Can A Catholic Worship At Orthodox Liturgies?
#31
We Eastern Catholics don't say the filoque either
Reply
#32
I shall answer both in 1 reply:


With the Great Schism of Occident and Orient, there was a mutual excomunion betwen ortodox and catholics. Not much time ago, that excomunion was removed, and the ortodox and catholics made an agreement, that when there is no posibility to go to their own Church, then, they can go to an ortodox/catholic church to get Comunion.

Ortodox still have heresy in their doctrines, that's why they are ortodox. The only difference it's that they have Apostolic Sucession, so their sacraments given ARE VALID.


Where are the ortodox in Bible?

Mar 9:38  Iohn aunswered him, saying: Maister, we sawe one caste out deuylles in thy name, & he foloweth not vs: and we forbad him, because he foloweth vs not.
Mar 9:39  But Iesus sayde, forbyd hym not: For there is no man, whiche, yf he do a miracle in my name, can lyghtly speake euyll of me.
Mar 9:40  For he that is not against vs, is on our part.
Mar 9:41  Whosoeuer shall in my name geue you a cup of colde water to drynke, because ye belong to Christe: veryly I say vnto you, he shall not lose his rewarde.


Just know that this episode was after what is written in John 6, 66. There were already people who left Christ disciples and were acting in the name of Christ. Those are the ortodox.




About that lie that oriental catholics are nestorians. That's not true at all.


To be an oriental catholic, you have to be in comunion with all Pope's doctrine. 
Ortodox, aren't Catholics. URSS didn't allow Catholic Church in all their territory, this is something not many people know. In fact, the Armenian Patriarch had to move to Lebanon.

The only difference betwen catholics from occident and orient, is the liturgie used, and the presence of a Patriarch.
The Patriarchs are the only ones autorized to name Bishops. Let's see it in Bible:
Hch 13:1  There was also in the Churche that was at Antioche, certayne prophetes, and teachers: as Barnabas and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, which had ben norisshed vp with Herode the tetrarch, and Saul.
Hch 13:2  As they ministred to the Lorde and fasted, the holy ghost sayde: Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the worke wherunto I haue called them.
Hch 13:3  And when they had fasted & prayed, & layde their hades on the, they let the go.



The Pope is Pope and Patriarch of the latin ritual (and Patriarch of the oriental catholic rituals who doesn't have a Patriarch).



Now, that you know that ortodox and catholics are the only ones who have an apostolic sucesion, but the ortodox have heresies in their doctrines.
You all should know, that you aren't allowed to go to ortodox church if there is no emergency (no Catholic Church near). It's not the same.
There is a long time work of aproach betwen Catholics and Ortodox, but i think there is still a long way to do. Some ortodox have returned to Catholic Church with Benedict XVI, but not many know that (they were small quantity of people in those ortodox churchs).

The Patriarch of Constantinopla, said a few years ago, that it was inminent the return of the ortodox to the Catholic Church (he is the leader of all the Ortodox Churchs).
One curiosity, is that the Patriarch of Constantinopla has a direct sucession to St. Andrew, the brother of St. Peter.


So. NO COMUNION IN ORTODOX CHURCH IF YOU HAVE A CATHOLIC CHURCH AVAILABLE NEAR WHERE YOU LIVE.
ORIENTAL CATHOLICS HAVE COMUNION WITH ALL DOCTRINES OF ROME.
Reply
#33
(10-02-2021, 10:41 AM)NoliTardare Wrote: You got everything right except this. This isn't correct. They aren't heretics. They're "just" schismatic. So communion and confession work there too. Problem is they won't give you communion, because they know folks might go there and get the Holy Communion because they are in mortal sin and they can't get it in a Catholic Church elsewhere or for other reasons.

They deny papal infallibility, which, since Vatican I, is a heresy. But it doesn't really matter, since both heretics and schismatics are outside the Church. That doesn't have anything to do with whether sacraments 'work' or not.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • Tomas
Reply
#34
(10-02-2021, 12:45 PM)Tomas Wrote: I shall answer both in 1 reply:


With the Great Schism of Occident and Orient, there was a mutual excomunion betwen ortodox and catholics. Not much time ago, that excomunion was removed, and the ortodox and catholics made an agreement, that when there is no posibility to go to their own Church, then, they can go to an ortodox/catholic church to get Comunion.

Ortodox still have heresy in their doctrines, that's why they are ortodox. The only difference it's that they have Apostolic Sucession, so their sacraments given ARE VALID.

I appreciate your historical perspective. But I still think the Orthodox aren't heretic. Ok, the patriach of Constantinopole casted an Anathema and the Pope excomunicated him in turn. That's not an heresy. And, frankly, even the schism didn't take place in that exact moment, but I think it can be considered a process that took many years (some say this process ended with the sack of Constantinopole, others that it ended with the Council of Florence) and I see more geopolitical reasons to it, rather than theological ones.
After all, there have been (and there still are) a number Oriental Churches, that teach the very same precepts and use the very same lithurgy of the Orthodox (priest can marry and so on) and yet are considered Catholic for the sole fact they recognize the Petrine Primacy. I don't know what happens abroad, but such communities in Italy are often very demanding toward the hierarchy, would like to have a bishop only for them and don't always stick to what the local bishop nominated in Rome decides about them.

