Is purgatory an indulgence?

[Macrina]

The Orthodox version of absolution, in contrast to the Catholic, stresses the unworthiness of the minister to forgive sin, which God alone can do.

[Macrina]

So when an Orthodox priest consecrates the bread at the Eucharist you can't be sure if it has become the body of Christ or not?

It's an exact equivalent in terms of authority.

Orthodox pray that the Holy Spirit transforms the bread and wine. What does that have to do with 'authority'?  It's not as if we the church have any authority over the mystical way in which God works.
We just believe by faith that such a mystery is possible.

[Catholica]

So when an Orthodox priest consecrates the bread at the Eucharist you can't be sure if it has become the body of Christ or not?

It's an exact equivalent in terms of authority.

Orthodox pray that the Holy Spirit transforms the bread and wine. What does that have to do with 'authority'?  It's not as if we the church have any authority over the mystical way in which God works.
We just believe by faith that such a mystery is possible.

Hi Macrina,

Not everyone can consecrate the bread and wine - only a priest or a bishop.  Anyone else can say the same prayers in the same way, using the same exact actions and prayers, and yet the bread and wine do not become the body and blood.  That is authority.  And the priest and the congregation has assurance that the authority given to that priest _always_ allows him to consecrate the bread and wine, even if he himself is in mortal sin.

Andre

[desertknight]

So when an Orthodox priest consecrates the bread at the Eucharist you can't be sure if it has become the body of Christ or not?

It's an exact equivalent in terms of authority.

Orthodox pray that the Holy Spirit transforms the bread and wine. What does that have to do with 'authority'?  It's not as if we the church have any authority over the mystical way in which God works.
We just believe by faith that such a mystery is possible.

Hi Macrina,

Not everyone can consecrate the bread and wine - only a priest or a bishop.  Anyone else can say the same prayers in the same way, using the same exact actions and prayers, and yet the bread and wine do not become the body and blood.  That is authority.  And the priest and the congregation has assurance that the authority given to that priest _always_ allows him to consecrate the bread and wine, even if he himself is in mortal sin.

Andre

And a priest, no matter how humble his assurance during the prayer of absolution over the penitent in the Sacrament of Penance, has through the authority of his holy office, most assuredly absolved them of their sins.  

[winsome]

Authority is very important. We tend to think of authority in terms of what authority we have over others, or that others have over us. But first we should think of the source of that authority as that defines its scope & legitimacy. Put another way, think not of who we have authority over but whose authority are we under.

Take the incident with the centurion in Mt 8:5-9
When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.

[Macrina]

So when an Orthodox priest consecrates the bread at the Eucharist you can't be sure if it has become the body of Christ or not?

It's an exact equivalent in terms of authority.

Orthodox pray that the Holy Spirit transforms the bread and wine. What does that have to do with 'authority'?  It's not as if we the church have any authority over the mystical way in which God works.
We just believe by faith that such a mystery is possible.

Hi Macrina,

Not everyone can consecrate the bread and wine - only a priest or a bishop.  Anyone else can say the same prayers in the same way, using the same exact actions and prayers, and yet the bread and wine do not become the body and blood.  That is authority.  And the priest and the congregation has assurance that the authority given to that priest _always_ allows him to consecrate the bread and wine, even if he himself is in mortal sin.

Andre

Not everyone can hold the office of a priest or bishop without the laying of hands and chrism of the Holy Spirit given them through apostolic succession to perform such duties as the office demands. Their duties involve serving at the altar which they vow to do.

This however, does not given them such authority as that of Christ Himself, or in His stead as the Catholic view relates.

The Orthodox mystagogy of the Eucharist involves calling the Holy Spirit (epiklesis) for the material elements to be grace-filled.
A priest or bishop alone cannot do this, they require the prayers of the faithful to supplicate their prayers. According to our canons, clergy cannot serve the Eucharist alone, there must be at least one person present for them to attempt it.
Orthodox priests do many prayers before the Divine Liturgy begins when they are preparing the Lamb of the mystical supper. They are taught how to physically prepare the sacrifice, part of which entails how they cut it up and divide it among the faithful. There is usually a seal (ICXC, Greek initials for Jesus Christ) in the middle of the bread which symbolizes the Lamb. There are traditional differences in how the bread is made to present, some use one big loaf (Greek), some three smaller loaves (Coptic), and some five small loaves (Russian)

Winsome has given a clear Catholic understanding.

It is as though Jesus himself were standing there. Indeed we say that the priest is acting in persona Christi.

Personal Orthodox accounts will tell you that this is not the case with Orthodoxy. Accounts such as those who witnessed the Lord, the Theotokos and saints coming to attend the liturgy. The prayers of His people having called to Him.

So no, the Lord is not present inside the person of the priest in Orthodoxy.

[desertknight]

Not everyone can hold the office of a priest or bishop without the laying of hands and chrism of the Holy Spirit given them through apostolic succession to perform such duties as the office demands. Their duties involve serving at the altar which they vow to do.

So far, that is identical with us.

This however, does not given them such authority as that of Christ Himself, or in His stead as the Catholic view relates.

Well, in that charism that Christ gave those in Apostolic Succession, it most certainly does.   Christ specifically tells us that, "as the Father has sent Him, so He sends them."  He specifically told His apostles to, "Do this,"   When they consecrate bread and wine, it is so, when they absolve, it is so.  It is not the "hope" that it might happen, it is the certainty due to their sacramental authority that it happens.  

"For Orthodox Christians the ordained priest is the "icon of Christ" or "in persona Christi." We believe that there is something in the very nature of the male ordained priest which allows him "to be the sacramental presence of the Lord, the mystical embodiment of the Church's husband and Lord."

http://www.oca.org/RHArticle.asp?SID=15&ArticleID=10

No Catholic theologian could have put it more clearly.  

As to the specifics of the rubics of Divine Liturgy, there are of course some differences, but there are between the western and the eastern rites of the Catholic Church, their's (Eastern Catholics), matching your practice.

The Orthodox mystagogy of the Eucharist involves calling the Holy Spirit (epiklesis) for the material elements to be grace-filled.
A priest or bishop alone cannot do this, they require the prayers of the faithful to supplicate their prayers. According to our canons, clergy cannot serve the Eucharist alone, there must be at least one person present for them to attempt it.

Again, that would be identical to Catholic doctrine.  The Mass is celebrated with the cloud of witnesses of the Theotakos and all the Saints who are called upon in prayer to witness our sacrifice.  The role of the faithful as the "royal priesthood of believers" is so paramount that we are properly said to assist at Mass when we attend church, not "go to Mass" or "attend Mass".  The Mass must also not be celebrated alone for that reason...

