To my Orthodox Brethren

[boughtwithaprice]

One Patriarch cannot annul what is in force throughout the Church. It would require all bishops to be in agreement. The break may have started between Rome and Constantinople, but it has gone way beyond that.

We don't agree on what the chair of Peter is. In Orthodox ecclesiology, every right believing bishop occupies the chair of Peter.

I do understand that thinking, even if I do not agree with it. My point is that it is a theological perspective. Where is the act of God to go with it?

Satan knows that it is difficult if almost impossible to prove a negative. If Catholics are labeled heretics and one takes it to heart, how can they prove they are not? It would be like trying to reconcile a divorce with an obstinate woman. No matter what terms she is offered, there would always be a “yes, but”. Even though she knows that God does not authorize divorce, she will find something to justify the divorce. As scripture says, she is no longer a follower of the law, but rather sitting in judgement of it.

I know the situation and there are tons of reasons to consider for its continuance. My question is, where is the act of God? Where did He authorize it?
His word says Jussie not lest ye be judged.
If you bring your gift to the altar and know your brother has something against you, go and make peace with your brother
If your brother sins against you, you must forgive him 70 times 70 times
How can one claim to love God whom he has not seen, when he does not love his brother whom he can see?
If we say to our brother, Thou fool, we are in danger of hell fire.

No bishop has the right to declare the judgement reserved only to God. Excommunication is a tool that is to be used to induce repentance, not proclaim judgment. If there is no path to repentance, then it is more authority than has been given a bishop.

It is a high bar to overcome. Every man thinks he is right. God is the judge to whom we will have to answer. I do not see in His word that He has given the Chair of Peter to every Bishop. Your words, yes, but God’s?
Yours is the same argument that all the Protestants use. They say that God’s word does not mean what it says. The Catholics are heretics so God’s word cannot apply. Peter does not have the keys, everyone has the keys


I understand why you think as you do, and I agree that I myself do not have the authority to advocate for, nor negotiate for the Catholic Church. I just want to follow the thinking to its logical conclusion.

If you have something that I do not know, Inwoild like to know it. Where does God say that Peter’s authority resides in every Bishop? I don’t see it in scripture, nor in holy tradition for at least the first four hundred years of the Church if not the first millennium. Where can we find this very important act of God?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I agree. The only point I was trying to make is that, regardless of cause, sexual orientation is not changeable.

I understand your point, and if we are speaking in matters of taste, I agree with you. God does not call us based on our tastes.

He calls us by free will to deny ourselves and follow Him. He tells us to do all kinds of things that we don’t like to do. Love our enemies? Who wants that? It’s contrary to our nature, yet it is His command. How many actually do it?

Just because a man has a nature that has him gain pleasure from homosexual acts, it does not all of a sudden make them morally good and God evil for condemning them. Sex is just like an addictive drug, the more we use it the more we are enslaved by it.
If addiction is an example, studies have shown that approximately 20% of the population is susceptible to addiction. If we give them opioid medications, they begin to show addictive behavior the more they are exposed to the drug
Do we condemn them for having that susceptibility? No, but they are judged by law enforcement should they become addicts and enter the drug trade

People with homosexual tendencies are not condemned. Homosexual acts are mortal sin the same way a heterosexual act is in unchastity

There is more to sexual orientation than we are being lead to believe, but if you maintain your position, I can only tell you what God’s commands are. They cannot be changed

 

[Frank Robert]

Have you been following what has been going on with the German bishops and the Synod on Synodality? Basically, the majority of the Roman Catholic bishops in Germany, who are extremely liberal are trying to acquire some form of autonomy from the church in Rome so that they can allow for the blessing of homosexual relationships, or worse.

Pope Francis has explained and made clear that blessing is for the individuals and NOT THE RELATIONSHIP.

 

[Frank Robert]

People with homosexual tendencies are not condemned. Homosexual acts are mortal sin the same way a heterosexual act is in unchastity

I agree.

