If I convert to orthodoxy will I go to hell?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jragzz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved.” - Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215

“We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” - Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302

“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” - Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, 1441

If the Balamand Agreement has changed this in any way — if being or becoming Orthodox brings or keeps one within the Catholic Church, as the case may be, and in some way “subject to the Roman Pontiff” (notwithstanding the fact that many if not most Orthodox would absolutely gag at the latter proposition!) — then I would like to see Rome come right out and say “you will not offend Almighty God, and will not commit and live in sin, mortal sin, if you decide that you would rather be Eastern Orthodox than Roman Catholic”. That would take care of any doubt whatsoever in the matter.

From what I hear, Rome more or less says about Eastern Rite Catholicism, “what’s done is done, and we will maintain these separate Rites, but ‘Uniatism’ was a mistake, it is offensive to the Orthodox, and in retrospect, we wouldn’t do it again”. Am I right? @dochawk, I always look to you for wisdom in such matters, what’s your slant on that?
 
@PilgrimMichelangelo

I assumed you meant Latin Rite, but I’m also aware that others read the forum and might not know about the Eastern Rites at all so that’s why my language was the way it was. On needing a healthy tension between the two I totally agree. However, I wouldn’t see that as something the Church itself needs to do but instead it’s a societal thing that needs to be tackled because the Church is called to live and work in society. I won’t go further than that because it’s not on topic with this thread and I’ll really start soapboxing.

As for the Catechism, you’re probably aware but they are supposed to be teaching aids for the times and areas that people live in. I believe each diocese can have their own Catechism to address specifics of their geographic area. (I think the Eastern Rites have their own Catechisms, but don’t know if that’s what they call them.) However, most places where I live have been … remiss, I’ll just say, in both catechesis and making their own and instead the Catechism from Rome gets to do all the heavy lifting. Which, personally, sometimes quotes from it can feel like a sledge hammer due to the need for specificity in language and global application while keeping the length manageable.

I guess I always approached the Catechism like I did the Encyclopedia Britannica (which I used to read for fun as a child. I was strange). It has a high level overlook for what beliefs are, with references and quotes, and then you can go from there to explore East or West when it comes to approach or wording. It’ll keep you on track to let you know if you’re veering WAY off course, but there’s still a ton of room for personal faith.

puts away soapbox

Prayers for everyone. 🙏 Now back to the topic.
 
Agreed. I wouldn’t be surprised if the people who drew that agreement up never read those pre-VII sources cited above.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
From what I hear, Rome more or less says about Eastern Rite Catholicism, “what’s done is done, and we will maintain these separate Rites, but ‘Uniatism’ was a mistake, it is offensive to the Orthodox, and in retrospect, we wouldn’t do it again”. Am I right? @dochawk, I always look to you for wisdom in such matters, what’s your slant on that?
Click to expand...
I don’t think Rome believes that at all.

The Catholic Church doesn’t care if its beliefs offend people.

And I believe that Rome cherishes Eastern Catholicism.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
From what I hear, Rome more or less says about Eastern Rite Catholicism, “what’s done is done, and we will maintain these separate Rites, but ‘Uniatism’ was a mistake, it is offensive to the Orthodox, and in retrospect, we wouldn’t do it again”. Am I right? @dochawk, I always look to you for wisdom in such matters, what’s your slant on that?
Click to expand...
ehhhhhh . . . I’m always hesitant to get into this issue, as I know from experience that it will get twisted, but . . . and, gosh, you asked so nicely . . . 😝

I think that, to put these statements in context, you have to go back almost another thousand years.

The schism itself was improper, and created a division within the Church. Everything else has to be looked at from that context, not from developments in one side after the spat. (you can insert a bunch of insight from Cardinal Ratzinger here . . .).

I wouldn’t go quite as far a @Lobster_Johnson above–there’s plenty of fault to go around, but I would definitely agree that Rome had the larger share–but that’s not the issue. It the jobs of all the hierarchs to correct their recto-cranial inversion and solve this, and none of their jobs to explain why the other is at fault (or even why they themselves are at fault).

