Yes there is dialogue about the points which are still an issue, and this dialogue has been going on for some decades at the highest levels in our Orthodox communion.
Here is one of several statements which His Holiness Pope Shenouda has made with various Roman Popes. (Of course none of these statements are saying that there are no issues between us, but they all seem to me to stress the many things we have in common and commit us to actively working to deal with those remaining issues as far as is consistent with the Orthodox Faith).
COMMON DECLARATION OF POPE PAUL VI AND OF THE POPE OF ALEXANDRIA SHENOUDA III
Paul VI, bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and patriarch of the See of St. Mark, give thanks in the Holy Spirit to God that, after the great event of the return of relics of St. Mark to Egypt, relations have further developed between the Churches of Rome and Alexandria so that they have now been able to meet personally together. At the end of their meetings and conversations they wish to state together the following:
We have met in the desire to deepen the relations between our Churches and to find concrete ways to overcome the obstacles in the way of our real cooperation in the service of our Lord Jesus Christ who has given us the ministry of reconciliation, to reconcile the world to Himself (2 Cor 5:18-20).
In accordance with our apostolic traditions transmitted to our Churches and preserved therein, and in conformity with the early three ecumenical councils, we confess one faith in the One Triune God, the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Word of God, the effulgence of His glory and the express image of His substance, who for us was incarnate, assuming for Himself a real body with a rational soul, and who shared with us our humanity but without sin. We confess that our Lord and God and Saviour and King of us all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to His Divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real, perfect union without mingling, without commixtion, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. His divinity did not separate from His humanity for an instant, not for the twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and invisible became visible in the flesh, and took upon Himself the form of a servant. In Him are preserved all the properties of the divinity and all the properties of the humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and inseparable union.
The divine life is given to us and is nourished in us through the seven sacraments of Christ in His Church: Baptism, Chrism (Confirmation), Holy Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony and Holy Orders.
We venerate the Virgin Mary, Mother of the True Light, and we confess that she is ever Virgin, the God- bearer. She intercedes for us, and, as the Theotokos, excels in her dignity all angelic hosts.
We have, to a large degree, the same understanding of the Church, founded upon the Apostles, and of the important role of ecumenical and local councils. Our spirituality is well and profoundly expressed in our rituals and in the Liturgy of the Mass which comprises the centre of our public prayer and the culmination of our in corporation into Christ in His Church. We keep the fasts and feasts of our faith. We venerate the relics of the saints and ask the intercession of the angels and of the saints, the living and the departed. These compose a cloud of witnesses in the Church. They and we look in hope for the Second Coming of our Lord when His glory will be revealed to judge the living and the dead.
We humbly recognize that our Churches are not able to give more perfect witness to this new life in Christ because of existing divisions which have behind them centuries of difficult history. In fact, since the year 451 A.D., theological differences, nourished and widened by non-theological factors, have sprung up. These differences cannot be ignored. In spite of them, however, weare rediscovering ourselves as Churches witha common inheritance and are reaching out with determination and confidence in the Lord to achieve the fullness and perfection of that unity which is His gift.
As an aid to accomplishing this task, we are setting up a joint commission representing our Churches, whose function will be to guide common study in the fields of Church tradition, patristics, liturgy, theology, history and practical problems, so that by cooperation in common we may seek to resolve, in a spirit of mutual respect, the differences existing between our Churches and be able to proclaim together the Gospel in ways which correspond to the authentic message of the Lord and to the needs and hopes of todays world. At the same time we express our gratitude and encouragement to other groups of Catholic and Orthodox scholars and pastors who devote their efforts to common activity in these and related fields.
With sincerity and urgency we recall that true charity, rooted in total fidelity to the one Lord Jesus Christ and in mutual respect for each ones traditions, is an essential element of this search for perfect communion.
This particular passage seems to me to describe how His Holiness wishes us to participate in dialogue with the Catholic Church..
by cooperation in common we may seek to resolve, in a spirit of mutual respect, the differences existing between our Churches and be able to proclaim together the Gospel in ways which correspond to the authentic message of the Lord and to the needs and hopes of todays world
This does not minimise any differences, but expresses a desire to resolve these differences in accordance with the 'authentic message of the Lord', and in a 'spirit of mutual respect'.
I sensed, in previous correspondance with you, that you did not seem optimistic about a near future union with the RC?
How can we keep up to date with the ecumenical developments?
Also, do you appreciate that if the Catholics retained their likeness that they had with us since the beginning, they would be in less trouble as they are in now? Priests could have been married. This would have encouraged priesthood. It would have probably resolved the issue of pedophillic priests, and would have deepened communities in their respective parishes.