Roman Missal (GIRM) No. 254. "Mass should not be celebrated without a minister or at least one of the faithful,"

Winsome has given a clear Catholic understanding.

It is as though Jesus himself were standing there. Indeed we say that the priest is acting in persona Christi.

Personal Orthodox accounts will tell you that this is not the case with Orthodoxy. Accounts such as those who witnessed the Lord, the Theotokos and saints coming to attend the liturgy. The prayers of His people having called to Him.

So no, the Lord is not present inside the person of the priest in Orthodoxy.

Again, see OCA link and quote above.  

But that is not exactly what Winsome said.  He said nothing about Christ being inside the priest, although even the Orthodox use "embodiment", but as to what I think you are getting at, it is bedrock Catholic doctrine that the priest, all priest, from pope to parish priest, is just a man, filled with sin and running the race with the rest of us.  A priest does act, however, as Christ's stand in, His vicar, which is where the term, in persona Christi comes from...

"Only a priest and a bishop have the function and the authority to consecrate the elements of bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ. Only the priest and the bishop have the function and the authority to bless water and oil in Holy Baptism and Holy Unction and to sanctify material objects for devotional and spiritual purposes. Only a priest and a bishop have the function and the authority to absolve people from their sins."

"Orthodox Christians believe that their bishops, priests and deacons are Ikons of Christ and therefore must be male because Jesus Christ is male. To understand this we must think about what an Ikon is. An Ikon is a religious symbol, but yet much more than a symbol. It is an instrument of Divine reality."

http://www.antiochian.org/midwest/articles/the_orthodox_priest_an_ikon_of_christ.htm

Perfect Catholic doctrine here.

[AvrilNYC]

So far, that is identical with us.

.  


No Catholic theologian could have put it more clearly.  




Again, that would be identical to Catholic doctrine.  The Mass is celebrated with the cloud of witnesses of the Theotakos and all the Saints who are called upon in prayer to witness our sacrifice.  The role of the faithful as the "royal priesthood of believers" is so paramount that we are properly said to assist at Mass when we attend church, not "go to Mass" or "attend Mass".  The Mass must also not be celebrated alone for that reason...

Perfect Catholic doctrine here.

Desretknight,

I'm sure by now you know that most Orthodox posters on Gracecentered tend to exaggerate the theological differences from Catholicism and minimize the common points. They try really hard to justify the schism on theological grounds, even if they are just in their imagination. Truth is the only main differences between Catholics and Orthodox are political.

[mclees8]

Not everyone can hold the office of a priest or bishop without the laying of hands and chrism of the Holy Spirit given them through apostolic succession to perform such duties as the office demands. Their duties involve serving at the altar which they vow to do.

So far, that is identical with us.

This however, does not given them such authority as that of Christ Himself, or in His stead as the Catholic view relates.

Well, in that charism that Christ gave those in Apostolic Succession, it most certainly does.   Christ specifically tells us that, "as the Father has sent Him, so He sends them."  He specifically told His apostles to, "Do this,"   When they consecrate bread and wine, it is so, when they absolve, it is so.  It is not the "hope" that it might happen, it is the certainty due to their sacramental authority that it happens.  

"For Orthodox Christians the ordained priest is the "icon of Christ" or "in persona Christi." We believe that there is something in the very nature of the male ordained priest which allows him "to be the sacramental presence of the Lord, the mystical embodiment of the Church's husband and Lord."

http://www.oca.org/RHArticle.asp?SID=15&ArticleID=10

No Catholic theologian could have put it more clearly.  

As to the specifics of the rubics of Divine Liturgy, there are of course some differences, but there are between the western and the eastern rites of the Catholic Church, their's (Eastern Catholics), matching your practice.

The Orthodox mystagogy of the Eucharist involves calling the Holy Spirit (epiklesis) for the material elements to be grace-filled.
A priest or bishop alone cannot do this, they require the prayers of the faithful to supplicate their prayers. According to our canons, clergy cannot serve the Eucharist alone, there must be at least one person present for them to attempt it.

Again, that would be identical to Catholic doctrine.  The Mass is celebrated with the cloud of witnesses of the Theotakos and all the Saints who are called upon in prayer to witness our sacrifice.  The role of the faithful as the "royal priesthood of believers" is so paramount that we are properly said to assist at Mass when we attend church, not "go to Mass" or "attend Mass".  The Mass must also not be celebrated alone for that reason...

Roman Missal (GIRM) No. 254. "Mass should not be celebrated without a minister or at least one of the faithful,"

Winsome has given a clear Catholic understanding.

It is as though Jesus himself were standing there. Indeed we say that the priest is acting in persona Christi.

Personal Orthodox accounts will tell you that this is not the case with Orthodoxy. Accounts such as those who witnessed the Lord, the Theotokos and saints coming to attend the liturgy. The prayers of His people having called to Him.

So no, the Lord is not present inside the person of the priest in Orthodoxy.

Again, see OCA link and quote above.  

But that is not exactly what Winsome said.  He said nothing about Christ being inside the priest, although even the Orthodox use "embodiment", but as to what I think you are getting at, it is bedrock Catholic doctrine that the priest, all priest, from pope to parish priest, is just a man, filled with sin and running the race with the rest of us.  A priest does act, however, as Christ's stand in, His vicar, which is where the term, in persona Christi comes from...

Only the priest and the bishop have the function and the authority to bless water and oil in Holy Baptism and Holy Unction and to sanctify material objects for devotional and spiritual purposes. Only a priest and a bishop have the function and the authority to absolve people from their sins."

"Orthodox Christians believe that their bishops, priests and deacons are Ikons of Christ and therefore must be male because Jesus Christ is male. To understand this we must think about what an Ikon is. An Ikon is a religious symbol, but yet much more than a symbol. It is an instrument of Divine reality."

http://www.antiochian.org/midwest/articles/the_orthodox_priest_an_ikon_of_christ.htm

Perfect Catholic doctrine here.

Well i admit i don't know a lot about Orthodox beliefs. I have respect for much of their biblical theology but this embodiment thing is really out there.

But Catholics are really played also. It purty obvious to me that the magisterial order plays a sort of religious entrapment on the laity

As stated ("Only a priest and a bishop have the function and the authority to consecrate the elements of bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ.) If one believes the substance is changed it does not change his faith if he believes in faith and a pure heart that he honors Christ in that that thing. What jumps at me though is the the idea that they can only honor Christ in this thing if he is RC and believes only the Priest can change the substance.
What this means that they are bound to the RCC. Being intimidated that leaving the RCC he can no longer honor Christ. This puts his salvation on the line.

