Falling for an Orthodox girl: revisited

[malfunkshun]

Almost a year ago, I posted this thread.

At that time I didn’t know the difference between Orthodox and Catholic. Well, I’ve been going to St. Maximus the Confessor Orthodox Mission for about a year now and last Sunday I was made a catechumen. And to make things clear, I’m talking about Eastern Orthodoxy, not Roman Catholic. There was some confusion in the thread about that.

I got a lot of advice in that thread from people warning me not to convert to Orthodoxy just because I wanted a relationship with an Orthodox girl. Well, I won’t deny that she was my prime motivation at first, but over the course of the past year it has become more than that. I talked to the priest at St. Maximus early on, right after I made that thread in fact, and he was more encouraging than warning in his attitude, which kind of surprised me based on the response I got here.

So, it’s a year later, and like I said, I was made a catechumen last Sunday, and I’m still with the Orthodox girl. A lot has changed since then. Here’s a re-cap of some of my experiences. There is a lot to read here, documenting some experiences I’ve had with the Orthodox church during the past year, so be warned.

(I was going to post all of my blogs that I’ve written about becoming Orthodox for the past year, but it wouldn’t let me. !

Anyway, you can read it here if you want, but there is other stuff posted that is non-related.

ashfansrejoice.blogspot.com/

 

[Monica4316]

that’s wonderful God bless you.

 

[trophybearer]

Congratulations! God bless you!

 

[Tradycja]

I can’t believe someone who lists themselves as Catholic on this thread said “That’s great!” That’s terrible!

Yes, the Orthodox have valid sacraments, but those sacraments are not beneficial unto salvation since they are sacraments outside the Church. (Now there may be individual Orthodox Christians who were baptized as children in the Orthodox Church and never embraced any heretical or schismatic position that can receive benefit from those sacraments, but this would not apply to a Catholic who leaves to become “Orthodox”)

The true Orthodox are the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Here are statements regarding sacraments outside the Church not being beneficial untio salvation:

Ex Cathedra:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that** only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier**. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”*** (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) ***

Universal Ordinary Magisterium:

The Sacraments, which some people keep and use outside the unity of Christ, are able to preserve the appearance of piety; but the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than feeling can remain in an amputated part of your body. (Pope Leo XIII: “Exima Nos Laetitia”)

The Church is built on the Rock of Peter, and he who eats the Lamb outside this holy dwelling has no part with God. (Pius IX: "Multis Gravibus”)

Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark. Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved. He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.
(Traditi Humilitati- On his program for the Pontificate- Encyclical of Pope Pius VIII – May 1829)

#11. In the words of St. Leo, who continues speaking about the Holy See of Peter: “It is necessary that the Church throughout the world be united and cleave to the center of Catholic unity and ecclesiastical communion, so that whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery.” St. Jerome adds: “Whoever eats the lamb outside of this house is unholy. Those who were not in the ark of Noah perished in the flood.” Just as he who does not gather with Christ, so he who does not gather with Christ’s Vicar on earth, clearly scatters. How can someone who destroys the holy authority of the Vicar of Christ and who infringes on his rights gather with him? It is through these rights that the pope is the center of unity, that he has the primacy of order and jurisdiction, and that he has the full power of nurturing, ruling, and governing the universal Church.
(Commissum Dicinitus- On Church and State- Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI- May 17, 1835)

#5 “Whoever eats the lamb outside of this house is an impious person.”
(Singulari Quidem- On the Church in Austria- Encyclical of Pope Pius IX- March 17, 1856)

 

[Tradycja]

Correction: I read your previous thread that says you were not Catholic before. My mistake. I apologize.

However I do suggest that you study the Eastern Catholic Churches if you are interested in Eastern Christianity.

I recommend books by James Likoudis and Vladimir Soloviev especially the “Russian Church and the Papacy”.

This blog is also good: russiancatholic.blogspot.com/

 

[5Loaves]

So, it’s a year later, and like I said, I was made a catechumen last Sunday, and I’m still with the Orthodox girl.

Congratulations! I’ll think of you when we pray for the catechumens in DL.

 

[Hesychios]

I can’t believe someone who lists themselves as Catholic on this thread said “That’s great!” That’s terrible!

