Question...

[kamikat]

The difference is in the enforcement of this rule. While Orthodoxy is stricter about this by requiring one to talk to a priest, the Catholic church is more liberal in enforcing this.

Think about this...an Orthodox Christian lying to a priest during confession in order that he or she can receive communion vs. a Catholic who doesn't go to confessiong before partaking in communion. They both result in the same thing.

Here's the big difference. For an Orthodox priest, his salvation is dependent on his protection of the chalice. He takes his job very seriously. It is his duty to deny communion to someone who he thinks is lying to him.

No, I didn't miss your point. The point is that Orthodox are taught from very early on that this is a BIG DEAL. I have asked my Orthodox priest about this. He says that in 14 years of being a priest, he has never had someone come up to receive communion that shouldn't be there. If an Orthodox shows up to church once a year, they are raised to know that they shouldn't recieve communion.
kamikat

 

[Michael G]

You aren't understanding the point I made kamikat.

Communion shouldn't be denied to anyone, except of course those who have been excommunicated from the church, which is a public chastisement/punishment for those who are arrogantly unrepentant of sins. The most recent example of this is church leaders trying to excommunicate John Kerry for his support of the pro-choice movement.

Anyway, the Catholic church asserts the same thing that the Orthodox churches assert, that one should not receive communion unless they are in good standing, or in true communion with his or her church. The difference is in the enforcement of this rule. While Orthodoxy is stricter about this by requiring one to talk to a priest, the Catholic church is more liberal in enforcing this. However, both assert that receiving communion while in bad standing with the church, that is not confessing grave sins beforehand, is sacrilege and a very bad thing to do. The benefits of the body and blood of Christ cannot be realized without being in full communion with the church.

Think about this...an Orthodox Christian lying to a priest during confession in order that he or she can receive communion vs. a Catholic who doesn't go to confessiong before partaking in communion. They both result in the same thing.

Why would you lie during confession and refuse the healing that comes from confession?

 

[Vedant]

Do you see that this leads to intellectual dishonesty? East and West are two totally different world views. To require that the Catholic accept as true and the other view as true is to compromise truth. How can a Roman Catholic be required to believe in Original Sin and at the same time, be required to believe that their Eastern Catholic brethern are also correct in not believing in Original Sin? Yet, at the same time, they can call Orthodox belief about the fall to be heretical just because they don't submit to Rome. If Eastern Catholics have the same theology as the Orthodox and Roman Catholics accept Eastern Catholic doctrine as true and valid, then they would also accept that Eastern Orthodox doctrine as true and valid also, except for the denial of Papal Supremacy.

kamikat

Again, before I continue, I must say I love Orthodoxy. You have kept to tradition in practicing Christianity much more than the Roman Catholic church.

However, the difference which I now see is that there are two ways to approach Christianity. I will use the stereotypes of the mystical and legal approach to Christianity. In mysticism things are emotional, in shades of gray, and personal. In the legal approach, things are black and white and absolutely true.

The true Catholic church, kamikat, are all the validly ordained apostolic fathers, in the West, in the East, in Orthodoxy, and Catholicism. Much of the theological differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism aren't really theological differences, but rather differences in perceiving the same truth and translating these perceptions. This is the mystery of apostolic succession and holy ordination, the fact that the truth hasn't changed very much at all in the truly apostolic churches, but has been perceived in different ways.

There are many problems I have with Catholicism. Papal infallibility and papal primacy is an enormous one to deal with. There are many others, such as the Catholic position on birth control.

However, what I want with all my heart, and I've been praying for this every day since a few months ago, is that hearts will be softened on both sides and that neither side will "submit" to each other but that each will receive each other with open arms in a big Christian hug.

 

[MariaRegina]

When I was an Eastern Catholic, and had studied Papal Supremacy from the book The Church Teaches by the Jesuits of St. Mary's College, and fully understood that the Bishops have the full right to vote and to consecrate a new bishop without appealing to Rome for permission, then I realized that I could no longer be Catholic, but had to become Orthodox.

The Catholic Canon Code of 1917 was the first time that the Vatican had insisted that all new episcopal candidates needed to have pre-approval from Rome. Before these new canon laws were issued, the canon laws used were the same as in Orthodoxy, except for the additions after the schism of 1054, notably the Councils of the Lateran, Florence, Trent and Vatican I.

This new canon code meant that the Melkites had to wait several years, because of the Vatican bureaucracy, to have a replacement bishop when their bishop suddenly died in office in the early 1990s. It created many hardships.

 

[Vedant]

We also believe that a person who receives unworthily can become seriously ill or even die.

Our God is a consuming fire.

