Rorate Caeli

Russian Orthodox church in Rome


Last May 24, with two cardinals (Etchegaray and Kasper) present, the Moscow Patriarchate dedicated a new parish in Rome, the Church of St. Catherine the Great Martyr. More pictures here.
I will let the above picture speak for itself.

51 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:42 PM

    If the Russians are so opposed to Catholic proselytizing, then the Russian Orthodox in Rome should agree that they will not proselytize among Catholics. Or, both sides can act like adults and admit that as long as each side claims to be right, neither side should refuse converts from the other side.

    -- Bonifacius

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous7:58 PM

    This reminds me of a funny conversation I had once with a young Russian Orthodox theologian. He was objecting to the proposed elevation of the Major Archbishop of Lviv to Patriarch of Kiev. "There can only be one Patriarch of Kiev," he said. "You've got three of them!", I said, to which he replied, "That's not the point!"

    Deacon Nathan Allen

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Russian Orthodox abroad aren't really all that interested in converting. Their flock consists almost 100% of Russian Orthodox immigrants. We are not a "missionary" church.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:09 PM

    It has bells!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous8:41 PM

    Whenever I see Russian Orthodox Churches it reminds me so much of what the Latin Church disposed of in the 70's and it just saddens me.The beauty of the liturgy and the fitting surroundings for worship. Will we ever get it back?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous8:59 PM

    Rather see that or a mosque

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wonderful news. May the bells ring out sweetly across the Eternal City and more people see the beauty of the liturgy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous anonymous, what an idiotic comment.

    We don't want to see either. Both are offensive to God. Let both be anathema.

    Jesus cleaning the temple story is very relevant with all this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bonifacius, I think neither side should refuse genuine converts; but if a Catholic priest knows that an Orthodox individual, who asks to be received into the Catholic Church, has no clue of the Orthodox faith, he shold tell him to be good Orthodox first, and then decide whether to be Catholic; rather than seize the excellent opportunity to make him “join the club”, in which he will be deprived of the magnificent Orthodox Liturgy, and get nothing like it in replacement. Yes, he can choose the Eastern Rite, which is the same in theory, but he is unlikely to take this option.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous10:55 PM

    At least it's not Protestant!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Russian Orthodox hierarchy are very astute - they know only too well what Russians love in their faith. They also have the findings of the neo-catholic post-conciliar laboratory to remind them of what will happen if they embark on postmodernisation: systemic disobedience to authority; liturgical anarchy; pastoral chaos; a hierarchy that is adept at speaking out of both sides of its mouth and leading indicators that demonstrate empirically an institution that is in exponential decline. Who in their right mind would wish to commit ecclesiastical suicide on such a scale.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It is so sad to see the Vatican welcoming the churches of schismatics.

    ReplyDelete
  13. if a Catholic priest knows that an Orthodox individual, who asks to be received into the Catholic Church, has no clue of the Orthodox faith, he shold tell him to be good Orthodox first, and then decide whether to be Catholic; rather than seize the excellent opportunity to make him “join the club”, in which he will be deprived of the magnificent Orthodox Liturgy, and get nothing like it in replacement. ***

    Catholic priests are in the business of saving souls. If someone is nominally Orthodox but wholly ignorant of his ancestral faith, and he comes to a Catholic priest and asks to be received into the Catholic Church, the priest absolutely should not turn such a person away and tell him to first try to be as good a person as possible separated from the Vicar of Christ. Good liturgy (such as it found more often than not among Anglicans and Episcopalians) is no substitute for the Catholic faith. Anyone who sincerely, earnestly desires union with the Church should be welcomed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous2:50 AM

    So, why are Catholic Cardinals celebrating a schismatic church?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Brother Anthony.

    I agree with you essentially. However, the respect for tradition by the Russian Orthodox serves as a constant reminder to NO Rome and it is also an ecumenical barrier. Rather paradoxical in the circumstances. One of the very liberalist mechanisms for attraction is conclusively a device for repulsion.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous3:18 AM

    The SSPX are "schismatic" and cannot build churches in Rome?