Pope Francis has said that homosexual acts are grave sins just like all other sexual acts outside of a valid marriage.

Perhaps someone should start a thread on sexual sins other than or in addition to homosexual acts.

 

[The Liturgist]

Pope Francis has explained and made clear that blessing is for the individuals and NOT THE RELATIONSHIP.

I’m not talking Fiducia Supplicans (as I have made my grave objections to it clear) but rather about this issue, which is potentially even more disastrous than Fiducia Supplicans, in that in this case the German bishops appear to be defying the Vatican and might attempt a schism (in which case the liberal German government could back them, if Pope Francis does not act quickly to begin deposing them for reasons other than this issue):

German Catholic Bishops Back Blessing of Gay Relationships, Defying Pope Francis

The vote lends unprecedented approval to the practice and is in defiance of the Vatican, threatening to divide the church.

www.wsj.com

German Synodal Way approves same-sex blessings, lay preaching, and reexamination of priestly celibacy

Delegates also voted to delay addressing perhaps the most controversial topic: establishing synodal councils at the parish and diocesan level.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

German Catholic bishops defy Vatican, approve blessings for gay couples

Starting from March 2026, the Catholic church in Germany will offer blessings for same-sex couples.

orthochristian.com

Basically, the German bishops have announced that they will bless the relationship itself starting in 2026, in apparent defiance of the Vatican, and frankly Pope Francis is running out of time to stop them.

There is also this disturbing issue:

What Berlin’s archbishop said about same-sex blessings

The Archbishop of Berlin has caused a stir beyond the borders of his archdiocese.

www.pillarcatholic.com

 

[The Liturgist]

I agree.

Pope Francis has said that homosexual acts are grave sins just like all other sexual acts outside of a valid marriage.

Perhaps someone should start a thread on sexual sins other than or in addition to homosexual acts.

All sexual sins are unacceptable to the Orthodox, including arsenokoetia within marriage, which is prohibited by ancient canon law and which is often subject to the same lengthy penances that would be received if unmarried people of the same sex were to engage in it, because of the extremely defiling nature of such acts.

 

[jas3]

Some Orthodox have told me that, given that Catholic converts do not need to be rebaptized and Catholic priest converts do not need to be re-ordained, the Orthodox do view Catholics as being in the Church. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

This isn't universally true, I know of some Catholics who were received by baptism. But the mode of reception itself isn't an indicator of whether someone was already in the Church; Catholics recognize Trinitarian Protestant baptisms as valid, but that doesn't mean that they think they were, normatively speaking, already in the Church.

 

[zippy2006]

This isn't universally true

I know, but the point holds (unless Orthodox are to say that error is occurring wherever it is true, which doesn't work on Orthodox logic).

in the Church

The deeper point is that Orthodox don't have any clear sense of what "in the Church" means. Talk to ten different Orthodox and you will get five different answers. Things like baptism and ordination are objective approaches to the question. And when an Orthodox asks a conservative Orthodox, "If she wasn't in the Church, then why didn't we baptize her?," this question represents a logical reality that will never go away as long as the praxis remains. The question is therefore much more enduring and substantial than the various theologoumena.

Catholics recognize Trinitarian Protestant baptisms as valid, but that doesn't mean that they think they were, normatively speaking, already in the Church.

But do Catholics go around saying that, "We do not view Protestants as being in the Church"? I don't think so. Or rather, some do, but my question would equally fluster them. Nevertheless the ordination issue is not the same with Protestants, and that's important. Catholics recognize that Orthodox are different from Protestants because they have valid sacraments, and Orthodox who do not re-ordain Catholic priest converts are implicitly saying that Catholics have valid sacraments.

The answer to the question, "Was she in the Church?," is, "Yes and no." And supposing this is right, simplifying the issue never really works.

 

[The Liturgist]

I know, but the point holds (unless Orthodox are to say that error is occurring wherever it is true, which doesn't work on Orthodox logic).

