Heart is pulling me towards Orthodoxy

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I would say it was a mutual falling out of communion.

Perhaps, but Christ’s body is never divided- therefore clearly one side remained to be full Church of Christ, Bride of Christ, being built upon Rock and being promised Holy Spirit to guide her from errors. Other did not.
Note: This does not apply to “Eastern Orthodox” Churches that never left communion with Seat of Saint Peter, such as Melkites who (although considered Eastern Orthodox) never really broke communion with Holy See. Such thing is called dual communion and would mean basically rejecting quarrel of Constantinople and Rome, as many Orthodox and Catholic people did over years.

Oh the 1.2 billion Catholics who you say that you have, I kind of doubt that number it more like with all that have left the Roman Catholic Church in the last 50 years its probably 500 or 600 million left in the Catholic Church that number is decreasing ever more in recent years. You win some you loss some.

Numbers don’t matter, many people left Jesus when he spoke about them eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Does that prove Jesus was wrong? Orthodox Church surely possesses many things from Catholic Church, but it is not Bride of Christ- not in full communion with Her either.

The Roman cardinal acting under orders given by the Pope when he was alive, accused Patriarch Michael Cerularius and all his followers

Nope, historically proven is fact he was charged with investigation which Patriarch tried to impede- if such thing happened nowadays one would be automatically found guilty of trying to impede investigation. However, Roman Cardinal’s excommunication had no authority whatsoever therefore they are not Catholic Church’s doing- those things happened and we can not pretend contrary to that, but let’s not pretend it was official decision with any authority whatsoever either. However, I present a counterargument that stepping on Eucharist is worthy of excommunication (though yes, reasons listed are wrong therefore excommunication takes no effect).

There is a Roman Catholic saint who predict that there is only 112 Popes then he said the end.

How so? Could you quote that? You ought to know that just like with Jonah’s prophecy, many prophecies depend on us and are subject to our free will.

In my opinion your fathers support my Church appose a Pope aas head so we he or she type ou f statement.

Fathers NEVER oppose Papacy, and there are is even post-schism Georgian Saint who took side of Pope. Fathers however tend to favor Papacy (or rather, Bishops of Rome at the time) having authority to solve disputes and speak infallibly. Pope St. Gregory the Great is Saint in both our Churches and yet he was defender of Papal Infallibility as well as Supreme Jurisdiction. History has proven Pope has been not only focus of unity and authority for our Church, but also that Churches without such center seem to have too many disputes.

 

[ziapueblo]

such as Melkites who (although considered Eastern Orthodox) never really broke communion with Holy See.

The Melkite Greek Catholic Church separated from the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch during the middle 18th century.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Melkite Greek Catholic Church separated from the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch during the middle 18th century.

I’d reverse that. Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch was sent uncanonically elected Patriarch because of fear that Melkite Patriarch would join Catholics (which he did) and Constantinople probably had hand in Ottoman persecution of Melkites. However, after storm ended, Melkites joined Catholic Church by breaking communion with Constantinople- there was never formal schism with Rome.

 

[Kyparissiotes]

Cab you provide a list of more than three saints of the Orthodox church who SAID that Catholic baptism is grace-filled? Not examples of economia, not examples of condescending to accept external form, but Orthodox saints who said WE ARE BAPTIZED? I would love to know of the existence of such a group of Orthodox saints post 1204 or 1439. Or even better-in post- Kollyvades Greece after 1800.

 

[AlNg]

Roman Cardinal’s excommunication had no authority whatsoever

It is too bad that His Holiness Pope Paul VI and His All Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras did not know about this. It would have saved them a lot of time if they had consulted with you first instead of drawing up official statements about the “painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius”.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Seems like it. Either that or it was symbolic act.

 

[WilliamR]

Hi. I feel your dilemma. Step one, find a vibrant full on Extraordinary Form parish near you and get involved, don’t be a tourist but embrace it. There are many now. Either diocese affiliated or FSSP or Christ the King. Stay within The Fold. Pray and discern while participating weekly, or daily in the liturgical and devotional life there full on. After six months or year, then see if it is orthodoxy that is pulling you, or you, like many of us, have found your true home within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church thru its most ancient rites. At least you can then chose with a clear conscience. The Lord will guide you. The council was right to reform the liturgy, the Church (not the council) was wrong to suppress the EF and our devotional, musical, and artistic heritage, without authority from the council to do so. St John Paul and Pope Benedict put that right, but it will take another generation for the full effect of their work to to take hold. I know many orthodox christians, the grass isn’t always greener. Diversity in practice within one united faith is the way forward.

 

[ziapueblo]

I’d reverse that. Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch was sent uncanonically elected Patriarch because of fear that Melkite Patriarch would join Catholics (which he did) and Constantinople probably had hand in Ottoman persecution of Melkites. However, after storm ended, Melkites joined Catholic Church by breaking communion with Constantinople- there was never formal schism with Rome.

I think both of our statements are probably a little to simplistic.

At various times, there was sporadic communion between Rome and Antioch, sometimes formal, sometimes informal. Often, just the Patriarch and a few Bishops would acknowledge Rome, at other times, most of the Church. It really depended on a host of internal and external factors.

