Church Teaching and possible schism

[Mommyof02green]

Now in order to be “Orthodox” you have to believe in all they teach- which basically is identical to what the Catholic Church teaches with the exception of the issue of the authority of the Bishop of Rome over their churches.

Reading that reminded me how on those religion quizzes that people post every once in a while I’m 100% Othrodox and 100% Roman Catholic.

Here is a link to one of those threads: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=78384&highlight=quiz

 

[Seeks_God]

You are absolutely right. “The rest” involves personal details about my sponsor in RCIA (who is now Greek Orthodox), and about my Spiritual Director (who is a Byzantine Catholic).

I get the feeling that you’re wanting everyone to know you’re leaving the Church. Why is it so important to you that everyone knows?

As these are mostly personal, relating only to me, I don’t think it appropriate to bring them up here. Though maybe, if you would like to know more we can discuss it in private messages.

Are you wanting guidance or do you feel such a need to make your case against the Church that you will only do it one on one?

I was mostly curious about whether I would be considered a heretic or a schismatic, or both, or neither, according to the opinion of this forum, and the codes of canon law quoted above.

Honestly, if you’re intention is to leave, why is the “label” so important? The nice thing about unconditional love is that it’ll be waiting for you when you are ready to accept it… kinda nice, huh?

I will be happy to provide any information that would help people determine what the Roman Catholic Church sees me as.

See, this leaves me wondering why you need the Church (the one you want to leave because of this issues you have with it) to have any opinion of you. Typically when most people do not like an organization or group of people, they can care less what the organization thinks of them… Why is this so important to you, because it seems to be the primary focus of your postings in this thread?

And to justify my reasons for leaving (ultimately so that, if I become Orthodox, I can give those reasons to others who ask, Protestant or Roman Catholic).

Recently, I heard a talk our parish priest said and I thought it was brilliant. He pointed out that a “house divided against itself, will fall” and went on to say that many of us will have problems with our faith, but the worst thing we could do is it to be vocal about it. We all have issues with the Church, it’s part of our defiant nature as human beings, but we are all expected to obey. Although, it is important for you, me, the next guy, or anyone to come to grips with our faith, we should still see the Church as something greater than our individualistic desires or what we individualistically think is good, bad or whatever.

And thank you for your concern and candor.

We all seek the same thing, don’t we? We all want to be as close to God as we can…

SG

 

[Ceil-1]

So… Why not become a Byzantine rite? If you truly wish to glorify Christ you could easily do so. You would leave the baggage behind, yet still be in good standing with the Church.
To be honest, you are coming off rather silly. You are putting your soul in danger, which may already be in mortal sin. It sounds like a temptation of the enemy. If you were sincere, you would discuss earnestly your difficulties and not just be so sarcastic about everything. You are coming off as very immature.

 

[noma]

I get the feeling that you’re wanting everyone to know you’re leaving the Church. Why is it so important to you that everyone knows?

The more knowledgeable people that know, the more knowledgeable people can challenge me in love. And this way, if I do commit to Orthodoxy, I make sure this is what I am truly doing, and that I have good reason to leave the Roman Catholic Church.

Are you wanting guidance or do you feel such a need to make your case against the Church that you will only do it one on one?

I am seeking only intellectual guidance here (points to ponder, of which you have given me a few). I am not seeking primarily any deep spiritual guidance here. My Priest, my sponsor in RCIA, an Orthodox Priest, and a Disciples of Christ pastor have been helping me at this level.

Honestly, if you’re intention is to leave, why is the “label” so important?

I am not sure. But I feel that I would like to know. Maybe it’s curiosity, maybe it’s some subconscious part of me that is being controlled by an authority I am no longer other. Very possibly it is the Spirit of God causing me to seek out what I should feel guild for, a grave failing.

So the question is important to me. The reason it is, is much less clear.

We all seek the same thing, don’t we? We all want to be as close to God as we can…

Absolutely, and when I have better formed opinions, I will place them here (as well as in other places) to be challenged. As I did with an idea I had about the apostolic succession affecting all Christians as much as St. Peter. I was wrong in this, and that was borne out in the thread.

 

[noma]

So… Why not become a Byzantine rite?

Because I do not accept what the Roman Catholic Church does concerning papal authority.

To be honest, you are coming off rather silly… You are coming off as very immature.

I would not doubt it. Much of this is my honest confusion. Probably some of this is resentment that I fail to control, and my own fallen and frankly immature nature coming through.

If you could give me some examples, I can look upon them in order to better myself.

Thank you for the critique.

