From to Catholicism to Orthodoxy

[L_piperatus]

I’ve read in a Vatican document (but don’t remember which one) that other Christians are in a less then perfect communion with us. And the same document says that we also have one important thing in common with Jews and Muslims - namely that we believe in the same merciful God.

Thus, converting to Orthodoxy is not as bad as let’s say converting to Islam, and even converting to Islam is not as bad as becoming Hindu or Buddhist or atheist. But as far as the OP is concerned, still the point remains that by converting away from Catholicism, her friend is going to give up the fullness of truth found in the Catholic Church, for the sake of another religion laden with errors. The best the OP can do is to pray for her friend not to leave Catholicism for the sake of an imperfect religion laden with errors. And yes, Orthodoxy is an imperfect religion laden with errors, even if it is comparatively a lot better than, let’s say, Protestantism or Islam.

 

[rmills1]

Anything we “discover”? There are no new public revelations. We do not discover anything.

Not even the biggest astrological discovery of the 20 century, the Big Bang Theory, which is further evidence of the unmoved Mover/unchanged Changer? All things in this universe must be moved/acted upon by some external force, even the universe itself at beginning of time.

Oh by the way, a physicist named Father Georges Lemaitre used the mathematical propositions of the Big Bang Theory to explain the observed recession of galaxies from each other and inferred that universe is expanding, which was later proved.

 

[Rich_C]

First, not all Protestant Baptisms are valid. Again that is not what the Church teaches. Only Trinitarian baptisms are valid. Those who baptize in Jesus’ name only do not have valid baptisms. Those who use gender-neutral or feminist baptismal formulas also do not have valid baptisms.

But they Christians, thus considered within the Church. Tell me this, why is a Muslim baptize when he converts to Catholicism, and a Lutheran isn’t?

Sorry RichC, it seems that you are the one who has misunderstood what the Church teaches. I think you misunderstood the meaning of being within the Church and being in communion with Rome. They are two different things. Rome herself defined so. If schism puts you outside of the Church, then Orthodox Bishops and Priests could not perform Sacraments that Rome herself sees as valid. To deny that is to go against what the Catholic Church herself says.

You’re conflating two things: being Christian and being part of the Church. Any validly baptized person (I didn’t know any Protestants had stopped using the Trinitarian formula, my bad) is a Christian. That doesn’t make them part of the Church. There are sincere Christians outside the Church. They may be saved, but that’s another thread. They’re not in the Church, nonetheless.

From the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 489. What is the Church?

A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible Head.

Q. 494. What do we mean by “lawful pastors”?

A. By “lawful pastors” we mean those in the Church who have been appointed by lawful authority and who have, therefore, a right to rule us. The lawful pastors in the Church are: Every priest in his own parish; every bishop in his own diocese, and the Pope in the whole Church.

Q. 495. Who is the invisible Head of the Church?

A. Jesus Christ is the invisible Head of the Church.

Q. 496. Who is the visible Head of the Church?

A. Our Holy Father the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible Head of the Church.

The Church means the Catholic Church. That God works grace outside it at His pleasure doesn’t change that. The fact that some of the Church’s sacraments are exercised outside the Church doesn’t change that, either.

I’m done derailing this thread, it’s gone beyond charity. You’re a very learned Catholic, you don’t have the benefit of the doubt. If you won’t listen to the Church I want nothing more to do with it.

 

[Padraig1972]

You may already have done so, but have you looked into the Eastern Catholic Church? I guess it sort of depends of just which “elements in the orthodox church” you feel drawn to. If they are ones that do not include rejection of the Papacy, the Eastern Catholic Church(es) may be just what you’re looking for. And you get to remain fully Catholic !

Here is my things and note, these are observartions and thoughts rather than criticism:

The orthodox church seems to have a broader sense of understanding traditions and preserving them. Their liturgy is the same as it used to be (perhaps with some additions). From what i have seen, they take their divine liturgy much more serious than i have seen in many masses and i have been attending mass regulary for like 1,8 year now.

I also like that there are a priest and a deacon serving, not a lot of people. Also that you recieve communion by the priest and not ushers

I like my parish, i also are deeply greatful to our parishpriest and for being a part of the community. But i dislike the lack of traditions, that women do have too many roles in CC and that mass as well as the sacraments are not being treated as serious as they should.

 

[Vouthon]

As an Eastern Catholic, I wouldn’t feel bad if one converts to Orthodoxy. I guess, in a very loose way, the way most (if not all) Traditional Catholics see the SSPX regardless of their irregular status is the same way Eastern Catholics see the Orthodox. And for Eastern Catholics it goes much deeper than just the Liturgy.