Do they not see this? Is this not an aspect that will benefit them?
If they were allow priests to get married only because they are concerning about dwindling priest head-counts in their Church, they would look really weak. If however, they allowed priests to get married because it is a step towards unity with us, it will be a good excuse for them. No?
I think that we have to understand that at all times and in all places there have been sexually predatory people who have taken a great deal of effort to get into situations where they are able to work out their perverse desires and ambitions. In the past we know that such people have taken a great deal of time and effort to obtain positions in children's homes, in scout troops, in schools, and in all those places where they would have both opportunity and authority.
In the UK we have already had cycles of exposure of such abuse. I remember just a couple of years ago it was suggested that at a children's home on Jersey there had been decades of such serious abuse that children had been sexually tortured to death, and many burials were expected to be found in the grounds. In the end, after very extensive investigation, no evidence of any abuse at all was found. A small piece of bone turned out to be from an animal, and the multiple signs of disturbed soil which ground penetrating radar detected turned out to be from a film which had been shot there in the past.
There was no evidence at all, but because real abuse had been uncovered elsewhere it was very easy to assume that something dreadful must have taken place here as well.
Likewise, in the Orkney islands some decades ago, social workers believed they had uncovered a secret network of satanic and sexual abuse among childen. Many were immediately taken from their parents and the local community was turned upside down. In the culture of the times it seemed almost believable that such unbelievable things had happened. But again it turned out that there was no evidence at all that anything had happened.
It seems to me that something similar is happening to the Catholic Church. There has been some abuse, that is undoubted. And it has been handled rather badly in the past. But actually in the present the Catholic Church in the UK for instance, has some of the most secure protocols among any agencies working with children and vulnerable adults. Those who have wished to abuse children are not just frustrated men who should have been married, they are predatory abusers, often homosexual, who will wait a very long time and even go so far as to go through seminary, just to get into a position where they can act out their desires.
I think that at first it was not clear to various authorities how widespread this problem was and so there were disconnected and local responses. I do not believe that having a married priesthood would necessarily have solved the whole problem. Now that the problem has become clearly known it has rather had the effect of damaging all priests. But this is unfair. Most are not such predatory abusers and the number who are is a very small minority indeed.
As far as I can see in England there have been only 10 or so priests accused of such abuse. Even in Ireland it seems that only 242 male witnesses made such complaints. These complaints covered a period of almost 60 years and only 68 were of the most serious nature. What has also happened is that every complaint from any person associated with Irish child care, even if relating to an entirely non-sexual matter, has been lumped together as abuse, and then counted as being of the worst kind of abuse.
It seems to me that the media and anti-Christ forces are very happy to jump all over the Catholic Church if they can. They have no interest in truth or in balance. There are Orthodox monasteries today where abuse has been uncovered. There are Orthodox Churches where abuse has taken place. We are fortunate that the Western media doesn't really know much about Orthodoxy. It doesn't take more than a couple of examples of abuse to have all manner of wild claims made.
Has there been abuse? Of course, and over 60 years. Is the Catholic Church at fault for covering some of this abuse up? Quite probably, but times and attitudes change. Many children were sent by the British state in the 20th century to Australia as 'apprentices' but actually ended up as slaves and were often abused. In the 20th century Aboriginal children were taken from their parents in an attempt at forceable de-Aborginalisation. Would any of these things happen now? Yet they seemed generally acceptable in the past. In Victorian times child prostitution was common in England. Times change.
If we judge the Catholic Church now then we would find that generally it has very strict procedures in place for dealing with children. If we look to the past then we must judge the Catholic Church by the general attitudes and legal structures of the times. Those who committed extreme sexual abuse should always have been disciplined, but their numbers have always been relatively very small.
Times do change. When I was growing up a teacher would throw a board rubber across the room at a student who was talking and we did not think anything of it. But now he would be arrested, suspended from teaching and likely end up in prison and without a career. Many of those who are now being encouraged to sue the Catholic Church have not been sexually abused but are making a complaint about treatment which might well have been considered normal or acceptable in the past, such as being caned, but which now is considered by some as abuse.
There are married priests in the Catholic Church. Some are those who joined the Catholic Church from the Anglican Church. And there are married priests and deacons in the Eastern rite Catholic Churches.
There is regular discussion within Catholicism about the issue of clerical celibacy. As I said in an earlier post the clergy were often married in the UK until the Middle Ages, so it is not incompatible with Catholicism.