Now, given the schism, the question becomes/became how to sole it.

While Rome has clearly renounced unionism for the future, it really has to be divided into two distinct groups:
  1. new EC churches raised by Rome for converting Orthodox. These, Rome seems to say, should not have happened, but since they did, they retain their right to resist. Rome has also directed that these should not proselytize the Orthodox faithful of their Mother Churches to convert.
  2. churches that had long existed reestablishing communion with Rome, such as the Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Melchite, and I think a couple ore. In these churches, it was the churches themselves that requested communion with Rome, in the Unions of Brest and Uhzrod, and the simple request from the Melchites.
The latter group basically followed the historic pattern of churches seeking communion with the Roman Pontiff. AFAIK, none of these broke communion with Constantinople when doing so, but rather instead Constantinople either broke communion eventually, or didn’t establish it again when sees received new occupants. (and I’m not even sure as to how many times the Melchites have been in dual communion, but it’s more than once . . )

[continued]
 
To be clear, Rome recognizes the Orthodox churches as valid churches. The question is how to establish communion with them, not “if.” On top of that, Rome explicitly rejects the notion that the Orthodox are not in communion, albeit not in full communion. (and before flagging this, folks, go read the CCC on this).

So there apparently won’t be more new Catholic churches raised–yet the Slovenian (?) was created just a few year ago, after the general repudiation of unionism . . .

As far as free-standing churches, it is widely reported that an Orthodox Church (Georgian? I forget . . .) sought communion with Rome a few years ago, and was politely rebuffed for the moment.
Kei said:
Can an Ecumenical Council’s disciplinary sanctions bind a future Ecumenical Council? I do not think you will find any approved theological manual that would say it could.
Click to expand...
The word you’re looking for is “infallible”, which is an attribute attributed to these councils . . .

I also think that using the words in the Catechism addressing those raised in Protestantism to draw conclusions about Orthodoxy is plain error.
catholic03 said:
The Catholic Church doesn’t care if its beliefs offend people.
Click to expand...
It does, though, care about its relations with the Orthodox churches. The only reason that Rome doesn’t recognize the leader of the UCC as a patriarch is to not offend the ROC. (and the conceit that the UOC-MP is the historic Orthodox church there isn’t even religious, but rather Russian nationalism–the UOC is now called the UCC, and it’s properties and clergy willing to apostatize were taken by the Soviet government at gunpoint).
 
No one can tell you whether you will go to heaven, purgatory or hell. That’s what the Church teaches. It may very well be that God has not yet decided. Your personal judgement will be made when you die.

I believe joining an Eastern Orthodox church would be an error. But, I would because I’m a Catholic. I think we all have doubts at times and do not understand or have worries about what the Church teaches us. However, I don’t think switching churches would resolve that for you. If there is something in Catholic doctrine that troubles you then perhaps a solution is too look deeper into it and try to understand why the Church took that position. Also ask God in your prayers for His help in understanding.

I may be wrong but I can see no reason why joining an Eastern Orthodox church would in itself be sinful. They have validly ordained clergy, all their sacraments are valid and the Catholic Church says they are not heretical. I would be a lot more concerned if you said you were considering joining a Protestant community.

I don’t really know what draws you to Orthodox churches but perhaps there is a middle road you could explore. Start going to an Eastern Catholic church. Their praxis is closer to that of the Eastern Orthodox churches, certainly in the case of the Byzantine Eastern Catholic churches. However, you would still be within the Catholic fold. If you found peace there after meeting the requirements imposed you could seek formal canonical transfer to that Eastern Catholic church.
 
