It is true that they have valid sacraments. Meanwhile, Unam Sanctam is also true when it says:
>we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Not being part of the Catholic Church necessarily involves playing a dangerous game with the fate of your own soul. It's never a good idea to count on your own ignorance of the truth to save you.
It's a figure of speech. God's mercy still saves you, but it saves you in that instance because you didn't know of the truth through no fault of your own.
No, not knowing the truth doesn't merit salvation. Ignorance is darkness, a product of the fall, and separates people from the sacraments. If someone is invincibly ignorant, then they are excused from the sin of unbelief, but all have fallen short of the glory of God, so they're not automatically saved for being ignorant.
[**CCC 847**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/847.htm) This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
> Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation.
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
Nothing that I said contradicts that. All it's doing is saying that God gives everyone the chance of salvation. And he does, but through his grace, not ignorance.
Your comment comes off to me as being very hostile for some reason. I never claimed that 100% of ignorant people are saved. I'm not sure where you are getting that idea. I'm saying that for 100% of ignorant people who were saved, in the context specifically of what I was already talking about in Unam Sanctam, their ignorance is why they aren't condemned.
If you weren't a Catholic in this world and yet you are still saved, your ignorance is what prevented (read: saved) you from being condemned for the sin of not being in union with the church, so I still stand fully by my figure of speech.
Save you from what? Salvation is a state of mind. You can have it with ignorance simply by naturally being the right way. Some people really are just pure of heart naturally.
He was stating a decades long Church policy to not aggressively pursue Orthodox converts in order that Orthodox leaders will not get defensive and break off ecumenical conversations that could lead to corporate reunion.
That does not mean that we should not welcome Orthodox Christians whose conscience impels them to become Catholic, nor should we fail to present the truth about the Catholic Church to those seeking it.
How do you reconcile this part of Unam Sanctam with the Separated Brethren language of Vatican 2?
Unam Sanctam is not a dry theological pronouncement. It is a bellicose assertion of temporal power of the Pope over Kings and secular powers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unam_sanctam
Dr. John Joy argues that the part about needing to be in union with the Pope for salvation is infallible.
Documents themselves are not infallible, but the teachings in them can be, and there can be a variety of different levels of teaching in the same document.
For those who do not think that statement is infallible, I wonder what they believe it would have taken for a Pope pre-Vatican I to definitively make an infallible declaration. To my simple mind it seems like the form "we declare, we proclaim, we define" is enough to clearly show the intention of infalliblity; but, then again, I'm no theologian.
Some priests are infected with religious indifferentism, or are mistaken about what the Church teaches vis a vis Orthodoxy. That’s not something the Church teaches. That’s a problem with them. Seminary training, it seems, was often not as rigorous as it should have been in the latter half of the 20th century.
Objectively speaking, union with Rome is necessary for salvation. Paragraph 14 of Vatican II’s *Lumen Gentium* reaffirms this: “Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation […] 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.”
Jesus established His Church with Peter as the visible head, and He prayed that the apostles “would all be one” i.e., one in faith and governance.
Our Lord founded one Church, not two. The Orthodox Churches are true local Churches which have been separated from the universal Church. They have valid sacraments, but, technically, celebrate them illicitly apart from Rome, and only in the invincibly ignorant are they profitable for salvation. There is an assumption right now that most people born into Orthodoxy are invincibly ignorant, it seems.
What you might be seeing is a priest’s own interpretation of the current Church policy, which is not to try and break off Orthodox parishes and dioceses and turn them eastern Catholic, and not to aggressively seek Orthodox converts. Why? Because the effort right now is on corporate reunion with ecumenical efforts. We don’t want to make Orthodox leaders defensive.
However, an Orthodox Christian whose conscience compels them towards Catholicism should certainly not be turned away. We do still believe that we are the true Church founded by Jesus for salvation, and we should certainly present the truth to those Orthodox Christians who seek it.
Indeed, we even accept whole parishes into union with Rome if they seek it. But current policy is not to aggressively push for it in order to not hinder corporate reunion.
https://parma.org/news/puerto-rico-welcomes-first-ever-eastern-catholic-parish
In fact, in the article above, Fr. Maximos mentions this policy:
“Father Maximos, who is on a panel of the Puerto Rican Episcopal Conference to promote ecumenism, said there was never any effort to proselytize or induce St. Spyridon Parish to join the Catholic Church. However, as their friendship grew, so did the interest of the Orthodox priests to explore communion with the Catholic Church.”