Reading about infant baptism today I see that in fact the preferred method of Catholic baptism now IS immersion, although there is a massive intertia which must be overcome.
I also noticed a deep, walk in font in a Catholic church in London.
However, the priest who baptised my son seemed a bit stressed and only managed two 'pourings' on his head. I don't know whether the correct form is generally taken notice of or even whether baptism is thought to be as essential as it is in the Orthodox church.
I was watching videos of the Protestors (against the Pope's state visit) on youtube and the news. It was clear that their only intention was to humiliate the Church - The Entirety of the Church. Not a few priests. They were marching alongside the likes of Richard Dawkins and Tatchell.
Richard Dawkins has his own agenda. He must be thrilled over the pedophilic priest issues the Church is having. He is leveraging this to his own benefit, and to further his own cause.
On the one hand, I can understand how they must feel that the cause of all the world's problems is religion. Everyone believing that "their God" is the only God, and killing everyone else in the name of God, that no one has even seen.
Moreover, he quoted evil people in our history, such as hitler who he stressed were "devout catholics".
There is an increasingly growing force against the Church. It is now possible to walk in the street naked, and no one will say a word to you, but If you wear a cross at work, you could be made redundant. This is in Europe.
The protesting against the Catholic Pontiff was really sad. They were clearly painting ever Catholic priest with the same brush as those who were accussed of abusing Children. There are many catholic priests/nuns/clergy/laymen who are contemporary saints and served their communities. Why are they all of a sudden being forgotten?
Sister Emmanuel - she served poor in Egypt. Le Abbé Pierre - created the biggest charity organisation in France: Emmaus Pier Frassati - A millionaire who gave his life (and died) in serving poor people and bringing them to Church. Soeur Faustine Mother Theresa
Were all these evil? I don't see anyone in Islam who is comparable to ANY of these saints??
Which atheist is comparable to them?
Which atheist gave his life in the service of others??
The worst part of listening to Dawkins, was that a LOT of what he said was incorrect. He has NO understanding of theology. His understanding is that of a 12 year old that has been brought up to think that God doesnt exist.
Stalin was an an Atheist! Look at what he did! and so was:
MAO ZEDONG POL POT NICOLAE CEAUSESCU BENITO MUSSOLINI
I don't see atheists creating schools in 3rd world countries and teaching children there and serving them. I don't see atheists going around feeding homeless people. I only see atheists complaining that we are deluded by God. That's it.
I think the protestors came across as rather sad people who had nothing pleasant to say. Truly thank God their voices were drowned out by the obvious joy of so many Catholic Christians. 650,000 out on the streets and at events witnessing to their value which their faith has to them. I think the visit will have made a significant impact on the situation facing all Christians here in the UK, and that includes our own Orthodox communion.
I rather think that many people who thought they might be atheists have been so repulsed by the attitude of the most vociferous anti-Christian celebrity atheists that they are reconsidering their views. I heard of one agnostic woman MP who was not planning to have anything to do with the visit but was so appalled by the atheists and anti-Christians that she decided to go and cheer the Pope when he drove through her constituency.
The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.
And it seems from a little reading that the preferred method is immersion, but as I said previously, the weight of the last centuries tends towards affusion.
Of course affusion WAS and is always allowed as a form of baptism in case of extreme need. Someone dangerously ill in a sick bed could not be immersed, a premature infant could not be immersed, someone in a desert might not be able to be baptised. These extreme situations have always been ones in which affusion could be used. Though often if the person became well they would be conditionally baptised by immersion - though this was not considered necessary, and it was thought that a baptism by affusion in real need was just the same as a baptism by immersion where there was no desperate need.
The problem with modern Catholic practice is that over some centuries the extreme use of affusion was allowed to more and more infants until it became the norm, certainly on the continent if not in England, where immersion remained normal until the Catholic Church was destroyed by the Tudors. We can imagine that a rich woman might not want her child baptised by immersion for a variety of reasons, and so would say 'my child is too fragile so will you allow affusion?'. A slightly less wealthy person might see this and might decide that when her child was born she wanted it to be baptised like Lady X's child. And so the practice can be imagined to roll down the social scale. When new churches were built the novel practice would be institutionalised by having a font that just would not fit even a small infant. After a few generations it appears that it is baptism by immersion which is the novelty.
What would be required I guess would be for a bishop to insist that apart from some genuine issue of health all infants should be baptised by immersion. I do believe that more and more it is the case that adult converts are baptised by immersion.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9749.msg119642#msg119642 date=1285074150] I think the protestors came across as rather sad people who had nothing pleasant to say. Truly thank God their voices were drowned out by the obvious joy of so many Catholic Christians. 650,000 out on the streets and at events witnessing to their value which their faith has to them. I think the visit will have made a significant impact on the situation facing all Christians here in the UK, and that includes our own Orthodox communion.