Jragzz123 said:
I guess where I’m struggling is that the schism is pretty much 100% RC fault
Click to expand...
I thought this too, but you actually have to go a bit deeper than that. Did you know that Patriarch of Constantinople declared Latin Eucharist invalid and his chaplain stepped on it? That Papal Legates came to investigate that and he didn’t even receive them? Sure, Latin Church did not act perfectly either but I wouldn’t say Roman Popes had that much fault in it- perhaps Legates did though. Also, the Patriarch in question was actually power hungry man who was exiled for manipulating Emperors (and even wore shoes only Emperors were allowed to wear to show his dominance). He died in exile even from Greek Church.

Research Photian Schism, research what Early Fathers thought about procession of Holy Spirit “through” the Son and what people other than Latins or Greeks (namely, Armenians or Copts) think about it. What is ecclesiology of Miaphysite/Oriental Orthodox Church? Is it akin to Eastern Orthodoxy like we have been taught or is it actually quite closer to Catholic one? What about Maronites? What about Indian Christians found by Portuguese? They were separated from Catholic Church yet they believed in what Catholic Church held. Then there is question of Syriac Orthodox Church and Armenian Church, who in history actually realized they believe in what Rome believes and rejoined Catholic Church. There is much more into this than what is ordinarily presented to us.

And as was pointed before, you can be Eastern Catholic if you are drawn to Eastern Christianity. No need to schism from See of Peter.
 
Last edited:
None of us can condemn others to hell, for we are all sinners, and we all deserve it because of our sins. I can tell you one thing, dear brother, converting to Orthodoxy equals schism, and schism equals mortal sin, and dying with mortal sins means hell. So, stay with God and His Church. Trust in Him and His love and mercy, for our God is a God of endless love and mercy, but also a just and righteous God.
 
Genesis315 said:
They constantly get into situations where EO particular church A is in communion with B, B is in communion with C, but A and C are not in communion with each other (A=B=C≠A)
Click to expand...
We call this an Ecclesiastical-ontological discussion!

In your hypothetical math, “B” then will sometimes act as an intercessor between “A” and “C”… There are issues that arise between men and therefore between Churches that need to be addressed, and this can be done voluntarily or in an authoritarian involuntary manner… The first leads to resolution, the second to wars, because authority uses force, and consent does not…

Authoritarians always have problems with freedom…
Councils are conciliar, you see, but imperial edicts are imposed…

geo
 
Last edited:
I can’t judge your soul. However, I do know that there are a lot of Byzantine Rite Catholics, that would be glad if you would join them. I like the fact that there are people that can worship according to Orthodox spirituality, but still be in communion with the pope of Rome. Orthodox in communion with Rome. There is nothing you can get in the Orthodox Church, that you can’t get in the Catholic Church. And this is not to offend the Orthodox. But, I not being Middle Eastern can go to a Melkite church, and be fine. A lot, although not all of the Orthodox churches are very based on ethnic background. I think the problem with the Orthodox Church is, is that no one has any final say. Even my Muslim friend says that’s a problem, he says it’s a problem in Islam. I think you should read a bit more about Orthodox history before you make a decision about that, it was not just Latins that were terrible historically, although we did certainly do some nasty things. I bring this up, because a lot of Orthodox theologians love to be very polemical with things that are not about theology, Like the sack of Constantinople. What you almost never hear about, is the Massacre of the Latins, both of which were wrong, but neither of them have to do with theology. some of the things that do have to do with theology, I think are kind of made up, you can find plenty of evidence that the pope of Rome had the final say. And using unleavened bread for the Eucharist, is not heretical, yes some Orthodox theologians have said that. But Catholics would never say that leavened bread invalidates a Eucharist, or at least they shouldn’t, since Eastern Catholics, with a few exceptions use leavened bread. I think you should read more about the Eastern Orthodox Church, from both Orthodox and Catholic perspectives. Also, a lot of people make the mistake of not reading the theologians that are more ecumenical, read them. What you do is up to you, but I can have Byzantine worship and still be Catholic.
 
