Are Catholic Sacraments/Mysteries Valid?

prodromos · Aug 6, 2019

dzheremi said:
Not to be too on the nose, but I would hope you wouldn't need the Eastern Orthodox to confirm for you your own observation that the sky is blue...

It depends what planet they're on

prodromos · Aug 6, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
Nonsense, it is no such thing.

(It's hyperbole.)

It's not really appropriate for this sub-forum though, innit.

thecolorsblend · Aug 6, 2019

prodromos said:
It's not really appropriate for this sub-forum though, innit.

Interesting objection.

What would be an appropriate CF section for that post?

prodromos · Aug 6, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
Interesting objection.

What would be an appropriate CF section for that post?

Not this forum.

Traditional Theology -- A forum dedicated to the respectful discussion of traditional, historic theology; liturgical practices, doctrines, dogmatics; Holy Scripture as found in the various canons of the Church; Church History; classic confessions of the faith, etc.

chevyontheriver · Aug 6, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
This is one of the things about Orthodoxy that's always bugged me, tbh. From the outside looking in, it seems like they've never found a question they couldn't equivocate on or a point of doctrine where they couldn't at least try hedging their bets.

You sure opened up a can of worms.

prodromos · Aug 6, 2019

chevyontheriver said:
You sure opened up a can of worms.

They are worms of your own making.

~Anastasia~ · Aug 7, 2019

Honestly ... IMO this goes back to one of the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

I'm going to try to be respectful here. And I understand that Catholicism had to deal with the reformation and so might have been forced to articulate various answers, where Orthodoxy never had a reformation arise. So that might at least explain why.

But Catholicism precisely insists on having an answer, an explanation of the why and how and when and so on. Orthodoxy is quite comfortable with "God told us this, but no more, so some answers are that we don't know". This is actually a "beef" Orthodoxy has with Catholicism. If God didn't explain exactly how or why ... then why does Catholicism presume to give an answer? This is the "development of theology" that Catholicism embraces. But Orthodoxy tends to reject, stating instead that the faith was "once for all delivered to the Saints" (at Pentecost).

Of course before there WAS Catholicism or Orthodoxy but only "the Church" there was a degree of continued articulation for a couple of centuries. So I'm not trying to create an "us vs. them" and invite a counter-argument that within our own history was never any refinement of articulation.

But precisely this is what is stated as an objection by a few Catholics against Orthodoxy. And the disagreement goes both ways. Rather than assume that one's own way is necessarily correct and complain otherwise, for the purposes of this particular forum, we ought to be discussing how we are different (or alike) and why.

If anyone wants to debate, there is an EO congregational subforum set up for debate.

GreekOrthodox · Aug 7, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
God gives straight answers to direct questions.

Your move, Eastern Orthodox Church.

Matt 13:10-11 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

I guess I would say, "I would rather have pure blood with the Pope, than drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts." as Martin Luther said. But if I did, I would be excommunicating myself from the Holy Orthodox Church. So valid or invalid, I won't leave Her truth as "We have seen the true Light, we have received the heavenly Spirit, we have found the true Faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity”.

MarkRohfrietsch · Aug 7, 2019

~Anastasia~ said:
Honestly ... IMO this goes back to one of the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

I'm going to try to be respectful here. And I understand that Catholicism had to deal with the reformation and so might have been forced to articulate various answers, where Orthodoxy never had a reformation arise. So that might at least explain why.

But Catholicism precisely insists on having an answer, an explanation of the why and how and when and so on. Orthodoxy is quite comfortable with "God told us this, but no more, so some answers are that we don't know". This is actually a "beef" Orthodoxy has with Catholicism. If God didn't explain exactly how or why ... then why does Catholicism presume to give an answer? This is the "development of theology" that Catholicism embraces. But Orthodoxy tends to reject, stating instead that the faith was "once for all delivered to the Saints" (at Pentecost).

Of course before there WAS Catholicism or Orthodoxy but only "the Church" there was a degree of continued articulation for a couple of centuries. So I'm not trying to create an "us vs. them" and invite a counter-argument that within our own history was never any refinement of articulation.

But precisely this is what is stated as an objection by a few Catholics against Orthodoxy. And the disagreement goes both ways. Rather than assume that one's own way is necessarily correct and complain otherwise, for the purposes of this particular forum, we ought to be discussing how we are different (or alike) and why.

If anyone wants to debate, there is an EO congregational subforum set up for debate.

Well stated.

I certainly give the Catholic Church credit for their historic response to heresy and controversy through apologetic; a lot of the time they get it right, but not always. It is very clear that the early Church, the Orthodox Church, and Confessional Lutherans seem not to have the same need to explain every single thing.

