Topic: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church

[Wyatt]

How is that different? Are you thinking of Branch Theory as meaning that all ("Apostolic") Christian groups are branches of the tree?

I think at least to an extent the Roman Catholic Church subscribes to such a belief, although I don't think it does to the extent that the Anglicans do. The fact that the Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of the Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Assyrian Church of the East looks to be a sort of branch theory. Personally, what I specifically like about Catholicism is the fact that it acknowledges that even those who are canonically outside of the visible Church may still be a part of the Church, even if it is to a lesser degree. I think this is why the Catholic Church uses the term "full communion" to differentiate between other levels of communion. Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church, but in our view this does not necessarily mean that all who are outside the canonical boundaries of the visible Church are automatically damned.

I could be wrong, but I thought I remember hearing or reading somewhere that the Catholic Church considers anyone who is baptized using the Trinitarian formula (In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit) to be a part of the Catholic Church, albeit not in full communion.

[stanley123]

Before there can be unity between us this institution must be destroyed.  It has no place in the Church.

How would you destroy the Vatican papacy? I read that some Orthodox would agree to a Western or Roman Patriarch, first among equals, so you would still have the Roman Pope under such a scheme. 

[stashko]

Maybe Islam Will Do it ,We'll Just Have To Sit Back Wait And Watch......

[elijahmaria]

Maybe Islam Will Do it ,We'll Just Have To Sit Back Wait And Watch......

The Gates of Hell shall not prevail, dahlinks.

M.

[deusveritasest]

Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,

Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.

[deusveritasest]

Before there can be unity between us this institution must be destroyed.  It has no place in the Church.

How would you destroy the Vatican papacy? I read that some Orthodox would agree to a Western or Roman Patriarch, first among equals, so you would still have the Roman Pope under such a scheme.  

Even if that would be possible, I agree with IrishHermit, that in some sense that would have to involve a destruction of the Vatican papacy as it currently exists, because what we mean by "first among equals" is so radically different from the definition of Vatican I.

[deusveritasest]

Maybe Islam Will Do it ,We'll Just Have To Sit Back Wait And Watch......

The Gates of Hell shall not prevail, dahlinks.

M.

What good is telling a conservative "Eastern Orthodox Christian" that the gates of hell will not prevail against a group that he/she most likely does not recognize as the Church? 

[deusveritasest]

although I don't think it does to the extent that the Anglicans do.

What I have been wondering all along is in response to this statement: "How so?"

The answer that you do not recognize the Orders of Anglicans doesn't seem like a fundamentally substantial difference, so I'm looking for a different one.

[Wyatt]

Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,

Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

[stanley123]

Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,

Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, though no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

I think the confusing thing about this is what is meant by the expression: no salvation outside the Church? I don;t think it means that you have to be an officially registered at a Roman Catholic rectory.

[Wyatt]

Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,

Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, though no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

I think the confusing thing about this is what is meant by the expression: no salvation outside the Church? I don;t think it means that you have to be an officially registered at a Roman Catholic rectory.

Exactly. In her wisdom, the Church recognizes other extraordinary means of salvation. The thief on the cross next to Christ had no way of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, yet Christ nonetheless told him that he would be in Paradise with Him. This was a Baptism by desire because, had he been able to, the thief would have desired to follow Christ and thus be baptized.

[stanley123]

Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,

Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, though no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

I think the confusing thing about this is what is meant by the expression: no salvation outside the Church? I don;t think it means that you have to be an officially registered at a Roman Catholic rectory.

Exactly. In her wisdom, the Church recognizes other extraordinary means of salvation. The thief on the cross next to Christ had no way of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, yet Christ nonetheless told him that he would be in Paradise with Him. This was a Baptism by desire because, had he been able to, the thief would have desired to follow Christ and thus be baptized.

You have brought up the thief on the cross. Since this topic is on the RC view of EO, and one of the dividing issues is Purgatory, why would not a thief have to spend some time in Purgatory before entering paradise?

[Papist]

Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,

Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, though no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

I think the confusing thing about this is what is meant by the expression: no salvation outside the Church? I don;t think it means that you have to be an officially registered at a Roman Catholic rectory.

