A while back, I read in the newspaper that a local bishop had excommunicated a Roman Catholic who converted to EO.
Does that mean that there are mistakes in his book? Where are the errors?
as the CCC also says
1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark ( character ) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.
Now look at the consequences Paul mentions above for one being divided and remains divided from the Church (which is Our Lord’s body)
Excommunication was lifted, schism is still in place.
That idea is not a permanent get outta jail free card. Given how easy information is to get today on this planet, the CCC points out, ignorance of one’s position must be innocent in order to get that benefit of ignorance.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
As in to remain in schism, heresy etc etc, in spite of an avalanche of information available showing such error, and not change, i.e. keep error going…they are culpable
Steve-b: if I understand what you’re saying, since I’ve read this thread and consequently gained knowledge, I as a Lutheran convert to Orthodoxy am fully culpable of schism and unless I unite myself to the Catholic Church will be condemned to hell?
Allow me to ask
why did you leave Lutheranism for one of the E Orthodox churches?
The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 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.”
Edit:. Paragraph 838, CCC
Not sure of the relevancy to my question but it was two-fold:
- My last Lutheran pastor basically stated that one doesn’t need to believe in the Resurrection or virgin birth in order to be a Christian.
- Upon hearing that, I looked for a more solid church, and found that in the Orthdox church the services are so full of scripture and so much emphasize the resurrection that I never left after attending my first service.
Thanks for that history.
RE: relevancy to you question HERE
I would just say
To use a phrase made popular by then Anglican John Newman, who likewise was looking for answers and reasons for why all the divisions in Christianity and particularly why he was Anglican, a conclusion he came to was
“to be deep in history is to cease being a protestant”
using that format it’s also true that
To go even deeper in history is to cease being E Orthodox.
To go deepest in history, back to Jesus and His Church He builds on Peter, and the apostles united to Peter,
is to be Catholic in the Catholic Church
I can add much more to that history if you are interested
Again! The Latin Church and the Orthodox were in communion for a millennium. How can you say that Eastern Orthodox cease to exist?
I’ve asked this question many times on these forums. No answer YET but I wait.
Show me where “Orthodox Church” (proper name) 1st appeared, in history, in writing, properly referenced?
Please give me that reference
The early Church was both Catholic and Orthodox. Neither term was used as a name but as descriptions of the one United Church. In early documents you often find the terms Latin and Greek as descriptors.
Again no answer to my question. But I wait.
As for “Catholic Church”, (in writing, properly referenced, going back to the beginning) have you not seen the evidence for that?
Are you referring to document or father of the church?
Here is my question again
Show me where “ Orthodox Church ” (proper name) 1st appeared, in history, in writing, properly referenced?
Please give me that reference, whether ECF or whatever source you have. But follow the requirements of the question.
So reading between the lines, you do, in fact, believe I am condemned to hell?
I’m not sure that one would, other than early fathers using the word orthodoxy, and that doesn’t really matter because east and west were in communion for a millennium.
Is my name on any of those documents in those sources I quoted? NO
Given that the opportunity presented itself, I merely gave references properly referenced. Paul gave those warnings. I’m just quoting him when those sins show up.
I’m not looking for the adjective. I’m looking for the name “Orthodox Church”. Are you saying you tried to find it, but you can’t find it in the 1st millenium?
That is NOT what you said.
You said (emphasis mine)
“The early Church was both Catholic and Orthodox. Neither term was used as a name but as descriptions of the one United Church. In early documents you often find the terms Latin and Greek as descriptors”.
That is wrong.
St. Ignatius Bp of Antioch, (direct disciple of John the apostle), St Polycarp Bp of Smyrna,(also a direct disciple of John the apostle) , St Irenaeus, Bp of Lyon, (who knew Polycarp), THEY use the name "Catholic Church"in their writings
EVEN the Nicean creed, it is an article of faith to believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church