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

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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. [snip for space]

Re: your commentary.

The article I posted from CA, Who Can Receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church | Catholic Answers | Catholic Answers was from 2004 and had the following

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

AND

The USCCB link you refer to, was from 1996,
I don’t know why in that Doc, the “if” statement is not there. The 2004 Doc is stated to be free of doctrinal errors and approved for printing.

Point being the “IF” statement then, is accurate

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

I’ll just add to that, the individual seeking the Eucharist, must also get permission from their Orthodox source.

 

[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.

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.

To your 1st point.

Once someone is given the knowledge of truth, then they know what is a mortal vs venial sin. THAT BTW is from scripture.

To your 2nd point

venial vs mortal sin. I know people who think mortal sin is impossible to commit.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

But you cannot commit a mortal sin unknowingly. And just hearing something doesn’t mean that you realize it’s the truth, even if it is the truth.

 

[MarysLurker]

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

AND

The USCCB link you refer to, was from 1996,
I don’t know why in that Doc, the “if” statement is not there. The 2004 Doc is stated to be free of doctrinal errors and approved for printing.

Again, you’re playing American lawyer, trying to Shepeardize the USCCB to see if they’ve been overruled. Canon law doesn’t work that way. The USCCB’s promulgation is what gives the document legal effect. If they or the Vatican withdraw it, then it loses its effect. Period.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Once someone is given the knowledge of truth, then they know what is a mortal vs venial sin. THAT BTW is from scripture.

The same way you (or someone else here) said that a Protestant isn’t guilty of the mortal sin of schism by being separated from the Church like the original reformers…and even if they are “shown truth” , culpability can be offset by how they were raised in faith, anti-catholic bias, what they are capable of comprehending intellectually, etc…orthodoxy is no different in that respect.

 

[steve-b]

But you cannot commit a mortal sin unknowingly.

Show me where I said you could?

Gingersnaps4:

And just hearing something doesn’t mean that you realize it’s the truth, even if it is the truth.

I don’t just say, I give my references all properly referenced.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I don’t just say, I give my references all properly referenced.

Well yes, but I’m saying that an internet link may not convince someone that has been raised in a different faith. A person can be completely secure in their knowledge while being wrong. If the Church didn’t believe that they would have actually forbidden the Eucharist to orthodox, or written out your catch-22 so there could be no mistake. The church doesn’t lead people into sin.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Once someone is given the knowledge of truth, then they know what is a mortal vs venial sin. THAT BTW is from scripture.

The same way you (or someone else here) said that a Protestant isn’t guilty of the mortal sin of schism by being separated from the Church like the original reformers…and even if they are “shown truth” , culpability can be offset by how they were raised in faith, anti-catholic bias, what they are capable of comprehending intellectually, etc…orthodoxy is no different in that respect.

I didn’t say that…

AND

As for guilt or innocence, if someone is in the dark on an issue, then bring light to the subject. Therefore they are no longer in the dark. They are no longer ignorant of the subject and now know the truth. One’s Ignorance isn’t presumed permanent, unless maybe they are suffering from severe mental deficit.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I don’t just say, I give my references all properly referenced.

Well yes, but I’m saying that an internet link may not convince someone that has been raised in a different faith. A person can be completely secure in their knowledge while being wrong. If the Church didn’t believe that they would have actually forbidden the Eucharist to orthodox, or written out your catch-22 so there could be no mistake. The church doesn’t lead people into sin.

Why not stick with what I wrote

 

[Gingersnaps4]

If the Church felt that the orthodox needed to confess and repent for being separated from the Catholic Church in order to receive the Eucharist, then THEY would have shined a bright light on that. Otherwise it’s worded in such a way as to promote abuse of the body and precious blood of our Lord.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Granted, I do think that the Catholic Church under Peter is the church founded by Christ, but you are reading something into that that just isn’t there.

 

[steve-b]

If the Church felt that the orthodox needed to confess and repent for being separated from the Catholic Church in order to receive the Eucharist, then THEY would have shined a bright light on that. Otherwise it’s worded in such a way as to promote abuse of the body and precious blood of our Lord.

I can see you don’t know what Orthodox are required to do before they receive in their own churches. And we according to you, are supposed to take the Eucharist lighter as Catholics?

 

[Isaac14]

Being involved in some of the earlier conversation, i’ll add a bit for context:

First, as an Orthodox Christian I will always seek the sacraments from my own church.

Second, the exception, would come in an unforeseen grave circumstance where I was in need of sacraments but for whatever reason unable to receive from Orthodox clergy, then I would seek such from the Catholic Church.

As I read Canon 844 this seems to be one of the situations wherein the Catholic Church is making it clear I won’t be turned away if I’m genuine need and unable to reach my own clergy.

Third, I think it would be a very different matter if I, through indifference, received the sacraments from whichever church suited me on a given day. This would be an abuse and I presumed very much frowned upon by both churches.

 

[steve-b]

Being involved in some of the earlier conversation, i’ll add a bit for context:

First, as an Orthodox Christian I will always seek the sacraments from my own church.

Second, the exception, would come in an unforeseen grave circumstance where I was in need of sacraments but for whatever reason unable to receive from Orthodox clergy, then I would seek such from the Catholic Church.

As I read Canon 844 this seems to be one of the situations wherein the Catholic Church is making it clear I won’t be turned away if I’m genuine need and unable to reach my own clergy.

Third, I think it would be a very different matter if I, through indifference, received the sacraments from whichever church suited me on a given day. This would be an abuse and I presumed very much frowned upon by both churches.

Well said

 

[Gingersnaps4]

They are required to be in a state of Grace, the same as we are. They aren’t required to confess heresy and repent being Orthodox if they are a faithful Orthodox person in good standing… . Unless they have become convinced that the Catholic Church is the one true church and they are separated from it. In which case then yes, they would need to convert to Catholicism to receive. They would need to convert in general, to prevent the sin of willfully rejecting the church. That is how I became catholic, myself. I wasn’t Orthodox though, I was Protestant.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I never thought Catholics and orthodox were able to stroll into which ever church they were nearest to and receive from there. I’ve always understood that it is available when there is no other choice.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I also have heard that Orthodox Priests usually say no to Catholics WRT receiving their Eucharist . I would never try unless I were in a completely different part of the world for a long duration, being that it would be upsetting to feel enough need for the sacrament to ask, and be rejected.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

AND

The USCCB link you refer to, was from 1996,
I don’t know why in that Doc, the “if” statement is not there. The 2004 Doc is stated to be free of doctrinal errors and approved for printing.

Again, you’re playing American lawyer, trying to Shepeardize the USCCB to see if they’ve been overruled. Canon law doesn’t work that way. The USCCB’s promulgation is what gives the document legal effect. If they or the Vatican withdraw it, then it loses its effect. Period.

And somehow you messed with my quote.

Therefore,

you can’t see the point being made about the dates of the 2 Docs…AND the NIHIL OBSTAT and Imprimatur on the newer Doc ? Meaning the newer Doc which I used, is free of error from doctrinal or moral errors and therefore permission to print.

 

[MarysLurker]

Did you not see the point being made about the dates of the 2 Docs…AND the NIHIL OBSTAT and Imprimatur on the newer Doc ? Meaning the newer Doc which I used, is free of error from doctrinal or moral errors and therefore permission to print.

An imprimatur is just what you say it is: an approval by a bishop meaning that the document is free from doctrinal error. But that is ALL that it means. It does not mean that it is necessarily complete nor that it is the correct application of the law to a particular situation.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Did you not see the point being made about the dates of the 2 Docs…AND the NIHIL OBSTAT and Imprimatur on the newer Doc ? Meaning the newer Doc which I used, is free of error from doctrinal or moral errors and therefore permission to print.

An imprimatur is just what you say it is: an approval by a bishop meaning that the document is free from doctrinal error. But that is ALL that it means. It does not mean that it is necessarily complete nor that it is the correct application of the law to a particular situation.

It’s what you didn’t include

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

That was challenged by the other poster, or maybe it was you who was challenging the Doc.