    The Russianare are schismatic and can build churches in Rome?

    What's wrong here....?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous3:24 AM

    Jordanes is absolutely correct. No one should be denied entry into the Orthodox Catholic Church, presided over in charity by the Bishop of Rome.

    The temple is nice on the outside, the iconostasis is nice, the vestments are magnificent, the walls a bit bare.

    What, I wonder, are Carlos Antonio Palad's thoughts on the matter?

    -Garrett

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous6:05 AM

    Thanks, Jordanes -- you said it better than I would have.

    -- Bonifacius

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous6:23 AM

    In spite of their schismatic status, one must bear in mind that inside that Church dwells the Most Blessed Sacrament, where He is given worship in an ancient and venerable rite, where valid sacraments are administered which dispense grace.
    It is with the Orthodox East that the only genuine hope of corporate ecclesial reunion truly exists.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh that's another one, and also towering over St. Peter's. There already is a ROC church in Monte del Gallo near the Russian embassy. Now they have one more. Well, maybe that will make the situation of Catholics in Russia easier (though I don't really think it will).

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ogard8:29 AM

    I agree that the “Catholic priests are in the business of saving souls”; the issue is: what is the best way of saving it. Is a nominal communion with the Vicar of Christ, in which even those who pretend to be loyal to him, whether liberals or “traditionalists”, refuse to share his faith in fullness and disregard his directives, in which the doctrine, liturgy and morality are in disarray…is that kind of communion, or better "communion", materially more helpful environment for salvation, than the Christian Church, which – although nominally not in communion with the Vicar – at least possesses what really matters in the life of an ordinary, doctrinally unsophisticated, Orthodox churchgoer: the magnificent liturgy in which “again and again”, he prays to the Lord, hears endlessly repeated sound doctrine; receives sacraments with the greatest conceivable signs of piety?

    And, say, not “wholly ignorant of his ancestral faith” or, as I have put it :”has no clue of the Orthodox faith”, but an ordinary churchgoer, who doesn’t care all that much about doctrine, but merely “goes to church” and is at home with the Liturgy…comes to the Catholic priest, wants to “abandon” the Orthodoxy in which 99% of doctrine is materially Catholic, and “become” Catholic.

    Nothing, of course, is the “substitute for the Catholic faith”, but I suggest that, for an ordinary Orthodox churchgoer, the Orthodox Church is more suitable environment for the Catholic faith than is the Catholic Church in its present state of disintegration.

    The Orthodox Liturgy is not merely a “good liturgy”, but the very heart of the Church. The Russian Church has survived persecution, and recovered miraculously, exactly because Stalin mistakenly imagined that by “reducing” it to a “cult” it would die out on its own.

    Judging from his writings while theologian, the present Vicar of Christ would probably share my view, which is – I believe – in conformity with UR 3. If not, I would, of course, not make of myself a mini-pope, but would externally obey and internally make a sincere effort to change my view. In no case would I have recourse to excuse analogous to the “not infallible”,”ambiguous” or “not in the light of tradition”.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous12:38 PM

    Commenters indicate that the Russian Orthodox are a hindrance to V2 synthesis and liberalism.

    On the post about the Melkites it is said that the East will lead the Catholic Church back to sanity.

    It strikes me that these are indicators of Our Lady's intention for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart proper and asap.

    St.Dominic and St.Francis pray for us.

    Jerry,TOSF

    ReplyDelete
  23. hears endlessly repeated sound doctrine; ***

    He might hear sound doctrine, and on other occasions he might hear Orthodoxy's distinctive errors.

    receives sacraments with the greatest conceivable signs of piety? ***

    Valid but illicitly celebrated sacraments.

