Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[Alexander_Roman]

Many don’t want to go.

Take, for instance, the largest of all the eastern Catholic churches - the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, with millions of members. Try sending them back to their “mother EO church” and see where that gets you…

Other examples abound of eastern Catholic churches with unique situations:

The Melkites can possibly legitimately be viewed as having the true claim to the patriarchate of Antioch; the Melkite Greek Catholic Church was not formed in a “uniate” manner.

The Syriac Maronite Church of Antioch doesn’t even have an Orthodox counterpart.

Historically, what is now the Italo-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church was in Latin territories anyway and so wasn’t originally self-governing at all. Canonically, no Orthodox church could legally absorb them in a way that makes sense.

The Chaldean Catholic Church and the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church are each actually significantly larger than their non-Catholic counterpart, the Assyrian Church of the East.

… And the list goes on. Even for the churches that don’t have a special situation like those above, “sending them back to their mother churches” isn’t feasible, because their members want to be in communion with Rome. Those who don’t - for whatever reason - are free to switch to an Orthodox community, and sometimes do.

“Sending them back to their mother churches” before their mother churches are willing to be in communion with us would effectively be kicking them out of communion with the pope when they have done no wrong.

For the record, I only said that thing about sending them back in a rhetorical way.

Of course, the UGCC has more than one “Mother Orthodox Church” to choose from. UGCCers may, in future, decide to unite with Ukrainian Orthodox once they get their collective act together. The, for want of a better term, “Latin” section of the UGCC won’t be interested in any of this. The point is that Rome is repenting of its historic Uniate activities and the current EC Churches serve as a reminder of that whenever Rome talks to the Orthodox.

I believe Pope Benedict recently told an ROC leader that the Catholic Church has “inherited” the EC Churches (i.e. “Don’t blame us today, we inherited the uniates”).

Ultimately, the EC’s will reunite with Orthodoxy, in one way or another and obviously when Orthodoxy and Rome are one, however they decide that unity to be constituted. Orthodoxy is not moving toward the EC’s in any form of uniatism.

Alex

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

few Qs

has EO and RC agreed not to create anymore Eastern Cath churches?

Yes.

What does Rome do with or expect from EO christians that want to be united to Rome nowadays?

They are perfectly free to translate into the Catholic Church. They are typically expected to join the self-governing Catholic church that most closely corresponds to their Orthodox church of origin. For instance, an Antiochian Orthodox Christian seeking communion with Rome would enter the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. An Oriental Coptic Orthodox Christian would enter the Coptic Catholic Church.

Does Rome desire for them to stay where they are in EO ,or for them to cross over individually to the existing EC churches? or is individual conversions discouraged also

I don’t have sources for this at present - so others, please correct me if I’m wrong - but I believe that Rome neither encourages nor discourages Orthodox Christians from translating to eastern Catholic churches. If individuals or families want to do so, it would be wrong not to permit them to come. The Catholic Church is firmly against proselytizing them, however, so no, we never go out of our way to try to get Orthodox Christians to join eastern Catholic churches.

i think i read in the statements between EO and RC that each church shouldnt try to sheep steal or convert individual members …would that be right?

Yes, that’s definitely right.

Those who already are eastern Catholics, however, have certain rights within the Church, and one of those rights is to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff if they wish, and if they are orthodox.

If Rome is becoming more accepting of Orthodoxy considering it valid etc ,then would it matter if these ECs went back to EO?

The jury’s out on that one.

On an external level, an eastern Catholic who becomes eastern Orthodox will still have the orthodox faith, the Sacraments, and membership in a true church; however, they will now lack communion with the pope of Rome, which the Catholic Church considers to be intrinsically important.

It’s for wiser men and women than I to comment on the benefits vs. the risks of such a translation. If they honestly believe they are following the truth, however, then because the Orthodox have orthodoxy and valid Sacraments, I can’t imagine any way in which such a person’s soul could possibly be in jeopardy due to his or her translation to the eastern Orthodox Church.

The point is that Rome is repenting of its historic Uniate activities, [and] Orthodoxy is not moving toward the EC’s in any form of uniatism.

Absolutely.

