God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?

[ialmisry]

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  , 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,

Who? Me? I know the Catholic Eucharist is valid.  I think the Vatican's Eucharist is valid, but that's just my theologoumen. But I don't know what that has to do with what follows.

then why the hell are you reprimanding Wyatt and calling on him when he is taking Communion in a Catholic Church?

If he was communing in a Catholic Church, I'd reprimand the priest first.  But you mean the Vatican: no one is reprimanding him for communing with the Vatican, as he believes in it.  Except when it says the Orthodox are Catholic, evidently.

You don't like it when Wyatt says conversion to Orthodoxy from Catholicism is apostasy,

Besides not being true, he's contradicting your supreme pontiff.

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 you read the document you quoted, you'd see that Catholics are in Orthodoxy.

Of these heresies, some already have entirely failed, some are in decay, some have wasted away, some yet flourish in a greater or less degree vigorous until the time of their return to the Faith, while others are reproduced to run their course from their birth to their destruction. For being the miserable cogitations and devices of miserable men, both one and the other, struck with the thunderbolt of the anathema of the seven Ecumenical Councils, shall vanish away, though they may last a thousand years; for the orthodoxy of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the living Word of God, alone endures for ever, according to the infallible promise of the LORD: the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. xviii. 18).

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

As for lying down, I don't see it. I see a lot of jumping up and down.  Which is fine.  We just don't have to watch it.

[Achronos]

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?

Soon they will not be saying that there is crime or sin, but only hungry men.

[stanley123]

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  , 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,

Who? Me? I know the Catholic Eucharist is valid.  I think the Vatican's Eucharist is valid, but that's just my theologoumen. But I don't know what that has to do with what follows.

then why the hell are you reprimanding Wyatt and calling on him when he is taking Communion in a Catholic Church?

If he was communing in a Catholic Church, I'd reprimand the priest first.  But you mean the Vatican: no one is reprimanding him for communing with the Vatican, as he believes in it. 

Here is the reprimand:

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

BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.
The Document quoted clearly implies that the Roman Church is in apostasy from the Orthodox Church. So there is an apostasy there according to the official teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church. Do you believe your own Orthodox bishops that there is an apostasy between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church or do you believe the Vatican that there is no apostasy between the two Churches. Who is right here? The Vatican or the official declarations and official documents of the Holy Orthodox Church?

[stanley123]

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.

However, does the Orthodox Church maintain that the Roman Church is in apostasy from the Orthodox Church? Or that the Pope is deceiving people into apostasy from the ORthodox Church?
“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"
Do you believe the official declarations of the Orthodox Church or do you believe the Vatican on this issue of apostasy?

[Irish Hermit]

BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.

Indeed.  Is it not a wonderful testament to enduring love that even though the Church of the West separated from us 1000 years ago there are still Orthodox who are reluctant to deny that there is grace in Catholic Sacraments?

The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments.  Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his.

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all other Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."

[Wyatt]

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."

Coming back to this (since it ignores the semantic wars and actually illustrates my point).....it doesn't matter whether you call it apostasy, formal schism, material schism, etc. The point is that it is inappropriate to call abandoning the fullness of truth found only in the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy a "conversion" as if it were a good thing.


P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

[stanley123]

BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.

Indeed.  Is it not a wonderful testament to enduring love that even though the Church of the West separated from us 1000 years ago there are still Orthodox who are reluctant to deny that there is grace in Catholic Sacraments?

The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments.  Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his.

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all other Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."

That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.

[stanley123]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon, but apparently he is unaware of the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns".
This official document,  signed, sealed and delivered by several Orthodox bishops, clearly implies that the Roman Pope is deceiving  people into apostasy. But the Pope is only teaching Roman Catholicism. Is there a question of apostasy between the two Churches or not? 

[PeterTheAleut]

BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.

Indeed.  Is it not a wonderful testament to enduring love that even though the Church of the West separated from us 1000 years ago there are still Orthodox who are reluctant to deny that there is grace in Catholic Sacraments?

The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments.  Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his.

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all other Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."

That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.

Is this really a matter on which the Church needs to have an official teaching?

[PeterTheAleut]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

1. Schultz did not call Wyatt an ignorant buffoon.
2. If you're really as worked up as your posts indicate, you may want to step away from the computer, take several deep breaths, and post only after you've calmed down a bit. It doesn't appear to me that you're reading others' posts correctly.

[Irish Hermit]

BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.

Indeed.  Is it not a wonderful testament to enduring love that even though the Church of the West separated from us 1000 years ago there are still Orthodox who are reluctant to deny that there is grace in Catholic Sacraments?

