Well, then you are making up your own meaning of ontology. It wouldn't be the first corruption of Greek by the west, for sure.
The Catholic Church teaches that the true Church, the fullness of the Church, subsists in the Catholic Church, and that the Catholic Church is ontologically the one Church, complete and lacking nothing.
That's what the Orthodox Church teaches too.
We do not believe that this is the case with the Orthodox Churches. We believe that they are in schism from the true Church.
I am aware of that. However, I do not see why. What is lacking in the Eastern Church that is not lacking in the Western?
The Polish National Catholic Church is an apostolic Church in the United States that has, as far as I know, continuing apostolic succession, validity of holy orders and sacraments, etc. They are in schism from the Catholic Church
Why?
Regarding baptism, I have heard of some Orthodox re-baptising Catholics. Others don't. Thus, it appears to vary from one group to another what is considered a “valid” baptism.
Sure. Those Catholics who cannot provide proof of baptism or whose baptism did not conform to the baptismal formula practiced by the Church in the first millennium have to be baptized. There is only one "valid" baptism.
Needless to say, the Catholic Church believes that all Her baptisms are valid. And we believe that all Orthodox baptisms are also valid. I have never, ever heard of any Orthodox ever being [re-]baptised when received into full communion in the Catholic Church.
I would love to hear the excuse for such a belief, since it is not what the Cathodic church practiced in the first millennium.
As well, we Catholics seem to be somewhat more uniform in determining validity than the Orthodox.
LOL! There is but one way to baptize and that was determined and practiced by the Catholic Church before Frankish innovations introduced a different "tradition."
If the attitudes of hostility and exclusion, of condescension and contempt were limited to a single Orthodox poster, I would credit what you say. But they are not.
There is no hostility or exclusion, condescension and contempt by the Orthodox as a whole.
It was YOU who excoriated CATHOLICS for our failure to counter the heresies of folks like Ms. Pelosi as reason why the ORTHODOX might not want to accomplish reunion with the CATHOLICS.
The likes of Sarbanes were unknown to me. This is the first time I hear about them. I am not Greek. Besides, while the Orthodox Church does oppose abortion on moral grounds, it does not make it her top dogmatic issue. Rather it treats abortion as any other murder. Supporting murder is not the same as committing it. The commandment does not say you are guilty of supporting such a thing but actually doing it. It is the "other lung" that makes it a top dogmatic issue and then does not act accordingly.
But as we can see from your own admissions, many of the Orthodox hierarchy are as guilty, and perhaps more guilty than the Catholic hierarchy in this regard
Not really, given the scope of the issue as seen in the Eastern Church. Supporters of abortion are on thin moral ice, but are not in contempt of the "magisterium" (which does not exist in the Eastern tradition).
Perhaps we CATHOLICS should be wary of you latitudinarian ORTHODOX when thinking about reunion (my tongue is at least partly in my cheek).
On issues of dogma (Holy Trinity, Christology, Mariology) the Church in the East is never latitudinarian. The Orthodox Church simply does not raise abortion to the same level but treats is as any other sin, be it adultery, lying, stealing, etc. that one actually commits. To the best of my knowledge none of the Sarbanes or Olympia Snowe are guilty of murder. Nevertheless, I think it shameful for honoring Orthodox politicians supporting abortion for no reason other than ethnic chauvinism.
It is the western hierarchs in general who raise abortion to the level of top dogma (which may itself be a heresy), and yet meet it in a latitudinarian fashion. So, seeing the difference, I would imagine it prudent for them to think very hard about the problems associated with any reunion at this point. The inconsistency is entirely theirs.
Although we are close, we aren't one.
We are both in the same holy, catholic and apostolic Church whose authority is derived from apostolic succession, whose clergy are valid by the same and whose sacraments are true for the same reason. That's what makes our Church what it is. You are no more Catholic than the Orthodox in that regard as all members, hierarchs, clergy and sacraments of the true Church are ontologically indistinguishable.
We are not one when it comes to theology and ecclesiologiy. That is not an ontological division. We are divided in our communion, not because your communion is invalid but because communion is an expression of union and not a means of achieving one.