    And, say, not “wholly ignorant of his ancestral faith” or, as I have put it :”has no clue of the Orthodox faith”, but an ordinary churchgoer, who doesn’t care all that much about doctrine, but merely “goes to church” and is at home with the Liturgy…comes to the Catholic priest, wants to “abandon” the Orthodoxy in which 99% of doctrine is materially Catholic, and “become” Catholic. ***

    Even that can be no excuse to deprive a soul of the inestimable good of union with the Catholic Church . . . and that 99% figure is definitely an exaggeration. Also, I've no idea what the scare quotes around "become" are meant to signify. Any non-Catholic who is formally and properly received into the Church, accepting all of her teachings, becomes Catholic.

    The Russian Church has survived persecution, and recovered miraculously, exactly because Stalin mistakenly imagined that by “reducing” it to a “cult” it would die out on its own. ***

    That's the church where something like less than 1% of its members in Russia ever go to Divine Liturgy, existing in nation with a negative birth rate due to extremely high numbers of abortion. It has yet to recover from the long history Tsarist and Communist intrusions and deformations -- its "miraculous recovery" is yet to appear.

    Nothing, of course, is the “substitute for the Catholic faith”, but I suggest that, for an ordinary Orthodox churchgoer, the Orthodox Church is more suitable environment for the Catholic faith than is the Catholic Church in its present state of disintegration. ***

    Except for the fact that the Catholic faith does not exist within Orthodoxy, only a large portion of the Catholic faith. The problems and deficiencies that now exist within the Catholic Church need not be any greater an obstacle to a soul's spiritual health than the problems and deficiences that exist within Orthodoxy -- and they simply cannot justify a priest refusing to extend the fullness of the grace of Christ to a soul who sincerely requests it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "In spite of their schismatic status, one must bear in mind that inside that Church dwells the Most Blessed Sacrament, where He is given worship in an ancient and venerable rite, where valid sacraments are administered which dispense grace."

    Only one problem: Christ is present in the Eucharist of heretics and schismatics who have valid orders, but their reception of Him does not bring upon them grace but damnation!

    (...which of course does not apply to those who are invincibly ignorant of their error.)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hestor4:02 PM

    So is Rorate Caeli just letting us know that there is now an Orthodox church in Rome (something unthinkable before the council) or are they celebrating this fact?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oh brother . . . (rolls eyes)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous6:47 PM

    I would say the real miracle is the survival of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church despite the Stalinist persecution and forced incorporation into the Russian Orthodox Church.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I would not find it too problematic, if it were the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. But the Moscow Patriarchate of the ROC is heavily infiltrated by the KGB and former Marxist agents. Of course presently the state Russian church community plays the role of national unificator and the KGB in the late 1970s shed off ever more its internationalism and increased Greater Russian nationalism already invoked by Stalin to fortify Communism (Jewish cosmopolitan views in the Soviet Communist Party had proven unpopular with the general population).

    May Romano Prodi (the KGB's "man in Italy", according to Litvinenko) will attend the Russian Orthodox Church services. The ROC gives Holy Communion to politicians who allow abortion - as long as they are Russian nationalists. Putin never stopped the over 1.3 million abortions (reported) every year in the modern Russian Federation.

    So give me a break.

    Only the liturgical splendour is a positive sign. But the Russicum is the Eastern Catholic counterpart for this liturgical splendour. But even there indifferentism and false ecumenism reigned. The current schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomeios I, studied in Rome at the Russicum.

    Nevertheless, I ask that God bless the Russians in Rome. To bless them, like He blessed Vladimir Soloviev with conversion to the Apostolic Roman unity of Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous11:15 PM

    Although it is regretable that this church was built, be happy that it isn't worse.

    It could be another mosque, or a Buddhist temple, or a Mormon temple, or a Hindo temple, or even worse- a protestant Pentecostalist church.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous11:16 PM

    Of course, I meant "Hindu", not "Hindo".


    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "It is with the Orthodox East that the only genuine hope of corporate ecclesial reunion truly exists."

    Indeed, anonymous. But not until Rome abandons its liberal modernist pretensions and Our Blessed Lady's admonitions concerning inimical compromises, hierarchical division and the collegial consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart are humbly recognised. Then, the East will restore Roman Catholicism.

