Communion and Schism

[Alveus Lacuna]

Origin:  Why 1054?

-- Nebelpfade

On the Catholic side, that's not the case.  Communion is open to Orthodox Christians...

Are you serious?  I know they acknowledge the "validity" of Orthodox sacraments, but even that acceptance is recent and not accepted among traditionalist Catholics.

[lubeltri]

On the Catholic side, that's not the case.  Communion is open to Orthodox Christians...

Are you serious?  I know they acknowledge the "validity" of Orthodox sacraments, but even that acceptance is recent and not accepted among traditionalist Catholics.

Actually, the validity (if not the efficacy) of Orthodox sacraments has been recognized by Rome for centuries. Remember, we have always followed Augustine on this, not Cyprian.

BTW, I don't quite understand the common EO criticism of "validity." It's a simple word meaning "objectively real." In other words, a valid baptism is a real, honest-to-goodness baptism. A valid Eucharist means that the host and the contents of the chalice are truly and actually the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

In other words, God isn't running around switching sacramental "taps" on and off. After all, He has those innocent souls living under disobedient shepherds to think about. Should a simple and devout peasant family in Provence suddenly lose access to true sacraments (including baptism for their children!) in 1054 because of a dispute between hierarchs in Rome and Constantinople? The Catholic position is that the taps will flow if operated by a truly ordained minister with the right form and intention. However, such sacraments are "illicit" (done in disobedience; contrary to church law) if performed by a minister not in full communion with his bishop. God will sort out blame for this, but the taps will continue to flow.

Now, a sacrament may be objectively real, but its efficacy varies according to disposition. Think of the soul as a sponge, soaking up graces. A holy soul is a soft and supple sponge, ever soaking up grace and expanding. An impure soul is caked with filth, hardened and worn, incapable of soaking up much. So a sacrament may be real, but how much benefit a soul receives from a sacrament varies.

So it goes without saying that those in unrepentant mortal sin, including culpable schismatics and heretics, can receive true sacraments, but they do not receive any grace from them. As for Orthodox Christians, it goes without saying that the Catholic Church sees them in schism---however, today's EO are not (en masse) culpable for the schism that began long before they were born. Thus it is possible for an EO (in a state of grace) to derive benefit from the true sacraments he receives.

[Papist]

On the Catholic side, that's not the case.  Communion is open to Orthodox Christians...

Are you serious?  I know they acknowledge the "validity" of Orthodox sacraments, but even that acceptance is recent and not accepted among traditionalist Catholics.

No. Traditionalist Catholics do accept Eastern Orthodox Sacraments as valid. I am one of those traditionalists.

[Irish Hermit]

On the Catholic side, that's not the case.  Communion is open to Orthodox Christians...

Are you serious?  I know they acknowledge the "validity" of Orthodox sacraments, but even that acceptance is recent and not accepted among traditionalist Catholics.

No. Traditionalist Catholics do accept Eastern Orthodox Sacraments as valid. I am one of those traditionalists.

It has been mentioned more than a few times on CAF by Traditionalist Catholics that while the Orthodox possess authentic Sacraments they are for their damnation.  Could you tell us something about this teaching.

[Papist]

On the Catholic side, that's not the case.  Communion is open to Orthodox Christians...

Are you serious?  I know they acknowledge the "validity" of Orthodox sacraments, but even that acceptance is recent and not accepted among traditionalist Catholics.

No. Traditionalist Catholics do accept Eastern Orthodox Sacraments as valid. I am one of those traditionalists.

It has been mentioned more than a few times on CAF by Traditionalist Catholics that while the Orthodox possess authentic Sacraments they are for their damnation.  Could you tell us something about this teaching.