But anyway, pray for the person. Don’t ask for anything more than the will of God be done. And don’t feel bad if the person has found God in Orthodoxy. As Catholics we see the Orthodox as a true and valid Church whom we are actively seeking reconciliation with. I can guarantee you God is as much present there as He is in the Catholic Church. For one thing, the Catholic Church does teach that the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church is valid. So Christ is on their altars, body, blood, soul and divinity as much as He is on ours. If there a Catholic Christ and an Orthodox Christ? Of course not. There is only one Christ.

Wow!

Stunningly spot on advice. I agree 100%!

 

[floresco]

I’ve read in a Vatican document (but don’t remember which one) that other Christians are in a less then perfect communion with us. And the same document says that we also have one important thing in common with Jews and Muslims - namely that we believe in the same merciful God.

It’s in Lumen Gentium. It is also repeated in the Catechism. It seems to me that Richard has understood the Church teaching on this better than Constantine TG has. Remember that Vatican II documents must be interpreted in light of Tradition. There is no question that the Church has previously taught that the Orthodox are in schism and that they are not part of the Church.

 

[Vouthon]

It’s in Lumen Gentium. It is also repeated in the Catechism. It seems to me that Richard has understood the Church teaching on this better than Constantine TG has. Remember that Vatican II documents must be interpreted in light of Tradition. There is no question that the Church has previously taught that the Orthodox are in schism and that they are not part of the Church.

That can’t be true - since their valid baptism and their valid sacraments join them in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that the Church of Christ is present within the Orthodox Churches and that they are catholic churches BUT that the Church of Christ SUBSISTS FULLY only in the Catholic Church. They are thus not “outside the Body of Christ”; although they are sadly in an imperfect communion with it and presently are in a wounded state deprived of the fullness of catholicity.

Even good Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and members of other religions - and even atheists - who faithfully follow the Will of God as known to the dictates of their conscience and existing in a state of invincible ignorance about Our Most Holy Faith, are spiritually members of the Catholic Church through being joined to her by implicit baptism of desire. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, so if Orthodox were outside the Body of Christ then they would all be damned and we know they are not because Holy Mother Church accepts their saints as real saints in heaven. These saints were and are thus Catholics and are members of the Church of Christ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It’s in Lumen Gentium. It is also repeated in the Catechism. It seems to me that Richard has understood the Church teaching on this better than Constantine TG has. Remember that Vatican II documents must be interpreted in light of Tradition. There is no question that the Church has previously taught that the Orthodox are in schism and that they are not part of the Church.

So you believe that bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ outside of the Church?

 

[ConstantineTG]

You’re conflating two things: being Christian and being part of the Church. Any validly baptized person (I didn’t know any Protestants had stopped using the Trinitarian formula, my bad) is a Christian. That doesn’t make them part of the Church. There are sincere Christians outside the Church. They may be saved, but that’s another thread. They’re not in the Church, nonetheless.

Being Christian is being part of the Church. Why do you think they are two different things? The mystical body of Christ extends far beyond earthly visible signs of communion.

From the Baltimore Catechism:

The Church means the Catholic Church. That God works grace outside it at His pleasure doesn’t change that. The fact that some of the Church’s sacraments are exercised outside the Church doesn’t change that, either.

I’m done derailing this thread, it’s gone beyond charity. You’re a very learned Catholic, you don’t have the benefit of the doubt. If you won’t listen to the Church I want nothing more to do with it.

No doubt that the Church is the Catholic Church. But it doesn’t mean those who we regard as “in schism” are outside of that Church.

And your quote from the Baltimore Catechism has proven again that I am right and you are wrong. As you have quoted, those who are valid pastors can perform valid Sacraments. The Catholic Church herself has pronounced that the Orthodox priesthood is valid and all 7 of their Sacraments are valid. You just validated my point. Thank you very much

 

[Nine_Two]

I think this is exactly why the Orthodox has no position on the validity of the Sacraments outside itself.

 

[floresco]

So you believe that bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ outside of the Church?

I think that you are confused. We cannot say that being Orthodox is just as good as being Catholic, which seems to be your view. You are taking a position that amounts to indifferentism. Therefore, you are misunderstanding Church teaching.

 

[floresco]

The mystical body of Christ extends far beyond earthly visible signs of communion.

This is not a Catholic belief.

 

[Seamus_L]

Constantine TG also stated that " I guess, in a very loose way, the way most (if not all) Traditional Catholics see the SSPX regardless of their irregular status is the same way Eastern Catholics see the Orthodox. And for Eastern Catholics it goes much deeper than just the Liturgy".
I guarantee you there are more than a few Ukrainians, Romanians, Maronites, etc, who would thoroughly reject that analysis. They do not look to the Orthodox as there model, nor do they feel there church is lacking or missing something.

