R
ReaderT
Guest
Last edited:
- Status
G
Genesis315
Guest
EO’s not believing in mortal sin appears to be a novelty.
From an old EO Catechism (approved by the big four patriarchates in synod to be used everywhere):
He even shows how they often describe more degrees and categories than just mortal and venial (aka “pardonable”) with an example:
From an old EO Catechism (approved by the big four patriarchates in synod to be used everywhere):
after discussing original sin, it continues:
In St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite’s Exomologetarion (one of the most important Orthodox books on confession), he defines mortal sins as “those voluntary sins which either corrupt the love for God alone, or the love for neighbor and for God, and which render again the one committing them an enemy of God and liable to the eternal death of hell.”
He even shows how they often describe more degrees and categories than just mortal and venial (aka “pardonable”) with an example:
He cites an Eastern saint from the 6th century:
Last edited:
P
pacloc
Guest
I think the Orthodox that think sin is sin converted from Protestantism or their country has really been influenced by Protestantism. Fortunately the Slavic Orthodox Churches have not been so quick to adopt such a heretical idea of sin. I’ve visited one of the 18 Greek Monasteries founded by Elder Ephraim, and the Abbot clearly directed me that if I have not committed a grave/mortal sin that I can go to communion even if I committed a lesser sin that very day. So while many Greek Orthodox seem to think this new way of sin is sin, the ones with direction from Elders from Mt. Athos have retained the true understanding that we pretty much share with the RCC.
S
steve-b
Guest
May I just say, Schism is a mortal sin. That is never OK.
Also
Here is a valuable paragraph from Lumen Gentium (Vat II) that talks about the need to be in and stay in the Catholic Church. It comes from Scripture and Tradition (scripture follows)
- *This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. *
From : http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Whosoever covers everybody on the planet
"would refuse to enter or to remain in it, " = IOW , those “outside” now, or won’t remain “in” covers everyone, Catholic or Non Caholic
therefore,
they could not be saved
THAT is why you don’t want to think going to Orthodoxy is OK. The Church Jesus established on Peter and those in perfect union with Peter, is the Catholic Church. It’s been that name since the 1st century
Gal 5:19-21
The Greek word for dissension in that list of sins is schism. And see the consequences if one stays that way? They won’t inherit heaven. As in they go to hell.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
I think the Latin Church has definitely shifted the emphasis more towards the medicinal approach since Vatican II. Outside of very traditionalist circles, priests have moved away from the overly judicial approach to sacrament of reconciliation.
S
steve-b
Guest
Trying to placate the Orthodox is going nowhere. The Russians, approx 60 - 70% of Orthodoxy went int schism from the (EC) the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople which doesn’t exist anymore. It’s Istanbul now.
Meaning the consequence of a lack of authority within E Orthodoxy is happening.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
We Catholics have a binding obligation to protect our faith and remain in full communion with it. We read in the Catechism about error, including that of autonomy.
Catechism:
R
rosejmj
Guest
I believe the Orthodox Church is part of THE CHURCH. The main problem for you is that they dont follow the pope, but I think that the role and authority of the pope should not be much different than that of any bishop most of the time. The Orthodox also view him as bishop
T
tafan2
Guest
Do they? I asked a couple of weeks ago if the EO accept Catholic sacraments, and Holy Orders and was given conflicting information. It’s like the question about mortal sin, our resident EC states it’s not really a think to separate sin by severity, it’s all about medical vs judicial. But the we have a post quoting an EO catechism that contradicts him. I am confused. @dochawk ???
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Yet Here is the definition of schism.
From the CCC
2089 schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
So while those Docs mentioned above, avoid using schism, the reality and the definition of that term and division, is there
From UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO
…….the Council hopes that the barrier dividing the Eastern Church and Western Church will be removed, and that at last there may be but the one dwelling, firmly established on Christ Jesus, the cornerstone, who will make both one.(38)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
BTW the Russians have gone into schism (yes schism) with the rest of Orthodoxy. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople Russians as I’ve been told, make up approx 60-70% of Orthodoxy.
From UT UNUM SINT
98.
….it is also true that she must face the difficulties which derive from the lack of unity. When non-believers meet missionaries who do not agree among themselves, even though they all appeal to Christ, will they be in a position to receive the true message? Will they not think that the Gospel is a cause of division, despite the fact that it is presented as the fundamental law of love?
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...ments/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html
From Balamand (Dialogue)7th Plenary Session
- Whatever may have been the intention and the authenticity of the desire to be faithful to the commandment of Christ: “that all may be one” expressed in these partial unions with the See of Rome, it must be recognized that the reestablishment of unity between the Church of the East and the Church of the West was not achieved and that the division remains, embittered by these attempts.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...s/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html
Last edited:
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Your first error is thinking that the Eastern Churches “split”. Not even the Catholic Church teaches that. As Unitatis redintegratio (the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism) notes, the estrangement was mutual, and there was plenty of blame to go around. Moreover, the same decree, together with numerous other documents since then, notes that the Orthodox Churches are true Churches in every respect of the term, which means that the division is within, not from, the Body of Christ. So, since the split was mutual, and both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have maintained the fullness of their respective Traditions, there can be no question of an ecumenism of “return”, since nobody left; the Eastern Churches were never “under” Rome, nor was the Church of Rome ever subordinate to anyone. There was never real unity, but there was communion, a mutual sharing of gifts and mutual deference. We seek to restore that communion, not to impose Roman supremacy on the East, or Eastern spirituality upon the West.