    ReplyDelete
  32. “He (Orthodox, who – as per example given which is typical - lives his faith almost exclusively through the Divine Liturgy, my note) might hear sound doctrine, and on other occasions he might hear Orthodoxy's distinctive errors”.

    I know of defects only, arguably their position on indissolubility is really an error, and if so, the only one I know of.

    But supposing there were few errors that he might hear about outside the Divine Liturgy or one/two times per annum during the sermon if he takes it on board at all, all that is practically nothing in the example discussed, because it is in the unchangeable sections of the Divine Liturgy that he listens and listens all the time that the sound doctrine is, explicitly or implicitly, so incorporated into that they “sink in” – that is what matters in the life of that particular individual.

    This has to be contrasted with what he would experience if he chose to “convert”, the experience not of an ideal Catholic Church as such, but of the doctrine, life and worship of the Catholics, priests and laity, in their everyday lives.

    “Valid but illicitly celebrated sacraments”.

    Christ is the Primary Minister of all sacraments. So, if the sacraments in the Orthodox Church are illicit, Christ is the Primary Minister, or allows Himself to be bullied to be the Primary Minister, of the illicit sacraments; in other words: He is involved in an illicit work. Or, we have to deny that He is the Primary Minister.

    “Even that (i.e. that 99% of their doctrine is materially Catholic) can be no excuse to deprive a soul of the inestimable good of union with the Catholic Church”.

    The inestimable good of union is not disputable in theory: but viewing the matter from the practical situation of the individual described earlier, he would loose more than he would gain. He gains nothing by nominally accepting papacy – it will not give him sacramental grace which he needs for salvation, and which he has in the Orthodox Church anyway. In point of fact, the liturgical scandals – our daily feature – although they, for the most part, do not affect validity, are nevertheless illicit, and in any case they will adversely affect his disposition, and therefore the grace, not the grace offered ex opere operato, but the grace actually received.

    “99% figure is definitely an exaggeration.”

    The figure is meant to be the figure of speech. However, I can’t count ten doctrines in which the two Churches differ. The figure is only for illustration.

    “Any non-Catholic who is formally and properly received into the Church, accepting all of her teachings, becomes Catholic”.

    Yes, but an Orthodox doesn’t start from scratch, he is not a non-Catholic in the sense of having nothing to with what is Catholic, but in the sense that he is not fully a Catholic. He builds on what is already Catholic in the Orthodox Church, because when the separation took place it was not a full separation, but the separation “from full communion in the Catholic Church” (UR 3/1). That is why his “conversion” is nothing but a supplement to what is missing; i.e. using the previously proposed figures: 1%. In the revised rite no term “conversion” is used. It is not conversion but admission to the “full communion”.

    This is also the clue to the “scare quotes”. The “abandon” is in inverted commas, because the Orthodox “convert” doesn’t actually abandon his 99% - it is already Catholic doctrine to be “used” in conversion. And that is why the new rite of conversion doesn’t use the term, but speaks of admission to the “full communion” (i.e. from what was a defective one). Thus, the “become” is in inverted commas, because he disproportionately less (1%) actually becomes a Catholic, than he already (99%) is a Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "It could be another mosque, or a Buddhist temple, or a Mormon temple, or a Hindo temple, or even worse- a protestant Pentecostalist church."

    How would a church of Protestants, who believe in the Lord Jesus, be worse than atheist Buddhists?

    Honestly, it's commments like that which make Protestants think that Catholics only care about the Pope and Our Lady...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous2:34 PM

    I understand the theology and tradition behind the Roman Catholic Church being the One True Church...and I accept it 100%.

    But, the ancient Orthodox Churches of the East (Greek, Syrian, Rumanian, Russian Orthodox Churches and all the other autocephalous branches of it) are possessing the valid Sacraments.
    Their theology is different, but their Divine Services, Masses, and other ceremonies are 100% valid. They believe in the Real Presence of Jesus on the altar. They honor the Blessed Virgin. They honor the saints, and have their own long list of martyrs. They don't have various religious Orders of monks and nuns per se, but they do have a rich history of monasticism for monks and nuns, and I think there are afew Greek Orthodox communities (not Orders) of nuns which engage in charitable works.

