OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 10:29:14 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?  (Read 16516 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #180 on: August 06, 2011, 03:03:43 PM »

I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  Grin

And, if you *were* referring to me, please take my word (though you have no reason to) that there was nothing "blithe" or "demanding" about it.  Far, far more complicated than it might appear to be here.  Perhaps if you pm me, when I have a moment or two I might elaborate for you.  I've had enough, however, of being slammed and bashed publicly on this forum, although it's probably my own fault for speaking frankly.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, large numbers of my wife's family and their friends and relatives, some Orthodox, some Catholic (Latin and Byzantine), frequently attend Mass/DL at churches of the other faith, receiving the Eucharist (*not* demanding) and other sacraments as appropriate, all with full knowledge of the celebrant, and even a bishop or two.

Fact.  And not an unhappy one.  Communion is the seedbed for communion.
and communion with heretics harvests hellfire.

Quite unhappy.  Unless you are happy with heresy and hell.

We understand that not all Orthodox believers see eye to eye with you, or even one another,  concerning what constitutes heresy and what does not.

yes.

we deal with such things.
Quote
The Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church has decided to “forgive” two Orthodox bishops for their participation in religious rites with Eastern Catholics. However, it warned that no Orthodox cleric may celebrate sacraments or blessings with ministers of other religions on pain of excommunication.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/romanian_orthodox_synod_disciplines_bishop_for_intercommunion_with_catholics/
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #181 on: August 06, 2011, 03:14:26 PM »


And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing. Do you think leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy is good for one's soul? Last time I checked apostasy was a sin.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #182 on: August 06, 2011, 03:28:51 PM »

I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  Grin

And, if you *were* referring to me, please take my word (though you have no reason to) that there was nothing "blithe" or "demanding" about it.  Far, far more complicated than it might appear to be here.  Perhaps if you pm me, when I have a moment or two I might elaborate for you.  I've had enough, however, of being slammed and bashed publicly on this forum, although it's probably my own fault for speaking frankly.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, large numbers of my wife's family and their friends and relatives, some Orthodox, some Catholic (Latin and Byzantine), frequently attend Mass/DL at churches of the other faith, receiving the Eucharist (*not* demanding) and other sacraments as appropriate, all with full knowledge of the celebrant, and even a bishop or two.

Fact.  And not an unhappy one.  Communion is the seedbed for communion.
and communion with heretics harvests hellfire.

Quite unhappy.  Unless you are happy with heresy and hell.

We understand that not all Orthodox believers see eye to eye with you, or even one another,  concerning what constitutes heresy and what does not.

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?
And to whom would that be?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #183 on: August 06, 2011, 03:36:34 PM »

I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  Grin

And, if you *were* referring to me, please take my word (though you have no reason to) that there was nothing "blithe" or "demanding" about it.  Far, far more complicated than it might appear to be here.  Perhaps if you pm me, when I have a moment or two I might elaborate for you.  I've had enough, however, of being slammed and bashed publicly on this forum, although it's probably my own fault for speaking frankly.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, large numbers of my wife's family and their friends and relatives, some Orthodox, some Catholic (Latin and Byzantine), frequently attend Mass/DL at churches of the other faith, receiving the Eucharist (*not* demanding) and other sacraments as appropriate, all with full knowledge of the celebrant, and even a bishop or two.

Fact.  And not an unhappy one.  Communion is the seedbed for communion.
and communion with heretics harvests hellfire.

Quite unhappy.  Unless you are happy with heresy and hell.

We understand that not all Orthodox believers see eye to eye with you, or even one another,  concerning what constitutes heresy and what does not.

And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?
And to whom would that be?

Quote from: Shlomlokh
Aren't you coming into Orthodoxy soon?
Probably not, thanks largely to Isa and a few others of his ilk.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #184 on: August 06, 2011, 03:46:23 PM »

Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #185 on: August 06, 2011, 03:49:30 PM »


And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Logged

lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #186 on: August 06, 2011, 04:02:31 PM »

I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  Grin

And, if you *were* referring to me, please take my word (though you have no reason to) that there was nothing "blithe" or "demanding" about it.  Far, far more complicated than it might appear to be here.  Perhaps if you pm me, when I have a moment or two I might elaborate for you.  I've had enough, however, of being slammed and bashed publicly on this forum, although it's probably my own fault for speaking frankly.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, large numbers of my wife's family and their friends and relatives, some Orthodox, some Catholic (Latin and Byzantine), frequently attend Mass/DL at churches of the other faith, receiving the Eucharist (*not* demanding) and other sacraments as appropriate, all with full knowledge of the celebrant, and even a bishop or two.

