If schism is a mortal sin...

[Harpazo]

Just for some clarification on the Orthodox position, two saintly men sum it up pretty well:

“It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth… They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, “Who will have all men to be saved” (I Tim. 2:4) and “Who
enlightens every man born into the world” (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way.” -Met. Philaret

He isn’t preaching any syncretism (which believe or not, some have tried to deduce from this), but basically God will help bring those to salvation who have not found Orthodoxy.

St. Theophan the Recluse has this to say:

“You ask, will the heterodox be saved… Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins… I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever.”

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Dranu]

Dranu:

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.

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.

OSAS Baptists believe one can at one time understand and accept the faith (which I thought to them was being saved) and then reject it? Why do you claim this is the case?

 

[Rawb]

OSAS Baptists believe one can at one time understand and accept the faith (which I thought to them was being saved) and then reject it? Why do you claim this is the case?

I claim it because that’s how it was once taught to me. If someone was OSAS Baptist (I’ll just say Baptist from now, since traditionally that was one of their core teachings IME) and believed, said the sinner’s prayer, worked in the Sunday School classrooms, attended Bible study for years, and then say had some crises or something and said they didn’t believer, they renounced the faith. From the Baptist POV they were never saved to begin with, even though that individual thought they were. Furthermore if that Baptist returned later, they would say he’d been saved since the beginning and he just got off the track a bit for a while, but ultimately God knew he would return.

 

[fred_conty]

Hi,

There are Catholics who know better and those who don’t.

 

[Dranu]

I claim it because that’s how it was once taught to me.

Really? I know from the OSAS looks like this (and it just looks like pure sophistry when they claim otherwise), but would they themselves believe one could truly understand and accept it, then truly understand and reject it?

At any rate, here is yet another distinction that is implied with the terms we were discussing: One can truly be in a state of grace (good and non-heretical) and loose it (be heretical without the invincible ignorance, since there is no claim that invincible ignorance is universal).

 

[Rawb]

Really? I know from the OSAS looks like this (and it just looks like pure sophistry when they claim otherwise), but would they themselves believe one could truly understand and accept it, then truly understand and reject it?

Ahhh, I see what you’re saying. Hmmm…to be honest I don’t know. I should’ve been more specific; when I said I was ‘taught’ it I meant I had read up on it, not in the sense of a theological treatsie on it but it was being presented in a sort of ‘everyman’s’ way. It wasn’t meant to get that involved, it was meant to give you the basic understandings of it. They may make the distinction, but again, I think they’re setting up distinctions and intellectual safe-barriers to defend their actions or beliefs. I don’t go by what they teach, I go by what they believe. I’ve found often that the two don’t actually match up in many churches.

This is drifting off topic though, and to be honest, isn’t a very interesting thread of thought.

At any rate, here is yet another distinction that is implied with the terms we were discussing: One can truly be in a state of grace (good and non-heretical) and loose it (be heretical without the invincible ignorance, since there is no claim that invincible ignorance is universal).

I know Catholics believe this, I didn’t mean to imply they didn’t. I’m saying the arguments for invincible ignorance sound the same as the OSAS arguments. What you’re saying here seems to be that a Roman Catholic could be in a state of grace, then commit schism and be in a state of mortal sin and no longer be Catholic. Fine. Better than fine, awesome, that’s standing firm on your teachings and actually believing them and following them through, IMO. That impresses me. When, however, you then say “that person never understood their faith” that seems like a sort of ‘never-can-lose’ argument, just like OSAS. Only real Catholics understand their faith, and the only people who can ever understand their faith are real Catholics.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Good thing Rawb is my friend, using this many “y’alls” in a post AND being a fellow Californian usually causes me to unleash my Orc-like fury, but I’ll contain it for now…

wisdom!

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.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yeah, kind of circular reasoning. I have had the discussion about Lumen Gentium with folks in here before and I said that I thought the section that said we must yield our intellects to the Pope even when he ISN’T speaking officially ex cathedra to be disturbing. I said that I don’t understand how we have to still take a statement that is not infallibly stated and treat it as infallible. The reply of one poster was, and I kid you not, “Yeah but Lumen Gentium isn’t infallible so you don’t have to follow it.”

Circular reasoning par excellance!