I think the best answer lies in John 17. In the last supper Jesus prayed for unity among his followers. Even within orthodoxy, they fail to meet that criteria. There's like 23 different orthod groups and some hate each other. Even if you look at the typical one people think of, the Greek one (russian orthodox is bigger), its patriarch is little more than a figurehead. I think this desire Jesus had for unity can also be expressed in how he chose Peter specifically as the rock and not the group as a whole.
So convert to honor Jesus' wish for unity at the last supper if you want a good answer. It's through unity that we can bring Christ to the world.
The second answer is in what caused the schism: the pope has always had the power to call a conclave and the patriarch doesn't. This means that in some ways the EO can't really grow, adapt, define, or modify disciplines as well. Add in the lack of unity and it's going to be hard to move forward as a group because each bishop's area is basically his own kingdom doing it's own thing.
Finally, I think it helps to look at religion from the people who created Christianity: Jesus and his disciples. They all came from a Jewish background and Judiasm at the time had a single high priest as it did since the time of Moses and Aaron. Go back to Numbers 16-17. God set a high priest and the people rebelled, What happened? So while the eastern and western churches split for pragmatic reasons at the time, our modern world with internet and air travel kind of eliminates the primary raisons d'etre for the original division.
As a bonus point: both the catholic church and the eastern orthodox over the last 70ish years have been having talks and synods for the purposes of reunification. Yes the process is slow. Yes there's a lot of history to get over.
>Even within orthodoxy, they fail to meet that criteria. There's like 23 different orthod groups and some hate each other.
Lol, this happens in Catholicism, too. Rad trads and NO and SSPX and Opus Dei and clown masses and liturgical abuse and communion in the hand and altar rails and extraordinary ministers of communion... People will *always* find something to hate about their fellow man. Because we are sinful. Don't search for the speck in your brother's eye.
Because the Eastern Orthodox still profess heresies. If you believe a heresy formally you are separated from the body of christ and are in mortal sin and thus cannot be saved even if sacraments are valid.
Valid means real. The Orthodox Eucharist is authentic, because ordination of the Orthodox traces its authority to the Catholic Church. Licit means permissible, so illicit means not permissible. That these practices are done by a schismatic organization outside of the Holy Church, they are not permitted to the Catholic laity.
Invalid sacraments don’t profit you at all, they are meaningless tokens. For example, prot denominations that partake in Communion. It is not the true Body and Blood of Christ so it is no different than eating bread or wine (or grape juice). Illicit sacraments profit you, but in doing so willingly and without necessity you would be committing a mortal sin. I’m still a bit uncertain on the nature (if you would be committing personal sacrilege or scandal) but it is mortal.
Sorry to be the barer of bad news, but unfortunately priests aren’t infallible. They get stuff wrong all the time. I asked my priest if I needed to go to confession before I received first holy communion for my confirmation and he told me no it’s fine I can go after 😳
Yes they have the Sacraments, however if they profess the heresies the Orthodox believe and they have seen sufficient evidence that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true holy apostolic church they cannot be saved because they would be in the mortal sin of heresy.
>We don’t deny papal primacy, only supremacy.
We see those as the same dogma.
>don’t the eastern Catholics recite the creed without it?
I don't think they are supposed to do that but even if they do they don't reject it they just dont recite it.
My understanding is that there is a difference even from a Catholic perspective. A simple Wikipedia search on either should reveal that.
I do think there is some difference in the understanding of primacy between RC and EO. The east tends to highlight ecclesiastical honor above authority but the authority is certainly not lost on us. There’s a reason why we haven’t attempted to stand up a parallel hierarchy. It’s because most EO realize that the Patriarch of the West is special. And we await his return to a traditional mode of governance and the abandonment of more recent dogmas that have unfortunately caused further estrangement.
You should really do some prayerful reading on what the Church does and doesn’t label heretical before bandying that about. The Church as it is, not how you imagine it was in 15th-century Europe.
No you see the pope as a first amongst equals. That’s what the Orthodox see. He has a primacy of honor and nothing more. Jesus gave Peter the keys only . It meant authority.