Yes, the Orthodox have valid sacraments, but those sacraments are not beneficial unto salvation since they are sacraments outside the Church. (Now there may be individual Orthodox Christians who were baptized as children in the Orthodox Church and never embraced any heretical or schismatic position that can receive benefit from those sacraments, but this would not apply to a Catholic who leaves to become “Orthodox”)

The true Orthodox are the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Here are statements regarding sacraments outside the Church not being beneficial untio salvation:

Ex Cathedra:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that** only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier**. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”*** (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) ***

Universal Ordinary Magisterium:

The Sacraments, which some people keep and use outside the unity of Christ, are able to preserve the appearance of piety; but the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than feeling can remain in an amputated part of your body. (Pope Leo XIII: “Exima Nos Laetitia”)

The Church is built on the Rock of Peter, and he who eats the Lamb outside this holy dwelling has no part with God. (Pius IX: "Multis Gravibus”)

Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark. Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved. He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.
(Traditi Humilitati- On his program for the Pontificate- Encyclical of Pope Pius VIII – May 1829)

#11. In the words of St. Leo, who continues speaking about the Holy See of Peter: “It is necessary that the Church throughout the world be united and cleave to the center of Catholic unity and ecclesiastical communion, so that whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery.” St. Jerome adds: “Whoever eats the lamb outside of this house is unholy. Those who were not in the ark of Noah perished in the flood.” Just as he who does not gather with Christ, so he who does not gather with Christ’s Vicar on earth, clearly scatters. How can someone who destroys the holy authority of the Vicar of Christ and who infringes on his rights gather with him? It is through these rights that the pope is the center of unity, that he has the primacy of order and jurisdiction, and that he has the full power of nurturing, ruling, and governing the universal Church.
(Commissum Dicinitus- On Church and State- Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI- May 17, 1835)

#5 “Whoever eats the lamb outside of this house is an impious person.”
(Singulari Quidem- On the Church in Austria- Encyclical of Pope Pius IX- March 17, 1856)

Thank you for being so frank and honest in your opinion.

It is not as if most of the readers here have not seen these quotes, but it is (I suppose) worthwhile to be reminded.

However, this “red in tooth and claw” approach is hardly conducive to better relations between the churches, and sadly it makes the Orthodox position of not sharing communion with Latin Catholics seem all the more realistic and justified.

Although it is noteworthy that no ‘modern’ Pope has repudiated these harsh judgments of their predecessors, I do appreciate the modern approach a lot more.



You said…

• Yes, the Orthodox have valid sacraments,
• but those sacraments are not beneficial unto salvation since they are sacraments outside the Church.

Which looks for all the world like a complete contradiction!

If a sacrament s valid (as per your church, apparently the Orthodox sacraments are) the Holy Spirit is at work in it!

Are you trying to maintain that the Holy Spirit of God is present but ineffective?

Let us take the Eucharist, for example …

If the Holy Eucharist is a true sacrament, does that mean that the Christ is truly present or not?

"No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one,*** even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ***, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”*** (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).

***This reminds me of another important quote “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter.” Matt 23:13

 

[malfunkshun]

I can’t believe someone who lists themselves as Catholic on this thread said “That’s great!” That’s terrible!

Yes, the Orthodox have valid sacraments, but those sacraments are not beneficial unto salvation since they are sacraments outside the Church. (Now there may be individual Orthodox Christians who were baptized as children in the Orthodox Church and never embraced any heretical or schismatic position that can receive benefit from those sacraments, but this would not apply to a Catholic who leaves to become “Orthodox”)

The true Orthodox are the Eastern Catholic Churches.

You know, I’m pretty sure that it’s the Roman Catholics who moved away from the Orthodox Church and not the other way around. It was the separation of the Catholic Church from the Orthodox Church that gave rise to protestantism; the Pope has even been referred to as the First Protestant. So technically, it’s the Roman Catholics who are ‘outside the church’, as you put it.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be one and the same, so I really don’t understand how a Catholic, after learning about the history of the Church, can reasonably argue that the Catholic Church can claim a position as the One True Church and denounce the Orthodox sacraments, when it is the Orthodox Church that has adhered to the ancient and original traditions for the last two millenia.