 

[spauline]

Dear noma,

Please understand that the Church distinguishes between what is called FORMAL schismatics, heretics, etc, and MATERIAL schismatics, heretics, etc. Essentially, a formal schismatic, etc, is a person who is morally culpable for his obstinat refusal to either join or remain with Rome. A material schismatic, etc, on the other hand, is someone who is not Catholic but is not fully culpable for their separation, such as, their conscience does not permit them to join because they msitakenly but innocently convinced that Catholicism is not entirely true.

Which one of these categories you fall into, that is, formal or material, is not something I can know, or, in fact, anyone in this board could know. We judge objective actions but not subjective motives. I only hope and pray that you fall in the material category.

But there still remains the issue that even if you are just sincerely forming conscience and follow it, there is the objective reality that you are leaving the fullness of truth. If you join the Orthodox (and you are only materially in schism), your chances of being saved will be far better, as you will have all seven sacraments in your community and the general guidance of Oral Tradition to help in the interpretation of Scripture. If you join a Protestant community (again, innocently), your plight will be worse, as you will only have at most the sacraments of baptism and marriage available, and no longer have the protection of Oral Tradition, but only the Written Tradition, which makes finding truth far more difficult, seeing as, without Oral Tradition, you will be far more likely to misinterpret it than if you were Orthodox.

I pray that you do everything in your power to form your conscience and follow it. If you do that, there is a possbility that with time and experience, and by the grace of God, you can find your way home back to the fullness of faith.

I will put you in my general prayers.

with love,
scott

 

[DesertBrother]

Because I do not accept what the Roman Catholic Church does concerning papal authority.
.

Hello,
I’m not sure if you missed my earlier post (#18) concerning infallibility. I’m just curious about what part of papal authority you disagree with and why?

I’m asking because it just seems that so many who disagree with the Church, are really disagreeing with what they mistakenly think the Church is, versus the spiritual reality. I would just ask yourself if your understanding of the papacy is of the Spirit, or of the flesh before jumping ship. We all struggle between the spirit and the flesh. Our analytical, fleshly minds will judge things based on external observation, personal bias, and pride, while the Spirit is motivated by selflessness, meekness, and humility.

 

[DesertBrother]

Because I do not accept what the Roman Catholic Church does concerning papal authority.
.

Hello,
I’m not sure if you missed my earlier post (#18) concerning infallibility.

It just seems that so many who disagree with the Church, are really disagreeing with what they mistakenly think the Church is, versus the spiritual reality. I would just ask yourself if your understanding of the papacy is of the Spirit, or of the flesh before jumping ship. We all struggle between the spirit and the flesh. Our analytical, fleshly minds will judge things based on external observation, personal bias, and pride, while the Spirit is motivated by selflessness, meekness, and humility.

 

[noma]

Thank you, spauline, for your prayers, and thank you for your excellent explanation of formal versus material schism/heresy, etc.

I never understood the division before, and now I do. I learn so much on these forums.

 

[noma]

I would just ask yourself if your understanding of the papacy is of the Spirit, or of the flesh before jumping ship.

I am not sure if I do.

What I believe is, as Truth comes from the Spirit, and the Spirit is embodied in “wherever two or more are present I am there”, I would accept that all of the direct and supreme successors of the Apostles, the Patriarchs, would be necessary for Conciliar Truth, and this along with Scripture and the Liturgy of the Apostles alone comprise the Authoritative Tradition, about which we know contains only Truth.

I don’t think the Holy Spirit would solely afford the Pope the authority the Catholic Church claims, both because I believe it uncharacteristic of the Spirit, and because I do not agree with some of the teachings that are supposedly protected by this authority.

Namely, Immaculate Conception, ex cathedra proclamations via Vatican I, the authority of the Pope to change the Creed, Divorce being impossible, Contraception being intrinsic evil, Latin being a preferred language of worship, Original Sin, the favoring of the theology of Transubstantiation, purgatory as a place apart from hell, and the impossibility of all people being in Heaven (I think it at least possible that all people will end up in Heaven).

 

[Karin]

I am not sure if I do.

What I believe is, as Truth comes from the Spirit, and the Spirit is embodied in “wherever two or more are present I am there”, I would accept that all of the direct and supreme successors of the Apostles, the Patriarchs, would be necessary for Conciliar Truth, and this along with Scripture and the Liturgy of the Apostles alone comprise the Authoritative Tradition, about which we know contains only Truth.

I don’t think the Holy Spirit would solely afford the Pope the authority the Catholic Church claims, both because I believe it uncharacteristic of the Spirit, and because I do not agree with some of the teachings that are supposedly protected by this authority.

