Should I be Catholic or Orthodox?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nonzi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CathBoy1 said:
As far as I know, there has been no other proclamation in reference to their canonical status, yet he (Pope Benedict XVI) stopped short of calling them schismatic and never once said that “they were out”.
Although the situation is quite odd and has came very close to being considered schismatic in the past:
Click to expand...
If Society has no canonical status in the Church, they are not in the Church as society. If they are not under any Bishop in the Church, they are not in the Church. Basic Catholic ecclesiology… where everything derives from Pope and Bishops in communion with him.
CathBoy1 said:
It is a peculiar situation.
Click to expand...
It surely is.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
If Society has no canonical status in the Church, they are not in the Church as society.
Click to expand...
I completely understand how that follows, but the Society itself has never been declared schismatic, hence they (sspx) would not be considered outside the church either, that’s what makes the whole situation odd.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
If they are not under any Bishop in the Church, they are not in the Church. Basic Catholic ecclesiology… where everything derives from Pope and Bishops in communion with him.
Click to expand...
Well as I understand it, the SSPX have their own Bishops however to my understanding they were illicitly ordained and they were then excommunicated, later the excommunications were lifted so idk how the Bishops of the SSPX are viewed in the eyes of the church (after all the great schism began with an excommunication that was later lifted). I believe the Bishops of the SSPX views themselves in full communion and as I’ve noted the SSPX has never been declared schismatic.
 
CathBoy1 said:
Well as I understand it, the SSPX have their own Bishops
Click to expand...
Those Bishops do not have jurisdiction, hence they do not partake in governing the Church. They do have Bishops with valid orders but they do not really count towards submitting to Bishop in the Church. Even those Bishops would have to submit to their superiors anyway.
CathBoy1 said:
the Society itself has never been declared schismatic
Click to expand...
While that is true, it is not necessary for it to happen for one to be in schism. SSPX are very irregular, that is true. They are an exception to unity of Church in current age. Catholic ecclesiology is not centered around it, and it is more of a charity that they are perceived to be within Church by some.

However, Orthodox model is basically built around mutual communion that is not transitive. Russia vs Constantinople in current age is not sole situation like this- breaches of communion are outright common as one Eastern poster said here. They are largely based on political stuff too. It is unfortunate that it is this way, because this disunity in Orthodox Church also impacts dialogue with Catholic Church. In the end, I am still convinced that if SSPX are really exception to the rule that communion in Catholic Church is transitive (which again, I do think that it is because SSPX do not consider anyone in Catholic Church to NOT be in communion with them), Orthodox Church has it somewhat worse.
 
I am definitely not arguing that the situation isn’t worse in the EOC, just that we have a pretty similar situation on an admittedly (much) smaller scale.
 
I am mostly under impression that the essence of situation is whole lot different. One is based on doctrinal questions, other one on purely jurisdictional ones. In one situation one can argue that those out of communion are outside the Church, or that those inside the Church are in full communion. In another one, that can not be said.
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I am mostly under impression that the essence of situation is whole lot different. One is based on doctrinal questions, other one on purely jurisdictional ones.
Click to expand...
Agreed, although that’s why I called the situation with the SSPX similar, not the exact same as the EOC’s problem.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
everyone in Catholic Church is in full communion with all other members
Click to expand...
Not true. There are politicians, such as say Mr. A, who are pro-choice in the sense of favoring laws to allow abortions, but who personally are opposed to abortion. They are public figures. It has been reported that Mr. A is told not to receive Holy Communion in St. P Catholic church, but at the same time he is allowed to receive Holy Communion in St. Q Catholic Church. (The names have been changed, but the news has reported on the situation. )
 
Margaret_Ann said:
However, most of the laity who go to the SSPX follow their rules even if they don’t bind.
Click to expand...
Here is the scenario:
Suppose Mr. B who has received an annulment from the RCC and remarried then registers at the SSPX. If the priest knows this, Mr. B. is then advised about the SSPX tribunals. Mr. B then requests the annulment from the SSPX tribunal and let us suppose that it is denied. The SSPX priest knows that the SSPX tribunal has rejected the request of Mr. B for the annulment and then the SSPX priest will advise Mr. B (who had remarried after the RCC annulment) not to receive Holy Communion at the SSPX chapel. No?
Not all RCC annulments are accepted by the SSPX. No?
 
At the SSPX chapel in Luxembourg no guidelines about dress are posted. About half the women cover their heads because they want to, the rest do not. Some of the women wear trousers.

There is no general SSPX rule about this.
 