Some radical traditionalists take the concept of "no salvation apart from the Church" to an extreme. A traditionalist like myself still believes in invincible ignorance and this may even apply to those who are barred from understanding the truth of the Catholic faith by circumstances which are known only to God.
Now the radical group believes that either all Eatern Orthodox Christians know better and should be Catholic, thus they are in mortal sin when they recieve the sacraments or they interprate invincible ignorance in a much stricter sense than I do and, thus would again believe that EO Christians are in mortal sin when the recieve.
But please do distinguish between Tradiationalists like myself who believe in solidly orthodox (little 'o') teachings and traditional liturgy, and radical traditionalists who treat the mass as if it had been in latin since the days of the apostles and condemn everyone outside of the Church.
Now I would like to clarify that if there is an EO christian who realizes the truth of the Catholic faith but remains out of communion with her due to prejudices, then yes, i think such a person puts their soul in grave danger and may be recieving the sacraments to his or her detriment.
However, I think that it silly to say that God provides the sacraments to the Eastern Orthodox just so that they can be profaned. That would be nonsense. No, I think that many EO Christians are holy and pius people who are in a state of Grace and growing in their union with God.

[Alveus Lacuna]

So it goes without saying that those in unrepentant mortal sin, including culpable schismatics and heretics, can receive true sacraments, but they do not receive any grace from them. As for Orthodox Christians, it goes without saying that the Catholic Church sees them in schism---however, today's EO are not (en masse) culpable for the schism that began long before they were born. Thus it is possible for an EO (in a state of grace) to derive benefit from the true sacraments he receives.

From the Catholic point of view, what then is my status, having been baptized Catholic as an infant, received first communion and confession, but never having been confirmed?  Keep in mind that as a teen I was later baptized by the heretic Southern Baptists, and now I am planning to formally be baptized into the Eastern Orthodox communion, rejecting many of the dogmas of Rome?  Is my fate, in the Catholic perspective, most certainly the flames of hell?

[Alveus Lacuna]

Actually, the validity (if not the efficacy) of Orthodox sacraments has been recognized by Rome for centuries. Remember, we have always followed Augustine on this, not Cyprian.

Yes, but the original post I was responding to stated that the Catholic Eucharist is open for all Orthodox Christians to partake.  I was saying that this is certainly not the case.  He mentioned the Melkite Church, which is an exception, because they consider themselves to be fully Orthodox and fully Catholic and in communion with both, a position which both mother churches completely reject.

[ialmisry]

So it goes without saying that those in unrepentant mortal sin, including culpable schismatics and heretics, can receive true sacraments, but they do not receive any grace from them. As for Orthodox Christians, it goes without saying that the Catholic Church sees them in schism---however, today's EO are not (en masse) culpable for the schism that began long before they were born. Thus it is possible for an EO (in a state of grace) to derive benefit from the true sacraments he receives.

From the Catholic point of view, what then is my status, having been baptized Catholic as an infant, received first communion and confession, but never having been confirmed?  Keep in mind that as a teen I was later baptized by the heretic Southern Baptists, and now I am planning to formally be baptized into the Eastern Orthodox communion, rejecting many of the dogmas of Rome?  Is my fate, in the Catholic perspective, most certainly the flames of hell?

No offense, but why should you care?  It's not like they are correct.

[Fr. George]

No offense, but why should you care?

"Does my new theology make my backside look bigger?"

(Best I could do on short notice.)

[Alveus Lacuna]

No offense, but why should you care?  It's not like they are correct.

I still just want someone to man up and say it.  Not that I think they are unreasonable for holding such a position, I just want to have the teaching acknowledged, because it debunks this notion that Catholics affirm the full validity of the Orthodox Faith, because if they did, then the switch would be welcome.  Rome is not any less hard-line than the Orthodox are at the end of the day.

[Alveus Lacuna]

"Does my new theology make my backside look bigger?"

I don't get it, but I hope you're not making fun of me!

[Entscheidungsproblem]

No offense, but why should you care?  It's not like they are correct.