Exactly. In her wisdom, the Church recognizes other extraordinary means of salvation. The thief on the cross next to Christ had no way of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, yet Christ nonetheless told him that he would be in Paradise with Him. This was a Baptism by desire because, had he been able to, the thief would have desired to follow Christ and thus be baptized.

You have brought up the thief on the cross. Since this topic is on the RC view of EO, and one of the dividing issues is Purgatory, why would not a thief have to spend some time in Purgatory before entering paradise?

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.

[deusveritasest]

Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,

Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

That's sort of tangential. Your church does not recognize all other sects as merely Baptized, but rather recognizes certain others as having all of the Sacraments.

[stanley123]

Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,

Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

That's sort of tangential. Your church does not recognize all other sects as merely Baptized, but rather recognizes certain others as having all of the Sacraments.

I think that the RCC recognises the Sacraments of the EO, OO, and some of the Old Catholic and Polish National Catholic Churches. Also, the RCC allows EO, OO to receive Holy Communion in the RCC.

[Irish Hermit]

Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,

Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

That's sort of tangential. Your church does not recognize all other sects as merely Baptized, but rather recognizes certain others as having all of the Sacraments.

I find Roman Catholic theology on sacraments outside their own Church inconsistent.

For example, they do not accept the validity of Anglican ordinations because the intention of the ordaining ministers is not in accord with the intention of the Roman Catholic Church.

Yet, they will accept the baptism of such as Baptists whose understanding of baptism and intention with baptism is even more askew and way outside Catholic understanding and intention.

If Anglicans lost ordination because of faulty and inadequate intention, why have Baptists not lost baptism?

[elijahmaria]

Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,

Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

That's sort of tangential. Your church does not recognize all other sects as merely Baptized, but rather recognizes certain others as having all of the Sacraments.

I find Roman Catholic theology on sacraments outside their own Church inconsistent.

For example, they do not accept the validity of Anglican ordinations because the intention of the ordaining ministers is not in accord with the intention of the Roman Catholic Church.

Yet, they will accept the baptism of such as Baptists whose understanding of baptism and intention with baptism is even more askew and way outside Catholic understanding and intention.

If Anglicans lost ordination because of faulty and inadequate intention, why have Baptists not lost baptism?

Consistency is the occupation of fools...or some such thing....

[Wyatt]

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.

Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.

[Irish Hermit]

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.

Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory.

That raises an interesting point.  I thought Catholics teach that the Good Thief was baptized in his own blood?

Does this mean that baptism is incapable of removing the temporal punishment due to sin and the baptised still have to atone for all their sins committed prior to baptism?

[Wyatt]

That raises an interesting point.  I thought Catholics teach that the Good Thief was baptized in his own blood?

If you could get me a source for this I would love to read more about this, as I have honestly never heard that before. Of course, just because I have never heard it doesn't mean it isn't true. I have only been Catholic since 2007. To me, this doesn't make sense because Baptism of Blood has always meant martyrdom, and the thief on the cross was not being crucified for standing up for the Faith, so I'm not sure how that could actually be Baptism of Blood in that instance.

Does this mean that baptism is incapable of removing the temporal punishment due to sin and the baptised still have to atone for all their sins committed prior to baptism?

I believe that at least regular water Baptism remits all temporal punishment due to sin (not sure if Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood work the same way). In fact, I am almost positive of this fact because a friend of mine who is an inquirer of the Catholic faith will be a catechumen if he continues on with the classes. Since he will be Baptized when he enters the Catholic Church, he will not have to make a first confession before receiving the Eucharist. This suggests to me that everything is wiped clean because otherwise it would be advantageous to go to confession if for no other reason than for Sacramental Grace and to be assigned a penance.