Margaret_Ann said:
I haven’t the faintest idea of how that works.
Click to expand...
That is understandable since the SSPX has complex guidelines to follow. It appears that my example above was wrong. I apologize for the error, but still there is an issue here:
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellane...ssion/approach_to_declarations_of_nullity.htm
Mostly they will accept the decision of the RCC tribunals in the case of someone who has married after the RCC annulment has been granted and the SSPX will admit him to Holy Communion because of the presumption in favor of the judgments of the RCC. However, there is an issue which can occur:
“If a process for nullity has been opened with the Society’s tribunals and the faithful have been warned not to marry again, before the final judgment of the Canonical Commission, and yet they attempt marriage in a religious or civil ceremony, the sacraments can be refused and the process for nullity suspended, subject to the judgment of the superior who constituted the tribunal.”
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I don’t quite think that is the case. SSPX do not accept those annulments but I doubt they’d deny communion to someone just like that.
Click to expand...
The link above contains a quote from an SSPX document which indicates that there is a situation where the SSPX may refuse to give the person Holy Communion, even though that person may be eligible to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Communion is mark of unity and everyone in Catholic Church is in full communion with all other members (even SSPX actually).
Click to expand...
There are two examples where this is not true.
  1. The example of a pro-choice politician who is refused Communion in one Catholic Church but allowed in another.
  2. The example above where after a SSPX tribunal has warned the person not to marry again, but he goes ahead and marries on the basis of an annulment given by the RCC, the SSPX may deny that person Holy Communion.
    Generally, however, with exceptions noted in the document, the SSPX will make a “presumption in favor of the judgments of the Church, which benefit from the presumption of law, and must be accepted as true and just (canon 1904, °1) unless overturned.”
    Again, I thought it might be different from this, but I was wrong on that assumption.
    Nevertheless, it appears that there are two examples which show that there are cases where one part of the Church allows Communion, whereas another part would not.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
There are politicians, such as say Mr. A, who are pro-choice in the sense of favoring laws to allow abortions, but who personally are opposed to abortion. They are public figures. It has been reported that Mr. A is told not to receive Holy Communion in St. P Catholic church, but at the same time he is allowed to receive Holy Communion in St. Q Catholic Church. (The names have been changed, but the news has reported on the situation. )
Click to expand...
That does not impact full communion. That basically says that others judge him to be in state of mortal sin and hence should not approach Eucharist. Full communion does not mean one is in state of grace all the time.
AlNg said:
If the priest knows this, Mr. B. is then advised about the SSPX tribunals. Mr. B then requests the annulment from the SSPX tribunal and let us suppose that it is denied. The SSPX priest knows that the SSPX tribunal has rejected the request of Mr. B for the annulment and then the SSPX priest will advise Mr. B (who had remarried after the RCC annulment) not to receive Holy Communion at the SSPX chapel.
Click to expand...
Same principle. In Orthodoxy, public sinners would be denied Eucharist too… correct? Pre-Schism this led to St. Ignatius of Constantinople’s deposition by Emperor as he did not let unrepentant noble receive Eucharist. Then Patriarch Photius did allow this noble for Eucharist. Similar principle. Was Constantinople not in full communion with itself?
AlNg said:
Nevertheless, it appears that there are two examples which show that there are cases where one part of the Church allows Communion, whereas another part would not.
Click to expand...
Yes, something that can canonically happen in Orthodoxy too. Not sure how does this relate to full communion. Divorced and remarried Catholics are in state of mortal sin, but they are not out of Church. They are not outside Her communion. Full communion means much more than being able to receive Eucharist. Even Pope can not receive Eucharist when he is in state of mortal sin. Does that mean Pope is out of communion of the Catholic Church for a while? Lol.

You are mixing up terms of being able to receive Eucharist, and full communion between members. We are under common hierarchy we all recognize. Our ordinaries recognize each other and we form together One Church. That is what full communion is.
 
Last edited:
ziapueblo said:
The Latin Church (for its own cultural and pastoral reasons) chose to elaborate beyond this in the doctrine of purgatory, which describes this purgation as taking place in a distinct “place”, and of being physically painful.
Click to expand...
Where have we Latins authoritatively defined purgatory as a “place” or of being “physically painful”? Given the immateriality of the soul, describing the things as such would seem odd, though perhaps they may aid understanding of the spiritual reality in a sense.

The Catholic Encyclopedia describes the teaching in the first few paragraphs, beyond which we consult the traditions of the Fathers and Schoolmen to understand the practices of the Faithful. (note it says place OR condition) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
That basically says that others judge him to be in state of mortal sin and hence should not approach Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Should i be Catholic or Orthodox? It is often said that one should be Catholic because there is uniformity of belief in the Catholic Church but not so much in the Orthodox church where some believe in toll houses whereas others do not?

But from the example you cite, it appears that there is not uniformity of faith in the Catholic Church. Mr. X is a pro-choice politician. At St. A Catholic Church Mr. X is judged to be in mortal sin because of his pro-choice position and denied Holy Communion. But at St. B. Catholic Church Mr. X is judged to be worthy to receive Holy Communion even though his pro-choice views are well known. And yet, in spite of this, both St. A Catholic church and St. B Catholic Church are in full communion with Rome. And Catholic bishops are well aware of this discrepancy in belief since it has been reported in the news.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
But at St. B. Catholic Church Mr. X is judged to be worthy to receive Holy Communion even though his pro-choice views are well known. And yet, in spite of this, both St. A Catholic church and St. B Catholic Church are in full communion with Rome. And Catholic bishops are well aware of this discrepancy in belief since it has been reported in the news.
Click to expand...
Abuses, however they are tolerated by those in power, remain abuses. They do not define faith of the Church.
AlNg said:
It is often said that one should be Catholic because there is uniformity of belief in the Catholic Church but not so much in the Orthodox church where some believe in toll houses whereas others do not?
Click to expand...
That’s a bad reason. Toll Houses are theological opinion. Belief in them shows no disunity in Orthodox Church. Orthodox Church has one faith. They are not disunited because of this. I am not Catholic because Orthodox are wrong or because Protestants are wrong. I am Catholic because I believe She is Church built by Christ upon Peter, and I believe She is right. No other religions, denominations or Churches play role in my choice of being Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top