 

[floresco]

Many people misunderstood Lumen Gentium and interpreted it in ways that were not consistent with previous Church teaching. Therefore, in 2000, the CDF issued a clarifying statement called Dominus Iesus.

It says:

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity ”rooted in the apostolic succession53” between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ˜the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.57

We do not say that other Churches and ecclesial communities are part of the Church. Rather we speak of elements of the Church existing in them. This is an important distinction. If we speak of other Churches being part of the Church we end up with a condemned model of ecclesiology called “Branch theory.”

This is alluded to later in the document:

The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection ”divided, yet in some way one” of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach.64 In fact, the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities.65 Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.

This is a complex teaching and the Church is still in the process of assimilating it. Those interested in the subject could look at the latest clarifying document from the CDF, issued in 2007: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[floresco]

I like my parish, i also are deeply greatful to our parishpriest and for being a part of the community. But i dislike the lack of traditions, that women do have too many roles in CC and that mass as well as the sacraments are not being treated as serious as they should.

I dislike those things too. That is why I attend the EF Mass.

 

[floresco]

That can’t be true - since their valid baptism and their valid sacraments join them in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that the Church of Christ is present within the Orthodox Churches and that they are catholic churches BUT that the Church of Christ SUBSISTS FULLY only in the Catholic Church. They are thus not “outside the Body of Christ”; although they are sadly in an imperfect communion with it and presently are in a wounded state deprived of the fullness of catholicity.

The Church does not teach that the Church of Christ is present within the Orthodox Church but that elements of the Church of Christ are present in it. This actually makes a difference. We need to use very precise language to discuss this topic. I hope my other post made this clear.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think that you are confused. We cannot say that being Orthodox is just as good as being Catholic, which seems to be your view. You are taking a position that amounts to indifferentism. Therefore, you are misunderstanding Church teaching.

When did I say that being Orthodox is as good as being Catholic?

All I said was that we recognize the Orthodox Church to be true and valid. The Sacraments are not outside the Church. Only Baptism can be conferred on non-Christians because it is Baptism that bring them into the Church. But all other Sacraments happen only within the Church. So again, how can a Church with 7 valid Sacraments and a valid Episcopate be outside of the Church. That statement does not make sense. Its a claim that that the Sacraments happens outside the bounds of the Mystical Body of Christ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think this is exactly why the Orthodox has no position on the validity of the Sacraments outside itself.

And that is fine. But the Catholic Church has a position on it. To claim otherwise would be going against what our Church is teaching. Honestly, I do prefer the Orthodox position more and would prefer it was that way with the Catholic Church herself. But the fact is, the Catholic Church has taken a position that Sacraments do happen validly in the Orthodox Church. So us Catholics cannot claim otherwise if our Pope says otherwise.

 

[floresco]

When did I say that being Orthodox is as good as being Catholic?

All I said was that we recognize the Orthodox Church to be true and valid. The Sacraments are not outside the Church. Only Baptism can be conferred on non-Christians because it is Baptism that bring them into the Church. But all other Sacraments happen only within the Church. So again, how can a Church with 7 valid Sacraments and a valid Episcopate be outside of the Church. That statement does not make sense. Its a claim that that the Sacraments happens outside the bounds of the Mystical Body of Christ.

This is what you said in your first post in this thread: "And don’t feel bad if the person has found God in Orthodoxy. As Catholics we see the Orthodox as a true and valid Church whom we are actively seeking reconciliation with. I can guarantee you God is as much present there as He is in the Catholic Church. "

This implies that you think being Orthodox is just as good as being Catholic.

You are using terms in a different way than Church documents use them. I think you are trying to say what the Church teaches, but by changing the words you are changing the meaning to something wrong. We just can’t say “The Orthodox Church is not outside the Church of Christ”. It is not what the Church teaches.

This topic uses precise technical language and, unless you are an expert, you are unlikely to be able to put it into your own words correctly. When discussing it, I recommend using exact quotes from Lumen Gentium , Dominus Iesus and the CDF Responsa.

 

[floresco]

The Sacraments are not outside the Church. Only Baptism can be conferred on non-Christians because it is Baptism that bring them into the Church. But all other Sacraments happen only within the Church. So again, how can a Church with 7 valid Sacraments and a valid Episcopate be outside of the Church. That statement does not make sense. Its a claim that that the Sacraments happens outside the bounds of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Sorry, I realized that I did not answer your question in my previous post. Valid Sacraments can exist outside the Church because elements of the Church can exist outside her structure. The fullness of the Church only exists in the Catholic Church. This is the only Church about which we can say that it is the Church of Christ. Even a true particular Church, like the Orthodox Church, lacks the fullness to make this statement.

Please read the Responsa I linked to. It may help you to understand.

PS. Catholics do not make a distinction between the Mystical Body of Christ and the visible human society of the Catholic Church.