[Irish Hermit]

/\  "As far back as the third century, Saint Cyprian of Carthage gave the explanation that the "good thief" was baptized in his own blood as a martyr, an opinion shared by Saint Jerome, while Saint Augustine of Hippo said that "the thief received the baptism of substitution ... through the faith and conversion of the heart, taking into account that circumstances made it impossible for him to celebrate the sacrament".[13]

"Augustine's explanation corresponds to the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the existence of baptism by desire for those who would partake of the Sacrament if they could and experience a perfect desire to do all that pertains to salvation, but are prevented from receiving baptism by circumstances beyond their control, while Cyprian's corresponds to the same Church's teaching on baptism of blood for martyrs.[14]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration

[Wyatt]

/\  "As far back as the third century, Saint Cyprian of Carthage gave the explanation that the "good thief" was baptized in his own blood as a martyr, an opinion shared by Saint Jerome, while Saint Augustine of Hippo said that "the thief received the baptism of substitution ... through the faith and conversion of the heart, taking into account that circumstances made it impossible for him to celebrate the sacrament".[13]

"Augustine's explanation corresponds to the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the existence of baptism by desire for those who would partake of the Sacrament if they could and experience a perfect desire to do all that pertains to salvation, but are prevented from receiving baptism by circumstances beyond their control, while Cyprian's corresponds to the same Church's teaching on baptism of blood for martyrs.[14]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration

The thief being saved by Baptism of Desire makes perfect sense since he desired to follow Christ and would have been Baptized had he had the chance. The Baptism of Blood theory doesn't make sense to me because martyrdom implies someone is explicitly dying because of their faith. The good thief wasn't being crucified because he was a Christian so how could that be martyrdom?

[stanley123]

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.

Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.

It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

[elijahmaria]

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.

Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.

It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Do you forget that nothing other than grace purifies.  Whatever we say about purity it is grace that purifies us and nothing else.  All the metaphors in the world pale in the face of the reality.  If Christ chose to sanctify the good thief, who are we to jump through all these hoops trying to justify it.

There is a reason He told us the parable of the workers in the vineyard. 

We are not all treated equally.  Some struggle all their lives and never seem to make progress in sanctity.  Some visibly progress in sanctity while making it look easy.

This is precisely why one of the strongest monastic rules in practice is "Never compare."  If my spiritual father catches me comparing...there's hell t'pay!!...and I don't do that again for a long long time.

M.

[elijahmaria]

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.

Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.

It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Do you forget that nothing other than grace purifies.  Whatever we say about purity it is grace that purifies us and nothing else.  All the metaphors in the world pale in the face of the reality.  If Christ chose to sanctify the good thief, who are we to jump through all these hoops trying to justify it.

There is a reason He told us the parable of the workers in the vineyard. 

We are not all treated equally.  Some struggle all their lives and never seem to make progress in sanctity.  Some visibly progress in sanctity while making it look easy.

This is precisely why one of the strongest monastic rules in practice is "Never compare."  If my spiritual father catches me comparing...there's hell t'pay!!...and I don't do that again for a long long time.

M.

How is any of this addressing the actual topic of the thread? 

Just curious...

M.

[stanley123]

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.

Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.

It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Do you forget that nothing other than grace purifies.  Whatever we say about purity it is grace that purifies us and nothing else.  All the metaphors in the world pale in the face of the reality.  If Christ chose to sanctify the good thief, who are we to jump through all these hoops trying to justify it.

There is a reason He told us the parable of the workers in the vineyard. 

We are not all treated equally.  Some struggle all their lives and never seem to make progress in sanctity.  Some visibly progress in sanctity while making it look easy.

This is precisely why one of the strongest monastic rules in practice is "Never compare."  If my spiritual father catches me comparing...there's hell t'pay!!...and I don't do that again for a long long time.

M.

How is any of this addressing the actual topic of the thread? 

Just curious...

M.

The question of Purgatory.

[deusveritasest]

Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,

Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

That's sort of tangential. Your church does not recognize all other sects as merely Baptized, but rather recognizes certain others as having all of the Sacraments.

I think that the RCC recognises the Sacraments of the EO, OO, and some of the Old Catholic and Polish National Catholic Churches. Also, the RCC allows EO, OO to receive Holy Communion in the RCC.

Given that you believe that there are some outside the visible confines of the Church who have all the Sacraments and even numerous others that do not but do have Baptism and Matrimony, even though they are not in union with the rock upon which the Church was founded, I don't really believe that you believe "there is no salvation outside the Church" as we understand it.

we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church

I don't see why not. Those of us who have maintained a conservative Cyprian ecclesiology do so, but doing so does not necessitate for us that those in this life who are without the Sacraments will necessarily be eternally damned.