The cause of the definitive split in the Chalcedonian Church of Antioch was the imposition of Greek Patriarchs by the Greek Phanariots in Constantinople, who also had civil jurisdiction over all Christians, thanks to the Ottoman “millet” system of governance. Finding this unacceptable (because the Greek Patriarchs looked out for Phanariot interests, not the interests of Antiochian Christians), the Melkite Church split, and the minority faction, which elected a Syrian Patriarch, who, for support and protection, entered into communion with Rome.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

minority faction, which elected a Syrian Patriarch, who, for support and protection, entered into communion with Rome.

I was under impression majority faction canonically elected pro-Roman Patriarch. Constantinople excommunicated him even
before his union with Rome and imposed another Patriarch onto Church, uncanonically.

 

[ziapueblo]

Cab you provide a list of more than three saints of the Orthodox church who SAID that Catholic baptism is grace-filled?

Reception of Roman Catholics by Chrismation was affirmed by the Council of Trullo, the 1667 Synod in Moscow and the Council of Jerusalem.

Saint Mark of Ephesus, after the Council of Florence, forbade the rebaptism of Roman Catholics.

Only one saint. Sorry, but the Orthodox accept Catholic baptism:

http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/mi...saint-vladimirs-orthodox-seminary-june-3-1999

From the document:

“The Orthodox and Catholic members of our Consultation acknowledge, in both of our traditions, a common teaching and a common faith in one baptism, despite some variations in practice which, we believe, do not affect the substance of the mystery. We are therefore moved to declare that we also recognize each other’s baptism as one and the same.”

ZP

 

[Kyparissiotes]

The acceptance of the external form is not to say the rite conveys grace.

You know as well as I do the Orthodox conception of reception via economia is seen as recognizing an external form SUBSEQUENTLY made grace-filled by official reception.

This is not the Catholic view. Augustine teaches that not only the external rite is valid in those who have apostolic succession, but grace is objectively conveyed. That grace in the schismatic works to their damnation, in the orthodox to their salvation.

So can you name a single Orthodox saint who teaches Catholic sacraments are not only valid external forms, but also grace-filled?

 

[ziapueblo]

This is not the Catholic view.

This is may not be the Latin Churches view, but as I am sure you are aware of, there are 24 Churches sui juris that make up the Catholic Church. Catholic is not synonymous for Roman Catholic.

So can you name a single Orthodox saint who teaches Catholic sacraments are not only valid external forms, but also grace-filled?

Saint Mark of Ephesus, one who is often talked down upon by Roman Catholics, forbade the re-baptism of Roman Catholics. Other than that, I’m not to sure.

Orthodox I know see us as the same Church. Of course, I’m Byzantine Catholic so we have a shared spiritual heritage. It’s only the Uberdox and RadTrads that care about all this stuff. The Church for more than a millennia lived in communion with one another despite differences in liturgical practice, theology, spiritual life and prayer life.

ZP

 

[RomanChristian]

Prophecy of St. Malachy is the Catholic Saint who said that there would 112 following the Pope of his time. Try looking it up you will find it. In the end of all this we truly see if your saint was right I’m sure the Orthodox Christian Church can wait.

I was Baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church sometime ago all convert are Baptized when they enter. I can’t tell what Orthodox Christian view of Catholics baptism are because Catholic Answers will flip out and have a fat cow if they hear it again, so you would have to call an Orthodox Christian Priest to get that answer. Oh! I forgot to mention that statement made that I can’t you was OCA Priest

There are many things that been said over the years in the Catholic Church , Pope Pius XII has a statement that tell you who you are just read his written in the year 1947.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

This is may not be the Latin Churches view, but as I am sure you are aware of, there are 24 Churches sui juris that make up the Catholic Church. Catholic is not synonymous for Roman Catholic.

Wait, would that mean Eastern Churches believe baptism by itself does not confer grace unless one is Catholic? That would disqualify baptism conferring grace in Orthodox Church too, if such standpoint was adopted in Eastern Churches. I find Augustine’s point much more likely to be held by Eastern Catholics too, as they do not tend to disqualify sacraments of Orthodoxy as lacking grace until one becomes Catholic.

The Church for more than a millennia lived in communion with one another despite differences in liturgical practice, theology, spiritual life and prayer life.

Far more, in-fact Bride of Christ, Body of Christ and Ark of Salvation- Church, never broke communion with itself. I’d say it’s getting close to 2 millennia since Church has been united with itself. However, many people have broken away from Church since times of Apostles up until today. Church faces similar problems but same God guides it as before. It is also true East-West Schism did not have apparent effects until fall of Constantinople, thanks to Ottoman propaganda. Actually, even during 4th Crusade people would believe Latin Bishops being installed in Byzantium were spoils of war for victors and wouldn’t consider them outside of Church. True, rivalry existed and was less friendly than before 1054, but it was much lesser schism than it escalated to be later on, lasting until today.