Whether one accepts Sola Scriptura or not, God has given us His Holy, Divinely inspired Word in Scripture. We confessional Lutherans also accept the first seven Ecumenical Councils; so tradition continues to be important, just not at the same level as Scripture.

A Lutheran Pastor once wrote that Scripture contains everything that we need to know; it contains everything that God wants us to know... But not everything that we want to know.

One example that comes up here at CF all of the time is "Transubstantiation" versus just accepting that (in Luther's words) "it is what it is" and that the real pretense is a divine mystery.

Faith is faith, fact is fact, and I believe that in less than a millenium, the Catholic Church has crossed this line more than once with doctrines and dogmas that one is hard pressed to support or test with Scripture.

GreekOrthodox said:
Matt 13:10-11 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

I guess I would say, "I would rather have pure blood with the Pope, than drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts." as Martin Luther said. But if I did, I would be excommunicating myself from the Holy Orthodox Church. So valid or invalid, I won't leave Her truth as "We have seen the true Light, we have received the heavenly Spirit, we have found the true Faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity”.

Indeed, but I would be excluding my self from our fellowship by doing so... not to mention mocking their practice of "closed communion"; a practice we also retain.

chevyontheriver · Aug 7, 2019

~Anastasia~ said:
Honestly ... IMO this goes back to one of the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

I'm going to try to be respectful here. And I understand that Catholicism had to deal with the reformation and so might have been forced to articulate various answers, where Orthodoxy never had a reformation arise. So that might at least explain why.

But Catholicism precisely insists on having an answer, an explanation of the why and how and when and so on. Orthodoxy is quite comfortable with "God told us this, but no more, so some answers are that we don't know". This is actually a "beef" Orthodoxy has with Catholicism. If God didn't explain exactly how or why ... then why does Catholicism presume to give an answer? This is the "development of theology" that Catholicism embraces. But Orthodoxy tends to reject, stating instead that the faith was "once for all delivered to the Saints" (at Pentecost).

Of course before there WAS Catholicism or Orthodoxy but only "the Church" there was a degree of continued articulation for a couple of centuries. So I'm not trying to create an "us vs. them" and invite a counter-argument that within our own history was never any refinement of articulation.

But precisely this is what is stated as an objection by a few Catholics against Orthodoxy. And the disagreement goes both ways. Rather than assume that one's own way is necessarily correct and complain otherwise, for the purposes of this particular forum, we ought to be discussing how we are different (or alike) and why.

If anyone wants to debate, there is an EO congregational subforum set up for debate.

You stated that very well. Back in the old days when we were one Church we did do systematic theology. Back in the days of the Cappadocian Fathers would be a prime example. But we've drifted so far apart that we just can't comprehend each other any more, our methodologies of thinking simply do not mesh. We are unreconcilable until God perhaps forces us to do so. I don't want to make it worse. But it is so frustrating for me. What would Basil do? For me I (again) leave this discussion seeing no possibility of good fruit. It's up to God.

~Anastasia~ · Aug 7, 2019

I do really, really, REALLY wish that all of Christianity could claim one Church as I think Jesus intended when He prayed "that they may be one, even as You and I are one."

But at the same time, God is very good at taking our messes of all kinds and bringing as much good out of them as is possible. And witness to that, I see people come to faith in denominations while they might not be able to accept some teachings that differ from the ones they choose to embrace. So while I think we are FAR from the ideal (and Lord have mercy, I fear the state of observed Christianity drives many away from believing!) ... at least I think some are saved as a mercy and condescension to our errors.

Not David · Aug 7, 2019

I can see why some might use the Traditional Forum for discussion, if Catholics and Orthodox want to debate in General Theology, non-Traditionalists will get involved and say stuff like "There is not such thing as sacraments" or "Where is that in the Bible?"

prodromos · Aug 7, 2019

David Cabrera said:
I can see why some might use the Traditional Forum for discussion, if Catholics and Orthodox want to debate in General Theology, non-Traditionalists will get involved and say stuff like "There is not such thing as sacraments" or "Where is that in the Bible?"

Discussion is fine, it's just when some come in with fight'n words, it doesn't usually go in the direction this forum was intended for.

thecolorsblend · Aug 8, 2019

prodromos said:
Discussion is fine, it's just when some come in with fight'n words, it doesn't usually go in the direction this forum was intended for.

Fighting words? I wrote:

thecolorsblend said:
This is one of the things about Orthodoxy that's always bugged me, tbh. From the outside looking in, it seems like they've never found a question they couldn't equivocate on or a point of doctrine where they couldn't at least try hedging their bets.