I rather think that many people who thought they might be atheists have been so repulsed by the attitude of the most vociferous anti-Christian celebrity atheists that they are reconsidering their views. I heard of one agnostic woman MP who was not planning to have anything to do with the visit but was so appalled by the atheists and anti-Christians that she decided to go and cheer the Pope when he drove through her constituency.
Father Peter
Did you not find that they came across are surprisingly ignorant? Did you hear Richard Hawkins' talk at the protest?
He really wants to destroy the RC - at any cost. I think he's even prepared to go and beg kids to pretend they were abused - and as you said, the definition of "abuse" is becoming so large, that it now includes not being sent a Christmas card by the parish priest.
Surely it would be wise to respond to the false accusations and the ignorance he preaches? I don't mind him not believing in God, nor am I bothered if he incites others not to believe in God, but his understanding of christianity is so flawed that he is building his argument against Christianity on foundation that has incorrect interpretations at the very core of its logic.
Although I am glad to hear that 650K came to see the Pontiff, it was still shocking that thousands (1000's) still protested against his State Vist and there were some who even planned to have the Pope arrested.
very interesting info on baptism. having come from a protestant church where baptism was always by immersion (though less often children were baptised) and joined the coptic church, i visited a little anglican church where the priest announced there would be a baptism after the service (this was in cool weather). i offered to bring down the electric heater from the bell tower, so the poor baby would not be too cold, and was surprised when my offer was rejected. it was only during the baptism service i realised the kid was not going to get undressed, i then felt so silly! :o
OK i know this is a little off topic becuz idk how to make a new topic but Can you Be Orthodox and Catholic at the same time???? btw im baptized orthodox just in case u ask
I don't see how you can be Orthodox and Catholic at the same time.
Which beliefs would you go with when there is a contradiction or difference of faith?
Would you accept the Pope of Rome as the universal bishop of the whole Church, or reject this teaching as error? Would you accept the filioque or reject the filioque?
Why do you ask? Is it a pressing personal choice you are making?
i understand the question coz i once thought maybe u could. when i was more ignorant, i reckoned that as most catholics believe less than 90% of what they officially believe and most orthodox believe less than 90% of what they officially believe, so by simple maths, as i believed about 90% of what the catholics believed and 95% (at that time, now more!) of what the orthodox believed, then i was just as 'good' as any orthodox or catholic Christian, so i could join both churches!
at that time i didn't understand that the authority God gives to the church leaders is very very important, and that submitting to authority is vital for us to be able to grow spiritually. of course if you were in two churches and your priests disagreed about how to advise you, you would get very confused and may be tempted to think you know better than both of them! i spent many months studying the doctrines of the catholic and coptic churches, and i even attended half of the catholic introduction course (i got the lessons from the other half emailed to me) so that i could decide which one to join. i had been a protestant Christian, just because the lady who told my parents about God was from a protestant church. i spent a long time studying this, and was a regular visitor at protestant, catholic and coptic churches for about 2 years until i was sure i had to be coptic.
i felt best in the coptic church, but i was determined not to make such an important decision based on emotions. i found all the traditional interpretations of the Bible made the most sense, and it was right to include the departed saints in your prayers, but not to cling to them as if they were the most important part of your spiritual life (it seems there is a risk of this in the catholic and some eastern orthodox churches). i was already sure that Holy Communion must be celebrated with more seriousness than protestant churches, so i based my decision to be orthodox on the doctrines (beliefs) of the churches and also church history. i was very impressed with the coptic martyrs and the emphasis on fasting and embracing suffering for the name our Lord Jesus Christ.
of course most of us don't have the time or the resources to examine the beliefs this closely, so it's easy to think the beliefs are more or less the same if you don't spend lots of time reading and asking questions.
so for anyone who wants the short answer ;) you should join an orthodox church, and if you are already a member, you should stay there. of course you can stay there asking questions to increase your understanding. i don't think it's best to accept everything and never think about it, but you don't have to read church history for 2 years in your spare time like i did!
if you are in another church, you should ask God's will about where to go, or whether to stay. God's timing and plans are perfect, and it's certainly possible there will be greater unity between the orthodox and catholic churches in the future.
if you are thinking of going to a different group of orthodox churches, eg. from eastern to oriental or in the other direction, then check your motives for doing it. like if u are getting married, or if your priest supports your plan to worship in the other church in order for us to have a greater unity together, then maybe that's ok.
i would never recommend changing churches because the songs are nicer or because u like armenian food (for example)! our spiritual life is not a minor issue, like 'shall i wear red socks or blue socks today?'! if u want to ask more about spiritual life, please do, and don't be put off by the long answers, it just happens to be a very major topic! :)
Comments
Yes there is dialogue about the points which are still an issue, and this dialogue has been going on for some decades at the highest levels in our Orthodox communion.
