Another Reason We Should Convert The Orthodox

[Apotheoun]

The blame game is rarely productive.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1892288' date='Jun 15 2009, 10:10 PM']The blame game is rarely productive.[/quote]

Indeed. Sorry. I'll drop it.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1892065' date='Jun 15 2009, 09:19 PM']This quote would, of course, include the invisible Church, no?[/quote]

What is the invisible Church?

The one true Church is both visible and hierarchial. I actually think the notion of an extended, invisible Church that encompasses the Catholic Church is a condemned error. I'm just too tired to find the document at the moment.

Maybe you mean elements of truth and sanctification that can be found outside Her visible confines? But still, "belong by right" to the Catholic Church and compel our seperated brethren towards Catholic unity.

(Vatican II, once again, can't be bothered to find the reference)

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1892096' date='Jun 15 2009, 09:35 PM']The Orthodox churches have apostolic succession, and their holy orders and sacraments, including penance, are valid, as the Church teaches. They are in schism, but the schism does not invalidate the sacraments. We should try to bring the Orthodox back from their schism, but for reasons unrelated to the validity of their sacraments.[/quote]

No one is denying the validity of Orthodox sacraments.
But confession is not just sacramental, it is an act that requires faculties and a mandate. These faculties are usually supplied from the Pope to diocesan bishops and then down to priests incardinated in his diocese.

Because Orthodox priests don't have these faculties, from a catholic perspective, an orthodox confession isn't valid.

ps. I did a quick look on google and haven't found the relevant piece of canon law. However here is an example to support what I'm saying.

[url="http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2008/11/jurisdiction-for-confessions.html"]http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2008/11/j...onfessions.html[/url]

Edited June 16, 2009 by OraProMe

[Resurrexi]

"Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely 'pneumatological' as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond." (Pope Pius XII, encyclical letter [i]Mystici Corporis Christi[/i], 14)

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1892528' date='Jun 16 2009, 01:45 AM']"Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely 'pneumatological' as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond." (Pope Pius XII, encyclical letter [i]Mystici Corporis Christi[/i], 14)[/quote]

That's the one
Thanks man.

[Resurrexi]

From the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches:

Canon 722

1. Only a priest is the minister of the sacrament of penance.

2. All bishops by the law itself can administer the sacrament

of penance everywhere, unless with regard to liceity, the eparchial bishop denies it in a special case. 3. For presbyters to

act validly, they must be previously granted the faculty of administering the sacrament of penance, which is conferred either

by the law itself or by a special grant made by a competent authority. 4. Priests who are endowed with this faulty by virtue

of their office or by virtue of the grant of the local hierarch

of the eparchy in which they are enrolled or in which they have

domicile, can validly administer the sacrament of penance anywhere to any Christian faithful, unless the local hierarch in a

special case expressly denies it; the same faculties are licitly

used observing the norms made by the eparchial bishop and also

with at least the presumed permission of the rector of the church

or the superior, if it is a case of a house of an institute of

consecrated life.

[picchick]

TWO LUNGS PEOPLE!!!!

[Didymus]

I see discussion about the Orthodox Church, and then the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches.

Is there a single main topic somewhere in this thread?

The Eastern Rites are no where near in schism, whereas the Orthodox Church (Russian, Greek) are in fact in schism.

Maybe I just need to dig deeper in this thread, it just didn't seem like many were catchin this.

[picchick]

I believe that people here are thinking Eastern Rite=Eastern Orthodox.

[Gregorius]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1892178' date='Jun 15 2009, 11:17 PM']See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism#Prospects_for_reconciliation"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Sch..._reconciliation[/url] for a beginning description of how Orthodox see it. For us to accept Roman innovations would be corrupting ourselves.[/quote]
I had no idea of the Orthodox positions on this issue. I know this is a mainly Roman Catholic forum, but can somebody lead me to more resources on their point of view?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1891638' date='Jun 15 2009, 04:46 PM']I was mainly trying to emphasize the last part of the quote "outside of her there is neither salvation [b]nor the remission of sins[/b]."[/quote]
I don't think this was referring to the Sacrament of Penance any more than it was referring to the Sacrament of Baptism, which also remits sins and is also validly performed not only by Eastern Orthodox, but by the majority of Protestants. To my understanding, EENS applies to the degree and in the specific ways that a Church or ecclesial community is apart from the Catholic Church. I'm not primarily an ecclesiologist, but my understanding (and I admit it may be lacking) is that (where the necessary preconditions are present), a Church or ecclesial communion is imperfectly (read: incompletely) bound to the Catholic Church when it does the work of the Church in the way the Church does it. An Anglican community is acting with the Catholic Church when it baptizes (assuming the necessary preconditions, valid form, valid matter, etc., which is why the Anglicans have an invalid Eucharist, first of all because they have no valid priesthood, a necessary condition for confecting the Eucharist).

