Does this article (obviously from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) accurately represent Catholicism?

[joe370]

Sorry, Joe. If it is something that applies to everyone, then I should think it would be better to not approach the title at all for Mary in particular (since it is really equally a title of every saint, and really every person), or to anyone at all, since you write about it as though it should be self-evident in light of the verses you present. So I still disagree with this potential dogma or title or whatever it may be, and on the same grounds that I rejected it before I wrote anything in this thread: It is at best unnecessary, and at worst invites people to embrace a heretical understanding of the Holy Virgin.

Of course I respect your choice brother! However, I do not see how it potentially invites people to embrace a heretical understanding of the Holy Virgin, but to each their own I suppose.

Of course it is something that applies to all the Christians that comprise Jesus’ Mystical Body, for the simple fact that all Christians, as per sacred scripture, partake of Jesus’ singular redemptive plan and priesthood, but I am fairly certain that Mary’s situation as co-worker and priest of the royal priesthood, being that she is the ONLY sinless mother of God, might be a little different than say, my situation as co-worker and priest of the royal priesthood. Something tells me that Mary’s soul magnifies our Lord in a way that far surpasses the way in which my soul magnifies our one and only Lord, Savior, Priest and Redeemer.

 

[tomarin]

Tone it down; this is not a battle to the death, this is a conversation between two rational people hoping to come to some sort of common agreement on something.

 

[joe370]

Insofar as I understanding the teaching, I do not have any serious objection to Mary as Co-Redemptrix. I even believe the word (or something similiar to it) is found in a kontakion or troparion in the East, as I remember hearing it and thinking about it in relation to the Latin understanding.

Something I wonder though: is Mary already called Co-Redemptrix in the liturgy of the Latin Church? I don’t understand the demand for the doctrine to be infallibly promulgated by the Pope of Rome. If the teaching already is claimed to be true in the liturgical life of the Church, there is no need for an official proclamation.

If it is true then it is an infallible teaching which begs the question: what harm could possibly come from an official proclamation of said truth? Of course if it was false, making it a fallible teaching, considerable harm could come from it, but like you said, you have no serious objection to Mary as Co-Redemptrix.

 

[steve_b]

That just means that the Mods are Roman Catholic, thus they obviously believe theirs to be the Catholic Church as addressed by St. Ignatius. The Orthodox believe that THEIR Church is the Church that St. Ignatius was referring to, and that the Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church.

It’s meant to have clear communcations. afterall, this is a Catholic forum
sh:

Honestly, if a church calls itself Catholic, and you automatically assume that it’s the same Catholic Church as in the time of the Apostles because of the name, then I would say you’re not thinking this out clearly… With that logic, what about the Old Catholics? What about any of the numerous out-there groups touting the name “Catholic?” Are they the Catholic Church that St. Ignatius of Antioch is referring to as well?

1. • Did Ignatius qualify Catholic using other descriptive adjectives like “Old” or “Orthodox” etc ? No
   • How did the Nicene Creed use Catholic?
   • Is the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome? Yes, from the 1st century
   • Why? Because Rome is the see and chair of Peter. Very few would try and dispute that
   • Is that same Church of Rome still here today only now it covers the world? Yes.
   • Is it Catholic in the 1st century as it is Catholic in the 21st century? Yes
   sh:
   

   I actually think that’s a better argument for Orthodoxy than Catholicism; it’s the same city, with different names. So thus, you can say that the Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church, just with a different name. Or that the Lutheran Church is the Catholic Church, just with a different name.

   Let’s test that out
   • Hagia Sophia was a type of St Peter’s for the Orthodox.
   • Constantinople was a type of New Rome for the Orthodox.
   • The patriarch of constantinople fashioned himself the New pope
   Well, what happened to that? Hagia Sophia is a museum. Constantinople has a name change to Istanbul. The patriarch according to the EO who post here, is no different than any other bishop. Except where he is, he basically has very few sheep. Christianity is less that 2% in Turkey, most of that is in Istanbul. And the biggest most active group is not Orthodox but Catholic.
   