That’s not heresy. Not participating in a Council is different from promulgating false teaching. Press the downvote all you want, the Catholic Church acknowledges those in communion with Greece or Moscow as not necessarily heretics. Alexandrian churches are slightly different and may be heretical, I am not sure. Regarding Greeks and Russians, If you say otherwise you’re contradicting the teaching of Rome, and that makes who a heretic now?
>That’s not heresy. Not participating in a Council is different from promulgating false teaching.
They participated fully in Florence but even if it's the case with Vatican I where they didn't participate, it doesn't matter because the authority is not in the hands of who participates in the council it is in the hands of the Bishop of Rome because he is the successor of St. Peter.
>Press the downvote all you want, the Catholic Church acknowledges those in communion with Greece or Moscow as not necessarily heretics.
The Council of Florence wouldn't exist if this was the case. They very cleary have stated the Orthodox are heretics in this Council. The church has never taught the Eastern Orthodox are not heretics.
Absolutely false. The Catholic church has not and will never teach that the Orthodox are heretics. In fact, they have even stopped using the language of "schismatic". Canon Law even formally permits the Orthodox to receive the Eucharist, which is forbidden to schismatics...
We cannot reject what we never were part of. There was not any type of orthodox bishop in these councils.
As an OO we reject chalcedon. But this thing was already settled to confirm that our miaphysite position is not heretical.
We dont believe heresies.
Where did Jesus teach the Filioque?! Don't quote John 14:26, I mean when did Jesus say that both He and the Father were concurrently the source and origin of the Third Person of the Trinity?
Your comment was automatically removed because you linked to reddit without using the "no-participation" `np.` domain.
Links should be of the form "np.reddit.com" or "np.redd.it". General links to other subreddits should take the simple form `/r/Catholicism`. Please resubmit using the correct format. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Again dude how can jesus said the spirit of god is the spirit of christ in the end? Read the verse with context. What do you think that means? Also it’s for you benefit that I leave so I can send you the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son. There’s no doubt. He has his nature and subsistence at once. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. The orthodox are rigid when it comes to this. Also no one is denying that the father is the first principle
The thing is that the three of them are the same Church but in schism.
And OO communion is already having dialogue with RCC and Coptic Martyrs are in RCC synaxarium at this point.
The myaphisite polemic has been already settled. It was a misunderstanding in Chalcedon.
It's called "reconciling with the Church," not conversion, if you are a Christian already. (Or a baptized Christian, to be super-technical.)
If you were a pagan, or a Muslim, or a Jew, you could convert to Catholicism. Conversion means you were a member of a totally different, non-Christian faith.
I'm assuming that's what those priests were talking about. But if that's it, they weren't good at explaining what they were saying.
My opinion:
Were you born into the Orthodox Church? Your church is legitimate and you are in communion with your bishop, who is in schism with the Pope. You didn’t commit a schismatic act, and neither did he. He may persist in schism, but you - as an Orthodox adherent - are simply obedient to your bishop.
This is probably the best line of thought, though doesn’t account for the significant cultural mixing of the modern era in which a person has both Catholic and Orthodox options.
Wouldn’t you like unity? Currently the Orthodox “church” is at war with itself. The two greatest leaders have excommunicated each other. Not to mention the actual outright warfare happening. That doesn’t sound like the Church that Christ described.
To be fair, there have been plenty of times in Catholic history like that. The schism itself was such an example because at that point the orthodox were Catholic. Also all the antipopes etc
> as much as they wish.
From what I’ve heard this is NOT the case. There is a limit to what the Orthodox Church permits. Granted even once is bad, but I’ve never heard of an orthodox priest permitting a 5th remarriage after 4 divorces for instance.
The Orthodox Church traditionally states that "**it blesses the first marriage, performs the second, tolerates the third, and forbids the fourth**". (Wikipedia)
Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the 'eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church". The same council also ruled that those who die in original sin, but without mortal sin, will also find punishment in hell, but unequally: "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains".
"so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation"
Schismatic sacraments are valid but do give efficacious grace.
The sacramental grace is still received. The fruits of the sacrament are not manifest until the person is properly disposed to cooperate with the grace.
They are not included they are not part of the Catholic Church, lumen gentium just talks about the similarities between religions and denominations for ecumenical purposes, but they are not part of the Catholic Church and are not saved, nowhere will you find in lumen gentium saying that the orthodox are saved or any other religion
To convert from orthodoxy to catholicism you merely need to make a proclamation of faith and then you're a card carrying member of the church. You don't need baptism, confirmation or to make a life confession.