Fact.  And not an unhappy one.  Communion is the seedbed for communion.
and communion with heretics harvests hellfire.

Quite unhappy.  Unless you are happy with heresy and hell.

We understand that not all Orthodox believers see eye to eye with you, or even one another,  concerning what constitutes heresy and what does not.

yes.

we deal with such things.
Quote
The Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church has decided to “forgive” two Orthodox bishops for their participation in religious rites with Eastern Catholics. However, it warned that no Orthodox cleric may celebrate sacraments or blessings with ministers of other religions on pain of excommunication.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/romanian_orthodox_synod_disciplines_bishop_for_intercommunion_with_catholics/

 Cry ?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #187 on: August 06, 2011, 04:42:37 PM »


And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #188 on: August 06, 2011, 04:47:58 PM »


And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic. 

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #189 on: August 06, 2011, 04:54:26 PM »

Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.

That's what I'm thinking. Of course our actions affect others, but any serious inquirer who would convert or not convert based on a single person, or a few people (especially on a website), should probably slow down, think, and pray a LOT more before making such a rash decision.

Seed falling on the rocks: they spring up quickly, but having no root, quickly wither away under affliction and difficulty. Such individuals should cultivate healthier soul in their hearts, and they will not be turned away by people who they consider poor examples of Christians.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 04:57:57 PM by bogdan » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #190 on: August 06, 2011, 05:09:37 PM »


And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.

This has nothing to do with what I was saying to you.  Nothing at all. 
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #191 on: August 06, 2011, 05:12:58 PM »


And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic. 


Arguably you could be more accurately called a religious apostate if you left a Church with Apostolic Succession for one without Apostolic Succession.

Given the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes Apostolic Succession in Orthodoxy you cannot even be called a religious apostate.  You went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else. 

Any way, I still cannot figure out why Wyatt totally missed my point and is now pressing something that he's skewed beyond recognition.

blah

M.

PS: Wyatt should not feel too badly.  There was a time when I got sore and took that kind of a shot at Father Gregory Jensen.  And did I ever live to regret that move.  Not because he did or said anything to me that was hurtful but because I played emotional roulette with a very serious accusation.  But that was some time ago and I've let go of some of that emotional baggage.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 05:17:29 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #192 on: August 06, 2011, 05:14:53 PM »

Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.

That's what I'm thinking. Of course our actions affect others, but any serious inquirer who would convert or not convert based on a single person, or a few people (especially on a website), should probably slow down, think, and pray a LOT more before making such a rash decision.

Seed falling on the rocks: they spring up quickly, but having no root, quickly wither away under affliction and difficulty. Such individuals should cultivate healthier soul in their hearts, and they will not be turned away by people who they consider poor examples of Christians.

Yes.  This is what I was trying to say to Wyatt.  In his eagerness to one-up Isa or Father Ambrose, he chose the lesser part.

M.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #193 on: August 06, 2011, 05:21:09 PM »


And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.
I recall someone awhile back posting that they had left the Orthodox Church and came back to the Catholic Church, and an Orthodox poster (can't remember which one now) told him that he had apostatized. So you're saying this, also, is incorrect? In the most basic sense, apostasy is just abandoning one's beliefs. If one is Catholic and they become Eastern Orthodox, they have apostatized from Catholicism.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 05:21:33 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #194 on: August 06, 2011, 05:22:43 PM »

Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.

That's what I'm thinking. Of course our actions affect others, but any serious inquirer who would convert or not convert based on a single person, or a few people (especially on a website), should probably slow down, think, and pray a LOT more before making such a rash decision.

Seed falling on the rocks: they spring up quickly, but having no root, quickly wither away under affliction and difficulty. Such individuals should cultivate healthier soul in their hearts, and they will not be turned away by people who they consider poor examples of Christians.

Yes.  This is what I was trying to say to Wyatt.  In his eagerness to one-up Isa or Father Ambrose, he chose the lesser part.

M.
I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 05:22:58 PM by Wyatt » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #195 on: August 06, 2011, 05:35:49 PM »

Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.

That's what I'm thinking. Of course our actions affect others, but any serious inquirer who would convert or not convert based on a single person, or a few people (especially on a website), should probably slow down, think, and pray a LOT more before making such a rash decision.