Yet now they say one can be saved outside the RCC. What a mind game we have hear. You tell me Jesus is in this.  

[Macrina]

I am not OCA or Antiochian so I can't speak for whatever they believe.

While priests as well as us represent Christ to the world, it is only in a human sense. There is no authority such as divinity attached to that.
The church is in the divine sense when it is united, not in the individual person.

Truth is the only main differences between Catholics and Orthodox are political.

Is the way you cross yourself political?
Is the direction your priest face the altar political?
Is your communion leaven and ours unleaven political?
Is our priest being married and yours not political?
Is your scholastic approach and our doxological approach political?
Is your baptism not being the same as ours political?
Is your view of the pope as supreme monarch of Christianity on earth and mine against such a thing political?

"Political" is a very lame interpretation of theological understanding.

Well i admit i don't know a lot about Orthodox beliefs. I have respect for much of their biblical theology but this embodiment thing is really out there.

Orthodox priest do not "embody" Christ. The priesthood is comparable to the OT priesthood which began with Moses who was a type of Christ. Moses appointed the priesthood through God's direction. They were men who stood for the firstborn. This traditional form did not change with the new priesthood.
However the old was transformed in Christ. With the added dimension of the Incarnation thus fulfilling God's plan with mankind. The implications of the Incarnation cannot be applied to human priests.

[desertknight]

What a mind game we have hear.

There is none.  The Church is the Body of Christ.  It is the source of those graces we receive through the sacraments that assist us in our theosis, in our spiritual growth and salvation.  Salvation is only possible through the grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ but no one on earth has any way of knowing with certainty who's name is written in the book of life, and who's name is not.  Let me give an example:  there may be those outside of the Church, say you are a young Pakistani tribesman, and you have never left your village.  The only thing you have ever been told about Christianity is negative and incorrect information.  You know no Christians and none live anywhere around you, now if you die, will God simply cast you into eternal hell because you had the misfortune of being ignorant of His Word?  We Catholics have no way to declare with certainty what will happen to you in this circumstance, but we know that God is merciful and will look into that person's heart and decide if they have kept the moral law, treated their neighbours with charity, honoured God as best they knew how, acted with the mercy that God will act with in judging them.  That person is "invincibly ignorant", they can't be held responsible for not knowing the truth of Christ.  It's hard enough for those of us who are baptised Christians.  That is all that is meant when the Church says that it does not know with certainty who is saved and who is not.  We know not, but we know God is merciful.  That does not mean that one can just feign ignorance and "get off the hook".  One cannot confuse 'invincible ignorance' with 'vincible stubbornness'.   We who are Christian and who are charged to be ONE Body and to be obedient to ONE authority, have little excuse.

[AvrilNYC]

Is the way you cross yourself political? I cross both ways. Jesus is happy whether someone crosses with 3 or 5 fingers. This is  tradition with a small "t"

Is the direction your priest face the altar political? Both Orthodox and Catholic priests face the faithful, what are you talking about?


Is your communion leaven and ours unleaven political? small "t" also. Are you serious, you think Jesus cares whether the bread is leaven or unleaven? If anything the bread Jesus used was unleaven, like the one used by the Catholics

Is our priest being married and yours not political? Eastern Rite Catholic priests are married. Only the Latin Rite is not. So you can be a Catholic priest and be married. This is not a Catholic dogma.

Is your scholastic approach and our doxological approach political? That's not dogma either. There are many Catholic theologians who do not follow the scholastic (Aquinas') approach

Is your baptism not being the same as ours political? It is the same in substance

Is your view of the pope as supreme monarch of Christianity on earth and mine against such a thing political? That's the only real difference and it only exists because the Byzantine secular emperors wanted to control and appoint the Archbishop of Constantinople (political).

"Political" is a very lame interpretation of theological understanding." Macrina, I'm sure you know that the fragmented nationalistic Orthodox Churches (e.g., Russian, Serbian, Greek) are very political and entangled in the local nationalistic fights. Until recently the Russian Church in Russia was not in communion with the Russian Church outside Russia for political reasons!!


Macrina: Ecumenical Archbishop Bartholomew had a joint Liturgy with Pope Benedict, where they both jointly recited the Nicene Creed. Bartholomew stated that both Churches are very close to full communion. I think Bartholomew knows better than you

[desertknight]

I am not OCA or Antiochian so I can't speak for whatever they believe.

Then by what authority do you Orthodox remain separate from us?  If you don't even agree with each other, then by what authority do you hold to what you do?   How can you say, "by the ecumenical councils" when apparently, on even the most basic of doctrinal questions, you guys seem to have quite differing beliefs?  

[AvrilNYC]

I am not OCA or Antiochian so I can't speak for whatever they believe.

Then by what authority are you Orthodox remain separate from us?  If you don't even agree with each other, then by what authority do you hold to what you do?   How can you say, "by the ecumenical councils" when apparently, on even the most basic of doctrinal questions, you guys seem to have quite differing beliefs?  

Although the autocephaly of the OCA is not universally recognized by all autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches, it is in full communion with them. Thus OCA is in full agreement dogmatically with all the main Orthodox Churches. Which means that if Macrina is mainstream Orthodox (i.e., not a schismatic) she has identical core beliefs with OCA whether she likes it or not.

In all fairness to them, all the Eastern Orthodox Churches (Russian, Greek, Serbian, etc.) have identical core beliefs

[desertknight]

Well, if they seem to disagree on the nature of Holy Orders, the infallibility of the Church, the certainty of the absolution given in the Sacrament of Penance, then how can it be possibly said that they have the same core beliefs?  We are not talking about where the candles go in church, but on the basic and essential doctrinal positions of great concern.

I was honestly flabbergasted at the dismissal of Antiochean and OCA views. Not to mention that they were just the ones that I happen to post.  They are not the only ones by far.

[AvrilNYC]

Well, if they seem to disagree on the nature of Holy Orders, the infallibility of the Church, the certainty of the absolution given in the Sacrament of Penance, then how can it be possibly said that they have the same core beliefs?  We are not talking about where the candles go in church, but on the basic and essential doctrinal positions of great concern.

I was honestly flabbergasted at the dismissal of Antiochean and OCA views. Not to mention that they were just the ones that I happen to post.  They are not the only ones by far.

Macrina was just flat out wrong to dismiss OCA and the Antiochean Church beliefs. They are in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. They are both members of SCOBA .

SCOBA is The Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the America; an Eastern Orthodox organization designed to help cooperation among the canonical Orthodox Christian jurisdictions to be found in the Americas. It acts as a clearinghouse for educational, charitable, and missionary work in the Americas.

