Yes or No

[Light of the East]

Once the Roman Catholic Church embraced heresy (the Filoque) and then subsequently became schismatic from the Holy, Catholic, Orthodox Church, her Sacraments were no longer valid.

Yes or no?

And if you would please, some explanation for me with appropriate links to quotes from the Early Fathers.

Thanks

 

[gzt]

I dont' think you can make a hard answer here.

 

[ArmyMatt]

unknown. the fullness lies only with the Orthodox Church (St Cyprian of Carthage) where can be sure a valid sacramental life is, but God can do whatever He wants wherever He wants, and He loves even the heretic and schismatic.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My priest says their sacraments are still valid, but their teachings convoluted, a mixture of Truth and distortions or falsehoods. That’s why Father didn’t re-baptize me. My own private opinion, which is speculation, is the same as Father’s. But Father Matt is correct.

 

[Light of the East]

My priest says their sacraments are still valid, but their teachings convoluted, a mixture of Truth and distortions or falsehoods. That’s why Father didn’t re-baptize me. My own private opinion, which is speculation, is the same as Father’s. But Father Matt is correct.

I would say that is pretty much my sense also. Especially those whacked out "visions" that their "seers have of the "End Times."

 

[Lukaris]

It appears that the original Apostles Creed clearly stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. “ Our Lord Jesus Christ, who of God is God and as man was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, having both substances, the divine and human, is the only Son of God the Father Almighty, from whom proceedeth the Holy Spirit.” St. Augustine, The Enchiridion, chapter 38. St. Augustine was affirming the Orthodox doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The title of his chapter: “Jesus Christ, According to the Flesh, was not born of the Holy Spirit in such a sense that the Holy Spirit is His Father” . St. Augustine was countering a heresy that suggested the Lord was born of the Father and the Spirit (& the Virgin Mary). The Son is not dually begotten nor is the Holy Spirit dually proceeding. The edition of St. Augustine’s Enchiridion I have is the translation by JF Shaw, c. 1961, Gateway edition isbn 0-89526-938-4.

Augustine's ENCHIRIDION, Chs. 24-53

Just a note, the present western Apostles’ Creed is validly Orthodox perhaps the West had a longer version for the clergy & the surviving shorter version for the layperson?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed.

I would say that is pretty much my sense also. Especially those whacked out "visions" that their "seers have of the "End Times."

 

[HTacianas]

Once the Roman Catholic Church embraced heresy (the Filoque) and then subsequently became schismatic from the Holy, Catholic, Orthodox Church, her Sacraments were no longer valid.

Yes or no?

And if you would please, some explanation for me with appropriate links to quotes from the Early Fathers.

Thanks

This might be a good place for me, a layman interested only in the weightiest of questions, to restate a question I posed in another thread. I don't mean to hijack this one, but mine is similar enough as to not be off topic.

I view the filoque not as a heresy, but as an unresolved theological question that can only be resolved by an Ecumenical Council. While I absolutely do not support the Western Church in its changing the Creed, the question is still unresolved.

All that said, are we prepared to say that within the Western Church there is no salvation? Are the devout members of the Western Church condemned?

If we can begin there it will help me a lot.

 

[archer75]

This might be a good place for me, a layman interested only in the weightiest of questions, to restate a question I posed in another thread. I don't mean to hijack this one, but mine is similar enough as to not be off topic.

I view the filoque not as a heresy, but as an unresolved theological question that can only be resolved by an Ecumenical Council. While I absolutely do not support the Western Church in its changing the Creed, the question is still unresolved.

All that said, are we prepared to say that within the Western Church there is no salvation? Are the devout members of the Western Church condemned?

If we can begin there it will help me a lot.

They are certainly not "condemned."

Our differences with Rome are sufficient that we can't worship together, or not in the most important ways. But we have no knowledge of who is "condemned."

You are asking this in a subforum where all the members are not in communion with Rome, and many of us are converts. We consciously chose not to be in communion with Rome. So we think there are serious problems with the path Rome has taken. But that is not the same as saying her faithful are condemned.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

I believe it was Kallistos who coined the phrase:
"We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not."