Seed falling on the rocks: they spring up quickly, but having no root, quickly wither away under affliction and difficulty. Such individuals should cultivate healthier soul in their hearts, and they will not be turned away by people who they consider poor examples of Christians.

Yes.  This is what I was trying to say to Wyatt.  In his eagerness to one-up Isa or Father Ambrose, he chose the lesser part.

M.
I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."

Yea...ok...so ignore my point.   

If you want to use a loose understanding of apostasy then we should be able to use a loose understanding of conversion.

You and Isa share one thing for sure:  Both of you want it both ways all of the time.

Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #196 on: August 06, 2011, 06:03:58 PM »

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 06:06:18 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #197 on: August 06, 2011, 06:05:16 PM »


And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic. 


Arguably you could be more accurately called a religious apostate if you left a Church with Apostolic Succession for one without Apostolic Succession.

Given the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes Apostolic Succession in Orthodoxy you cannot even be called a religious apostate.  You went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else. 

Any way, I still cannot figure out why Wyatt totally missed my point and is now pressing something that he's skewed beyond recognition.

blah

M.

PS: Wyatt should not feel too badly.  There was a time when I got sore and took that kind of a shot at Father Gregory Jensen.  And did I ever live to regret that move.  Not because he did or said anything to me that was hurtful but because I played emotional roulette with a very serious accusation.  But that was some time ago and I've let go of some of that emotional baggage.

Wyatt should not feel too badly about what?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #198 on: August 06, 2011, 06:09:13 PM »

I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."

I don't really see how calling it "conversion" is a problem. I'm more bothered by the statement that "[Schultz] went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else".

Of course, as I told someone else recently, most posters on this forum are only happy with Catholic posters who say things like "The only thing lacking for full communion is full communion" or "Pope Pius IX never said anyone had to agree with the Immaculate Conception, he just said you can't call it a heresy."
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 06:12:26 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #199 on: August 06, 2011, 06:16:01 PM »

Why would anyone rest their faith on that of another person's opinon (this was in regards to sending Cali and NY in the ocean IIRC), espcially on a message board.

That's what I'm thinking. Of course our actions affect others, but any serious inquirer who would convert or not convert based on a single person, or a few people (especially on a website), should probably slow down, think, and pray a LOT more before making such a rash decision.

Seed falling on the rocks: they spring up quickly, but having no root, quickly wither away under affliction and difficulty. Such individuals should cultivate healthier soul in their hearts, and they will not be turned away by people who they consider poor examples of Christians.

Yes.  This is what I was trying to say to Wyatt.  In his eagerness to one-up Isa or Father Ambrose, he chose the lesser part.

M.
I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."

Yea...ok...so ignore my point.   

If you want to use a loose understanding of apostasy then we should be able to use a loose understanding of conversion.

You and Isa share one thing for sure:  Both of you want it both ways all of the time.
Well even though my definition for apostasy was somewhat more general than some are comfortable with, it is still much more precise than some people's definition of masturbation on this forum, which apparently can be applied to any and every type of sex act.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #200 on: August 06, 2011, 07:03:29 PM »

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #201 on: August 06, 2011, 07:04:05 PM »

I believe both RC and Orthodox sacraments are valid.

However,  I also know that we are NOT in communion ... so I can't fathom the chutzpah of a Catholic just blithely walking up to an Orthodox priest and demanding the Eucharist.  To me it just seems rude.

Maybe because that Catholic is a Jew (referring, of course, to myself!)  Grin

I was talking about ANY Catholic who presents him or herself for the Eucharist at an Orthodox Church.

Just because someone uses a Yiddish term doesn't mean they're addressing only those of that heritage. I could just as easily have said "huevos".  Cool
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #202 on: August 06, 2011, 08:20:38 PM »

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #203 on: August 06, 2011, 08:38:31 PM »

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #204 on: August 06, 2011, 10:13:19 PM »

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

The religion from which Schultz or I might be apostate a fide is Christianity. 

By Catholic standards Schults might be heterodox in some of his beliefs; he is a material schismatic and not a formal schismatic, but by no stretch of any canon is he apostate a fide.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #205 on: August 06, 2011, 10:21:35 PM »

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Also Wyatt, I agree with Schultz.  You are allowing hurt and anger to cloud your "vision" and that is not good for you spiritually.  It appears to me that you are allowing yourself to be inordinately distressed by the words and attitudes of some individuals here on this Forum.  It is clear that they have long since begun to disturb your inner peace and there is a very real culpability in failing to avoid a near occasion of sin.  Your Church does not say that those who convert/transfer/translate to Orthodoxy, from the Catholic Church, are apostate.   Why would you press it?
Logged

Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #206 on: August 06, 2011, 10:45:04 PM »


And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing. Do you think leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy is good for one's soul? Last time I checked apostasy was a sin.
This.