The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments.  Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his.

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all other Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."

That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.

We are really speaking about a peripheral question.  It does not impinge on the essence of our faith. 

But we should point out that *every* Orthodox Church will baptize Roman Catholics, some routinely and others less so.  In the case of Eastern Catholics I do not think that they are ever baptized if they come into Orthodoxy.

These contradictions/paradoxes do not bother the Orthodox very much. We live with them.  The focus is not on the validity of heterodox sacraments but on bringing the heterodox into Orthodoxy.

You will find that the diverse approaches result from the thicket of age old canons on this question on how to deal with schismatic and heretical groups.  The Church formulated so many canons which were suitable for this or that particular heterodox group and how to reconcile it to the Church.   But we have never had a pan-Orthodox Council to deliberate on the status of Roman Catholic sacraments nor how to receive Roman Catholics.  So when faced with a concrete request for reception a bishop has an array of choices.... he will find a way to bring the convert safely into the Church within the wide parameters of the canons.

[Irish Hermit]

/\  It's worth a mention that this "thicket" of ancient canons still exists in Orthodoxy.  Exactly the same thicket existed in the Roman Catholic Church until as late as 1918.  Prior to 1918 you had the same jumble of often contradictory canon laws from centuries past back to the year dot.   But in 1918 under Pope Pius X the first "Code of Canon Law" was created, eliminating the chaos of centuries.

[Irish Hermit]

That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.

Fr McQuinn baptized two of our Lebanese Orthodox teenage boys a few years back before he would recommend them for enrolment at a Marist school.

Sure looks like your Church is at sixes and sevens on this matter.

[stanley123]

1. Schultz did not call Wyatt an ignorant buffoon.
2. If you're really as worked up as your posts indicate, you may want to step away from the computer, take several deep breaths, and post only after you've calmed down a bit. It doesn't appear to me that you're reading others' posts correctly.

As I read reply 188:

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

BTW, does the Roman Pope desire to deceive people into apostasy from Orthodoxy or not?
If one converts from Orthodoxy into Roman Catholicism, are you going into apostasy?

[Irish Hermit]

BTW, does the Roman Pope desire to deceive people into apostasy from Orthodoxy or not?
If one converts from Orthodoxy into Roman Catholicism, are you going into apostasy?

The original meaning of apostasy was to abandon Christ, becoming a pagan or a Muslim or a Communist.  But it also has another popular usage, to abandon the Church and go to another. 

But what does the Pope want of us?  To subjugate and dominate the Orthodox?  Nowhere and never has he stated that he does not desire full and final authority over the Orthodox if we "return" to Rome.  He is far too artful to lay it out plainly.  He is acting in bad faith. 

Forgive me for "speaking the truth in love" but it is how I see it.

Metropolitan Anthony Bloom:

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."

The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

[Irish Hermit]

That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.

Fr McQuinn baptized two of our Lebanese Orthodox teenage boys a few years back before he would recommend them for enrolment at a Marist school.

Sure looks like your Church is at sixes and sevens on this matter.

When the Catholic Church coerced these boys into being baptized were the Catholics forcing them into an act of apostasy?

These boys had been baptized at birth, chrismated, and receiving Holy Communion for 12 years.

[ialmisry]

BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.

Indeed.  Is it not a wonderful testament to enduring love that even though the Church of the West separated from us 1000 years ago there are still Orthodox who are reluctant to deny that there is grace in Catholic Sacraments?

The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments.  Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his.

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all other Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."

That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.

Is this really a matter on which the Church needs to have an official teaching?

No.  Until they come to embrace Orthodoxy, there's no reason to worry ourselves.

[ialmisry]

BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.

Indeed.  Is it not a wonderful testament to enduring love that even though the Church of the West separated from us 1000 years ago there are still Orthodox who are reluctant to deny that there is grace in Catholic Sacraments?

The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments.  Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his.

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all other Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."

That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.

Sure it does: we believe in one baptism for the remission of sins.
All Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism of any other Orthodox Church is valid.
As to the Vatican  that's like the US government worrying about the qualifications for Chinese citizenship.  Unless its an issue of US naturalization, it's not their affair.

[Schultz]

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."

Coming back to this (since it ignores the semantic wars and actually illustrates my point).....it doesn't matter whether you call it apostasy, formal schism, material schism, etc. The point is that it is inappropriate to call abandoning the fullness of truth found only in the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy a "conversion" as if it were a good thing.

I have no problem were you to be arguing that leaving the RCC is not a "good thing."  I simply take umbrage with your terminology. 

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

I think you have finally grasped what I'm getting at.  Take that feeling and flip it around.