There was a Catholic lady who tried to receive Holy Communion in a Greek Orthodox Church. When she approached, she carefully did what the other Orthodox members were doing. She almost succeeded. She had given her baptismal name to the priest, and he was saying "The handmaiden of God ...

Then a flame of fire suddenly leapt from the Holy Chalice and she backed away in fear and trembling. The priest asked her if she was Orthodox and she answered honestly, "no". So he told her to see him after the Divine Liturgy. Within 6 months she was received by Chrismation into Orthodoxy.

The amazing thing was that this very miracle was worked for the benefit of both the priest and the woman. The priest was doubting, so he didn't see the flame at all, but only the woman's reaction. At that time the priest was living the lie of adultery, and later he was defrocked for this. But even so, his ministry was effective and God worked miracles through him to try and soften his heart.

This taught a wonderful lesson to all the parishioners who heard about this miracle. Even a sinful priest can truly celebrate the Divine Liturgy and serve Christ in Holy Communion.

Aria, that is beautiful. I completely agree with you. The actual body and blood of Christ is not something to be dealt with in a light-hearted manner. This is the very body and blood of GOD! Of course it's infinitely powerful, and should be approached with that reverence.

Not everyone understands this.

 

[kamikat]

However, what I want with all my heart, and I've been praying for this every day since a few months ago, is that hearts will be softened on both sides and that neither side will "submit" to each other but that each will receive each other with open arms in a big Christian hug.

You will be praying for that for a long time.
When I was a Catholic, I used to long for unity between East and West so that I didn't have to make a decision. Now that I am going further and further East (haven't been christmated yet), it doesn't bother me so much. I was longing for Orthodoxy but afraid to leave the comfort of the Catholic church. What we do for God's glory isn't always comfortable.

kamikat

 

[Vedant]

When I was an Eastern Catholic, and had studied Papal Supremacy from the book The Church Teaches by the Jesuits of St. Mary's College, and fully understood that the Bishops have the full right to vote and to consecrate a new bishop without appealing to Rome for permission, then I realized that I could no longer be Catholic, but had to become Orthodox.

The Catholic Canon Code of 1917 was the first time that the Vatican had insisted that all new episcopal candidates needed to have pre-approval from Rome. Before these new canon laws were issued, the canon laws used were the same as in Orthodoxy, except for the additions after the schism of 1054, notably the Councils of the Lateran, Florence, Trent and Vatican I.

This new canon code meant that the Melkites had to wait several years, because of the Vatican bureaucracy, to have a replacement bishop when their bishop suddenly died in office in the early 1990s. It created many hardships.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I understand you, but I think you're talking about Rome taking supreme authority over the jurisdiction of the "autonomous" Eastern Catholic churches?

Yes, I already agree with you, Rome exerts undue power over these easterners, as seen by Rome's decree of Eastern Catholic priests not being able to marry in the US, but I assert that this is a matter of human church politics and not a matter of theological difference.

 

[Michael G]

Again, before I continue, I must say I love Orthodoxy. You have kept to tradition in practicing Christianity much more than the Roman Catholic church.

However, the difference which I now see is that there are two ways to approach Christianity. I will use the stereotypes of the mystical and legal approach to Christianity. In mysticism things are emotional, in shades of gray, and personal. In the legal approach, things are black and white and absolutely true.

The true Catholic church, kamikat, are all the validly ordained apostolic fathers, in the West, in the East, in Orthodoxy, and Catholicism. Much of the theological differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism aren't really theological differences, but rather differences in perceiving the same truth and translating these perceptions. This is the mystery of apostolic succession and holy ordination, the fact that the truth hasn't changed very much at all in the truly apostolic churches, but has been perceived in different ways.

There are many problems I have with Catholicism. Papal infallibility and papal primacy is an enormous one to deal with. There are many others, such as the Catholic position on birth control.

However, what I want with all my heart, and I've been praying for this every day since a few months ago, is that hearts will be softened on both sides and that neither side will "submit" to each other but that each will receive each other with open arms in a big Christian hug.

NO. Rome lost all Apostolic validity when it chose to remove itself from the union of Orthodox Christianity in 1054. Roman Bishops are not validly ordained Apostolic bishops. I am sorry, but that is the truth.

 

[Vedant]

You will be praying for that for a long time.
When I was a Catholic, I used to long for unity between East and West so that I didn't have to make a decision. Now that I am going further and further East (haven't been christmated yet), it doesn't bother me so much. I was longing for Orthodoxy but afraid to leave the comfort of the Catholic church. What we do for God's glory isn't always comfortable.

kamikat

Well, kamikat, whichever I end up choosing, and I hope I do end up choosing one or the other, I am open-minded enough to recognize that Orthodoxy and Catholicism and a few other disaggregated churches make up the one true catholic and apostolic church. Today no church emobies this entirely, because they are all schismed with each other. However, I do assert that the sacraments of all these churches are truly valid in their on respects. Maybe a month ago, I was getting upset that I had to choose one over the other, but I'm a bit calmer now...I love the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches as well as the Catholic church, and it'll take a lot of time to heal 1000 years of schism.