The two main points of contention between Orthodoxy and Catholicism are, of course, the issue of papal infallibility, and the filioque. The first pope was installed in the fifth century when Catholics were still a part of the Orthodox Church, and the power of papal authority was attained by way of an imperial decree issued by the emperor Valentinian III. This very concept is absurd to me, in that an office outside the church has granted a bishop divine authority… a thing which can only be done by a council of bishops guided by the Holy Spirit, and there was never an ecumenical council that bestowed infallible authority upon the Pope. I see no flaw in this logic, so technically the Pope must be a heretic. Furthermore, any decree issued by him should be construed as heresy, which kind of takes the ‘oomph’ out of this:

Ex Cathedra:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Then there’s the insertion of the filioque into the Nicene Creed, which has been called a heresy by some eastern patriarchs. While the filioque was most likely only intended as a safeguard against Arianism, it still constitutes an unauthorized change, and Pope Benedict VIII made it official by having it sung at Mass. What I find particularly distasteful is that he did this not because he felt divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, but because he felt obligated to King Henry II of Germany. King Henry II, who had incidentally restored Pope Benedict VIII to the papal throne after it was usurped by the Antipope Gregory VI, upon visiting Rome was surprised at the different custom.

It’s a shame that language and distance barriers of the time caused the Latin church and the Byzantine church grow so far apart, but the fact remains that Catholics have been operating outside the church since 1054, when the papal legate laid a Bull of Excommunication upon the altar of the Hagia Sophia in response to the rejection of a non-existant papal authority by the Byzantine bishops.

The Roman Catholic church separated itself from the Orthodox Church when, through the fault of pride, it assumed a monarchy that it had no right to. I don’t see how anyone could cling to the notion of an infallible Pope, or the filioque, or the inherent status of the Roman Catholic Church as the largest protestant denomination in the world after being made aware of the history of it’s inception.

My purpose really isn’t to argue here, but the way you basically rendered Orthodox Christianity - the original and oldest Christian faith - as invalid naturally elicited this kind of response. Your post took me by surprise to be quite honest, because I believe that there is value in the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church… although I do feel that some Catholic traditions encourage false precepts which can be damaging to the well being our relationship with Christ.

 

[Hesychios]

I can’t believe someone who lists themselves as Catholic on this thread said “That’s great!” That’s terrible!

Yes, the Orthodox have valid sacraments, but those sacraments are not beneficial unto salvation since they are sacraments outside the Church. (Now there may be individual Orthodox Christians who were baptized as children in the Orthodox Church and never embraced any heretical or schismatic position that can receive benefit from those sacraments, but this would not apply to a Catholic who leaves to become “Orthodox”)

The true Orthodox are the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Here are statements regarding sacraments outside the Church not being beneficial untio salvation:

Ex Cathedra:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that** only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier**. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”*** (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) ***

Universal Ordinary Magisterium:

The Sacraments, which some people keep and use outside the unity of Christ, are able to preserve the appearance of piety; but the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than feeling can remain in an amputated part of your body. (Pope Leo XIII: “Exima Nos Laetitia”)

The Church is built on the Rock of Peter, and he who eats the Lamb outside this holy dwelling has no part with God. (Pius IX: "Multis Gravibus”)

Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism. etc …
(Traditi Humilitati- On his program for the Pontificate- Encyclical of Pope Pius VIII – May 1829)

#11. In the words of St. Leo, who continues speaking about the Holy See of Peter: "It is necessary that the Church throughout the world be united and cleave to the center of Catholic unity and ecclesiastical communion, etc. …
(Commissum Dicinitus- On Church and State- Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI- May 17, 1835)

#5 “Whoever eats the lamb outside of this house is an impious person.”
(Singulari Quidem- On the Church in Austria- Encyclical of Pope Pius IX- March 17, 1856)

Thank you for being so frank and honest in your opinion.

It is not as if most of the readers here have not seen these quotes, but it is (I suppose) worthwhile to be reminded.

However, this “red in tooth and claw” approach is hardly conducive to better relations between the churches, and sadly it makes the Orthodox position of not sharing communion with Latin Catholics seem all the more realistic and justified.

Although it is noteworthy that no ‘modern’ Pope has repudiated these harsh judgments of their predecessors, I do appreciate the modern approach a lot more.



You said…

• Yes, the Orthodox have valid sacraments,
• but those sacraments are not beneficial unto salvation since they are sacraments outside the Church.

Which looks for all the world like a complete contradiction!

