How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[TULIPed]

Ah yes - the growth of the “None’s”. Ok, now I know where you’re coming from. Thx.

To be fair though - I think we all have some issues here, no?

Catholics' Church Attendance Resumes Downward Slide

 

[MarysLurker]

Ah yes - the growth of the “None’s”. Ok, now I know where you’re coming from. Thx.

Yeah. By the way, this isn’t more triumphalism. I don’t think this is good news. I do think it calls for a serious rethink in the direction that Protestantism is going and has been going since WW2: a trend towards an incoherent Episcopalian blob that doesn’t believe in anything , and towards another Calvinist blob that is dissolving as its youth get picked off by atheists.

To be fair though - I think we all have some issues here, no?

Yes, because of BAD CATECHESIS, both Catholic and Protestant. The difference is that Protestants can’t start fixing the problem without becoming Catholic or Orthodox. Because as soon as you start trying to answer the atheists… you have to deal with the gap. In the good old days when everyone just assumed Christianity was true, nobody asked why the Holy Spirit supposedly took 1200+ years off the job. Now, you have to prove there’s a God, and how do you do that? You start citing the Catholics and the Orthodox. Folks like Aquinas and Chesterton and Lemaitre. Protestants must now choose between the gap or God. Sadly, most still choose the gap.

 

[GKMotley]

I’m not saying, and I don’t know, if that’s Steve’s situation but it just looks too familiar to me.

I’ve known steve-b, on line for around 20 years. I don’t think this applies to him. If I’m wrong, he’ll probably say so.

 

[MarysLurker]

I don’t think this applies to him

Good. It’s a tough thing to go through.

 

[GKMotley]

Me, I’ve always been more interested in Canon 844.4.

And Chesterton.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

From canon law, again
Can. 844

I believe, based on what you’ve quoted, that without confessing the mortal sin of schism from the Catholic Church, I as an Orthodox Christian may NOT receive communion per Canon 844.

The first rule of canon law is you do not grab the code and start making conclusions based on the code alone. Canon law is organic, evolving historically. The canons have to be read in light of tradition, jurisprudence, praxis and (especially in the East) economia.

Somewhere back in this thread I posted a link to the USCCB norms for receiving Holy Communion. I think it got buried. Here it is again.
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...guidelines-for-the-reception-of-communion.cfm

According to the bishops’ conference of the USA: Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 §3).

So either @steve-b is wrong or the USCCB is. I’m going with the bishops.

don’t forget there is an and and an if that I drew attention to. NOT from me but from the law itself.

AND​

I never said the Church doesn’t allow reception of the Eucharist by the Orthodox. It comes with an

IF ,​

" they ask for the sacrament AND are properly disposed "

That’s a quote from the Law.

Properly disposed= in a state of grace (not in mortal sin) just as required for Catholics. Look it up yourself

BTW, I don’t see that particular IF statement in the USCCB link you posted

That IF statement means the sacrament is not open communion. AND since one needs to be properly disposed as in they are in a state of grace (not in mortal sin) just as required for Catholics…

All I can say, There are requirements sometimes missed, even by well meaning posters.

 

[MarysLurker]

Properly disposed= in a state of grace (not in mortal sin) just as required for Catholics. Look it up yourself

But you’re also imposing a Catch-22 that is not in the Code, to wit, you’re Orthodox therefore you’re in schism so no Eucharist for you.

That’s not the law. You may read the Code that way, but that’s not what it says.

 

[steve-b]

Ah yes - the growth of the “None’s”. Ok, now I know where you’re coming from. Thx.

To be fair though - I think we all have some issues here, no?

Catholics' Church Attendance Resumes Downward Slide

Unfortunately that’s true.

From: Georgetown Univ, a Catholic univ, posted all kinds of Catholic statistics http://cara.georgetown.edu/frequently-requested-church-statistics/. One stat is faithful Mass attendance every Sunday. As of 2018, only 21.1% of Catholics faithfully attend Mass every Sunday. Meaning unless 78.9% have a good excuse for missing, they are objectively in mortal sin. For those who attend at least once a month, 45.3%. Meaning the same consequences for them if one has no good excuse for missing.

AND, Those consequences for deliberately missing, are mentioned in scripture and the CCC.

from scripture HERE Note the consequences. It’s disastrous

From the CCC HERE

consequences for deliberately blowing off mass, (scripture above says it’s a mortal sin, and the CCC follows up on that)

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

(grave sin = deadly sin = mortal sin)

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Properly disposed= in a state of grace (not in mortal sin) just as required for Catholics. Look it up yourself

But you’re also imposing a Catch-22 that is not in the Code, to wit, you’re Orthodox therefore you’re in schism so no Eucharist for you.

That’s not the law. You may read the Code that way, but that’s not what it says.

I impose nothing. I give the information

Why do you ignore what is written?

"IF they ask for the sacrament AND are properly disposed "​

The priest will be the one who is asked. The priest will make the call.

 

[Isaac14]

I impose nothing. I give the information

Why do you ignore what is written?

"IF they ask for the sacrament AND are properly disposed "​

The priest will be the one who is asked. The priest will make the call.

