Question...

[kamikat]

AHHHHH!!!

Marriage annulments.

I see.

Thanks! Do you know of any others?

I believe it might be changing, but in the US, the Eastern Catholics have not been allowed to ordain married priests. In other countries, it has been allowed. Also, up until the mid-80's, I believe, the some Eastern Catholic churches did not commune children, but had a typical Roman Catholic first communion at age 7 or 8. I believe that currently, all ECs commune small children.

kamikat

 

[MariaRegina]

Another adjustment the Eastern Catholics have had to made is giving up "guarding the chalice".

Within Orthodoxy, the Bishop, Priest and Deacon have the right to question all who approach Holy Communion to discern whether they are properly disposed to receive Holy Communion.

Therefore, if I am traveling to another state or town, and am visiting an Orthodox Church for the first time, I must call or write that priest and let him know that I am coming. He may request that I go to confession to him before receiving Holy Communion in his church. Often, the priest requests that we go to Confession because he knows that traveling presents temptations and stresses that may lead us to sin. (Impatience and anger about crazy drivers, delays in traffic, in restaurant servic, or in lost accommodations at hotels are some of the most common sins we commit when traveling.)

However, Eastern Catholic priests are told to serve Holy Communion to whomever approaches, and to let the communicant discern. Unless someone is obviously hostile or wearing a T-shirt that advocates a sinful lifestyle, the Eastern Catholic priest will serve Holy Communion to all who approach. So, I have seen protestants, Jews and agnostic unbaptized persons receiving Holy Communion because of this 'don't ask, don't tell' mentality.

 

[Vedant]

I believe it might be changing, but in the US, the Eastern Catholics have not been allowed to ordain married priests. In other countries, it has been allowed. Also, up until the mid-80's, I believe, the some Eastern Catholic churches did not commune children, but had a typical Roman Catholic first communion at age 7 or 8. I believe that currently, all ECs commune small children.

kamikat

The Melkite Catholic church I went to communed children. Anyway, I do know about the Roman Catholics overstepping their authority over the "autonomous churches" about Eastern Catholic priests in the US. It is good that this has been relaxed....

 

[kamikat]

When I was contemplating becoming Eastern Catholic, I went through this issues. Basically, what I determined was that the Eastern Catholics cane be anywhere from Roman Catholic in all but liturgy to Orthodox except for obedience to Rome. Some EC parishes are very Roman, some are very Orthodox. What was clear to me was that Eastern Catholics hold to views that are considered "heretical" by Roman Catholic standards, such as original sin, the atonement, ect but were allowed to maintain these views as long as they submitted to Rome. Therefore, in Rome's view, salvation is dependent on submission to Rome, not having "correct" theology.

kamikat

 

[Vedant]

Another adjustment the Eastern Catholics have had to made is giving up "guarding the chalice".

Within Orthodoxy, the Bishop, Priest and Deacon have the right to question all who approach Holy Communion to discern whether they are properly disposed to receive Holy Communion.

Therefore, if I am traveling to another state or town, and am visiting an Orthodox Church for the first time, I must call or write that priest and let him know that I am coming. He may request that I go to confession to him before receiving Holy Communion in his church. Often, the priest requests that we go to Confession because he knows that traveling presents temptations and stresses that may lead us to sin. (Impatience and anger about crazy drivers, delays in traffic, in restaurant servic, or in lost accommodations at hotels are some of the most common sins we commit when traveling.)

However, Eastern Catholic priests are told to serve Holy Communion to whomever approaches, and to let the communicant discern. Unless someone is obviously hostile or wearing a T-shirt that advocates a sinful lifestyle, the Eastern Catholic priest will serve Communion.

Do you know a more technical name for this? I am trying to research it on the internet. The marriage annulment thing was a huge difference though.

 

[Michael G]

Interesting perspective. I guess my question would be then do different priests come to different conclusions about the fathers regarding such issues if all have read thoroughly? Or is it the situation that determines the advice?

The Orthodox understanding of the fathers is something that can be confusing for someone trying to learn

The Fathers of the Church are not something for an amateur to loosely read and then form opinions based on. There are some things that just are not cut and dry, black and white. It kind of reminds me of one of my favorite Billy Joel songs "some things were perfectly clear, seen with the vision of youth, no doubts and nothing to fear, I held the corner on truth. These days the edges are blurred..."

 

[Michael G]

Blah blah blah.. you have to spread some rep around before giving it to Michael again, baah blah blah.
In general, very well said, Michael!!!

Thank you.

 

[MariaRegina]

Do you know a more technical name for this? I am trying to research it on the internet. The marriage annulment thing was a huge difference though.

Open vs Closed Communion.

Catholics claim to have closed communion, and in some of their pew missals, they are saying that only those Catholics who have been baptized and who have received their First Holy Communion are allowed to receive Holy Communion, but this is not always the case, in actual practice.

Orthodox do have closed communion, so that only those baptized and chrismated Orthodox who are in good standing with the Church, who have been married in the Orthodox Church (for those who are married), and who have prepared by fasting from midnight, and have recently received Holy Confession (as determined by their confessor) may approach the Holy Chalice.