“It wouldn't be the first corruption of Greek by the west, for sure.”
More condescension. Oh, well. Not unexpected.
“I am aware of that. However, I do not see why. What is lacking in the Eastern Church that is not lacking in the Western?”
I'm not a theologian, kosta50. I know what the Church teaches, but make no claim to understand it perfectly.
My [imperfect] understanding is that it revolves around the failure to be in communion with the See of Peter.
But keep in mind, although the Catholic Church believes that there is an ontological difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, I haven't said that there is an ontological difference between the baptism of Catholics and Orthodox. Or of anyone else validly baptized.
But frankly, I regret getting into a discussion over ontology, as it's sort of beside the point in this discussion, which is about CAUCUS LABELING. The differences between Catholics and Orthodox are sufficient to require different labels. Catholics in communion with the See of Peter include more than Latin-rite Catholics. And common usage gives the name of those Christians in communion with the See of Peter as "Catholics" and those apostolic Christians not in that communion as "Orthodox."
And I think that that is the only assertion made by the Religion Moderator when using those labels.
“’The Polish National Catholic Church is an apostolic Church in the United States that has, as far as I know, continuing apostolic succession, validity of holy orders and sacraments, etc. They are in schism from the Catholic Church.’
“Why?”
If I recall correctly (and I'm only on my second cup of coffee on a Monday morning, so I may not), they left the Church over the issue of trusteeship.
“Sure. Those Catholics who cannot provide proof of baptism or whose baptism did not conform to the baptismal formula practiced by the Church in the first millennium have to be baptized. There is only one ‘valid’ baptism.”
With nearly 50 years of it, my experience of the sacramental record-keeping of the Catholic Church is that it's pretty darned good. With very few exceptions, anyone who made an effort to ascertain the baptismal certificate of a Catholic would receive a prompt and complete response. Thus, I can see that in rare cases, one might be unable to obtain the baptismal record of a Catholic, but I have read that some Orthodox Churches in some places at some times have routinely re-baptized Catholics.
“I would love to hear the excuse for such a belief, since it is not what the Cathodic church practiced in the first millennium.”
I'm not sure what the issue is here. That the Catholic Church regards her baptisms as valid? That the Catholic Church doesn't re-baptize Orthodox folks?
“There is no hostility or exclusion, condescension and contempt by the Orthodox as a whole.”
Well, I certainly haven't met all the Orthodox in the world. Not by a long shot. But I've seen a few here on FR, and I've met more than a few in my 49+ years, and I think that my remarks fairly represent my own experience.
“It is the western hierarchs in general who raise abortion to the level of top dogma (which may itself be a heresy),...”
More condescension mixed with an expression of faulty understanding of the position of the Catholic Church.
Abortion is not a “top dogma” of the Catholic Church.
Rather, the Catholic Church believes and teaches that murder in all its forms is wrong, and that a just society must protect innocent citizens from murder though law. A society is unjust to the degree that it refuses to provide the protection of law to innocent persons. It is fundamentally at odds with the absolute obligation of the secular authority not only to refuse to protect in law innocent persons, but to declare a “constitutional RIGHT” of one class of persons to privately murder without legal consequence another class of persons.
Now, most species of private killing in the United States are illegal, so that those who commit these acts will be prosecuted, and many persons may be persuaded by the pain of the penalty of law from committing private killings. Thus, the Church doesn't go around protesting against serial murderers of born persons. It's already illegal, the state already prosecutes persons who commit such crimes. The state may enforce the law in imperfect ways, may fail in individual cases, but generally, in the United States, the appropriate governmental authorities do a pretty decent job in most places of trying to protect innocent persons from being privately killed by aggressors through the application of law.
Clearly, this isn't the case with the issue of abortion.
The state manifestly fails in its obligation to protect in law unborn persons. And in fact, the governmental authority of the United States has specifically defined the private killing of unborn persons as a “right.” The result is the gross social injustice that over one million innocent persons are unjustly killed per year.
The Catholic Church teaches that that is a horror (it is), and that Catholic politicians must not support such a legal regime, and in fact, must do their best to reverse it.