   OTOH,
   
   Rome is still Rome.
   St Peter’s is still St Peter’s
   the Vatican is still the Vatican
   sh:
   

   I still think you’re oversimplifying the issue; what if the Pope, as he has done before, goes into heresy? What if the whole of the Roman Church went into outright, full heresy, God forbid? Would the gates of Hell prevail because one See fell, because that one See was the seat of the Catholic Church? Without Rome or the Pope, could there be any Catholic Church at all?

   The Church maintains that the pope will not TEACH heresy. And no pope has for 2000 years…
   
   The “what ifs” you speculate on, won’t happen because of Jesus promises.
   sh:
   

   With this, it almost seems to make the Pope seem like a king over the Church, and makes the College seem like a Parliament that the Pope can convene and dismiss at his will. The Pope has the choice of acting with the advice of this “Parliament” or as an absolute monarch. Do I have that right, going off this?

   A single bishop can rule over his diocese… The pope OTOH, is over the entire Church

 

[dzheremi]

Why does something need to be officially proclaimed to be recognized as true, Joe?

 

[steve_b]

Totally irrelevant to my point. Regardless of the rules on this forum, it remains true that the Orthodox - throughout the world - officially refer to their church as the “Orthodox Catholic Church.” That is what they call themselves. Yes, on this forum it would muck things up terminologically if they called themselves “Orthodox Catholics,” but the only thing I was trying to make clear is that their official name that they use for their church is the “Orthodox Catholic Church.”

The reason I posted that, was so that things don’t get mucked up.
FB:

I’m Catholic, so we ultimately agree, steve. I’m just pointing out that the early church’s self-identification as “the Catholic Church” doesn’t in and of itself prove that that church is the same entity as the contemporary Catholic Church. That’s all. The fact that the conclusion is correct doesn’t mean it logically follows from an argument purporting to prove it.

As an analogy, check out this post.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7144137&postcount=84

.

 

[steve_b]

I asked you to point me to where I could read about this information. I did not ask you to attack me. And currently, I am not Orthodox, but a Catholic-Orthodox fence-sitter. Attacking me because of my “post-schism Orthodox sentiment of pride and rejection” isn’t going to do me any favors in remaining Catholic, and you are currently being quite prideful and rejecting yourself. I asked where I could read more about the event you referenced with Irenaeus, not personal attacks.

It’s possible he was referring to Irenaeus referencing pope Clement. Clement in ~80 A.D. was asked to settle sedition among the bishops of Corinth.

• St John is alive at this time, and hasn’t written the book of Revelations yet. He is living much closer to Corinth than Clement was over in Rome. Yet Clement is asked to settle the sedition not John or any bishop much closer to Corinth.

One could ask, why didn’t Corinth go to Athens 50 miles away? They are a Church mentioned in Acts. They have valid bishops. And they are neighbors. Probably know each other. Why go to the bishop of Rome, especially given these times of great persecutions, great distances etc., and Corinth needs a quick resolutuion.

Given what we know, It’s hard to ignore what this letter suggests, DURING apostolic times.

Here is Clements letter

newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

 

[steve_b]

To follow up on my earlier request for Catholic scholarship regarding how and why the primatial powers of the Bishop of Rome have expanded since the early Church, I also request references to recent scholarship which explains in detail the relationship between the papacy, the magisterium, and councils. I have some books by Avery Dulles which touch on these subjects but I am wondering if there are others.

Thanks!

Did you get what you asked for?

 

[joe370]

Why does something need to be officially proclaimed to be recognized as true, Joe?