Ahhh, I see what you’re saying. Hmmm…to be honest I don’t know. I should’ve been more specific; when I said I was ‘taught’ it I meant I had read up on it, not in the sense of a theological treatsie on it but it was being presented in a sort of ‘everyman’s’ way. It wasn’t meant to get that involved, it was meant to give you the basic understandings of it. They may make the distinction, but again, I think they’re setting up distinctions and intellectual safe-barriers to defend their actions or beliefs. I don’t go by what they teach, I go by what they believe. I’ve found often that the two don’t actually match up in many churches.

This is drifting off topic though, and to be honest, isn’t a very interesting thread of thought.

I know Catholics believe this, I didn’t mean to imply they didn’t. I’m saying the arguments for invincible ignorance sound the same as the OSAS arguments. What you’re saying here seems to be that a Roman Catholic could be in a state of grace, then commit schism and be in a state of mortal sin and no longer be Catholic. Fine. Better than fine, awesome, that’s standing firm on your teachings and actually believing them and following them through, IMO. That impresses me. When, however, you then say “that person never understood their faith” that seems like a sort of ‘never-can-lose’ argument, just like OSAS. Only real Catholics understand their faith, and the only people who can ever understand their faith are real Catholics.

 

[Rawb]

Good thing Rawb is my friend, using this many “y’alls” in a post AND being a fellow Californian usually causes me to unleash my Orc-like fury, but I’ll contain it for now…

wisdom!

THEY’RE the ones who deprive me of the ability of an English word that encompasses a larger group than an individual!

No, I don’t know who “they” are.

I could use “vous” from now on if you’d prefer…

P.S. My daddy grew up in Ohio, so I have an ancestral right to the use of “y’all”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Y’all is Southern, baby, not Ohio, out of their jurisdiction! We’ll let you get away with a Chicago-style accent: “I pull for duh-bullsh, duh-beearsh, duh cubbies” or saying midwestern things like “oh my lands” but “y’all” is for Alabama, Texas, and such. Sorry, we can’t allow that here.

I’m not a French fan so “vous” is out also. You need to go more Russian since you and I have been around so many Serbs. I think I’ll wear one of those Fezes (ducks as Rob goes crazy and corrects him)

THEY’RE the ones who deprive me of the ability of an English word that encompasses a larger group than an individual!

No, I don’t know who “they” are.

I could use “vous” from now on if you’d prefer…

P.S. My daddy grew up in Ohio, so I have an ancestral right to the use of “y’all”

 

[Dranu]

When, however, you then say “that person never understood their faith” that seems like a sort of ‘never-can-lose’ argument, just like OSAS.

If we believed all who fell out or sinned in any other way could only possibly be due to invincible ignorance, then ya, it does start to sound very similar to OSAS. If that’s, what you mean I largely agree.

Fortunately, we don’t hold that as a necessary truth, even if we’re uncertain on the number of damned. I suppose its internally consistent (maybe), and it doesn’t necessarily imply that those who stay Catholic truly understand the faith. However, it seems to remove all seriousness of the threat of schism, heresy, apostasy, and sin in general, and this does seem counter to a long line of Tradition. Furthermore, I have too little faith in mankind to think that invincible ignorance is even close to being a universal thing. I think its more common in heresy and schisms than some other sin (especially in this age), but I do not think it is close to being universal.

Of course you would be wrong to say our teachings on mortal sin, heresy, and schism (even if they hold the possibility for invincible ignorance) are very similar to OSAS teachings (i.e. our teachings on these subjects are not vacuous and meaningless in practice). However, perhaps you never meant to imply that.

Fine. Better than fine, awesome, that’s standing firm on your teachings and actually believing them and following them through, IMO

Although I am inclined to think the believers in near universal invincible ignorance are wrong and potentially in violation of Tradition, I am not prepared to call them heretics since it still seems possibly consistent. Therefore, I think its possible that they are standing firm.

Therefore, I think it would be a rash judgment to say I am certainly standing firm and they are not.

As you may note, this means I am a Catholic who does not fully know my faith . I still think that, even now, I can commit schism without invincible ignorance. I only need to act against some of what my better reason clearly tells me.

