Ask A Catholic II

[civ_king]

Did the Eastern Catholic Churches break from the Roman Catholic Church or their respective Orthodox Churches?

The Eastern Catholic Churches are Orthodox in Communion with the See of Rome, the Patriarch of the West

 

[El_Machinae]

How do you know that the Orthodox Church isn't the One True Faith? Don't they have most of the criteria people use to judge such a question?

 

[civ_king]

How do you know that the Orthodox Church isn't the One True Faith? Don't they have most of the criteria people use to judge such a question?

Primacy of Peter

 

[Huayna Capac357]

The Eastern Catholic Churches are Orthodox in Communion with the See of Rome, the Patriarch of the West

Do the Orthodox recognize them?

 

[El_Machinae]

Primacy of Peter

IIRC, they have a claim to apostolic succession too ... no?

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Do the Orthodox recognize them?

AFAIK, Orthodox Christians recognize the Pope as the Patriarch of Rome, but don't think that he should have a higher position and status than other patriarchs.

 

[civ_king]

Do the Orthodox recognize them?

Many Orthodox deride the Eastern Catholics as Uniates

El_Mac Primacy of Peter>Apostolic Succession

 

[Jehoshua]

El_Mac Primacy of Peter>Apostolic Succession

Not quite.

Apostolic succession is distinct from petrine primacy (that is the successor of peter {the pope} having primacy of place as successor of the chief of the apostles.). The Eastern Orthodox actually agree with this, but the problem is they disagree with the interpretation, particularly Papal Supremacy. That is the pope is not merely primer inter pares like the ecumenical patriarch is amongst the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but actually has a role as supreme pastor of the universal Church in more than just an honorary capacity.

Actually they are sister catholic churches. They're not sister Roman Catholic churches though, if that's what you mean.

They are not sister "catholic" Churches as there is only One Catholic Church, one universal Church founded by Christ and that is the Catholic Church. That is why Cardinal Ratzinger (now pope) condemned the idea that some people hypothesised that the one Church didn;t exist and could be re-established by reunification between east and west, because the Catholic Church IS the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church spoken of in the nicene creed, the One Church founded by Christ.

Now I am not saying that they are not Churches in the proper sense, they are. They are thus sister Churches in the sense that they are true Churches in separation, but they simply are not Catholic. They are true Churches because they have apostolic succession but this exists in a state of imperfect and flawed communion within the body of Christ and thus although they indeed are Churches with a relationship with the Catholic Church, they are not and by virtue of their separation from the One Church can not be 'catholic'.

There is a reason why the CDF document never uses the term sister "catholic' Churches.

 

[civ_king]

mea culpa, I apologize for using incorrect terminology.

I meant that because of Apostolic succession and the Bishop of Rome tracing from Peter that he would possess the things associated with Peter like the Keys and would inherit the position of Christ's Vicar (not quite sure on the term)

 

[shadowplay]

When both species of communion are being offered, is it inappropriate for me to accept one but decline the other? I am pretty severely germophobic and have an issue with sharing a chalice with 200 other people. What is the etiquette in this scenario?

 

[Takhisis]

'Both species'? Hmmm. here they only offer the wafers. But, think of it this way. What germs? It's the blood of Christ.

 

[_random_]

AFAIK, Orthodox Christians recognize the Pope as the Patriarch of Rome, but don't think that he should have a higher position and status than other patriarchs.

That was the status before the Great Schism, but after the whole mutual excommunication mess they don't regard him as a canonical bishop. Therein lies the primary difference between Orthodox Christians and Uniates.

 

[Jehoshua]

When both species of communion are being offered, is it inappropriate for me to accept one but decline the other? I am pretty severely germophobic and have an issue with sharing a chalice with 200 other people. What is the etiquette in this scenario?

You can choose to recieve only one of the eucharistic species as in each species you are recieving Christ, whole and indivisable, Christ is not divided.

It is not a case of you recieve part of Christ in one form and the rest in the other, that part of the service is symbolic of the separation of his body and blood at the crucifixion and naturally is done as it is what Christ instituted. The unity of Christ whole and entire in each species is also why for example you are not "missing out" so to speak if you were to go to the extraordinary form (latin mass) where the lay faithful only recieve communion under one species.

 

[Holycannoli]

There are many times when communion in my church is only given in one species.

To me it never felt "complete" enough. I don't know how to explain it better than that.

And yes when both are offered, there's many that decline the blood. I'm one of the few that does not decline it, but instead happily receives it.

EDIT: Is "species" the correct terminology? Not "host"? I can't say I've heard it called species before now.

 

[Jehoshua]

There are many times when communion in my church is only given in one species.

To me it never felt "complete" enough. I don't know how to explain it better than that.

And yes when both are offered, there's many that decline the blood. I'm one of the few that does not decline it, but instead happily receives it.

I suppose when both eucharistic species are offered you would feel that sense of incompleteness despite the unity of Christ whole and entire within each species. This being as the reality of the eucharistic wine being offered does create a tangible aspect of the service that one who recieves under only one species would be missing in the ordinary form.

But the reality remains that one can recieve only one of the eucharistic species validly as the eucharist in each self-contained species contains the body, blood soul and divinity of Christ whole and entire, substantially, due to the metaphysical transformation of the essence of the unconsecrated species via transubstantiation.

Is "species" the correct terminology? Not "host"? I can't say I've heard it called species before now.

The term species is in reference to the distinct physical elements of the eucharist. So we have the eucharistic bread and the eucharistic wine, these are collectively the eucharistic species. The host is the term commonly used to describe the eucharistic bread (ie the consecrated host) and comes from the latin word "Hostia" or sacrificial victim. Correctly it is only used to describe the elements after consecration with the term "altar bread" being the preferable usage for the unconsecrated eucharistic bread.

 

[Holycannoli]

That makes sense, as most of the time it's only the host that's offered.

I do not know why there are times when only one is offered, and other times both are offered. That's something I never bothered to ask.

 

[civ_king]

The bread is the body and blood of Jesus and so is the wine, don't ask me to explain, I can't.

 

[Jehoshua]

I do not know why there are times when only one is offered, and other times both are offered. That's something I never bothered to ask.

The reason that in many cases only one of the eucharistic species is offered is that traditionally in the roman rite only the consecrated host (the consecrated eucharistic bread) was offered to the laity (with only the celebrant partaking of the consecrated wine).

With the development of what is currently the ordinary form in the years following the second vatican council the rubrics for that form of the roman rite allowed that the laity can be offered the consecrated wine in various manners (drinking from the chalice directly and reception via intinction amongst others). Thus considering this permissability it is offered in many places. However since liturgical tradition in the roman rite favoured reception under one form by the congregation and because it is not a prescription in that laity must be offered the consecrated wine (or that you must recieve under both forms) in certain places it is not offered.

 

[civ_king]

Ah yes intinction, we did that when we celebrated at my aunt's house before a party (since it was a Sunday and a priest was coming it was convenient to hold Mass just before)

 

[Jehoshua]

Ah yes intinction, we did that when we celebrated at my aunt's house before a party (since it was a Sunday and a priest was coming it was convenient to hold Mass just before)

you had mass in a house?

I hope the priest followed the correct procedure and brought along an altar stone if that was the case. (although hypothetically he could of brought along pre-sanctified gifts if you didn;t technically have a mass). An altar stone is required to say mass outside of a church (which naturally has a set altar) as it serves in effect as a portable altar.