It doesn’t! What harm can come from officially proclaiming something to be true?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Marian dogmas were made clear by the popes because of the fact, and this is my understanding, that there was debate about it. Saints like St. Bernard and St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t believe in things like the Immaculate Conception while other theologians did indeed believe it. The popes felt that things like this needed a definitive proclamation to resolve the variety of conjecture. From a Catholic standpoint the Lord obviously felt that we laity and the clergy need to properly appreciate, give hyperdulia, and understand the Blessed Mother so he moved the pope to act. Mary is invoked during the Latin liturgy, as she should be, but rarely have I heard the term “co-redemptrix” during the holy liturgy. It’s more of a term used in the catechism and in discussions about Mary, etc.

As I said before, the Fathers are not the be-all, end-all of everything, but a piece of the puzzle. I’ll paste here a little from the Catholic Encyclopedia that I think puts it better than yours truly:

This speculation of the Greek Fathers undoubtedly contains a profound truth which is sometimes forgotten by later authors who are more intent on framing juridical theories of ransom and satisfaction. But it is obvious that this account of the matter is imperfect, and leaves much to be explained. It must be remembered, moreover, that the Fathers themselves do not put this forward as a full explanation. For while many of their utterances might seem to imply that the Redemption was actually accomplished by the union of a Divine Person with the human nature, it is clear from other passages that they do not lose sight of the atoning sacrifice. **The Incarnation is, indeed, the source **and the foundation of the Atonement, and these profound thinkers have, so to say, grasped the cause and its effects as one vast whole. Hence they look on to the result before staying to consider the means by which it was accomplished.

I found this passage intriguing:

c) But it is not only in connection with the theory of ransom that we meet with this notion of “rights” on the part of Satan. Some of the Fathers set the matter in a different aspect. Fallen man, it was said, was justly under the dominion of the devil, in punishment for sin. But when Satan brought suffering and death on the sinless Saviour, he abused his power and exceeded his right, so that he was now justly deprived of his dominion over the captives. This explanation is found especially in the sermons of St. Leo and the “Morals” of St. Gregory the Great. Closely allied to this explanation is the singular "mouse-trap" metaphor of St. Augustine. In this daring figure of speech, the Cross is regarded as the trap in which the bait is set and the enemy is caught. “The Redeemer came and the deceiver was overcome. What did our Redeemer do to our Captor? In payment for us He set the trap, His Cross, with His blood for bait. He [Satan] could indeed shed that blood; but he deserved not to drink it. By shedding the blood of One who was not his debtor, he was forced to release his debtors” (Serm. cxxx, part 2).

And I like the ending to the passage…

And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart. It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, “making peace through the blood of His Cross”.

Insofar as I understanding the teaching, I do not have any serious objection to Mary as Co-Redemptrix. I even believe the word (or something similiar to it) is found in a kontakion or troparion in the East, as I remember hearing it and thinking about it in relation to the Latin understanding.

Something I wonder though: is Mary already called Co-Redemptrix in the liturgy of the Latin Church? I don’t understand the demand for the doctrine to be infallibly promulgated by the Pope of Rome. If the teaching already is claimed to be true in the liturgical life of the Church, there is no need for an official proclamation.

I know you do not approve of Eastern soteriology. However, this is the soteriology of the Church the first thousand years. I am not aware of Anselm’s views on the atonement being found in the early Western Fathers either. If you know of Western Fathers who do write of propitiatory sacrifice as Anselm does, I would be interested in reading their passages.

 

[jam070406]

To follow up on my earlier request for Catholic scholarship regarding how and why the primatial powers of the Bishop of Rome have expanded since the early Church, I also request references to recent scholarship which explains in detail the relationship between the papacy, the magisterium, and councils. I have some books by Avery Dulles which touch on these subjects but I am wondering if there are others.

Thanks!