Until you can do the same, please refrain from calling people you don't know an apostate when your own church's definition of such precludes such a label.

[ialmisry]

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."

Coming back to this (since it ignores the semantic wars and actually illustrates my point).....it doesn't matter whether you call it apostasy, formal schism, material schism, etc. The point is that it is inappropriate to call abandoning  the Vatican and embracing the fullness of truth found only in the Catholic Church for of Eastern Orthodoxy a "conversion" as if it were a good thing.

Maybe not on CAF, but here it's a great thing.

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

Wow. So your father confessor can do all that?

[Schultz]

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"
________________________________________

Again, what the Orthodox Church says is irrelevant to what Wyatt is saying.  If he's a good Roman Catholic, he simply must believe that the Orthodox Church is not an apostate organization, but a schismatic one.  Period.  There is no ifs, ands, or buts.  IF this was not the case, the RCC would not allow Orthodox Christians to receive communion in their churches at any time.  Apostates, by definition, cannot receive communion.

[Schultz]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 

[podkarpatska]

The only result from endless discussions like this one is that we all make the Blessed Mother weep over our mutual arrogance and hubris which we think is zealous protection of what we each believe.

[podkarpatska]

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"
________________________________________

Again, what the Orthodox Church says is irrelevant to what Wyatt is saying.  If he's a good Roman Catholic, he simply must believe that the Orthodox Church is not an apostate organization, but a schismatic one.  Period.  There is no ifs, ands, or buts.  IF this was not the case, the RCC would not allow Orthodox Christians to receive communion in their churches at any time.  Apostates, by definition, cannot receive communion.

AMen to that.

[ialmisry]

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  , 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,

Who? Me? I know the Catholic Eucharist is valid.  I think the Vatican's Eucharist is valid, but that's just my theologoumen. But I don't know what that has to do with what follows.

then why the hell are you reprimanding Wyatt and calling on him when he is taking Communion in a Catholic Church?

If he was communing in a Catholic Church, I'd reprimand the priest first.  But you mean the Vatican: no one is reprimanding him for communing with the Vatican, as he believes in it. 

Here is the reprimand:

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

Not a reprimand.  Just a reminder.  Has nothing to do with the validity of the Eucharist: even if it were just bread, he is setting himself in opposition to that "magisterium" which validates your Eucharist.  But then again, since one of your priests would give me communion (and when I was Lutheran, did) if I walked up, perhaps it doesn't matter.  At least to the Vatican.

BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.

Sure it does.  That's why the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church are read in every DL.

As to the Vatican, its self-absorbtion is throwing you. The Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, as the Fathers of Constantinople left it when they set the Church's seal upon it speaks of what the Church believes, not the heretics.  This in contrast to the draft of the Creed at Nicea, where the text anathematizes specific Arian beliefs.

We don't need a teaching on the validity of the Vatican's Eucharist.  Who cares?  I'm of the opinion that it is valid, even to the point of crossing myself passing one of the Vatican's churches, and even prostrating at adoration (where I would save a Vatican wafer like St. Joseph of Damascus was martyred protecting the Catholic Eucharist of his Orthodox Church, that I can't say).  But I would never think, even on my deathbed, of communing from it.  Those who don't think it is "valid" would care even less. We are not like your scholastics, looking for problems.

The Document quoted clearly implies that the Roman Church is in apostasy from the Orthodox Church.  So there is an apostasy there according to the official teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church.

And if you could produce like documents from the Vatican in its post Vatican II "developed" state, you might have had a point.

Do you believe your own Orthodox bishops that there is an apostasy between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church or do you believe the Vatican that there is no apostasy between the two Churches. Who is right here? The Vatican or the official declarations and official documents of the Holy Orthodox Church?

I side with the Holy Orthodox and Catholic Church (as the documents refers to us).  That does not preclude holding Wyatt to the standards of your "magisterium" which he claims to be following. Wyatt is quite free to embrace Orthodox standards, just embrace them fully.

[/quote]

[Peter J]

But you mean the Vatican: no one is reprimanding him for communing with the Vatican, as he believes in it.  Except when it says the Orthodox are Catholic, evidently.

The Vatican said that? I think you're confused. It was Elijahmaria who said that. If I remember correctly, she called the Catholic Church "my one holy catholic and apostolic Church" and the Orthodox Church "your one holy catholic and apostolic Church".

[elijahmaria]

But you mean the Vatican: no one is reprimanding him for communing with the Vatican, as he believes in it.  Except when it says the Orthodox are Catholic, evidently.