To me, it makes a lot of sense.

Well, the idea of a legitimate Baptism outside the visible confines of the Church very much does not make sense to me.

This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

You are confusing the issues of ultimate fate and immediate legitimacy of Sacraments. We do not do that. We do not think that those who are outside the Church are certainly on their way to damnation, as if assuming that their journey is not leading them to union with the Church. However, we do not believe that there are Sacraments outside the Church. And believing the latter does not require us to believe that those without the Sacraments will surely eventually be damned.

[deusveritasest]

Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,

Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

That's sort of tangential. Your church does not recognize all other sects as merely Baptized, but rather recognizes certain others as having all of the Sacraments.

I find Roman Catholic theology on sacraments outside their own Church inconsistent.

For example, they do not accept the validity of Anglican ordinations because the intention of the ordaining ministers is not in accord with the intention of the Roman Catholic Church.

Yet, they will accept the baptism of such as Baptists whose understanding of baptism and intention with baptism is even more askew and way outside Catholic understanding and intention.

If Anglicans lost ordination because of faulty and inadequate intention, why have Baptists not lost baptism?

*shrugs*

I think the whole system is logically inconsistent. They believe that the Church is founded on Peter as the Rock with the Roman bishop succeeding him in this role, and yet somehow there can be Sacraments outside of union with the Rock. That doesn't seem very "extra ecclesium nulla sallus" to me.

[deusveritasest]

I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.

 

What in the blazes?

Protestants do not even believe in an intermediate state, usually.

That is something I normally hear from Byzantines.

[deusveritasest]

The good thief wasn't being crucified because he was a Christian so how could that be martyrdom?

Perhaps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passion_bearer

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Passion-bearer

[stanley123]

Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,

Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

That's sort of tangential. Your church does not recognize all other sects as merely Baptized, but rather recognizes certain others as having all of the Sacraments.

I think that the RCC recognises the Sacraments of the EO, OO, and some of the Old Catholic and Polish National Catholic Churches. Also, the RCC allows EO, OO to receive Holy Communion in the RCC.

Given that you believe that there are some outside the visible confines of the Church who have all the Sacraments and even numerous others that do not but do have Baptism and Matrimony, even though they are not in union with the rock upon which the Church was founded, I don't really believe that you believe "there is no salvation outside the Church" as we understand it.

we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church

I don't see why not. Those of us who have maintained a conservative Cyprian ecclesiology do so, but doing so does not necessitate for us that those in this life who are without the Sacraments will necessarily be eternally damned.

To me, it makes a lot of sense.

Well, the idea of a legitimate Baptism outside the visible confines of the Church very much does not make sense to me.

This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

You are confusing the issues of ultimate fate and immediate legitimacy of Sacraments. We do not do that. We do not think that those who are outside the Church are certainly on their way to damnation, as if assuming that their journey is not leading them to union with the Church. However, we do not believe that there are Sacraments outside the Church. And believing the latter does not require us to believe that those without the Sacraments will surely eventually be damned.

I don't think that the RC teaching concerns whether or not there is salvation outside the VISIBLE CONFINES of the (RC) Church.

[deusveritasest]

I don't think that the RC teaching concerns whether or not there is salvation outside the VISIBLE CONFINES of the (RC) Church.

Ah, so you affirm that there are legitimate Sacraments outside the visible confines of the Roman communion but not that there is salvation outside of it.

To me, the latter just seems to be a necessary logical implication of the former.

[stanley123]

I don't think that the RC teaching concerns whether or not there is salvation outside the VISIBLE CONFINES of the (RC) Church.

Ah, so you affirm that there are legitimate Sacraments outside the visible confines of the Roman communion but not that there is salvation outside of it.

To me, the latter just seems to be a necessary logical implication of the former.

This is my understanding of it:
1. As I already said, the Sacraments of the EO, OO, are valid, according to the RCC.
2.Yes, the EO, and the OO are outside the visible confines of the RCC.
3. There is salvation for those who are not officially registered at a local RCC. 
4. The tricky part is where the RCC says that the RCC is somehow involved (but not necessarily explicitly or visibly) in the salvation of everyone. I don't quite understand all of the nuances of this myself, except that I know that a Catholic priest, Father Feeney, was excommunicated when he said that the teaching that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church must be taken literally.