    So, since they are a good 95% the same as Roman Catholics, there should not be this sense of outrage that a Russian Orthodox Church has been built.
    I wish it was a new church for the SSPX, FSSP, or ICRSP in Rome and not Russian Orthodox...but it isn't. I wish our Catholic leaders and thinking in Rome was the way it was before Vatican II, then we wouldn't be so welcoming to other religions in Rome, but unfortunatly it isn't.

    But like I said, let's be happy it's at least a real Church, with real sacraments and theology....and not a non-Christian building, or a Protestant one.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I know of defects only, arguably their position on indissolubility is really an error, and if so, the only one I know of. ***

    Their position on papal primacy is also a real error, a very serious one, and probably at the basis of most of their other errors (such as the Filoque, or the belief that unleavened bread invalidates the Eucharist, or the belief that there are no valid sacraments outside of the Orthodox communion besides their disbelief in Catholic dogmatic definitions that postdate their separation from the Catholic Church).

    that is what matters in the life of that particular individual. ***

    All truth matters, and if a nominal Orthodox comes to believe that, it's wrong to give him a stone when he asks for bread.

    This has to be contrasted with what he would experience if he chose to “convert”, the experience not of an ideal Catholic Church as such, but of the doctrine, life and worship of the Catholics, priests and laity, in their everyday lives. ***

    The Church Militant as it actually exists and operates in working to save this fallen world has never been and never will be ideal. If we wait for the Church to fix every single one of its problems before being willing to accept new members, we'd have to cease our mission altogether. If not now, when; and if not us, who?

    He is involved in an illicit work. ***

    Yes, that is the Catholic doctrine -- sacraments that are valid but illict involve Christ in an illicit work. He's like that, you know, willing to be abused and spat upon and beaten and crucified, if by any means He might save us. He hands Himself over to us, willing to risk our sinning against Him. That's why He prays, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."

    I hope you aren't trying to argue that because Christ is always the primary minister of a sacrament, that means illicit sacraments are licit.

    The inestimable good of union is not disputable in theory: but viewing the matter from the practical situation of the individual described earlier, he would loose more than he would gain. ***

    Salvation outweighs all other goods we might be able to gain in this life. St. Paul counted all other things as loss and stinking refuse compared to the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus. What could be of more value that receiving the grace of the fullness of Christ's truth?

    He gains nothing by nominally accepting papacy – it will not give him sacramental grace which he needs for salvation, and which he has in the Orthodox Church anyway. ***

    I'm not talking about nominally accepting the papacy, but actually and sincerely accepting it. Also, the Orthodox only enjoy the benefits of the sacraments to the extent that they are ignorant of the fact that their sacraments are illict. In addition, their being separated from the Catholic Church is contrary to Christ's will for them, which constitutes an impediment for them in receiving God's grace in their lives.

    ReplyDelete
  36. In point of fact, the liturgical scandals – our daily feature – although they, for the most part, do not affect validity, are nevertheless illicit, and in any case they will adversely affect his disposition, and therefore the grace, not the grace offered ex opere operato, but the grace actually received. ***

    Depends on which Mass he assists at.

    However, I can’t count ten doctrines in which the two Churches differ. ***

    Depending on which Orthodox Christian we're talking about, there may be more or less than 10 doctrines.

    Yes, but an Orthodox doesn’t start from scratch, he is not a non-Catholic in the sense of having nothing to with what is Catholic, but in the sense that he is not fully a Catholic. ***

    In other words, he is a non-Catholic in that sense that he isn't a Catholic, which means he is a non-Catholic. Protestants are much, much further from catholicity than the Orthodox, and yet they don't start from scratch either, and yet they certainly are not Catholic, even if one might choose to phrase it, "They are not fully Catholic."