I was just attempting to balance the scales a bit, since any rhetoric about “sending 'em back” and such comes dangerously close to ignoring the fact that, with the way things stand as they are, eastern Christians who profess everything the Catholic Church teaches and seek full communion with the Roman Pontiff, have a right to be in communion with him.

 

[Hesychios]

Honestly, I don’t know about this. The Catholic Church places much emphasis by saying St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. If Peter never was, then the doctrine of the Papacy falls apart really.

…

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxnAetAqNmp92aq2zeNdjUPOBqXx4Bdkmt6CFlbV0wiJnvPEw4

 

[DadDave]

…

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxnAetAqNmp92aq2zeNdjUPOBqXx4Bdkmt6CFlbV0wiJnvPEw4

Paper tiger?

 

[Art321]

…

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxnAetAqNmp92aq2zeNdjUPOBqXx4Bdkmt6CFlbV0wiJnvPEw4

Huh? I don’t understand what you are trying to say.

 

[hazcompat]

in qua unica Cathedra uniias alt omnibus servaretur.
This is the doctrine so often and so clearly expressed by St. Cyprian, cf. e.g. Una ecclesia a Christo Domino nostro super Petrum, origine unitatis et ratione fundata (Ep. Ixx, 3), and Petro primum Dominus, super quern aedificavit Ecclesiam, et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit (Ep. Ixxiii, 3), and
Deus unus est et Christus unus, et una Ecclesia, et Cathedra una, super Petrum Domini voce fundata (xliii, 5) .

WORK OF ST. OPTATUS
BISHOP OF MILEVIS
AGAINST THE DONATISTS

peace

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Yes.

They are perfectly free …

thanks

i think i got proselytizing and people converting of their will mixed up…

but for people who do convert to either side i wonder if it usually took some influence from the other side

Like when i converted to EO years ago ,my greek friend/sponser didnt encourage me to stay where i was at RC,he was all for me converting to EO,as was his greek priest also

isnt there rules/statements about not converting the other side,shouldnt both sides encourage and send the person back to his original church and not ‘steal’ them?

God bless

 

[hazcompat]

…

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxnAetAqNmp92aq2zeNdjUPOBqXx4Bdkmt6CFlbV0wiJnvPEw4

He is implying you let the cat out of the bag.

peace

 

[Art321]

He is implying you let the cat out of the bag.

peace

Which would mean… what exactly?

 

[Peter_J]

Why doesnt Rome send them back to their mother EO churches then?

This way of thinking is extremely problematic. Despite a certain closeness between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, switching from one to the other is an extremely weighty matter. I don’t encourage anyone who is Catholic to convert to Orthodoxy – although certainly I respect the free choice of those who do so. (Note: In view of more recent comments, especially what you said in #265, let me add that I’m saying this as a Catholic. If I were Orthodox I would presumably encourage Catholics to swim the Bosphorus.)

What your suggesting here, not even just to encourage ECs to swim the Bosphorus but to “send them back”, would be outrageous.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

What your suggesting here, not even just to encourage ECs to swim the Bosphorus but to “send them back”, would be outrageous.

If uniatism has been made unacceptable nowadays,why not make up for the errors of the past by undoing them ?

if it is wrong now ,then should it all have been done in the first place?

normally if i steal something,first its good to realise my wrong and decide to stop and then a noble thing to do would to give what ive stolen back to the owner:blush:

i know people have a will of their own unlike stolen goods,but for RC to agree not to convert EO churches members anymore ,it must assume that EO can offer salvation also,otherwise Rome wouldnt hesistate to convert Eastern ‘Orthodox’ christians who they would assume are in jeopardy of losing their salvation by remaining in EO

is not being united to the Pope going to cause the loss of their salvation?

 

[Vico]

If uniatism has been made unacceptable nowadays,why not make up for the errors of the past by undoing them ?

if it is wrong now ,then should it all have been done in the first place?

normally if i steal something,first its good to realise my wrong and decide to stop and then a noble thing to do would to give what ive stolen back to the owner:blush:

i know people have a will of their own unlike stolen goods,but for RC to agree not to convert EO churches members anymore ,it must assume that EO can offer salvation also,otherwise Rome wouldnt hesistate to convert Eastern ‘Orthodox’ christians who they would assume are in jeopardy of losing their salvation by remaining in EO

is not being united to the Pope going to cause the loss of their salvation?