I never understood such a view, even when I was in the RCC. If you all believe we have grace, how in the world could it be a sin for someone from your camp to come into Orthodoxy? From your church's POV, would they not be exchanging grace for grace?  Huh

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #207 on: August 06, 2011, 10:51:49 PM »


And at least one potential Eastern Orthodox Christian is no longer considering being Eastern Orthodox because if him. I wonder if he feels bad for being responsible for, in his eyes, sending someone to hell?

I would be exceptionally cautious about this kind of gloating.  In the first place there is no conversion that is real that is based upon the actions of others so strongly so as to make them definitive.  IF that is the case then the conversion is not real.   There's more but since I seem to always be grousing at you about something I will leave it for you to ponder a bit on your own.

M.
You speak of such conversion as if it would be a good thing.

You've taken all what I said so far out into left field that I am not going to even try to go out there with you and try to bring it back.  You've missed and distorted the import of what I was saying to you so thoroughly that I am more than willing to move on and forget about it.
Referring to someone leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy as "conversion" rather than what it really is (apostasy) indicates that you support such actions, or at the very least see nothing wrong with it.

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.
I recall someone awhile back posting that they had left the Orthodox Church and came back to the Catholic Church, and an Orthodox poster (can't remember which one now) told him that he had apostatized. So you're saying this, also, is incorrect? In the most basic sense, apostasy is just abandoning one's beliefs. If one is Catholic and they become Eastern Orthodox, they have apostatized from Catholicism.
I was that Orthodox poster. I recall others disagreeing with the definition of apostasy I was using at that time. Was I wrong? I really don't know. I suppose it really comes down to how one defines apostasy. Looking back now, I would probably mellow my use of the word "apostasy" and use it to refer only to those who abandon the Christian faith altogether, NOT to those who leave the Orthodox faith for a heterodox Christian faith.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #208 on: August 06, 2011, 11:07:42 PM »

I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."

I don't really see how calling it "conversion" is a problem. I'm more bothered by the statement that "[Schultz] went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else".

Of course, as I told someone else recently, most posters on this forum are only happy with Catholic posters who say things like "The only thing lacking for full communion is full communion" or "Pope Pius IX never said anyone had to agree with the Immaculate Conception, he just said you can't call it a heresy."
Did you define happy?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #209 on: August 06, 2011, 11:10:01 PM »

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,172


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #210 on: August 06, 2011, 11:18:07 PM »

EDIT-=-
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 11:18:46 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #211 on: August 06, 2011, 11:19:49 PM »

I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."

I don't really see how calling it "conversion" is a problem. I'm more bothered by the statement that "[Schultz] went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else".

Of course, as I told someone else recently, most posters on this forum are only happy with Catholic posters who say things like "The only thing lacking for full communion is full communion" or "Pope Pius IX never said anyone had to agree with the Immaculate Conception, he just said you can't call it a heresy."
Did you define happy?

I figured I should first define "are".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #212 on: August 06, 2011, 11:20:13 PM »

I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."

I don't really see how calling it "conversion" is a problem. I'm more bothered by the statement that "[Schultz] went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else".
Yeep! Shocked I hated that relativistic drivel when I was in the RCC, i.e. "We're all Catholic and the schism doesn't exist, so let's just get a long and sing some Marty Haugen music!" (Of course that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it has been my experience with most RCs I have encountered.) I think from the Orthodox POV we would say "he went from being heterodox to Orthodox", in other words a conversion.

Quote
Of course, as I told someone else recently, most posters on this forum are only happy with Catholic posters who say things like "The only thing lacking for full communion is full communion" or "Pope Pius IX never said anyone had to agree with the Immaculate Conception, he just said you can't call it a heresy."
You don't have to put me in that camp. Wink I think it's silly talk.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #213 on: August 06, 2011, 11:22:02 PM »

I never understood such a view, even when I was in the RCC. If you all believe we have grace, how in the world could it be a sin for someone from your camp to come into Orthodoxy? From your church's POV, would they not be exchanging grace for grace?  Huh

Actually, what I have trouble understanding is the attitude of people like Fr. J. Steele (emphasis added):

Quote from:  Fr. J Steele
   The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

    I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

   Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #214 on: August 06, 2011, 11:22:16 PM »

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

Who on earth said you couldn't? Doth thou protest too much? Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #215 on: August 06, 2011, 11:23:59 PM »

I understood what your point was. I just think it is inappropriate to call abandoning the Catholic Church a "conversion."

