|
1 members (San Nicolas),
375
guests, and
101
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,514
Posts417,578
Members6,167
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
The Pontificator has started a good dicussion. A couple of months ago, one of our readers recommended to me Louis Bouyer�s book The Church of God (1982; published in French in 1970), with special reference to his section on the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Bouyer�s argument is intriguing, so I asked a few folks to write responses to Bouyer, three of whom accepted. Below is a lengthy citation from Bouyer. Over the next two days I will publish the three responses. I know this will generate vigorous debate. I ask all to please maintain civility and courtesy. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 147
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 147 |
Originally posted by djs: The Pontificator has started a good dicussion.
A couple of months ago, one of our readers recommended to me Louis Bouyer�s book The Church of God (1982; published in French in 1970), with special reference to his section on the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Bouyer�s argument is intriguing, so I asked a few folks to write responses to Bouyer, three of whom accepted. Below is a lengthy citation from Bouyer. Over the next two days I will publish the three responses. I know this will generate vigorous debate. I ask all to please maintain civility and courtesy. Thank you. If you are Catholic, then you can not beleive the Church to be divisible, thus the Orthodox Church is indeed not in communion with Rome. Likewise, I am sure a lot of Orthodox would say the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Is comment 31 accurate? I've been led to believe otherwise based on comments I have read here.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943 |
Why does anybody have to bring that up for crying out loud?
The schism has been lifted mutually by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch A_______ (forgive me if I don't know how to spell the esteemed Patriarch's name).
In fact, I don't think the original schism of 1054 isn't even valid! It was done by a rebellious Cardinal Humbert (is that right name?) behind the Pope's back at his dying moments. Unfortunately the damage was done then.
But still, we shouldn't have to bring the painful past up again and re-live it over and over. Let's forget it and move on...let's focus on unity for Christ's sake.
SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 147
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 147 |
Originally posted by spdundas:
Why does anybody have to bring that up for crying out loud?
The schism has been lifted mutually by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch A_______ (forgive me if I don't know how to spell the esteemed Patriarch's name).
In fact, I don't think the original schism of 1054 isn't even valid! It was done by a rebellious Cardinal Humbert (is that right name?) behind the Pope's back at his dying moments. Unfortunately the damage was done then.
But still, we shouldn't have to bring the painful past up again and re-live it over and over. Let's forget it and move on...let's focus on unity for Christ's sake.
SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine Please show me the exact wording of this agreement, I hear it all the time but I have yet to see an offical document and what it exactly says.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1 |
Originally posted by Rilian:
Is comment 31 accurate? I've been led to believe otherwise based on comments I have read here.
Andrew From the USCCB's "Guidelines for the Reception of Communion": Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 � 3). As I interpret it, that means that yes Orthodox can commune, if their Church allows it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
MarkosC, I think the person in question is saying Catholics are forbidden from receiving in Orthodox Churches (even if an Orthodox Church allowed it), not the other way around.
I've seen comments on this board that have led me to believe that is not the case.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 147
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 147 |
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? Also I even saw in a somewhat recent occasion when the Patriarch was visiting the Pope, he commented on how he could not recieve communion, but hoped one day we would be reunited.
Just because they can in ours doesn't mean much. In most dioceses the Bishops tell the priests not to refuse it to anyone who approaches them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1 |
Andrew - You read more carefully than I do.  I've never heard anything about not receiving at an Orthodox Church that would allow communion for Catholics.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Friends,
The lifting of the excommunications of 1054 was simply that - it did NOT bring about a reunification of the East and West.
It spread some good will, but that is all.
Besides, there are those who will say that what happened in 1054 was more of a personal issue between the Patriarch and Rome that did NOT involve the separation of the Churches at that time.
It did not prevent Latins and Greeks from worshipping together in Jerusalem etc.
This really occurred after the Sack of Constantinople when the Greeks realized that the Latins really DID consider them to be outside the Church and having invalid sacraments (otherwise, why would have the Crusaders trampled on the Holy Gifts of the Orthodox Churches in Constantinople?).
Certainly both Churches believe themselves to be in possession of the fullness of Truth.
And I think they are both right.
But what they are not in possession of is the fullness of Unity.
That is a "lack" that doesn't affect personal salvation.
It isn't the Will of Christ for His CHurch though.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
|
|
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,516
Forum Keilbasa Sleuth Member
|
|
Forum Keilbasa Sleuth Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,516 |
A statesman, professor and fountain of knowledge, a great way to put it Alex!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,045
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,045 |
Originally posted by Diak:
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 it has always grasped my attention, the sharing of the Sacraments between East and West in the doomed city. I cannot read of the account of it without a feeling of pathos (redundant). ah, too little, too late! 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
|
|
|
|
|
