Why are the Orthodox being taught this? [Moved from OBOB]

D'Ann said:

Hi Tonks,

Actually, the Catholic Church does consider the EOC to be in error and the only reason that the EOCs have the Eucharist is because they at one time were apart of the Catholic Church and thus their priests were anointed in the same way that the Catholic Church priests were originally anointed.

I'll ask Bob to explain it better than this. I'm not good with explaining Catholicism.

(I'm not sure if Bob will respond though... he is busy these days).

God bless,

Debbie

Click to expand...

How does this relate to the "two lung" theory ?

I did check the writings of St. Ignatios, where he says "n katholiki ekklesia", katholiki is an adjective, not a noun. It has been translated as a noun, which it is not in Greek.

The "two lungs" comment was made in reference to the Eastern Catholic rites. It is often misunderstood by Catholics who think that it refers to the Orthodox.

You're mistaken:

The bitter experience of this long period of separation has made us all aware of the need to accelerate the process of restoring our full communion so that the approaching third millennium of the Christian era may find the Church of God visibly united as she was before the great Schism. As Your Holiness has aptly put it some years ago, East and West are the two lungs by which the Church breaths; their unity is essential to the healthy life of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Click to expand...

The comments were made on June 28, 1998 during the visit of Greek Orthodox Metropolitan John of Pergamon.

I've not been here long enough to link.

Gwendolyn said:

The "two lungs" comment was made in reference to the Eastern Catholic rites. It is often misunderstood by Catholics who think that it refers to the Orthodox.

Click to expand...

So... incorrect. The two lungs is in fact referring to the EO and CC. The reason the CC is trying so hard for reunification, is that it recognizes that the sacraments and ordinations inf the EO are valid. That is, Christ is physically present in their Eucharist in the same way he is present in ours. Naturally, the idea that churches having the body of Christ and Apostolic succession are not in communion with each other is a tragedy. It has nothing to do with whether one church can get along without one another. It has to do with the fact that the body of Christ must be whole again and not divided like it is now.

D'Ann said:

Hi Tonks,

Actually, the Catholic Church does consider the EOC to be in error and the only reason that the EOCs have the Eucharist is because they at one time were apart of the Catholic Church and thus their priests were anointed in the same way that the Catholic Church priests were originally anointed.

I'll ask Bob to explain it better than this. I'm not good with explaining Catholicism.

(I'm not sure if Bob will respond though... he is busy these days).

God bless,

Debbie

Click to expand...

Oh, I know Deb. The broader point is that our Eucharistic theology is entirely different.

Aeyamar said:

So... incorrect. The two lungs is in fact referring to the EO and CC. The reason the CC is trying so hard for reunification, is that it recognizes that the sacraments and ordinations inf the EO are valid. That is, Christ is physically present in their Eucharist in the same way he is present in ours. Naturally, the idea that churches having the body of Christ and Apostolic succession are not in communion with each other is a tragedy. It has nothing to do with whether one church can get along without one another. It has to do with the fact that the body of Christ must be whole again and not divided like it is now.

Click to expand...

Ah. I wasn't aware of the 1988 quote. There is a JPII quote referring to the Eastern Catholic rites made within the last decade that people reference mistakenly saying that it applies to the Orthodox.

Most of this comes out of Orientale Lumen

Tonks said:

Oh, I know Deb. The broader point is that our Eucharistic theology is entirely different.

Click to expand...

Thanks Tonks. I need to read through this thread. What little I did read in this thread is interesting.

benedictaoo said:

How could you honestly think it's not though... ?

"Peter... I'm giving YOU the keys..."

Click to expand...

If you were to ask me, I myself would ask is it Peter alone who had the keys?


What is the Catholic understanding of other verses such as:

Mathew 18:18 the other Apostles get the same powers.

Still another verse seems to me to make the same implication; of power to all in heaven and on earth.

John 20:23 "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."


I'm also of the belief that ECFs also said this...

Tertullian
"What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and) your (church), indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet. "

On Modesty. Book VII. Chapter XXI[1]


It is clear others will also posess the keys, those who are 'spiritual men' in accordance, as the person of Peter. It is not Peter's exclusively.

Hilary of Poitiers
“This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father's gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature

On the Trinity. Book VI.37[2]

Augustine
“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.”

On Christian Doctrine Book I.

Chapter 18.17 The Keys Given to the Church.[3]

"...Peter, the first of the apostles, receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ. For it is not the former alone but the whole Church, that bindeth and looseth sins; nor did the latter alone drink at the fountain of the Lord's breast, to emit again in preaching, of the Word in the beginning, God with God, and those other sublime truths regarding the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead."

On the Gospel of John

Tractate CXXIV.7[4]

"...the keys that were given to the Church,"
A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists

Chapter 10.45[5]

"How the Church? Why, to her it was said, "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."

Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John
Homily X.10[6]

Is this what your understanding would be? Or do you know where it might say that Peter alone had the keys and only those that follow him in one particular See that he founded also exclusively have the keys?

However I'm not able to discuss this, so I guess if you want to discuss my reasons (as given) we'd have to adjourn to PM, or a more general thread


Endnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] ANF04. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

[2] NPNF2-09. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

[3] NPNF1-02. St. Augustin's City of God and Christian Doctrine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

[4] NPNF1-07. St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John; Homilies on the First Epistle of John; Soliloquies | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

[5] NPNF1-04. Augustin: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

[6] NPNF1-07. St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John; Homilies on the First Epistle of John; Soliloquies | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Macarius said:

I'm an idiot.

Click to expand...

