What does the Church teach about a Catholic who converts to Orthodoxy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter carefullytread
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

carefullytread

Guest
Is this a sin? Is it an allowable choice?

I was reading about the Balamand declaration, and I’m not sure if it represents official Church teachings and whether the freedom of conscience it discusses means that a Catholic is free to become an Orthodox. Certainly Unam Sanctum would suggest otherwise, but perhaps the teaching has been clarified with regards to the Orthodox churches.

Thanks for any insight. Also, I don’t mean to ask if it is advisable, just whether it is allowed.
 
Of course it’s allowed. One is given free will. Neither Church has discussed officially regarding leaving, other than saying it can be the sin of schism and not to be done.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Of course it’s allowed. One is given free will. Neither Church has discussed officially regarding leaving, other than saying it can be the sin of schism and not to be done.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean allowed in the sense that someone will stop you. Certainly, the Orthodox Church accepts converts. I mean, does the Catholic Church teach that it is a sin for a Catholic to join Orthodoxy or does the Church teach that this is acceptable?

I do know that the Church teaches that once a Catholic, always a Catholic, so perhaps that means in their view one can never become Orthodox and a converts participation in the Orthodox sacraments is an ongoing sin?
 
If you believe the fullness of truth is found within the catholic church, and you wholeheartedly agree with this, converting away from it constitutes as a sin.

If you believe the fullness of truth is more within Eastern Orthodoxy, than I guess this wouldn’t be a grave sin, as you aren’t aware of it.

Likewise if you willfully start another church while knowing the fullness of truth is found within the catholic church you have sinned gravely.

(That’s what I seemed to remember when something like this was discussed.)
 
carefullytread said:
Is this a sin? Is it an allowable choice?

I was reading about the Balamand declaration, and I’m not sure if it represents official Church teachings and whether the freedom of conscience it discusses means that a Catholic is free to become an Orthodox. Certainly Unam Sanctum would suggest otherwise, but perhaps the teaching has been clarified with regards to the Orthodox churches.

Thanks for any insight. Also, I don’t mean to ask if it is advisable, just whether it is allowed.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church does not accept converting to any other faith, no matter how close to Catholicism, because the true church of Christ subsists fully in the Catholic Church.

All who are in union with Peter can be assured they are part of Christ’s Church.

One must always follow his or her conscience. But it’s not as if the CC has a special exception regarding Orthodoxy just because more truth is shared between the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church than other Christian communions. At the end of the day, the Church wants you to be in full union with Christ’s one church. Now, Orthodoxy is preferable to other Christian groups because of its valid sacraments, priesthood, and Tradition. So it would be better, objectively, for one to be Orthodox than, say, Baptist. (This is not to suggest Baptists are not Christians, or even that Orthodox are more “Christian” than Baptists. Rather, objectively, Orthodoxy has more truth and means of grace.)
 
catholic1seeks said:
The Catholic Church does not accept converting to any other faith, no matter how close to Catholicism, because the true church of Christ subsists fully in the Catholic Church. All who are in union with Peter can be assured they are part of Christ’s Church.

One must always follow his or her conscience. But it’s not as if the CC has a special exception regarding Orthodoxy just because more truth is shared between the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church than other Christian communions. At the end of the day, the Church wants you to be in full union with Christ’s one church.
Click to expand...
I agree, but wasn’t it also a factor if the person which converted knew of the fullness of the truth within catholicism?
 
Young_Ludovicus said:
I agree, but wasn’t it also a factor if the person which converted knew of the fullness of the truth within catholicism?
Click to expand...
I am not talking about sin and culpability.

Of course someone converting from Catholicism to Orthodoxy would not be sinning if that person was not responsible for his lack of understanding of Catholicism and if he truly believed Orthodoxy was the fullness of truth and where God was calling him.
 
It’s by definition the sin of schism.

CCC 2089…schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Balamand is not Church teaching, as it says right at the beginning:
Balamand Statement:
As with all the results of the joint dialogue commissions, this common document belongs to the responsibility of the Commission itself, until the competent organs of the Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Churches express their judgement in regard to it.
Click to expand...
Unlike other such joint working documents, this one has never received a formal judgment. However, various points in it were certainly contradicted by later authoritative documents, such as the note on certain doctrinal elements of evangelization, the CDF note on the use of the term “Sister Churches,” Dominus Iesus, and the note on certain aspects of doctrine about the Church, all issued subsequently by the CDF. Likewise, St. John Paul II’s May 31, 1995 audience, explicitly affirming the formulation of St. Cyprian and explicitly referred to the definitions of Lateran IV, Florence, and Boniface VIII concerning the dogma that outside the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff there is no salvation, also came after it.