The members of SCOBA are the archbishops, metropolitan bishops, and bishops of the Orthodox Churches in North and South America that are in communion with the four ancient Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Constantinople (Istanbul, Turkey), Antioch (now in Damascus, Syria), Alexandria (Egypt), Jerusalem and the Patriarchate of Moscow and those that are in communion with them.

I think that Macrina either 1) just wanted an excuse not to admit she was wrong or 2) she's not very knowledgable about Orthodoxy or 3) she's schismatic (belongs to a splinter group, not in full communion with most Orthodox). I guess only she can tell us what is it

[mclees8]

What a mind game we have hear.

There is none.  The Church is the Body of Christ.  It is the source of those graces we receive through the sacraments that assist us in our theosis, in our spiritual growth and salvation.  Salvation is only possible through the grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ but no one on earth has any way of knowing with certainty who's name is written in the book of life, and who's name is not.  Let me give an example:  there may be those outside of the Church, say you are a young Pakistani tribesman, and you have never left your village.  The only thing you have ever been told about Christianity is negative and incorrect information.  You know no Christians and none live anywhere around you, now if you die, will God simply cast you into eternal hell because you had the misfortune of being ignorant of His Word?  We Catholics have no way to declare with certainty what will happen to you in this circumstance, but we know that God is merciful and will look into that person's heart and decide if they have kept the moral law, treated their neighbours with charity, honoured God as best they knew how, acted with the mercy that God will act with in judging them.  That person is "invincibly ignorant", they can't be held responsible for not knowing the truth of Christ.  It's hard enough for those of us who are baptised Christians.  That is all that is meant when the Church says that it does not know with certainty who is saved and who is not.  We know not, but we know God is merciful.  That does not mean that one can just feign ignorance and "get off the hook".  One cannot confuse 'invincible ignorance' with 'vincible stubbornness'.   We who are Christian and who are charged to be ONE Body and to be obedient to ONE authority, have little excuse.

So who is the body of Christ? You have singled out the RCC
Let me put another way. It is now believed that Protestants can be saved. Not invincibly ignorant

It has been said that, and quite condescending i might add,  that the church(the RCC) now says of Protestants.  for reasons of being less culpable then their reformation fathers and being brought up ignorant of the truth they can have salvation.

It hasn't been all that long that the RCC was adamant that there was no salvation outside of being  RC,  but now they toss a dog a bone. So who is the body of Christ? And what is the state of those who have communion out side of the RCC not having the substance changed by an official RC priest? What happens if one is excommunicated or violates RCC doctrine and teaching to then become Protestant?

Is not one intimidated by all this? That salvation is by affiliation to the worldly entity, and bound the the RC priest hood, rather than personal choice to believe in Christ. Who is the body of Christ?

[winsome]

What a mind game we have hear.

There is none.  The Church is the Body of Christ.  It is the source of those graces we receive through the sacraments that assist us in our theosis, in our spiritual growth and salvation.  Salvation is only possible through the grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ but no one on earth has any way of knowing with certainty who's name is written in the book of life, and who's name is not.  Let me give an example:  there may be those outside of the Church, say you are a young Pakistani tribesman, and you have never left your village.  The only thing you have ever been told about Christianity is negative and incorrect information.  You know no Christians and none live anywhere around you, now if you die, will God simply cast you into eternal hell because you had the misfortune of being ignorant of His Word?  We Catholics have no way to declare with certainty what will happen to you in this circumstance, but we know that God is merciful and will look into that person's heart and decide if they have kept the moral law, treated their neighbours with charity, honoured God as best they knew how, acted with the mercy that God will act with in judging them.  That person is "invincibly ignorant", they can't be held responsible for not knowing the truth of Christ.  It's hard enough for those of us who are baptised Christians.  That is all that is meant when the Church says that it does not know with certainty who is saved and who is not.  We know not, but we know God is merciful.  That does not mean that one can just feign ignorance and "get off the hook".  One cannot confuse 'invincible ignorance' with 'vincible stubbornness'.   We who are Christian and who are charged to be ONE Body and to be obedient to ONE authority, have little excuse.

So who is the body of Christ? You have singled out the RCC
Let me put another way. It is now believed that Protestants can be saved. Not invincibly ignorant

It has been said that, and quite condescending i might add,  that the church(the RCC) now says of Protestants.  for reasons of being less culpable then their reformation fathers and being brought up ignorant of the truth they can have salvation.

It hasn't been all that long that the RCC was adamant that there was no salvation outside of being  RC,  but now they toss a dog a bone. So who is the body of Christ? And what is the state of those who have communion out side of the RCC not having the substance changed by an official RC priest? What happens if one is excommunicated or violates RCC doctrine and teaching to then become Protestant?

Is not one intimidated by all this? That salvation is by affiliation to the worldly entity, and bound the the RC priest hood, rather than personal choice to believe in Christ. Who is the body of Christ?

You want salvation on your terms rather than Christ's?

Jesus got it wrong did he?

[desertknight]

What a mind game we have hear.

There is none.  The Church is the Body of Christ.  It is the source of those graces we receive through the sacraments that assist us in our theosis, in our spiritual growth and salvation.  Salvation is only possible through the grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ but no one on earth has any way of knowing with certainty who's name is written in the book of life, and who's name is not.  Let me give an example:  there may be those outside of the Church, say you are a young Pakistani tribesman, and you have never left your village.  The only thing you have ever been told about Christianity is negative and incorrect information.  You know no Christians and none live anywhere around you, now if you die, will God simply cast you into eternal hell because you had the misfortune of being ignorant of His Word?  We Catholics have no way to declare with certainty what will happen to you in this circumstance, but we know that God is merciful and will look into that person's heart and decide if they have kept the moral law, treated their neighbours with charity, honoured God as best they knew how, acted with the mercy that God will act with in judging them.  That person is "invincibly ignorant", they can't be held responsible for not knowing the truth of Christ.  It's hard enough for those of us who are baptised Christians.  That is all that is meant when the Church says that it does not know with certainty who is saved and who is not.  We know not, but we know God is merciful.  That does not mean that one can just feign ignorance and "get off the hook".  One cannot confuse 'invincible ignorance' with 'vincible stubbornness'.   We who are Christian and who are charged to be ONE Body and to be obedient to ONE authority, have little excuse.

So who is the body of Christ? You have singled out the RCC
Let me put another way. It is now believed that Protestants can be saved. Not invincibly ignorant

It has been said that, and quite condescending i might add,  that the church(the RCC) now says of Protestants.  for reasons of being less culpable then their reformation fathers and being brought up ignorant of the truth they can have salvation.