Sometimes I think sooner will a camel pass through the eye of a needle than Eastern Orthodoxy give a straight answer to a direct question.

Speaking in riddles works great for Yoda but everybody else should aspire to honest communication.

Later, I joked about the sky being blue. My broader point is that Orthodoxy seems to thrive under vagaries and ambiguity.

The subsequent responses to that ranged from good natured, joking half-agreement to more sober-minded variations on "Don't say that". A few pointedly attempted to turn things around by suggesting the Catholic Church defines too much.

Indeed, the one response which is so far conspicuously absent from my observation is that I am factually wrong.

dzheremi · Aug 8, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
Indeed, the one response which is so far conspicuously absent from my observation is that I am factually wrong.

Alright, I'll bite: You are factually wrong. Not making declarations about the sacraments of other churches outside of your own communion is not "thriving on ambiguity" -- it's not presuming to know more than you can about what God has accepted.

When the RCC makes various statements about churches outside of itself that seem to suggest greater approval of some them than others (e.g., Orthodox being "separated brethren" or whatever, while Protestants are "ecclesiastical communities", not even churches), do you say "That is too ambiguous; everyone outside of our communion should be judged the same way", or do you recognize that there is some room for nuance since the Eastern Orthodox Church is not the same as the United Methodist Church?

thecolorsblend · Aug 8, 2019

dzheremi said:
Alright, I'll bite: You are factually wrong. Not making declarations about the sacraments of other churches outside of your own communion is not "thriving on ambiguity" -- it's not presuming to know more than you can about what God has accepted.

When the RCC makes various statements about churches outside of itself that seem to suggest greater approval of some them than others (e.g., Orthodox being "separated brethren" or whatever, while Protestants are "ecclesiastical communities", not even churches), do you say "That is too ambiguous; everyone outside of our communion should be judged the same way", or do you recognize that there is some room for nuance since the Eastern Orthodox Church is not the same as the United Methodist Church?

Nuance is one thing.

Evasion is something else.

dzheremi · Aug 8, 2019

I find it funny that you wrote that instead of answering my question. It makes me want to ask more questions, but I don't want to seem like I'm badgering you or trying to pick a fight. I just don't see how what the EO aren't doing is evading anything. I guess the fact that they say "We don't know", or "That's left up to the bishop", or similar things seems like evasion if you're used to being able to know with more certainty than that what the answer will be in almost every situation, but I don't know what to say to that...obviously the reality on the ground is variable. I don't really see that as the cause for any misgivings but...well, okay. I've said enough. I hope you guys can work it out, to whatever degree you can.

All4Christ · Aug 8, 2019

The teachings of the Orthodox Church are clear. However, we also follow the same line of thinking explained by St John Chrysostom in regards to 1 Corinthians 9-13:

1 Corinthians 13:9-10
We know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

It is not therefore knowledge that is done away, but the circumstance that our knowledge is in part. For we shall not only know as much but even a great deal more. But that I may also make it plain by example; now we know that God is every where, but how, we know not. That He made out of things that are not the things that are we know; but of the manner we are ignorant. That He was born of a virgin, we know; but how, we know not yet. But then shall we know somewhat more and clearer concerning these things. Next he points out also how great is the distance between the two, and that our deficiency is no small one...

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 34 on First Corinthians (Chrysostom)

We hold strongly to what we know and what we are taught. However, there are some things which we are not given direct instructions or teachings from the early church or from Scripture. We are, however, taught from the early church to follow what our Bishops say [Epistle of St Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans Chapter 8 and 9]. We also are taught in the Council of Trullo that our bishops are to shepherd us in the best way to help us grow closer to God.

Canon 102
It behooves those who have received from God the power to loose and bind, to consider the quality of the sin and the readiness of the sinner for conversion, and to apply medicine suitable for the disease, lest if he is injudicious in each of these respects he should fail in regard to the healing of the sick man. For the disease of sin is not simple, but various and multiform, and it germinates many mischievous offshoots, from which much evil is diffused, and it proceeds further until it is checked by the power of the physician. Wherefore he who professes the science of spiritual medicine ought first of all to consider the disposition of him who has sinned, and to see whether he tends to health or (on the contrary) provokes to himself disease by his own behaviour, and to look how he can care for his manner of life during the interval. And if he does not resist the physician, and if the ulcer of the soul is increased by the application of the imposed medicaments, then let him mete out mercy to him according as he is worthy of it. For the whole account is between God and him to whom the pastoral rule has been delivered, to lead back the wandering sheep and to cure that which is wounded by the serpent; and that he may neither cast them down into the precipices of despair, nor loosen the bridle towards dissolution or contempt of life; but in some way or other, either by means of sternness and astringency, or by greater softness and mild medicines, to resist this sickness and exert himself for the healing of the ulcer, now examining the fruits of his repentance and wisely managing the man who is called to higher illumination. For we ought to know two things, to wit, the things which belong to strictness and those which belong to custom, and to follow the traditional form in the case of those who are not fitted for the highest things, as holy Basil teaches us.

