Expert: Marco - 10/13/2007

Question
QUESTION: Can you please explain the relationship of the Catholic Church to the Eastern Orthodox Church?  It is my understanding that they are not in communion with Rome, but that the Catholic Church recognizes their consecration of the Eucharist as valid. How can that be if they don't believe in papal infallibility? Are they still part of the true Church that Christ instituted?  If we don't agree with some of their beliefs, how can we say the Eucharist is vaild?  Wouldn't they simply be another Christian church? Thanks for your time.

ANSWER: Dear Lisa,

the Eastern Orthodox Church separated from the Catholic Church through a scism and not because of an heresy. This means that there was no grave theological matter involved in this sepaation. I think this is the reason why the sacraments are considered valid. I think the eastern bishops have never been extracomunicated, and so they are still true bishops; they can consacrate new bishops and priests and consacrate the Eucharist.

You can find some detailed information at the following link:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

I add some considerations of mine about the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Catholics assert that Orthodoxy's rejection of the papacy is inconsistent with the nature of the Church through the centuries. No one denies the existence of the papacy in some form in the early period. Orthodoxy, however, regards the authority exercised by popes historically (or which should have been exercised) as simply that of a primacy of honor, rather than a supremacy of jurisdiction over all other bishops and regional churches. To counter that claim, Catholics point to biblical Petrine evidences and the actual wielding of authority by renowned popes such as St. Leo the Great (440-61) and St. Gregory the Great (590-604), honored as saints even by the Orthodox. The papacy, according to Catholic Tradition, is a divinely-instituted office, not merely (as Orthodoxy considers the papacy and Roman supremacy) a political and historical happenstance. Rome was apostolic, and preeminent from the beginning of Christianity, whereas Constantinople (the seat of the Byzantine Empire) was not.
There are some important points about Papacy I would like to point out :

1) Catholic and orthodox bishops have different positions in matter of faith and morals (for example, the indissolubility of marriage).
This fact proves that the apostolic succession is not a sufficient condition to have the Holy Spirit safeguarding the Truth, because the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself. We need then an addictional criterion to establish which bishops have this gift and are really teaching the Truth.

2) The Lord gave only to Peter the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and so the Lord established a special role for one person in the Church.
This is the addictional criterion we need to establish which bishops are teaching the Truth, and they are those bishops who are united to Peter's successor. In fact when Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-13), He was speaking directly to the apostoles when they were together with Peter, and so this promise is to be considered valid only for those bishops united with the Pope.

3)The fact that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to one person only, means that this role is unique in the Church of Christ.
We may have then only one true successor of Peter. Who received these keys after Peter's death in Rome? I think that the most logical answer is Peter's successor in Rome.


Likewise, Orthodoxy accepts the doctrinal development which occurred in the first eight centuries of the Church, but then allows little of any noteworthiness (with some notable exceptions: see first link below) to take place thereafter. For instance, the filioque, i.e., the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, rather than from the Father alone (which the West added to the Nicene Creed), was rejected by the East, and has been considered by the Orthodox a major reason for the enduring schism, yet Catholics would reply that it was a straightforward development of trinitarian theology (one of many accepted by both East and West). Aspects of doctrines such as the Blessed Virgin Mary and purgatory (not defined doctrine, although the Orthodox pray for the dead), which experienced a measure of development in the Middle Ages and after, are not recognized in Orthodoxy. For example, Orthodoxy doesn't define the Marian doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, but it should be noted that Orthodox individuals are free to believe these without being deemed "heretical." Catholics feel that Orthodoxy is implicitly denying the notion of the Church (past the eighth century) as the living, developing Body of Christ, continuously led into deeper truth by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13-15).

Catholicism and orthodoxy have different positions concerning divorce.
Catholics also believe that Jesus and the Apostles, and ancient Christian Tradition, considered a valid sacramental marriage between two baptized Christians as absolutely indissoluble. An annulment is essentially different from a divorce in that it is the determination (based on a variety of possible reasons) that a valid sacramental marriage never existed. Orthodoxy accepts second and third marriages, in contraddiction with Jesus’ commandments (see the verses reported above about divorce).

Your brother in Christ,

Marco
PS I think that faith cannot come only from logic, because to have faith in God means to trust and love God.
I think however that logics and science prove the existence of our soul and the existence of  God and that there are many rational arguments strongly supporting the christian faith.
The explanation of these aguments is rather long and Allexperts allows only to give short answers. You can find such arguments  in the following site

http://xoomer.alice.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html

where  I analyse the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges about brain and matter.
This analysis points out how the laws of physics  prove that the   brain cannot generate consciousness, which existence implies  the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial element. The problem of consciousness is then strictly connected to the one of the existence of the soul and, consequently, the existence of God.
In the first article entitled “Mind and brain...” you can find a general discussion of the mind and brain problem from a scientific point of view.
In the second article entitled “Scientific contraddictions in materialism”
you  can find an explanation of the fundamental inconsistencies of  the  typical arguments used by materialists, such as the concept of emergent, macroscopic or holist property, complexity, information, etc.
In the section called “FAQ: answers to  visitors' questions” you can find the answer to many typical questions, such as "Are there any scientifically proved miracles?", "Does the existence of the universe imply the existence of God?", "Can science explain God?", "Can science establish which is the true religion?", "Can science explain consciousness in the future?", and many others.



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thanks for explaining it to me.  Another question, if you have time.  I am starting to learn more about the candidates for the 2008 election and want to find one to fits closest with the Catholic teachings.  How does the Church view the war in Iraq? What are your personal thoughts?  I love getting opinions from faithful Catholics.  Thanks so much for your time.

Answer
Dear Lisa,

I am italian and I know very little about USA politics.
I know that the Pope John Paul II condamned severely the war in IRAQ. This was at the time the USA attacked Iraq.
Now the situation is different, because the purpose of the presence of soldiers is to protect iraqui people from terroristic attacks.
I think the Pope approved the presence of military forces in Iraq after the end of the war.
Personally I think that the war in Iraq has been a very grave sin. I think that the idea of mass descruction weapons was only a pretext, while the true reason why the war was  made were economic interests. I have seen some TV programs showing how many politicians gain lots of money through the war in Iraq.

Your brother in Christ,

Marco