* "All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed." (First Vatican Council, 1870)
* "For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: "All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are pro posed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium" (Sess. iii., cap. 3)" Encyclical On the Unity of the Church by Pope Leo XIII, 1896
* "But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church." Encyclical On the Doctrine of the Modernists by Pope Pius X, 1907
* "But as the Church was to last to the end of time, something more was required besides the bestowal of the Sacred Scriptures. It was obviously necessary that the Divine Founder should take every precaution, lest the treasure of heavenly-given truths, possessed by the Church, should ever be destroyed, which would assuredly have happened, had He left those doctrines to each one's private judgment. It stands to reason, therefore, that a living, perpetual "magisterium" was necessary in the Church from the beginning, which, by the command of Christ himself, should besides teaching other wholesome doctrines, give an authoritative explanation of Holy Writ, and which being directed and safeguarded by Christ himself, could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching" Encyclical On the Church in Scotland by Pope Leo XIII, 1898
* "For these writings attack and pervert the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, who are the successors of blessed Peter and the apostles; they transfer it instead to the people, or, as they say, to the community. They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters" Encyclical by Pope Pius IX in 1873, On the Church of Italy, Germany, and Switzerland, under heading of 'Further Heresies'
* "while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions..." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Infallibility
* "Even the ordinarium magisterium is not independent of the pope. In other words, it is only bishops who are in corporate union with the pope, the Divinely constituted head and centre of Christ's mystical body, the one true Church, who have any claim to share in the charisma by which the infallibility of their morally unanimous teaching is divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promises" 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Infallibility
* "Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed." Encyclical On Defining the Dogma of the Assumption by Pope Pius XII, November 1, 1950
* "It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Infallibility

 

[joe370]

Hey Shiranui, you are right; it was not just Rome that was honored, and it was not just the Pope that had authority. However, the unity of Jesus’ church seems to be anchored in the office of the bishop who holds the chair of Peter. With that said what are your thoughts regarding the following?

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord.* If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? **If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid., 15:2).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying,** ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’** . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . **tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2). **

Ambrose of Milan

"[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]" (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).

Continued…*

 

[joe370]

Augustine

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors.** The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]). **

Council of Chalcedon

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

 

[jam070406]

what if the Pope, as he has done before, goes into heresy?

• It shall be lawful for each and all of the cardinals,…as well as for all the clergy and the Roman people,… to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this, remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the canons) and to avoid him as a magician, a heathen, a publican and a heresiarch."
  Pope Julius II, Council of Lateran V. 1513
  • “The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope…(2) /ob fidem/ (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head.”
    Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils

List of anti-popes

philvaz.com/apologetics/a13.htm

 

[jam070406]

I asked you to point me to where I could read about this information.

http://www.steveraysstore.com/media...06f020e43594a9c230972d/u/p/upon-this-rock.jpg

amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is as polemical and uncharitable as one can get, Jeremy. You’re going to worry about my sanity and the sanity of other Catholics because they advocate for the Co-Redempterix language the Church uses? Wrong, dangerous, fine. Crazy? Give me a break. You’re crossing the line of charity and insulting here. I don’t mind disagreement. It’s the name of the game in these discussions, but questioning sanity is either excessive hyperbole on your part or a downright insult. Most theology and morality can lead to improper and heretical understandings. That’s why heretics crop up. The answer is to deal with heresy when it does pop up, not to refrain from teaching the truth out of fear that it might be mistaken? Imagine that mentality at the early councils…nothing would be definitively taught…

As is your right, but I still think it is wrong, dangerous, and yes, frankly, a little bit crazy. This kind of hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper dulia is rejected (not just by me; see your co-religionist Fone Bone 2001’s response to this portion of my post) precisely because it so easily leads to heretical understanding. That is dangerous and I would worry about the sanity of anyone who would advocate for it in light of its potential pitfalls.

Um…not to be a smart alec, but isn’t this true of absolutely every single theological stance ever? The Holy Trinity is misunderstood by those who misunderstand the theology behind it, for instance. St. Cyril’s famous formulation of “one nature of the incarnate word” has certainly been misunderstood by those who favor the two-nature Christology of Chalcedon. Even the heretics can and do claim this. To the Nestorians, Nestorius wasn’t wrong, his doctrine has just been misunderstood for hundreds upon hundreds of years. This can’t seriously be a point in favor of adopting ANY theological stance, since anyone can claim it.

