D
dzheremi
Guest
I’m beginning to see the problem here…
Unsubscribing from this thread now. Peace.
- Status
Unsubscribing from this thread now. Peace.
A
Ambien89
Guest
I am told Vladimir Solovyov is a good source on this subject.
1
1Tim215Mommy
Guest
Okay, ha ha ha. (But I don’t really get it because I know nothing if the Anglican Church)It was meant less as a serious answer to your question than a light-hearted response to the idea that Catholics are disunited.
I really do what a real answer though. Perhaps I’ll be able to see it differently after a really great explanation?
1
1Tim215Mommy
Guest
Great answer. I have trouble with the bullet points in paragraph 815 (except the last). The Faith is different among some of the Catholic Churches. The Liturgy is also totally different as are the Sacraments in some of the different Catholic Churches.
Not addressed in these paragraphs is how even different the theology about God Himself in the Catholic Churches.
How does the Catholic Church see the Faith, Liturgy & Sacraments the same?
Not addressed in these paragraphs is how even different the theology about God Himself in the Catholic Churches.
How does the Catholic Church see the Faith, Liturgy & Sacraments the same?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church provide insight into this topic. ** I. THE CHURCH IS ONE **
** “The sacred mystery of the Church’s unity” (**Unitatis redintegratio 2)
813 The Church is one because of her source: "the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit."259 The Church is one because of her founder: for "the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body."260 The Church is one because of her “soul”: "It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity."261 Unity is of the essence of the Church:What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her "Church."262259 Unitatis redintegratio 2 § 5.
814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great *diversity *which comes from both the variety of God’s gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church’s members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."263 The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church’s unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."264
815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."265 But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:
- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
- common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God’s family.266
816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267 The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268
260 Gaudium et spes 78 § 3.
261 Unitatis redintegratio 2 § 2.
262 St. Clement Of Alexandria, Pæd. 1,6,42G 8,300.
263 Lumen gentium 13 § 2.
264 Eph 4:3.
265 Col 3:14.
266 Cf. Unitatis redintegratio 2; Lumen gentium 14; CIC, can. 205.
267 Lumen gentium 8 § 2.
268 Unitatis redintegratio 3 § 5.
1
1Tim215Mommy
Guest
While, I appreciate your passion, a gentle reminder is due: As the OP on this thread, I request that you please refrain from continuing to use fowl language abbreviations. I believe it is against this Forum’s rules, but even if it’s not, it’s totally inappropriate and uncalled for. Thank you
V
Vico
Guest
Different liturgies are used in the various traditions, those Catholic churches deriving from Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome, Cilicia, and Selucia-Ctesiphon. What is necessary to make present the Body and Blood of Our Lord is present each every Liturgy that has a consecration.
The Catholic churches have the same dogmas of faith, yet there are different expressions of it. The essence of the Holy Mysteries is the same, any variations are ecclesial sacramental discipline.
It is the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance that are common.CIC Canon 205 Those baptised are in full communion with the catholic Church here on earth who are joined with Christ in his visible body, through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.
CCEO Canon 8 In full communion with the Catholic Church on this earth are those baptized persons who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of profession of faith, of the sacraments and of ecclesiastical governance.
CCEO Canon 598 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
(CCEO 598 is almost identical to CIC Can. 750)
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear sister Marywarfield,
I have not seen any rudeness from brother Dzheremi this whole thread. Accusing him of rudeness is rather the rude thing, imo, and especially your overgeneralization of Holy Orthodoxy.
Blessings,
Marduk
I have not seen any rudeness from brother Dzheremi this whole thread. Accusing him of rudeness is rather the rude thing, imo, and especially your overgeneralization of Holy Orthodoxy.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear Cavaradossi,
The “forgeries” claim is a new one to me. If they were forgeries, why would Trullo have confirmed them at all? The “forgeries” claim seems to be a novel development in polemics? In any case, I agree that whenever a bishop appealed to the bishop of Rome, no one ever explicitly cited “the Canons of Sardica said this…” They just did it because they knew it was Tradition. Bishops were appealing to the bishop of Rome even BEFORE Sardica acknowledged the right to appeal to Rome. No bishop needed Sardica to do that, nor appeal to the Canons of Sardica, to appeal to Rome,. because it was simply a sure Tradition.
