C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Hey, I’m not ordained, I can opt to shave!
- Status
R
Rawb
Guest
I have a friend investigating Orthodoxy who tells me it’s my beard that lets me blend in. I need to shave too though - recently it has started demanding voting rights…Hey, I’m not ordained, I can opt to shave!
D
Dranu
Guest
I don’t think its as rare as you may think. True, many a heretic and schismatic probably do so in fairly strong ignorance (and thus much culpability is removed), but there are many I think who do something that they well think is against better judgement but they choose to value their own opinions over what they think may honestly be true and try to drown out their conscience (maybe because they think it makes life easier, etc).manualman:
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).
Likewise, with mortal sin in general, I do not think it is super rare (unfortunately). I think many people do wrong thinking its wrong. All it requires beyond being a grave matter is that you are clearly aware that you are doing that wrong (even if lacking absolute philosophical certainty) and that you intentionally do so. Sure, we can be rigorous with those terms and make the category ultra narrow (and perhaps that’s possible), but I tend to take these definitions to be more of a looser common sense type thing. Also, I think being aware of the consequences of doing wrong is inconsequential to being in mortal sin. One can honestly think betraying righteousness will consequentially lead to a very happy life (and I would think many who sin think just this), but that doesn’t seem to detract from the culpability.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I wonder who that friend could be? 
That friend told me you’re just joining up for the coffee hours. He says you like the beard and the cake
That friend told me you’re just joining up for the coffee hours. He says you like the beard and the cake
R
Rawb
Guest
My thoughts on the actual rarity of schism hasn’t come into the conversation yet, I was only commenting on the other poster’s definition meaning that the word lacked any real meaning or use.
Orthodox don’t have the “Mortal/Venial sin” division, so the prevalence of Mortal Sin isn’t really any of my concern, I was just commenting on how some people take that definition and use it the same way with mortal sin too.
R
Rawb
Guest
And the Baklava…and the hats!I wonder who that friend could be?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
R
Rawb
Guest
KLOBUK!Just don’t call that guest priest’s little head dealie thing a “fez” or Rob goes postal!
LoL, to the gettin’ with the educatin’, watch this video.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I like the Steely Dan song “The Fez.” I’m sticking with “fez” because it gets Rob all upset and gives me a chuckle in the process!
M
mardukm
Guest
Doesn’t the Latin CC teach that a mortal sin is a sin that is done with full knowledge and consent? It’s hard to imagine that many (if not most) non-Catholics who are born and raised in that religious environment have full knowledge of the Catholic Church and her teachings. And, judging from personal debates with those who left the Catholic Church, it’s hard for me to believe that even those persons ever had a full knowledge of the Catholic Church and her teachings. So I don’t see how such persons are in a state of “mortal sin” though they are outside of the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.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)
Blessings,
Marduk
V
Vico
Guest
From CIC canon 751 “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
If a Catholic lacked sufficient knowledge (for example, did not realize that being a Catholic was important or that the act was schimatic) or did not give deliberate consent to the act (for example, due to psychological illness that prevented deliberate consent to any of their actions) then there would not be a mortal sin but still a grave sin. One does not have to have full comprehension to sin mortally, rather one must understand that the Catholic Church tells them it is gravely sinful and that the act should not be done.
Those born into a non Catholic church are given the benefit of the doubt by Catholics that they may be in a state of invincible ignorance.
R
Rawb
Guest
Which, whether you believe it or not, y’all might not want to toss around so much. I know from your position this is charitable. From the Orthodox position it reeks of arrogance, patronization, and completely turns off every other person I’ve ever spoken to about it.
“You’re not Roman Catholic? It’s ok, the only possible reason you’re not Roman Catholic is because you don’t understand it. But don’t worry, you might not go to hell because you’re just stupid.”
Despite what you may *mean *by it, that’s what you sound like to us when you say it. We can practically see you patting us on our little heads and sending us away as you say it.
It’s even better when y’all say it to former Roman Catholics. “You didn’t know the faith you professed. You didn’t understand what you were saying when you believed as you did. There isn’t any possible way anybody could ever disagree with us.”
