necessary for salvation and to hold fast to the Apostolic Faith? If so, square this with the magisterial statements of the Holy See that the Orthodox Churches maintain the Apostolic Faith and are fully sufficient to ensure the salvation of their adherents (something not said of the various Protestant ecclesial communities). Indeed, you will have to explain how papal infallibility even qualifies as an essential element of the Apostolic Faith, in light of it failing to meet the Vincentian Canon, and indeed, of having been opposed consistently by the Papacy throughout the Middle Ages. I would put it on par with another supposed dogma related to the Papacy, the "temporal supremacy" of the Pope; i.e., the right and ability of the Pope to depose temporal rulers. This was taught dogmatically at least from the time of Gregory VII until Pope Pius XII quietly did away with it in 1958. Why? Because as Pope Pius himself admitted, it was manifestly untrue, an artifact of the time and place where it originated.

Papal infallibility was an artifact of its time and place; i.e., mid-19th century Europe, when the Church was under pressure from secularizing nationalist governments (including the government of Italy) which was rapidly eroding the Papacy's standing and creating doubts about its relevancy in the modern world.

But if, as Pope John Paul II said, the Petrine Ministry is a ministry of unity in faith, then the utility of the doctrine has long since passed, and it now stands as an obstacle to the unity the Petrine Ministry is supposed to foster. The Papacy exists to serve the Church; the Church does not exist to perpetuate Papal prerogatives. John Paul II understood this well, as, I believe, does Pope Benedict XVI, which is why they sought and are seeking new definitions and modalities of primacy that will foster the true Petrine mission. Attempts to hold onto doctrines whose time has come and gone does not really support that goal.

Having seen an OCA bishop and a Russian Orthodox Bishop from Russia, say the creed, the Our Father, and all the common prayers of the Roman Mass outside the anaphora... let's just say that there seems to be a willingness to pray with the Catholic Archbishops of Anchorage.

While they did not say the Anaphora, and they sat in choir, Arcadi, Eparch v Magadan, DID say the words of institution quietly.

Stuart said: "If so, square this with the magisterial statements of the Holy See that the Orthodox Churches maintain the Apostolic Faith and are fully sufficient to ensure the salvation of their adherents (something not said of the various Protestant ecclesial communities)."

I highly doubt the Church has ever said the the Orthodox Churches "ensure the salvation" of their adherents. None of our salvations are "ensured."

"Indeed, you will have to explain how papal infallibility even qualifies as an essential element of the Apostolic Faith, in light of it failing to meet the Vincentian Canon..."

Here is what Fr. George Florofsky has to say about the Vincentian Canon: "“The well known formula of Vincent of Lerins is very inexact, when he describes the catholic nature of Church life in the words, Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. [What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all]. First of all, it is not clear whether this is an empirical criterion or not. If this be so, then the “Vincentian Canon” proves to be inapplicable and quite false. For about what omnes is he speaking? Is it a demand for a general, universal questioning of all the faithful, and even of those who only deem themselves such? At any rate, all the weak and poor of faith, all those who doubt and waver, all those who rebel, ought to be excluded. But the Vincentian Canon gives us no criterion, whereby to distinguish and select. Many disputes arise about faith, still more about dogma. How, then, are we to understand omnes? Should we not prove ourselves too hasty, if we settled all doubtful points by leaving the decision to “liberty” — in dubiis libertas — according to the well known formula wrongly ascribed to St. Augustine. There is actually no need for universal questioning. Very often the measure of truth is the witness of the minority. It may happen that the Catholic Church will find itself but “a little flock.” Perhaps there are more of heterodox than of orthodox mind. It may happen that the heretics spread everywhere, ubique, and that the Church is relegated to the background of history, that it will retire into the desert. In history this was more than once the case, and quite possibly it may more than once again be so. Strictly speaking, the Vincentian Canon is something of a tautology. The word onmes is to be understood as referring to those that are orthodox. In that case the criterion loses its significance. Idem is defined per idem. And of what eternity and of what omnipresence does this rule speak? To what do semper and ubique relate? Is it the experience of faith or the definitions of faith that they refer to? In the latter case the canon becomes a dangerous minimising formula. For not one of the dogmatic definitions strictly satisfies the demand of semper and ubique.

Will it then be necessary to limit ourselves to the dead letter of Apostolic writings? It appears that the Vincentian Canon is a postulate of historical simplification, of a harmful primitivism. This means that we are not to seek for outward, formal criteria of catholicity; we are not to dissect catholicity in empirical universality. Charismatic tradition is truly universal; in its fulness it embraces every kind of semper and ubique and unites all. But empirically it may not be accepted by all. At any rate we are not to prove the truth of Christianity by means of “universal consent,” per consensum omnium. In general, no consensus can prove truth.”