Forgive me, but only those with an Orthodox phronema, that is to say, a member of a canonical Orthodox Church, and possibly some Eastern Rite Catholics or schismatic Old Calendarists, although this is disputed, are in a position to define what is or is not according to Orthodox logic.

 

[prodromos]

I know, but the point holds (unless Orthodox are to say that error is occurring wherever it is true, which doesn't work on Orthodox logic).


The deeper point is that Orthodox don't have any clear sense of what "in the Church" means. Talk to ten different Orthodox and you will get five different answers. Things like baptism and ordination are objective approaches to the question. And when an Orthodox asks a conservative Orthodox, "If she wasn't in the Church, then why didn't we baptize her?," this question represents a logical reality that will never go away as long as the praxis remains. The question is therefore much more enduring and substantial than the various theologoumena.


But do Catholics go around saying that, "We do not view Protestants as being in the Church"? I don't think so. Or rather, some do, but my question would equally fluster them. Nevertheless the ordination issue is not the same with Protestants, and that's important. Catholics recognize that Orthodox are different from Protestants because they have valid sacraments, and Orthodox who do not re-ordain Catholic priest converts are implicitly saying that Catholics have valid sacraments.

The answer to the question, "Was she in the Church?," is, "Yes and no." And supposing this is right, simplifying the issue never really works.

How people from other faith traditions are received into the Church varies according to the Canons of the Church and as to whether the Bishop receiving them chooses to apply those Canons strictly or leniently, since as Bishop he holds the keys and has the authority to bind or loose. The manner in which they are received is not a tacit admission that some were formerly considered to be in the Church somehow.

 

[prodromos]

Some Orthodox have told me that, given that Catholic converts do not need to be rebaptized and Catholic priest converts do not need to be re-ordained, the Orthodox do view Catholics as being in the Church. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

None of those described above would have been permitted to receive Holy Communion until they were received into the Church (in what ever manner the local Bishop deemed appropriate). Lex orandi, lex credendi.

 

[prodromos]

If you have something that I do not know, Inwoild like to know it. Where does God say that Peter’s authority resides in every Bishop? I don’t see it in scripture, nor in holy tradition for at least the first four hundred years of the Church if not the first millennium. Where can we find this very important act of God?

This will take time to put together and I don't have a lot of free time. I may end up just linking to threads where this has been discussed before, but again, it will take me time to find those threads.

 

[zippy2006]

Forgive me, but only those with an Orthodox phronema, that is to say, a member of a canonical Orthodox Church, and possibly some Eastern Rite Catholics or schismatic Old Calendarists, although this is disputed, are in a position to define what is or is not according to Orthodox logic.

I am not interested in "No True Scotsman" fallacies. I realize Orthodox are fond of them, but such question-begging has no place on an ecumenical discussion forum.

If you think all who were received without rebaptism need to be baptized, then set out your case. If you don't disagree with what I've said, then it isn't clear what you are substantively objecting to (apart from the No True Scotsman thing).

(Note that if one is not allowed to set out what some other group believes without possessing their "phronema," then you would have to delete 99% of your CF posts, because you are constantly setting out what other groups believe. Constantinou's thesis is not the sort of thing you can trot out to adjudicate an ecumenical disagreement.)

 

[zippy2006]

How people from other faith traditions are received into the Church varies according to the Canons of the Church and as to whether the Bishop receiving them chooses to apply those Canons strictly or leniently, since as Bishop he holds the keys and has the authority to bind or loose.

I understand that, but it doesn't answer the question at hand. If you want to take that line, then we are asking why baptism is a matter that can fall under economia.

None of those described above would have been permitted to receive Holy Communion until they were received into the Church (in what ever manner the local Bishop deemed appropriate). Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Okay, so then you have two considerations: 1) they didn't need to be baptized (in the relevant cases), and 2) they could not receive communion before being received.