It hasn't been all that long that the RCC was adamant that there was no salvation outside of being  RC,  but now they toss a dog a bone. So who is the body of Christ? And what is the state of those who have communion out side of the RCC not having the substance changed by an official RC priest? What happens if one is excommunicated or violates RCC doctrine and teaching to then become Protestant?

Is not one intimidated by all this? That salvation is by affiliation to the worldly entity, and bound the the RC priest hood, rather than personal choice to believe in Christ. Who is the body of Christ?

I don't know how you managed it, McLees, but somehow you read what I wrote, quoted it even, and then commented on it with the exact opposite meaning to what I wrote. 

1.  The Church does not say one way or another, who is saved, it only comments that salvation outside of things like baptism and receiving the grace of Holy Eucharist is pretty problematic to say the least, it cannot realistically happen.  It is illogical that a Christian can be saved while they are separated from the Church, the Body of Christ.

2.  The Church does not say that Protestants can't have salvation, it doesn't say that of anyone...it doesn't know who is saved.  It does say that Protestants are separated from the Church.   i.e., so no, they are not "invincibly ignorant".  They have chosen to be their own authorities.  They have chosen to ignore God's Church and reject His truths such as Holy Eucharist.

3.  The state of those Christians outside of the Church, not having access to the graces of the sacraments is grave.  Those do not include the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox and a few other groups, because they still have access to some of the graces offered through a valid Holy Eucharist for example, by their equally valid priesthood.  For Protestants, they have chosen to disbelieve the truth of Christian teaching and reject the very idea of Apostolic Authority and so have no access to those graces offered by it. 

4.  There is "no salvation outside of the Church"...valid then, valid now.  It is however still dependent on God's will in determining who is invincibly ignorant and who is disobedient and stubborn.  If bigotry of Catholicism, for example, keeps you from the grace of the sacraments, that does NOT make one "invincibly ignorant".  That makes one a fool who thinks he can save himself.

5.  One is intimidated by this because you come from a background that has led you to the erroneous idea that sinful man should have no authority over others.  That visible churches are bad and that you can save yourself with a "personal" relationship with Christ.  None of that is Biblical nor was believed by any Christians before the foolishness of Protestantism led so many down the path to hell.

The Body of Christ is not millions of personal relationships.  We are ONE Body.  We are saved with each other in the human family and with Christ as Husband to His bride the Church as head of that family.  We must submit to that authority ordained by Him and put away our childish stubbornness and petty bigotry.  We do not get to pick and choose from the Bible.  We do not get to decide on our own what is doctrine.  We do not get to decide on truth and there is not more than one truth. 

[mclees8]

What a mind game we have hear.

There is none.  The Church is the Body of Christ.  It is the source of those graces we receive through the sacraments that assist us in our theosis, in our spiritual growth and salvation.  Salvation is only possible through the grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ but no one on earth has any way of knowing with certainty who's name is written in the book of life, and who's name is not.  Let me give an example:  there may be those outside of the Church, say you are a young Pakistani tribesman, and you have never left your village.  The only thing you have ever been told about Christianity is negative and incorrect information.  You know no Christians and none live anywhere around you, now if you die, will God simply cast you into eternal hell because you had the misfortune of being ignorant of His Word?  We Catholics have no way to declare with certainty what will happen to you in this circumstance, but we know that God is merciful and will look into that person's heart and decide if they have kept the moral law, treated their neighbours with charity, honoured God as best they knew how, acted with the mercy that God will act with in judging them.  That person is "invincibly ignorant", they can't be held responsible for not knowing the truth of Christ.  It's hard enough for those of us who are baptised Christians.  That is all that is meant when the Church says that it does not know with certainty who is saved and who is not.  We know not, but we know God is merciful.  That does not mean that one can just feign ignorance and "get off the hook".  One cannot confuse 'invincible ignorance' with 'vincible stubbornness'.   We who are Christian and who are charged to be ONE Body and to be obedient to ONE authority, have little excuse.

So who is the body of Christ? You have singled out the RCC
Let me put another way. It is now believed that Protestants can be saved. Not invincibly ignorant

It has been said that, and quite condescending i might add,  that the church(the RCC) now says of Protestants.  for reasons of being less culpable then their reformation fathers and being brought up ignorant of the truth they can have salvation.

It hasn't been all that long that the RCC was adamant that there was no salvation outside of being  RC,  but now they toss a dog a bone. So who is the body of Christ? And what is the state of those who have communion out side of the RCC not having the substance changed by an official RC priest? What happens if one is excommunicated or violates RCC doctrine and teaching to then become Protestant?

Is not one intimidated by all this? That salvation is by affiliation to the worldly entity, and bound the the RC priest hood, rather than personal choice to believe in Christ. Who is the body of Christ?

I don't know how you managed it, McLees, but somehow you read what I wrote, quoted it even, and then commented on it with the exact opposite meaning to what I wrote. 

1.  The Church does not say one way or another, who is saved, it only comments that salvation outside of things like baptism and receiving the grace of Holy Eucharist is pretty problematic to say the least, it cannot realistically happen.  It is illogical that a Christian can be saved while they are separated from the Church, the Body of Christ.

2.  The Church does not say that Protestants can't have salvation, it doesn't say that of anyone...it doesn't know who is saved.  It does say that Protestants are separated from the Church.   i.e., so no, they are not "invincibly ignorant".  They have chosen to be their own authorities.  They have chosen to ignore God's Church and reject His truths such as Holy Eucharist.

3.  The state of those Christians outside of the Church, not having access to the graces of the sacraments is grave.  Those do not include the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox and a few other groups, because they still have access to some of the graces offered through a valid Holy Eucharist for example, by their equally valid priesthood.  For Protestants, they have chosen to disbelieve the truth of Christian teaching and reject the very idea of Apostolic Authority and so have no access to those graces offered by it. 

4.  There is "no salvation outside of the Church"...valid then, valid now.  It is however still dependent on God's will in determining who is invincibly ignorant and who is disobedient and stubborn.  If bigotry of Catholicism, for example, keeps you from the grace of the sacraments, that does NOT make one "invincibly ignorant".  That makes one a fool who thinks he can save himself.

5.  One is intimidated by this because you come from a background that has led you to the erroneous idea that sinful man should have no authority over others.  That visible churches are bad and that you can save yourself with a "personal" relationship with Christ.  None of that is Biblical nor was believed by any Christians before the foolishness of Protestantism led so many down the path to hell.

The Body of Christ is not millions of personal relationships.  We are ONE Body.  We are saved with each other in the human family and with Christ as Husband to His bride the Church as head of that family.  We must submit to that authority ordained by Him and put away our childish stubbornness and petty bigotry.  We do not get to pick and choose from the Bible.  We do not get to decide on our own what is doctrine.  We do not get to decide on truth and there is not more than one truth. 