ZP
ZP
S
steve-b
Guest
then Card Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI, said the following, (approved by Pope John Paul II in the Audience of June 9, 2000. )
The whole idea of Pentarchy, and 1st among equals, started in the East. No pope ever accepted that.
- "In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[1]
- The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.
. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
Thay’s the way Jesus set His Church up.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
The objections I hear are about the Pope having jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. And as a Catholic we are held to the dogma of faith expressed at Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 1:
R
rosejmj
Guest
Well then according to you in going to hell. But I don’t really believe it all. I need to do some research on it and on the role of the pope. Because im not sure the way it is now is the way God intended it to be from the beginning
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
And what of the Chieti Document which states that the Pope of Rime never exercised authority over the Churches of the East? I know your response will be that Chieti is not a “magisterial document.” However, the Catholic delegation is headed by the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity, who is the Vatican’s chief ecumenical officer, and the statement is vetted by the Pope and the Praefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
ZP
ZP
D
dochawk
Guest
No.
Just, no.
This is a misunderstanding of how Eastern thinking works.
It is very hard to get a single authoritative view from the East, short of the small number of Ecumenical councils.
And that documents very much not old. For crying out loud, it’s 18th century.
To Eastern thought, if it came after the introduction of the spoon, it’s recent.
Again, while you can find writings from the East about “mortal sin:”, they are oddities in the sea of happy inspecification in the context of not drawing such a distinction. Being bothered by this is quite western, not eastern. *shrug*
Movement is very much there, but it’s going to be tough to get to the finish line while still speaking in traditional latin terms.
I think it needs to happen, but I don’t see the path (yet the Holy Spirt will show it over time . . .)
It would hardly be Eastern to commit to a single opinion for one person, now would it?
:crazy_face:The Orthodox are all over the board on this, even within an individual church (or even member thereof).
There is kind of, sort of, a consensus that if the RCC returned to consensus, its orders and sacraments would become, even retroactively, efficacious. Within that, there would appear to be a majority opinion that an individual priest transitioning achieves effective orders which he may or may not have had before, by acceptance into orthodoxy, and an acceptance of RCC baptism for individuals. Chrysmation isn’t quite as clear or universal (with an apparent exception for clergy)–but some Orthodox, not entirely by church, will Chrysmate again after excommunication [itself also different, largely being rehabilitative rather than disciplinary] or some other lapses, even without changing church.
I think we can fairly generalize that most Orthodox accept that there is some kind of potentiality in which RCC orders would become effective in the case of union. They are all over the board as to the effectiveness outside of communion (and we could argue all night over whether “effective” or some other word should be used . . .)
D
dochawk
Guest
Join the club. If we had explicit answers, we wouldn’t be Eastern, now would we
:crazy_face: (and, yes, I just came from a nonprofit board meeting at which others were pulling hair over my lawyerly statements that there weren’t clear answers . . .)(and, all in all, I think that @ziapueblo is giving better answers to this than I have . . . mine have much more a western tint, I think, which inherently confuses things . . .)
hawk
T
twf
Guest
I don’t necessarily disagree that the shift should happen… but you do realize how offended you would be if a Latin said the East needs to shift towards a more Western perspective.
Not offended… and mostly in agreement… but thought I should point that out. The Latin Church has been actively learning from the East since Vatican II. I suppose the key difference is the Latin Church’s sheer size prevents any fears of it being absorbed into the Eastern tradition.
Not offended… and mostly in agreement… but thought I should point that out. The Latin Church has been actively learning from the East since Vatican II. I suppose the key difference is the Latin Church’s sheer size prevents any fears of it being absorbed into the Eastern tradition.
V
Vico
Guest
There is no judgement of you in my post so I don’t know why you post “going to hell”. A person must be finally impenitent to suffer condemnation. But I understand that you do not believe the dogma.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ludwig Ott) pp. 279-280, on the de fide dogma:
S
steve-b
Guest
regarding that Document, just a few thoughts
It’s a dialogue. And, in that dialogue, one “see” is considered the succession of Peter. That is the See of Rome.
It talks about the Orthodox 'Church". There is no ONE over the Orthodox. They aren’t ONE Church. So they are churches, but not “ONE Church”. So each one has to be dealt with individually according to their development
It talks about 5 sees, with Rome at the top of the list of “sees” because that’s Peter’s see. To which I ask, Is that all Peter was with Jesus, 1st in honor? He wasn’t the head of the Church?
Then we have to consider The Russians…(not mentioned). They aren’t having any of this. And they went into schism with the rest of Orthodoxy . http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople
Gee go figure, an issue over authority…
Russians as I’ve been told, correct me if I’m wrong, make up approx 60-70% of Orthodoxy.
So
as a dialogue, Chieti , with respect to Orthodoxy, seems to be in big trouble
Just thinking out loud
Last edited:
- Status