 

[Vedant]

When I was contemplating becoming Eastern Catholic, I went through this issues. Basically, what I determined was that the Eastern Catholics cane be anywhere from Roman Catholic in all but liturgy to Orthodox except for obedience to Rome. Some EC parishes are very Roman, some are very Orthodox. What was clear to me was that Eastern Catholics hold to views that are considered "heretical" by Roman Catholic standards, such as original sin, the atonement, ect but were allowed to maintain these views as long as they submitted to Rome. Therefore, in Rome's view, salvation is dependent on submission to Rome, not having "correct" theology.

kamikat

That's actually quite different from what I've discovered. As you might know, I've been exploring both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but more of Catholicism recently.

What Rome requires the Eastern Catholics to assent to is that their approach is valid and true. That is, the immaculate conception, original sin, categorization of sins, etc is all true. They also have come to the agreement that the Eastern approach is also very true, that is the lack of original sin, immaculate conception, filioque, etc. That is, they assent that each others' teachings or approaches are valid and true.

Finally, and most importantly, the Eastern Catholics recognize Rome's bishop as the pope. There is no equivalent in Orthodoxy.

Catholics assert that the schism is a disagreement over church politics. Orthodoxy asserts that it is a disagreement over theology. I assert that it is mostly a disagreement over church politics by far and also a disagreement on some very important theological issues, papal infallibility being one of them (and now this annulment thing).

The Roman Catholics have treated Eastern Orthodox Christians with a lot of crap throughout history, and I feel the pain of this too, trust me.

The point that I would like to make is that Roman Catholics must acknowledge that the Eastern approach is equally valid as the Roman approach to theology, and for the most part is not a "submission" except for a few things that I already mentioned.

 

[MariaRegina]

When I was attending a Melkite Eastern Catholic Church, I too wanted unity with the Orthodox.

However, the idea that the priest cannot guard the chalice didn't make sense to me especially when my protestant relatives received Communion from the hands of a Melkite Bishop. And he knew that they were Protestants.

At my wedding in the Roman Catholic Church more than half of my wedding guests were protestants and one was muslim, yet the priest communed all of them without restrictions, even though he had asked me beforehand. He didn't want to spoil my joyful nuptial mass.

 

[Vedant]

Open vs Closed Communion.

Catholics claim to have closed communion, and in some of their pew missals, they are saying that only those Catholics who have been baptized and who have received their First Holy Communion are allowed to receive Holy Communion, but this is not always the case, in actual practice.

Orthodox do have closed communion, so that only those baptized and chrismated Orthodox who are in good standing with the Church, who have been married in the Orthodox Church (for those who are married), and who have prepared by fasting from midnight, and have recently received Holy Confession (as determined by their confessor) may approach the Holy Chalice.

Hmmm...I don't see this as much as a theological difference as I see the annulment process. The Catholics believe the same exact thing, that one shouldn't approach communion without actually being in communion with the church (that is by the sacrament of confession). The difference is that this determination of whether a person is in good standing with the church is placed on the person rather than the priest. Additionally, fasting by midnight is a church practice/tradition and not really theology to me. Catholics also believe in fasting before the Eucharist, but only an hour before receiving it. However, I'm not entirely certain yet either.

The annulment thing was a huge one though. Thank you Aria. I know I got angry at you maybe a month or so ago, but that's just because I was in an angry mood. Please forgive me for that. I value extremely all the information you are giving me.

 

[Vedant]

When I was attending a Melkite Eastern Catholic Church, I too wanted unity with the Orthodox.

However, the idea that the priest cannot guard the chalice didn't make sense to me especially when my protestant relatives received Communion from the hands of a Melkite Bishop. And he knew that they were Protestants.

At my wedding in the Roman Catholic Church more than half of my wedding guests were protestants and one was muslim, yet the priest communed all of them without restrictions.

I guess the thing about this...and I draw this from my knowledge of protestantism, is that if a muslim takes communion, all it is is the sacrament without any benefits. That is, one can't realize the benefits of the sacrament without being in full communion with the church. Being in full communion with the church doesn't only mean that you're Orthodox, but also that you have sincerely confessed your sins beforehand.

 

[MariaRegina]

That's actually quite different from what I've discovered. As you might know, I've been exploring both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but more of Catholicism recently.

What Rome requires the Eastern Catholics to assent to is that their approach is valid and true. That is, the immaculate conception, original sin, categorization of sins, etc is all true. They also have come to the agreement that the Eastern approach is also very true, that is the lack of original sin, immaculate conception, filioque, etc. That is, they assent that each others' teachings or approaches are valid and true.

Finally, and most importantly, the Eastern Catholics recognize Rome's bishop as the pope. There is no equivalent in Orthodoxy.

Catholics assert that the schism is a disagreement over church politics. Orthodoxy asserts that it is a disagreement over theology. I assert that it is mostly a disagreement over church politics by far and also a disagreement on some very important theological issues, papal infallibility being one of them (and now this annulment thing).

The Roman Catholics have treated Eastern Orthodox Christians with a lot of crap throughout history, and I feel the pain of this too, trust me.