My point in bringing up these passages is to explain our perspective on this. The dogmas of the Church were revealed in the early Church. The application of canons is done through the bishops for the benefit of our salvation. Speak about the dogmas of the Church and we will have forthright answers. Speak about things outside of dogma or internal tradition - and we will say the truth about what we know (or don’t know) and what we are taught.

Our catechism is shown in Scripture, the ecumenical councils, the liturgy and the teachings of the saints as understood by the Church. We hold to those truths fast. That is where our answers will be most detailed. What we say otherwise, however, is the truth about what we believe...which at times may be that we “see through a glass darkly” and will know in full when our Lord comes again.

thecolorsblend · Aug 8, 2019

dzheremi said:
I find it funny that you wrote that instead of answering my question.

Because they were distractions from my core point.

dzheremi said:
It makes me want to ask more questions, but I don't want to seem like I'm badgering you or trying to pick a fight.

As a compromise, you could start a new thread to hash through some of those issues right here in TT. That could allow others to join in as well.

dzheremi said:
I just don't see how what the EO aren't doing is evading anything. I guess the fact that they say "We don't know", or "That's left up to the bishop", or similar things seems like evasion if you're used to being able to know with more certainty than that what the answer will be in almost every situation, but I don't know what to say to that...obviously the reality on the ground is variable. I don't really see that as the cause for any misgivings but...well, okay. I've said enough. I hope you guys can work it out, to whatever degree you can.

Perhaps I've not phrased it very well.

There have been issues about which the Catholic Church was non-committal in the past but which she later defined. Sometimes much later. There is understandable caution in these matters.

As an outsider, the Orthodox Church seems to me to be less concerned with finding a definitive answer about something. Maybe I've just read "It's a mystery" too many times by too many Orthodox about things the Catholic Church has at least partly defined. It could be a personal hangup of mine. I'm willing to consider that as a possibility.

But it can sometimes come off as though the whole "It's a mystery" shtick is used as a crutch. Is that a mischaracterization? Perhaps. But remember, I'm just one guy with an opinion and knowledge just as incomplete as anybody else's.

If it balances things out, I do admire the strong faith I see among the Orthodox with whom I have interacted over the years. Even back in my evangelical days, Orthodoxy was presented to me as something like "A serious option for serious believers". By observation, it appears to be largely true. The Orthodox aren't fooling around. They're quite serious about, sincere with and devout in their faith.

So there's that.

dzheremi · Aug 8, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
Because they were distractions from my core point.

Asking whether or not you recognize nuance in your own church's approach to other churches is a distraction? Okay. Perhaps I've just not understood your point properly.

As a compromise, you could start a new thread to hash through some of those issues right here in TT. That could allow others to join in as well.

No thank you. I'm less interested in particular issues between the RCC and the EO, since I'm neither. I just didn't find your characterization of them to be particularly accurate or sensible.

There have been issues about which the Catholic Church was non-committal in the past but which she later defined. Sometimes much later. There is understandable caution in these matters.

Okay.

As an outsider, the Orthodox Church seems to me to be less concerned with finding a definitive answer about something.

It is not obvious to me why they should want to find answers to questions that they already do not have about the sacraments of churches outside of their own.

Maybe I've just read "It's a mystery" too many times by too many Orthodox about things the Catholic Church has at least partly defined. It could be a personal hangup of mine. I'm willing to consider that as a possibility.

But it can sometimes come off as though the whole "It's a mystery" shtick is used as a crutch. Is that a mischaracterization? Perhaps. But remember, I'm just one guy with an opinion and knowledge just as incomplete as anybody else's.

If it balances things out, I do admire the strong faith I see among the Orthodox with whom I have interacted over the years. Even back in my evangelical days, Orthodoxy was presented to me as something like "A serious option for serious believers". By observation, it appears to be largely true. The Orthodox aren't fooling around. They're quite serious about, sincere with and devout in their faith.

So there's that.

That's all good to read. Obviously nobody should be expected to agree with anything in particular in a church that they're not a member of, so it's good that you can still find positive points to bring up despite obvious disagreement as well.

Are Catholic Sacraments/Mysteries Valid?

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

† Handmaid of God †

Psalti Chrysostom

Unapologetic Apologist

Well-Known Member

† Handmaid of God †

I'm back!

Senior Veteran

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Similar threads