Think about how much [unfair] criticism Pope Pius XII has received in the past few decades for not saying more against the Nazis for killing Jews. This, in spite of the fact that he DID speak up and condemn the Aryan policies of the Nazis, and that in 1931, LONG BEFORE THE ACTUAL HOLOCAUST BEGAN, the Catholic Church actually EXCOMMUNICATED EN MASSE all the leadership of the Nazi party in Germany.
Was the Catholic Church raising to the level of “top dogma” its fundamental opposition to the Nazi party and its program of racism and anti-semitism? Was it wrong for the Catholic bishops of Germany to excommunicate the leaders of the Nazi party for their abhorrent social program? I don't think that too many folks would say that.
Then why would anyone say something like abortion is the “top dogma” (whatever that means) of the Catholic bishops in the United States? Because they teach generally that no Catholic can support the legal regime of abortion on demand that entirely violates the fundamental human rights of over one million unborn children per year?
Because some bishops have actually connected the dots and asked Catholic politicians who support the legality of the private murder of the unborn to refrain from receiving the Blessed Sacrament?
The reason why the bishops make such a big deal about it is because IT'S A VERY BIG DEAL. It is the SINGLE GREATEST VIOLATION OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES.
It would be VERY DISAPPOINTING if the bishops did not speak out clearly, urgently and forcefully against the wholesale slaughter of an entire class of human persons. It IS very disappointing that our bishops don't do even more than they do with regard to pro-abortion Catholic politicians!
What should be a more important topic on the bishops’ social agenda than the slaughter of over one million innocent children per year?
Health care? Feeding the hungry? Housing the homeless?
The government does NOT ban by law providing health care to the poor. The government does NOT permit one class of folks to literally steal the bread from another class of persons, nor to steal the homes of a class of folks. The government actually has laws to prevent these things.
Even if the society fails to do as much as it should for the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick, THE POWER OF THE STATE IS NOT USED TO IMPOVERISH, TO STARVE, TO STEAL, TO MAKE HOMELESS OR SICK. But the power of the state IS used to PERMIT PRIVATE MURDER OF AN ENTIRE CLASS OF PERSONS, and practically speaking, the number of persons so murdered is huge.
ONE OUT OF EVERY FOUR UNBORN PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES IS PRIVATELY MURDERERD.
That this is the number one social issue of the Catholic bishops seems appropriate to me, entirely reasonable, and absolutely required on their part.
Ironically, the bishops don't speak forcefully about this because it's an issue of dogma. LOL. If it were an issue of dogma, the bishops would have nothing to say to public square. Dogma and doctrine are the Immaculate Conception or the Incarnation. The bishops have no right, and assert no right to demand that American law recognize the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or the dogma of the Incarnation. That would be silly talk in the United States.
No, the bishops demand that the law be changed to protect unborn persons because it is possible for every man to discern that it is wrong to murder, and that it is the absolute obligation of every state to protect in law the innocent from unjust aggressors.
The bishops require support by Catholic politicians for the legal protection of the unborn not because it makes these Catholic politicians bad CATHOLICS if they don't, but because it makes them HUMAN ATROCITIES, COMPLETE MORAL FAILURES if they don't.
ANYONE - Catholic or otherwise - who refuses to assent to the absolute moral requirement that the state protect in law the basic right to life of all human persons, born or unborn, does great evil, commits objectively grave evil. For those with full knowledge (and all Catholic politicians have full knowledge, constructive or actual) and full consent of the will, they who refuse to assent to this fundamental obligation of the secular authority commit mortal sin.
Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion commit mortal sin PUBLICLY, and it isn't unreasonable to ask these folks to stay away from receiving the Most Blessed Sacrament.
But it is precisely because this is NOT a matter of Catholic religious dogma or doctrine, NOT a matter of Divine Revelation, NOT a matter of Christian belief, NOT matter of religious faith, but an obligation on ALL men to acknowledge the moral law written on their hearts that the Catholic Church has not only the right, but the absolute moral obligation to INSIST that secular authorities protect the rights of unborn human persons not to be privately killed.
sitetest