The point that I would like to make is that Roman Catholics must acknowledge that the Eastern approach is equally valid as the Roman approach to theology, and for the most part is not a "submission" except for a few things that I already mentioned.

Yes, I agree that the Eastern Catholics must accept both theological opinions. Some of which even involve dogmas..

And this does cause problems.

So one Orthodox Priest told me to quit trying to rationalize the schizophrenia of being both Catholic and Orthodox at the same time, and fully embrace Orthodoxy. I did so, and felt at peace.

 

[MariaRegina]

Hmmm...I don't see this as much as a theological difference as I see the annulment process. The Catholics believe the same exact thing, that one shouldn't approach communion without actually being in communion with the church (that is by the sacrament of confession). The difference is that this determination of whether a person is in good standing with the church is placed on the person rather than the priest. Additionally, fasting by midnight is a church practice/tradition and not really theology to me. Catholics also believe in fasting before the Eucharist, but only an hour before receiving it. However, I'm not entirely certain yet either.

The annulment thing was a huge one though. Thank you Aria. I know I got angry at you maybe a month or so ago, but that's just because I was in an angry mood. Please forgive me for that. I value extremely all the information you are giving me.

I have already forgotten all about it because of the joy of the Paschal Feast in the Resurrection of Christ our God.

Therefore, all is forgiven, and besides I cannot remember it. So, please don't remind me.

Christ is Risen, Vedant!
Indeed He is Risen!

 

[Vedant]

Yes, I agree that the Eastern Catholics must accept both theological opinions. Some of which even involve dogmas..

And this does cause problems.

So one Orthodox Priest told me to quit trying to rationalize the schizophrenia of being both Catholic and Orthodox at the same time, and fully embrace Orthodox. I did so, and felt at peace.

Well, this could be more of a convincing argument, if you told me this maybe a month or two ago, but I don't believe the Eastern Catholics to be schizophrenic, except for these few theological differences that I have already alluded to. The truth is that all Roman Catholics believe the Eastern Catholic way to be perfectly valid and true, even if they don't understand it or know it exists. The reverse is true for all the Eastern Catholic churches, they don't need to understand the Roman way of Christianity.

HOWEVER, there is structural discrmination within the Catholic church, meaning, since the Eastern Catholics are the minority, more emphasis is placed on them knowing the Roman approach as well as their own chruch's approach. That is where any sense of schizophrenia might arrise from, because it is expected that Eastern Catholics know their own theology, but also know the Catechism of the Catholic Church (even though John Paul the 2nd even admitted that this catechism is more appropriate for the ROMAN Catholic Church).

Finally, I do agree with you in some sense, that the Eastern Catholic churches are schizophrenic in regard to some theology when compared to their Orthodox counterparts.

The apostolic churches of the world must break down many many more walls before any chance of reunification is to take place.

I pray that this happens in my lifetime.

 

[kamikat]

Hmmm...I don't see this as much as a theological difference as I see the annulment process. The Catholics believe the same exact thing, that one shouldn't approach communion without actually being in communion with the church (that is by the sacrament of confession). The difference is that this determination of whether a person is in good standing with the church is placed on the person rather than the priest.

You don't see this as much of a difference? My mom recently told me that she hasn't been to confession in 45 years. That means that when I was young and we were all going to Mass, she received communion weekly while there was mortal sin on her soul. An Orthodox priest would have been allowed to deny her communion. Even today, she, as a remarried woman, techniqually living in sin, would be able to receive communion. Do you think that is right? I'll admit that I have received communion when I shouldn't have. My priest knew I was also attending Divine Liturgy and meeting with an Orthodox priest and had issues with the Catholic church. When I walked up, he gave it to me without hesitation. Is that right? I know of several Protestants on CF that brag about receiving communion in Catholic churches. Is that right?

kamikat

 

[MariaRegina]

I guess the thing about this...and I draw this from my knowledge of protestantism, is that if a muslim takes communion, all it is is the sacrament without any benefits. That is, one can't realize the benefits of the sacrament without being in full communion with the church. Being in full communion with the church doesn't only mean that you're Orthodox, but also that you have sincerely confessed your sins beforehand.

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.

 

[Vedant]

You don't see this as much of a difference? My mom recently told me that she hasn't been to confession in 45 years. That means that when I was young and we were all going to Mass, she received communion weekly while there was mortal sin on her soul. An Orthodox priest would have been allowed to deny her communion. Even today, she, as a remarried woman, techniqually living in sin, would be able to receive communion. Do you think that is right? I'll admit that I have received communion when I shouldn't have. My priest knew I was also attending Divine Liturgy and meeting with an Orthodox priest and had issues with the Catholic church. When I walked up, he gave it to me without hesitation. Is that right? I know of several Protestants on CF that brag about receiving communion in Catholic churches. Is that right?

kamikat

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.

 

[kamikat]

The truth is that all Roman Catholics believe the Eastern Catholic way to be perfectly valid and true, even if they don't understand it or know it exists. The reverse is true for all the Eastern Catholic churches, they don't need to understand the Roman way of Christianity.

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

 

[MariaRegina]

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.

Both are committing a grave sin of sacrilege.