Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

[Arduinna]

Has anyone read this book by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick called Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy? 

I was hoping to get some reviews because I haven't had a chance to get it yet. 

[Tradd]

Yep! I've had it for about a month and love it!

It's meant for the Orthodox, written from the Orthodox viewpoint. Wanted to point that out for folks from other traditions.

There's a podcast by the same name on AFR, that was a series of classes Fr. Andrew had done in his parish and recorded. The book are the podcasts expanded and some things corrected/revised.

Conciliar Press is not always known for putting out the best books, but this one is a home run!

It's invaluable for me as a catechist in training.

[Arduinna]

I'm listening to the podcast now, but the book looked good. Amazon didn't have the look inside feature for it so I figured I'd ask if anyone had it. Good to know that it's great, I'll have to pick it up. 

ps scroll down in religious studies and look at my chant tones thread please LOL

[Tradd]

LOL - just posted a very long reply in the chant thread.

[Arduinna]

I listened to the first few podcasts last night up through the 2 on Catholicism. It was really helpful in understanding the differences. Some of the stuff I already knew and some I didn't.

I knew the connection between the Catholic teachings of mortal and venial sin and it's relationship to the teaching on sanctifying grace ( and purgatory/indulgences), but I never realized the differences in the teaching regarding ordination nor thought of the consequences of the teaching that ordination leaves a permanent mark on the soul is not taught in the OC and how it results in "valid but illicit" groups in the CC.

Also how the differences in belief on original sin are related to the differences of belief on Mary's immaculate conception, that one was very interesting to me as I'd never thought that one out to it's conclusion.

I also thought what he said about the Trinity to be very interesting. I can't remember exactly how he worded it but basically he said that attributes about God either describe all 3 like that God is eternal or 1 that God is incarnate IE the son only. And that only the Catholic teaching of the filioque applies to 2. But then I've found the tradition and scriptural support for the filioque to be lacking anyway. 

[Tradd]

Yes, I found that interesting, as well.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Arduinna]

So I was just thinking that, if the OC does not believe in ordination leaving an indelible mark on the soul so once a priest always a priest how does that effect the OC view on apostolic succession? Do they believe that the CC no longer holds apostolic succession since they no longer have communion with the OC? And if they the believe the CC no longer has apostolic succession then how are their sacraments valid? Is that why the christmate Catholics that become Orthodox even if they were already confirmed? 

From Orthodox Wiki

In addition to a line of historic transmission, Orthodox Christian churches additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox doctrine as well as full communion with other Orthodox bishops. As such, the Orthodox do not recognize the existence of apostolic succession outside the Orthodox Church, precisely because the episcopacy is a ministry within the Church.

I'd have to go back and relisten to what his definitions of schism and heresy are, because I can't remember. 

[lilyka]

I have listened to some of the pod casts.  They were excellent (the parts I heard.  I was in and out of sleep LOL ).

[Purple Sage]

I listened to all of the podcasts and thought they were very good, too.

[Tradd]

Originally Posted by Arduinna 

So I was just thinking that, if the OC does not believe in ordination leaving an indelible mark on the soul so once a priest always a priest how does that effect the OC view on apostolic succession? Do they believe that the CC no longer holds apostolic succession since they no longer have communion with the OC? And if they the believe the CC no longer has apostolic succession then how are their sacraments valid? Is that why the christmate Catholics that become Orthodox even if they were already confirmed? 

From Orthodox Wiki

In addition to a line of historic transmission, Orthodox Christian churches additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox doctrine as well as full communion with other Orthodox bishops. As such, the Orthodox do not recognize the existence of apostolic succession outside the Orthodox Church, precisely because the episcopacy is a ministry within the Church.

I'd have to go back and relisten to what his definitions of schism and heresy are, because I can't remember. 

I wish I could take more time to reply, but I've got a ton of class reading to do (catechesis/liturgical theology/homiletics-public speaking this semester).

But I can tell you that it's not universal that Catholics are chrismated. Depends on the national Orthodox Church. The Russians and the Greeks historically had different methods of receiving Catholics.

 

This article was written by Fr. John Erickson, former dean of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York (he was professor of Church history as well) - I also had to read it for class.

http://jbburnett.com/resources/erickson_reception-svtq97.pdf

And this from the website of the OCA Cathedral in San Francisco:

http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html

[Arduinna]

no problem, I don't want to interfere with your studies. 

I'll just put my ponderings down and whoever has the knowledge, time and inclination can post. 

I'm a little confused about how the OC views the CC. On the one hand there is this statement

Orthodox Christian churches additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox doctrine as well as full communion with other Orthodox bishops. As such, the Orthodox do not recognize the existence of apostolic succession outside the Orthodox Church, precisely because the episcopacy is a ministry within the Church.