Well I don't know how you did it but you manged to dance away from the issues and my direct question which I stated more than once and all I said is relevant  to the prior comments.  Who is the body of Christ, (the church). And is there salvation out side of it.? You see I want your personal idea about who the body is. Could you do that for me?

what happens to the one who leaves the RCC and becomes Protestant no longer doing the Eucharist by an ordained Roman Catholic Priest who is the only one who can change the substance ?

The bible says that Jesus knows his sheep and calls them them by name. Now that seems purty personal to me. It a;so says it is our choice to believe unto salvation. Jesus is a very personal Lord and when i stand before Him Just as all of us will We will be alone with him and my record is written.  My affiliation will not be of any weight and the pope will not be with you or me. He will not be able to say what a good RC your are but he will look at your personal walk. I would love to make all this scriptural for.  I am not quoting scripture and verse right now but if you want specific scripture that points to personal relationship I can fill a book. Would like for me to post some.

God bless



No if you do not believe that your salvation is not first personal I feel sorry for. You are so institutionalized

[Macrina]

Is the way you cross yourself political? I cross both ways. Jesus is happy whether someone crosses with 3 or 5 fingers. This is  tradition with a small "t"

Actually the way you cross yourself is because your priest faces you from the altar. Has nothing to do with how many fingers.

Is the direction your priest face the altar political? Both Orthodox and Catholic priests face the faithful, what are you talking about?

No, Orthodox priest do not face the faithful at the altar.

Is your communion leaven and ours unleaven political? small "t" also. Are you serious, you think Jesus cares whether the bread is leaven or unleaven? If anything the bread Jesus used was unleaven, like the one used by the Catholics

These small "t's" have a lot to do with why you do them.
Orthodox care if the bread is leaven, because Christ is Risen! Other reason is because the canons forbid judaizing in any form.
You just related yours to the practice of Judaism.

Is our priest being married and yours not political? Eastern Rite Catholic priests are married. Only the Latin Rite is not. So you can be a Catholic priest and be married. This is not a Catholic dogma.

Not dogma, canons of the church.

Is your scholastic approach and our doxological approach political? That's not dogma either. There are many Catholic theologians who do not follow the scholastic (Aquinas') approach

It is dogma related to the Creed and Trinity theology.

Is your baptism not being the same as ours political? It is the same in substance

Actually it isn't according to the canons of the church.

Is your view of the pope as supreme monarch of Christianity on earth and mine against such a thing political? That's the only real difference and it only exists because the Byzantine secular emperors wanted to control and appoint the Archbishop of Constantinople (political).

Then the Catholic church decided to follow in the same mistake. Does two wrongs make a right.

"Political" is a very lame interpretation of theological understanding." Macrina, I'm sure you know that the fragmented nationalistic Orthodox Churches (e.g., Russian, Serbian, Greek) are very political and entangled in the local nationalistic fights. Until recently the Russian Church in Russia was not in communion with the Russian Church outside Russia for political reasons!!

Your wrong. But I don't expect you to understand what goes on within Orthodoxy, since your not Orthodox.
ROCOR split into two groups. One joined the Moscow patriarchate, the other did not. The one that did not still believes the Moscow patriarchate to be infected with Sergianism. Because I know many Russian's and have talked with them, I agree with this stance.

Macrina: Ecumenical Archbishop Bartholomew had a joint Liturgy with Pope Benedict, where they both jointly recited the Nicene Creed. Bartholomew stated that both Churches are very close to full communion. I think Bartholomew knows better than you

We know the state of Archbishop Bartholomew. Many churches have abandoned him.

Macrina was just flat out wrong to dismiss OCA and the Antiochean Church beliefs. They are in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. They are both members of SCOBA .

SCOBA does not constitute any form of ecumenical council for all the Orthodox churches.
You seem to be under the impression that Orthodox bishops must be in communion with a patriarch and/or patriarchate.
Our canons do not require us to be so. Which is why we have autocephalous and autonomous churches.
BTW, OCA is only recognized as autocephalous by Moscow, Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland, the Czech Lands and Slovakia.
The church of Rome is recognized as a formerly independent church by Orthodox. ref. the schism

I think that Macrina either 1) just wanted an excuse not to admit she was wrong or 2) she's not very knowledgable about Orthodoxy or 3) she's schismatic (belongs to a splinter group, not in full communion with most Orthodox). I guess only she can tell us what is it

Your opinion is yours alone. It doesn't bother me if you believe me to be a schismatic. I belong to an autonomous Russian church. Some call us "old calendarist" because we do not believe that we need to adopt a calendar (new or otherwise) such as that of pope Gregory (aka the Gregorian calendar).

However, the truth of the matter is that the church has no need for a calendar as with all things of this world secular, it to is subject to change by observations of man.

Our Lord Himself said, "And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." Act 1:7

St Paul himself made this clear.
Gal 4:9           But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Gal 4:10         Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

The life of the church centers around the Paschalia.

Many Christians do not understand how offensive it is to the apostolic church to look to Judaism rather than Christ. Such is expressly forbidden by the canons.

If you would like to further discuss the subject of true and false "ecumenism" I'd be more than happy to accommodate you.

[AvrilNYC]

Macrina,

Just to understand, you're not in communion with the Greek Orthodox Church or the Patriarchate of Contantinople or the Russian Orthodox Church, correct? You're a "paleo-imerologitis", correct?
Can you even receive communion at a mainstream Orthodox Church?

"paleo-imerologites" are considered schismatics where I grew up

So in fact you're outside the Body of Christ the way 95%+ of the Orthodox understand it, correct?

[Macrina]

Macrina,

Just to understand, you're not in communion with the Greek Orthodox Church or the Patriarchate of Contantinople or the Russian Orthodox Church, correct?

We were in communion with some GOC. However, the GOC in America were lured into the Greek patriarchate with the understanding that they did not have to adopt the Gregorian calendar. After acquiring these American Greek priests in the US, the patriarchate forced them to use what is known as the "revised Julian" calendar.
I believe they are currently realizing the error of their mistake, falling for a false ecumenism. The calendar is a symptom of what has been called "the pan-heresy of ecumenism."

You're a "paleo-imerologitis", correct?

No I'm not affiliated with such terminology as this which has been attached to the GOC.
And as I've already mentioned it is really not about 'calendars'. But continuing in the unbroken tradition without innovations such as calendars. What is commonly called the "revised Julian calendar" is considered an innovation.

Can you even receive communion at a mainstream Orthodox Church?