    In the revised rite no term “conversion” is used. It is not conversion but admission to the “full communion”. ***

    Which is not the same thing as saying it is not conversion. In the proper sense, any non-Catholic who becomes Catholic "converts." It's not a conversion from paganism, but admission to full communion is still conversion. Anyway, the old rites, which were never abrogated and are still used by the Church, do speak of conversion, and they did for most of the Church's history -- therefore it IS conversion.

    the Orthodox “convert” doesn’t actually abandon his 99% - it is already Catholic doctrine to be “used” in conversion. ***

    Not even pagan idolaters give up the handful of stray bits of truth they may have had prior to their conversion, nor when I converted did I give up the, oh, 20-odd Catholic doctrines I believed when I belonged to an heretical sect.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ogard3:48 PM

    The second part of the comment posted earlier today.

    It can’t be disputed that the persecution in Russia was extremely severe, and that the recovery was in relative terms miraculous, whatever the percentage of abortions, and that the Liturgy – that is the point, not the present state of affairs in Russia – was a decisive factor in survival and recovery. The Orthodox notion of the Church, adopted by the LG by the way, is that of Eucharistic Celebration around the bishop.

    “Except for the fact that the Catholic faith does not exist within Orthodoxy, only a large portion of the Catholic faith.” Exactly! That is what I mean all the time.

    “The problems and deficiencies that now exist within the Catholic Church need not be any greater an obstacle to a soul's spiritual health than the problems and deficiencies that exist within Orthodoxy”.

    Correct in general terms, but the described convert would loose more than he would gain by conversion. The point is that he lives his faith in the Liturgy, which is in all aspects impeccable – he would loose it, and get nothing in replacement

    “and they simply cannot justify a priest refusing to extend the fullness of the grace of Christ to a soul who sincerely requests it”

    The Orthodox has the same fullness of grace offered; and, assuming good faith, and assuming right disposition for which the Liturgy is the most important factor – practically the only one in this particular case -- he has the best conceivable environment for receiving the grace, given the present situation in the Catholic Church. Deprived of the Liturgy he is crippled. Regrettably, the Catholic Church, in its present condition, can’t offer him a better deal. The communion with the Pope, and the fullness of doctrine, will not give him grace.

    It is not a matter of a “priest refusing” an individual “who sincerely requests”, but of assessing the circumstances and giving him the best Christian advice. If that chap were my friend, and knowing how defectively he lives his faith but nevertheless attends the Divine Liturgy regularly, I would tell him: Catholic Church is the Church of Christ in its fullness, but at the moment she is in disarray. You, with your present, rather weak faith, have nothing to gain that you can’t gain in the Orthodox Church if only you want it. You will definitely loose your Liturgy, which is practically your sole bond with the Church. So, to start with, make a full use of what the Orthodox Church offers you. If you realize in due course that you need more and if you are sure that you will be able to cope with the loss of Liturgy, and all the mess in the Catholic Church, by all means come, I will help you, but do think it through and make sure that that is what you really want.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Beautiful, holy, valid, and welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Regardless of how close the Russian Orthodox doctrine or liturgy is to the Roman Catholic Church, they are still schismatics and being a schismatic is, objectively speaking, a mortal sin against the First Commandment. Therefore, nobody whosoever should be glad to have a schismatic parish open up in Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The point is that he lives his faith in the Liturgy, which is in all aspects impeccable – he would loose it, and get nothing in replacement ***

    As I said, that would depend on which Mass or Divine Liturgy at which he assists. Beautiful liturgy is no replacement for Catholic truth.

    The Orthodox has the same fullness of grace offered ***

    Except for the grace of the fullness of Catholic truth and obedience to Christ's will -- even though in most case their culpability would be lessened due to ignorance.

    Regrettably, the Catholic Church, in its present condition, can’t offer him a better deal. The communion with the Pope, and the fullness of doctrine, will not give him grace. ***

    Sorry, but that's rank heresy, Ogard -- fullness of doctrine and communion with the Pope do indeed bring greater grace. If you really think they don't, why do you remain a Catholic? The way you talk, it almost sounds as if you'd rather be Orthodox yourself.