Sometimes.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

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.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Sometimes.

]

for EO?

If it did why would Rome agree not to convert them?

seems EO must be fine where they are…

 

[Vico]

for EO?

If it did why would Rome agree not to convert them?

seems EO must be fine where they are…

If a Catholic left the Catholic Church to join the Orthodox Church and is was not a case of invincible ignorance, then it would be a grave matter.

If one is raised in an Orthodox Church it can be invincible ignorance that keeps one from full communion with the Catholic Church.

And from CCC:

**Who belongs to the Catholic Church? **
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320
837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

 

[Marybeloved]

If a Catholic left the Catholic Church to join the Orthodox Church and is was not a case of invincible ignorance, then it would be a grave matter.

If one is raised in an Orthodox Church it can be invincible ignorance that keeps one from full communion with the Catholic Church.

And from CCC:

**Who belongs to the Catholic Church? **
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320
837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

Yes, Vico, I’ve always wondered this myself.

I know that our Lord, when he took Adam’s place, became in a way united with all of humanity, yes? But Baptism somehow makes us one with him in a different way than other people. And full communion with the visible church while being in a state of grace (not being in sin) makes us most “at one” with him while on Earth but most especially at receiving communion (Eucharist). But even more so as we become Saints and finally most completely so in Heaven. But we know that the church is really the Body of Christ, yes? So can’t we say that what is true of Christ is true of the Church? That all humanity in greatly differing degrees, belong to the Church per the merit of the incarnation of God and his sacrifice, unless they deliberately cut themselves off by rejection of truth and of God (That is, by refusing to find and seek truth upon reaching the age of reason and upon finding the resources to do so or somehow rejecting that truth once discovered for different reasons)? Or that they all start life with the means and resources to achieve this full communion,per virtue of their imperfect union with the incarnated Word of God.

Personally I think that this is the only way to reconcile the truths that say:God became man to save us all, That Jesus is the only way of salvation, that there is a possibility of salvation outside visible communion with the church. Those who are saved without baptism, like babies and other innocent souls due to invincible ignorance, will only be saved because of their unity with the incarnated God that they got at his incarnation, or their lack of fault in their lack of full unity with God somehow permits God’s full grace to reach them in their place where they are, and to save them? It has many problems, this theory, but I think that the incarnation gives us sufficient grounds for it. Since our oneness with Adam is not optional though it’s incomplete and does not interfere with free will, why can’t our oneness with the second Adam also be similarly automatic but not complete (Becoming complete only with sacraments, full membership of the church and finally sanctity)? So that when you’re born, you start automatically enrolled on the road to full oneness with Christ in his church unless you opt out of union with him at some point?

This also makes sense why we say the choice is open to all (Remember even to choose God, you must already have grace)- Since all grace comes to us only from Christ and none else. The grace would be available to each soul by virtue of this imperfect union with Christ that all humanity has, no? It also makes sense of the sin against the spirit, pharaoh’s hardness of heart, why persistent rejection of grace in a way that amounts to a fundamental rejection of Christ/God/truth can pit someone in a state where repentance is virtually impossible (since you destroy the imperfect unity with Christ where you get all graces to seek and find God in all his fullness) apart from some extraordinary intervention of God as God.

What do you think?

Blessings,
I love Mary!

 

[Vico]

Yes, Vico, I’ve always wondered this myself.

I know that our Lord, when he took Adam’s place, became in a way united with all of humanity, yes? But Baptism somehow makes us one with him in a different way than other people. And full communion with the visible church while being in a state of grace (not being in sin) makes us most “at one” with him while on Earth but most especially at receiving communion (Eucharist). But even more so as we become Saints and finally most completely so in Heaven. But we know that the church is really the Body of Christ, yes? So can’t we say that what is true of Christ is true of the Church? That all humanity in greatly differing degrees, belong to the Church per the merit of the incarnation of God and his sacrifice, unless they deliberately cut themselves off by rejection of truth and of God (That is, by refusing to find and seek truth upon reaching the age of reason and upon finding the resources to do so or somehow rejecting that truth once discovered for different reasons)? Or that they all start life with the means and resources to achieve this full communion,per virtue of their imperfect union with the incarnated Word of God.