THEY’RE the ones who deprive me of the ability of an English word that encompasses a larger group than an individual!

So true. Y’all is simply better grammar . I also noticed you used the term whole hog, which I believe is also a Southern thing .

 

[Dranu]

Rawb:

This is drifting off topic though, and to be honest, isn’t a very interesting thread of thought.

At any rate, I would also like to get back to our original discussion. That is, how one can believe the Church is the one Church and still commit mortally sinful schism. Here are some ideas I have thought of, and they are potentially interconnected (you may see one in the other):

**1.) **Choosing appearances to what they earnestly thought was true. This is one of the most common causes of sin in my opinion, and it comes in all sorts of forms. For example, perhaps certain liturgies psychologically produce intense nostalgia, and the person is unwilling to give up that gloriously good surface feature for what they think is most likely the truth (Here I think of some of the so-called traditionalist schismatics). Surely you have experienced strong temptation (even if you resisted it) where you realize something is wrong yet you want to rationalize and suppress that clarity so you may enjoy the surface appearances.

**2.)**Choosing pleasure or avoidance of pain to what they think is true. Pain and pleasure can come in many forms. For instance, it can be very painful to submit oneself to doctrines that require a complete change in lifestyle. Thus, one may transfer to another church even while thinking they are probably rejecting what is right (e.g. Catholicism to Episcopalianism for the teachings on contraception). Assuming the sin is mortal, to sooth their conscience, perhaps they take comfort from the uncertainty of faith itself and the noise of the world scorning the Church for her beliefs.

3.) Lack of humility by inordinate attachment to personal beliefs. This is a peculiar one since it seems to cloak itself in its own justification. Perhaps one finds a belief that contradicts their preconceived notions of what is good and are unwilling to detach from that belief. Assuming it is really sinful pride, one has awareness that they are being rash in sticking to the belief. Despite this awareness, it is very hard to detach from since pride brings a strong sense of self-identification with the issue. This may strongly make one feel quasi-justified (and surely they can give hundreds of reasons to support it too) even though their own honest awareness to inordinate attachment potentially opens them up to mortal sin. I liken this sensation to the sort of quasi-justification unrighteous anger often brings with it, without necessarily all the rage. This is where serious dying to self-occurs and I fear many will not follow Christ there.
Note: I’m inclined to mention this one, and I think this one has been a temptation to me before with a certain issue. However, I write this from a hazy memory of a threat to my faith, trying to think of my state of mind at that time, so the whole psychological explanation of it all may be a tad off.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Rawb

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

Actually, invincible ignorance has a VERY narrow definition. So I doubt it applies to a lot of people.

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?

Perhaps you misunderstand. Invincible ignorance is a condition recognized by the Catholic Church that can exist. The Catholic Church understands that it has no authority to judge the hearts and secret thoughts of men - only God can do that. The Catholic Church does not say who has or does not have invincible ignorance. She only affirms that if invincible ignorance exists in a person, that person is not culpable for an action that might otherwise be considered a mortal sin, which is only done with full knowledge and consent.

But please understand this:
(1) Even if a person has invincible ignorance, a person who leaves the Catholic Church or remains out of her due to malice or anger is still culpable before God.
(2) A person who leaves the Catholic Church or remains out of her due to affected ignorance (ignorance that is purposeful for some reason or other) is still culpable before God.

It’s possible that many or most people fall in these two categories, and are thus culpable for the mortal sin of schism. For example, in category (1), I’ve met priests who left the Latin Catholic Church just so they can get married. They have become angry and bitter towards the Church, and do everything they can to oppose her. In category (2), I’ve met Catholic reverts who left the Church for some reason or other, and admitted that during their journey away from the Church, they did everything they could to purposfully and consciously justify and rationalize their having left the Church, including opposing her doctrines. By God’s Grace, they came back to the Church.

Why would anyone ever commit a sin if they *truly *understood that it meant utter separation from God?

Seriously? You’ve never given in to temptation in your entire life? And even with full knowledge of the commandments of God, you have not broken a single one of them? I am admittedly jealous of your holiness, brother Rawb.

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).

