If I convert to orthodoxy will I go to hell?

[AlNg]

the church would certainly never publicly canonize somebody who died in a state of schism

I thought that Pope John Paul II referred to Saint Seraphim of Sarov as a saint. Was he not a Russian monk in the Russian Orthodox Church? Our Sunday visitor also lists him as a saint to be celebrated on january 2. And St. Gregory Palamas is recognized as a saint in the Catholic Church. And yet neither one was subject to the Roman Pontiff.
So does that not show that the infallible declaration: " that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” has been changed.?

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Canonizations are supposed to be infallible, and while Pope John Paul made a reference to “St Seraphim of Sarov” in his book ‘Crossing the Threshold of Hope’, he was not canonized however. There can be no certainly as to his final destination. The Roman Missal therefore even in the Novus Ordo Mass does not celebrate his feast on the 2nd of February unlike many other eastern saints. Sadly the last few popes have not appreciated enough the supremacy of their office, perhaps due to good intentions like humility for example. We must make a distinction however between the person and the office of the papacy.

As to Seraphim of Sarov similar is true. But he is not canonized despite what goes on.

No authority, not even the highest in the church has the authority to change what is infallible. They might say something that is incorrect but that doesn’t change the truth

I thought that Pope John Paul II referred to Saint Seraphim of Sarov as a saint. Was he not a Russian monk in the Russian Orthodox Church? Our Sunday visitor also lists him as a saint to be celebrated on january 2. And St. Gregory Palamas is recognized as a saint in the Catholic Church. And yet neither one was subject to the Roman Pontiff.
So does that not show that the infallible declaration: " that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” has been changed.?

 

[TK421]

Orthodoxy wasn’t man made either though. It seems to me that both the Catholic Church and orthodoxy are true and the only reason both churches teach that if you leave to go to the other you’ll go to hell is to maintain social control and power. I think both need to humble themselves.

They both could use more humility (who couldn’t) but they idea that they have their stance for social control and power is something that might be said by an angry atheist making wildly unsupported claims.

There are very deep and painful historical reason that there is a sad division between east and west. Many yearn for unity.

 

[Jragzz123]

Then I would not consider orthodoxy, as the SSPX is certainly closer to the fullness of truth and to tradition than they are.

I don’t agree. The SSPX pretends to be traditional but would be almost unrecognizable to the early church. By traditional Catholicism they just mean Trent not real ancient tradition.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

“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

I thought that this infallible declaration has been changed since now it is generally accepted that Jews and Eastern Orthodox and others can be saved even though they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff?

Infallible declarations cannot be changed, however, we can deepen in our understanding of dogma, and doctrine (not dogma) can develop. It remains true that, in the objective order — the external forum, if you will — everyone is indeed called to be Catholic and subject to the Roman Pontiff. Not everybody “gets this”. Only Our Lord can judge souls.

Yea I reached out to a Melkite parish and Ruthenian parish and asked to speak to the priests there. Thank you all for the advice

Good for you. You did exactly what you should have. Melkites and Ruthenians are subject to the Holy Father, as all Eastern Christians should be. If I were the one making the decision, I would leave the Eastern churches as free to manage their own affairs as it is possible to be, and make that yoke of submission as loose and light as I could.

Canonizations are supposed to be infallible, and while Pope John Paul made a reference to “St Seraphim of Sarov” in his book ‘ Crossing the Threshold of Hope ’, he was not canonized however. There can be no certainly as to his final destination. The Roman Missal therefore even in the Novus Ordo Mass does not celebrate his feast on the 2nd of February unlike many other eastern saints. Sadly the last few popes have not appreciated enough the supremacy of their office, perhaps due to good intentions like humility for example. We must make a distinction however between the person and the office of the papacy.

As to Seraphim of Sarov similar is true. But he is not canonized despite what goes on.

We are perfectly free to venerate St Seraphim of Sarov — I do myself — but as you point out, he is not canonized. To refer to him as “Saint” is as much a courtesy to the Orthodox as anything else.

To suggest that Orthodox saints are not either in heaven, or on their way there, is a really strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox as “true churches” — how can you be a “true church” and “outside the Church” at the same time? Are they more in the same position as the SSPX, after a fashion, with the added wrinkle of refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff? I don’t know.

 

[ziapueblo]

Then I would not consider orthodoxy, as the SSPX is certainly closer to the fullness of truth and to tradition than they are.

Interesting take since the Catholic Church considers us Orthodox to have valid Apostolic succession and valid Eucharist.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

And St. Gregory Palamas is recognized as a saint in the Catholic Church. And yet neither one was subject to the Roman Pontiff.

As well as St Photios. This is from the Melkite Horologion:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox as “true churches” — how can you be a “true church” and “outside the Church” at the same time?

Amen! The schism between East and West is from within the Church.

ZP

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox as “true churches” — how can you be a “true church” and “outside the Church” at the same time?

Amen! The schism between East and West is from within the Church.

Quite agreed. In our homeschool history class the other day, I was teaching my son about Pannonia and Serbia, and I explained to him that for almost all practical purposes, the Orthodox are Catholics, they just don’t see eye-to-eye with us on the role of the Holy Father, and that in a very real way, we are one Church.

And yes, I occasionally get pushback from my family, wanting to know why I’m not teaching American history. I explain to them that you cannot understand the history of civilization without knowing about that thousand-year gap that secular society sums up in three words — “the Dark Ages” (translated: “everyone was Catholic, poor, dirty, and ignorant”). The TAN homeschool series does a marvelous job in teaching the whole history of the world and the Church. My son’s former diocesan Catholic school didn’t even touch these things. He already has enough American history under his belt to last a lifetime!

https://www.tanbooks.com/author-phillip-campbell-.html

 

[mythbuster1]

1 Corinthians 1 condemns factions within the Church. All who knowingly go into schism are guilty of dismembering the Body of Christ and thereby incur mortal sin. Those who have known no better than Orthodoxy, I commit to God’s mercy, but the Catholic who rejects the Pope in favor of Orthodoxy is guilty of mortal sin. Neither is it possible to be absolved of any mortal sin while persisting in mortal sin, and whoever dies in a state of mortal sin is eternally lost.

 

[ziapueblo]

It takes two to tango. Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint say as much.

ZP

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Interesting take since the Catholic Church considers us Orthodox to have valid Apostolic succession and valid Eucharist.

Yes but the only reason for this is because that the sacraments ie Holy orders and Eucharistic Consecration happen “Ex opere operato”

 

[Jragzz123]

But aren’t both technically in schism because both excommunicated each other. Both the pope and patriarch of Constantinople put political power over the church. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are the same church.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

But aren’t both technically in schism because both excommunicated each other.

No because the Patriarch of Constantinople has no authority over the Bishop of Rome. This is just like any other bishop attempting to excommunicate the Pope therefore, and it makes no sense whatsoever that he even considered attempting to excommunicate the Pope

 

[Neithan]

It remains true that, in the objective order — the external forum, if you will — everyone is indeed called to be Catholic and subject to the Roman Pontiff

I agree. It’s really lawyering this, but that doesn’t mean it’s incorrect: one can be subject without being consciously or willfully subject. We might say that everyone validly baptized is de facto subject to the Pope as the successor to the leader of the Apostles and the universal church. Since we recognize the Eastern Orthodox have valid, salvific sacraments, we also must recognize that they are subject to the Roman Pontiff, to be consistent with Pope Boniface VIII’s infallible declaration.

 

[ziapueblo]

Yes but the only reason for this is because that the sacraments ie Holy orders and Eucharistic Consecration happen “Ex opere operato”

Is this what Unitatis Redintegratio states? What it does say is the we, Orthodox, are “true Churches” with “apostolic succession” and a “valid Eucharist.”

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

No because the Patriarch of Constantinople has no authority over the Bishop of Rome.

And the Pope of Rome has authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople or any other Eastern Patriarch for that matter?

ZP

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

It remains true that, in the objective order — the external forum, if you will — everyone is indeed called to be Catholic and subject to the Roman Pontiff

I agree. It’s really lawyering this, but that doesn’t mean it’s incorrect: one can be subject without being consciously or willfully subject. We might say that everyone validly baptized is de facto subject to the Pope as the successor to the leader of the Apostles and the universal church.

I’ve wondered about this myself — are all baptized Christians subject to the Roman Pontiff whether they know it or not, and whether they want to be or not? Just reading between the lines of Vatican II, I have wondered if, when you strip away all the apologetics and homiletics, it can all be summed up in four words — “all Christians are Catholics”. This would certainly come as a surprise to your garden-variety Baptists and Pentecostals. but then again there are a lot of things that would come as a surprise to your garden-variety Baptists and Pentecostals.

Since we recognize the Eastern Orthodox have valid, salvific sacraments, we also must recognize that they are subject to the Roman Pontiff, to be consistent with Pope Boniface VIII’s infallible declaration.

I would question whether there is absolutely a connection between the two things. There are out-and-out schismatics, with noncanonical vagus bishops, who have valid sacraments — I am not referring to the mainline EO churches, but to these tiny little groups that pop up here and there from time to time. Does “subjection to the Roman Pontiff” get pulled behind “valid, salvific sacraments” the same way a trailer gets pulled by a truck?

 

[Jragzz123]

But why should the pope have that authority. The pope was in the wrong with the schism because it was the Roman side of things that changed the creed. Peter was the highest among equals. I don’t think when Jesus made peter the rock of the church his intention was for the pope to just excommunicate anyone who disagrees with him so he can maintain his political power.

 

[Neithan]

Does “subjection to the Roman Pontiff” get pulled behind “valid, salvific sacraments” the same way a trailer gets pulled by a truck?

If the sacraments are salvific, and it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, then yes, receiving valid sacraments is, ipso facto, to be subject to the Pope. Can there be valid sacraments that are not salvific? Or do we drive a wedge between salvific sacraments and salvation because sufficient grace is not the same as efficacious grace?