A Theological Discussion Between the Catholics and the Orthodox
#51
(08-18-2017, 10:19 PM)Dominicus Wrote: One reason why I could never become an Orthodox is that they don't really have the concept of Eucharistic adoration as we do. Obviously they have great love for the Eucharist and the early church similarly lacked this concept but I find that if the Eucharist truly is Christ then adoration is its natural end. The exposition and adoration of the Eucharist was clearly prefigured by the showbread in the temple which represented Gods presence and was kept in the sanctuary constantly. What is the orthodox reasoning for not having this? Surely its at least crossed their minds?

Quite simply, the Orthodox position is that Christ said "Take and eat," not "Display and worship" or something else; Christ said we had to eat his Body and drink his Blood to have life, not worship it outside the Liturgy. One could delve further into their thought on this point, but it really does come down to what Christ said about the Eucharist in the Gospel. They certainly teach the Real Presence and have much stricter traditional practices than we do with respect to fasting before receiving Holy Communion, so it's not for lack of respect. One could, I suppose, ask why, if the prefiguration is so clear, it took the Western Church itself 1200+ years to develop adoration in the modern sense.
O unashamed intercessor of Christians, ever loyal advocate before the Creator, do not disregard the prayerful voice of sinners but in your goodness hasten to assist us who trustfully cry out to you: Intercede always, O Mother of God, in behalf of those who honor you!
Reply
#52
I'm just going to leave this here. This may be my last post for some time. 

If you will it, you can become all flame.
Reply
#53
(08-19-2017, 01:11 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(08-18-2017, 10:19 PM)Dominicus Wrote: One reason why I could never become an Orthodox is that they don't really have the concept of Eucharistic adoration as we do. Obviously they have great love for the Eucharist and the early church similarly lacked this concept but I find that if the Eucharist truly is Christ then adoration is its natural end. The exposition and adoration of the Eucharist was clearly prefigured by the showbread in the temple which represented Gods presence and was kept in the sanctuary constantly. What is the orthodox reasoning for not having this? Surely its at least crossed their minds?

Quite simply, the Orthodox position is that Christ said "Take and eat," not "Display and worship" or something else; Christ said we had to eat his Body and drink his Blood to have life, not worship it outside the Liturgy. One could delve further into their thought on this point, but it really does come down to what Christ said about the Eucharist in the Gospel. They certainly teach the Real Presence and have much stricter traditional practices than we do with respect to fasting before receiving Holy Communion, so it's not for lack of respect. One could, I suppose, ask why, if the prefiguration is so clear, it took the Western Church itself 1200+ years to develop adoration in the modern sense.

If adoration isn't your thing, don't go.  The Orthodox don't do it, and I guess it works for them.  I'm Catholic, I go to adoration, and it's been a great help to me.  As much as I can't stand Pope Francis, I'll take him if he and Eucharistic adoration are a package deal.
Reply
#54
(08-19-2017, 12:56 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(08-18-2017, 08:23 PM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote: The rebaptism issue is something we will have to revisit.  I find it very interesting that there is disagreement about this.

Now, would this baptism be the equivalent to a Roman Catholic conditional baptism?  I mean, is this like "If you have not been baptised, then I baptise thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," or is this a full on new baptism?  I think the difference is key.  And don't the Orthodox ascribe to the teaching that only one baptism is valid, and that even heretics and non-believers could validly baptise?  Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that matter settles well before the Schism (like, 700 years or so?)

And now, another thing that has interested me.  

Is there any difference between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Mariology? 

I know the Orthodox deny the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but I am pretty sure that that is not a universal to all of them, and to me, at least on the face of it, the very liturgies they (the Orthodox) use seem to contradict that.  I know there are differences in theological terminology, but at the roots of it and in the simplest understanding, is it essentially the same view but with different devotional styles?  

E.g. 

It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cheribum, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without defilement thou gavest birth to God the Word: True Theotokos, we magnify thee. 

The re-baptism question was settled in Rome, but the East didn't universally accept it. They generally reject the Augustinian valid/licit distinction, following instead the teaching of St. Cyprian that sacraments cannot be celebrated apart from the true Church; it makes no sense in their thinking that grace can exist outside the true faith. It's all or nothing, inside the Church or out. So the default Greek position is historically to rebaptize unconditionally. However, the default Slavic position has been to accept the baptism (ROCOR is an outlier on this), but not the confirmation/christmation, of certain Christians, particularly Roman Catholics.

As to Mariology, the services of the Byzantine rite certainly affirm the personal sinlessness of the Virgin, but the Orthodox do reject the Immaculate Conception. Now this is primarily because they reject the Western understanding of original sin and its consequences. In Eastern thought, the punishment for sin is death. There is no "stain" distinct from mortality itself. The Theotokos, born of parents who were children of Adam, inherited mortality. Christ, in becoming incarnate, transforms human nature by joining it to his life-giving Divinity. This occurred at the Annunciation, and at this moment, the Incarnate God in her womb purified Mary's human nature. So while she did fall asleep, death could not contain her, just as it failed to contain her Son, and she was taken body and soul into heaven. The only Orthodox I know who explicitly accepted the Immaculate Conception were certain Ukrainians, and this was in a period when many of their theologians studied in the West. Some say Gregory Palamas believed in the doctrine, but I'm not sure.

While I've never had anything against Adoration from my understanding the Orthodox ( and even some eccentric Westerners ) see the Eucharist as something that ought to remain within the context of the Liturgy. It also, when taken as an end in itself, can tend to take away from the Divine Office, which even in the West was the norm for priests and religious until the Jesuits and the Counter Reformation era placed private extra liturgical piety above the Office.