Does any Roman Catholic understand their faith well enough then? How do you know you understand your faith until you die with it? Something could happen that leads you to leaving Roman Catholicism and then you know what they’ll say about you? “He was never a truly understanding Catholic anyway.” It’s the exact same logic used in Once-Saved-Always-Saved arguments.
M
manualman
Guest
One of the problems of humans since Babel at least is we’re so bad at communicating.
Ignorance must never be conflated with stupidity. What you don’t know, you just don’t know. Einstein was always a brilliant man, but for most of his life he was ignorant of the principles of relativity that he later discovered. It’s very nearly impossible to communicate in a non-offensive manner the conviction that “I’m right and you’re wrong.” That’s just a naturally offensive thing. It’s also a necessary thing when discussing mutually exclusive ideas. You don’t think EO come off as arrogant and condescending when opining that catholics have lost apostolic succession and no longer have valid sacraments? Please. It’s the nature of the beast.
My earlier post regarded the mortal sinfulness of being a schismatic, not the definition of a schismatic. An earlier poster told you you were in mortal sin. Catholics generally can’t ever say that for sure about somebody other than themselves. The schism part can be objectively verified. The informed consent part can’t. You are correct that this theory makes it impossible to tell for sure if ANYBODY else has mortally sinned. Which is precisely why the Church cannonizes specific saints, but not the damned. Again, that’s God’s job. One of the reasons we HAVE this pesky division is that we’re so eager to do His job for Him! The Church lays out the principles of what constitutes mortal sins, but she doesn’t apply them to specific people. God’s job.
Ignorance must never be conflated with stupidity. What you don’t know, you just don’t know. Einstein was always a brilliant man, but for most of his life he was ignorant of the principles of relativity that he later discovered. It’s very nearly impossible to communicate in a non-offensive manner the conviction that “I’m right and you’re wrong.” That’s just a naturally offensive thing. It’s also a necessary thing when discussing mutually exclusive ideas. You don’t think EO come off as arrogant and condescending when opining that catholics have lost apostolic succession and no longer have valid sacraments? Please. It’s the nature of the beast.
My earlier post regarded the mortal sinfulness of being a schismatic, not the definition of a schismatic. An earlier poster told you you were in mortal sin. Catholics generally can’t ever say that for sure about somebody other than themselves. The schism part can be objectively verified. The informed consent part can’t. You are correct that this theory makes it impossible to tell for sure if ANYBODY else has mortally sinned. Which is precisely why the Church cannonizes specific saints, but not the damned. Again, that’s God’s job. One of the reasons we HAVE this pesky division is that we’re so eager to do His job for Him! The Church lays out the principles of what constitutes mortal sins, but she doesn’t apply them to specific people. God’s job.
D
Dranu
Guest
I know friend. My point was that the word did not lack any real meaning or use, as it can (logically and by actual instantiation) clearly find application in those instances.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
First, regarding whether a person is in schism, from my reading of this debate I think both sides are right in a way. A person may not be subjectively culpable for being outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church because they believe the Church they belong to is the right one (or honestly adhere to an ecclesiology which would deny a visible Church community to which one must belong, though in my opinion some degree of sin is more likely to accompany this error). An example of someone subjectively culpable for their schism would be someone who is aware of the responsibility to be a member of the Catholic Church but refuses for some reason, like avoiding family tension. Another example would be schism compouded by and driven by formal heresy, which involves presumtuously making yourself the ultimate arbiter of revealed truth, something I’m afraid is probably more common than many Catholics like to think. I should point out also that even if a person is born and baptized into a schismatic situation through no fault of their own they can subsequently become culpable for remaining in it.