If a sacrament is valid (as per your church, apparently the Orthodox sacraments are) the Holy Spirit is at work in it!

Are you trying to maintain that the Holy Spirit of God is present but ineffective?

Let us take the Eucharist, for example …

If the Holy Eucharist is a true sacrament, does that mean that Christ is truly present or not?

What can this mean “valid sacraments” but “not beneficial” ? Is Christ divided? Are there two cosmic eternal Divine Liturgies?

http://www.orthodox.pl/OrthodoxEng/Uczelnie/Images/010.gif

"No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one,*** even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ***, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”*** (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).

***This reminds me of another important quote “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter.” Matt 23:13

 

[malfunkshun]

Oh… and thanks for the congrats people.

 

[malfunkshun]

After reading these posts, I’m a little dismayed at the status quo which exists here. One of the main things which attracted me to Orthodoxy was the pervasive open mindedness which existed among the parishioners and the clergy. When I was first inquiring, I was in despair that I would probably never be accepted as an Orthodox Christian because I believe in things like evolution and the big bang. When my priest told me that it’s ok to believe in those things, I almost fell over. Quite a contrast to the Southern Baptist attitudes which were ubiquitous in East Texas where I grew up.

I consider myself lucky that I entered into the Orthodox faith with no preconceptions and therefore no prejudices. I can say the same thing about Roman Catholicism. I even used to date a Roman Catholic girl (I must have a thing for Christians ) and went to mass a couple of times with her. I wasn’t averse to giving Catholicism a try at that time, but she wasn’t nearly as serious about religion as my current girlfriend, so very little enthusiasm grew in me. Basically, what made me choose Orthodoxy after I had learned something about it’s history and the history of Roman Catholicism, was that the Eastern Orthodox Church has continued an unbroken and unchanging tradition ever since it’s conception. This gave it a sense of continuity that was important to me, considering that there are so many Christian denominations, making the task of finding credibility in any one of them a bewildering prospect.

So anyway, I probably won’t be posting here much after this thread has blown over, but thanks again for the congratulatory comments on my entering the catechumenate.

 

[Mickey]

Congratulations my friend.
God bless you!

 

[Kiechlin]

You know, I’m pretty sure that it’s the Roman Catholics who moved away from the Orthodox Church and not the other way around. It was the separation of the Catholic Church from the Orthodox Church that gave rise to protestantism; the Pope has even been referred to as the First Protestant. So technically, it’s the Roman Catholics who are ‘outside the church’, as you put it.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be one and the same, so I really don’t understand how a Catholic, after learning about the history of the Church, can reasonably argue that the Catholic Church can claim a position as the One True Church and denounce the Orthodox sacraments, when it is the Orthodox Church that has adhered to the ancient and original traditions for the last two millenia.

The two main points of contention between Orthodoxy and Catholicism are, of course, the issue of papal infallibility, and the filioque. The first pope was installed in the fifth century when Catholics were still a part of the Orthodox Church, and the power of papal authority was attained by way of an imperial decree issued by the emperor Valentinian III. This very concept is absurd to me, in that an office outside the church has granted a bishop divine authority… a thing which can only be done by a council of bishops guided by the Holy Spirit, and there was never an ecumenical council that bestowed infallible authority upon the Pope. I see no flaw in this logic, so technically the Pope must be a heretic. Furthermore, any decree issued by him should be construed as heresy, which kind of takes the ‘oomph’ out of this:

Then there’s the insertion of the filioque into the Nicene Creed, which has been called a heresy by some eastern patriarchs. While the filioque was most likely only intended as a safeguard against Arianism, it still constitutes an unauthorized change, and Pope Benedict VIII made it official by having it sung at Mass. What I find particularly distasteful is that he did this not because he felt divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, but because he felt obligated to King Henry II of Germany. King Henry II, who had incidentally restored Pope Benedict VIII to the papal throne after it was usurped by the Antipope Gregory VI, upon visiting Rome was surprised at the different custom.

It’s a shame that language and distance barriers of the time caused the Latin church and the Byzantine church grow so far apart, but the fact remains that Catholics have been operating outside the church since 1054, when the papal legate laid a Bull of Excommunication upon the altar of the Hagia Sophia in response to the rejection of a non-existant papal authority by the Byzantine bishops.

