W
- Status
S
st_bernard
Guest
Gratia et pax vobiscum Walking_Home,
I believe that it is possible to offer the Holy Body and Holy Blood and be doctrinally correct in the Church which is faithful to Christ.
The Church is infallible because she is faithful. Our faith in the Church is grounded in the Church’s faithfulness to Christ. Infallibility is Christocentric.
The Church does not have authority over Sacred Tradition because she is not its author. Its author is Christ. She can interpret it and draw out its inner meanings, but she can never correct it. She can add to it but never subtract from it; and when she adds, she adds from within, organically, as a tree adds fruit, not mechanically, as a construction crew adds another story to a house.
Because she does not claim to have authority other churches claim to have, to change “the desposit of faith” entrusted to her by Christ, she cannot allow such things as divorce or priestesses or homosexual sex (or the hating of homosexuals), however fashionable these things may become in society. Her Lord is not society or the world, but Christ. - Peter Kreeft ~ Catholic Christianity
This is absolutely correct but what needs to be made clear is that the dogmatic principles laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent are simply that it the two species share in the same Divine essense and that either is efficacious taken individually. Period.
I have stated this numerous times in this thread and it’s simply mystifying to me why I have to keep explaining it.
My point has ‘nothing’ to do with the ‘validity’ nor the ‘efficacious nature’ of the Eucharist under one species. Nothing at all.
All that I have been saying is that exact same thing which our Holy Fathers Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI have articulated when speaking about the ‘physical signs of the supernatural graces’ of the Holy Eucharist.
You all are going to argue yourselves and the Church into a box and end up SSPX’ers or worse because of your narrow interpretation of Trent which even the Popes don’t express with such rigidity.
I’m sorry but I find not Scholars and Theologians taking this narrow an interpretation ‘but’ SSPX’ers and worse.
That is schismatic and possibly heresy.
I beg that you all take the time to reconsider your positions.
Gratias
W
Walking_Home
Guest
No matter how you coat it. Arguing against the authority of the Church to administer the sacraments–is still dissent.
By the way—good going there–in trying to turn the tide–by associating the SSPX in this discussion. When push comes to shove—throw the SSPX in.
7 pages–and you are your buds–are still going at it—that is dissent.
P
prodromos
Guest
They were people with authority in the Church, what position of authority do you hold in the Church?
Interesting that you would consider yourself in their league
John
P
palmas85
Guest
If Trent was defective because of the absence of the Orthodox Churches then every council that came later at which the Orthodox were not present must also be defective. Is that the argument that you are making? Remember the Orthodox still are not with us completely, only small groups of them have come into full communion with Rome.
Also under your apparent line of reasoning, even Vatican II is defective since the Orthodox while present were still not in communion with Rome. I believe that Pope John Paul II was referring in his statements to a complete re-unification with all the Eastern Churches, not just the incomplete union that we have now.
In essence by your apparent line of reasoning the Latin Rite Church can do nothing and has no authority until full re-unification takes place. At least that is the impression that I am getting from the posts here.
If I am missing something then please feel free to correct me.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
“After a while, he stopped hurling imprecations . . . and, as he often did after such an outburst, became quite remorseful.”
– Wayne Johnston, The Colony of Unrequited Dreams
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
The Eastern Catholic Churches seem not to accept all the Councils of the Church of Rome. I hesitate to post this information out of apprehension that it may bring forth an outburst of “heretic, heretic” against the Eastern Catholics.
This is from the programme for Sunday schools on the official website of the Melkite Catholic diocese in the States.
Q. 8 How many Ecumenical Councils were held?
a. Seven Ecumenical Councils
9 Was the Vatican council an ecumenical council? Why?, why not?
a. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council – no participation from the Orthodox
P
palmas85
Guest
That does place us in the dilemma then of which group do we follow? The Latin Church or the Eastern Churches? Obviously we cannot follow both.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
These are the Eastern Catholic Churches. They are united to Rome and in submission to the Pope. But all the same they do not accept various things which Roman Catholics must accept and believe. Quite an anomalous situation.
