The Universal Church

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Short read http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/guidelines-for-the-reception-of-communion.cfm

Bottom line, one needs to be free of mortal sin, so one needs to go to confession first, if one is in mortal sin… and there is no open Eucharist.

You need to live by the same rules Catholics do. It’s NOT like Catholics have one set of standards and non Catholics get by with another or no standards…and still waltz up to communion

Steve, you know full well the link you provided allows for the reception of the Eucharist by Orthodox Christians. It, nor the relevant canon law, does not place a restriction that Orthodox must repent of their schism and become Catholic in order to receive. I’m also fully aware this is not meant for ordinary circumstances, but rather for unique or emergency situations. But even limiting to specific circumstances does not require that Orthodox remove what you perceive as the mortal sin of schism by repenting and becoming Catholic.

As I said there is no open communion. People can’t just walk off the street and receive the Eucharist. The Orthodox can receive if properly disposed.

I’ve left NOTHING out. I gave all the information necessary to answer the question.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

For clarity, scripture is named first in order, of that statement, that says one isn’t saved who is in schism… unless of course one doesn’t die in that state of schism.

I’ve posted the scriptures for that many times.

All well and good, but that doesn’t address why on the one hand the Catholic Church says I am welcome to commune while on the other saying my schism as an Orthodox Christian condemns me to hell.

I meant to include this as well

see #'s 6 & 11 http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

do you see in #11, what I’m saying re: disposition?

 

[Isaac14]

do you see in #11, what I’m saying re: disposition?

So in other words, the Catholic Church offers the Orthodox something they can’t actually have. What is the point of Canon 844 and the statement from the USCCB saying there is no objection to the Orthodox receiving Catholic Communion if it is impossible due to what you think is our mortal sin of schism? Should I trust Catholic Bishops, or some random guy from the internet?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

do you see in #11, what I’m saying re: disposition?

So in other words, the Catholic Church offers the Orthodox something they can’t actually have. What is the point of Canon 844 and the statement from the USCCB saying there is no objection to the Orthodox receiving Catholic Communion if it is impossible due to what you think is our mortal sin of schism? Should I trust Catholic Bishops, or some random guy from the internet?

I’m giving you what the Church teaches “properly referenced” with a link. Did I author that link? NO

 

[Isaac14]

I’m giving you what the Church teaches “properly referenced” with a link. Did I author that link? NO

Is my interpretation of the information you’ve shared wrong? The information you’ve chosen to share leads me to believe that Orthodox are schismatics condemned to hell. Yet when I read other Catholic sources I come to a very different conclusion. Who shall I trust?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’m giving you what the Church teaches “properly referenced” with a link. Did I author that link? NO

Is my interpretation of the information you’ve shared wrong? The information you’ve chosen to share leads me to believe that Orthodox are schismatics condemned to hell. Yet when I read other Catholic sources I come to a very different conclusion. Who shall I trust?

What I linked to is the USCCB, Translation, U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops.

SO

Since I’m not a bishop, and bishops make the rules, I say follow what the bishops are teaching there…

 

[TULIPed]

Somebody important once said, “Let your yes be yes…”. I can’t quite remember who it was though…

 

[Isaac14]

Somebody important once said, “Let your yes be yes…”. I can’t quite remember who it was though…

I seem to vaguely remember that as well. I wonder if they were someone really important…

 

[Isaac14]

Since I’m not a bishop, and bishops make the rules, I say follow what the bishops are teaching there…

I’m glad you’ve come around to the understanding that the Orthodox are not guilt of the mortal sin of schism. That’s a great relief to me!

 

[ziapueblo]

But isn’t that a catch 22, “the Catholic Church invites you to receive, but since you’re schismatic Orthodox, you can never actually be in a state of grace…so no communion for you”

What’s interesting is that communion between Byzantine Catholics and some Orthodox jurisdictions happen more often than we think. It’s a “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” mentality.