"...and indeed, of having been opposed consistently by the Papacy throughout the Middle Ages."

Once again, examples would be highly appreciated, but even if they do prove this statement, so what? What does that mean? That orthodox beliefs have been challenged by people, by priests, bishops, "shepherds" of the faithful? That's old news.

"I would put it on par with another supposed dogma related to the Papacy, the "temporal supremacy" of the Pope; i.e., the right and ability of the Pope to depose temporal rulers."

This was never defined or taught as something that is necessary to be believed in order to be saved. This was never dogmatically defined. I don't see the parallel.

Alexis

"I highly doubt the Church has ever said the the Orthodox Churches "ensure the salvation" of their adherents. None of our salvations are "ensured." "

The words are present in the Balamand Statement. Go look it up.

"his was never defined or taught as something that is necessary to be believed in order to be saved. This was never dogmatically defined. I don't see the parallel."

The way I see it, if the Church excommunicated and on occasion executed people for not believing in something, that makes it pretty darned dogmatic. But I also note that whenever someone points out objective examples of the Latin Church teaching one thing at one time and its opposite at the other, Latins suddenly take a very narrow view of what is dogmatic. On the other hand, whenever they want someone else to conform to Latin usage, they suddenly have a very expansive view of what is dogmatic.

I for my part wonder just why they have so much invested in papal infallibility, a doctrine with which the Church managed to do quite nicely for 1800 years, and which has been the source of nothing but trouble since it was expounded in 1870.

Regarding medieval popes and their objections to papal infallibility, go back to the Franciscan spiritualist controversies of the 13th century. The Franciscan spiritualists, having gotten approval for their movement from one pope, pressed to have all papal expressions of doctrine rendered infallible and indefectable. Of course, the popes of the time wouldn't touch that with a ten foot crozier. While it might have been nice to have their particular doctrinal opinions carved in stone, it would also mean they would be bound by the decisions of their predecessors--and that was an entirely different matter.

This was debated at Vatican I (along with such inconvenient historical facts like the anathematization of several popes by valid ecumenical councils). In particular, would Ea Semper make Pius IX's 1864 Syllabus of Errors an infallible statement of doctrine? The matter was narrowly defeated at the Council, and good thing, too--because one part of the Syllabus said that the Pope could not be head of the Church and NOT the head of the Papal States. And just about the time Vatican I was wrapping up its business, the Pope suddenly found himself without any Papal States over which to rule.

Nicely put...

Stuart,

What Job quotes is often the case! I would also posit that, at least from my experience here on the Forum, Eastern Catholics also often take a selective view of what is required Catholic belief and what is not, depending on their personal agendas.

In short, welcome to the human condition!

Alexis

I'll have to get to the rest later, Stuart, but as we've discussed here ad nauseam, the Balamand Statement is not required belief of either Catholics or Orthodox. But for the record, the Statement says:


So, what this is saying, it seems, is that it is not necessary for a person to convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, or vice versa, in order to "ensure [his] salvation." Well, yes...being a member of the nominal Catholic Church does not "ensure" salvation. Neither does being a member of the Orthodox Churches, which is why I argued that the salvation of their adherents, like our own, is definitely not ensured. Saying that conversion to Catholicism does not necessarily ensure a Orthodox Christian's salvation is very, very different than saying that conversion is not desirable (not that Balamand doesn't basically say that, too).

So now that I have been accused as being narrow at times and expansive at others to suit my whims, are you now going to try to tell us that it's necessary for Catholics to accept the Balamand Statement as required belief?

Alexis

The Balamand Statement has been incorporated into the official ecumenical policy of the Holy See. Feel free to accept or reject it as you see fit. Just don't lecture me on "cafeteria Catholicism" when you do. After all, your relationship to the Pope as a Latin Catholic is significantly different to my relationship to him as a Greek Catholic.

Your logic, by the way, is a bit tortured and runs contrary to the plain meaning of the text.

Stuart,

I am not a cafeteria Catholic. I accept all of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith. I'd like you to point out the ones I reject, or else withdraw your uncharitable comment.

Current policy is different from dogma. I didn't know that needed stating.

Alexis

I see. What you accept is dogma, and what you reject is. . . something else.

Both Logos & Stuart seem to be talking past one another.

Fight nice, please!

Stuart,

Even the Wikipedia entry for "Roman Catholic dogma" is pretty good.

Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Dogma#cite_note-4

Alexis

If only I was a Roman Catholic, life would be so much better for you.

Alexis,

Stuart may be caustic in some of his posts, but he is correct on this. We are not Roman Catholic. We don't think like Roman Catholics. The link you provided almost assumes that all Catholics think like Romans (that is, in Latin and with a Latin mindset for theology). That is always the basis of disagreement for we are not Latins and don't need to worry about Latin theology in order to be Catholic.