Did you know that breaking any of the 10 commandments is a mortal sin? Seriously - how many Christians do you know are not aware of the 10 commandments? You’ve never met anyone who has blasphemed the name of God? You’ve never met anyone who has made a creature or a created thing more important in their life than God? You’ve never met anyone who has committed adultery? Etc. Etc. I don’t understand how you can claim that mortal sin is so rare by the definition proposed here. Can you please explain your position a bit more?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

I think what happens with people who assume that someone who has rejected Catholicism must be “invincibly ignorant” is that the belief that is is not possible to be sincerely searching for Truth, have the opportunity to study Catholicism, and decide that it is wrong. Their assumption is that the rational grounds for it are so overwhelming that no one could understand them and reject them. One must be ignorant, or insincere in some way.

If that were not the case, it opens a real can of worms in that it would mean that it is possible to know or understand the Catholic position, really be looking for truth, and then come to the conclusion it isn’t true. Some people find that very scary.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Bluegoat,

I think what happens with people who assume that someone who has rejected Catholicism must be “invincibly ignorant” is that the belief that it is not possible to be sincerely searching for Truth,

That’s the exact opposite of what “invincible ignorance” means. Invincible ignorance assumes sincerity on the part who does not believe. So I don’t know what the basis of your opinion is. Is it just a feeling, or have you actually studied what the definition of “invincible ignorance” is?

have the opportunity to study Catholicism, and decide that it is wrong.

That’s not true, at least from what I’ve experienced. For example, someone who leaves the Catholic Faith for a non-Christian religion or for Protestantism or even become atheists may very well fully understand what Catholicism teaches, yet consciously reject the Truth of those doctrines. I believe such people are either apostates or heretics. Yet, there may be those who leave the Catholic Faith for a non-Christian religion or for Protestantism or become athiests who left not fully understanding Catholicism. These are the types that could possibly be considered “invincibly ignorant.” The situation with the Apostolic Churches is different, I sincerely believe. The grounds for unity are so close that it is hard to beleive that the separation is based on outright rejection. From personal experience, I’ve yet to meet anyone who left the Catholic Church for another Apostolic Church who displays a true understanding of the Catholic Faith, as evinced by the debates that go on here in CAF, and in other websites that I’ve lurked at or participated in. On the other hand, I’ve met some who seem to have absolutely no knowledge of Catholicism, yet display a seeming hatred for it. Only God can judge those people. Invincible ignorance does not mitigate the sin of hatred or prejudice.

Their assumption is that the rational grounds for it are so overwhelming that no one could understand them and reject them.

As indicated above, it is possible to fully understand and also reject.

One must be ignorant, or insincere in some way.

I sense you are using “ignorant” in the sense of “stupid.” If so, your statement here is the diametrical opposite of what “invincible ignorance” means, so I don’t know how you come to this conclusion.

If that were not the case, it opens a real can of worms in that it would mean that it is possible to know or understand the Catholic position, really be looking for truth, and then come to the conclusion it isn’t true. Some people find that very scary.

Yes. I believe there is a genuine prospect for judgment for those who leave Catholicism for atheism, Protestantism, or a non-Christian religion (though as indicated above, it is still possible that people leave Catholicism for these groups by virtue of invincible ignorance). I believe it is much, much less likely that one who leaves the Catholic Church for another Apostolic Church will be prone to the judgment of God, though it is possible that even these can be subject to the judgment of God for hatred or prejudice against the Catholic Faith.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

I wasn’t trying to give a definition of anything. I was suggesting why people feel that those who they think are sincere but reject Catholicism must lack understanding.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Dear sister Bluegoat,

That’s the exact opposite of what “invincible ignorance” means. Invincible ignorance assumes sincerity on the part who does not believe. So I don’t know what the basis of your opinion is. Is it just a feeling, or have you actually studied what the definition of “invincible ignorance” is?

That’s not true, at least from what I’ve experienced. For example, someone who leaves the Catholic Faith for a non-Christian religion or for Protestantism or even become atheists may very well fully understand what Catholicism teaches, yet consciously reject the Truth of those doctrines. I believe such people are either apostates or heretics. Yet, there may be those who leave the Catholic Faith for a non-Christian religion or for Protestantism or become athiests who left not fully understanding Catholicism. These are the types that could possibly be considered “invincibly ignorant.” The situation with the Apostolic Churches is different, I sincerely believe. The grounds for unity are so close that it is hard to beleive that the separation is based on outright rejection. From personal experience, I’ve yet to meet anyone who left the Catholic Church for another Apostolic Church who displays a true understanding of the Catholic Faith, as evinced by the debates that go on here in CAF, and in other websites that I’ve lurked at or participated in. On the other hand, I’ve met some who seem to have absolutely no knowledge of Catholicism, yet display a seeming hatred for it. Only God can judge those people. Invincible ignorance does not mitigate the sin of hatred or prejudice.