Here is one of several statements which His Holiness Pope Shenouda has made with various Roman Popes. (Of course none of these statements are saying that there are no issues between us, but they all seem to me to stress the many things we have in common and commit us to actively working to deal with those remaining issues as far as is consistent with the Orthodox Faith).
COMMON DECLARATION OF POPE PAUL VI AND OF THE POPE OF ALEXANDRIA SHENOUDA III
Paul VI, bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and patriarch of the See of St. Mark, give thanks in the Holy Spirit to God that, after the great event of the return of relics of St. Mark to Egypt, relations have further developed between the Churches of Rome and Alexandria so that they have now been able to meet personally together. At the end of their meetings and conversations they wish to state together the following:
We have met in the desire to deepen the relations between our Churches and to find concrete ways to overcome the obstacles in the way of our real cooperation in the service of our Lord Jesus Christ who has given us the ministry of reconciliation, to reconcile the world to Himself (2 Cor 5:18-20).
In accordance with our apostolic traditions transmitted to our Churches and preserved therein, and in conformity with the early three ecumenical councils, we confess one faith in the One Triune God, the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Word of God, the effulgence of His glory and the express image of His substance, who for us was incarnate, assuming for Himself a real body with a rational soul, and who shared with us our humanity but without sin. We confess that our Lord and God and Saviour and King of us all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to His Divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real, perfect union without mingling, without commixtion, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. His divinity did not separate from His humanity for an instant, not for the twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and invisible became visible in the flesh, and took upon Himself the form of a servant. In Him are preserved all the properties of the divinity and all the properties of the humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and inseparable union.
The divine life is given to us and is nourished in us through the seven sacraments of Christ in His Church: Baptism, Chrism (Confirmation), Holy Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony and Holy Orders.
We venerate the Virgin Mary, Mother of the True Light, and we confess that she is ever Virgin, the God- bearer. She intercedes for us, and, as the Theotokos, excels in her dignity all angelic hosts.
We have, to a large degree, the same understanding of the Church, founded upon the Apostles, and of the important role of ecumenical and local councils. Our spirituality is well and profoundly expressed in our rituals and in the Liturgy of the Mass which comprises the centre of our public prayer and the culmination of our in corporation into Christ in His Church. We keep the fasts and feasts of our faith. We venerate the relics of the saints and ask the intercession of the angels and of the saints, the living and the departed. These compose a cloud of witnesses in the Church. They and we look in hope for the Second Coming of our Lord when His glory will be revealed to judge the living and the dead.
We humbly recognize that our Churches are not able to give more perfect witness to this new life in Christ because of existing divisions which have behind them centuries of difficult history. In fact, since the year 451 A.D., theological differences, nourished and widened by non-theological factors, have sprung up. These differences cannot be ignored. In spite of them, however, weare rediscovering ourselves as Churches witha common inheritance and are reaching out with determination and confidence in the Lord to achieve the fullness and perfection of that unity which is His gift.
As an aid to accomplishing this task, we are setting up a joint commission representing our Churches, whose function will be to guide common study in the fields of Church tradition, patristics, liturgy, theology, history and practical problems, so that by cooperation in common we may seek to resolve, in a spirit of mutual respect, the differences existing between our Churches and be able to proclaim together the Gospel in ways which correspond to the authentic message of the Lord and to the needs and hopes of todays world. At the same time we express our gratitude and encouragement to other groups of Catholic and Orthodox scholars and pastors who devote their efforts to common activity in these and related fields.
With sincerity and urgency we recall that true charity, rooted in total fidelity to the one Lord Jesus Christ and in mutual respect for each ones traditions, is an essential element of this search for perfect communion.
This particular passage seems to me to describe how His Holiness wishes us to participate in dialogue with the Catholic Church..
by cooperation in common we may seek to resolve, in a spirit of mutual respect, the differences existing between our Churches and be able to proclaim together the Gospel in ways which correspond to the authentic message of the Lord and to the needs and hopes of todays world
This does not minimise any differences, but expresses a desire to resolve these differences in accordance with the 'authentic message of the Lord', and in a 'spirit of mutual respect'.