Orthodox you see might view us as same Church, but officially standpoint of Orthodox Church is that we are out- as shown by Aing who quoted numerous Patriarchs on that. Shared spiritual heritage can be found in between Latin Catholics and Anglicans and we are not same Church. To lessen schism hurts it’s solutions- if we ignore problem or pretend it does not exist, how can we solve it?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Prophecy of St. Malachy is the Catholic Saint who said that there would 112 following the Pope of his time. Try looking it up you will find it. In the end of all this we truly see if your saint was right I’m sure the Orthodox Christian Church can wait.

How interesting, however those prophecies have disputed origin, if not outright being clearly apocryphal.

 

[ziapueblo]

Wait, would that mean Eastern Churches believe baptism by itself does not confer grace unless one is Catholic?

I may have over read something. Of course Eastern Catholics believe in the baptism of other Churches if using correct form and matter. I may still be getting used to the time change and a long days work lol!

ZP

 

[Petravis]

The earliest predecessors to the eastern orthodox sect were Catholics recognizing Peter as head of the Church under CHRIST. The Pope could have stepped into the place of any bishop at any time, but chose not to unnecessarily live others’ roles for them, as a mere courtesy. It was mainly Clement of Rome that first collected as much of the apostolic tradition artifacts together as possible. All the Church ascribed great importance to Clement.
When the African Pope Victor I was about to excommunicate the whole east for not subscribing to uniformity with Rome’s fashion of keeping what all had in common, no one said he hadn’t the authority, only that their branch of tradition was valid.

 

[RomanChristian]

(This something I felt that you would like to read on Orthodox view of outsiders) This is found on the internet so it open to all to read and see. So I wouldn’t worry about copyright laws.

Will the Heterodox Be Saved?​

Archimandite (Metropolitan) Philaret, of blessed memory (+1985)​

Question: "If the Orthodox faith is the only true faith, can Christians of other confessions be saved? May a person who has led a perfectly righteous life on earth be saved on the strength of his ancestry, while not being baptized as Christian?

Answer : "For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth [struggleth], but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom. 9:15-16). In the Orthodox Church we have the path of salvation indicated to us and we are given the means by which a person maybe morally purified and have a direct promise of salvation. In this sense St. Cyprian of Carthage says that "outside the Church there is no salvation." In the Church is given that of which Apostle Peter writes to Christians (and only Christians): "According as His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience, and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:3-8). And what should one say of those outside the Church, who do not belong to her? Another apostle provides us with an idea: "For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth" (1 Cor. 5:12-13). God "will have mercy on whom He will have mercy" (Rom 9:18). It is necessary to mention only one thing: that to "lead a perfectly righteous life," as the questioner expressed it, means to live according to the commandments of the Beatitudes—which is beyond the power of one, outside the Orthodox Church, without the help of grace which is concealed within it.

 

[RomanChristian]

The question: Can the heterodox, i.e. those who do, not belong to Orthodoxy—the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church—be saved, has become particularly painful and acute in our days.

In attempting to answer this question, it is necessary, first of all, to recall that in His Gospel the Lord Jesus Christ Himself mentions but one state of the human soul which unfailingly leads to perdition— i.e. blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:1-32). The Holy Spirit is, above all, the Spirit of Truth, as the Saviour loved to refer to Him. Accordingly, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is blasphemy against the Truth, conscious and persistent opposition to it. The same text makes it clear that even blasphemy against the Son of Man— i.e. the Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God Himself may be forgiven men, as it may be uttered in error or in ignorance and, subsequently may be covered by conversion and repentance (an example of such a converted and repentant blasphemer is the Apostle Paul. (See Acts 26:11 and I Tim. 1:13.) If, however, a man opposes the Truth which he clearly apprehends by his reason and, conscience, he becomes blind and commits spiritual suicide, for he thereby likens himself to the devil, who believes in God and dreads Him, yet hates, blasphemes, and opposes Him.

Thus, man’s refusal to accept the Divine Truth and his opposition thereto makes him a son of damnation. Accordingly, in sending His disciples to preach, the Lord told them: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16), for the latter heard the Lord’s Truth and was called upon to accept it, yet refused, thereby inheriting the damnation of those who “believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (II Thes. 2:12).

The Holy Orthodox Church is the repository of the divinely revealed Truth in all its fullness and fidelity to apostolic Tradition. Hence, he who leaves the Church, who intentionally and consciously falls away from it, joins the ranks of its opponents and becomes a renegade as regards apostolic Tradition. The Church dreadfully anathematized such renegades, in accordance with the words of the Saviour Himself (Matt. 18:17) and of the Apostle Paul (Gal. 1:8-9), threatening them with eternal damnation and calling them to return to the Orthodox fold. 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

 

[RomanChristian]

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.

With reference to the above question, it is particularly instructive to recall the answer once given to an inquirer by the Blessed Theophan the Recluse. The blessed one replied more or less thus: "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 a 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."

We believe the foregoing answer by the saintly ascetic to be the best that can be given in this matter.

• The Greek word for "heresy" is derived from the word for "choice" and hence inherently implies conscious, willful rejection or opposition to the Divine Truth manifest in the Orthodox Church.