Personally I think that this is the only way to reconcile the truths that say:God became man to save us all, That Jesus is the only way of salvation, that there is a possibility of salvation outside visible communion with the church. Those who are saved without baptism, like babies and other innocent souls due to invincible ignorance, will only be saved because of their unity with the incarnated God that they got at his incarnation, or their lack of fault in their lack of full unity with God somehow permits God’s full grace to reach them in their place where they are, and to save them? It has many problems, this theory, but I think that the incarnation gives us sufficient grounds for it. Since our oneness with Adam is not optional though it’s incomplete and does not interfere with free will, why can’t our oneness with the second Adam also be similarly automatic but not complete (Becoming complete only with sacraments, full membership of the church and finally sanctity)? So that when you’re born, you start automatically enrolled on the road to full oneness with Christ in his church unless you opt out of union with him at some point?

This also makes sense why we say the choice is open to all (Remember even to choose God, you must already have grace)- Since all grace comes to us only from Christ and none else. The grace would be available to each soul by virtue of this imperfect union with Christ that all humanity has, no? It also makes sense of the sin against the spirit, pharaoh’s hardness of heart, why persistent rejection of grace in a way that amounts to a fundamental rejection of Christ/God/truth can pit someone in a state where repentance is virtually impossible (since you destroy the imperfect unity with Christ where you get all graces to seek and find God in all his fullness) apart from some extraordinary intervention of God as God.

What do you think?

Blessings,
I love Mary!

… became in a way united with all of humanity, yes?
His great love for mankind!
… the church is really the Body of Christ, yes?
Certainly.
… all humanity in differing degrees, belong to the Church per the merit of the incarnation of God and his sacrifice …
I think all that will ultimately be saved are the Church. But then there is also the visible Church which appears smaller. Ultimately there must to be baptism of water, blood, or desire, to be certain of God’s promise, yet with a founded hope for the unbaptized, since God is good and loves mankind. Scripturally there is heaven and various unequal underworld states: for the damned, for the just (as before Holy Friday), and for the unbaptized infants. There still would need to be theosis in the next life proportional to the virtue we expressed through our cooperation with God, for this is also scriptural.

These are a natural question for anyone that has lost a loved one with the fear that final charity could be lacking. It is the finality that is hard to fathom. Yet we decide to cooperate or not after we have received the gift of the Holy Spirit (otherwise we have Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism).

What do you think?

 

[Loveolivia]

http://www.castoffdebt.comlol

 

[Marybeloved]

… became in a way united with all of humanity, yes?
His great love for mankind!
… the church is really the Body of Christ, yes?
Certainly.
… all humanity in differing degrees, belong to the Church per the merit of the incarnation of God and his sacrifice …
I think all that will ultimately be saved are the Church.

Yes,I think so too obviously. Everyone now in heaven or purgatory is a Catholic regardless of what they called themselves when they were on Earth! Everyone in Hell is outside the Church whatever they were on Earth.

But then there is also the visible Church which appears smaller.

Yes. And this Church is necessary for salvation! How to reconcile all this… ?

Ultimately there must to be baptism of water, blood, or desire, to be certain of God’s promise,

Yes, I’d say baptism of all these kinds makes one a member of the church

yet with a founded hope for the unbaptized, since God is good and loves mankind.

Yes, but for the babies or mentally incapacitated humans who cannot form a desire (Or maybe they can?), if they go to heaven, then they will have joined the Church, no? But to join the church some baptism must have occurred. Perhaps God just infuses grace into their souls as they have no impediment (They cannot reject grace). We may have a foundation for this belief in Roman Catholicism in the doctrine of the immaculate conception where God “baptized” the virgin at her conception without her consent, and how we also baptize babes without their consent. What I meant to say in my little theory above is that this “baptism” which makes God’s indwelling possible, belongs to all humans as of merit of incarnation, or rather is the inheritance of every human soul, due to the incarnation and sacrifice of our Lord, such that God always grants it to all of us, one way or another, at some point of our lives: Our conception, childhood, adulthood, even the moment of death, (And for the souls in the limbo of Abraham before Holy Friday as you said, it would be even after death) unless we reject it ourselves.