The Roman Catholic church separated itself from the Orthodox Church when, through the fault of pride, it assumed a monarchy that it had no right to. I don’t see how anyone could cling to the notion of an infallible Pope, or the filioque, or the inherent status of the Roman Catholic Church as the largest protestant denomination in the world after being made aware of the history of it’s inception.

My purpose really isn’t to argue here, but the way you basically rendered Orthodox Christianity - the original and oldest Christian faith - as invalid naturally elicited this kind of response. Your post took me by surprise to be quite honest, because I believe that there is value in the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church… although I do feel that some Catholic traditions encourage false precepts which can be damaging to the well being our relationship with Christ.

I hope you really studied history. Many early Church fathers clearly testify to the primacy of Rome. In addition, Rome was often the rock of orthodoxy in the early church. The east many,many times appealed to Rome to settle matters. Look at Ephesus and Chalcedon and Pope St.Leo. The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Orthodox have VALID sacraments and Apostolic Succession. If Rome didn’t have primacy to settle the monophysite heresy (which Leo did), how would it have been settled? By “acceptance” of the faithful? I wonder, what is your take on the Oriental Orthodox? They aren’t in communion with the Eastern Orthodox. By your arguments, they would be the first Protestants!

 

[bpbasilphx]

\Yes, the Orthodox have valid sacraments, but those sacraments are not beneficial unto salvation since they are sacraments outside the Church.\

**That’s not the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter.

Valid sacraments are ALWAYS “beneficial unto salvation” for those who receive them with the right dispositions.**

 

[Kiechlin]

\Yes, the Orthodox have valid sacraments, but those sacraments are not beneficial unto salvation since they are sacraments outside the Church.\

**That’s not the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter.

Valid sacraments are ALWAYS “beneficial unto salvation” for those who receive them with the right dispositions.**

Thank you for setting that straight also. I have members of my family that can’t wrap their head around that!

 

[Tradycja]

Valid sacraments are ALWAYS “beneficial unto salvation” for those who receive them with the right dispositions.

The Sacraments, which some people keep and use outside the unity of Christ, are able to preserve the appearance of piety; but the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than feeling can remain in an amputated part of your body. (Pope Leo XIII: “Exima Nos Laetitia”)

The Church is built on the Rock of Peter, and he who eats the Lamb outside this holy dwelling has no part with God.*** (Pius IX: "Multis Gravibus”)***

Also see all that I posted in my previous posts. Can you quote a source that says that valid sacraments are always beneficial unto salvation outside the Catholic Church? Also, can you please define “right disposition”?

 

[Tradycja]

If the Roman Catholics “left” the Orthodox Church, why don’t the Orthodox hold an ecumenical council? I mean if the Pope is not Orthodox anymore, why not hold an Ecumenical Council without him? Funny that the Ecumenical Councils for the Orthodox stop at basically same point as the schism.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Of course the Catholic Church considers valid sacraments as “beneficial unto salvation”, even when they occur outside of the formal boundaries of the Church. Why else would validly baptized Protestants be considered “separated brethren” and “ecclessial communions”, and the Orthodox be considered “sister Churches”? How can these be brothers and sisters in the Lord unless they are, in fact, in the Lord? There is a difference between material and formal schism. Willful schism is quite different from being in schism due to ignorance (such as the many born to non-Catholic Christian families). The Church regards all Christians as her own, whether they know this or not.

However, we can’t go to the other extreme and assume that everyone will be saved and that all sins are merely due to invincible ignorance. The Catholic Church possesses the fullness of the Faith and we know of no surer way to salvation than full communion with her. The Catholic Church is the one and only Church instituted by Jesus Christ, and we long for the day when all who have an imperfect union with her realize it and come into full communion with her, in addition to all those who have neither been baptized nor believe.

That’s my best attempt at articulating it. Perhaps that’s just the result of having Orthodox friends and protestant family members (and growing up and unwitting protestant).

 

[Mickey]

Funny that the Ecumenical Councils for the Orthodox stop at basically same point as the schism.

Really? Did the schism occur after the seventh Ecumenical council? What makes you think the Orthodox are in need of another council?

 

[meridith]

You go and let God lead you where He will! Dont pay attention to some of these “militant” views here. I haven’t been here in awhile, after reading some of the statements on here regarding his acceptance of God, I think I will not return. Kind of reminds me of that old family feud, where some forgot what really happened in the break up!