A
AlexV
Guest
Walking Home is right…seven pages and we still have:
–“St.” Bernard’s offensive and increasingly erratic responses. NO ONE had mentioned the SSPX on this thread…now he brings them in, arguing that people who support Catholic DOCTRINE will become SSPXers sooner rather than later if they defend the DOGMATIC Council of Trent, which IS relevant to this discussion.
–The Easterners. Their main point: We don’t do it, ergo you’re wrong and we’re right, and if we’re not at a Council, it’s not quite as worthy of respect as the ones we attended. Similarly, if a “tradition” isn’t more than 1500 years old, it’s worthy of our criticism and suspicion.
I stand by my choice of words. These 7 pages have seen heresy, dissent, errors that make me think I was wrong when I considered that Eucharistic doctrines weren’t being misconstrued as badly as I thought…and I have gained a new respect for Trent, whose concerns and worries are as valid and alive as ever.
Blasphemy? Disobedience? Attacks on the West when it doesn’t do what the East does?
Amazing. Seven pages of embarassment.
–“St.” Bernard’s offensive and increasingly erratic responses. NO ONE had mentioned the SSPX on this thread…now he brings them in, arguing that people who support Catholic DOCTRINE will become SSPXers sooner rather than later if they defend the DOGMATIC Council of Trent, which IS relevant to this discussion.
–The Easterners. Their main point: We don’t do it, ergo you’re wrong and we’re right, and if we’re not at a Council, it’s not quite as worthy of respect as the ones we attended. Similarly, if a “tradition” isn’t more than 1500 years old, it’s worthy of our criticism and suspicion.
I stand by my choice of words. These 7 pages have seen heresy, dissent, errors that make me think I was wrong when I considered that Eucharistic doctrines weren’t being misconstrued as badly as I thought…and I have gained a new respect for Trent, whose concerns and worries are as valid and alive as ever.
Blasphemy? Disobedience? Attacks on the West when it doesn’t do what the East does?
Amazing. Seven pages of embarassment.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
You have not understood me. I have not attacked the West for not doing what the East does. If I wanted to do that I would ramble on about not offering communion with the species conmingled on a golden spoon.
But no, I have been pointng out that the Roman Catholic practice is at odds with the perennial tradition of the Church. And surely the fact that the 23 Eastern Catholic Churches in union with Rome offer both species is evidence of that. You have an irregular situation introduced to combat heresy and it has been allowed to continue in preference to returning to the older traditional ways.
Bishop communing children who have been
baptized in the lake behind him (just visible).
Mass baptisms are common now in the
ex-communist countries.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A
AlexV
Guest
One of your most offensive posts yet.
First off, just because 23 Eastern churches do something (in communion with Rome or not) does NOT mean the Roman practice is “at odds with the perennial tradition” of the Church.
Offensive, erroneous, unacceptable.
Calling Communion under one species “an irregular situation” is also OFFENSIVE, ERRONEOUS, and borders on, if it doesn’t qualify as, grounds for an anathema under Trent. Oh sorry, you weren’t at Trent. Oh well.
The Roman practice is NOT “at odds” with Church traditions, whether you and the East think so or not.
Now…how about that Immaculate Conception…that should be EVEN MORE at odds with “perennial tradition”, eh? Is that next on your Eastern chopping block? How about Papal Infallibility, Father?
There’s enough heresy on these 7 pages to underscore the wisdom of Trent for another 500 years.
First off, just because 23 Eastern churches do something (in communion with Rome or not) does NOT mean the Roman practice is “at odds with the perennial tradition” of the Church.
Offensive, erroneous, unacceptable.
Calling Communion under one species “an irregular situation” is also OFFENSIVE, ERRONEOUS, and borders on, if it doesn’t qualify as, grounds for an anathema under Trent. Oh sorry, you weren’t at Trent. Oh well.
The Roman practice is NOT “at odds” with Church traditions, whether you and the East think so or not.
Now…how about that Immaculate Conception…that should be EVEN MORE at odds with “perennial tradition”, eh? Is that next on your Eastern chopping block? How about Papal Infallibility, Father?