Not meaning to sound too evangelical...we are all Christian and we all love Jesus! That is what is important, and one day we will all be together, okay?

 

[Vedant]

NO. Rome lost all Apostolic validity when it chose to remove itself from the union of Orthodox Christianity in 1054. Roman Bishops are not validly ordained Apostolic bishops. I am sorry, but that is the truth.

I am sorry Michael. I whole-heartedly disagree with you. Go to the Oriental Orthodox forum and preach the same thing, that Eastern Orthodoxy is the only truly apostolic communion of churches. I will not believe that.

 

[MariaRegina]

Hmmm, I'm not sure I understand you, but I think you're talking about Rome taking supreme authority over the jurisdiction of the "autonomous" Eastern Catholic churches?

Yes, I already agree with you, Rome exerts undue power over these easterners, as seen by Rome's decree of Eastern Catholic priests not being able to marry in the US, but I assert that this is a matter of human church politics and not a matter of theological difference.

It is a doctrinal difference.

The Code of Canon Law of 1917 was issued precisely because of the 1870 Vatican I dogmas of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility.

The doctrine of Papal Supremacy sealed the Vatican control over all bishops, priests, deacons, and laity. All bishops therefore had to be approved by Rome. It centralized the Catholic Church BIG TIME.

This doctrinal difference affects the theology of the Catholic Church and is the biggest stumbling block for unity between the two churches of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

 

[kamikat]

NO. Rome lost all Apostolic validity when it chose to remove itself from the union of Orthodox Christianity in 1054. Roman Bishops are not validly ordained Apostolic bishops. I am sorry, but that is the truth.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Michael the Iconographer again."

You rock!

kamikat

 

[Vedant]

It is a doctrinal difference.

The Code of Canon Law of 1917 was issued precisely because of the Vatican I dogmas of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility.

The doctrine of Papal Supremacy sealed the Vatican control over all bishops, priests, deacons, and laity. All bishops therefore had to be approved by Rome. It centralized the Catholic Church BIG TIME.

This doctrinal difference affects the theology of the Catholic Church and is the biggest stumbling block for unity between the two churches of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Thanks Aria, I will look into this. As I said, the most difficult theological thing to digest about Roman Catholicism is papal infallibility primacy supremecy, etc.

 

[Michael G]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Michael the Iconographer again."

You rock!

kamikat

Thank you.

 

[Michael G]

Thanks Aria, I will look into this. As I said, the most difficult theological thing to digest about Roman Catholicism is papal infallibility primacy supremecy, etc.

You don't have an issue with Rome declaring Mary to be the Mediatrix of all Graces, and the Co-Redmptrix?

 

[Vedant]

You don't have an issue with Rome declaring Mary to be the Mediatrix of all Graces, and the Co-Redmptrix?

I have a problem with ALL ROMAN CATHOLIC DOGMAS about Mary other than the fact that she was Jesus' mother.

As I said, I'm still in a period of discernment.

The only one that I could comfortably believe is the assumption of Mary, since there were witnesses to that.

 

[Michael G]

I have a problem with ALL ROMAN CATHOLIC DOGMAS about Mary other than the fact that she was Jesus' mother.

As I said, I'm still in a period of discernment.

The only one that I could comfortably believe is the assumption of Mary, since there were witnesses to that.

Those two dogmas I mentioned do a very good job of blurring the lines between the Trinity and Mary, almost making the Trinity a quartet.

 

[Vedant]

Those two dogmas I mentioned do a very good job of blurring the lines between the Trinity and Mary, almost making the Trinity a quartet.

I will read about them. Thank you very much for your knowledge, Michael.

 

[Michael G]

The only "true Catholic Church" is the Orthodox Church. Orthodox means correct in teaching. If you are NOT Orthodox, you are heterodox-mixed in teaching.

 

[icxn]

...This very thread is an issue that, apparently, the fathers don't agree on. Then you add the element of different priests interpreting what the different fathers say differently and applying them to different situations. If you really think about it, I just don't understand how that's substantially different from what we protestants do.

Help?

Your sister in Christ,
Grace

Isn't that what doctors do too? They first find out what disease is troubling you. Then they ask you what kind of allergies you may have and then suggest the right medication. Sometimes two people may have the same apparent effects but the cause of the illness may be different and so is the treatment. So the apparent disagreement of the Fathers is only apparent, not in essence, which is the spiritual cure of our souls.

What do the protestants do? Perhaps they are right on this one.