The Vatican said that? I think you're confused. It was Elijahmaria who said that. If I remember correctly, she called the Catholic Church "my one holy catholic and apostolic Church" and the Orthodox Church "your one holy catholic and apostolic Church".

Since the Catholic Church recognizes all canonical Orthodox Churches as Sister Churches, I'd need to have you show me something to indicate that the Catholic Church would deny the title Orthodox Catholic to Orthodox believers.

[Peter J]

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

That's a good analogy. I would add that just as, in the one case, there are some Anglicans who take it worse than others, so too in the other case, there are some Catholics who take it worse than others.

I'd count myself as one of the Catholics who take it pretty well.

[Peter J]

BTW, Did you say that you belong to the ONE, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church? Obviously you don't, because the Orthodox Church does not speak with ONE teaching with regard to the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, among other things.

Indeed.  Is it not a wonderful testament to enduring love that even though the Church of the West separated from us 1000 years ago there are still Orthodox who are reluctant to deny that there is grace in Catholic Sacraments?

The question boils down to - do bishops exist outside the Church and out of communion with the Church?.  I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church.  Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments.  Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his.

Now, I know that this is a harsh saying for a Roman Catholic to hear (about as harsh as when the Anglicans are told much the same about the invalidity of their Orders by Catholics.) 

BUT, on the other hand, we have to be honest and tell you that you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it.   Saint Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion.  Here are his words http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13419.msg185558.html#msg185558

In fact for the last 400 years the Church of Russia has accepted the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments. 

BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all other Catholic Sacraments.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not.   I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments.  We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."

That solves nothing and indicates the division among the Orthodox on this question is even wider than first beleived.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is valid.
Some Orthodox say that the Catholic baptism is not valid.
Some Orthodox say that they do not know one way or the other.
It doesn't look like this is a Church with ONE teaching.

Is this really a matter on which the Church needs to have an official teaching?

Personally, I don't think it's a major problem. Consider, the bull Apostolicae Curae (Pope Leo XIII's bull declaring Anglican ordinations to be "absolutely null and utterly void") was a long time coming -- 1896.

[Wyatt]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

Wow. So your father confessor can do all that?

No. When I made that statement I was, of course, meaning that since Schultz is not my confessor, the only other person who could know the state of my soul would be Christ Himself, and even one's confessor cannot know one's soul as intimately as Christ can. Confessors can still be wrong.

[stanley123]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 

Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
See:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
This encyclical seems to imply that it is apostasy to do so, but
 how can it be so, since you are not giving up on your belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?

[Michał Kalina]

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.

Well, I would call them as such.

[Wyatt]

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.

Well, I would call them as such.

That's not surprising.

[PeterTheAleut]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 

Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?

Why is what the Orthodox Church thinks of you so important to you?

[Wyatt]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 

Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?

Why is what the Orthodox Church thinks of you so important to you?

What is what the Catholic Church thinks of the Eastern Orthodox so important to Schultz?

[stanley123]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 

Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?

Why is what the Orthodox Church thinks of you so important to you?

Because I  am interested in the definition of apostasy.  Schultz has one definition, but it looks like the Orthodox Church (or perhaps some members of the Orthodox Church) have an entirely different definition. Which one is it?

[Wyatt]

Isn't splitting hairs over the difference between apostasy, schism, and heresy when speaking of people who once belonged to the Church but then left a bit like arguing over how much one is going to go to hell?

[Irish Hermit]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 

Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
See:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
This encyclical seems to imply that it is apostasy to do so, but
 how can it be so, since you are not giving up on your belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

[Wyatt]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 

Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
See:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
This encyclical seems to imply that it is apostasy to do so, but
 how can it be so, since you are not giving up on your belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?

[stanley123]

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

But referring to conversion the other way:

.....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.

An ignorant buffoon?

[Irish Hermit]

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?

... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

[PeterTheAleut]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 

Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?

Why is what the Orthodox Church thinks of you so important to you?

What is what the Catholic Church thinks of the Eastern Orthodox so important to Schultz?

Because you're acting in a way that you puts you at variance with your own Catholic Church.

[Irish Hermit]

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

But referring to conversion the other way:

.....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.

An ignorant buffoon?

My response to this use of terminology is up above in message 239.

[PeterTheAleut]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 

Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
See:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
This encyclical seems to imply that it is apostasy to do so, but
 how can it be so, since you are not giving up on your belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?

Only one who has tasted the fullness of faith can apostatize. One who has not tasted the fullness of faith can be said to be outside the faith, but cannot be said to have apostatized. You can't fall from the top rung of a ladder if you don't first climb the ladder.

[Irish Hermit]

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?

You cannot apostatasize from the Orthodox Church if you were never one of her children.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?