It’s not official dogma. The language is accepted by the Church but not definitive dogma that must be believed. Is it my position that it should be accepted? Sure. I don’t have a problem with it. I’m not sure why you encourage me to “fight it out” with my Catholic brethren in here? It is the height of arrogance to think that I have a say in what the Catholic Church proclaims as dogma. My meager opinions won’t influence the Magisterium to adopt it as de fide dogma or not. I’m not here to “fight it out” and get in Marian turf wars with Catholics. Again, I don’t appreciate the “loony” comment. Polemical and nasty, and as usual, unnecessary Jeremy. I don’t know what to make of your “apology” for insulting Catholics. Your apology reminds me of the playground I have to superviise in which a kid says “your mom is a fat pig” to which the kid, feeling hurt tells the teacher. The teacher tells kid A to apologize and the kid says “ok, I’m sorry your mom is a pig.”

I disagree with you strongly but I don’t find your POSITION offensive, I find the language and dramatic characterization of it offensive. Many Orthodox disagree with me in here but I don’t call them “nuts” or “loony” or “insane” or “crazy.” You use a lot of colorful lingo that doesn’t aid in your debate, but rather detracts from it, brother.

Your point on Vatican II eludes me. Blessings…

Why are you comparing the two, when Fone Bone 2001 very kindly reminded me that Co-Redemptrix is not accepted as dogma? Is it your position that acceptance of this “co-redemptrix” idea is or should be the Catholic position? Because this is really something you should be fighting out amongst yourselves, in that case, and not with me for pointing out that to the outsider it seems loony. If it isn’t, why not explain to your fellow Catholics who believe that it is (and my experience here on CAF and elsewhere shows me that there are many) why it is not? That would be a lot more productive in advance your position than to chastise people like me who will never, ever accept it. I am sorry that you are offended, but I stand by my original statement regardless of what you say about Orthodoxy. I do not mean to make this a personal issue, and if I have offended you or anyone here, I am sorry. To some extent, offense is inevitable in calling another’s sincerely held beliefs wrong, but that’s what they are. They’re wrong. I will try to moderate my writing a bit more in the future. Again, I am sorry if I have offended you or any Catholic.

Well, no, I do not. Again, I am sorry that I have offended you with my words, but I cannot be sorry that you find my position offensive. I hope you understand the distinction I am trying to make, after reading the paragraph above this one.

In the context of the reply that you have excised this from, it is something you brought up as reformable (in fact, being reformed right now), and hence I take it to be fallible: The Vatican II-era reform/modernization/perversion (depending on your perspective) of the Latin-rite Mass.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

And Rome exalts the Church at Corinth in the same way. And Paul exalted the other Churches he wrote to in the same way. This is hardly unique.

Actually, it’s not just about the honorifics, but rather about the specific honors given to those Churches. St. Ignatius states of the Church in Rome that she “presides in [or *over] love,” “filled inseparably with the Grace of God,” and “purified from every strange taint.” These words and their obvious meaning are found in none of his other letters. Another obvious difference between his letter to Rome and his letters to the other Churches is that he openly offers instruction to the other Churches, but none to Rome. In fact, he plainly writes, “You have never envied any one, but you have taught others. Now, I desire that you may confirm those things which in your instructions you enjoin on others.”

Well, of course; Spain, as far as I can recall, was a possession of the Roman Church at that time.

Spain had its own primate, just as St. Cyprian was the primate of Carthage.

And did the Pope himself make the decision, or act according to the Canons and merely deem that a new trial should be had, and a trial in which the Pope has the same vote as everyone else?

