December 4, 2009 at 5:45 am #1951
another thing that confuses me; the great schism only happened in the 10th century right?
if so, then prior to that, were the orthodox people also called orthodox even if they submitted to the authority of the pope? and how on earth can orthodox christians claim that they were the church that existed eversince it was founded by our Lord when the fathers were all catholic? i mean the word catholic was first used by saint ignatius right?
so what gives???December 5, 2009 at 3:56 am #9491
There were several disturbing troubles before the final split in the 1054, and even though Orthodox don’t like to admit it, the Catholic Church attempted a reunion at the Council of Florence On 6 June 1439 an agreement was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism. Apparently, the Great Schism was over. However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later, the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod. Unfortunatly there was resistance once the Eastern Bishops returned home and the Patriarch of Constantinople died within a few days of the signing of the documents.
Many Eastern Fathers petitioned to Rome for final and authorative judgements on issues. Orthodox will however stress the opinions of those who did not agree with the Primacy or Rome, or who’s writings can be interpreted either way as proving they are correct in their intrerpretation.
Most helpful is that we pray as Jesus did, Ut unum sint, “That they all would be one.”December 5, 2009 at 2:20 pm #9494
so they really were called orthodox even before the split?December 5, 2009 at 4:11 pm #9497
orthodox simply means “correct observance” Catholic can call themselves the same thing. Most Eastern Orthodox churches call themselves Orthodox Catholic Churches of _____ (Greece, Russia, Bulgaria, etc.) in their official titles. The term like Catholic has more than one use. Catholic means Universal, so while it is not common, one could translate the title Roman Catholic Church as the Roman Universal Church. Sounds silly to our ears, but the fact is it would not be incorrect.December 9, 2009 at 12:07 am #9504
so they’re pretty much saying(by calling themselves orthodox) that they are the real catholic church?
and we are pretty much saying(by calling ourselves catholic) that we are the real orthodox catholics?
is this the implication? ” title=”Smile” />December 14, 2009 at 2:22 am #9511
why do they use leavened bread for communion? whats with that?December 14, 2009 at 6:38 am #9515
Most, although not all use bread with yeast. Armenian Apostolic and a few others do not use yeast bread.
Eastern Rite Catholics also use the same bread as the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
The interpretation of the Bible held in the East, is that the Last Supper took place on the Eve of the Passover, so unleavened bread was not required. The Latin Rite interpretation is that it was the Passover Meal, at which the Eucharist was instituted. Since the Church has not officially defined if it was one or the other, both are permitted by Church Law. The Laws of the Latin Rite state that only Unlevended bread is licit, (Legal) for use in the Eucharistic Celebrations of the Latin Rite. Eastern Rite Catholic Churches (and the Orthodox equivalents) have their own Canon and Liturgical Laws according to the Rite. The manner that they distribute Communion, (In many Eastern Liturgies, the priest puts the Consecrated bread into the chalice and administers both with a spoon.) In others, the priest administers the consecrated host, or consecrated bread which he inticts, or dips into the chalice.
One thing that each of us needs to realize is that the Eastern Rite Catholic Liturgies, as just as much the Mass as any Latin/Western Rite Catholic Liturgy. At every Mass, we stand at the foot of the Cross. At every Mass, Jesus is the primary priest, who is present for us, both in the Eucharits, and through His minister, the priest.March 13, 2010 at 7:14 pm #9650
DeeownMember"passionately_catholic":3sdftv1p wrote:why do they use leavened bread for communion? whats with that?[/quote:3sdftv1p]
Robert did an excellent job explaining everything to you, but if you have any further questions, i myself am Armenian and my family does in fact belong to the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church (a branch of Oriental Orthodoxy, whereas Greeks, Russians, Romanians, etc follow Eastern Orthodoxy)March 13, 2010 at 10:02 pm #9653
Another thing that I forgot at the time I posted the information about zyme and azyme, (Yeast and non yeast breads) is that prior to the Western Churches using only unleavened bread, both were used in West and East. The change over to only unleavened bread in the West came about later. While it was always held that both were valid for use in the Eucharist, it became a bone of contention amone some Orthodox later.
There are a number of things like the bread having or not having yeast that were picked at as differences, that became blown out of proportion after the 1054 Schism. Just like crazy accusations that it was the Catholic Church who “Sold Indulgences” rather than individuals like Tetzel who were later repremanded for doing something contrary to Catholic practice. Levening or not was a non-issue that became an issue only after the Schism.