Or to put it another way. Think of the American who sees the world in terms of hamburgers, french fries and cokes. The Christian in Iraq could care less and has no interest for he is not an American and does not particularly like hamburgers.

John

I do not want to get into the fray of who’s correct and who is not. Perhaps neither Stuart nor Alexis are. The Bishop of Rome never uses the term Roman Catholic, nor do any documents emanating from the Vatican. The Anglicans gave us this term and so they should keep it along with female bishops. I’d like to see it dropped from this forum, and from Catholic usage in general. “Pope” is another unfortunate term that comes from England. It sounds severe and pompous, and hardly conveys the tenderness and affection that the Latin word “papa” or the Italian “Il Papa” do. The Church does not need the former, but certainly needs and longs for the later.

I am a Catholic Christian, period. Without going into the details of my life, suffice it to say that I have, and I do breathe with two lungs. It’s possible and most beneficial. Try, as deeply as you can, to breathe in the Church’s rich Tradition, both east and west, and begin a new day that might end these terrible divides that keep us talking past each other. Eventual unity with our Orthodox brothers and sisters will bring about a Catholic Church which none of us can now quite imagine. Il Papa will find his place. I know the present one would like this very
much, and it would suit his profound ecclesiology.

Of course I didn't name the article "Roman Catholic dogma." But it is, unfortunately, common to refer to all Catholics as Roman Catholics, as we all know.

And, Stuart, the goodness of my life does not depend on your religious affiliation. LOL.

Alexis

"The Bishop of Rome never uses the term Roman Catholic, nor do any documents emanating from the Vatican. "

It's convenient and I will continue to use it. And I will continue to use the word "Pope" as well, for the same reason. For some reason, it does not seem to bother Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, or Pope Benedict XVI, as much as it does you.

Eastern Christians routinely use the terms "Latin Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" to differentiate between Catholic theology and Latin / Roman theology. I understand that some Roman Catholics do not appreciate it but it is a legitimate usage.

This was not, strictly speaking, an "ecumenical" service ["ecumenical" is used with reference to relationships between two or more Christian groups which are not in full agreement), but it seems relevant.

A few years ago a new hospital was dedicated in a large city in the northeastern USA. Various Christian clergy (including Catholics, Orthodox, and a pot-pouri of Protestants) offered prayers; so did a rabbi and someone from the nearest mosque. But then an unexpected feature followed:

those in charge proudly introduced a pagan "priest" imported from West Africa to invoke blessings on the hospital. He produced a basket containing two potatoes and a bunch of carrots and started to offer . . . well, we're not sure what, because the indigenous representatives all departed as swiftly as possible!

Fr. Serge

Admin,

So is "Roman Catholic" sort of like "Uniate," in that some people belonging to the group described to not appreciate the term, but the term is still "legitimate" and has meaning, can be found in any common dictionary (as I just found "Uniate" in mine), etc.?

By the way, I don't really have a problem with the term "Roman Catholic" to refer to the Latin Church sui iuris; only inasmuch as it is conflated in describing the entire Catholic Church.

Alexis

Alexis,

Not really. "Uniate" has taken on a negative connotation and is often used as a pejorative. "Roman Catholic" can be found in some of the official documents of that Church. Also, the parish in my neighborhood has "St. Mary of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church" on its sign. You'll never find "St. Theophan the Recluse Uniate Church" on a sign anywhere. Both terms are used and we can't stop that. But in a Byzantine household (this Forum) we can discourage the pejorative use of both terms.

John

Actually John, I have seen this on a few early US Church cornerstones.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/asdamick/14198565/in/set-335721/

Greek Catholic church in Simpson, Pa with "Uniat" on the cornerstone.

I guess that, 100 years ago, fewer people thought of Uniate as a pejorative. Or perhaps they felt that the association with Rome was something to be embraced.



As an aside, from the same set of flickr photos, a Latin high altar which looks strikingly like an Iconostas.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/asdamick/37592048/in/set-335721/

I understand that you can find it here and there. But it is not a term in common use as a self-descriptor and you know it.

Probably a bit of both.

Generally speaking, it is best to refer to people with the terms they themselves. Roman Catholics use "Roman Catholic" (most would think the term "Latin Catholic" meant something to do with the old Latin Mass). Likewise there are very few in America who go around identifying themselves as "uniate". Most often it is "Greek Catholic", "Byzantine Catholic" or "Ukrainian Catholic", etc.

I've corrected a few fellow Orthodox who freely use the word Uniate. I tell them that it is a derogatory term which should not be used.

With that post we end this thread. We have moved from the original topic into other topics. I would like to thank the posters that have given us a wealth of information and food for thought.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator