If schism is a mortal sin...

[CivisRomanusSum]

Hi, just wondering…

If the Catholic Church regards schism as a mortal sin, then why does it explicitly allow people from the Orthodox Churches to receive communion in a Catholic mass? I understand that that is not so the other way around. Even if we do regard the Orthodox folks as merely schismatic and never heretical or apostate, schism is still a grave sin so why do we allow them to partake of the body and blood of the Lord if they are not in communion with us?

Don’t get me wrong though; I have great respect for the Orthodox faith and might even become an Eastern Catholic one day (though for now my heart remains in the Latin Rite)

 

[revert_jen]

My guess on this, and it is just a guess, is because nobody alive today is responsible for creating the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox. Being born into a schismatic body is not a sin, nor is continuing in the faith of your ancestors, assuming that you do not know in your heart that the Catholic Church is corrrect.

Forming a schismatic body would be a mortal sin, belonging to one would not.

At least that is what I was taught. I am open to learning something different if someone has documentation to back it up.

–Jen

 

[ConstantineTG]

revert_jen is correct. Its one thing to be schismatic, its another to be in schism. No one today is responsible for the schism that happened almost 1000 years ago. They were born into this situation, as do we. And remember, they are as much in schism from us as we are from them. We are all responsible for keeping the body of our Lord, the Church, united.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

I would imagine it is because they do not have full knowledge of the fact they are in schism and therefore it is not a mortal sin for them.

They are not in schism with us they are in schism from the successor of Peter and it only works one way, the Pope is not in schism from them.

 

[Rawb]

I would imagine it is because they do not have full knowledge of the fact they are in schism and therefore it is not a mortal sin for them.

So what about people like me, who were Catholic, fully knew the Catholic faith and left it to become Orthodox?

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

So what about people like me, who were Catholic, fully knew the Catholic faith and left it to become Orthodox?

I would imagine you are guilty of the mortal sin of schism.

 

[Rawb]

I would imagine you are guilty of the mortal sin of schism.

This may be the complete opposite reaction most would expect, but I like you McCabe lol. You didn’t beat around the bush. Most Catholics I’ve met try to hee-haw and act like we don’t both know my ‘status’ in the Catholic Church now. You’re refreshing!

Of course, this raises the question - the OP is right, Orthodox are allowed to receive communion in Catholic churches by Catholic law. What then, would they say about my situation? I’m in a state of mortal sin by Catholic standards, and therefor unable to receive Communion. As an Orthodox however I could be perfectly disposed towards receiving.

Not really concerned with an answer, just sort of an intellectual exercise lol.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

This may be the complete opposite reaction most would expect, but I like you McCabe lol. You didn’t beat around the bush. Most Catholics I’ve met try to hee-haw and act like we don’t both know my ‘status’ in the Catholic Church now. You’re refreshing!

Of course, this raises the question - the OP is right, Orthodox are allowed to receive communion in Catholic churches by Catholic law. What then, would they say about my situation? I’m in a state of mortal sin by Catholic standards, and therefor unable to receive Communion. As an Orthodox however I could be perfectly disposed towards receiving.

Not really concerned with an answer, just sort of an intellectual exercise lol.

The Catholic pov I would think would be no different to anyone else in a a state of mortal sin, you would need to make a sacramental confession and be absolved of your sins, otherwise in the words of the scripture you are receiving the blessed sacrament to your own destruction regardless of whether you receive in a Catholic or Orthodox church, it is the same sacrament after all.

This would of course involve returning to unity with the Pope and the Catholic Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

This may be the complete opposite reaction most would expect, but I like you McCabe lol. You didn’t beat around the bush. Most Catholics I’ve met try to hee-haw and act like we don’t both know my ‘status’ in the Catholic Church now. You’re refreshing!

Of course, this raises the question - the OP is right, Orthodox are allowed to receive communion in Catholic churches by Catholic law. What then, would they say about my situation? I’m in a state of mortal sin by Catholic standards, and therefor unable to receive Communion. As an Orthodox however I could be perfectly disposed towards receiving.

Not really concerned with an answer, just sort of an intellectual exercise lol.

If I recall correctly, the way the rules which allow this are worded, the person receiving pretty much has to accept a lot of things that would be impossible for an Orthodox person to accept without essentially becoming Catholic. I may be mis-remembering, but that is what I recall thinking back when I was reading that stuff.

 

[JohnVIII]

…This would of course involve returning to unity with the Pope and the Catholic Church.

There has many threads about how the Eastern faith is the same as the Western faith, but only a matter of a different way of expressing the same faith. In line with this form apologetics many have said the East actually believes in the immaculate conception, purgatory, etc., but they just express it in different terms. Why not add to this the Eastern concept of “Catholic Unity”? The East certainly believes the Church is “One”, but the current day Eastern concept of how it is One does not include the bishop of Rome. Why not accept this too as yet another example of really believing the same thing, but just expressing it in different terms? If those who think this way are consistent with this in their reasoning you must conclude that the Eastern Churches are really NOT in schism. If there is no schism there is no mortal sin!

In concord with this is an ancient debate about whether the baptism of schismatics is true baptism. RC believe that this debate was long ago settled by the Pope, namely that the baptism of schismatics is the baptism of the Church under the belief that schismatics are actually a part of the Church. (Conservative Eastern Orthodox do not believe that the baptism of schismatics is true baptism.)

I have tried to understand the Western perspective but I doubt I will ever fully comprehend it. But it seems to me that there can be no room in the Western mindset for there to be such a thing as actual schism from the Church unless the schismatic group is also heretical.

Just my :twocents: worth.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But to be fair, using that logic, none of the founders of schismatic groups is alive today whether it’s Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, Joseph Smith, or John Calvin. Yet these religions are schismatic to the tenth power?

revert_jen is correct. Its one thing to be schismatic, its another to be in schism. No one today is responsible for the schism that happened almost 1000 years ago. They were born into this situation, as do we. And remember, they are as much in schism from us as we are from them. We are all responsible for keeping the body of our Lord, the Church, united.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

In concord with this is an ancient debate about whether the baptism of schismatics is true baptism. RC believe that this debate was long ago settled by the Pope, namely that the baptism of schismatics is the baptism of the Church under the belief that schismatics are actually a part of the Church. (Conservative Eastern Orthodox do not believe that the baptism of schismatics is true baptism.)

All valid baptisms make a person a member of the Church, even baptism carried out by heretics or even atheists does that. However just because someone is validly baptized does not mean they do not then become schismatic, nor does the fact that schismatics can validly baptize mean that they are not in schism.

The validity of baptism is really not relevant here imo.

"11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”[26] " Mortalium animos

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would imagine it is because they do not have full knowledge of the fact they are in schism and therefore it is not a mortal sin for them.

They are not in schism with us they are in schism from the successor of Peter and it only works one way, the Pope is not in schism from them.

They are aware of the schism. Of course from their POV they are right as much as we think we are right. I guess one reason why the schism lasted this long. No one wants to give an inch.

Being in schism isn’t only from Peter and his heirs. Being in schism is being separated from the Church. Every diocesan/eparchical bishop is the head of his own particular Church. None of us is in communion with the Pope directly except through our Bishops. Except I guess for those who live in the diocese of Rome who’s diocesan Bishop is the Pope. So everytime a Bishop breaks communion with another Bishop, there is a schism. So the Pope is in schism from the Orthodox Bishops as much as the Orthodox Bishops are in schism from the Pope. Normally you are correct that schism is one way, but in this case its both ways. Because all Bishops are valid and have kept the true faith, no one really is a heretic (although accusations have flied both ways) that each side do possess the truth of the faith. The problem is we understand the truth differently and most of the time we do not want to accept a different definition or explanation of the same faith.

 

[manualman]

So what about people like me, who were Catholic, fully knew the Catholic faith and left it to become Orthodox?

Mortal sins require full knowledge and consent. Are you saying that you know full well that catholic church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and knowing that full well you decided to de-camp to a church in formal schism for some reason? Or did you switch because you became convinced that the EO had more fully preserved the truth of the faith handed down from Christ to the apostles and that the Catholic Church had introduced errors harmful (at best) to believers?

If the latter, it isn’t for any of us to say if your sin is mortal or not. The Catholic Church explains general principles by which we can discern if we, ourselves, are in a state of mortal sin requiring confession. (If I did what you did, I’d be in mortal sin) But she does not encourage us to apply those to others. That’s God’s job. He’s good at it, we’ll leave it to Him.

In short, you objectively appear to be a heretic. But only God knows for sure!

 

[Rawb]

Mortal sins require full knowledge and consent. Are you saying that you know full well that catholic church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and knowing that full well you decided to de-camp to a church in formal schism for some reason?

By this meaning, however, nobody has ever entered into schism. What’s the point then of having the word as it doesn’t mean anything? Anyone’s movement away from the Catholic Church can be rationalized away by saying that if they truly knew that the Roman catholic church was the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church then they wouldn’t have left. Why would anyone ever leave if they knew that? It’s like the requirements for mortal sin - how much ‘knowledge’ is required to warrant culpability? Why would anyone ever commit a sin if they *truly *understood that it meant utter separation from God? Mortal sin then, too, becomes something that is so rare by it’s definition as to not even demand the need for the word (or Confession then, in Catholic understanding of when that Sacrament is used).

 

[Hesychios]

manualman;7938093:

Mortal sins require full knowledge and consent. Are you saying that you know full well that catholic church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and knowing that full well you decided to de-camp to a church in formal schism for some reason? Or did you switch because you became convinced that the EO had more fully preserved the truth of the faith handed down from Christ to the apostles and that the Catholic Church had introduced errors harmful (at best) to believers?

By this meaning, however, nobody has ever entered into schism.

Agreed.

It’s kind of a catch-22. People do not leave what they know or believe is the genuine expression of Truth for something else. They would always still believe it.

I can’t make myself believe the world is flat, it’s just not in me. So why would anyone deny Truth as they know it? The fact is converts (true converts) do not see themselves as denying Truth, they may deny much of what they once believed, hence they are converts, but they are not denying what they consider Truth.

What that theory about schism as sin seems to be supposing is that if they stop believing in it as Truth, they are blameless.

The problem, I think, is not that schism isn’t a sinful state, but that the definition of schism has changed.

As to the inconsistency of Roman Catholic practice in allowing some classes of non- Roman Catholics to receive, I think it’s just politics.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But to be fair, using that logic, none of the founders of schismatic groups is alive today whether it’s Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, Joseph Smith, or John Calvin. Yet these religions are schismatic to the tenth power?

Lets be clear about definitions here. Schismatic means a person who promotes schism. Those who follow the Churches in schism today are not schismatic. They were born into their faith in its current nature. Being in schism and schismatic are two different things. One is a state, the other is an adjective. Sins are actions, you cannot commit sin for being born into a state.

Also the difference is the Protestants and the Restorationists are NOT schismatic, they never were. They changed the teachings, which makes them heretic. You can only go into schism if you are a valid Church and you retain the Deposit of Faith, that is the core beliefs of the Christian faith.

 

[Rawb]

Lets be clear about definitions here. Schismatic means a person who promotes schism. Those who follow the Churches in schism today are not schismatic. They were born into their faith in its current nature.

Again then, however, what of those who aren’t born into it? I wasn’t? I left Roman Catholicism for Orthodoxy. In a sense I suppose I “promote” schism (from the Roman Catholic perspective), because I promote Orthodoxy to my friends and family.

Sins are actions, you cannot commit sin for being born into a state.

What about being born into the state of “original sin”? Your catechism defines Original Sin as a “state”.

(Yes I’m being facetious and tweaking your beard here)

 

[ConstantineTG]

Again then, however, what of those who aren’t born into it? I wasn’t? I left Roman Catholicism for Orthodoxy. In a sense I suppose I “promote” schism (from the Roman Catholic perspective), because I promote Orthodoxy to my friends and family.

Well, my opinion on the matter is that you do not promote the schism because the schism is already there. You know what, I will ask my priest later. Although he’s Ukrainian Catholic, I’m sure a Roman Catholic priest may have a different answer.

I promote Orthodoxy too, but in a different way.

What about being born into the state of “original sin”? Your catechism defines Original Sin as a “state”.

(Yes I’m being facetious and tweaking your beard here)

How did you know I have a beard? I normally don’t, I’m just lazy lately

 

[Rawb]

How did you know I have a beard? I normally don’t, I’m just lazy lately

Is being Eastern without beard in Mother Russia? Is outrage!

That’s ok, I make lamb.