www.byzcath.org

Yes, the Church says that, if you *know*--and, by that, She usually means "you've been told, and you're not stupid"--the Truth of Christ (be it any theological dogma or moral teaching of the Church), and you refuse to act on that knowledge, you can't get to Heaven.

On the other hand, since the salient issue is Papal Primacy, you have some leeway. There is also some precedent--talk about gambling--for Protestants converting first to Orthodoxy (particularly doing so to get ordained) and then coming into the Eastern Catholicism "through the back door".

But here's what I say. Anglicans claim to be the "Via Media," but if you look at it, the Catholic Church is really the true "Via Media."

If you look at many of the claims that Western heretics and schismatics (Protestants, Anglicans, SSPX, SSPV, etc.) make, those claims can be answered in some way by the existence of the Eastern Churches.

OTOH, the Eastern Churches in Union with Rome answer the claims of the schismatics and heretics of the East.

For me, the real answer to the Catholic/Orthodox dilemma is found in the Maronites and the Syro-Malabars, which have remained continuously in communion with the Bishop of Rome, although they've often been politically and geographically severed from communication with Rome.

Every other Eastern sui iuris church has had one or more schisms over papal primacy.

And, as I understand it, every Eastern Orthodox Church has a "Catholic" counterpart, made up of at least a small number of its members and clergy who swear loyalty to the Pope of Rome.

So, in terms of historical credibility to the claim of complete Apostolic Succession and Catholicity, I think that communion with Rome is the answer.

From debates on the old Pontifications web site (before Fr. Kimel went to a new site sponsor), it became clear from several posts between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox commenters that there is no way to reason to one or the other Church in a "fair" way. All the protagonists seemed to agree on one thing: one's metaphysical assumptions, whether fully known or not, determine where one comes out if one attempts to use reason alone. (For example, to oversimplify, if begins with the "essence" of God and the attributes attendant thereto, one is led to the RC Church; if one begins with the persons (hypostases) and the monarchy of the Father, then one is led to the EO Church.)

There seems to be no other empirical way to detect the "true" church, either. Both Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) inconstestably have martyrs and saints, ancient and modern, and their holy relics; both (at least in the Catholic view) have the presence of the Lord in the Sacraments/Mysteries, while most Orthodox will not exactly deny the possibility of grace-filled Mysteries in the Catholic Church; both Churches honor the angels and saints, especially the Blessed Virgin/Theotokos; both of them rightly claim a direct line of succession of bishops all the way to the Apostles.

So which is the 'true' Church? One can only pray, it appears, as Dave has said he is doing, and hope the good Lord indicates which one to join.

Silas,

A very thoughtful, good post.

Joe

To become Orthodox from previously being a Catholic is a formal act of schism and thus certainly a great sin if not an act of sacrilege as it is a devision of the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Church. Those born and brought up in the Orthodox Church or who renounced a formal heresy (such as Protestantism) to join it are in a different boat but those who were previously in possession of the complete Truth (ie the Catholic Church). Just because the sin is not as bad as some other sins it doesn't mean that it does not damn the sinner. A death camp guard is much worse than an adulterer but both sins damn the sinner. Naturally I am only talking in objective terms and am not saying I know all schismatics to be damned but speaking objectivly that is the result.

Happy Latin does not properly explain this issue.

The Catholic Church recognizes the inviolable freedom of an individual to follow his conscience. In the particular instance of a Catholic who would freely choose to become Orthodox the Catholic Church would regret such a move, but does not consider it to be an issue of salvation. The Catholic Church also would not consider it to be an act of division of the Mystical Body of Christ because the individual is not responsible for the division of the two Churches.

In �Ut unum sint, On commitment to Ecumenism� (1995) Pope John Paul the Great wrote:
Some Latins (and other Catholics) tend to want to use the term �schism� to describe the state of someone who would break communion with Catholicism to enter into formal communion with Orthodoxy. On the face of it, one can look at the Catholic Catechism (2089) and see that it defines �schism� as �the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.� But we can also see that it states (838): �With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." And we can see that Pope John Paul the Great stated that the word �schism� was too strong to describe the remaining separation between Orthodoxy and Rome.