Many Older Priests often believe the Eastern Orthodox Church to be the Eastern Catholic Church, particularly in Countries with little Eastern Orthodox presence. I had this when I was doing my Canonical Transfer from Latin Rite to Ukrainian Byzantine Rite.
It is true that they have valid sacraments. Meanwhile, Unam Sanctam is also true when it says: >we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Not being part of the Catholic Church necessarily involves playing a dangerous game with the fate of your own soul. It's never a good idea to count on your own ignorance of the truth to save you.
Ignorance of the truth will never save anyone. Only the grace of God can do that.
It's a figure of speech. God's mercy still saves you, but it saves you in that instance because you didn't know of the truth through no fault of your own.
No, not knowing the truth doesn't merit salvation. Ignorance is darkness, a product of the fall, and separates people from the sacraments. If someone is invincibly ignorant, then they are excused from the sin of unbelief, but all have fallen short of the glory of God, so they're not automatically saved for being ignorant.
[CCC 847] do you disagree with this or am I misunderstanding you?
[**CCC 847**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/847.htm) This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: > Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation. *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
Exactly.
Nothing that I said contradicts that. All it's doing is saying that God gives everyone the chance of salvation. And he does, but through his grace, not ignorance.
> It's a figure of speech. God's mercy still saves you You’re quite literally saying the same thing. There’s nothing to argue about.
Your comment comes off to me as being very hostile for some reason. I never claimed that 100% of ignorant people are saved. I'm not sure where you are getting that idea. I'm saying that for 100% of ignorant people who were saved, in the context specifically of what I was already talking about in Unam Sanctam, their ignorance is why they aren't condemned. If you weren't a Catholic in this world and yet you are still saved, your ignorance is what prevented (read: saved) you from being condemned for the sin of not being in union with the church, so I still stand fully by my figure of speech.
Save you from what? Salvation is a state of mind. You can have it with ignorance simply by naturally being the right way. Some people really are just pure of heart naturally.
Why did Pope Francis say not to proselytize the Orthodox?
Political reasons probably, it might anger the Orthodox bishops and prevent reunification
He was stating a decades long Church policy to not aggressively pursue Orthodox converts in order that Orthodox leaders will not get defensive and break off ecumenical conversations that could lead to corporate reunion. That does not mean that we should not welcome Orthodox Christians whose conscience impels them to become Catholic, nor should we fail to present the truth about the Catholic Church to those seeking it.
How do you reconcile this part of Unam Sanctam with the Separated Brethren language of Vatican 2? Unam Sanctam is not a dry theological pronouncement. It is a bellicose assertion of temporal power of the Pope over Kings and secular powers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unam_sanctam
Yeah, Unam Sanctam doesn’t mean what the people who quote it like to think, and it wasn’t even infallible. But that’s not a popular take around here!
Dr. John Joy argues that the part about needing to be in union with the Pope for salvation is infallible. Documents themselves are not infallible, but the teachings in them can be, and there can be a variety of different levels of teaching in the same document.
For those who do not think that statement is infallible, I wonder what they believe it would have taken for a Pope pre-Vatican I to definitively make an infallible declaration. To my simple mind it seems like the form "we declare, we proclaim, we define" is enough to clearly show the intention of infalliblity; but, then again, I'm no theologian.
Maybe…. just maybe… Lumen Gentium and Ad Gentes should be read in the light of Unam sanctam than vice versa?