At the same time there are Orthodox groups giving the pope papal tiaras. 

[Arduinna]

Ok so the teaching of ordination leaving an indelible mark on the soul and IE once a priest always a priest was declared at the council of Trent in 16th century. 

[Arduinna]

I ordered the book, I'll post back after it arrives and I read it. 

[Arduinna]

Ok further interesting parts in the book.

Page 31 The over emphases on reason leads to an imbalanced spirituality, in which the integral oneness of the body, mind and soul that Orthodox spirituality nurtures becomes fragmented and the body is too highly emphasized in spiritual life. 

Page 32 He mentions stigmata, self flagellation, devotional scapulars, stations of the cross and their focuses on the flesh. 

The topic of absolute divine simplicity was new to me and quite interesting

Also his topics on created grace is expanded to include how it relates to the validity of sacraments which was an association I hadn't thought of. 

I really like the appendix in the back on the timeline of relations between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and list of heresies quick reference. 

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by Arduinna 

I'm a little confused about how the OC views the CC. On the one hand there is this statement

Orthodox Christian churches additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox doctrine as well as full communion with other Orthodox bishops. As such, the Orthodox do not recognize the existence of apostolic succession outside the Orthodox Church, precisely because the episcopacy is a ministry within the Church.

At the same time there are Orthodox groups giving the pope papal tiaras. 

The statement is accurate: the Orthodox position has always been that doctrine and unity with the Church are essential. Literal succession alone, regardless of correct doctrine etc., is not enough. The priesthood only exists within the Church. It is not something passed down like a genetic trait. 

Part of the confusion about tiaras and such may come from Orthodox clergy giving non-Orthodox hierarchs their "props" in public situations. For example, even a bishop's letter condemning certain RC beliefs or practices is always directed to His Holiness the Pope. It might be no more than superficial courtesy.

Even more confusion might come from the division between what might be called "traditionalists" and "modernists" within the Orthodox church.

The former are strictly non-ecumenical, and regard all non-Orthodox as completely outside the Church; they do not give Communion to Catholic or Protestant visitors, and usually require converts to Orthodoxy to be either chrismated or baptized.

The latter consider only Orthodoxy to have the fullness of faith, but do not place RC or Protestant Christians outside the Church, and will often concelebrate with non-Orthodox. 

[lilyka]

Originally Posted by mamabadger 

The latter consider only Orthodoxy to have the fullness of faith, but do not place RC or Protestant Christians outside the Church, and will often concelebrate with non-Orthodox. 

Are there a lot of real Orthodox who do this?

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by lilyka 

Are there a lot of real Orthodox who do this?

I guess the question might be, if they do this are they "real" Orthodox? 

Seriously, not many worldwide, but the majority in North America. For many reasons including immigration history, Orthodox churches in North America are very much skewed toward the modern and non-traditional, and practices like concelebration and shared Communion are disproportionately common here. 

[lilyka]

I have never been to a church where the priest would never knowingly give communion to someone who was not Orthodox!  Although they often do take the persons word for it.

[Tradd]

Originally Posted by mamabadger 

I guess the question might be, if they do this are they "real" Orthodox? 

Seriously, not many worldwide, but the majority in North America. For many reasons including immigration history, Orthodox churches in North America are very much skewed toward the modern and non-traditional, and practices like concelebration and shared Communion are disproportionately common here. 

I've never seen this in the OCA. But in my previous time with the Antiochians, heck, yes! A lot of it has to do with the situation in the Middle East. Christians of all sorts are the minority, and so they really stick together. There aren't the divisions among them like in the,US. It's a matter of survival. The Antiochians in the US will commune visitors to parishes.who are Coptic and Armenian Orthodox. If they want to join a parish they have to be chrismated or received by profession of faith, confession, and communion.

Among Middle Eastern Christians, a woman begins to practice her husband's faith upon marriage. So if a Latin or Byzantine Rite Catholic woman marries an Antiochian Orthodox man, she will attend,his church, take Communion, etc. It's rare for a woman to convert. Of course, this creates a pastoral issue when these folks immigrate to the US.

I've seen this with my own eyes and been told by multiple priests that Met. Philip mandates they must commune Copts and Armenian Orthodox. I've also been about the Middle Eastern situation by multiple immigrants from both Lebanon and Palestine.

It is kind of an open secret, but you've had to have some exposure to the Antiochians to be aware of it. This is the only intercommunion I am aware of or have seen.

[Purple Sage]

That's really interesting, Tradd.  The Antiochian parish I attend states specifically in the bulletin who can and cannot take communion.  They certainly wouldn't let me participate until I am officially Orthodox, but it would be interesting to find out where they stand on Copts and Armenian Orthodox.