No! I am!

(oops, I hope this debate is not a breach of forum rules)

Montalban said:

No! I am!

(oops, I hope this debate is not a breach of forum rules)

Click to expand...

Me too.

lionroar0 said:

I'm glad that you found the EOC.(honestly)

Click to expand...

Thank you. I don't mean to stray off-topic, but yes, I was faced with a real problem of which Protestant church to go with and I was drawn back all the time by the problem of who put the Bible together in the first place (having no knowledge at the time of Orthodoxy). The issue kept me churchless for about six or so years.

benedictaoo said:

So? You created that rite...

Click to expand...

I had nothing to do with it.

The Western Rite existed when Christianity reached 'the West'

benedictaoo said:

it is not the Latin Church with Peter's successor.

Click to expand...

I never claimed the Western Orthodox Rites were Latin

benedictaoo said:

You can not deny the Latin Church-

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you have the ability to tell me what to do.

benedictaoo said:

you can make up your own and call it the Latin Church either.

Click to expand...

I made no such claim

lionroar0 said:

Does the EOC have western theology as part of it's church? It's an honest question.

Click to expand...

I would have to know what 'western theology' is. We count western theologians as Orthodox; Irenaus of Lyons and so on

lionroar0 said:

I ask because the CC does have Easter theology as part of the Church. Specially the Marian Dogmas. They all have roots in the east.

Click to expand...

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than I can help you with this.

Though I do appreaciate you asking

lionroar0 said:

Not sure if it's the same rite but there was a young man that had asked in TAW about a year ago about a Western Rite Church that the had been attending in the US. He wanted to know if it was a legitimate rite. Before any one bothered to find out. He was chewed out for attending a Western Rite church.

Click to expand...

What a shame. I had my own problems with joining an Orthodox church as in Australia they are highly ethno-centric.

There's a Western Rite church in Tasmania but Hobart is a 1000 miles away

The East are not big fans of Augustine though, and he's pretty important in the West.

Western Rite Orthodoxy has always seemed a bit faddish to me. Ever since Columba the whole of the West has been within the ecclesial orbit of Rome. In 1054 the whole west was separated from the east with no remainder.

Western Orthodoxy as it is today is a fairly recent invention.

This is not to say that it's invalid or bad. It's a very nice way for people to retain familiar liturgical practices and be really Catholic without submitting to the Bishop of Rome.

Montalban said:

What a shame. I had my own problems with joining an Orthodox church as in Australia they are highly ethno-centric.

There's a Western Rite church in Tasmania but Hobart is a 1000 miles away

Click to expand...

I fail to see how ethno-centricity is a EO phenomenon.... Do the "irish" or "italian" or "spanish" catholic communiities in any US city would count as such? I mean people normally and according to social laws do tend to "congregate" togethere into different ethnos group.. For example if you go to Greece there is a Russian Orthodox Church in Athens. Do we need it? Well, yeah there are Russian Orthodox who attend...why would anyone deny one's ethnicity? Australia is still young in Orthodoxy and this a normal reality for a "young" church. I do not see how I would be welcomed in a high Anglian church in a prominent Suburb in London .... being a Greek!

I think that instead of "judging" the EO or any parish as ethnocentric we have to look at our own predjudice and biases. Orthodoxy came to these lands of Diaspora via these ethnic groups whose ONLY socialization was that very Church. The same happened to the Catholics who came to the US like the Irish and the Italians. They were in hostile ground and were discriminated and mocked just like the Greeks were in certain areas for worhiping "differently" for haveing "idols" (icons or statues) etc. I think that is actually our commonality being "reprimanted" for upholding any kind of Tradition...

End of the rant.

Fitch said:

The East are not big fans of Augustine though, and he's pretty important in the West.

Western Rite Orthodoxy has always seemed a bit faddish to me. Ever since Columba the whole of the West has been within the ecclesial orbit of Rome. In 1054 the whole west was separated from the east with no remainder.

Western Orthodoxy as it is today is a fairly recent invention.

This is not to say that it's invalid or bad. It's a very nice way for people to retain familiar liturgical practices and be really Catholic without submitting to the Bishop of Rome.

Click to expand...

Not all Augustine's writings are condemned. Augustine is well known in Greeced due to the Frankish occupation. I would agree with you about the Western rite in Orthdooxy. But just because one "liturgical tradition" is not well developed that does not mean that it will not grow.

We do have different liturgical rites growing simutaneusly from Jerusalem as early as the 3rd century manuscrip of St. James Liturgy (which is not even clear about its dating) to Roman (Latin) rite. Obviously Chrisitans were worshiping first in Jerusalem and it spread Westward. The distance was vast and the rites developed "locally" and at the same time so to try to figure out what grew first is kinda of silly IMHO.

The Jerusalem rite obviously would be one of the first but it changed. The same developement took place for the Egyptian etc. What we have today is a variety of liturgical traditions. I think it would be splitting hairs over rites.

Just because the East of the West has different "styles" or "rites" that does not mean necessary that the "representation" of those rites HAS to be present to be "valid". There are no cannons as far as I know that dictate the 'rite" we as EO have to have. We see a variety of Liturgical expression between the Russian Typikon and the Church of Greece Typikon. The difference is based upon different Patristic Tradition basically two : Monastic typikon and the Cathedral typikon.

Re: ethnocentric - on my side of town, all the Protestant and some of the Catholic Churches have "ethnic" tags -- for ex., there's a Windish Lutheran, several Spanish (language) Churches, and Catholic Churches that serve eastern European, German, and Italian populations.