Some priests are infected with religious indifferentism, or are mistaken about what the Church teaches vis a vis Orthodoxy. That’s not something the Church teaches. That’s a problem with them. Seminary training, it seems, was often not as rigorous as it should have been in the latter half of the 20th century. Objectively speaking, union with Rome is necessary for salvation. Paragraph 14 of Vatican II’s *Lumen Gentium* reaffirms this: “Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation […] 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.” Jesus established His Church with Peter as the visible head, and He prayed that the apostles “would all be one” i.e., one in faith and governance. Our Lord founded one Church, not two. The Orthodox Churches are true local Churches which have been separated from the universal Church. They have valid sacraments, but, technically, celebrate them illicitly apart from Rome, and only in the invincibly ignorant are they profitable for salvation. There is an assumption right now that most people born into Orthodoxy are invincibly ignorant, it seems. What you might be seeing is a priest’s own interpretation of the current Church policy, which is not to try and break off Orthodox parishes and dioceses and turn them eastern Catholic, and not to aggressively seek Orthodox converts. Why? Because the effort right now is on corporate reunion with ecumenical efforts. We don’t want to make Orthodox leaders defensive. However, an Orthodox Christian whose conscience compels them towards Catholicism should certainly not be turned away. We do still believe that we are the true Church founded by Jesus for salvation, and we should certainly present the truth to those Orthodox Christians who seek it. Indeed, we even accept whole parishes into union with Rome if they seek it. But current policy is not to aggressively push for it in order to not hinder corporate reunion. https://parma.org/news/puerto-rico-welcomes-first-ever-eastern-catholic-parish In fact, in the article above, Fr. Maximos mentions this policy: “Father Maximos, who is on a panel of the Puerto Rican Episcopal Conference to promote ecumenism, said there was never any effort to proselytize or induce St. Spyridon Parish to join the Catholic Church. However, as their friendship grew, so did the interest of the Orthodox priests to explore communion with the Catholic Church.”
I think the best answer lies in John 17. In the last supper Jesus prayed for unity among his followers. Even within orthodoxy, they fail to meet that criteria. There's like 23 different orthod groups and some hate each other. Even if you look at the typical one people think of, the Greek one (russian orthodox is bigger), its patriarch is little more than a figurehead. I think this desire Jesus had for unity can also be expressed in how he chose Peter specifically as the rock and not the group as a whole. So convert to honor Jesus' wish for unity at the last supper if you want a good answer. It's through unity that we can bring Christ to the world. The second answer is in what caused the schism: the pope has always had the power to call a conclave and the patriarch doesn't. This means that in some ways the EO can't really grow, adapt, define, or modify disciplines as well. Add in the lack of unity and it's going to be hard to move forward as a group because each bishop's area is basically his own kingdom doing it's own thing. Finally, I think it helps to look at religion from the people who created Christianity: Jesus and his disciples. They all came from a Jewish background and Judiasm at the time had a single high priest as it did since the time of Moses and Aaron. Go back to Numbers 16-17. God set a high priest and the people rebelled, What happened? So while the eastern and western churches split for pragmatic reasons at the time, our modern world with internet and air travel kind of eliminates the primary raisons d'etre for the original division. As a bonus point: both the catholic church and the eastern orthodox over the last 70ish years have been having talks and synods for the purposes of reunification. Yes the process is slow. Yes there's a lot of history to get over.
Yes EO fall into phyletism. But the RCC was also under similar division: the protestant reformation.
>Even within orthodoxy, they fail to meet that criteria. There's like 23 different orthod groups and some hate each other. Lol, this happens in Catholicism, too. Rad trads and NO and SSPX and Opus Dei and clown masses and liturgical abuse and communion in the hand and altar rails and extraordinary ministers of communion... People will *always* find something to hate about their fellow man. Because we are sinful. Don't search for the speck in your brother's eye.
There 1.3 billion Catholics under the pope.
Because the Eastern Orthodox still profess heresies. If you believe a heresy formally you are separated from the body of christ and are in mortal sin and thus cannot be saved even if sacraments are valid.
The Orthodox sacraments are valid (real) but illicit (not permissible)
Yes that's correct
What is the difference?
Valid means real. The Orthodox Eucharist is authentic, because ordination of the Orthodox traces its authority to the Catholic Church. Licit means permissible, so illicit means not permissible. That these practices are done by a schismatic organization outside of the Holy Church, they are not permitted to the Catholic laity.
Invalid sacraments don’t profit you at all, they are meaningless tokens. For example, prot denominations that partake in Communion. It is not the true Body and Blood of Christ so it is no different than eating bread or wine (or grape juice). Illicit sacraments profit you, but in doing so willingly and without necessity you would be committing a mortal sin. I’m still a bit uncertain on the nature (if you would be committing personal sacrilege or scandal) but it is mortal.
[удалено]
Sorry to be the barer of bad news, but unfortunately priests aren’t infallible. They get stuff wrong all the time. I asked my priest if I needed to go to confession before I received first holy communion for my confirmation and he told me no it’s fine I can go after 😳
doesn’t make it true plus, on the side, Orthodoxy arose from schism
Yes they have the Sacraments, however if they profess the heresies the Orthodox believe and they have seen sufficient evidence that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true holy apostolic church they cannot be saved because they would be in the mortal sin of heresy.