TBH, I recognize there's some some problem when it comes to recognizing Petrine Primacy, because giving to a simple man, just like us, the power to create dogmas and tell us what God wants us to believe and how souls can save themselves is a difficult thing to conceive and probably we have a lot of Catholics that fail to fully grasp the importance of the Papacy.
 
(10-02-2021, 12:45 PM)Tomas Wrote: URSS didn't allow Catholic Church in all their territory, this is something not many people know.

It's not like URSS allowed the Orthodox to act freely. My granmother is Russian and had to be baptized as a Orthodox secretly in a hayloft, because that was the situation back then.
 


(10-02-2021, 01:12 PM)Paul Wrote:
(10-02-2021, 10:41 AM)NoliTardare Wrote: You got everything right except this. This isn't correct. They aren't heretics. They're "just" schismatic. So communion and confession work there too. Problem is they won't give you communion, because they know folks might go there and get the Holy Communion because they are in mortal sin and they can't get it in a Catholic Church elsewhere or for other reasons.

They deny papal infallibility, which, since Vatican I, is a heresy. But it doesn't really matter, since both heretics and schismatics are outside the Church. That doesn't have anything to do with whether sacraments 'work' or not.

That's right, but I just wanted to point out that, as far as I know, the sacraments taken from heretics don't work. Besides, Saint Thomas of Aquinas said: "Peccat qui audit missam haereticorum vel alia sacramenta sumit" - "Sins he who takes Mass or other Sacraments of heretics"
Ores, casta legas, jejunes otia vites si servare velis corpora casta Deo.
Reply
#35
(10-02-2021, 02:18 PM)NoliTardare Wrote: [quote pid='1471864' dateline='1633194730']
They deny papal infallibility, which, since Vatican I, is a heresy. But it doesn't really matter, since both heretics and schismatics are outside the Church. That doesn't have anything to do with whether sacraments 'work' or not.

That's right, but I just wanted to point out that, as far as I know, the sacraments taken from heretics don't work. Besides, Saint Thomas of Aquinas said: "Peccat qui audit missam haereticorum vel alia sacramenta sumit" - "Sins he who takes Mass or other Sacraments of heretics"
[/quote]

And since most of them explicitly deny the Immaculate Conception, since 1854 they are at the very least double heretics.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#36
(10-02-2021, 01:12 PM)Paul Wrote:
(10-02-2021, 10:41 AM)NoliTardare Wrote: You got everything right except this. This isn't correct. They aren't heretics. They're "just" schismatic. So communion and confession work there too. Problem is they won't give you communion, because they know folks might go there and get the Holy Communion because they are in mortal sin and they can't get it in a Catholic Church elsewhere or for other reasons.

They deny papal infallibility, which, since Vatican I, is a heresy. But it doesn't really matter, since both heretics and schismatics are outside the Church. That doesn't have anything to do with whether sacraments 'work' or not.


More or less you are right. 
Papal infability was never rejected as a doctrine. If you talk to an ortodox (a sheep, not a priest), will say you that the Pope is one of the subjects in discussion, as you have said. The thing is that they doesn't know that this wasn't in discussion in any moment (not for yes, not for no).
They recognize the Pope as PRIMUS INTERPARIS, means the first among the Bishops (the expressions of the Pope are taked in count in the ortodox environment), but they doesn't recognize him as the MAIN BISHOP.
In other words, the Papal infability, is not recognized as a consequence of other doctrines, but it's not the cause to be outside Catholic Church.
You need to know the doctrinal differences between the different ortodox churchs, but if the topic of an ortodox Bishop will be valid too.
For example, i've read a text written by a Russian Ortodox Bishop about JW, he didn't expressed about differences in Trinity or Purgatory with Catholic Church, and it was an excelent work.

But besides all this, Catholics still shouldn't go to an Ortodox Church except in case of emergency (as well as ortodox people do). It won't be common to see an ortodox in the Catholic Church going regularly.
In my city (La Plata, Argentina), there are some syrian ortodox. You can see some of them going to a Catholic Church, when the ortodox Bishop isn't in the city, they are exceptional situations.

What some ortodox priests do, is to say to the Catholics "it's the same, it's the same", but then they speak badly about Catholic Church, like an average protestant.


If a Catholic love the truth, then, shouldn't go to other church, where they preach other Gosspel.
Also, some ortodox doesn't agree themself with their own doctrines, for example russian ortodox, have themself divergencies with the Purgatory (3 different postures about what they call "The Test").

They are sheeps, without sheppard.

