Another Reason We Should Convert The Orthodox

[Patrick]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1891236' date='Jun 15 2009, 06:35 AM']A soul tainted with mortal sin is sent to hell. Although the Orthodox have proper bishops, priests and the Eucharist they do not have valid confession. Why? Because confession not only relies on the sacerdotal character of the priest but also on jurisdiction, or authority, which can only be passed down from Peter, to diocesan bishops and then to priests. Without this jurisdiction the priest, no matter how valid his ordination, does not have the power to remit sins.

Thus an Orthodox Christian stands a much better chance of going to heaven if he can receive a valid absolution rather than dying with mortal sin on his soul.[/quote]

From a pragmatist point of view, it works. Orthodox confession has been, for me, extremely healing. I have been able to combat and leave behind sins and inclinations that I wondered if it would possible I'd ever be without. I am cleansed afterward -- my God-given conscience is incredibly free and lifted up after absolution. Orthodox confession has been true spiritual healing upon my life. Whatever its source of validity and power, I thank and praise God for having saved me from what I was, and that He continues to do so.

The Church is a hospital for the sick more so than a society for the pure. I have been healed and I can praise God for it. Whether that's in the Church or without -- consider the apostles when asking Jesus about the people casting out demons in Jesus' name. He said, let them be, if they're not against us, they're for us. (I probably murdered this in paraphrasing it).

Confession is a means to a spiritual end. And that end is being fulfilled.

(I'm making no statements about Roman Catholic confession per se, because I've never partaken of it)

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1893258' date='Jun 16 2009, 03:10 PM']From a pragmatist point of view, it works. Orthodox confession has been, for me, extremely healing. I have been able to combat and leave behind sins and inclinations that I wondered if it would possible I'd ever be without. I am cleansed afterward -- my God-given conscience is incredibly free and lifted up after absolution. Orthodox confession has been true spiritual healing upon my life. Whatever its source of validity and power, I thank and praise God for having saved me from what I was, and that He continues to do so.

The Church is a hospital for the sick more so than a society for the pure. I have been healed and I can praise God for it. Whether that's in the Church or without -- consider the apostles when asking Jesus about the people casting out demons in Jesus' name. He said, let them be, if they're not against us, they're for us. (I probably murdered this in paraphrasing it).

Confession is a means to a spiritual end. And that end is being fulfilled.

[b](I'm making no statements about Roman Catholic confession per se, because I've never partaken of it)[/b][/quote]

While we would say that the validity of Confession does not depend on the feelings it may or may not produce, we would agree with what you've said. Confession is a wonderful gift of God for remission of sin and liberation from its effects.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1893266' date='Jun 16 2009, 01:22 PM']While we would say that the validity of Confession does not depend on the feelings it may or may not produce.[/quote]

Agreed. We wouldn't say that either. It was an incomplete argument at best -- a sharing of my experience.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1893182' date='Jun 16 2009, 01:48 PM']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]

'From what We have thus far written, and explained, Venerable Brethren, it is clear, We think, how grievously they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and invisible, as they also do who look upon her as a mere human institution possession a certain disciplinary code and external ritual, but lacking power to communicate supernatural life. On the contrary, as Christ, Head and Exemplar of the Church "is not complete, if only His visible human nature is considered..., or if only His divine, invisible nature..., but He is one through the union of both and one in both ... so is it with His Mystical Body" since the Word of God took unto Himself a human nature liable to sufferings, so that He might consecrate in His blood the visible Society founded by Him and "lead man back to things invisible under a visible rule."' (Pope Pius XII, [i]Mystici Corporis Christi[/i], 64)

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1893274' date='Jun 16 2009, 03:32 PM']Agreed. We wouldn't say that either. It was an incomplete argument at best -- a sharing of my experience.[/quote]
I suspected as much, didn't mean to accuse you of being overly sentimental about a sacrament. I just was more trying to finish your thought.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1893487' date='Jun 16 2009, 03:38 PM']I suspected as much, didn't mean to accuse you of being overly sentimental about a sacrament. I just was more trying to finish your thought.[/quote]

I figured as much.

Thanks for keeping me in line! :-)

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1893221' date='Jun 16 2009, 12:24 PM']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.[/quote]
Those are great readings suggestions for information on Eastern Christianity. I would add some good Catholic (Eastern) authors to that list:

Francis Dvornik, Fr. George Maloney, and Khaled Anatolios

I would also recommend the following Orthodox authors:

Vladimir Lossky, Fr. Georges Florovsky, Fr. John Behr, and Ambrosios Giakalis (to name just a few).