Blessings,
Marduk
Agreed.
.
The “forgeries” claim is a new one to me. If they were forgeries, why would Trullo have confirmed them at all? The “forgeries” claim seems to be a novel development in polemics? In any case, I agree that whenever a bishop appealed to the bishop of Rome, no one ever explicitly cited “the Canons of Sardica said this…” They just did it because they knew it was Tradition. Bishops were appealing to the bishop of Rome even BEFORE Sardica acknowledged the right to appeal to Rome. No bishop needed Sardica to do that, nor appeal to the Canons of Sardica, to appeal to Rome,. because it was simply a sure Tradition.
I think we discussed this before. We agree with the basic definition (regarding the election of the head bishop). But we don’t agree that this is ALL that “autocephaly” entails.
I didn’t say it was not a good principle of governance. The concept of patriarchy is a patristic concept and thus wholesome, good and orthodox. It is simply that I believe its excessive multiplication by the EOC is not conducive in the least to the unity of the Church as a whole.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Expatreprocedit
That is true also, but as St. Cyprian noted most powerfully, the preservation of the purity of Faith is to ensure the unity of the one flock of Christ.
In Catholic Canon law, the term “immediate” primarily means that the jurisdiction is of divine origin, and the term “ordinary” simply means “inherent.” Those terms have nothing to do with the regular exercise of that jurisdiction. So this is an invalid criticism. The appellate nature of the primacy is indicated clearly in our canon laws, since it is only to be exercised according to the needs of the Church. There are certain Catholics who believe that the Pope can unilaterally impose things on the Church, but they are wrong. I often debate with these Catholic “Absolutist Petrine” advocates about their errors regarding the papacy. Unfortunately, many non-Catholics believe that these Absolutist Petrine advocates are representing the actual Catholic teaching on the papacy, but they are not.
It can seem that way, I admit. What "non-"Catholics often assume is that our adherence to the papacy is an end in and of itself. That is not true at all. Our adherence is to the Faith first and foremost. Catholics are not obligated to follow any Pope into heresy or immorality.
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. Please take care to exclude your own comments from the “QUOTE” feature. Your comments will disappear if a poster replies to you through the “quote” button on the lower right hand corner, and it is tedious to cut and paste.
P
Peter_J
Guest
A great explanation of my quip, you mean? Well, I will give you a really poor one.Okay, ha ha ha. (But I don’t really get it because I know nothing if the Anglican Church)
I really do what a real answer though. Perhaps I’ll be able to see it differently after a really great explanation?
Anglicans (especially those who are ex-RC) generally don’t look at the Roman Communion and say “Boy, they’re really disunited.” More like “Boy, that uniformity must be stifling!” (Anglican posters are welcome to say I’m wrong of course. 
)
Y
Yeoman
Guest
It’s funny that this item is in here, as in seeing this entry, I was going to post a comment that would specifically relate to the Anglicans, rather than more directly to the Orthodox, but perhaps be worthy of consideration in any event.A great explanation of my quip, you mean? Well, I will give you a really poor one.
Anyhow, debates on this topic, having read them in the past, tend to get pretty heated, so I’m not going to directly respond to it but note instead that I think this question is one that should be considered, with slight alternations, by “Anglican Catholics” who are not choosing to return to the Church. There’s two such churches here in my home town, and they both conceive of themselves as being Catholic churches. If they conceive of themselves in that fashion, given the risky nature of going out on theological limbs, why preserve any doubt and instead come back in?
M
mardukm
Guest
Well said, sister!!!
