Salvation in Orthodox church?
#1
If the Orthodox have valid sacraments, could an Orthodox Christian receive absolution under their normal conditions and means, and thus die in a state of grace?

And how does that square with EENS?
Reply
#2
True schism is a mortal sin.

I wonder whether it is possible that some dissident Easterners are not culpable of schism and thus could be saved.  For example, if you were a priest or layman in the balkans in the late 11th century, perhaps you weren't even aware there was any schism.  As another example, the Melkites were separated from the Roman Church for centuries, because of isolation.

The issue is not so much whether their sacraments are valid, but whether the people receiving them receive sanctifying grace.  If you are culpable of schism, you cannot receive sanctifying grace, just as you would not be able to if you received Our Lord and were contracepting or something.
Reply
#3
Like any of the sacraments your personal disposition matters.  Just because I receive communion doesn't mean I'm saved (i.e. I could receive and acknowledge that it's merely a cracker or insert heretical idea here).  The same idea applies to the orthodox here.  For the old grandma who has really no idea why she's orthodox (She's orthodox mere cause she was born that way and has never seriously considered Catholicism) she stands a good chance.  However, those who are orthodox and receive orthodox sacraments in spite of Rome... well let's just say that isn't good.  The same reasoning applies to any group that has broken away and maintains valid sacraments (Old Polish, Old Catholic etc)
Reply
#4
(02-15-2011, 01:01 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: True schism is a mortal sin.

I wonder whether it is possible that some dissident Easterners are not culpable of schism and thus could be saved.  For example, if you were a priest or layman in the balkans in the late 11th century, perhaps you weren't even aware there was any schism.  As another example, the Melkites were separated from the Roman Church for centuries, because of isolation.

The issue is not so much whether their sacraments are valid, but whether the people receiving them receive sanctifying grace.  If you are culpable of schism, you cannot receive sanctifying grace, just as you would not be able to if you received Our Lord and were contracepting or something.

If they were unaware that communion with Rome was necessary for salvation they wouldn't be culpable for their separation though, right?
Reply
#5
(02-15-2011, 01:41 AM)Aragon Wrote:
(02-15-2011, 01:01 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: True schism is a mortal sin.

I wonder whether it is possible that some dissident Easterners are not culpable of schism and thus could be saved.  For example, if you were a priest or layman in the balkans in the late 11th century, perhaps you weren't even aware there was any schism.  As another example, the Melkites were separated from the Roman Church for centuries, because of isolation.

The issue is not so much whether their sacraments are valid, but whether the people receiving them receive sanctifying grace.  If you are culpable of schism, you cannot receive sanctifying grace, just as you would not be able to if you received Our Lord and were contracepting or something.

If they were unaware that communion with Rome was necessary for salvation they wouldn't be culpable for their separation though, right?

Presumably.

I think you encounter some Easterners who are vociferously schismatic (they hate everything Roman/Western and the Pope) and others who just want to worship God according to the traditions of their fathers.  Sometimes the former group includes converts from Protestantism who wanted the Catholicism while being able to retain hatred for the Roman Church.

God judges rightly.
Reply
#6
Schism is a grave sin. If someone is guilty of schism and doesn't confess it, they won't be in the state of grace.

I also believe absolution requires jurisdiction, which they ordinarily don't have. They may be granted it in emergency situations--ie if a Catholic is on death's door and only an EO priest is nearby, he MAY be able to absolve, but I'm not sure. Also, I'm not sure if the "common error" argument could be applied to their absolutions.

If an EO person is in good faith, the sin of schism wouldn't be held against them and they could belong to the Church in voto. It seems the policy of the Church going back pretty far is to continue to permit re-united Eastern churches to publicly honor saints in the liturgy who lived and died while in schism as long as they weren't militantly anti-Roman (ie they are not honored for fighting the Romans like Mark of Ephesus or Photius, etc.).


Reply
#7
When they are baptized, they are baptized into the Catholic Church.  If they don't hold heretical ideas, are absolved of their sins, are not schismatic out of ignorance, then they are still in the Catholic Church. 
Reply
#8
(02-15-2011, 10:43 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Schism is a grave sin. If someone is guilty of schism and doesn't confess it, they won't be in the state of grace.

I also believe absolution requires jurisdiction, which they ordinarily don't have. They may be granted it in emergency situations--ie if a Catholic is on death's door and only an EO priest is nearby, he MAY be able to absolve, but I'm not sure. Also, I'm not sure if the "common error" argument could be applied to their absolutions.

If an EO person is in good faith, the sin of schism wouldn't be held against them and they could belong to the Church in voto. It seems the policy of the Church going back pretty far is to continue to permit re-united Eastern churches to publicly honor saints in the liturgy who lived and died while in schism as long as they weren't militantly anti-Roman (ie they are not honored for fighting the Romans like Mark of Ephesus or Photius, etc.).

My church has always had an icon of St. Photios on the wall.  If I understand it correctly, despite his anti-Roman stance for a period, he died in communion with Rome.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)