Furthermore, the Romanian Greek-Catholic bishops all wrote a letter to the Pope rejecting Balamand, and there was no negative response to that. Neither has anything in the Balamand statement been enforced at all. You can find plenty of Orthodox complaints by priests, etc. on the internet saying Rome and Catholics are ignoring the Balamand statement, and evangelizing, opening new churches, etc. in Orthodox territories without their permission, etc. These actions, rather than being condemned and forbidden, seems to be instead supported by the subsequent documents.
 
Genesis315 said:
It’s by definition the sin of schism.

CCC 2089…schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Balamand is not Church teaching, as it says right at the beginning:

Unlike other such joint working documents, this one has never received a formal judgment. However, various points in it were certainly contradicted by later authoritative documents, such as the note on certain doctrinal elements of evangelization, the CDF note on the use of the term “Sister Churches,” Dominus Iesus, and the note on certain aspects of doctrine about the Church, all issued subsequently by the CDF. Likewise, St. John Paul II’s May 31, 1995 audience, explicitly affirming the formulation of St. Cyprian and explicitly referred to the definitions of Lateran IV, Florence, and Boniface VIII concerning the dogma that outside the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff there is no salvation, also came after it.

Furthermore, the Romanian Greek-Catholic bishops all wrote a letter to the Pope rejecting Balamand, and there was no negative response to that. Neither has anything in the Balamand statement been enforced at all. You can find plenty of Orthodox complaints by priests, etc. on the internet saying Rome and Catholics are ignoring the Balamand statement, and evangelizing, opening new churches, etc. in Orthodox territories without their permission, etc. These actions, rather than being condemned and forbidden, seems to be instead supported by the subsequent interventions.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I wasn’t sure what the status of the declaration was. I found this thread where an anonymous poster claims
I suggest that if you want “official” cinfirmation [sic] of the status of the Balamand Declaration within the Catholic Church, you address an inquiry to Edward Idris, Cardinal Cassidy, Secretary of the Ppntifical [sic] Council for Promoting Christian Unity. I heard him speak on the subject at the Orientale Lumen II Conference in 1998, and he was most emphatic that Balamand was the official policy of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Further evidence not to trust everything you read on the internet.
 
No, the Catholic Church does not teach that a Catholic may leave the Catholic Church to join an Eastern Orthodox Church. That would, objectively speaking, be the sin of schism as long as the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in communion with the Catholic Church. We should. of course, all pray that Communion will be restored between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches so that past schisms will be healed.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
No, the Catholic Church does not teach that a Catholic may leave the Catholic Church to join an Eastern Orthodox Church. That would, objectively speaking, be the sin of schism as long as the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in communion with the Catholic Church. We should. of course, all pray that Communion will be restored between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches so that past schisms will be healed.
Click to expand...
I thought that the official teaching of Pope John Paul II was that the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches were “sister” churches? Why is it wrong to join with your sister?
 
Tomdstone said:
I thought that the official teaching of Pope John Paul II was that the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches were “sister” churches? Why is it wrong to join with your sister?
Click to expand...
Because the Catholic understanding is that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of Christ’s church; that is, those churches in union with the successor of Peter can be assured that they are part of Christ’s church in its wholeness - in everything Christ wanted his body on Earth to have: the fullness of revelation and the fullness of the means of grace.

The eastern Orthodox churches are sister churches - but it would be more accurate to say they are sisters who are not in full harmony with the family. They are not in in full union with their spiritual father, the Pope of Rome. Why should it matter? Because Christ desires his church to be one, and he founded his church on Simon, whom he named the “Rock” (Peter) of the church and upon him he wished there to be a foundation for unity.
 
Interesting thought just came to mind regarding this. It seems the RCC view is that if Joe Catholic left the RCC to join one of the major Orthodox Churches (since they’re the largest Orthodox church and recently met with Pope Francis, lets say the Russian Orthodox Church), that would be a grave sin of schism, and that Joe Catholic would still be Catholic in the RCC’s view (since the RCC follows the “Hotel California” position on being Catholic).