Namely, Immaculate Conception, ex cathedra proclamations via Vatican I, the authority of the Pope to change the Creed, Divorce being impossible, Contraception being intrinsic evil, Latin being a preferred language of worship, Original Sin, the favoring of the theology of Transubstantiation, purgatory as a place apart from hell, and the impossibility of all people being in Heaven (I think it at least possible that all people will end up in Heaven).

With your list…have you looked into paganism or one of those other new age religions?
I think most religions have beliefs on some of these things that are not going to agree with what you accept or think is right.

 

[noma]

With your list…have you looked into paganism or one of those other new age religions?
I think most religions have beliefs on some of these things that are not going to agree with what you accept or think is right.

I will not deny the Nicene Creed, which I accept by faith.

Thus far, I cannot find that the Orthodox Church also holds what I hold as the problems of the Catholic Church.

I am not sure if they do for the same reasons I do. And I am not sure that will ultimately matter.

I pray that Christ will lead me where He wants me. And that when I am there, I will be given grace to understand all I can, and that I shall accept what I cannot understand.

 

[Karin]

I will not deny the Nicene Creed, which I accept by faith.

well we are heading in the right direction:thumbsup:

I pray that Christ will lead me where He wants me. And that when I am there, I will be given grace to understand all I can, and that I shall accept what I cannot understand.

well I will keep you in my prayers…that the HOly Spirit may guide you on your journey

 

[mercygate]

I think that is a very good point. I am not looking for where I want to go. I am looking for where Christ wants me to be. Thus far, I think He is leading me toward the Orthodox Church. But I will rely on Him and His guidance.

My earthly brain says: peace be with you; go your way. But my heart cries out: THINK! If you believe in apostolic succession, and Peter is not in your house of bishops, what do you have? Chaos.

The Orthodox have their own version of papal infallibility, but without the means of giving it any effect. Their version – which we also have in the Catholic Church – is indefectibility.

The real hinge of this for you is contraception. You mention divorce in another post. If you have a problem with the Catholic position on divorce, your problem is not with the Pope or the Catholic Church. Your problem is with Jesus Christ. He’s the one who returned to the standard initiated by God in the Garden of Eden. Our Lord reminds us that divorce was permitted under the law “because of the hardness of your hearts.” You may quibble about how this has been handled, just as Luther resented the abuse of indultences, but the theology is rock hard and clear. Divorce and remarriage in a Christian context is not possible.

 

[kleary]

This may very-well be the case. And that in part is why I am also looking into the Anglican/Episcopal and Lutheran churches.

Therefore, you have just defined religion as “to what best suits me” rather than what has been revealed by God.

Ken

 

[kleary]

Namely, Immaculate Conception, ex cathedra proclamations via Vatican I, the authority of the Pope to change the Creed, Divorce being impossible, Contraception being intrinsic evil, Latin being a preferred language of worship, Original Sin, the favoring of the theology of Transubstantiation, purgatory as a place apart from hell, and the impossibility of all people being in Heaven (I think it at least possible that all people will end up in Heaven).

The Orthodox believe in Transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Contraception, masturbation being intrinsically evil, Original Sin, Purgatory as a place apart from hell and a definite hell for many people who reject wilfully the truth revealed by God.

I know- I dated an Orthodox Christian girl before. The only problems she had with the Catholic Church was the Novus Ordo Liturgy- hey we had something in common! She could accept the issue of the Papacy and the Fillioque clause in the Credo with proper explaination.

Maybe you need proper explaination. Try reading the tracts at catholic.com.

Ken

 

[noma]

The Orthodox believe in Transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Contraception, masturbation being intrinsically evil, Original Sin, Purgatory as a place apart from hell and a definite hell for many people who reject willfully the truth revealed by God.

Actually, the Orthodox do not accept transubstantiation universally, for they state that the manner of the presence is unknown. (Metr. Crit. Conf. 9) They (as well as I) do accept real presence. But not under the scholastic framework.

The Orthodox Church (and I) reject/s the immaculate conception in this manner:
“The Orthodox church does not accept the Catholic dogma of 1854 – the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, in the sense that she was exempt at birth from original sin. This would separate her from the human race, and she would then have been unable to transmit to her Son humanity. But Orthodoxy does not admit in the all-pure Virgin any individual sin, for that would be unworthy of the dignity of the Mother of God.” Sergius Bulgakov

And this because the Orthodox Church has a different conception of original sin, that we are not affected by the guilt of original sin, but by the consequence, which is death. As the Theotokos died, she was subject to the consequences of original sin, though she herself did not sin in any act or lack of act, either voluntary or involuntary. And she was resurrected, and this purely through the Grace of Christ.

Contraception is a sticky issue, but the Orthodox Church teaches (or some of it, rather, teaches) that in some cases, contraception is acceptable.

