Oriental Orthodox


#1

What are the Oriental Orthodox seen as? Schismatics? Heretics?


#2

Both. They are heretics because they deny dogmas proclaimed by the Catholic Church.
They are Schismatics because, although they possess Apostolic Succession, they are in schism from the Apostolic See.

But we love them bunches and respect their venerable traditions.


#3

So-the Roman Catholic Church gives Communion to Schismatics and Heretics, as well as allows their faithful take communion from the same? Apparently they do-as the Roman Catholics have made several different agreements with different Oriental Orthodox Churches (the Copts, Syrians, Armenians, etc.) that include the faithful of the Oriental Orthodox Church in question and Catholics being able to take communion in either church if necessary because of one church being too far away from the persons home; allow mixed marriages, with the couple going to the church of the husband-if that is the Oriental Orthodox one, so be it-etc.! Interesting…Apparently several of the recent “Infallible” Popes do not agree with your representation of the Oriental Orthodox Churches…now-isnt it a sin to disagree with an an infallible Pope? How can you justify this?Can you disagree with an Infallible Pope and still be a Catholic?


#4

Yes, the Catholic Church does allow its faithful to rceive sacraments from Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches in DIRE need, such as imminent death or there not being a Catholic Church that the sacraments could be received at. Remember, the Catholic teachingon the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches is different from their views on protestants: while protestants are heretics completely outside of the church, the Eastern and Oriental orthodox churches were members of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Chuch, though they are currently in schism. The Church would rather its faithful receive the sacraments from a schismatic church than not receive them at all.

As for the marriage thing; any time a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, the non-Catholic is theoretically supposed to agree to raise the child Catholic. I believe what you are thinking about is marriage between Eastern and Western CATHOLICS. Remember, there are groups of Eastern and Oriental Christians that ARE in communion with rome. There are Coptic Orthodox, but also Coptic Catholics; Greek Orthodox, but also Greek Catholics. Etc, etc. The Roman Rite is only one of many rites in the Catholic Church. And when two Catholics of different rites marry, the children are officially in the rite of their father.

I think you are taking papal infalibilty too far, here. Popes are not infallible in everything they say - only when they speak ex-cathedra (“from the chair” of St. Peter), using a specific formula. And yes, it is a sin to disagree with infallible doctine, but it is not a sin to disagree with a pope.


#5

QUOTE: As for the marriage thing; any time a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, the non-Catholic is theoretically supposed to agree to raise the child Catholic. I believe what you are thinking about is marriage between Eastern and Western CATHOLICS.

I believe you may be somewhat behind the times…

The “Catholic–Syrian Orthodox [Monophysite] Statement” was signed on July 23, 1984, by Pope John–Paul II and Patriarch Moran Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas of Antioch. This statement declared that the Roman pontiff and the Monophysite patriarch …kneel down with full humility in front of the exalted and extolled heavenly throne of our Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks for this glorious opportunity which has been granted us to meet together in His love in order to strengthen further the relationship between our two sister churches— Their holinesses Pope John– Paul II and Patriarch Zakka I wish solemnly to widen the horizon of their brotherhood and affirm herewith the terms of deep spiritual communion which already unites them and the prelates, clergy, and faithful of both their Churches…, . The confusions and schisms that arose between our churches…arose only because of differences in terminology and culture… We find no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us…, notwithstanding the differences on interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the Council of Chalcedon [does this all sound familiar?]… Hence we wish to reaffirm our common profession of faith…, They denied that there was any difference in the faith that they confessed… Our identity in faith, though not yet complete, entitles us to envisage collaboration between our churches in pastoral care… It is not rare, in fact, for our faithful to find access to a priest of their own church materially or morally impossible. Anxious to meet their need and with their spiritual benefit in mind, we authorize them in such cases to ask for the sacraments of penance, the eucharist, and the anointing of the sick from lawful priests of either of our two sister churches… It would be a logical corollary of collaboration in pastoral care to coöperate in priestly formation and theological education… [W]hile doing this we do not forget that we must still do all in our power to achieve the full visible communion between the Catholic Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch…, thanking the Lord Who has allowed us to meet and enjoy the consolation of the faith that we hold in common…

AND…

More recent is the “Agreement between the Catholic Church and the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church on Inter–Church Marriages,” finalized on January 25, 1994. This agreement was “prepared taking into account” the Catholic–Syrian Orthodox Statement quoted above. Noting the “common profession of faith between the Pope and the Patriarch,” and the “possibility given by the declaration for a pastoral collaboration, including the mutual admission of the faithful belonging to both churches to the reception of the sacraments of penance, the eucharist, and the anointing of the sick,” the parties “accept the pastoral reality that inter–Church marriages do take place,” and agree that …both churches should facilitate the celebration of the sacrament of matrimony in either church, allowing the bride/bridegroom the right and freedom to retain his/her own ecclesial communion… On the occasion of these celebrations, the couples as well as their family members belonging to these two churches are allowed to participate in the holy eucharist in the church where the sacrament of matrimony is being celebrated.

