Helping correct a schism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FaithRuir
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Definitely, my question lies on if correcting a teacher in the schism on something both the Catholic faith and the schism-based faith both hold was okay.
 
Well what if it’s the Real Presence that is being taught. As I said before the schism in the situation I discussed claims to be Catholic, but it isn’t, so it’s priests aren’t ordained and so cannot validly say mass.
 
Can’t say the group, but chances are the person doing the correcting isn’t really in a position to say such a thing to the teacher, as it may come across as hostile.
 
But I feel it could be helping a falsehood grow. Catholics DO believe in the Real Presence, they may think they’re Catholic but they’re not, but they could be led to believe Catholic’s don’t believe in it.
 
Hm, probably, some more (name removed by moderator)ut from other would be nice though.
 
FaithRuir said:
Hm, probably, some more (name removed by moderator)ut from other would be nice though
Click to expand...
without knowing what faith tradition you are discussing it is hard to state a position. However there are schismatics who have valid holy orders and the True Presence.
 
I thought that Pope Francis said that it is a very grave sin against ecumenism for Catholics to convert Orthodox Christians. Do you agree with Pope Francis?
Do you think that Catholics should make an effort to convert a Russian or a Greek Orthodox?
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
I thought that Pope Francis said that it is a very grave sin against ecumenism for Catholics to convert Orthodox Christians
Click to expand...
Yes the Orthodox have apostolic succession, but why would it be a sin to bring them back into communion with the Vicar Of Christ? Maybe he was talking Latinization?
 
Well let’s suppose this schism does have Apostolic Succession. Then what would the proper thing be to do?
 
Last edited:
vsedriver said:
if they are ‘Old Catholics’ they are actually an offshoot of Anglicanism.
Click to expand...
Only in terms of current communion (who can go to the “Eucharist”) and hierarchy. “Genetically” and liturgically the Old Catholics are much closer to the Catholic Church.
 
Here’s what I am reading. Is the following correct ?
Pope Francis: It is a grave sin against ecumenism to convert an Orthodox.
Tatiana: It is not a grave sin to convert an Orthodox.
So you contend that Catholic Pope is wrong and you are right?
 
Last edited:
That is incorrect; a schism may well have validly ordained priests. The Eastern Orthodox are considered by the Catholic Church to be in schism; but they have valid ordinations and valid sacraments.
 
The short of it is that you are playing a cat-and-mouse game. It is fine if you choose to not name the group, but then you make comments which cannot be answered because of lack of information.

Further, you seems to be confused as to what constitutes schism - de jure or de facto - and heresy.

My own personal opinion is that you are wading into an area which, from you comments it would appear you are not entirely equipped to venture. I am not saying that you have bad faith - far from it; but I think your enthusiasm is getting ahead of your knowledge base.

Schisms don’t teach. A schism is a legal status of a person. People teach. And given that you have not identified either the person or the group, or what is being taught, you are asking us to try to assist you with no information upon which to make a comment.

You may want to give the details; and we may or may not be able to help. If you feel constrained from giving the details, there is nothing anyone can do to help. It is your call.
 
Well, it baffles me since the group does not seem to be identified, as to how you can make those statements.

And your statement is not fully correct as you are venturing into a guessing game as to whether the ordination of any given individual was legitimate or not - a point which the Church itself spends a fair amount of time determining.

Further, you appear to be conflating schism with a heretical break; or else you seem to have inside knowledge which you are not expressing.

For example, the Anglicans for a time had valid ordinations until the time they changed the ordination rite, at which point their ordinations were not of dubious validity, but rather of no validity at all. On the other hand, that does not say that any given individual holding themselves out to being ordained was not validly ordained, as some of them over time have sought ordination by a valid but schismatic bishop or a different group. So making a balnket statement is not fully correct.

And I don’t know anyone in the hierarchy who considers the Anglicans/Episcopalians to be schismatic; it has gone well beyond simply rejecting the authority of the Pope and gone into heresy.
 
You might want to not lecture me. And while you are at it, please let me know which schismatic group no longer has valid ordinations.
 
My belief is simply that Jesus and the Pope are right. After all, did not Jesus give the keys to Peter and his Successors and give Peter the power of binding and loosing? Perhaps what you are talking about is old theology. Theology that no longer is binding. The Pope has the power to loose old teachings and to bind new teachings. The Pope says that it is a grave sin against ecumenism to convert an Orthodox. This appears to be a matter of faith and morals -the morality of what is and what is not a mortal sin when dealing with members of a different faith.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top