The Western Church holds zyme and azyme to both be valid. In the west it is only licit, (Legal) to use unlevened bread, without special permission. If a priest used leavening in the bread, in the West it would be an illegal act against church law, but not God’s law, so the Eucharist would be present. The Eucharist confected by bread that has or does not have yeast is the same, it is Jesus’ Body and Blood. Each drop and crumb the same as the other. At no time after the consecration and before the bread stops having the appearence of bread is one host or portion of the yeast bread any less Jesus than any other consecrated bread.March 17, 2010 at 2:27 am #9654
If a catholic marries outside of the catholic church, can she still go to communion?March 17, 2010 at 4:01 am #9655
If a Catholic marries in a non-catholic service, or by a Justice of the Peace they may not under normal circumstances receive communion until they have gone to confession and attempted to regularize the marriage.
The exceptions to the rule are that a bishop may for serious reason allow the person to marry in a non-catholic service, usually a Catholic priest present to wittness for the Church, the conditions may include that a Catholic service be held sometimes in private. In the UK the State requires that a person who is qualified preform a civil service, and then a Religious Service may take place. Most all Anglican Clergy are certified to preform the civil service, and usually do in either the rectory or the sacristy prior to the Church wedding. Select clergy of other Churches in the UK are also qualified to do so.
To stretch the answer out even further, the Church requires her subjects to follow both civil and Church law, in order that the State also recognize the marriage, even though it usually has different standards. So if the State requires a license, or civil ceremony, the Church allows it, as long as the Church service is also preformed.
It must be remembered that the priest does not really marry the people. What he does is wittnesses the marriage, offers the blessings of the Church, and assures that the marriage is conducted in a proper manner. If no priest can be obtained in a reasonable time, a marriage may take place between two people with two Catholic wittnesses, and is blessed when a priest is availible. This was more common when the US and other countries were mission terretories, and a priest only came through once or twice a year.March 24, 2010 at 1:07 am #9668"Deeown":e5y942th wrote:"passionately_catholic":e5y942th wrote:why do they use leavened bread for communion? whats with that?[/quote:e5y942th]
Robert did an excellent job explaining everything to you, but if you have any further questions, i myself am Armenian and my family does in fact belong to the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church (a branch of Oriental Orthodoxy, whereas Greeks, Russians, Romanians, etc follow Eastern Orthodoxy)[/quote:e5y942th]
just wondering sir, but are you in communion wid rome???March 24, 2010 at 2:39 am #9669
Armenian Apostolic are not in communion with Rome. However of all the Orthodox, (in my experience) the Armenian Apostolic are the least hostile tward Rome. One Armenian priest told me, that in Armenia, Orthodox and Catholics were fighting the same enemy, Communism, and in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, they were fighting against Islam all the enemies were attacking Chrisitanity, so most Armenians forgot who you were in communion with, and focused on attending Mass, and having a priest administer the Sacraments, Catholic or Apostolic.
Now based on Canon Law, this was wrong, but based on the spiritual needs of the time and place it was a manifestation of God’s love for us all, Orthodox and Catholic.March 24, 2010 at 2:57 am #9671
when Pope Benedict 16 met the patriarch of constantinople, was there no reunion that took place? what happened at that time?March 24, 2010 at 5:01 am #9673
Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all met with the Patriarchs of Constantinople. It is a sign of progress. However you have to remember, the Patriarchs of Individual Orthodox Churches do not have any more authority than any other bishop in the Orthodox Church, they are the Ordinary Bishop of the See that is the Mother of each National Church (more or less) and while they are looked to for advice and leadership, they are one among many, and cannot make a unilateral decision.
We should all pray as Jesus did, that we may all be one.March 24, 2010 at 6:01 am #9678
DeeownMember"passionately_catholic":3135ezws wrote:"Deeown":3135ezws wrote:"passionately_catholic":3135ezws wrote:why do they use leavened bread for communion? whats with that?[/quote:3135ezws]
Robert did an excellent job explaining everything to you, but if you have any further questions, i myself am Armenian and my family does in fact belong to the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church (a branch of Oriental Orthodoxy, whereas Greeks, Russians, Romanians, etc follow Eastern Orthodoxy)[/quote:3135ezws]
just wondering sir, but are you in communion wid rome???[/quote:3135ezws]
Alas no, the Armenian Church is not in communion with Rome, but do respect the Pope deeply, often giving him stay on his visits to Armenia. Us Armenians do however have an Armenian Rite of the Catholic Church (AKA The Armenian Catholic Church) which is in full communion with Rome and accepts the authority of the Pope. if you would like to learn more about the Armenian Catholic Church check out these links:March 24, 2010 at 9:54 am #9680
again, VERY INTERESTING!March 24, 2010 at 3:30 pm #9681
I myself attend the Liturgy at the Armenian Catholic Churches in Glendale, and East LA from time to time. The Armenian Catholic Church in East LA, was given to the Armenian Catholics by Cardinal McIntire back in the 1950’s, as the community needed a new place to worship.
The Armenian Catholic Diocese website is http://armenianeparchy.org/March 25, 2010 at 1:23 am #9684
I’m lovin’ it!!!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.