M
mardukm
Guest
The Catholic position is not that the organizational/juridical unity is an end in and of itself. The Catholic position is that one cannot separate the Faith from that organizational/juridical unity. I admit that this is different from your own conception that dichotomizes the two.
Someone can confirm or correct this, but I believe the Cardinal was speaking officially in his capacity as Prefect for the CDF. As such, he was speaking for the Pope (HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory), not himself. I disagree with both you and Steveb that the Orthodox Churches are doing nothing to respond to it. I believe the various colloquies are evidence of that response. It may not be moving as quickly as we might like, however.
Blessings
M
mardukm
Guest
I don’t believe Cardinal Kaspar was wrong on the point he was making. There is in fact no organizational/administrative unity within Orthodoxy. There is a unity of Faith, but no organizational/administrative unity. I don’t think any Orthodox can deny this. I do not understand how any Orthodox can object to what Cardinal Kaspar stated, given the focus by EO of “autocephalous Churches.” I don’t believe he was referring to “Church” in the sense of the mystical body, but “Church” in the sense of an administrative body. I think you would agree this is what he meant. On the other hand, I believe it would be an unjustified extrapolation to think that Cardinal Kaspar did not understand that the EO are indeed united in Faith, and in that particular sense, are indeed one Church (an unjustified extrapolation that I have heard both Orthodox AND Catholics claim).
Blessings
A
a_priori
Guest
“Convince me” is a product of western rationalism. Not sure the discussion can be reduced to a logical, almost mathematical, proof. We see through a glass darkly.
1
1Tim215Mommy
Guest
A great explanation of my quip, you mean? Well, I will give you a really poor one.
My original question to you remains unanswered by you but it’s been answered by another, so I’m not too terribly disappointed Anglican Church isn’t even on my radar. A Church founded by a passionately sinful human-only king like a thousand-plus years After the King of Kings founded the Church isn’t worth my serious consideration. The only 2 Churches of the 1st century were the Orthodox Church & the roots of the Catholic Church (or the Catholic Church & the roots of the Orthodox Church) - therefore, these are the ONLY 2 churches worth taking precious time to seriously consider. I know recently Orthodoxy has had entire Angelican parishes convert to Orthodoxy & I’ve heard that there has been an entire branch of Angelican Church become Catholic - is there a directory that makes it easy to find a newly united Catholic Anglican parish?
P
Polished_Arrow
Guest
As suggested by S. Teresa of Jesus y Avila, I sometimes attempt to contemplate the Divine Humanity. This leads me to begin by accepting Him as perfect.
So, when He says God has hidden from the learned and clever what He has revealed to the simple, and He is happy that is so, I am encouraged. To trust Him , that nothing important will be difficult to comprehend , or observe.
When I see that He has given us the Pope, and no one else, I asked Him about it.Since the Pope is a gift from You, Jesus, why MUST we have a Pope ?
Saint Paul gives me a hint, when he says the Church is the Body of Christ.He also insists that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.So can never die. What happens in death ? The soul leaves the body. So I look for this risen Body of Christ. It must be alive, the soul and the body united. Where He is in Spirit, He must also be in flesh. I need to be able to see and touch this Body, and this Body must be entire. A body ,without a head, is a dead body. A perfect, risen, body must have a visible head, as well as members. Only the Catholic people have ONE head, visible.Jesus , my love, lives here , only, in His fullness.
So, when He says God has hidden from the learned and clever what He has revealed to the simple, and He is happy that is so, I am encouraged. To trust Him , that nothing important will be difficult to comprehend , or observe.
When I see that He has given us the Pope, and no one else, I asked Him about it.Since the Pope is a gift from You, Jesus, why MUST we have a Pope ?