I don't really see how calling it "conversion" is a problem. I'm more bothered by the statement that "[Schultz] went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else".
Yeep! Shocked I hated that relativistic drivel when I was in the RCC, i.e. "We're all Catholic and the schism doesn't exist, so let's just get a long and sing some Marty Haugen music!" (Of course that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it has been my experience with most RCs I have encountered.) I think from the Orthodox POV we would say "he went from being heterodox to Orthodox", in other words a conversion.

Quote
Of course, as I told someone else recently, most posters on this forum are only happy with Catholic posters who say things like "The only thing lacking for full communion is full communion" or "Pope Pius IX never said anyone had to agree with the Immaculate Conception, he just said you can't call it a heresy."
You don't have to put me in that camp. Wink I think it's silly talk.

In Christ,
Andrew

Wise man.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #216 on: August 06, 2011, 11:26:35 PM »

I never understood such a view, even when I was in the RCC. If you all believe we have grace, how in the world could it be a sin for someone from your camp to come into Orthodoxy? From your church's POV, would they not be exchanging grace for grace?  Huh

Actually, what I have trouble understanding is the attitude of people like Fr. J. Steele (emphasis added):

Quote from:  Fr. J Steele
   The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

    I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

   Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.
Ah, yes, the ByzCath crowd. You can probably add the ECs at CAF to that lot, too. I think he has a good point: if you don't believe what Rome claims about itself and find yourself Orthodox in almost every single way, why would you remain outside of communion with Her? Of course, if I were a RC priest I would be encouraging people to reform these believes and conform them to what Rome says. It's silly, IMHO, to say "You must remain in communion with the Pope and consent to the teachings of the magisterium, but if you don't, it's OK to become Orthodox." There seems to be some speaking out of two sides of the mouth in the RCC on this issue. :/

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #217 on: August 06, 2011, 11:29:40 PM »

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

Who on earth said you couldn't? Doth thou protest too much? Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Who on earth? Schultz is on earth, isn't he?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #218 on: August 06, 2011, 11:43:23 PM »

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

The Vatican can say anything it likes. What Schultz is pointing out is only what the Vatican has been saying since Vatican II. If you disagree, your argument is not with him, but with the Vatican.

The Vatican likes to define the validity of the sacraments of those not in communion with it. OK, it says ours are valid.  We don't care what the Vatican says, but if you are taking your supreme pontiff's word on it, you do.  It allows its communicants to come commune with us (without asking us.  Rather rude, not to mention sacriligious).  It would give communion to any one of us-even me  Shocked, if we came up.  On the other hand, we won't ask it of you, nor will we give it to you.

So your parallel is, well, not parrallel.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #219 on: August 06, 2011, 11:49:32 PM »

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

Who on earth said you couldn't? Doth thou protest too much? Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Who on earth? Schultz is on earth, isn't he?
I assume he is. I've never met him. Frankly, for all we know he could be made up.  Shocked But seriously, I don't see where he said that in his post that you quoted, unless I misread it.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #220 on: August 06, 2011, 11:56:52 PM »

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?

It struck me a little funny too, but it's pretty late for me tonight, so I'll think about some more tomorrow.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #221 on: August 06, 2011, 11:58:14 PM »

I never understood such a view, even when I was in the RCC. If you all believe we have grace, how in the world could it be a sin for someone from your camp to come into Orthodoxy? From your church's POV, would they not be exchanging grace for grace?  Huh

Actually, what I have trouble understanding is the attitude of people like Fr. J. Steele (emphasis added):

Quote from:  Fr. J Steele
   The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

    I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

   Most dox. And they should, in the interest of honesty.

I should add that by "OICWR" he means "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

Whether or not you choose to use the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome", it's quite offensive to say that people who call themselves that need to leave the Catholic Church.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #222 on: August 07, 2011, 12:04:42 AM »

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

The Vatican can say anything it likes. What Schultz is pointing out is only what the Vatican has been saying since Vatican II. If you disagree, your argument is not with him, but with the Vatican.