What we should observe is that such a person seems to be more "in the Church" than someone who additionally requires baptism, no? And a priest who does not need to be rebaptized or re-ordained seems to be more "in the Church" than a minister who does not, no?

 

[RileyG]

Before he was baptized, probably, I don’t know, I know he admitted to having lived a worldly lifestyle on the North Beach of San Francisco, but baptism washes away all sins. He was saved in and through the church and was baptized by St. John Maximovitch, and he made a full repentence. This was in the late 1950s if I recall, when the North Beach of San Francisco had a particularly Bohemian character (but not one as predominantly homosexual as the Castro neighborhood is today, or as counter cultural as Haight Asbury was in the 1960s).

One sad thing about San Francisco is how the cultural change in the city has caused much of the indigenous population to leave, to the extent that the historic accent of the Scots-Irish and Italian citizens of San Francisco is regarded as lost. One of the few communities that has remained in San Francisco is the Russian community.

He was baptized in the Methodist Church and later became atheist IIRC.

Why was he baptized again?

 

[prodromos]

I understand that, but it doesn't answer the question at hand. If you want to take that line, then we are asking why baptism is a matter that can fall under economia.


Okay, so then you have two considerations: 1) they didn't need to be baptized (in the relevant cases), and 2) they could not receive communion before being received.

What we should observe is that such a person seems to be more "in the Church" than someone who additionally requires baptism, no? And a priest who does not need to be rebaptized or re-ordained seems to be more "in the Church" than a minister who does not, no?

All of the above was settled in the Canons of the seven Ecumenical Councils. Your issue is with them.

 

[The Liturgist]

He was baptized in the Methodist Church and later became atheist IIRC.

Why was he baptized again?

I don’t know, because I’m not Fr. Seraphim Rose and I’m not St. John Maximovitch. You’ve got to understand, the decision on how converts are received is made by bishops and can vary even between two people who share a demonym such as Methodist. For example, even within the United Methodist Church before the recent tragedy, and I can say this with some authority having been baptized a Methodist myself, there were some liberal clergy who had not been using the Trinitarian formula as found in Matthew 28:19 despite it being required by the Book of Discipline (which was being widely ignored), and there were also ministers nicknamed “Methobaptists” who tried to discourage infant baptism in their parishes, by being willing to do it on only four occasions throughout the year, and reluctantly, and putting up red tape, while talking about the superiority of Believer’s Baptism. When I was received into the Orthdoox Church i was asked questions about how I had been baptized and the circumstances of my baptism on an individual level.

 

[prodromos]

He was baptized in the Methodist Church and later became atheist IIRC.

Why was he baptized again?

That was up to his bishop. St John Maximovich was, I assume, applying the Canons strictly.

 

[RileyG]

I don’t know, because I’m not Fr. Seraphim Rose and I’m not St. John Maximovitch. You’ve got to understand, the decision on how converts are received is made by bishops and can vary even between two people who share a demonym such as Methodist. For example, even within the United Methodist Church before the recent tragedy, and I can say this with some authority having been baptized a Methodist myself, there were some liberal clergy who had not been using the Trinitarian formula as found in Matthew 28:19 despite it being required by the Book of Discipline (which was being widely ignored), and there were also ministers nicknamed “Methobaptists” who tried to discourage infant baptism in their parishes, by being willing to do it on only four occasions throughout the year, and reluctantly, and putting up red tape, while talking about the superiority of Believer’s Baptism. When I was received into the Orthdoox Church i was asked questions about how I had been baptized and the circumstances of my baptism on an individual level.

Ah, I see

That was up to his bishop. St John Maximovich was, I assume, applying the Canons strictly.

I see!

Thanks to you both!

 

[RileyG]

Ah, both of my grandfathers were conditionally baptized into the Catholic Church when they converted to marry my grandmothers.

That was before Vatican II.

Apparently I must have selective memory.

Not to go off topic!