Jua 21:15  So when they had dyned, Iesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon Ioanna, louest thou me more then these? He sayd vnto hym: Yea Lorde, thou knowest that I loue thee. He sayth vnto hym: feede my lambes.
Jua 21:16  He sayth to hym agayne the seconde tyme: Simon Ioanna, louest thou me? He sayth vnto hym: Yea Lorde, thou knowest that I loue thee. He sayde vnto hym: feede my sheepe.
Jua 21:17  He sayde vnto hym the thirde tyme: Simon Ioanna, louest thou me? Peter was sory, because he sayde vnto hym the thirde tyme, louest thou me: And he sayde vnto hym, Lorde thou knowest all thynges, thou knowest that I loue thee. Iesus sayth vnto hym: feede my sheepe.
Jua 21:18  Ueryly veryly I say vnto thee, when thou wast young, thou gyrdedst thy selfe, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be olde, thou shalt stretch foorth thy handes, and another shall gyrde thee, and leade thee whither thou wouldest not.
Jua 21:19  That spake he, signifiyng by what death he should glorifie God. And whe he had spoken this, he sayth vnto hym, folowe me.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Tomas's post:
  • NoliTardare
Reply
#37
(10-02-2021, 02:28 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-02-2021, 02:18 PM)NoliTardare Wrote: [quote pid='1471864' dateline='1633194730']
They deny papal infallibility, which, since Vatican I, is a heresy. But it doesn't really matter, since both heretics and schismatics are outside the Church. That doesn't have anything to do with whether sacraments 'work' or not.

That's right, but I just wanted to point out that, as far as I know, the sacraments taken from heretics don't work. Besides, Saint Thomas of Aquinas said: "Peccat qui audit missam haereticorum vel alia sacramenta sumit" - "Sins he who takes Mass or other Sacraments of heretics"

And since most of them explicitly deny the Immaculate Conception, since 1854 they are at the very least double heretics.
[/quote]

I don't think it works like that. Heresy means "deciding" to be outside the Church. The first excommunication was reciprocal, so neither the Latins nor the Greeks decided to leave the Church. Both of them were bishops at the time.
e.g. Doctor plenus (a.k.a. Luther) declared himself out of the Church and that he alone had the whole truth, thus commiting the sin of pride, because he wasn't even a bishop. It seems a futile point to make, but it isn't actually.
Ores, casta legas, jejunes otia vites si servare velis corpora casta Deo.
[-] The following 1 user Likes NoliTardare's post:
  • Tomas
Reply
#38
(10-02-2021, 02:51 PM)NoliTardare Wrote:
(10-02-2021, 02:28 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(10-02-2021, 02:18 PM)NoliTardare Wrote: [quote pid='1471864' dateline='1633194730']
They deny papal infallibility, which, since Vatican I, is a heresy. But it doesn't really matter, since both heretics and schismatics are outside the Church. That doesn't have anything to do with whether sacraments 'work' or not.

That's right, but I just wanted to point out that, as far as I know, the sacraments taken from heretics don't work. Besides, Saint Thomas of Aquinas said: "Peccat qui audit missam haereticorum vel alia sacramenta sumit" - "Sins he who takes Mass or other Sacraments of heretics"

And since most of them explicitly deny the Immaculate Conception, since 1854 they are at the very least double heretics.

I don't think it works like that. Heresy means "deciding" to be outside the Church. The first excommunication was reciprocal, so neither the Latins nor the Greeks decided to leave the Church. Both of them were bishops at the time.
e.g. Doctor plenus (a.k.a. Luther) declared himself out of the Church and that he alone had the whole truth, thus commiting the sin of pride, because he wasn't even a bishop. It seems a futile point to make, but it isn't actually.
[/quote]


Yes, because they didn't read this:

Lev 4:32  And yf he bryng a sheepe for a sinne offeryng, he shall bryng a female without blemishe,
Lev 4:33  And lay his hande vpon the head of the sinne offeryng, and slea it for a sinne offering in the place where they kill the burnt offeryng.

If mother has some defect, sheep will have it.
This was for a regular sacrifice, the Easter one, demands much more perfection.
Reply
#39
(10-02-2021, 02:51 PM)NoliTardare Wrote: I don't think it works like that. Heresy means "deciding" to be outside the Church. 

Not really. Canons 750 and 751 are quite clear:
Quote:Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.


§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Nothing about 'deciding' to be outside the Church. All it takes is being baptised and refusing to believe the Dogmas of the Church. So, they are both in schism and in heresy.

Of course, to be honest, most of the Orthodox laity are probably only material heretics and schismatics, not formal ones.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • NoliTardare
Reply
#40
I don't think telling them they are heretics will ever lead to a reconciliation. This compromises every possibility of talking them back into the True Church, the Catholic one. Mine is, obviously, just a general idea, I'm not criticizing you or anybody else specifically.
After all the average Orthodox, isn't repudiating any dogmas, he simply doesn't know a thing about catholic dogmas. It's not his fault he's not Catholic. His bishop might or might be not heretic, but he's certainly having valid sacraments and bound to die in a state of Grace just like every Catholic who confesses regularly.
Ores, casta legas, jejunes otia vites si servare velis corpora casta Deo.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)