Scripturally there is heaven and various unequal underworld states: for the damned, for the just (as before Holy Friday), and for the unbaptized infants. There still would need to be theosis in the next life proportional to the virtue we expressed through our cooperation with God, for this is also scriptural.

Yes, there are certainly degrees even within heaven itself (none of us can ever have the place of Our Blessed Lady), and I remember reading that Judaism taught/teaches about several degrees of hell (which really amount to purgatory or limbo or the other states you mentioned, as they are all transitional apart from the last one, a permanent one which to Christians would be THE hell of damnation).

These are a natural question for anyone that has lost a loved one with the fear that final charity could be lacking. It is the finality that is hard to fathom.

It terrifies me to imagine that any human soul could be in Hell, yes :sad_yes:. The best thing to do is to pray that God saves us all, even the most obstinate ones among us.

Yet we decide to cooperate or not after we have received the gift of the Holy Spirit (otherwise we have Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism).

Yes, this is why I am tempted to believe that every human has some type of imperfect union with Christ while on this Earth, which gives them access to this grace/the action of the Holy Spirit which enables knowing, recognizing and choosing the truth.

Though it leads me to wonder about the souls before the incarnation and before the cross of our lord. how dd they get grace? Perhaps as we see hinted in a way, in the IC dogma, God did everything he did from after the fall of Adam and eve in Eden, (including his promise of salvation in the proto-evangelium of Genesis) to Noah, Abraham, the Covenant with the Hebrews, to Our Lady- IN VIEW of the merits of Christ, with Our Lady receiving the fullness of this graces. . The Scripture says that before the foundations of the World, Christ was already crucified. This may explain how any of them could say “Yes” to God and co-operate with him so fully, when Christ had not yet come, yet we know that ALL graces come to us from Christ and that NO one can say “Yes” to God without Grace.

Blessings,
I love Mary!

 

[Peter_J]

If uniatism has been made unacceptable nowadays,why not make up for the errors of the past by undoing them ?

if it is wrong now ,then should it all have been done in the first place?

normally if i steal something,first its good to realise my wrong and decide to stop and then a noble thing to do would to give what ive stolen back to the owner:blush:

i know people have a will of their own unlike stolen goods,

Indeed, the fact that ECs are *people *is key.

but for RC to agree not to convert EO churches members anymore ,

There’s never been an agreement not to convert EOs. Rather, Rome has rejected certain means of attaining conversion. (E.g. offering someone material rewards for converting.)

That doesn’t have much bearing on this matter anyhow: even if Rome did decide not to convert EO churches members anymore, that’s not the same as people who *are *Catholic converting to Orthodoxy.

To put all this in perspective, even the Sacred Community of Mount Athos (an Orthodox group that is strongly opposed to “ecumenism” toward anyone, whether OO, Catholic, or Protestant) does not call for “sending them back”, but rather for: “the complete withdrawal from Orthodox lands by the Uniate agents and propagandists of the Vatican; the incorporation of the so-called Uniate Churches and their subjection under the Church of Rome before the inauguration of the dialogue, because Unia and dialogue at the same time are irreconcilable.”

• Letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch Concerning the Balamand Agreement
  (emphasis added) Even that, however, is problematic.

 

[Peter_J]

If uniatism has been made unacceptable nowadays,why not make up for the errors of the past by undoing them ?

if it is wrong now ,then should it all have been done in the first place?

normally if i steal something,first its good to realise my wrong and decide to stop and then a noble thing to do would to give what ive stolen back to the owner:blush:

i know people have a will of their own unlike stolen goods,but for RC to agree not to convert EO churches members anymore ,it must assume that EO can offer salvation also,otherwise Rome wouldnt hesistate to convert Eastern ‘Orthodox’ christians who they would assume are in jeopardy of losing their salvation by remaining in EO

is not being united to the Pope going to cause the loss of their salvation?

Just imagine if I converted to Methodism or Pentecostalism, then generations later my descendants who are still Pentecostal are told by the appropriate Pentecostal authority “We realize now that our ancestors were wrong to proselytize your ancestor, who ought to have been left alone to follow his Catholic faith. So we’re giving you back: as of today you’re Catholic.”