Yes I can. With the permission of my bishop and theirs, which has always been the Orthodox way.

"paleo-imerologites" are considered schismatics where I grew up

So in fact you're outside the Body of Christ the way 95%+ of the Orthodox understand it, correct?

No, as I said, we are autonomous. In the United States were we have freedom of religion, the ethnic patriarchates cannot impose by force their rulings. In places such as Russia they do. The Moscow patriarchate has taken at least 12 churches from us, although they tell the world that they too now have freedom of religion. Those churches did not belong to the Russian government but to the local people who built and maintained them for themselves.

Practically speaking as a free American, I believe there should be at least individual soul liberty. Meaning I can go to whatever church the Lord leads me to irregardless of ethnic secular influences.

If I reject innovations to the original apostolic faith, that is my free choice to do so. There are many who are reverting back to the original faith given. In the past two years, my bishop was requested by some 15,000 in Africa and surprisingly some priests in Italy.

Of course all of this doesn't make front page news. Since the world is to be led into deception by the evil one such corruption is inevitable.
As the eschatology of scripture states, most all of Christianity will be deceived by anti christ beliefs (meaning 'like' Christ, but not). Comparable to the Zionist movement.

During these end times we are warned to be vigilant. As St Basil states, "by the mere use of a two letter word such as a preposition is one led into all manner of calamity".
The Lord does not come when the whole world is full of "united" Christians (and they will unite under a false ecumenism propagated by the anti christ), but rather when all Christians have been deceived except for the last two witnesses (who I believe could very well be bishops) still holding to the original teachings of Christ and His Apostles.

[AvrilNYC]

Macrina,

Just to understand, you're not in communion with the Greek Orthodox Church or the Patriarchate of Contantinople or the Russian Orthodox Church, correct?

We were in communion with some GOC. However, the GOC in America were lured into the Greek patriarchate with the understanding that they did not have to adopt the Gregorian calendar. After acquiring these American Greek priests in the US, the patriarchate forced them to use what is known as the "revised Julian" calendar.
I believe they are currently realizing the error of their mistake, falling for a false ecumenism. The calendar is a symptom of what has been called "the pan-heresy of ecumenism."

You're a "paleo-imerologitis", correct?

No I'm not affiliated with such terminology as this which has been attached to the GOC.
And as I've already mentioned it is really not about 'calendars'. But continuing in the unbroken tradition without innovations such as calendars. What is commonly called the "revised Julian calendar" is considered an innovation.

Can you even receive communion at a mainstream Orthodox Church?

Yes I can. With the permission of my bishop and theirs, which has always been the Orthodox way.

"paleo-imerologites" are considered schismatics where I grew up

So in fact you're outside the Body of Christ the way 95%+ of the Orthodox understand it, correct?

No, as I said, we are autonomous. In the United States were we have freedom of religion, the ethnic patriarchates cannot impose by force their rulings. In places such as Russia they do. The Moscow patriarchate has taken at least 12 churches from us, although they tell the world that they too now have freedom of religion. Those churches did not belong to the Russian government but to the local people who built and maintained them for themselves.

Practically speaking as a free American, I believe there should be at least individual soul liberty. Meaning I can go to whatever church the Lord leads me to irregardless of ethnic secular influences.

If I reject innovations to the original apostolic faith, that is my free choice to do so. There are many who are reverting back to the original faith given. In the past two years, my bishop was requested by some 15,000 in Africa and surprisingly some priests in Italy.

Of course all of this doesn't make front page news. Since the world is to be led into deception by the evil one such corruption is inevitable.
As the eschatology of scripture states, most all of Christianity will be deceived by anti christ beliefs (meaning 'like' Christ, but not). Comparable to the Zionist movement.

During these end times we are warned to be vigilant. As St Basil states, "by the mere use of a two letter word such as a preposition is one led into all manner of calamity".
The Lord does not come when the whole world is full of "united" Christians (and they will unite under a false ecumenism propagated by the anti christ), but rather when all Christians have been deceived except for the last two witnesses (who I believe could very well be bishops) still holding to the original teachings of Christ and His Apostles.

I'm sorry that you claim to be Orthodox and then go on trashing the main archbishops of the Orthodox faith. I happen to have a lot of respect for Bartholomew and the Greek Bishops

[Macrina]

I'm sorry that you claim to be Orthodox and then go on trashing the main archbishops of the Orthodox faith. I happen to have a lot of respect for Bartholomew and the Greek Bishops

  I haven't disrespected any bishops. In fact I did not bring any names up into the conversation, you did.
This subject is beyond the scope of this thread.

If you want to read more in depth thoughts of mine here is my blog.

[mclees8]

Macrina,

Just to understand, you're not in communion with the Greek Orthodox Church or the Patriarchate of Contantinople or the Russian Orthodox Church, correct?

We were in communion with some GOC. However, the GOC in America were lured into the Greek patriarchate with the understanding that they did not have to adopt the Gregorian calendar. After acquiring these American Greek priests in the US, the patriarchate forced them to use what is known as the "revised Julian" calendar.
I believe they are currently realizing the error of their mistake, falling for a false ecumenism. The calendar is a symptom of what has been called "the pan-heresy of ecumenism."

You're a "paleo-imerologitis", correct?

No I'm not affiliated with such terminology as this which has been attached to the GOC.
And as I've already mentioned it is really not about 'calendars'. But continuing in the unbroken tradition without innovations such as calendars. What is commonly called the "revised Julian calendar" is considered an innovation.

Can you even receive communion at a mainstream Orthodox Church?

Yes I can. With the permission of my bishop and theirs, which has always been the Orthodox way.

"paleo-imerologites" are considered schismatics where I grew up

So in fact you're outside the Body of Christ the way 95%+ of the Orthodox understand it, correct?

No, as I said, we are autonomous. In the United States were we have freedom of religion, the ethnic patriarchates cannot impose by force their rulings. In places such as Russia they do. The Moscow patriarchate has taken at least 12 churches from us, although they tell the world that they too now have freedom of religion. Those churches did not belong to the Russian government but to the local people who built and maintained them for themselves.

Practically speaking as a free American, I believe there should be at least individual soul liberty. Meaning I can go to whatever church the Lord leads me to irregardless of ethnic secular influences.

If I reject innovations to the original apostolic faith, that is my free choice to do so. There are many who are reverting back to the original faith given. In the past two years, my bishop was requested by some 15,000 in Africa and surprisingly some priests in Italy.

Of course all of this doesn't make front page news. Since the world is to be led into deception by the evil one such corruption is inevitable.
As the eschatology of scripture states, most all of Christianity will be deceived by anti christ beliefs (meaning 'like' Christ, but not). Comparable to the Zionist movement.