Saint Paul gives me a hint, when he says the Church is the Body of Christ.He also insists that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.So can never die. What happens in death ? The soul leaves the body. So I look for this risen Body of Christ. It must be alive, the soul and the body united. Where He is in Spirit, He must also be in flesh. I need to be able to see and touch this Body, and this Body must be entire. A body ,without a head, is a dead body. A perfect, risen, body must have a visible head, as well as members. Only the Catholic people have ONE head, visible.Jesus , my love, lives here , only, in His fullness.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear sister in Christ,
When you initially asked the question about “unity,” I was hoping for a clarification. Thanks for that. As a preliminary consideration, I understand that your question is based on the fact that you are EO, and your Church has one basic Tradition. Hence, I imagine that your understanding of “unity” is more akin to “uniformity.” It might be harder for you to conceive of a Church with various distinct Traditions than, say, someone from the OOC. The OOC has three basic distinct Traditions; the CC has more than three. The CC once tried the “uniformity” route. It was known as uniatism (not that the Church herself formally proposed it, but that this is just the way unity played out in the local Churches during the early stages of union) - it did not work. The Catholic Churches are basically united in our dogma (i.e., our beliefs), not necessarily our doctrine (i.e., our theologies/how those beliefs are taught). In the Catholic Church, the focus is on answering the question, “what is it are you really trying to say with your theology or expressions of the Faith?” The essence of the Faith is more important than the theology - theology is, after all, nothing more than the HUMAN expression of God’s Truth. Catholics understand that arriving at God’s Truth is more important than the ultimately inadequate human expressions of God’s Truth that make up our distinct theologies. The dialogue has resulted in an understanding among the Catholic Churches that exists nowhere else. The spiritual fruit of understanding is a great Gift that is present in the Catholic Churches, I believe moreso than in any other communion of Churches.
This focus on the dogma (i.e., the Truth itself) rather than the theologies (i.e., the human expressions of that Truth) is NOTHING like the Protestant concept of unity, which seeks unity through a least common denominator. Unity within and among the Catholic Churches is not about stripping away everything but the basics. Rather, it is about getting to the common Truth behind our different approaches to and expressions of that Truth. On the other hand, this is NOTHING like the modernist heresy of relativism, for the Catholic Churches do not teach that Truth is relative, but merely understands that the SAME Truth can be expressed in different ways. To put it another way, all Catholics believe in the same Revelation of God about Himself - it is simply that we accept that such Revelation can be and has been expressed differently among the Churches according to distinct Traditions.
I hope to answer your query in light of the above.
The examples of this spiritual fruit of understanding can be multipied in other areas. I only address the points you bring up in this post, but feel free to ask about any other points on which you might feel there is a conflict.
CONT’d*
When you initially asked the question about “unity,” I was hoping for a clarification. Thanks for that. As a preliminary consideration, I understand that your question is based on the fact that you are EO, and your Church has one basic Tradition. Hence, I imagine that your understanding of “unity” is more akin to “uniformity.” It might be harder for you to conceive of a Church with various distinct Traditions than, say, someone from the OOC. The OOC has three basic distinct Traditions; the CC has more than three. The CC once tried the “uniformity” route. It was known as uniatism (not that the Church herself formally proposed it, but that this is just the way unity played out in the local Churches during the early stages of union) - it did not work. The Catholic Churches are basically united in our dogma (i.e., our beliefs), not necessarily our doctrine (i.e., our theologies/how those beliefs are taught). In the Catholic Church, the focus is on answering the question, “what is it are you really trying to say with your theology or expressions of the Faith?” The essence of the Faith is more important than the theology - theology is, after all, nothing more than the HUMAN expression of God’s Truth. Catholics understand that arriving at God’s Truth is more important than the ultimately inadequate human expressions of God’s Truth that make up our distinct theologies. The dialogue has resulted in an understanding among the Catholic Churches that exists nowhere else. The spiritual fruit of understanding is a great Gift that is present in the Catholic Churches, I believe moreso than in any other communion of Churches.