    The Church has been in far worse shape many times in the past, but that's never been an excuse to disobey Our Lord's commandments to evangelise, to accept any who sincerely request full and proper union with Christ's Mystical Body.

    It is not a matter of a “priest refusing” an individual “who sincerely requests”, but of assessing the circumstances and giving him the best Christian advice. ***

    It's never good advice to discourage someone who sincerely desires to become a Catholic. Priests who do so will have much to answer for on Judgment Day.

    Catholic Church is the Church of Christ in its fullness, but at the moment she is in disarray. ***

    And the Church here below has always been and always will be in "disarray" -- we're at war, and war is a horribly messy business.

    You, with your present, rather weak faith, have nothing to gain that you can’t gain in the Orthodox Church if only you want it. ***

    Nothing to gain except for full communion with Christ in His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, that is . . .

    If an Orthodox Christian comes to realise just how wrong it is for him to be separated from the Catholic Church, trying to dissuade him in this way could cause him spiritual harm, and will definitely confuse him. Such words as you'd offer ought not be said to such an inquirer.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Fr. Deacon Daniel5:14 PM

    What a wonderful, glorious Christian Temple! May God bless my Russian Orthodox brethren and grant them many happy and blessed years!

    As to the SSPX, their schism is both very recent and within the Latin Patriarchate. The instigators of this schism are still alive and active in their ministry. One should not expect Rome to endorse their recent activities by helping them to obtain property, especially since they attempt to actively recruit Latin Catholics to their movement.

    The separation between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, however, is many centuries old. It is a history that we have inherited and that none of us helped to personally create.

    In ICXC,

    Fr. Deacon Daniel
    Greek-Catholic Deacon

    ReplyDelete
  42. Very poor reasoning by Fr. Deacon Daniel.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Jordanes,
    I have to leave things as they are for, say, three months, because of other obligations. Thanks for the hospitality and moderation.

    As for your views, we both stand for the Holy Father, Magisterium, Vatican II, and Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium. But we differ in our respective interpretations of it. I was thinking along your lines some 20-23 years ago. You would probably find shocking the “Ratzinger’s Model”, in his Principles of Catholic Theology 1982 (English 1987, Ignatius); I don’t.

    Few minor details apart, I stand by all that I have said in this Post and the Post that has been just closed, after your comment on reconciliation with Tradition.

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The Orthodox today are in much the same position as the English schismatics during the English Reformation. To think that great men and women were martyred for their fidelity to the true faith and today 'Catholics' insist that to be Orthodox is no big deal-perhaps even meritorious.

    Jordanes is doing an excellent job knocking this heresy down and I'm surprised there aren't more of the usual characters online supporting the effort.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Beautiful, holy, valid, and welcome.

    Then what is to stop Catholics from leaving their usual parishes and assisting at the Orthodox liturgy full-time?

    Just because it is "Beautiful, holy and valid" does not mean it is an option for Catholics - as I am sure many neo-conservative Catholics will love to point out in regards to SSPX masses.

    As to Fr. Daniel Deacon - your reasoning is shambles and one which I would not expect from a Catholic priest. The Orthodox reject primary tenets of the doctrine of the church. Apart from their rejection of Filioque none of the Marian dogmas declared after their separation, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, are officially accepted as binding (although many may privately believe it). They regard our liturgy as "heretical" as there is supposedly no explicit epiclesis. The SSPX do not reject anything doctrinal - hence why their case does not come under the jurisdiction of ecumenical affairs in Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I am in complete agreement with Jordanes.

    And although I know and respect Father Deacon Daniel, I have to wonder what the SSPX has anything to do with this. We are talking about the Eastern Orthodox right now, who are undoubtedly heretics and schismatics.

    And, Ogard, I can see what you're saying, but in the end I don't think the argument holds water. Communion with the Bishop of Rome and full membership in the One Church of Jesus Christ brings a multitude of graces.