[deusveritasest]

1. As I already said, the Sacraments of the EO, OO, are valid, according to the RCC.

And you mean by that filled with sanctifying grace and efficacious for redemption?

[stanley123]

1. As I already said, the Sacraments of the EO, OO, are valid, according to the RCC.

And you mean by that filled with sanctifying grace and efficacious for redemption?

I am not a theologian, just someone trying to learn about my religion and Eastern Christianity.
But, if you want my opinion on it, then yes: "filled with sanctifying grace and efficacious for redemption?" Yes.
The EO and the OO are considered by the RCC to be in an imperfect, somewhat schismatic union with the RCC, but all of their Sacraments are still valid because of Apostolic Succession and the EO and OO teaching on the Sacraments is a correct one.
BTW, the link to the article that Wyatt had posted above on the RC view of the EO Church is pretty good (here I am speaking from the RC POV). Maybe the article will be a help to understand the RC POV on it.
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html

[deusveritasest]

1. As I already said, the Sacraments of the EO, OO, are valid, according to the RCC.

And you mean by that filled with sanctifying grace and efficacious for redemption?

I am not a theologian, just someone trying to learn about my religion and Eastern Christianity.
But, if you want my opinion on it, then yes: "filled with sanctifying grace and efficacious for redemption?" Yes.
The EO and the OO are considered by the RCC to be in an imperfect, somewhat schismatic union with the RCC, but all of their Sacraments are still valid because of Apostolic Succession and the EO and OO teaching on the Sacraments is a correct one.
BTW, the link to the article that Wyatt had posted above on the RC view of the EO Church is pretty good (here I am speaking from the RC POV). Maybe the article will be a help to understand the RC POV on it.
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html

Then it is as I said. That there is redemption outside of the visible confines of the Roman communion is a logical implication of the belief you just described.

[stanley123]

Then it is as I said. That there is redemption outside of the visible confines of the Roman communion is a logical implication of the belief you just described.

I think that a RCC theologian might say that non-Catholics can be saved as individuals who make use of the means of sanctification that they are able to find outside the visible confines of the RCC. According to the RC decree on ecumenism: "...many and excellent things can exist
outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church: The written Word of God,
the life of grace, faith, hope and love, and other interior gifts of the
Holy Spirit and visible elements: all these things, which come from Christ
and lead to Him, belong to the one-only Church of Christ. Even not a few
sacred actions of the Christian religion are carried out among the brothers
separated from us. . . which beyond doubt can really generate the life of
grace, and are to be said to be apt to open the entry into the community of
salvation."
EO Bishop Kallistos Ware said this about the doctrine:
"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say."

[Orthodoc]

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.

Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.

It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

[Irish Hermit]

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.

Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.

It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?

[elijahmaria]

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.

Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.

It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?

There are any number of histories of the Crusades.   

Some of them are even accurate.

M.

[Irish Hermit]

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.

Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.

It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?

There are any number of histories of the Crusades.    

Some of them are even accurate.

You cannot brush aside the accuracy of the article on the Sack of Constantinople with such a glib statement.

It lists the sacred relics and other items stolen from Constantinople.

It tells you precisely in what Roman Catholic Church they may be seen today.

You can check the accuracy of what is reported simply by, for example, visiting La Sainte Chapelle in Paris to venerate the Crown of Thorns stolen from Constantinople by Roman Catholics.

You can visit the cathedral at Venice and gaze upon the numerous wonderful things stolen from Constantinople.  It is overflowing with them.

You can wander the Vatican museums and see Orthodoxy's sacred things on display.

No inaccuracy, Mary.  You can go and check these things for yourself.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

[elijahmaria]

Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.

Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.

It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?

There are any number of histories of the Crusades.    

Some of them are even accurate.

You cannot brush aside the accuracy of the article on the Sack of Constantinople with such a glib statement.

It lists the sacred relics and other items stolen from Constantinople.

It tells you precisely in what Roman Catholic Church they may be seen today.