Now, even if an Orthodox is not morally culpable for their schism, presumably he or she does know that they are not in communion with the Church from which they are receiving the Eucharist. We therefore still need to look squarely at the situation of receiving the Eucharist at a Church with which you are not in communion, without obfuscating the subject with issues of someone’s subjective culpability for misidentifying which communion is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
In this regard, let me quote the relevant part of the Code of Canon Law:
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
Now, in my own struggle to understand this Canon the insight I had (though I would be quite nervous about asking the people who wrote this law if they had it in mind), my big “aha” moment, was when I took notice of the phrase “and are properly disposed.” Are you properly disposed to receive sacraments from a particular Church if you are not in communion with it? I think the answer is clearly “no,” with the exception of if you intend to enter into communion with that Church by the act of receiving those sacraments. Thus if an Orthodox Christian wishes to enter into communion with the Catholic Church (therefore breaking communion with the Orthodox Church) all he or she needs to do is receive the Eucharist (probably with the Sacrament of Penance first, and possbily with the Annointing of the Sick afterwards if it is a sickbed/deathbed situation). No RCIA or any of that required (though it may well be a good idea).
This is my way of reconciling Canon Law to my own understanding of the sacraments and the Church. As I said I’m far from confident I would get approval for this theory from canon law experts including the drafters of the Code, though I’m also not certain this would mean the interpretation is actually incorrect. If the principles underlying the conclusion are correct and the logic is sound then perhaps the conclusion is true even if it was not foreseen. Then again what are the chances I’ve stumbled upon something so basic that the Vatican just missed? Certainly I’m open to correction on the matter if I’ve erred in some aspect of faith or morals.
Now, even if an Orthodox is not morally culpable for their schism, presumably he or she does know that they are not in communion with the Church from which they are receiving the Eucharist. We therefore still need to look squarely at the situation of receiving the Eucharist at a Church with which you are not in communion, without obfuscating the subject with issues of someone’s subjective culpability for misidentifying which communion is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
In this regard, let me quote the relevant part of the Code of Canon Law:
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
Now, in my own struggle to understand this Canon the insight I had (though I would be quite nervous about asking the people who wrote this law if they had it in mind), my big “aha” moment, was when I took notice of the phrase “and are properly disposed.” Are you properly disposed to receive sacraments from a particular Church if you are not in communion with it? I think the answer is clearly “no,” with the exception of if you intend to enter into communion with that Church by the act of receiving those sacraments. Thus if an Orthodox Christian wishes to enter into communion with the Catholic Church (therefore breaking communion with the Orthodox Church) all he or she needs to do is receive the Eucharist (probably with the Sacrament of Penance first, and possbily with the Annointing of the Sick afterwards if it is a sickbed/deathbed situation). No RCIA or any of that required (though it may well be a good idea).
This is my way of reconciling Canon Law to my own understanding of the sacraments and the Church. As I said I’m far from confident I would get approval for this theory from canon law experts including the drafters of the Code, though I’m also not certain this would mean the interpretation is actually incorrect. If the principles underlying the conclusion are correct and the logic is sound then perhaps the conclusion is true even if it was not foreseen. Then again what are the chances I’ve stumbled upon something so basic that the Vatican just missed? Certainly I’m open to correction on the matter if I’ve erred in some aspect of faith or morals.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I agree about the undertones of this. The only thing I can say though is that Catholicism is somewhat charitable in its estimation that at least folks CAN be saved despite not being a baptized/confirmed Roman Catholic. When it gets down to it, the term doesn’t sound so hot, but the Orthodox basically do this----
when you ask them about salvation or sacraments or hope within other denominations. If you ask an Orthodox, “will a Roman Catholic find salvation through their sacraments?” you get which is basically, “we don’t know? Maybe. Maybe not.” The Catholics do much the same. In the end I’m not sure I see a great difference between the two. Both feel they have the complete and total corner on salvation and confidence they are THE Church, period. You might feel that it’s snobby for a Catholic to use the term “invincible ignorance” because it implies stupidity or a lacking of theological savvy, but the Catholic who wants to commune in the Orthodox Church will be told “nyet, nope” and they’ll feel they’re ‘not good enough’ or out of sorts with the Truth as well. Obviously the Orthodox feel that Catholics are ignorant of the fullness of truth and that they’ve made the wrong move being Catholic and not Orthodox or else there’d be intercommunion. So I say this not to be belligerent but just to point out that both EO’s and RC’s are pretty exclusive and posture to each other quite a bit. I’m not sure which attitude is healthier or better at this point.