I find this to be rock solid theology.

 

[buzuxi02]

Grace does not disappear in an instance like the flick of a light switch. Situations are fluid and confusion arises. Descisions of Ecumenical councils themselves took time to accept and did not occur over night. That said sometime after the 1200's the Latins withered away from the Body, the sacraments of the Latins became pseudo-mysteries that is lacking salvific grace

 

[Light of the East]

Grace does not disappear in an instance like the flick of a light switch. Situations are fluid and confusion arises. Descisions of Ecumenical councils themselves took time to accept and did not occur over night. That said sometime after the 1200's the Latins withered away from the Body, the sacraments of the Latins became pseudo-mysteries that is lacking salvific grace.

So you vote for no valid Sacraments?

 

[buzuxi02]

So you vote for no valid Sacraments?

Correct.

 

[Light of the East]

Correct.

Then there is no salvation in the Roman Catholic Church, they are all deceived, and the miracles of their saints are either questionable at best or demonic at worst.

Whew! That's pretty strong! Kind of like what the Latin Traddies say about the Orthodox.

 

[buzuxi02]

Then there is no salvation in the Roman Catholic Church, they are all deceived, and the miracles of their saints are either questionable at best or demonic at worst.

Whew! That's pretty strong! Kind of like what the Latin Traddies say about the Orthodox.

There maybe miracles just like there are miracles among Hindus. Maybe they are from God maybe not. Anyone can pray and call upon the Lord within their own sincere understanding. Other than that I'm following
what the Scriptures, the Canons, and the Fathers taught

 

[ArmyMatt]

This might be a good place for me, a layman interested only in the weightiest of questions, to restate a question I posed in another thread. I don't mean to hijack this one, but mine is similar enough as to not be off topic.

I view the filoque not as a heresy, but as an unresolved theological question that can only be resolved by an Ecumenical Council. While I absolutely do not support the Western Church in its changing the Creed, the question is still unresolved.

All that said, are we prepared to say that within the Western Church there is no salvation? Are the devout members of the Western Church condemned?

If we can begin there it will help me a lot.

the Filioque is heresy. it was condemned by East and West after the Synod which healed the Photian Schism was held for 200 years...until Rome changed her mind.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Then there is no salvation in the Roman Catholic Church, they are all deceived, and the miracles of their saints are either questionable at best or demonic at worst.

Whew! That's pretty strong! Kind of like what the Latin Traddies say about the Orthodox.

except that we wouldn't exempt them from salvation even if you do take this more staunch stance.

 

[Light of the East]

except that we wouldn't exempt them from salvation even if you do take this more staunch stance.

I'm not taking this "staunch stance." I was responding to someone who was.

I'm not God and judgment is not my job.

 

[dzheremi]

Knowing what I know now regarding the Roman Catholic Church (that I did not know when I was in it, of course), I think the most I would say is that I could not be confident within myself that taking their sacraments would be efficacious or wise to do, even if it were allowed from where I am now (which it is not). That realization in itself was enough to remove me from the RC communion in the first place, long before I ended up anywhere else, and that in itself remains enough of a reason to have continued skepticism within my agnosticism regarding this question.

So I would lean towards no, all the while recognizing that I don't actually know (and hoping that I am wrong in this inclination), but I also am not going to test the Lord my God by following anything other than what we have been given in my communion, and at that level the answer is that no one is free to go there and 'try it out' or whatever in the hopes that maybe the sacraments are 'valid' after all. I would hope for the sake of the millions of Catholics around the world that they are, but unless/until Rome returns to its own Orthodox faith, I think it best to say God works as He wills and leave it at that.

I would think the famous saying "We know where the Church is, but not where she is not" applies here.

 

[buzuxi02]

1. One thing I learned about the RCC a few years ago that shocked me is that it's common to skip confirmation and just attend years later for first communion. This practise is tolerated which is shocking. So that's a further point that their sacraments are invalid as they have become optional.