The Pope has never acted by himself in a canonical trial of a bishop. There’s nothing in the canons of the Catholic Church today which indicates such a thing either. I don’t know what justifies your comment. Can you point out your source? Is it possible you have taken a straw man caricature of the papacy from some non-Catholic source?

And? Cyril did the work. I don’t recall the Pope speaking infallibly; he saw an issue and called it out. Anyone else could have done the same.

I believe you are missing the point. Pope St. Cyril was a patriarch, not merely a local ordinary, and he was accepting instruction from the bishop of Rome. It is indeed common for a local bishop to exhort or accept exhortation from other local bishops - but for a patriarch to accept direction from another patriarch is a more rare and unique occurrence.

While holding a robber synod or two. Even today, Photius is held as a Saint in both the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic worlds. Photius wanted no conflict; Pope Nicholas simply tried to assert an authority he did not have, and an authority that was openly flaunted by the East. Photius reconciled with Ignatius, and Ignatius named Photius as his successor. I can see you’re only looking at what the Pope did and not what the outcomes were, or the entire story.

Were you aware that St. Photius in fact asked Pope St. Nicholas for the latter’s approval of his election? Does that not imply a right to reject it? Were you aware that the Canons of Sardica - affirmed by the Trullan Synod - recognized that the bishop of Rome could hear appeals from ANY bishop in Christendom East or West, and to thereafter hold synodal trials on the matter? If Patriarch Ignatius appealed to the bishop of Rome, and the bishop of Rome deemed it right to hold a Synodal trial over the matter, and the canons recognized that the bishop of Rome had that right, how could the trial Synod held by the bishop of Rome possibly be a “robber Synod?” Please explain.

So the East was at fault? When the West was claiming more and more power and adding in more and more innovations, such as the already-noted Filioque? What about Humbert walking into the Hagia Sophia in the middle of the Divine Liturgy, slapping a bull of excommunication on the altar, walking out without saying a word, then writing back home about how heretical the East was, when he hardly bothered to speak a word to the East?

Are you saying that the East had no fault whatsoever in the Schism?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

This is as polemical and uncharitable as one can get, Jeremy. You’re going to worry about my sanity and the sanity of other Catholics because they advocate for the Co-Redempterix language the Church uses?

Let me use a different example then: The filioque. This is something that seems like it can be understood in an orthodox manner, but even asking a few priests about it I have gotten a few different answers: It should be understood as “through the Son” even though it doesn’t actually say that; the people who don’t understand it correctly are doing so on purpose for polemical reasons; it does not insist upon double procession, but some people wish it did, etc. Now, I would have no trouble saying “through the Son” (per filium), but that’s not the filioque as it is, and to the extent that there is some theology involved with some understandings of it that is suspect and to be avoided. How would the introduction of “Co-Redemptrix” fair any better? Why add more unnecessary dogmas or titles or doctrines to complicate matters further, especially if they only confuse what is already believed (in other words, if the theology is already there and understood, why is that not good enough by itself)? This is why I think it is crazy: There is virtually no reason for it beyond some sort of desire to have it be declared. I don’t think that’s a good reason, in and of itself.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

Something to bear in mind is that in the earliest days of the Church, it was the Roman Church (and not specifically her bishop) that had pre-eminence, and we often find writings from and to “The Roman Church” rather than a specific bishop. The Roman Church was magnified in honor by the fact that the two great Apostles, SS Peter and Paul, were martyred there.

I believe St. Ignatius’ ecclesiology should settle the matter here. To him, a local Church can never be separated from its bishop. The honor of a bishop redounds to his Church, and vice-versa.

The account of which I’m familiar is found in Eusebius. It was not only Irenaeus who corrected Pope Victor. A great number of bishops “sharply rebuked” Pope Victor for his rashness. Ultimately, it was St. Irenaeus who was the “peacemaker” between the Bishop of Rome and the bishops of Asia Minor.

Two important things stand out to me in my study of this important episode in Church history:

1. It was Pope St. Victor who called all the Churches to a united action on the matter of Easter. Before the union of Church and State in the fourth century, before the power of the emperor to call together Ecumenical Councils was recognized by the Church, the Church as a whole already recognized that the bishop of Rome could call the entire Church to action on a universal matter. I have come across some EO who argue that there is no singular authority today who can convene an Ecumenical Council - these EO don’t seem to have looked beyond the fourth century in their study of the Church.
2. Though the power to excommunicate even bishops was a personal prerogative of the bishop of Rome, it was a prerogative that was exercised collegially. I don’t think many Latin Catholics of the Absolutist Petrine perspective realize that the decision to excommunicate the bishops of Asia was not made by the Pope alone. Rather, he seems to have been responding to the expressions of a good number of bishops. For example, Eusebius records that the Synod in Palestine sent a letter to Victor in these words: “Endeavor to send copies of the epistle through all the Church, that we may not give occasion to those whose minds are easily led astray.” Strong words such as these from his brother bishops must have caused Pope St. Victor to feel some justification for attempting to excommunicate the bishops of Asia. The resulting backlash is an equal demonstration of the collegial nature of the exercise of the papal prerogatives.

I am not familiar with this incident. However, Carthage is in North Africa, and Arles in the south of Gaul (modern day France), so it would make sense for St. Cyprian to appeal to Pope Stephen, who was closer. There may also have been ties between Arles and Rome, in which case it would be appropriate for Pope Stephen to investigate the matter and perhaps form a local council to judge on the matter.

I am not sure what relevance geography has on the matter. Gaul and Spain each had their own primates who were equal to St. Cyprian. That St. Cyprian thought that Pope St. Stephen could discipline bishops in those provinces is very telling.

But there is something else to consider here which may mitigate the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives on the matter. St. Cyprian was asking Pope St. Stephen to discpline bishops in Gaul and Spain on a doctrinal matter. St. Cyprian had plainly admitted in one of his anti-Donatist letters that the bishop of Rome was infallible in matters of doctrine. Apparently, St. Cyprian did not feel that the issue of rebaptism of heretics was an issue of doctrine, since he insisted that each bishop could do as he deemed fit on the matter (i.e., if it was a matter of doctrine to Cyprian, Cyprian would have required uniformity). So St. Cyprian would seem to be consistent - on a matter of doctrine, the bishop of Rome had a primatial and adjudicating role, but on matters less than that, bishops should have freedom. What do you think of that model, brother Madaglan? Does that align with your personal understanding of the patristic model of how the early Church worked?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Louie1983]

Let me use a different example then: The filioque. This is something that seems like it can be understood in an orthodox manner, but even asking a few priests about it I have gotten a few different answers: It should be understood as “through the Son” even though it doesn’t actually say that; the people who don’t understand it correctly are doing so on purpose for polemical reasons; it does not insist upon double procession, but some people wish it did, etc. Now, I would have no trouble saying “through the Son” (per filium), but that’s not the filioque as it is, and to the extent that there is some theology involved with some understandings of it that is suspect and to be avoided. How would the introduction of “Co-Redemptrix” fair any better? Why add more unnecessary dogmas or titles or doctrines to complicate matters further, especially if they only confuse what is already believed (in other words, if the theology is already there and understood, why is that not good enough by itself)? This is why I think it is crazy: There is virtually no reason for it beyond some sort of desire to have it be declared. I don’t think that’s a good reason, in and of itself.

Why add co-redemptrix?

Because if it’s the truth it should not only be made dogma but shouted from the rooftops!

It only confuses the matter if you look at through orthodox(or any other denminations) eyes and not catholic, many people don’t agree with it because they don’t undertsand what the church is trying to say.

Same thing the other way around, if you look at an orthodox article of faith through catholic eyes it would confuse you.

Regardless, there’s only one truth and only be one church.