You can check the accuracy of what is reported simply by, for example, visiting La Sainte Chapelle in Paris to venerate the Crown of Thorns stolen from Constantinople by Roman Catholics.

You can visit the cathedral at Venice and gaze upon the numerous wonderful things stolen from Constantinople.  It is overflowing with them.

You can wander the Vatican museums and see Orthodoxy's sacred things on display.

No inaccuracy, Mary.  You can go and check these things for yourself.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

However horrific the sack, the article says nothing about what prompted the sack does it?

Best to get whole stories and not parts of them.

The question I have in return is why have not the Orthodox demanded back those items and artifacts that were taken to the west for safe keeping...and how do Orthodox article writers tell the difference?

Mary

[Irish Hermit]

The question I have in return is why have not the Orthodox demanded back those items and artifacts that were taken to the west for safe keeping...

Starting with the sack of Constantinople and continuing with the creation of the Unia in various Orthodox countries which was intended to destroy Orthodoxy internally, the Orthodox have been aware of nothing but hatred from the Roman Popes.   They would have never expected the Popes to act justly towards them.  Their whole history of contact with the Popes and the Vatican was always detrimental for the Orthodox.

were taken to the west for safe keeping...

This is one of Catholicism's oft-repeated lies.

"Yes, we held a Crusade and sacked your Churches and looted all your precious things.  But we did it to keep them safe...  Yes, we did this in the year 1204 AD.... Yes, the Turks did not attack your city until 1453.  Yes, we know that was a whole 250 years later.  But we are all clairvoyant in Rome and knew that 250 years down the track the Turks would conquer your city."

Utter piffle!


Today's scenario..... "Yes, Your Holiness," says Vladimir Putin to Benedict XVI, "we are sending our Russian troops to Rome to take away all your religious and artistic treasures and bring them to Russia.  You don't realise it, but we know that in 250 years, in 2260, Italy will be conquered by the Muslims.  So we are doing this to keep your treasures and holy things safe."

[elijahmaria]

The question I have in return is why have not the Orthodox demanded back those items and artifacts that were taken to the west for safe keeping...

Starting with the sack of Constantinople and continuing with the creation of the Unia in various Orthodox countries which was intended to destroy Orthodoxy internally, the Orthodox have been aware of nothing but hatred from the Roman Popes.   They would have never expected the Popes to act justly towards them.  Their whole history of contact with the Popes and the Vatican was always detrimental for the Orthodox.

were taken to the west for safe keeping...

This is one of Catholicism's oft-repeated lies.

"Yes, we held a Crusade and sacked your Churches and looted all your precious things.  But we did it to keep them safe...  Yes, we did this in the year 1204 AD.... Yes, the Turks did not attack your city until 1453.  Yes, we know that was a whole 250 years later.  But we are all clairvoyant in Rome and knew that 250 years down the track the Turks would conquer your city."

Utter piffle!


Today's scenario..... "Yes, Your Holiness," says Vladimir Putin to Benedict XVI, "we are sending our Russian troops to Rome to take away all your religious and artistic treasures and bring them to Russia.  You don't realise it, but we know that in 250 years, in 2260, Italy will be conquered by the Muslims.  So we are doing this to keep your treasures and holy things safe."

The record shows that there are artifacts in the west that were taken to the west by eastern clergy sent by bishops and secular heads of state.  These are verifiable facts.

Perhaps you need to revise your "Piffle"

And you have not addressed the issues that prompted the sack of Constantinople in the first place.

There are actual histories of the Crusades, written from the documentary evidences.

Byzantium was not a babe in the woods, there to be taken advantage of.  The actual histories tell a very interesting story.

Mary

[Irish Hermit]

The record shows that there are artifacts in the west that were taken to the west by eastern clergy sent by bishops and secular heads of state.  These are verifiable facts.

I will not argue with you about that.  A small number of sacred objects and relics were indeed sent to the West.  For example there is the Sanctum Prepucium.  It was sent to Charlemagne as a wedding gift from the Byzantine Empress Irena.  Once a year it was carried in worship through the streets of the Italian town of Calcata.  This unfortunately came to an end in 1983 when thieves stole the precious relic, most certainly because of the great value of the reliquary which held it.