But what about the Orthodox view on the opposite. The Orthodox Churches teach that they are similarly the “one true church” with the fullness of faith and that the Roman Catholic Church is somehow lacking. But do they view joining the RCC the same way that the RCC views joining the Orthodox Churches? (ie: it’s schismatic and once baptized Orthodox, always Orthodox?).

And another question also occurs to me, does the RCC consider baptized Orthodox members to be “Catholic” already since Orthodox sacraments are all valid?
 
Padres1969 said:
And another question also occurs to me, does the RCC consider baptized Orthodox members to be “Catholic” already since Orthodox sacraments are all valid?
Click to expand...
Any person who is baptized is a Christian. One is not fully a member of Christ’s church unless you are in union with Peter. You are not Catholic in the full sense of the term if you are not a member of a church in communion with Rome.
 
Padres1969 said:
Interesting thought just came to mind regarding this. It seems the RCC view is that if Joe Catholic left the RCC to join one of the major Orthodox Churches (since they’re the largest Orthodox church and recently met with Pope Francis, lets say the Russian Orthodox Church), that would be a grave sin of schism, and that Joe Catholic would still be Catholic in the RCC’s view (since the RCC follows the “Hotel California” position on being Catholic).

But what about the Orthodox view on the opposite. The Orthodox Churches teach that they are similarly the “one true church” with the fullness of faith and that the Roman Catholic Church is somehow lacking. But do they view joining the RCC the same way that the RCC views joining the Orthodox Churches? (ie: it’s schismatic and once baptized Orthodox, always Orthodox?).

And another question also occurs to me, does the RCC consider baptized Orthodox members to be “Catholic” already since Orthodox sacraments are all valid?
Click to expand...
I found this article about how an Orthodox becomes Catholic. It seems that a profession of faith is required before a priest as well as a record made of it. That would suggest to me that the answer is no, they don’t consider them Catholic.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Because the Catholic understanding is that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of Christ’s church; that is, those churches in union with the successor of Peter can be assured that they are part of Christ’s church in its wholeness - in everything Christ wanted his body on Earth to have: the fullness of revelation and the fullness of the means of grace.

The eastern Orthodox churches are sister churches - but it would be more accurate to say they are sisters who are not in full harmony with the family. They are not in in full union with their spiritual father, the Pope of Rome. Why should it matter? Because Christ desires his church to be one, and he founded his church on Simon, whom he named the “Rock” (Peter) of the church and upon him he wished there to be a foundation for unity.
Click to expand...
But the Orthodox Church is one of the two equal lungs of the Church. Why would it be wrong to breathe with a true lung of the Church?
 
Padres1969 said:
But do they view joining the RCC the same way that the RCC views joining the Orthodox Churches? (ie: it’s schismatic and once baptized Orthodox, always Orthodox?).
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely. Excommunication is incurred by the Orthodox for doing so. In fact, for communing in a Catholic Church.
Padres1969 said:
And another question also occurs to me, does the RCC consider baptized Orthodox members to be “Catholic” already since Orthodox sacraments are all valid?
Click to expand...
Yes. An Orthodox only makes a profession of faith when joining the Catholic Church. They are already fully initiated.

The specific process for incorporating a baptized Eastern Christian is covered above all in the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches, canons 35 and 896-901.

Canon 896 specifies that for those adult Christians (beyond 14 years) “who ask of their own accord to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church, whether as individuals or as groups, no burden is to be imposed beyond what is necessary.”

anon 897 indicates that the Christian may be received “With only the profession of faith after a doctrinal and spiritual preparation that is suited to the person’s condition.”

Canon 35, that baptized non-Catholics entering into full communion “should retain their own rite and should observe it everywhere in the world as far as humanly possible. Thus they are to be ascribed to the Church ‘sui iuris’ of the same rite.”

When the person wishes not only to become Catholic but to change to the Latin rite, the same canon applies and the Holy See is involved.
 
Tomdstone said:
But the Orthodox Church is one of the two equal lungs of the Church. Why would it be wrong to breathe with a true lung of the Church?
Click to expand...
Schism is a sin. A sin against the unity of the Church.

Rejecting papal authority is a sin.

If one is born into a schismatic group, one is not liable for any sin. A Catholic is liable because they are making an act of schism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top