Those interested in getting a taste of the writings of Fr. Meyendorff can read excerpts from his book entitled "Byzantine Theology", which is posted online at the link below:

[url="http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/byzantine_theology_j_meyendorf.htm"][b][u]Byzantine Theology[/u][/b][/url]

[OraProMe]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1893182' date='Jun 16 2009, 12:48 PM']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]

Can you explain what you mean by "invisible Church"? Because it's a dogma of the faith that the Church of Christ is i) Visible ii) IS the Catholic Church, not just part of it.

Maybe you mean things like the Eucharist, sacraments, creed etc. that we share with other religions. These don't validate those denominations because by right they belong to the Catholic Church.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1893810' date='Jun 16 2009, 10:12 PM']Can you explain what you mean by "invisible Church"? Because it's a dogma of the faith that the Church of Christ is i) Visible ii) IS the Catholic Church, not just part of it.

Maybe you mean things like the Eucharist, sacraments, creed etc. that we share with other religions. These don't validate those denominations because by right they belong to the Catholic Church.[/quote]
No, that's not what I mean at all.
Ok, we'd agree that no salvation is possible outside of the Catholic Church.
However, we'd also agree that those who are invincibly ignorant may go to Heaven, right?
So, I guess my terminology of "invisible" refers to those who go to Heaven but were not formally part of the Catholic Church...or something to that effect. Is this making any sense?

[OraProMe]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1893929' date='Jun 16 2009, 10:47 PM']No, that's not what I mean at all.
Ok, we'd agree that no salvation is possible outside of the Catholic Church.
However, we'd also agree that those who are invincibly ignorant may go to Heaven, right?
So, I guess my terminology of "invisible" refers to those who go to Heaven but were not formally part of the Catholic Church...or something to that effect. Is this making any sense?[/quote]

Oh, I see. Well Pope Pius XII taught that they belong to the soul of the Church but not the body. Still, the same Church. They're Catholics by desire.

I guess you know about baptism of desire, right? Which can be both implicit and explicit.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1893994' date='Jun 16 2009, 11:34 PM']Oh, I see. Well Pope Pius XII taught that they belong to the soul of the Church but not the body. Still, the same Church. They're Catholics by desire.[/quote]
Yes, I guess I'm just using invisible in place of soul and visible in place of body.
Perhaps I should update my terminology.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1894014' date='Jun 17 2009, 12:51 AM']Yes, I guess I'm just using invisible in place of soul and visible in place of body.
Perhaps I should update my terminology.[/quote]

ha, yes.
Also I don't know if you thought the "invisible" Church was an extension of the visible Church, thus encompassing non-Catholics. I don't think you did, but the soul is within the visible confines of the Church etcetera etcetera........

You seem like a smart guy, I'm sure you know all this stuff.

[Socrates]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1892521' date='Jun 16 2009, 02:42 AM']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][/quote]
The [i]validity[/i] of the sacrament of penance is not affected by faculties and mandates. Such things are a matter of obedience, and should be followed, but they do not take away the power of a priest with Apostolic Succession (as the Orthodox have) to minister the sacrament.
(Whether a sacrament is valid, and whether it is licit are two separate issues.)

Every orthodox (small "o") Catholic source I could find on the topic says that the Eastern Orthodox do in fact have valid sacraments, including Confession/Penance.
Canon Law acknowledges this in Canon 844, when it states that Catholics may receive the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers in an emergency situation:[quote]§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of [b]penance[/b], the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from [b]non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.[/b][/quote]
This refers to Orthodox and other schismatic Churches who have valid apostolic succession, and valid sacraments.

The idea that the Eastern Orthodox do not have a valid sacrament of penance is your own opinion, not that of the Catholic Church.
Only the Church can speak authoritatively as to what sacraments are and aren't valid, not Jake from Phatmass.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1894089' date='Jun 17 2009, 01:53 AM']You seem like a smart guy, I'm sure you know all this stuff.[/quote]
I think it speaks to my acting skills more than my intellect.

I'm not sure really what I thought...I remember hearing about this on another forum run by a member here in my early discernment. He is a solid, orthodox Catholic and I'm sure that whatever was said was just a misunderstanding on my part and it just became ingrained since I'd never heard my interpretation is incorrect.

Anyway, that's all off topic...maybe I'll start another thread sometime to clarify this issue for me.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1894951' date='Jun 18 2009, 12:44 AM']I'm not sure really what I thought...I remember hearing about this on another forum run by a member here in my early discernment.[/quote]

I didn't know that you were planning on entering the seminary.