When you read St. Bede or any other of the ancient western church writings there is almost nothing of Eucharistic Adoration. It was a development that came way later.

  Some of us more eccentrics cringe when we go to a church and see stuff like daily Adoration or daily rosary but no recitation of any of the Office. It's not to say private devotions are bad, but they ought to come second to the Divine Office. 

One thing I like about the East and the ancient West was how ( and is now in many Orthodox places) only the Liturgy on Sundays and feasts, the rest of the week were the Divine Services from the Horologion and/or the Office. I think having the Liturgy more sparingly makes it more special. 

I guess different strokes for different folks as the saying goes.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
Reply
#55
(08-19-2017, 04:04 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote:
(08-19-2017, 01:11 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(08-18-2017, 10:19 PM)Dominicus Wrote: One reason why I could never become an Orthodox is that they don't really have the concept of Eucharistic adoration as we do. Obviously they have great love for the Eucharist and the early church similarly lacked this concept but I find that if the Eucharist truly is Christ then adoration is its natural end. The exposition and adoration of the Eucharist was clearly prefigured by the showbread in the temple which represented Gods presence and was kept in the sanctuary constantly. What is the orthodox reasoning for not having this? Surely its at least crossed their minds?

Quite simply, the Orthodox position is that Christ said "Take and eat," not "Display and worship" or something else; Christ said we had to eat his Body and drink his Blood to have life, not worship it outside the Liturgy. One could delve further into their thought on this point, but it really does come down to what Christ said about the Eucharist in the Gospel. They certainly teach the Real Presence and have much stricter traditional practices than we do with respect to fasting before receiving Holy Communion, so it's not for lack of respect. One could, I suppose, ask why, if the prefiguration is so clear, it took the Western Church itself 1200+ years to develop adoration in the modern sense.

If adoration isn't your thing, don't go.  The Orthodox don't do it, and I guess it works for them.  I'm Catholic, I go to adoration, and it's been a great help to me.  As much as I can't stand Pope Francis, I'll take him if he and Eucharistic adoration are a package deal.

To be clear, I'm discussing the Orthodox position. My own position is let the East be the East and the West be the West.
O unashamed intercessor of Christians, ever loyal advocate before the Creator, do not disregard the prayerful voice of sinners but in your goodness hasten to assist us who trustfully cry out to you: Intercede always, O Mother of God, in behalf of those who honor you!
Reply
#56
Pacman, I don't know what the orthodox position about blasphemy is, but G-- D--- was always viewed as blasphemy where I come from.  If you have a video you want to post, make sure that it has no blasphemy.

What is the logic behind denying the Immaculate Conception?

Eucharistic adoration doesn't bother me as much, I can understand different devotional practices arising in different places, though I think some are better than others (most people usually have their biases about that).
Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos, o Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee! Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, for thou hast borne the Saviour and the Redeemer of our souls!

                                                      [Image: hailmary.jpg]
Reply
#57
(08-19-2017, 01:48 AM)Pacman Wrote: I'm just going to leave this here. This may be my last post for some time. 
Angry

Yeah I hope it is your last post you jerk, if you think comparing the Catholic Church to the Nazis is funny.  Well here's my reason I will never go Orthodox, because I don't want to wind up being an arrogant, sniveling, jackass like the one you've become. Once again you proving that you left the Church out of spite...it wasn't enough to just leave and quietly join the schismatics, you had to go on here and make a big deal about it...and then cry in your beer because not enough people were accepting of you. If you want to be a schismatic...then just be one, and shut your mouth!  

But no, you have to push the envelope and brag about how you are going to be banned for being too "Orthodox" as if this was a spectator sport...if you wanted to leave FE for good, then leave...don't say goodbye, don't do a tap dance, just friggen leave...now you go and blaspheme against the Church, the very one you not too long ago would have offered your life for, the one not too long ago believed it to be the Church of God whom outside none are saved...and now you posting videos comparing that very same Church you cowardly abandoned and traitorously attacked, to the NAZI'S!!!


How dare you you little puke!
Reply
#58
Austenboston, there's no need for name calling. We should be calm.

As for the video, I absolutely agree. This is a truly disgusting attack on the Church. Pacman, you were welcome here but if your going to go around hurling insults and blasphemy in clear violation the forum rules, human decency, and the law of God then good riddance. If you ever were to come to your senses and apologise we would gladly accept you but until then we have no need for your schismatic propaganda.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
Reply
#59
(08-19-2017, 09:07 PM)Dominicus Wrote: Austenboston, there's no need for name calling. We should be calm.

As for the video, I absolutely agree. This is a truly disgusting attack on the Church. Pacman, you were welcome here but if your going to go around hurling insults and blasphemy in clear violation the forum rules, human decency, and the law of God then good riddance. If you ever were to come to your senses and apologise we would gladly accept you but until then we have no need for your schismatic propaganda.

Yeah I lost my cool, but I don't care. It's one thing if this was some punk troll Atheist or heretic, but this is Pacman who knows better...I'm mad at him because he precisely knows better than to act like this...I expect this from an ignoramus.

I don't expect this, nor tolerate from someone who was once a brother.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
Reply
#60
I understand people's anger with the video (supposed equivocation of the Church with the Germans), but I think that it was simply a miscalculated attempt at humour. The 'Hitler Rants' have been used for a variety of subjects, and are really far less about a Nazi/German association and more a video-meme of someone/something expressing their anger. I have seen a plethora of these videos, and some are really clever or stupidly funny. That said, this video should have been posted with some sort of warning/explanation, not to mention the odd nature of this farewell message. Is a change to Orthodoxy a light-hearted matter? I think not.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)