[HarleyD]

I think both sides have admitted that both sides were responsible. I hope you are not trying to use the schisms of others to justify your own.

Here I thought at one time you were Protestant. You should realize Protestants don't view ourselves a having a "schism". While Protestants do have their doctrinal differences, most Protestants view ourselves as being in communion with one another as believers in the Lord Jesus. Our "doctrinal differences" for what would create a "schism" is really a very low threshold. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." is just about as detailed as some of us are willing to go. We might consider one another views wacky but, hey, it's a crazy world. To be sure there are limits but they're based upon our understanding of the scriptures. If we don't understand God hasn't revealed that truth to us for one reason or another.

That being said, you've skirted the Catholic/Orthodox question. They still don't agree doctrinally with what is written down in canon law. Original sin, purgatory, papal authority, atonement, the filique, etc are all very serious doctrinal differences. So which one is right? Which one of you are in schism? You're the one making the claim that you are in perfect communion, yet not really.

There have been antipopes at different times throughout history, even as early as the third century. But again, two wrongs don't make a right, and a past sin doesn't justify a present sin.

That might be true but we're not the one that's running around telling people apostalic succession is past down through the Church. If half the Cardinals choose one Pope and the other half choose another, where is apostalic succession in all of this? How do you determine.

But they are still "within the Church". We still are one body because we partake of one bread.

You guys keep repeating it to yourselves, as if that will make it true. Are you one with a homosexual or a pediophial priest who receives the Eucharist? Are you one with Ted Kennedy? Paul said some of the Corithians died because of improper communion? Are you one with them? You can't have it both ways. If you're going to say that the Eucharist is the means of being "in communion", then you have to be "in communion" with everyone who takes communion. Are you going to say taking the Eucharist is "symbolically" being part of the Church?

Personally, whether a person takes communion or not is not a mark of being a Christian in my book nor do I believe they are receiving God's grace. We don't disperse God's grace to people who live however they please. It's wrong to tell that to people. I bring all this up because you're the one who complained about the division of Protestants. Actually, Protestants are simply a very loose knit bunch.

[adiaireton8]

You should realize Protestants don't view ourselves a having a "schism"

Neither did the Marcionites.

While Protestants do have their doctrinal differences, most Protestants view ourselves as being in communion with one another as believers in the Lord Jesus.

If that is what "communion with one another" looks like, what does schism look like? But even if there were only one Protestant institution of which all Protestants were members, they would still all be in schism from the Catholic Church.

That being said, you've skirted the Catholic/Orthodox question.

No I didn't. You didn't ask me who is right; you asked me who caused the division, and I told you -- both sides.

They still don't agree doctrinally with what is written down in canon law. Original sin, purgatory, papal authority, atonement, the filique, etc are all very serious doctrinal differences. So which one is right? Which one of you are in schism?

As St. Ambrose said, "It is to Peter that He says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church." Peter was given the keys of the kingdom. And Peter is the visible principle of unity of the Church, the rock which is the foundation of the Church. Therefore, where Peter goes, there goes the Church. Those who (to whatever degree) separate themselves from Peter (or whom Peter separates from himself), are to that degree separated from the Church.

You're the one making the claim that you are in perfect communion, yet not really.

I never claimed the EOCs and Catholics are in "perfect communion".

If half the Cardinals choose one Pope and the other half choose another, where is apostalic succession in all of this? How do you determine.

The election of a pope requires a majority vote, so if there is a tie, then no pope has yet been elected.

A8: But they are still "within the Church". We still are one body because we partake of one bread.

HD: You guys keep repeating it to yourselves, as if that will make it true.

No, we repeat it because it is Scripture. St. Paul wrote: "Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." (1 Cor 10:17)

Are you one with a homosexual or a pediophial priest who receives the Eucharist? Are you one with Ted Kennedy?

Yes. God will separate the wheat from the tares. I'm not the Magisterium; I cannot excommunicate anyone. As hard as it is for me to say it, I am indeed "one with Ted Kennedy", because as a Catholic he is my brother in Christ. (Ok, I'll probably be banned eternally from FR for saying that.) Of course that doesn't mean that I agree with Ted Kennedy's political positions.

If you're going to say that the Eucharist is the means of being "in communion", then you have to be "in communion" with everyone who takes communion.

That is correct. Through the Eucharist I am in communion with all those within the Catholic Church, regardless of their sins or political positions.

Actually, Protestants are simply a very loose knit bunch.

Right. And that very 'loose' level of unity falls far short of the kind of unity Christ wants all His followers to have, as seen in John 17:11, 21, 22, 23.

-A8