|
2 members (2 invisible),
726
guests, and
83
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,521
Posts417,613
Members6,170
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear John,
Yes, but Emperor St Constantine XI became a Greek-Catholic - he entered communion with Rome along with many of his Greek fighters and he received Communion from an Italian Cardinal before the battle for Constantinople.
This is why he is also venerated as a Martyr-Saint by Eastern Catholics as well as Orthodox.
It would not be the first time that a saint, after the schism, would be shared by both Churches.
For example, Meletius Smotritsky, the Archbishop who wrote against St Josaphat, died in communion with Rome after a terrible bout of guilt over Josaphat's death (that he blamed himself for having excited the people into doing him in).
To this day, Orthodox consider his "union with Rome" to have been due to such psychological pressure and he is honoured as a defender of Orthodoxy (which he certainly was).
But the EC's consider him to be a candidate for sainthood - when the Cause of Josaphat was introduced at Rome, the Basilians also introduced that of Meletius Smotritsky the "Saul and the Paul of the Union of Brest."
Meletius is mentioned in the akathist to St Josaphat and an icon was commissioned of him in the 17th century - a copy can be viewed in the Basilian publication about St Josaphat.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Originally posted by GMmcnabb:
I thought about converting to Orthodoxy once, and I was told as a convert from Catholicism. I would need to recieve chrismation (even though I had been confirmed) and that I could not recieve communion. This was a Greek Orthodox Church in America(under the Patriarch in Constantinople). If there is truly no schism between us, then why can Catholics not recieve communion in Orthodox churches? That is pretty much normal, someone coming in from a Catholic background would make a profession of faith and receive Chrismation. They would then be a full member of the church. Some churches receive all converts by baptism though, as do many monasteries. Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885 |
"The Sacrament of chrismation is an extension of the Day of Pentecost, on which the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Apostles. It is by Chrismation that a person becomes a layperson � a member of the laos, the people of God. Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia explains:
Through Chrismation every member of the Church becomes a prophet, and receives a share in the royal priesthood of Christ; all Christians alike, because they are chrismated, are called to act as conscious witnesses to the Truth. 'You have an anointing (chrisma) from the Holy One, and know all things' (I John 2:20) (Ware, 279).
Although normally administered in conjunction with Baptism, in some cases chrismation alone may be used to receive converts to Orthodoxy through the exercise of economia. Although practice in this regard varies, in general (especially in North America) if a convert comes to Orthodoxy from another Christian confession and has previously undergone a rite of baptism by immersion in the Trinitarian Formula ("in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"), he or she may be received into the Orthodox Church through the sacrament of chrismation, after which receiving the Holy Eucharist. If, however, a convert comes from a Christian confession that baptizes in the Name of "Jesus only" (such as some Pentecostal churches) or from one that does not practice baptism at all (such as Quakers and the Salvation Army), baptism is a prerequisite for chrismation. The use of economia is at the discretion of, and subject to the guidelines imposed by, the local bishop."
ICXC
NIKA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
Originally posted by JonnNightwatcher: Originally posted by Diak:
[b] Yes, brat' Alex. In the "funeral address" of Emperor Constantine XI Paleologus, he specifically addresses those Latins who were fighting with his men - with every bit as salutory language as his own Greeks.
It is well known that confessions, Communion, and other sacraments were shared by the Greeks and Latins within the walls during the last days of that final siege of Constantinople.
I think 1054 was a blip, a mutual temper tantrum. The sack of 1204 was a real tragedy, and perhaps the source of the greatest rift. But even after that there were "moments" such as the last days of Constantinople, when one could say "see how wonderful it is when brothers...".
Removing the "anathemas" - we have discussed that on many a day here. A first step, no doubt, and a courageous act by both Paul VI and Athenagoras of blessed memory. But it is not the restoration of full Eucharistic communion. Certainly we do know the express Will of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ regarding our eventual restoration of communion. May we actually heed that Will and fulfill it in His Name.
FDD
I hope history doesn't repeat itself when we discover that we are brothers and sisters in the Faith at the moment that the forces of the Wild Beast of the Apocalypse are breaking down the walls to make martyrs of us all.
Much Love,
Jonn [/b]Jonn, I have read blurbs of Soloviev's book on the Anti-Christ. In the end it is only the final persecution of the Beast and the False Prophet that brings about the reunification of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Pope, the Patriarch, and the Lutheran Clergyman all come into communion at the end.
|
|
|
|
|