    As far as Orthodox not "converting" because they don't have to start from scratch...well, neither do Protestants. If I'm not mistaken, in the New Rites the term for a Protestant converting is also "full communion," not conversion. So what? The New Rites are forty years old, made by committees with agendas, and have never abrogated the Traditional Rites, which have remained in place for centuries and have actual Catholic doctrine to back them up.

    If you're making a point about the Orthodox, you might as well make it for the Protestants, too, since the terminology doesn't discriminate between the two.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ottaviani,

    Sometime in the near future, please try to make it to Vespers at an Orthodox Church on Saturday evening. Watch the Orthodox faithful as they confess their sins to the priest after Vespers at the front of the church, under the icon of St. John the Baptist, as the priest places his stole over the head of each penitent. I hope that you will give thanks to God, as I do, for the fidelity of these people and their forbears to Holy Tradition. Then, at Mass the next day, bring a loving intention for their full communion with Peter.

    God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Fr. Deacon Daniel11:26 PM

    Garrett,

    The SSPX was brought up by another poster, complaining that this schismatic group is not permitted a chapel, whereas the Orthodox are.

    As to the others who complain about my reasoning, I am certainly open to hearing where I am in error here. No living Orthodox Christian on the face of the planet is responsible for the breach between Eastern and Western Christendom. The same cannot be said for the intransigence of the SSPX and much of its membership, which thankfully seem to be rethinking their position (or posturing) vis-a-vis Rome. They are rebellious former subjects of the Latin Patriarch and Roman Pontiff. Most were baptized into full communion with him. Should he reward their intransigence with a chapel? Not until they repent.

    The same level of accountability cannot be ascribed to our Eastern Orthodox brethren for a variety of reasons. Not all Orthodox Christians believe Western doctrines to be heretical and not all believe that the Latin Church's sacraments are invalid. IOW, not all Orthodox Christians are anti-Catholic. That they are lacking in the ability at the level of the hierarchy to declare anything authoritatively and ecumenically with the One Voice of the magisterium is a fundamental weakness in their ecclesiology brought about by what is for some an almost unquestioned Imperial and Eusebian Ecclesiology. The tragedy of current Orthodox Church polity is that they have become a conciliar Church with no ability to convene councils and an Imperial church with no Emperor.

    So I recognize the weaknesses and flaws in some of their positions (which cannot be ecumenically binding), which is why I am a Greek-Catholic and NOT a member of an Eastern Orthodox jurisdiction.

    Nevertheless, Rome is right to support an Orthodox chapel in the city to minister to the Orthodox faithful. Our current separation is primarily the result of over 1000 years of mistrust brought about by misbehavior on both sides and cannot be easily overcome, except through fraternal charity.

    God bless,

    Fr. Deacon Daniel

    ReplyDelete
  49. The picture speaks beautifully of what Pope John Paul II said about the "Two lungs of the Church"

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous4:03 PM

    Pope Benedict needs to take serious lessons from Orthodoxy. Namely, revoke all post-Vatican II innovations and liturgical abuses, from altar girls to Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, to the Protestant Novus Ordo Mass. The Pope must turn the Church away from the mayhem and destruction of the last 45 years. As one who cannot even attend the Novus Ordo Mass without feeling sick to my stomach, I would rather bow before Orthodoxy than join a Catholic parish where the church building itself looks like a Baptist meeting hall. Orthodoxy would never stoop to this heresy. Orthodoxy may have its problems but it has never destroyed its Liturgy and ransacked its own churches to make them look Protestant. This says something.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Victoria4:17 PM

    I am surprised that the Russian Orthodox are referred to as "schismatics." Most objective historians of Christianity agree that it is Orthodoxy that is the ancient and original faith. The original church structure was a conciliar one, with the Roman bishop (the papa) being one of those on the council. All of the original features of the church are Orthodox. After the schism of 1054 the Roman bishop elevated himself to the position of Pope, and the new structure with a single hierarch at the top was formed. The Orthodox have preserved the ancient faith, whereas the Catholics have taken away elements from it, the most recent example being Vatican II--after which many devout Catholics are suffering, seeing that their faith is disintegrating.

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!