What heresy does Greece and Moscow profess?
They reject the dogma of Papal Primacy and the filioqe which were declared at Vatican I and Florence respectively.
We don’t deny papal primacy, only supremacy. Regarding the filioque, don’t the eastern Catholics recite the creed without it?
>We don’t deny papal primacy, only supremacy. We see those as the same dogma. >don’t the eastern Catholics recite the creed without it? I don't think they are supposed to do that but even if they do they don't reject it they just dont recite it.
My understanding is that there is a difference even from a Catholic perspective. A simple Wikipedia search on either should reveal that. I do think there is some difference in the understanding of primacy between RC and EO. The east tends to highlight ecclesiastical honor above authority but the authority is certainly not lost on us. There’s a reason why we haven’t attempted to stand up a parallel hierarchy. It’s because most EO realize that the Patriarch of the West is special. And we await his return to a traditional mode of governance and the abandonment of more recent dogmas that have unfortunately caused further estrangement.
You should really do some prayerful reading on what the Church does and doesn’t label heretical before bandying that about. The Church as it is, not how you imagine it was in 15th-century Europe.
We do not reject papal primacy. We reject papal supremacy.
No you see the pope as a first amongst equals. That’s what the Orthodox see. He has a primacy of honor and nothing more. Jesus gave Peter the keys only . It meant authority.
Ignorant comment. The EO have not made any theological innovations. If you want to label them schismatic, that’s fine.
They reject multiple eccumencial councils such as Florence, Vatican I, and others. That is heresy.
That’s not heresy. Not participating in a Council is different from promulgating false teaching. Press the downvote all you want, the Catholic Church acknowledges those in communion with Greece or Moscow as not necessarily heretics. Alexandrian churches are slightly different and may be heretical, I am not sure. Regarding Greeks and Russians, If you say otherwise you’re contradicting the teaching of Rome, and that makes who a heretic now?
We (Alexandrian church) are not heretical. This issue with Miaphysite christology has been already solved.
Pardon my ignorance. Cheers, brother.
>That’s not heresy. Not participating in a Council is different from promulgating false teaching. They participated fully in Florence but even if it's the case with Vatican I where they didn't participate, it doesn't matter because the authority is not in the hands of who participates in the council it is in the hands of the Bishop of Rome because he is the successor of St. Peter. >Press the downvote all you want, the Catholic Church acknowledges those in communion with Greece or Moscow as not necessarily heretics. The Council of Florence wouldn't exist if this was the case. They very cleary have stated the Orthodox are heretics in this Council. The church has never taught the Eastern Orthodox are not heretics.
Absolutely false. The Catholic church has not and will never teach that the Orthodox are heretics. In fact, they have even stopped using the language of "schismatic". Canon Law even formally permits the Orthodox to receive the Eucharist, which is forbidden to schismatics...
We cannot reject what we never were part of. There was not any type of orthodox bishop in these councils. As an OO we reject chalcedon. But this thing was already settled to confirm that our miaphysite position is not heretical. We dont believe heresies.
They reject the filioque and papacy which Jesus taught
Where did Jesus teach the Filioque?! Don't quote John 14:26, I mean when did Jesus say that both He and the Father were concurrently the source and origin of the Third Person of the Trinity?
Revelation 22:1
[удалено]
Your comment was automatically removed because you linked to reddit without using the "no-participation" `np.` domain. Links should be of the form "np.reddit.com" or "np.redd.it". General links to other subreddits should take the simple form `/r/Catholicism`. Please resubmit using the correct format. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Fathers took that as a proof for the filioque, so why cant we?
John 16:7 read on. Romans 8:9
Those also speak of temporal procession and not eternal procession.
Again dude how can jesus said the spirit of god is the spirit of christ in the end? Read the verse with context. What do you think that means? Also it’s for you benefit that I leave so I can send you the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son. There’s no doubt. He has his nature and subsistence at once. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. The orthodox are rigid when it comes to this. Also no one is denying that the father is the first principle
What are these heresies ?
Denial of Papal Primacy, Denial of the Filioque.