But nobody thinks you’re ignorant, Rob, least of all me.
I do agree with you that the argument “anyone who left Catholicism or said no to it must be ignorant because it’s plain as day the Truth” is a weak argument. There are people in CAF of both Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, or other Protestant stripes who know Catholicism through and through like theological geniuses who rejected the ideas. They’re not ignorant, just arrived at a different conclusion.
when you ask them about salvation or sacraments or hope within other denominations. If you ask an Orthodox, “will a Roman Catholic find salvation through their sacraments?” you get which is basically, “we don’t know? Maybe. Maybe not.” The Catholics do much the same. In the end I’m not sure I see a great difference between the two. Both feel they have the complete and total corner on salvation and confidence they are THE Church, period. You might feel that it’s snobby for a Catholic to use the term “invincible ignorance” because it implies stupidity or a lacking of theological savvy, but the Catholic who wants to commune in the Orthodox Church will be told “nyet, nope” and they’ll feel they’re ‘not good enough’ or out of sorts with the Truth as well. Obviously the Orthodox feel that Catholics are ignorant of the fullness of truth and that they’ve made the wrong move being Catholic and not Orthodox or else there’d be intercommunion. So I say this not to be belligerent but just to point out that both EO’s and RC’s are pretty exclusive and posture to each other quite a bit. I’m not sure which attitude is healthier or better at this point.But nobody thinks you’re ignorant, Rob, least of all me.
I do agree with you that the argument “anyone who left Catholicism or said no to it must be ignorant because it’s plain as day the Truth” is a weak argument. There are people in CAF of both Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, or other Protestant stripes who know Catholicism through and through like theological geniuses who rejected the ideas. They’re not ignorant, just arrived at a different conclusion.
D
Dranu
Guest
No, not precisely. This is for more than one reason. To name at least two:
1.) He might have truly understood what he was rejecting (just because one rejects it does not mean one is always pure hearted in doing it after all, and we work out our salvation in fear and trembling).
2.) He might understand it in kind and misunderstand it in another way. If the rejection is what is misunderstood, there is some room for the possibility of invincible ignorance even if he understands some of the other.
R
Rawb
Guest
Actually, I’m not at all offended when someone says to me “You’re wrong”. Funnily enough (and I’m not being sarcastic, I honestly find it a little funny) I respect them more than if they try and say we agree when we don’t, or if they adopt a “many paths” type philosophy. Being wrong is one thing. Being ignorant is another. Slice it however you want, telling someone they’re ignorant isn’t a polite thing to say in our culture, and I’m not willing to accept a theoretical world where we should agree it’s not offensive. In our world it is, and we need to act within this world.
And as I said, I know y’all mean to be charitable, I personally don’t sense any malice in it (at least, from most of you. There are a few people, and you know them as well as I do, who like to call people “invincibly ignorant” in a proud and snobbish way. As Scott said, you get those in every group though and that’s not a specifically Roman Catholic thing).
I’m not saying don’t believe it, I’m saying y’all might not want to *tell *people you believe it.
This is a very interesting argument I’ve never heard before (or if I have I’ve forgotten it). Out of curiosity, would you say it’s alright for an individual to apply the label of “mortal sin” to an act he or she has committed? should probably PM this to you so as not to sidetrack the thread but is throwing caution to the wind and doing this thing whole hog
A fair point. I still feel there’s a difference between the two, though I’d be at a loss as to define what that is.
Look at that - an Orthodox unable to define something. Nothing new under the Son.
I’m sorry, your definitions sound almost verbatim arguments I’ve heard from Baptists trying to support OSAS.
Still the same thing from my point of view.
V
Vico
Guest
If people takes offense without understanding, then what is that called? Rash judgment. The Catholic Catechism details invincible ignorance for those that want to know what it is, see below:
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct. 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
R
Rawb
Guest
LoL, No skin off my teeth if y’all use a definition set by your Church, and get upset when others haven’t read your catechism to find out what you mean by each term.
Do as you like.
- Status