Masturbation, I do accept, is always intrinsically sinful.

The Orthodox do not believe in a place of purgatory apart from hell. See: orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx

But they believe that there is an area of hell where people can leave, and an area where people cannot leave. Whether anyone is in the latter area is also a point of contention among some Orthodox Christians (including even my Byzantine Catholic spiritual advisor).

I hope this helps clear some things up. Please correct me any of the mistakes I have made. I seek to learn.

(And I have read the tracts at Catholic Answers. At this point in my walk, I find them unconvincing.)

 

[noma]

Divorce and remarriage in a Christian context is not possible.

I find nothing in Scripture to support this. Rather, I only find in Scripture the support of the fact that “in the beginning, this was not so”, suggesting the time before the fall. This gives us a standard within the Church that divorce should not happen. But this standard should be tempered with mercy.

The issue of contraception is not central; my wife and I do not practice it anymore (we see no need to, and wish to have children, as we believe this is God’s will for us now). It is important (I don’t think it is universally wrong), but not central.

The central issue is, in my conscience, in my heart of hearts, for the reasons I have given, and the reason that in my soul it does not set right: I do not accept that the Pope has the authority claimed in Vatican I or Vatican II.

It almost makes me physically ill to read certain passages out of these councils anymore.

That does not mean I am right; my conscience may be so diseased as to affect me so. But this is why I am searching.

 

[Santos]

Noma, I have read much of your posts… and because I beleive you to be quite educated in the Catholic Faith, I don’t see how you can be content in any other Church? The objections you raise here is nothing compared to those which you’ll find yourself combatting in a different church if you leave. It seems that your arguments with the Church were not always so.

The stuggles you have are personal within the acceptence of Catholic faith and you may never find peace unless you submit entirely to your faith within the faith, the Church.

Remember that it is not by understanding that we please God but by faith! Do not allow your intellect to take away from your faith. Do we not fall in the same sin of Adam to want to aquire complete knowledge of God. We can not understand all things nor are we required to do so, but to be submissive to Christ’s Church and the Authortity to which He left that began with the office of Peter (Papl Authority).

Christ set up a living, continuing authority to teach, govern, and sanctify in His name. If the office of Peter was not intended to be passed on then we could assume the office of bishops, priests and deacons (1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17) were not intended to be passed on as well, we know this not to be true, for it was by these members that Christ built his Church and it was by Christ promise that we know His Church shall last to the “end of time”.

You believe in the office of Peter as Chief Apostle and there is much scripture to support this, but you do not believe in the successors of Peter keeping that same authority… why would Jesus give this tremendous authority to Peter and not intend for it to be passed on? If at that time the early Christians needed an authoritative leader among the apostles, surely after the apostles died the Church would be in greater need of this authority, to protect the teachings of Christ from corruption.

I know that you know that the early church fathers believed in the succession of the primacy of Peter. There is over a dozen letters within the pre-nicene and nicene eras confirming there position. The Early Church Fathers are in opposition to your views. Stop searching out reasons that you know are unjustified to leave the Catholic Church.

I am not looking for where I want to go. I am looking for where Christ wants me to be. Thus far, I think He is leading me toward the Orthodox Church. But I will rely on Him and His guidance.

In reading your many posts and in reading a reply that was left to you by Ceil-1

To be honest, you are coming off rather silly. You are putting your soul in danger, which may already be in mortal sin. It sounds like a temptation of the enemy.

I was reminded of a few quotes:

“He who has the Holy Spirit loves the Church and in the degree to which he has the Holy Spirit is in the degree to which he loves the Church.”-St. Augustine

“Don’t think that you can have the Holy Spirit but don’t like the Catholic Church. That is a deceiving spirit… and any spirit that leads you out of the fullness of truth to a lesser truth (and all churches have some truth) is not the Holy Spirit. Don’t think you can seperate the head (Christ) form the body (His Church)… what you end up with, is spiritual death.” -Fr. John Corapi, The Truth is a Matter of Life or Death.

I share with you, that which I myself reflect on in regards to my own spiritual life. I claim not to be better then anybody else but that I have found peace in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

 

[DesertBrother]

I find nothing in Scripture to support this.

Mark10:8. “And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh”

Here Jesus is saying that separation is not possible. They are forever spiritually bound as one. So even if someone ceremoniously separates or divorces their spouse, nothing changes. Man cannot undo what has been bound by God. That’s like saying I’m able to “undo” my baptism.

Therefore:

Mark 10:11. And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her.

10:12. And if the wife shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Why? Because under the New Covenant, there is no such a thing as divorce.