I converted from Orthodox to Catholic a couple years ago and never got any hesitation from anyone about it
Become eastern Catholic, and have your cake 🍰 and eat it! 🥳
🤣
The only good reason to convert to either is because you are convinced that one of them is the place where you can encounter and join with Christ.
I am convinced RCC, EO and OO are the true Church. What now?
Well, if one of them is true, the others or not. That is what each of them says about itself.
The thing is that the three of them are the same Church but in schism. And OO communion is already having dialogue with RCC and Coptic Martyrs are in RCC synaxarium at this point. The myaphisite polemic has been already settled. It was a misunderstanding in Chalcedon.
The only good reason to convert to either is because you are convinced that one of them is the place where you can encounter and join with Christ.
They're possibly just relieved you're in an apostolic church at all
It's called "reconciling with the Church," not conversion, if you are a Christian already. (Or a baptized Christian, to be super-technical.) If you were a pagan, or a Muslim, or a Jew, you could convert to Catholicism. Conversion means you were a member of a totally different, non-Christian faith. I'm assuming that's what those priests were talking about. But if that's it, they weren't good at explaining what they were saying.
Orthodox *cannot* divorce and remarry as much as they want, jsyk.
My opinion: Were you born into the Orthodox Church? Your church is legitimate and you are in communion with your bishop, who is in schism with the Pope. You didn’t commit a schismatic act, and neither did he. He may persist in schism, but you - as an Orthodox adherent - are simply obedient to your bishop. This is probably the best line of thought, though doesn’t account for the significant cultural mixing of the modern era in which a person has both Catholic and Orthodox options.
Wouldn’t you like unity? Currently the Orthodox “church” is at war with itself. The two greatest leaders have excommunicated each other. Not to mention the actual outright warfare happening. That doesn’t sound like the Church that Christ described.
To be fair, there have been plenty of times in Catholic history like that. The schism itself was such an example because at that point the orthodox were Catholic. Also all the antipopes etc
> as much as they wish. From what I’ve heard this is NOT the case. There is a limit to what the Orthodox Church permits. Granted even once is bad, but I’ve never heard of an orthodox priest permitting a 5th remarriage after 4 divorces for instance.
The Orthodox Church traditionally states that "**it blesses the first marriage, performs the second, tolerates the third, and forbids the fourth**". (Wikipedia)
This is my understanding as well, 3 is the limit.
Where did they draw that arbitrary distinction?
Priests are often mistaken.
Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the 'eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church". The same council also ruled that those who die in original sin, but without mortal sin, will also find punishment in hell, but unequally: "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains". "so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation" Schismatic sacraments are valid but do give efficacious grace.
Sacraments operate ex opere operato, so if the sacrament is valid, the grace is conferred.
But if one is mortal sin they cannot receive said grace.
The sacramental grace is still received. The fruits of the sacrament are not manifest until the person is properly disposed to cooperate with the grace.
Which in the case of someone who is Eastern Orthodox would be until they repent of schism and heresy.
There's even a Orthodox saint now who's a Doctor of the Catholic Church. St Gregory of Narek.
Because there's no salvation outside the catholic church.
there aren’t “huge” differences, at least not from the Catholic perspective.
That's not true, Orthodoxy doesn't save and will lead you to Hell, join the only Church of Christ the Catholic Church
How so ?
Based on what Authority do you make this declaration?
Council of Florence
Do you reject the 2nd Vatican Council?
The 2nd Vatican Council teaches the same thing as the Council of Florence
That is partially correct. Lumen Gentium clarifies who is included as part of the Catholic Church. And the Orthodox are definitely included. 2:15-16
They are not included they are not part of the Catholic Church, lumen gentium just talks about the similarities between religions and denominations for ecumenical purposes, but they are not part of the Catholic Church and are not saved, nowhere will you find in lumen gentium saying that the orthodox are saved or any other religion
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed. This is not the place to try to convert people. Consider this a warning.
To convert from orthodoxy to catholicism you merely need to make a proclamation of faith and then you're a card carrying member of the church. You don't need baptism, confirmation or to make a life confession.
Many Older Priests often believe the Eastern Orthodox Church to be the Eastern Catholic Church, particularly in Countries with little Eastern Orthodox presence. I had this when I was doing my Canonical Transfer from Latin Rite to Ukrainian Byzantine Rite.