So if the Pope’s name isn’t mentioned it’s basically no good? Should you get smacked and killed by a bus on the way out of the Orthodox Church on Sunday you will find yourself in hell? That’s nice. Gotta love the kind of legalism that uses the power to bind and loose to send someone to eternal damnation for that. :rolleyes:
What are you ranting about?
You go to the Divine Liturgy on Sunday; the Pope is not comemmorated. You neglected to attend a liturgy where the Pope is comemmorated(under the Pope) so you’re in a state of mortal sin. You die without confessing- you go to hell. Neglecting to attend Mass is an absolute mortal sin for a Catholic because a Catholic is bound by an obligation to attend a Eucharistic service on Sunday, and apparently the Orthodox Divine Liturgy does not suffice. So basically one liturgy where Christ’s Body and Blood are made present is not as good as another, and that’s because of an imposed obligation.
It seems legalistic and wrong to add these stipulations and obligations so as to make salvation more difficult for one’s flock.
A strict interpretation of the traditional rubrics about who is commemorated at the appropriate places says that the Pope would be commemorated ONLY in a Liturgy celebrated by a patriarch, as the rule is “one step up.”
The priest commemorates the bishop (and then any bishop who might be present as a courtesy), the bishop commemorates the patriarch, the patriarch the pope.
True, basically I really was just referring to the fact that the Pope is mentioned in the Mass, and apparently if you are not subject to him, your Eucharist and Liturgy aren’t keeping the Sabbath holy enough. Not for Catholics, at least.
The Obligation is for a Catholic to attend a valid and licit Catholic liturgy, on all Sundays and Holy Days, when and where, there is a Catholic Liturgy available to them. When there is no Catholic liturgy available, they are free to attend any other Christian Worship service, as there is no longer any obligation. A valid Orthodox Liturgy where there is a valid Sacrifice and Sacrament is an option.
So the Orthodox Divine Liturgy is pretty much on the same level as protestant services when compared to Catholic services. Gotcha.
That is because you mind is warped to view it in some kind of legalistic rant. Consider, the problem may be with the man you see in the mirror.
Oh and, by the way, the Church does not claim to know who is going to hell. That’s just another one of your warped misunderstandings of The Faith.
Isn’t it legalistic though? No Mass= mortal sin. Aren’t mortal sins those sins which, if one dies unrepentant, damn a person? I’m not sure what part of my understanding is “warped”. Which part of what I said is incorrect?
If you look at it only from the stand point of it being a NON-Catholic liturgy.
Willingly disobey God in important matters = Mortal sin. You got it!
Die without being sorry for doing it, you will be judged accordingly!
Disobeying God or disobeying the legaslistic obligation the Catholic Church places on its flock? “Go to a Catholic Eucharistic service on Sunday or you’ll be guilty of mortal sin for disobeying… even if it’s an Apostolic Church- if they aren’t under the Pope it doesn’t count!” I’m not denying that it may be sinful to purposely miss Divine Services on Sunday, but on what basis does the Catholic Church bind Catholics to this strict observance? Considering the statistics for attendance at Mass, on any given Sunday the mojority of Catholics throughout the world are guilty of mortal sin and bound for hell!
Eh…not exactly, the Orthodox services are valid but illicit, the Protestants don’t even have a valid service. Whereas an Orthodox Priest can Consecrate the Eucharist (though I have my doubts since the bread is leavened) Protestant “churches” and “priests” are completely invalid.
As far as being “legalistic”, Legalism is a Chinese Philosophy that has nothing to with Christianity :rolleyes:. But we do have Commandments that need to be followed for Christ himself said that those who follow him will keep his Commandments.
Not to add more to get upset about here, but aren’t the Eastern Orthodox even more leagalistic in some respects? I’ve read they don’t even see Catholic Communion as being valid at all. I did read here that catholics consider their sacraments valid. So, I am not sure one can be considered that much less legalistic than the other really.
*Christ said He will build His Church on Peter. *
and… He did
if you visit an Orthodox church, - visiting is not a sin… we just can’t receive Communion there, cause the two churches are not in communion. Also, visiting the church can’t conflict with going to Mass, (your Sunday obligation) and this isn’t just some meaningless “rule”, the Sunday obligation exists so that you’d receive the Eucharist every week… isn’t that a great gift? being Catholic is a blessing…
if you like Eastern liturgy, you can go to an Eastern Catholic church and even receive the Eucharist there.
who said anything about going to hell for visiting an Orthodox church? visiting is not the same as no longer believing in Catholic teaching.
You misunderstand us. Catholics are obliged to attend a Catholic mass or divine liturgy (not a Eucharistic service) on Sunday unless they are prevented from doing so. This has nothing to do with the pope being commemorated. We join together in unity as Church to worship God. This is an essential part of Catholic life. It cannot be replaced by attending services at another church.
Unfortunately, our churches (Catholic and Orthodox) are not in complete unity. The Orthodox Church is very aware of this and we are not welcome to receive communion there.
Catholics recognize that the Orthodox Divine Liturgy is a true Eucharistic service.
Is the Orthodox Church OK with Orthodox choosing to substitute Catholic Mass for an Orthodox Divine Liturgy on Sunday.
Are you aware that your Eastern Catholic brothers under the Pope of ROme use leavened bread as well? Remove all doubt!
That’s not legalisam. There are no Sacraments outside the Church. Legalism would be to say, "well, this guy was ordained by Bishop so-and-so who, although not a part of the Church, can trace his ordaination to two “validly” consecrated Bishops, so he has the ‘power’ to confect the Sacrament even if he does it in his clown suit with face paint on while standing on his head. ":rolleyes:
Church Fathers and the Rock
Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America’s
extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of
papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council
in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver
a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council
but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.
He published his speech in Naples the following year.
It is important because he lists the five different
patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.
Let’s look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:
1…“That St. Peter is the Rock” is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers
2…That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8.) Church Fathers
3…That St. Peter’s faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers
4…That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)
5…That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kendrick gives no figure.
Archbishop Kendrick summarises
“If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold
for certain that the word “Petra” means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter.”
This is an important point by Kendrick since one of the
RC Councils (I need to check which one) laid down the
principle that a preponderance of patristic consensus
is needed for the promulgation of any dogma.
You can look this up and check that I have it
accurately in Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246
As to who Archbishop Kenrick was.
Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia