Quote from: ascent

It's incredible that some people (except Cantarella) on this thread fallaciously leave open the possibility for a God-less partaker of Hollywood filth, Robin Williams, who died by ѕυιcιdє, which is a mortal sin, to make it to Heaven, but the Orthodox, including men and women in monasteries and convents, are "damned to perdition".

Repentance at death is always a possibility, but, of course, what is possible is not necessarily probable; it is wrong to presume, which is what the Novus Ordo is notorious for doing.  In any case, the following remains absolutely true:

1)  Individuals, under no circuмstances whatsoever, should take their own life, that is, commit ѕυιcιdє.  Such is always gravely sinful, and at a minimum, gravely risks eternal damnation, from which there is no escape.

2)  The Orthodox, as with every other human being without exception, should convert to Catholicism, the One True Faith.  Such is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church:

Quote from: Fifth Lateran Council. 1512-17

Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore, with the approval of the present sacred council, for the salvation of the souls of the same faithful, for the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and of this holy see, and for the unity and power of the church, his spouse, renew and give our approval to that constitution, but without prejudice to the declaration of pope Clement V of holy memory, which begins Meruit .

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм18.htm

The above should remove any and all doubt that it is an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that "submission to the Roman Pontiff" is necessarily for salvation, for all human beings, whoever they may be.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Outside the Church there is no salvation.

It's incredible that some people (except Cantarella) on this thread fallaciously leave open the possibility for a God-less partaker of Hollywood filth, Robin Williams, who died by ѕυιcιdє, which is a mortal sin, to make it to Heaven, but the Orthodox, including men and women in monasteries and convents, are "damned to perdition".

Although I disagree with Cantarella about the Orthodox, I must still give her credit for being consistent...

Orthodox are Catholic, but they're Catholics with defects. They are still baptized into the Church by valid priests conferring a Catholic Rite of Baptism; and their Liturgies are Catholic and even older than the Tridentine Mass, and all of their 7 Sacraments are valid. They don't view themselves as being in schism or breaking from the Church, rather, they view Rome as being in schism, therefore, there is the argument of invincible ignorance on their part, if you really want to get litigious about it.

Quote from: Matto

No you are not (furthest Catholic from novus ordo). You share the belief with the Novus Ordo that those in schismatic Churches are Catholic and do not need to convert.

L

Lastly, Archbishop Lefebvre believed the Orthodox are saved (if they're not guilty of mortal sin). Are you going to accuse him of thinking like the novus ordo, too? As we all know, he was the antithesis of novus ordo.

I can think of someone else who is an Accuser.

Quote from: IllyricuмSacrum

Protestant Fundamentalists don't view themselves as heretics and schismatics, either.

Some of their liturgies are ancient (some quite contemporary), but not more ancient than any of the Western liturgies. Even some prominent Schismatic liturgists admit that. The now widely accepted notion that everything eastern is older/everything older is eastern needs to die a violent death.

Do protestant fundamentalists even have a Liturgy? Please mention one protty fundy group and their "liturgy". If they have one, it certainly is not ancient, rather, it's a bastardized, mutated, novelty version of true Liturgy. I assume you're talking about the anglican liturgy that is "ancient", but the key difference between the church of England's liturgy and the Orthodox Liturgy is the former is practiced by mere laypeople with no apostolic succession, while the latter is practiced by valid priests conferred Holy Orders via Apostolic Succession. That means the anglican minister performing a liturgical service is no more efficacious than me reading the exact same liturgy.

You say protty fundies "don't view themselves as heretics & schismatics either", although true, that is still a very poor point to be made because their religion(s) is a novelty splintered into thousands of groups dating from 1 day old to no more than 200 years old; whereas, the Orthodox are completely organic stemming from the Apostles. The Orthodox are Catholic, but in a defected form, because they hold all of the Catholic Faith up onto the Great Schism, but they do not require their Faithful to believe in Dogmas affirmed / defined (not created) by the Roman Church thereafter. The Great Schism, in their mind, is the original "crisis in the Church", therefore, they have distanced themselves from any Councils since that time until, one day, that crisis is resolved.

I'm bumping part of my earlier comment because some of the truths contained in it, especially regarding Archbishop Lefebvre, seem to be the elephant in the room for those who have participated this thread.

I said:

Quote

Second, I do know that the Orthodox need to fully accept the Catholic Faith, especially if they want to fully receive the Lord's graces in order for them to grow as close as possible to Him, but despite their defects, they still accept the Faith enough to be part of the Church and saved by Christ. They accept every bit of the Catholic Faith that was solemnly affirmed and defined up to the Great Schism. They are Baptized in Christ through the Catholic Rite. They don't canonically reject the Roman Church's affirmed/defined dogmas since the Schism, but they don't require Orthodox to believe in it, albeit, most Orthodox do reject the post-Schism Dogmas on their own accord, but they're free to believe in them, too. Example: the Dormition of Holy Theotokos compared to the Assumption. The Orthodox tradition teaches the Mother of God fell asleep, but did not physically die, and she was somehow received into Heaven - mind, body and soul. However, it's not required of them to believe it as a dogma; whereas, the Roman Church dogmatically affirms/defines (after the Schism) that Our Lady was assumed into Heaven (fully awake - not asleep) - mind, body and soul. Moreover, an Orthodox can believe in the Assumption rather than the Dormition if he so chooses, and he would not be reprimanded because it's still along the lines of tradition, but again, most accept the Dormition instead of the Assumption. Again, the Orthodox don't view themselves as having kinetically separated themselves from the Church. Instead, they see Rome as willfully being in schism. Therefore, does not invincible ignorance apply to the Orthodox in this case, especially those many generations that followed the Schism who inherited their defects through no fault of their own? Does your interpretation of the traditional Catholic Church also teach invincible ignorance?

Lastly, Archbishop Lefebvre believed the Orthodox are saved (if they're not guilty of mortal sin). Are you going to accuse him of thinking like the novus ordo, too? As we all know, he was the antithesis of novus ordo.