The Vatican likes to define the validity of the sacraments of those not in communion with it. OK, it says ours are valid.  We don't care what the Vatican says, but if you are taking your supreme pontiff's word on it, you do.  It allows its communicants to come commune with us (without asking us.  Rather rude, not to mention sacriligious).  It would give communion to any one of us-even me  Shocked, if we came up.  On the other hand, we won't ask it of you, nor will we give it to you.

So your parallel is, well, not parrallel.
If you guys don't think that the Catholic Eucharist is valid, then why the hell are you reprimanding Wyatt and calling on him when he is taking Communion in a Catholic Church? You don't like it when Wyatt says conversion to Orthodoxy from Catholicism is apostasy, but then I suppose that we  Catholics are supposed to lie down and keep silent when  you guys put out official documents saying that Catholics are in apostasy from Orthodoxy?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #223 on: August 07, 2011, 12:55:57 AM »

It's not apostasy, for such a person still professes Christ.  Apostasy, by Christian definition, is the denial of such a thing.  If one were to become Muslim, one would be an apostate.  By the RC's own definition (Dominus Iesus), someone such as myself is, at best, a schismatic.  

Get your terminology straight before you start tossing such labels around, Wyatt.  Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant buffoon.

Schultz and Wyatt,

There are certainly Orthodox who consider conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism (or Protestantism) to be "apostasy" (this was, I'd say, one of the things which bothered me most in my first year on this forum); however, it's pretty rare for Catholics to consider conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to be "apostasy".

It's irrelevant what some Orthodox may think in Wyatt's case.  He is Roman Catholic and therefore should look to his own religious body for determination as to what constitutes apostasy.  Ex cathedra or not, Dominus Iesus quite plainly states that Orthodox Christians cannot be apostates and are, at best, schismatics, in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to play semantic games, go right ahead, just don't whine when someone like Isa decides to do the same.  elijahmaria is quite right in pointing out that some people want some things both ways.
I would agree that cradle Orthodox or Orthodox that have never been Catholic are schismatics, but I believe that when you belong to the true faith (which I believe to exist in the Catholic Church) and then depart for another, you apostatize. Wouldn't you agree that knowing the truth and then rejecting it is far graver than never knowing the truth and remaining outside of it?

Once again, and I'm going to say this slowly so you can understand.

According.
To.
Your.
Own.
Church's.
Documents.
The.
Orthodox.
Church.
Is.
A.
"True.
Particular.
Church."
and.
"The.
Church.
Of.
Christ.
Is.
Present.
And.
Operative."
(Dominus.
Iesus.
17.).

One cannot be an apostate if one merely, according to the Roman Catholic Church's own documents, changes particular churches. 

Again, to deny this is to deny the teaching authority of your church's Magisterium which puts you on the same dangerous path I'm supposedly on. 

Remember that tomorrow when you queue up for communion, buddy.
Oh yeah? That’s funny. So it is OK for Eastern Orthodox to officially proclaim that Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church is in apostasy, but it is not OK for Roman Catholics to say something similar from their side?
“Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy.”
“Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
________________________________________

The Vatican can say anything it likes. What Schultz is pointing out is only what the Vatican has been saying since Vatican II. If you disagree, your argument is not with him, but with the Vatican.

The Vatican likes to define the validity of the sacraments of those not in communion with it. OK, it says ours are valid.  We don't care what the Vatican says, but if you are taking your supreme pontiff's word on it, you do.  It allows its communicants to come commune with us (without asking us.  Rather rude, not to mention sacriligious).  It would give communion to any one of us-even me  Shocked, if we came up.  On the other hand, we won't ask it of you, nor will we give it to you.

So your parallel is, well, not parrallel.
If you guys don't think that the Catholic Eucharist is valid, then why the hell are you reprimanding Wyatt and calling on him when he is taking Communion in a Catholic Church? You don't like it when Wyatt says conversion to Orthodoxy from Catholicism is apostasy, but then I suppose that we  Catholics are supposed to lie down and keep silent when  you guys put out official documents saying that Catholics are in apostasy from Orthodoxy?
If what you say doesn't matter to us, why should what we say get you in such an uproar? Huh
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #224 on: August 07, 2011, 01:02:26 AM »

I assume he is. I've never met him. Frankly, for all we know he could be made up.  Shocked
No, I've met him and the lovely wife, so I can testify he is a real person. And a nice one at that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.242 seconds with 72 queries.