The Eastern Orthodox, our closely separated but beloved brethren, work alongside us in almost every aspect of the life of the Church, and share with us apostolic succession. To that end, in every way that they are joined with the Catholic Church (though imperfectly), extra ecclesiam nulla salus cannot be attributed to them in that way. Their sacraments are all valid because they have the necessary preconditions and work together with the Church concerning the sacraments. When they celebrate the sacraments, they are performing an ecclesial act in union with the Catholic Church.

Now, regarding the councils and the petty debate (honestly, grow up!) about whose councils are true councils and whose are synods, I wrote a very orthodox and trusted professor of mine (I'm not sure he'd want me putting his opinions out too publicly or obviously, but Apo, understand that it is S. H.). He says that the whole work of compiling lists of official councils and synods is relatively new in theology (aside from the first seven which we all recognize) and that, to his knowledge, there isn't a full consensus. He recommended reading the work of Francis Dvornik on the matter.

Unity in Charity. Charity in Unity.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1892528' date='Jun 16 2009, 01:45 AM']"Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely 'pneumatological' as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond." (Pope Pius XII, encyclical letter [i]Mystici Corporis Christi[/i], 14)[/quote]
Wow.
Unless I've been in serious error in my thinking for a long time, is this to say that there is not a Visibile AND Invisible part to our Church?
I understand the protestant view of the invisible church, and that it is clearly heretical, but do we not believe in some kind of invisible Church as a part of our Church?

[Patrick]

[quote name='Gregorius' post='1893075' date='Jun 16 2009, 10:05 AM']I had no idea of the Orthodox positions on this issue. I know this is a mainly Roman Catholic forum, but can somebody lead me to more resources on their point of view?[/quote]

There's a couple ways of going about gaining a more unbiased view on these topics. Either you can try and find fairly unbiased sources, like the wikipedia page I pointed to, or you can read up on both sides of the disagreement (that's some of why I've been hanging around this forum -- to gain knowledge of the Catholic perspective on things).

It would be most appropriate for me in this forum to point out the former, but unfortunately, that wikipedia page is the only source I know of that I could say is really quite unbiased on the issue. Writings by Fr. Schmemann (Orthodox) tend to be very [i]fair[/i], but I can't speak to whether or not they're particularly unbiased since it's been too long since I've read them. An example, that contains some of the drifting apart of East and West, and contains information on the growth of Orthodoxy since the time of the split is his "The Historical Road to Eastern Orthodoxy".

As to the latter -- resources written by Orthodox probably with Orthodox bias and sometimes with a proselytizing bent -- resources abound, but it can be a bit difficult if you don't know where to look. You will never find our books in non-Orthodox bookstores, except for occasionally amazon.com. For books, you can browse the sites of Orthodox publishers in English, for example [url="http://www.light-n-life.com/"]http://www.light-n-life.com/[/url], [url="http://www.svspress.com/"]http://www.svspress.com/[/url], [url="http://www.conciliarpress.com/"]http://www.conciliarpress.com/[/url].

And the couple of resources I know of that particularly deal with this issue: "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church" by Clark Carlton, "The Primacy of Peter" by John Meyendorff, and others I can't remember offhand. A couple of online sources: anything on [url="http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_western.aspx"]http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_western.aspx[/url], and the schism page from orthodoxwiki (written by Orthodox for Orthodox) [url="http://orthodoxwiki.org/Great_Schism"]http://orthodoxwiki.org/Great_Schism[/url].

I hope that's helpful.

[Patrick]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1893182' date='Jun 16 2009, 11:48 AM']Wow.
Unless I've been in serious error in my thinking for a long time, is this to say that there is not a Visibile AND Invisible part to our Church?
I understand the protestant view of the invisible church, and that it is clearly heretical, but do we not believe in some kind of invisible Church as a part of our Church?[/quote]

I thought Visible Church = Church Militant and Invisible Church = Church Triumphant.