There’s enough heresy on these 7 pages to underscore the wisdom of Trent for another 500 years.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Please ask the members of your own Church. Do you know much about any of your Churches outside the Roman Catholic Church? The Melkites, the Maronites, the Ukrainian Greek Catholics… Most of them ignore the Immaculate Conception because they have a different theology of Original Sin to Rome. It is important to note that Rome ALLOWS this – before there are more trumpet calls of “heretics!” Once you step outside the Roman Catholic Church and into the world of the Eastern Catholics who are united with Rome it’s quite a different ball game.
But your questions have taken us outside the topic of this thread.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Dear brother in Christ Alex,
Are we to be one body of Christ?
These concerns deserve an airing. We are learning about each other, and commenting, that’s encouraging and healthy for the church. Don’t shut us down, let’s discuss it!
There are two kinds of information one gets from these posts: facts (or attempts at facts), and opinions. We cannot dispute the facts, but we can interpret them. Condemning people who don’t agree with us will not solve anything, make your best presentation and leave it to the Holy Spirit.
In this case we know what happened: some time in the past the Latin church restricted the cup from the lay population, that’s a fact. Another fact is that no other Catholic and Apostolic churches anywhere have chosen to do that.
The opinion is whether or not we think that was proper. My opinion is that since no other Apostolic church has ever decided to restrict the cup from the laity, the Latin church is out of sync.
How can we ever consider church unity as one body of Christ without discussing these matters? If you have ever prayed for church unity you know that this is why we discuss these things openly, we are moved to do it.
A
AlexV
Guest
“The opinion is whether or not we think that was proper. My opinion is that since no other Apostolic church has ever decided to restrict the cup from the laity, the Latin church is out of sync.”
TOTALLY FALSE. Trent does not allow us to consider reception under one species “improper”. PERIOD. Doctrinal, dogmatic, required assent, etc. This isn’t a matter of mere “opinion” for Catholics.
As for the Immaculate Conception of Mary, if you do not accept it, along with Papal Infallibility, you are not Catholic. Also period. And I know plenty of Eastern Catholics. They have no problem with Papal Infalliblity, or the Immaculate Conception.
Spare us the “ecumenism” argument. What you really mean is “we’re right and you went astray”.
TOTALLY FALSE. Trent does not allow us to consider reception under one species “improper”. PERIOD. Doctrinal, dogmatic, required assent, etc. This isn’t a matter of mere “opinion” for Catholics.
As for the Immaculate Conception of Mary, if you do not accept it, along with Papal Infallibility, you are not Catholic. Also period. And I know plenty of Eastern Catholics. They have no problem with Papal Infalliblity, or the Immaculate Conception.
Spare us the “ecumenism” argument. What you really mean is “we’re right and you went astray”.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Well, the Latin church is the only one which has done this. If you interpret that to mean your church went astray so be it, I did not say that. I would say you “march to a different drummer”.
The Latin church has always had a “go it alone” approach. No need to get your knickers in a twist over it, we all know it’s been this way for a long time. It is good for you to know what the rest of Apostolic Christianity thinks about that.
I find that most Roman Catholics say that the pray for unity, and I believe them, but they are hardly aware of what Christian unity actually means.
A
AlexV
Guest
The POINT of this thread remains: there’s NOTHING wrong or improper or disobedient or blasphemous about Communion under one species.
NOTHING.
To suggest otherwise renders you anathema…a nice Eastern, Greek word.
NOTHING.
To suggest otherwise renders you anathema…a nice Eastern, Greek word.
H
Hesychios
Guest
"It is fearsome to fall into the hands of the living God: this is a tribunal of thoughts and movements of hearts. Let no one enter tempting the unblemished faith: but in meekness and fear let us come before Christ, that we may receive mercy and find grace for help at the proper time"
(Stichera of the Aposticha, Palm Sunday, Vespers).
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
J
JNB
Guest
By being part of the church, united to Rome, all the various rites HAVE TO ACCEPT all of the Councils. That program is in error, but it would not be the first time teaching material used in the name of the Catholic church is in error.
- Status