Father Peter
I sensed, in previous correspondance with you, that you did not seem optimistic about a near future union with the RC?
How can we keep up to date with the ecumenical developments?
Also, do you appreciate that if the Catholics retained their likeness that they had with us since the beginning, they would be in less trouble as they are in now? Priests could have been married. This would have encouraged priesthood. It would have probably resolved the issue of pedophillic priests, and would have deepened communities in their respective parishes.
Do they not see this? Is this not an aspect that will benefit them?
If they were allow priests to get married only because they are concerning about dwindling priest head-counts in their Church, they would look really weak. If however, they allowed priests to get married because it is a step towards unity with us, it will be a good excuse for them. No?
In the UK we have already had cycles of exposure of such abuse. I remember just a couple of years ago it was suggested that at a children's home on Jersey there had been decades of such serious abuse that children had been sexually tortured to death, and many burials were expected to be found in the grounds. In the end, after very extensive investigation, no evidence of any abuse at all was found. A small piece of bone turned out to be from an animal, and the multiple signs of disturbed soil which ground penetrating radar detected turned out to be from a film which had been shot there in the past.
There was no evidence at all, but because real abuse had been uncovered elsewhere it was very easy to assume that something dreadful must have taken place here as well.
Likewise, in the Orkney islands some decades ago, social workers believed they had uncovered a secret network of satanic and sexual abuse among childen. Many were immediately taken from their parents and the local community was turned upside down. In the culture of the times it seemed almost believable that such unbelievable things had happened. But again it turned out that there was no evidence at all that anything had happened.
It seems to me that something similar is happening to the Catholic Church. There has been some abuse, that is undoubted. And it has been handled rather badly in the past. But actually in the present the Catholic Church in the UK for instance, has some of the most secure protocols among any agencies working with children and vulnerable adults. Those who have wished to abuse children are not just frustrated men who should have been married, they are predatory abusers, often homosexual, who will wait a very long time and even go so far as to go through seminary, just to get into a position where they can act out their desires.
I think that at first it was not clear to various authorities how widespread this problem was and so there were disconnected and local responses. I do not believe that having a married priesthood would necessarily have solved the whole problem. Now that the problem has become clearly known it has rather had the effect of damaging all priests. But this is unfair. Most are not such predatory abusers and the number who are is a very small minority indeed.
As far as I can see in England there have been only 10 or so priests accused of such abuse. Even in Ireland it seems that only 242 male witnesses made such complaints. These complaints covered a period of almost 60 years and only 68 were of the most serious nature. What has also happened is that every complaint from any person associated with Irish child care, even if relating to an entirely non-sexual matter, has been lumped together as abuse, and then counted as being of the worst kind of abuse.
It seems to me that the media and anti-Christ forces are very happy to jump all over the Catholic Church if they can. They have no interest in truth or in balance. There are Orthodox monasteries today where abuse has been uncovered. There are Orthodox Churches where abuse has taken place. We are fortunate that the Western media doesn't really know much about Orthodoxy. It doesn't take more than a couple of examples of abuse to have all manner of wild claims made.
Has there been abuse? Of course, and over 60 years. Is the Catholic Church at fault for covering some of this abuse up? Quite probably, but times and attitudes change. Many children were sent by the British state in the 20th century to Australia as 'apprentices' but actually ended up as slaves and were often abused. In the 20th century Aboriginal children were taken from their parents in an attempt at forceable de-Aborginalisation. Would any of these things happen now? Yet they seemed generally acceptable in the past. In Victorian times child prostitution was common in England. Times change.
If we judge the Catholic Church now then we would find that generally it has very strict procedures in place for dealing with children. If we look to the past then we must judge the Catholic Church by the general attitudes and legal structures of the times. Those who committed extreme sexual abuse should always have been disciplined, but their numbers have always been relatively very small.
Times do change. When I was growing up a teacher would throw a board rubber across the room at a student who was talking and we did not think anything of it. But now he would be arrested, suspended from teaching and likely end up in prison and without a career. Many of those who are now being encouraged to sue the Catholic Church have not been sexually abused but are making a complaint about treatment which might well have been considered normal or acceptable in the past, such as being caned, but which now is considered by some as abuse.
Father Peter
There are married priests in the Catholic Church. Some are those who joined the Catholic Church from the Anglican Church. And there are married priests and deacons in the Eastern rite Catholic Churches.
There is regular discussion within Catholicism about the issue of clerical celibacy. As I said in an earlier post the clergy were often married in the UK until the Middle Ages, so it is not incompatible with Catholicism.