As indicated above, it is possible to fully understand and also reject.

I sense you are using “ignorant” in the sense of “stupid.” If so, your statement here is the diametrical opposite of what “invincible ignorance” means, so I don’t know how you come to this conclusion.

Yes. I believe there is a genuine prospect for judgment for those who leave Catholicism for atheism, Protestantism, or a non-Christian religion (though as indicated above, it is still possible that people leave Catholicism for these groups by virtue of invincible ignorance). I believe it is much, much less likely that one who leaves the Catholic Church for another Apostolic Church will be prone to the judgment of God, though it is possible that even these can be subject to the judgment of God for hatred or prejudice against the Catholic Faith.

Blessings,
Marduk

Agreed. We know that protestants study and know the CC, yet they reject her. Besides, since the beginning of the Church, the mision was to bring people into the Church. these people had no idea about God or what the Church was talking about, yet they accept and learned the Faith. that is called faith and believe in teh Church. Today, people try to reasoning their way away from the Church by making all kinds of excuses. I dont remember teh Apostles making any excuses for those who left the Church or reject her teachings. If anybody has please post the passages.

 

[Dranu]

Bluegoat:

I think what happens with people who assume that someone who has rejected Catholicism must be “invincibly ignorant” is that the belief that is is not possible to be sincerely searching for Truth, have the opportunity to study Catholicism, and decide that it is wrong.

That’s the exact opposite of what “invincible ignorance” means. Invincible ignorance assumes sincerity on the part who does not believe.

Exactly! Potentially, some super-scholar of the religion. who rejects it. may still be invincibly ignorant.

 

[Rawb]

Actually, invincible ignorance has a VERY narrow definition. So I doubt it applies to a lot of people.

I said by the definition given in the post I was responding to, or the general way in which it is used by Roman Catholics, it is very rare. How rare it is in real life is y’all’s concern, it doesn’t effect me one way or the other.

It’s possible that many or most people fall in these two categories, and are thus culpable for the mortal sin of schism. For example…

That’s fine if y’all believe it. All I was saying is that A) The definition given in a post on this thread (which is how it is used often by Roman Catholics on this forum and in life, despite whatever official definition you all have) makes schism and mortal sin so rare that it is non-existant, but that only applies to the definition in this thread earlier and the way y’all use it. If you have issues with how it’s being used take it up with your fellow Catholics, not me. B) If you tell someone they’re “invincibly ignorant” despite your official definition and the fact that I know you mean it charitably, they’re going to take offense to it. I don’t care if you offend all your potential converts so do as you like.

Seriously? You’ve never given in to temptation in your entire life? And even with full knowledge of the commandments of God, you have not broken a single one of them? I am admittedly jealous of your holiness, brother Rawb.

That’s not what I said. I said, by the definition used, in that post, of how one “truly knows something” that hardly anybody has ever ‘mortally sinned’ or gone into schism. It’s only referring to that one post. The poster was implying a necessary level of understanding as a prerequisite to being able to commit a mortal sin or schism that was so high as to render it obsolete.

 

[Dranu]

mardukm:

You’ve never given in to temptation in your entire life? And even with full knowledge of the commandments of God

That’s not what I said. I said, by the definition used, in that post,of how one “truly knows something” that hardly anybody has ever ‘mortally sinned’ or gone into schism.

Again, if you are referring to post #14, you are wrong. Even if that’s the definition of mortal sin (and it pretty much is), there are many who have mortally sinned by that definition. I believe Mardukm’s post, that you are here responding to, is assuming the same definition of post #14, and I have provided you with three examples which all fit this definition in post #14. The definition is hardly vacuous, and thus many people have possibly fallen into ‘mortal sin’ and ‘schism’.