Happy Latin stated: �Just because the sin is not as bad as some other sins it doesn't mean that it does not damn the sinner. A death camp guard is much worse than an adulterer but both sins damn the sinner.� This is not acceptable Catholic theology. An individual converting from one Church to another would need to accept in his heart that what he was doing was both wrong and sinful, and then freely choose to do it. Such individuals could certainly exist but the reality is that those who convert from one Church to another do not believe there is anything wrong or sinful with what they are doing and that, in converting, they are embracing (at least) a better presentation of Christian Truth. We can argue (as Catholics) that it is necessary for all local Churches to enter into full union with Rome. But we cannot argue that the individual who may leave Catholic Communion to become Orthodox is dammed. To argue that is presumption, and presumption itself can be sinful.

I would recommend that Happy Latin read the teachings of the Vatican II Council, together with the teachings of Pope John Paul II (focus on those documents speaking to unity in the Church, ecumenism, and especially ecumenism with the Christian East). Pope Benedict XVI has also touched on this issue.

"The Catholic Church also would not consider it to be an act of division of the Mystical Body of Christ because the individual is not responsible for the division of the two Churches."

This is a misreading of Church documents. As I have already said, someone who is born into the Orthodox Church is clearly not responsible for the schism. If, on the other hand, a person willfully rejects the authority of the Church and joins those who would oppose it he has clearly contributed to a schism by expanding it. Schism is a sin that does indeed endanger the salvation of the sinner. The Church recently reiterated that the Catholic Church is the only Church with the fullness of the truth and thus the Orthodox Church has most of the truth but not all of it - it is defective. I very much respect the eastern church and long for re-union but any Orthodox moves to separate people from the Church must be fought with all the rigor that any other proselytising group would be.

The quote from John Paul II is irrelevant. The document is referring to administering the sacraments to those in the Orthodox Church in grave need of them but cannot access a priest of their own Church.

"With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

Indeed, but the phrase 'lacks little' is vital here. It still lack something. This passage clearly affirms that the Orthodox Church still lacks something of full communion. That is a grave issue.

Pope John Paul can say what he likes on the issue but that does not make it so. I could sight dozens of Popes who say the opposite. John Paul made a great many rash statements and actions and this is certainly one. What of the filioque clause? Is Orthodox condemnation of that not a serious problem?

"An individual converting from one Church to another would need to accept in his heart that what he was doing was both wrong and sinful, and then freely choose to do it. Such individuals could certainly exist but the reality is that those who convert from one Church to another do not believe there is anything wrong or sinful with what they are doing and that, in converting, they are embracing (at least) a better presentation of Christian Truth."

This is also irrelevant. Of course any mortal sin committed without full knowledge of the gravity of the sin is not mortal but that does not take away from the objective gravity of the sin. Any educated Catholic knows that the Church teaches schism is a mortal sin anyway so no educated Catholic has the excuse of ignorance anyway. I am not presuming anything all I am saying is that a grave sin can damn the sinner so joining the Orthodox Church is risking damnation. I am not saying it will DEFINITELY happen.

I recommend Administrator to read St Athanasius on schism because he goes much further than me!

I will clarify once more that I like this forum very much as I very mush love the Eastern Church and like to learn about it and hear easterners opinions on various matters. I also very mush support the more toward re-union. I do not, however, see Catholics joining the Orthodox Church as acceptable in any way. It is a clear an fundamental rejection of Vatican I and II (which reaffirmed the Papacy's unique position) as well as a rejection of a whole myriad of Catholic positions not endorsed by the Orthodox Church.

Amazing how some people can be so dismissive of the words of the pope.... I'm sorry, but we really don't need posters who place their personal understanding above Church Teaching. I stand by my post, and recommend Happy Latin find a forum where his opinion triumphs Catholic theology and praxis.