Reading about infant baptism today I see that in fact the preferred method of Catholic baptism now IS immersion, although there is a massive intertia which must be overcome.
Father Peter
I also noticed a deep, walk in font in a Catholic church in London.
However, the priest who baptised my son seemed a bit stressed and only managed two 'pourings' on his head. I don't know whether the correct form is generally taken notice of or even whether baptism is thought to be as essential as it is in the Orthodox church.
I would like to know
Aidan
I was watching videos of the Protestors (against the Pope's state visit) on youtube and the news. It was clear that their only intention was to humiliate the Church - The Entirety of the Church. Not a few priests. They were marching alongside the likes of Richard Dawkins and Tatchell.
Richard Dawkins has his own agenda. He must be thrilled over the pedophilic priest issues the Church is having. He is leveraging this to his own benefit, and to further his own cause.
On the one hand, I can understand how they must feel that the cause of all the world's problems is religion. Everyone believing that "their God" is the only God, and killing everyone else in the name of God, that no one has even seen.
Moreover, he quoted evil people in our history, such as hitler who he stressed were "devout catholics".
There is an increasingly growing force against the Church. It is now possible to walk in the street naked, and no one will say a word to you, but If you wear a cross at work, you could be made redundant. This is in Europe.
The protesting against the Catholic Pontiff was really sad. They were clearly painting ever Catholic priest with the same brush as those who were accussed of abusing Children. There are many catholic priests/nuns/clergy/laymen who are contemporary saints and served their communities. Why are they all of a sudden being forgotten?
Sister Emmanuel - she served poor in Egypt.
Le Abbé Pierre - created the biggest charity organisation in France: Emmaus
Pier Frassati - A millionaire who gave his life (and died) in serving poor people and bringing them to Church.
Soeur Faustine
Mother Theresa
Were all these evil? I don't see anyone in Islam who is comparable to ANY of these saints??
Which atheist is comparable to them?
Which atheist gave his life in the service of others??
The worst part of listening to Dawkins, was that a LOT of what he said was incorrect. He has NO understanding of theology. His understanding is that of a 12 year old that has been brought up to think that God doesnt exist.
Stalin was an an Atheist! Look at what he did!
and so was:
MAO ZEDONG
POL POT
NICOLAE CEAUSESCU
BENITO MUSSOLINI
I don't see atheists creating schools in 3rd world countries and teaching children there and serving them.
I don't see atheists going around feeding homeless people.
I only see atheists complaining that we are deluded by God. That's it.
I rather think that many people who thought they might be atheists have been so repulsed by the attitude of the most vociferous anti-Christian celebrity atheists that they are reconsidering their views. I heard of one agnostic woman MP who was not planning to have anything to do with the visit but was so appalled by the atheists and anti-Christians that she decided to go and cheer the Pope when he drove through her constituency.
Father Peter
The catechism of the Catholic Church states...
The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.
And it seems from a little reading that the preferred method is immersion, but as I said previously, the weight of the last centuries tends towards affusion.
Of course affusion WAS and is always allowed as a form of baptism in case of extreme need. Someone dangerously ill in a sick bed could not be immersed, a premature infant could not be immersed, someone in a desert might not be able to be baptised. These extreme situations have always been ones in which affusion could be used. Though often if the person became well they would be conditionally baptised by immersion - though this was not considered necessary, and it was thought that a baptism by affusion in real need was just the same as a baptism by immersion where there was no desperate need.
The problem with modern Catholic practice is that over some centuries the extreme use of affusion was allowed to more and more infants until it became the norm, certainly on the continent if not in England, where immersion remained normal until the Catholic Church was destroyed by the Tudors. We can imagine that a rich woman might not want her child baptised by immersion for a variety of reasons, and so would say 'my child is too fragile so will you allow affusion?'. A slightly less wealthy person might see this and might decide that when her child was born she wanted it to be baptised like Lady X's child. And so the practice can be imagined to roll down the social scale. When new churches were built the novel practice would be institutionalised by having a font that just would not fit even a small infant. After a few generations it appears that it is baptism by immersion which is the novelty.
What would be required I guess would be for a bishop to insist that apart from some genuine issue of health all infants should be baptised by immersion. I do believe that more and more it is the case that adult converts are baptised by immersion.
Father Peter
I think the protestors came across as rather sad people who had nothing pleasant to say. Truly thank God their voices were drowned out by the obvious joy of so many Catholic Christians. 650,000 out on the streets and at events witnessing to their value which their faith has to them. I think the visit will have made a significant impact on the situation facing all Christians here in the UK, and that includes our own Orthodox communion.