PilgrimMichelangelo said:
So be very prayerful, cautious and remember we are all seeking Christ, but ancient religions and “modern” man do not coexist easily, which should call us all to greater humility as we see how broken and fractured our spiritual state is in these times.
Click to expand...
I would add that if a person feels betrayed by the RCC, that is not a reason to become Orthodox… Dissatisfaction with either is no reason to flee to the other… Having a grudge against someone who wronged you in one is no reason, etc…

I remember the story of a well-known RCC Church historian in his latter years going in for his annual check-up… Turned out he had stage 4 cancer, and he went straight on over to the nearest Orthodox Church and asked to become an Orthodox Christian… So the Priest asked him why? “A Catholic all your life and now you want to become Orthodox?? What happened?” “Stage 4 cancer…” was his reply… “And…???” queried the Priest… So he explained: “If you want to live a good life on earth, being a Roman Catholic is the best way to do so, but when it comes time to die, you really do want to be an Orthodox Christian!” And he was entered into the Orthodox Church…

The Orthodox are more focused on preparation for death as their way of life, and indeed on living the Death into which they are Baptized, hence are more ascetic in these evil times… Catholics seem perhaps more service oriented in the helping of others… Both are broad brush accounts…

But I agree with an early poster: "IF this is your question, and if it is a deep question for you, then you really do need to purge the question through the purification of your heart from its roots, because such a question does not come, imnsho, from God’s Love, but from fear of consequences… Fear sinning… Fear of the Lord, you see, is but the beginning of Wisdom… Love of God is its Fruit…

Going to an EC Church and learning its EOC Theology and Praxis might answer many of your questions… Remember, the Gospel proclaims the Kingdom of Heaven here and now, and commands repentance from sin… And we are Baptized INTO Christ, Sealed in the Holy Spirit, and the Kingdom of God is within us who are the Temple of the Holy Spirit… Nothing is more important than the purification of the heart from sin, “…for they shall see/know God.”

Do nothing rashly - Back burners are a good place to cook things slowly…

geo
 
@Genesis315
Objectively I’ll take your word for it. Subjectively it depends on knowledge and will as I am sure you are aware. I wish on this forum people would say subjectively something is a mortal sin. Only God and the sinner and sometimes the confessor knows it something is a mortal sin in a particular case. The church has never declared that anyone is in hell. I am sure there are lots of people there but we don’t know who excepting the bad angles and the rich man!
 
George720 said:
I remember the story of a well-known RCC Church historian in his latter years going in for his annual check-up… Turned out he had stage 4 cancer, and he went straight on over to the nearest Orthodox Church and asked to become an Orthodox Christian… So the Priest asked him why? “A Catholic all your life and now you want to become Orthodox?? What happened?” “Stage 4 cancer…” was his reply… “And…???” queried the Priest… So he explained: “If you want to live a good life on earth, being a Roman Catholic is the best way to do so, but when it comes time to die, you really do want to be an Orthodox Christian!” And he was entered into the Orthodox Church…
Click to expand...
This is from my late father’s prayerbook:

The Catholic faith renders death easy and happy for it inspires us with confidence in God’s mercy. When the mother of the apostate Melanchton, Luther’s follower, was lying on her death-bed, she opened her eyes and asked her son, whether she should keep the ancient Catholic faith or embrace the new one, as he had done, Melanchton replied: "Dear Mother, keep your ancient Catholic faith. The faith of Martin Luther is indeed easier to live by, but the old faith is easier and happier to die by."

If you abandon the Catholic faith, you will be on the wrong road… It will not lead you to heaven, but to hell because there is no salvation for those who knowingly leave the Catholic Church and embrace a man-made faith.

Source: Schudlo, Rev. M., compiler. My Divine Friend. 1959, Yorkton, SK, Canada, Redeemer’s Voice Press, p. 98. Boldface added.
 
catholic03 said:
you have been wanting to join an Eastern Catholic Church, the SSPX,
Click to expand...
Re the SSPX: 1) Only Catholic clergy can be members of the SSPX. 2) They are in an irregular canonical situation but are still part of the Catholic Church. C.f. CDF decree of 1996.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top