I still just want someone to man up and say it.  Not that I think they are unreasonable for holding such a position, I just want to have the teaching acknowledged, because it debunks this notion that Catholics affirm the full validity of the Orthodox Faith, because if they did, then the switch would be welcome.  Rome is not any less hard-line than the Orthodox are at the end of the day.

The act of schism (which differs from being in schism) is viewed as an offense against the faith (like apostasy, heresy, etc.) and would be viewed as a grave or mortal sin.  According to the CCC, "Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire.' The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." (1035)  The Roman Catholic Church would view someone born Orthodox Christian differently than a Roman Catholic who leaves the Roman Catholic Church for Orthodoxy, since you would be seen as knowingly disrupting the unity of the Roman Catholic Church.

[Fr. George]

"Does my new theology make my backside look bigger?"

I don't get it, but I hope you're not making fun of me!

It's more directed at anyone who is self-conscious about the feelings of heterodox toward them (either for their faith, or for their apostasy from their former faith), or at those who trade religion like shoes.  Your reasoning makes sense, although I don't know if "manning up" will really make that much of a difference; you're going to hear and see both perspectives ("more hard line" and "less so") from RCs depending on their predispositions and culture...

[Papist]

So it goes without saying that those in unrepentant mortal sin, including culpable schismatics and heretics, can receive true sacraments, but they do not receive any grace from them. As for Orthodox Christians, it goes without saying that the Catholic Church sees them in schism---however, today's EO are not (en masse) culpable for the schism that began long before they were born. Thus it is possible for an EO (in a state of grace) to derive benefit from the true sacraments he receives.

From the Catholic point of view, what then is my status, having been baptized Catholic as an infant, received first communion and confession, but never having been confirmed?  Keep in mind that as a teen I was later baptized by the heretic Southern Baptists, and now I am planning to formally be baptized into the Eastern Orthodox communion, rejecting many of the dogmas of Rome?  Is my fate, in the Catholic perspective, most certainly the flames of hell?

I can't presume to judge your soul.

[Papist]

So it goes without saying that those in unrepentant mortal sin, including culpable schismatics and heretics, can receive true sacraments, but they do not receive any grace from them. As for Orthodox Christians, it goes without saying that the Catholic Church sees them in schism---however, today's EO are not (en masse) culpable for the schism that began long before they were born. Thus it is possible for an EO (in a state of grace) to derive benefit from the true sacraments he receives.

From the Catholic point of view, what then is my status, having been baptized Catholic as an infant, received first communion and confession, but never having been confirmed?  Keep in mind that as a teen I was later baptized by the heretic Southern Baptists, and now I am planning to formally be baptized into the Eastern Orthodox communion, rejecting many of the dogmas of Rome?  Is my fate, in the Catholic perspective, most certainly the flames of hell?

No offense, but why should you care?  It's not like they are correct.

Well we are correct. You just don't care that we are. 

[Papist]

No offense, but why should you care?  It's not like they are correct.

I still just want someone to man up and say it.  Not that I think they are unreasonable for holding such a position, I just want to have the teaching acknowledged, because it debunks this notion that Catholics affirm the full validity of the Orthodox Faith, because if they did, then the switch would be welcome.  Rome is not any less hard-line than the Orthodox are at the end of the day.

You want some one to "man up" and put themselves in God's position? That seems a bit ridiculous.

[Papist]

No offense, but why should you care?  It's not like they are correct.

I still just want someone to man up and say it.  Not that I think they are unreasonable for holding such a position, I just want to have the teaching acknowledged, because it debunks this notion that Catholics affirm the full validity of the Orthodox Faith, because if they did, then the switch would be welcome.  Rome is not any less hard-line than the Orthodox are at the end of the day.

The act of schism (which differs from being in schism) is viewed as an offense against the faith (like apostasy, heresy, etc.) and would be viewed as a grave or mortal sin.  According to the CCC, "Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire.' The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." (1035)  The Roman Catholic Church would view someone born Orthodox Christian differently than a Roman Catholic who leaves the Roman Catholic Church for Orthodoxy, since you would be seen as knowingly disrupting the unity of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, if some one leaves the Catholic Church not knowing that the Catholic Church is the true Church, well, does that mean mortal sin for that person? I doubt it. According to the definition, mortal sin can only be committed when a person has full knowledge of the sin.

