Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: x5452; jo kus; sitetest

Read this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1497479/posts


117 posted on 11/22/2005 1:03:22 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: Kolokotronis
Thanks, I read it when it was first posted. He has a good handle on the History of the Church. He also is correct in saying that where the Eucharist is, there is the Catholic Church, in one sense. Was this Ignatius of Antioch? Anyway, the article does offer some correctives for both West and East. For us, I think, we must look into the idea that the Orthodox ARE catholic in the aspect Father Ziziolas mentions. My concern is the meaning of the word "catholic" refering to the "totality of the whole". When the word catholic was inserted into the Nicean creed, they certainly meant ONLY the Orthodox church - east and west. I wonder what the Nicean Fathers would have thought about the catholicity of the Coptics, because they had valid Eucharistic celebrations. Your thoughts? Thanks for the repost.

Personally, I consider the Orthodox as "part" of the Catholic Church in a major sense because we (Roman Catholics) will allow an Orthodox to partake in the Eucharist. On the back of our Missal, it explains why Protestants or Catholics who have not been to Reconcilliation should NOT come up to receive Communion. Thus, being able to receive the Eucharist in a Roman Church speaks highly of the view of Rome towards the Orthodox. I know the feeling is not mutual, but is that political, theological, or just old feelings that haven't died off yet?

Brother in Christ

124 posted on 11/22/2005 3:25:08 PM PST by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson