Yup. One would also hold sin of schism if he was aware Catholic Church is correct Church but remained in Orthodox Church for whatever reasons (family grudges, indifferentism etc etc).
Therefore cradle Orthodox and Protestant to Orthodox converts are not under the penalty of mortal sin according to the Catholic Church, unless they come to believe that Catholicism is correct and fail to swim the Tiber?
What does it mean to “come to believe that Roman Catholicism is correct”. The RCC is not one giant monolithic block of people who all believe the same.
One Catholic I’ve interacted with on this forum very strongly asserted that mere knowledge of Rome’a assertions about its own necessity were sufficient to turn the Orthodox to mortal sin. In this day and age it’s hard to be completely ignorant of what Rome asserts about itself.
To come to believe that the Catholic Church is correct to believe in her Dogmas, Doctrines, teachings, and Sacred Tradition and to enter into communion with her, forsaking all contrary opinions. For an Orthodox Christian, it would be to accept the Universal and Immediate Supreme Jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome over the entire Church and to be received (usually by Profession of Faith) into the corresponding Eastern Rite Church.
Why not? Catholic Church believes they would.
Yup.
It is hard to actually see culpability. Perhaps one is culpable if he is aware of what Rome teaches and one is not. From Catholic view, it would be ideal if everyone were Catholic obviously… but in the end we do not judge sins- we can say that be disunited from Church is grave matter, but one can not claim it is mortal sin.
Well said.
In our eyes (Orthodox and Catholic), Protestant denominations do not posses valid Priesthood. All posses valid baptism but that is all, no other sacraments. Of course, some are closer to truth than others, but none quite close to how Orthodoxy and Catholicism are.
I disagree. Would you be able to prove what is different? Vatican II says everything from it must be interpreted in Light of Catholic Tradition. So basically Vatican II by it’s essence can not contradict previous Councils and if it does, then those things do not apply.
What do you mean by that? How exactly is theological baggage of Orthodoxy different from Eastern Catholicism?
and with your spirit…
Indeed, they have lumped themselves together and apart for centuries now. The very definition of Protestant is “one who protests” and most common lumping together is that they are against Rome and Her Apostolic Faith. As to the lumping apart—Protestants love to protest each other’s individual interpretations of scripture, or the fathers, or tradition, or anti-tradition, etc.
I quite agree with you.
Which is why Patriarch Jeremias in his correspondence to the Lutheran theologians at Tubingen exhorted the Lutherans to become Orthodox and to abandon their innovations, namely the five solas.
Yes, and which Faith would that be, pray tell? The faith of a renegade Catholic monk who broke his vows and married a nun (who also broke her vows), caused hundreds of years of religious wars in Europe, loved lewd jokes, and wanted to throw out the entire Epistle of St. James, simply because it didn’t correspond to his peculiar theological views?
Plenty of baggage to go around on every side of the Schism…Caesaropapism anyone?
Let us love one another, that with one accord we may confess…
There were Roman Catholic popes who did similar. And other Catholic clergy also.
I remember those threads . . . and how hard it was to put my eyeballs back in when they rolled clean out of my sockets [but at least I found them before the cat did . . .
]
I’m the most recent conversation I had with this person, they insisted that while proselytizing Orthodox was wrong, evangelizing them should indeed be carried out. Despite Pope Francis calling Orthodox his brothers and sisters in Christ and saying they should not be converted, they should still be evangelized.
Just friendly reminder that personal opinions of Pope on conversion do not necessarily bind anyone.
I agree. When speaking of Orthodox/Catholic relations we should never use the word conversion, rather, we should speak of restoring full communion with one another. I was born and raised Roman Catholic. About 9 years ago my wife and I started attending a Byzantine Catholic Church and recently an Orthodox Church.
Perhaps. But does he not, through his words and actions, set an example for all Catholics?
But does this not set this up as “I’m right and you’re wrong?” Surely that undermines the entire basis on which our churches are engaging in theological dialogue to bring about restored communion between our churches?
I think, as I stated above, that discussion between Orthodox and Catholic on this issue should be about restoring communion. Both Churches, East and West, are “the Church.”
Do you know which Orthodox Church? Was it the Georgian Patriarchate? That would be very interesting to find out which Orthodox Church extended the olive branch to Rome.
Yes, something many of us consider to be somewhat more grave than “changing under which Bishop I am”. Unity comes from hierarchical structure, at least for us Catholics. Now I do not meant to comment on your situation precisely, I am just speaking about that in general. I can and nor will judge you subjectively, just saying objective stuff…
Yup. Exactly.
He should. Does he? Up to debate (not saying either is true, as per usual). IOW Catholics can consider Pope’s example bad and still be good Catholics. Of course, reverse is true as well.
Yes, practically. Do you believe you are wrong? Do Catholics need to believe they are wrong as not to offend those not in communion with them? Hardly. Christ never said he was wrong just to please Jews. If we do not believe we are wrong, we should not act like we are.
No, because both our Churches are by definition there to spread True Gospel. What that means is up to interpretation but if you believe you are correct letting other people live in their mistakes is hardly charitable. Of course, active conversion is something different entirely. Let me put it this way;
I respectfully disagree based on teaching binding to Catholics and hence to me too… of course if “East” does not mean Eastern Christians in unity (communion) with Catholic Church - then I retract my statement about disagreeing.