[Alveus Lacuna]

However, if some one leaves the Catholic Church not knowing that the Catholic Church is the true Church, well, does that mean mortal sin for that person? I doubt it. According to the definition, mortal sin can only be committed when a person has full knowledge of the sin.

Well, I appreciate your kindness.  I am honestly just following my heart and where I feel like God is leading me, as that is to the Orthodox church as the True Church.  I do still wrestle a bit with the Catholic Church as being the True Church, as I am "half" Catholic by blood, but ultimately I am just convinced more by the Orthodox camp's claims.  So perhaps even if I am wrong God will understand that I was really taking a "best guess" in some silly way, and that it was not my intention to deny the True Church.  But ultimately, according to your logic, no one could be held accountable for leaving the church because I'm sure in most people's hearts they think that they are doing the right thing by leaving, even if it is something stupid and individualistic like anti-institutionalism.

[Papist]

However, if some one leaves the Catholic Church not knowing that the Catholic Church is the true Church, well, does that mean mortal sin for that person? I doubt it. According to the definition, mortal sin can only be committed when a person has full knowledge of the sin.

Well, I appreciate your kindness.  I am honestly just following my heart and where I feel like God is leading me, as that is to the Orthodox church as the True Church.  I do still wrestle a bit with the Catholic Church as being the True Church, as I am "half" Catholic by blood, but ultimately I am just convinced more by the Orthodox camp's claims.  So perhaps even if I am wrong God will understand that I was really taking a "best guess" in some silly way, and that it was not my intention to deny the True Church.  But ultimately, according to your logic, no one could be held accountable for leaving the church because I'm sure in most people's hearts they think that they are doing the right thing by leaving, even if it is something stupid and individualistic like anti-institutionalism.

I agree with most of what you said and I would comend a person like yourself to the infinite mercy of God knowing that he is a just judge, always acting in Love. I know he loves you and if you are genuinely seeking the truth, I am sure he knows that. I will not place myself in God's throne to judge your situation but I do say I trust in the love of Our Lord. That doesn't mean that I won't continue to pray for souls such as yours because I know that the surest way to heaven is through the Catholic Church and it does bring sadness to my heart to see you leave for what I see as a less certain road. Thus I am compeled by Charity to pray for your return but I wish you no ill will on your journey.

As for others leaving the Catholic Church... I am not so sure that some are as honest as you are. Many leave the Catholic Church because they simply wish to live as they choose. I think that such is a grave sin and one that can put a soul in serious jeopardy.

[Mickey]

Well, I appreciate your kindness.  I am honestly just following my heart and where I feel like God is leading me, as that is to the Orthodox church as the True Church.  I do still wrestle a bit with the Catholic Church as being the True Church, as I am "half" Catholic by blood, but ultimately I am just convinced more by the Orthodox camp's claims.  So perhaps even if I am wrong God will understand that I was really taking a "best guess" in some silly way, and that it was not my intention to deny the True Church.  But ultimately, according to your logic, no one could be held accountable for leaving the church because I'm sure in most people's hearts they think that they are doing the right thing by leaving, even if it is something stupid and individualistic like anti-institutionalism.

Your struggle is understandable. Discernment can be painful. I cannot begin to tell you about the struggles I experienced once I made the decision for conversion to Holy Orthodoxy. My wife and I were both born and raised Roman Catholics and it was not easy to leave the only Church we ever knew. But we have never regretted it.  The more I pray...and learn...and submerse myself into the glorious Mystery of the Holy Orthodox Church.......the more I realize that it is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

Peace be unto you.

[Alveus Lacuna]

Peace be unto you.

And to your spirit!

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Communion and Schism