Once again I ask for your yes or no answer. Please just yes or no. Am I misinterpreting the information you have provided in understanding that unless an Orthodox Christian confesses the mortal sin of schism they may never receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church in accordance with Canon 844? As I’ve asked you many times already, please just answer yes or no.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I impose nothing. I give the information

Why do you ignore what is written?

"IF they ask for the sacrament AND are properly disposed "​

The priest will be the one who is asked. The priest will make the call.

Once again I ask for your yes or no answer. Please just yes or no. Am I misinterpreting the information you have provided in understanding that unless an Orthodox Christian confesses the mortal sin of schism they may never receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church in accordance with Canon 844? As I’ve asked you many times already, please just answer yes or no.

I don’t read minds or souls. Next time at mass with your wife, ask the priest your questions. See what HE says. Then you will have your answer.

 

[Isaac14]

He’s already answered yes. I am welcome any time.

 

[steve-b]

He’s already answered yes. I am welcome any time.

then you have your answer

 

[Isaac14]

But it was not a requirement to confess the mortal sin of schism. This is why I am trying to understand what you have said about being properly disposed. Is orthodoxy in the mortal sin of schism?

 

[steve-b]

But it was not a requirement to confess the mortal sin of schism. This is why I am trying to understand what you have said about being properly disposed. Is orthodoxy in the mortal sin of schism?

Keep in mind this is NOT from me. I don’t make the rules. All I can say, I try and give solid information. What a person does with that information is up to them. Re: schism see how it is used. Orthodox Church | Catholic Answers

 

[MarysLurker]

I try and give solid information.

The Original Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t reflect Vatican II. It’s a historically useful source but is NOT solid information you can rely on without qualification.

No offense, but I think you are scrupulous.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I try and give solid information.

The Original Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t reflect Vatican II. It’s a historically useful source but is NOT solid information you can rely on without qualification.

No offense, but I think you are scrupulous.

No offense taken. The information is the same in 2004 Eastern Orthodoxy | Catholic Answers

schism is schism

 

[steve-b]

But it was not a requirement to confess the mortal sin of schism. This is why I am trying to understand what you have said about being properly disposed. Is orthodoxy in the mortal sin of schism?

Keep in mind what I’m showing you here is information. What you do with it is up to you.

Definition of schism

From the CCC
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. " Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

from scripture

" if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth,"… from [Heb 10]

So let’s say, hypothetically speaking

one doesn’t know before, but knows now, that they are in schism from the Church they want to receive sacraments from… And that schism is a grave sin. What would you say that person is supposed to do with that information ?

 

[MarysLurker]

No offense taken. The information is the same in 2004 https://www.catholic.com/tract/eastern-orthodoxy

schism is schism

From the CA tract you quoted:

in 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together.

So do you believe that Pope St. John Paul II committed the mortal sin of schism?

Look, I think I see your problem. You are approaching canon law as if it were American common law. The underlying principle in American law is constitutional sovereignty; there is a supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, that all other law must conform to. The Constitution and not the President is the supreme authority. That is not how most legal systems work. In virtually every other legal system, there is a supreme authority, a Sovereign, who is the head of state and the source of the law itself. In non-American common law—English/British/Commonwealth law—that’s HM Queen Elizabeth II. In most European monarchies, it’s the same, just with civil law instead of common law. In semi-presidential republics like France, it’s the President, who is basically a stand-in for a monarch.

In Catholic canon law, the Sovereign is the Pope. The Pope is the supreme legislator, executive, and judicial interpreter of the law. The Code delegates some of the papal functions out to conferences of bishops, like the USCCB. They interpret the law in such a way that Orthodox are not considered to be in schism for purposes of receiving the Eucharist. And, that conclusion is final. In the USA, if you think a law is unconstitutional (as you think the USCCB are) you can go sue and convince a judge that you’re right. That does not work with canon law. With that in mind, what you are doing makes no sense at all. And as I’ve alluded to before (and with all due respect to you), your constant attempts to prove that you’re more Catholic than the USCCB, and now the Pope, are likely symptoms of deeper issues that you should discuss with your priest. I really think you are scrupulous, and having been through it, I know it’s not easy. But please do go to a priest you trust and discuss these problems with authority that you have. God bless.

Edit: After re-reading the above it seems harsh which wasn’t my intent. Let me add a personal touch. I have a baby daughter. When you have a baby, you usually wind up late to Mass and sometimes you can’t go at all. That’s not a sin. I know that. But when it happens, I still get nervous. So, like I’m saying… been there.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I impose nothing. I give the information

Why do you ignore what is written?

"IF they ask for the sacrament AND are properly disposed "​

The priest will be the one who is asked. The priest will make the call.

I haven’t read through all of the comments but the answer to this one should be very obvious. It’s only a mortal sin if the person believes that the Catholic Church is the ONE true church and that they broke off from it. Since orthodox people wouldn’t be orthodox if they thought this, then it isn’t a mortal sin. It’s a venial sin at best since they don’t KNOW that and aren’t rejecting Catholicism with willful consent. So therefore it’s perfectly fine for Orthodox people in a state of Grace to receive the Eucharist. There is no catch-22 there.