This focus on the dogma (i.e., the Truth itself) rather than the theologies (i.e., the human expressions of that Truth) is NOTHING like the Protestant concept of unity, which seeks unity through a least common denominator. Unity within and among the Catholic Churches is not about stripping away everything but the basics. Rather, it is about getting to the common Truth behind our different approaches to and expressions of that Truth. On the other hand, this is NOTHING like the modernist heresy of relativism, for the Catholic Churches do not teach that Truth is relative, but merely understands that the SAME Truth can be expressed in different ways. To put it another way, all Catholics believe in the same Revelation of God about Himself - it is simply that we accept that such Revelation can be and has been expressed differently among the Churches according to distinct Traditions.
I hope to answer your query in light of the above.
We believe that is to our advantage. As stated, this concept of different distinct Traditions within one Church is perhaps harder for you to conceive as an EO, than, say, an OO. You need to live the experience as Catholics or Orientals in order to understand and appreciate that this fact you present is not an obstacle to unity.
Here can be applied the principle mentioned above about trying to get at the Truth of what the expressions mean. If you ask what Latin Catholic mean when they use filioque in the Creed, they will say, “*We believe the Divine Essence flows from the Father through the Son; we do not mean or say that the Divine Essence or the Hypostasis originates from the Father and the Son.” What they believe and intend to teach by using filioque is wholly Orthodox.
The examples of this spiritual fruit of understanding can be multipied in other areas. I only address the points you bring up in this post, but feel free to ask about any other points on which you might feel there is a conflict.
Again, this is coming from your own experience as an EO where there is one basic Liturgical Tradition. It is a different experience for OO (where there are at least three distinct basic Rites) and Catholics (more than three - don’t know the exact number).
CONT’d*
M
mardukm
Guest
CONT’d
Another example of the above principle. The common bond that unites us is the belief that Jesus Christ has a divine and human nature united, unmixed, unconfused, etc. “1 nature” and “2 natures” are different theological expressions that were used to express THIS SAME BASIC TRUTH that ALL Catholics believe.
As previously mentioned, the examples of the above principle can be multiplied. Please feel free to ask if you have questions about any other seeming “conflicts in belief.”
I hope the above points have helped. If you have any other questions, please ask.
Blessings,
Marduk
I admit this leaves me puzzled, coming from an EO.
Actually, each sui juris Church has its own unique set of particular laws, just like in the Orthodox Churches. I’m not sure why this is an issue to you.
There are no differing beliefs (i.e., dogmas) about the Truth in the Catholic Church. The differences are in the expressions of and approaches to the common Truth we all believe as Catholics. We have ONE Faith, but different expressions of that ONE Faith.
Answered above. We don’t impose our own theological presuppositions on other Churches (which is uniatism) to judge another’s theology. We approach unity by understanding what the other is really trying to say through that theology. Catholics judge according to what is believed about God’s Truth, not the ultimately inadequate human expression of God’s’ Truth.
.
Another example of the above principle. The common bond that unites us is the belief that Jesus Christ has a divine and human nature united, unmixed, unconfused, etc. “1 nature” and “2 natures” are different theological expressions that were used to express THIS SAME BASIC TRUTH that ALL Catholics believe.
As previously mentioned, the examples of the above principle can be multiplied. Please feel free to ask if you have questions about any other seeming “conflicts in belief.”
in the Faith, which is explicitly evinced in the unity/communion of our bishops.
That’s a caricature of the Catholic Church’s teaching. The unity is not in the person of the Pope, but in the person of St. Peter, as St. Cyprian taught, and as the all the Fathers testify. We remain united to the Pope not because he is the Pope per se, but because we believe he faithfully represents the Chair of Peter. This is why the Ecumenical Councils have proclaimed, “Peter has spoken through Pope…” It is to St. Peter and his Chair to whom we are aligned.
There is unity in the ideal. There is nothing wrong with the LIturgical standards of the Latin Catholic Church. As you know, abuses occur in Liturgy, but they are recognized as abuses precisely because there is a unified standard to which we can point. As far as “chaos” in other areas, I know of none that cannot be gauged by reference to a unified standard.
I hope the above points have helped. If you have any other questions, please ask.
Blessings,
Marduk
1
1Tim215Mommy
Guest
Great answers
In this, I totally disagree with you because 1 can never expresses the same truth as 2 unless something is added & 2 can never express the same truth as 1 unless something is subtracted.
We pray what we believe, so the words of each prayer is so important. Roman Catholics, for example, in the Hail Mary are taught that the world is without end - this directly contradicts Tradition, Biblical & oral. I just give this as one example, there are to many for me to list as my two year old is jumping on my back, pulling my hair & climbing through my legs & pulling herself up on the bed using my pinky - ouch!
If “through” is what Western Catholics mean, then why isn’t that what they actually say, pray & teach? “Through” is something I could believe, but “and” in no way expresses the same truth.
Re: Different Canon Law - for one example (I can’t type much longer) a Rome Catholic who misses a Sunday Mass (or Saturday night vigil) without a valid reason is guilty of a mortal sin which if he/she dies unrepented causes him or her to go to hell. The Eastern Catholics can miss Divine Liturgy without fear of eternal damnation as they are not under an Obligation Law.
In this, I totally disagree with you because 1 can never expresses the same truth as 2 unless something is added & 2 can never express the same truth as 1 unless something is subtracted.
We pray what we believe, so the words of each prayer is so important. Roman Catholics, for example, in the Hail Mary are taught that the world is without end - this directly contradicts Tradition, Biblical & oral. I just give this as one example, there are to many for me to list as my two year old is jumping on my back, pulling my hair & climbing through my legs & pulling herself up on the bed using my pinky - ouch!
If “through” is what Western Catholics mean, then why isn’t that what they actually say, pray & teach? “Through” is something I could believe, but “and” in no way expresses the same truth.
Re: Different Canon Law - for one example (I can’t type much longer) a Rome Catholic who misses a Sunday Mass (or Saturday night vigil) without a valid reason is guilty of a mortal sin which if he/she dies unrepented causes him or her to go to hell. The Eastern Catholics can miss Divine Liturgy without fear of eternal damnation as they are not under an Obligation Law.
CONT’d
I admit this leaves me puzzled, coming from an EO.
Actually, each sui juris Church has its own unique set of particular laws, just like in the Orthodox Churches. I’m not sure why this is an issue to you.
There are no differing beliefs (i.e., dogmas) about the Truth in the Catholic Church. The differences are in the expressions of and approaches to the common Truth we all believe as Catholics. We have ONE Faith, but different expressions of that ONE Faith.
Answered above. We don’t impose our own theological presuppositions on other Churches (which is uniatism) to judge another’s theology. We approach unity by understanding what the other is really trying to say through that theology. Catholics judge according to what is believed about God’s Truth, not the ultimately inadequate human expression of God’s’ Truth.
.
Another example of the above principle. The common bond that unites us is the belief that Jesus Christ has a divine and human nature united, unmixed, unconfused, etc. “1 nature” and “2 natures” are different theological expressions that were used to express THIS SAME BASIC TRUTH that ALL Catholics believe.
As previously mentioned, the examples of the above principle can be multiplied. Please feel free to ask if you have questions about any other seeming “conflicts in belief.”
in the Faith, which is explicitly evinced in the unity/communion of our bishops.
That’s a caricature of the Catholic Church’s teaching. The unity is not in the person of the Pope, but in the person of St. Peter, as St. Cyprian taught, and as the all the Fathers testify. We remain united to the Pope not because he is the Pope per se, but because we believe he faithfully represents the Chair of Peter. This is why the Ecumenical Councils have proclaimed, “Peter has spoken through Pope…” It is to St. Peter and his Chair to whom we are aligned.
There is unity in the ideal. There is nothing wrong with the LIturgical standards of the Latin Catholic Church. As you know, abuses occur in Liturgy, but they are recognized as abuses precisely because there is a unified standard to which we can point. As far as “chaos” in other areas, I know of none that cannot be gauged by reference to a unified standard.
I hope the above points have helped. If you have any other questions, please ask.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status