A friend of mine who is a Byzantine Catholic communes at an OCA parish where his summer home is. They all know he’s BC but no one has a problem, he has become part of the community.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Since I’m not a bishop, and bishops make the rules, I say follow what the bishops are teaching there…

I’m glad you’ve come around to the understanding that the Orthodox are not guilt of the mortal sin of schism. That’s a great relief to me!

do you know where mortal sin comes for schism? factious αἱρετικὸν hairetikos

Tit 3:10-11 “As for a man who is factious αἱρετικὸν hairetikos , after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted ἐξέστραπται and sinful; he is self-condemned αὐτοκατάκριτος .
IOW one who is disposed to form sects, heresies, schisms etc. The consequences?

 

[Isaac14]

after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,

And yet you keep replying to me…

IOW one who is disposed to form sects, heresies, schisms etc. The consequences?

Oh wait, I’m confused. I thought you said you accepted the teaching of your bishops that the Orthodox are not schismatic. Or have I again misinterpreted the information you are quoting?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,

And yet you keep replying to me…

I have more time these days

IOW one who is disposed to form sects, heresies, schisms etc. The consequences?

Isaac14:

Oh wait, I’m confused. I thought you said you accepted the teaching of your bishops that the Orthodox are not schismatic. Or have I again misinterpreted the information you are quoting?

Did the bishops actually say the Orthodox aren’t schismatics? Or was schismatic just not used?

 

[ziapueblo]

When reading Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint, as well as the Balamand Statement implies the schism is within, not from, the one true church.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

When reading Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint, as well as the Balamand Statement implies the schism is within, not from, the one true church.

ZP

Don’t go by what you think is said. Find the quote and Proprerly reference it.

I say it that way because

The definition from the CCC for schism is

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. " Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

It would suggest a major change in the way the Orthodox operate with respect to the Pope and those in union with him, …right?

Has something happened within all the separate Orthodox Churches that we don’t know about in this conversation?

60 more posts and we hit 2000 posts

 

[mcq72]

Not presumed. If one meets the criteria,

Hmmm, “presumed” and "if meeting requirements " are pretty close, for there is some subjectivity to what is “knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, and then refusing it”

Do you think I know that the Roman Catholic Church was made necesary for salvation by Jesus?

The CC proclamation is subjective and maybe mind readers are needed beyond that.

 

[mcq72]

Let’s be clear. the Traditions we follow are oral & written that come from the apostles

It is clearly disputed…you clearly know that, a thousand posts later…lol

 

[mcq72]

Short read http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/guidelines-for-the-reception-of-communion.cfm

Would have to read this which covers topic:canon 844 §4).

 

[Isaac14]

Or was schismatic just not used?

So you guys use nice words, but behind our backs we’re still schismatics…classy.

 

[ziapueblo]

Don’t go by what you think is said. Find the quote and Proprerly reference it.

DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

“However, the heritage handed down by the apostles was received with differences of form and manner, so that from the earliest times of the Church it was explained variously in different places, owing to diversities of genius and conditions of life. All this, quite apart from external causes, prepared the way for decisions arising also from a lack of charity and mutual understanding.”

Mutual:
adjective
(of a feeling or action) experienced or done by each of two or more parties toward the other or others.
“a partnership based on mutual respect and understanding”

The Catholic Church admits that there was a lack of “mutual (two or more parties, Rome & the East) understanding.” The “schism” is not one sided, it was mutual.

“16. Already from the earliest times the Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom, which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods, and even of ecumenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church’s unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already been stated. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.“

The “Churches of the East . . . have the power to govern themselves.” We do not need Rome’s approval, now or from the past, to dispense the Mysteries, therefore, our Mysteries are not only valid but licit.

“All this heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in its various traditions, this holy synod declares to belong to the full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church. We thank God that many Eastern children of the Catholic Church, who preserve this heritage, and wish to express it more faithfully and completely in their lives, are already living in full communion with their brethren who follow the tradition of the West.”

Continued . . .