During these end times we are warned to be vigilant. As St Basil states, "by the mere use of a two letter word such as a preposition is one led into all manner of calamity".
The Lord does not come when the whole world is full of "united" Christians (and they will unite under a false ecumenism propagated by the anti christ), but rather when all Christians have been deceived except for the last two witnesses (who I believe could very well be bishops) still holding to the original teachings of Christ and His Apostles.

at last some who recognizes the time we are in, and the evil of the ecumenical movement that will be of the false prophet who leads the church astray to follow Antichrist

Let those who listen head the warning .

God bless

[desertknight]

How odd, McLees, as you seem to be the epitome of a modern "ecumenical" Christian.  From reading your posts in the past you seem to believe in no single visible church on earth, and that, well that is the very definition of ecumenism in modern Protestant Christianity.  In fact the truly ecumenical usually eschew even the label "Protestant".   

[mclees8]

How odd, McLees, as you seem to be the epitome of a modern "ecumenical" Christian.  From reading your posts in the past you seem to believe in no single visible church on earth, and that, well that is the very definition of ecumenism in modern Protestant Christianity.  In fact the truly ecumenical usually eschew even the label "Protestant".   

Dear night the true  unity of the church already exists. It is defined in your own pet term catholic. One unified faith in Christ.

What is ecumenism to the RCC papal institution. Hear is the encarta definaition for ecumenism.
ec·u·men·i·cal   

ec·u·men·i·cal [èkyə ménnik'l]
or ec·u·men·ic [èkyə ménnik]
adj
1.  concerning Church unity: relating to, involving, or promoting the unity of different Christian churches and groups 
2.  involving friendship between religions: involving or promoting friendly relations between different religions 


[Late 16th century. Via late Latin "general, universal" < Greek oikoumenikos < oikoumenē (gē) "inhabited (world)" < oikos "house"]


-ec·u·men·i·cal·ly, , adv
Encarta ® World English Dictionary

This is exactly what the papacy wants to promote. a unified friendship of all the denominations of Christianity along with friendly relations with other religions. The ultimate idea and goal of the papacy is to be once more be recognized as the center of world religion upon the earth. Its just a way to  bring the church institutionally back under its umbrella. The goal is world peace religiously and politically, 
This is deception. The papacy will promote Antichrist because it is man solving the problems of man.

Christ true bride already exists because it is a faith issue not a worldly effort to unify the institutional churches. His bride is already one with Him.

God bless

[Macrina]

Ecumenism seeks to prove that the church is divided.
Now didn't the Apostles teach us to not be divided....or have divisions among us. They taught us to be One Body of Christ.

[chestertonrules]

Ecumenism seeks to prove that the church is divided.
Now didn't the Apostles teach us to not be divided....or have divisions among us. They taught us to be One Body of Christ.

The Church outside of Peter's fold is divided.

Jesus told Peter to lead his sheep, and he is.

One shepherd, one flock.

There are sheep outside the flock, but they are not as safe.

[LightHammer]

Ecumenism seeks to prove that the church is divided.
Now didn't the Apostles teach us to not be divided....or have divisions among us. They taught us to be One Body of Christ.

The Church outside of Peter's fold is divided.

Jesus told Peter to lead his sheep, and he is.

One shepherd, one flock.

There are sheep outside the flock, but they are not as safe.

What does this mean exactly?

Christ charged every disciple to lead his sheep. The leaders of the EO are genuine Successors to the that charge so how are they less safe?

[AvrilNYC]

Ecumenism seeks to prove that the church is divided.
Now didn't the Apostles teach us to not be divided....or have divisions among us. They taught us to be One Body of Christ.

The Church outside of Peter's fold is divided.

Jesus told Peter to lead his sheep, and he is.

One shepherd, one flock.

There are sheep outside the flock, but they are not as safe.

What does this mean exactly?

Christ charged every disciple to lead his sheep. The leaders of the EO are genuine Successors to the that charge so how are they less safe?

Yes the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Sacraments and Apostolic succession of the EO Churches. Any Eastern Orthodox can receive communion in a Catholic Church and confess to a cAtholic priest, no questions asked.

OTOH the Protestants do not have Apostolic succession (by their own admission) and don't have most (or any) sacraments.

[LightHammer]

Ecumenism seeks to prove that the church is divided.
Now didn't the Apostles teach us to not be divided....or have divisions among us. They taught us to be One Body of Christ.

The Church outside of Peter's fold is divided.

Jesus told Peter to lead his sheep, and he is.

One shepherd, one flock.

There are sheep outside the flock, but they are not as safe.

What does this mean exactly?

Christ charged every disciple to lead his sheep. The leaders of the EO are genuine Successors to the that charge so how are they less safe?

Yes the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Sacraments and Apostolic succession of the EO Churches. Any Eastern Orthodox can receive communion in a Catholic Church and confess to a cAtholic priest, no questions asked.

OTOH the Protestants do not have Apostolic succession (by their own admission) and don't have most (or any) sacraments.

Ok thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying that the EO were less safe not Protestants. We agree on that position.

Awkward.lol

[mclees8]

Ecumenism seeks to prove that the church is divided.
Now didn't the Apostles teach us to not be divided....or have divisions among us. They taught us to be One Body of Christ.

The Church outside of Peter's fold is divided.

Jesus told Peter to lead his sheep, and he is.

One shepherd, one flock.

There are sheep outside the flock, but they are not as safe.

What does this mean exactly?

Christ charged every disciple to lead his sheep. The leaders of the EO are genuine Successors to the that charge so how are they less safe?

Yes the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Sacraments and Apostolic succession of the EO Churches. Any Eastern Orthodox can receive communion in a Catholic Church and confess to a cAtholic priest, no questions asked.

OTOH the Protestants do not have Apostolic succession (by their own admission) and don't have most (or any) sacraments.

Ok thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying that the EO were less safe not Protestants. We agree on that position.

Awkward.lol

Protestants are less safe??? Could you explain that to me  please. Is this some high minded condo sending remark?

[chestertonrules]

Ecumenism seeks to prove that the church is divided.
Now didn't the Apostles teach us to not be divided....or have divisions among us. They taught us to be One Body of Christ.

The Church outside of Peter's fold is divided.

Jesus told Peter to lead his sheep, and he is.

One shepherd, one flock.

There are sheep outside the flock, but they are not as safe.

What does this mean exactly?

Christ charged every disciple to lead his sheep. The leaders of the EO are genuine Successors to the that charge so how are they less safe?

Without the guidance of the Church an individual is more likely to fall into error. 

The Church conveys grace and Truth to those who abide faithfully within.