I rather think that many people who thought they might be atheists have been so repulsed by the attitude of the most vociferous anti-Christian celebrity atheists that they are reconsidering their views. I heard of one agnostic woman MP who was not planning to have anything to do with the visit but was so appalled by the atheists and anti-Christians that she decided to go and cheer the Pope when he drove through her constituency.
Father Peter
Did you not find that they came across are surprisingly ignorant? Did you hear Richard Hawkins' talk at the protest?
He really wants to destroy the RC - at any cost. I think he's even prepared to go and beg kids to pretend they were abused - and as you said, the definition of "abuse" is becoming so large, that it now includes not being sent a Christmas card by the parish priest.
Surely it would be wise to respond to the false accusations and the ignorance he preaches? I don't mind him not believing in God, nor am I bothered if he incites others not to believe in God, but his understanding of christianity is so flawed that he is building his argument against Christianity on foundation that has incorrect interpretations at the very core of its logic.
Although I am glad to hear that 650K came to see the Pontiff, it was still shocking that thousands (1000's) still protested against his State Vist and there were some who even planned to have the Pope arrested.
having come from a protestant church where baptism was always by immersion (though less often children were baptised) and joined the coptic church, i visited a little anglican church where the priest announced there would be a baptism after the service (this was in cool weather). i offered to bring down the electric heater from the bell tower, so the poor baby would not be too cold, and was surprised when my offer was rejected.
it was only during the baptism service i realised the kid was not going to get undressed, i then felt so silly!
:o
Which beliefs would you go with when there is a contradiction or difference of faith?
Would you accept the Pope of Rome as the universal bishop of the whole Church, or reject this teaching as error? Would you accept the filioque or reject the filioque?
Why do you ask? Is it a pressing personal choice you are making?
Father Peter
when i was more ignorant, i reckoned that as most catholics believe less than 90% of what they officially believe and most orthodox believe less than 90% of what they officially believe, so by simple maths, as i believed about 90% of what the catholics believed and 95% (at that time, now more!) of what the orthodox believed, then i was just as 'good' as any orthodox or catholic Christian, so i could join both churches!
at that time i didn't understand that the authority God gives to the church leaders is very very important, and that submitting to authority is vital for us to be able to grow spiritually. of course if you were in two churches and your priests disagreed about how to advise you, you would get very confused and may be tempted to think you know better than both of them! i spent many months studying the doctrines of the catholic and coptic churches, and i even attended half of the catholic introduction course (i got the lessons from the other half emailed to me) so that i could decide which one to join. i had been a protestant Christian, just because the lady who told my parents about God was from a protestant church. i spent a long time studying this, and was a regular visitor at protestant, catholic and coptic churches for about 2 years until i was sure i had to be coptic.
i felt best in the coptic church, but i was determined not to make such an important decision based on emotions. i found all the traditional interpretations of the Bible made the most sense, and it was right to include the departed saints in your prayers, but not to cling to them as if they were the most important part of your spiritual life (it seems there is a risk of this in the catholic and some eastern orthodox churches). i was already sure that Holy Communion must be celebrated with more seriousness than protestant churches, so i based my decision to be orthodox on the doctrines (beliefs) of the churches and also church history. i was very impressed with the coptic martyrs and the emphasis on fasting and embracing suffering for the name our Lord Jesus Christ.
of course most of us don't have the time or the resources to examine the beliefs this closely, so it's easy to think the beliefs are more or less the same if you don't spend lots of time reading and asking questions.
so for anyone who wants the short answer ;) you should join an orthodox church, and if you are already a member, you should stay there. of course you can stay there asking questions to increase your understanding. i don't think it's best to accept everything and never think about it, but you don't have to read church history for 2 years in your spare time like i did!
if you are in another church, you should ask God's will about where to go, or whether to stay. God's timing and plans are perfect, and it's certainly possible there will be greater unity between the orthodox and catholic churches in the future.
if you are thinking of going to a different group of orthodox churches, eg. from eastern to oriental or in the other direction, then check your motives for doing it. like if u are getting married, or if your priest supports your plan to worship in the other church in order for us to have a greater unity together, then maybe that's ok.
i would never recommend changing churches because the songs are nicer or because u like armenian food (for example)! our spiritual life is not a minor issue, like 'shall i wear red socks or blue socks today?'! if u want to ask more about spiritual life, please do, and don't be put off by the long answers, it just happens to be a very major topic!
:)