Conclusion:

It will be most interesting to learn, after all these centuries, the “real” reasons behind the condemnation of Nestorios at the Third Œcumenical Synod. Could Nestorios have possibly been misunderstood, and could the Holy Fathers of the Synod of Ephesus have been influenced by the political, ethnic, and economic situation of the day? It will also be interesting to see the reaction of both “World Orthodoxy” and the Monophysites to Rome’s latest ecumenical overture. Will they both concur in the negation of the Third Œcumenical Synod, too? If so, will it take anyone by surprise? And, after all these “sad divisions of ancient Christianity” have been “healed” by the realization that the Holy Fathers were in error, and that modern man, from the vantage point of the spiritually bankrupt and apostate twentieth century, is wiser by far than the Holy Fathers, we ask again, and with trepidation: What comes next?
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx

So, what do you think-thiings happenin’ you didn’t know about???


#6

**
Both. They are heretics because they deny dogmas proclaimed by the Catholic Church.
They are Schismatics because, although they possess Apostolic Succession, they are in schism from the Apostolic See.**

**True, but not quite entirely accurate.

  1. The so-called Nestorians, properly called the Assyrian Church of the East, who rejected the Council of Ephesus. IN the '90’s their Patriarch, Mar Dinkha, and Synod signed an agreement of a Common Declaration of Christology. Their own doctrinal formularies profess the faith of Chalcedon:**

One is Christ the Son of God,
Worshiped by all in two natures;
In His Godhead begotten of the Father,
Without beginning before all time;
In His humanity born of Mary,
In the fullness of time, in a body united;
Neither His Godhead is of the nature of the mother,
Nor His humanity of the nature of the Father;
The natures are preserved in their Qnumas*,
In one person of one Sonship.
And as the Godhead is three substances in one nature,
Likewise the Sonship of the Son is in two natures, one person.
So the Holy Church has taught.

**Furthermore, their canonical tradition requires them to be in communion with Peter and his successors. This is what led Mar Bawai and over a thousand faithful to be received into the Chaldean Catholic Church.

  1. A similar thing can be said about the so-called Monophysite churches: Egypt, Syria, Armenia, and Ethiopia (with their counterparts in India and elsewhere). A candidate for ordination among the Armenians must anathematize Eutyches, who is the originator of Monophysitism. St. Cyril of Alexandria himself spoke of the “mia physis” of the Incarnate Logos. And among the Copts, the priest holds the Consecrated Lamb in his hands as he prayers what is in effect the definition of Chalcedon. I was told by a Coptic priest that one could not distinguish between “person” and “nature” in Coptic, so again, this seems to be a misunderstanding.

While the vast bulk of the miscalled Monophysite churches are not reconciled with Rome, actually more of the Assyro-Chaldeans are than are presently not.**


#7

** Popes do not agree with your representation of the Oriental Orthodox Churches…now-isnt it a sin to disagree with an an infallible Pope? How can you justify this?Can you disagree with an Infallible Pope and still be a Catholic?
Reply With Quote**

The pope is not always infallible, but ONLY under certain conditions, none of which apply to this act of pastoral oikonomia (as it’s called among the Orthodox, among whom this is frequently done as well).


#8

One small clarification: A Catholic may request communion from an EO or OO (or PNCC, etc.) minister if there’s no Catholic Church nearby AND there’s a dire need (such as imminent death). That’s my understanding anyhow.


#9

A Sombra,

I respect your opinion, but I think you’ll find that many of us have a more positive view of ecumenism than you do.


#10

A Sombra so you are saying that Catholics can get the sacraments at Syrian Orthodox churches anytime I thought we could only get the Sacraments at EO and OO churches in dire need or if there was no catholic church anywhere nearby:confused:
God Bless+


#11

Of course there are local arrangements, because at the end of the day, the thing that unites us (baptism in the name of God and in Jesus Christ His Son and in the Holy Spirit), is far greater and of far more value than all of the little things that divide us. It’s far more important to be able to worship God together with other Christians than to dispute over doctrine.

There are even local arrangements in some remote parts of Asia-Pacific where the Anglicans have agreements with the Catholics for inter-communion.


#12

The Oriental Catholic Churches are in communion with Rome and are under the authority of the Holy Father. They are neither “schismatics” or “heretics”. Those who are in communion with Rome are in full communion. Full communion means full communion. There are many good resources both online and in print form that will help in understanding the Oriental Catholics. I recently was in a Greek Catholic Church in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem there is a thriving Oriental Catholic community.

Peace,
Fr. Jeff


#13

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.