How Big is the Church of Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jaypeeto3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi DanMan,
The Eastern Orthodox do not believe in the doctrine of Original Sin. They consider it an erroneous Western concept. Go over to the Eastern Christianity forum and ask the poster named
Fr. Ambrose about it, he is an Orthodox priest. He’ll confirm what I said.

In Dominus Iesus, the writer says that the Church of Christ is comprised of all of the True Particular Churches. It also states that the Eastern Orthodox Churches ARE True Particular Churches. Therefore, as True Particular Churches, they are part of the Church of Christ even though not part of the Catholic Church. After all, 2 + 2 = 4. Dominus Iesus ( I believe #17) also states that “the Church of Christ is present and operative in them” (the E.O. churches) because they have a valid Eucharist.
You can’t get much clearer than that.

To summarize:
Ratzinger said plainly that the Church of Christ is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church (see link to Zenit article at the top of this page).
Ratzinger said in D.I. that the Church of Christ is comprised of all the True Particular Churches.
Ratzinger also said in D.I. that the E.O. Churches are True Particular Churches.
It therefore follows that the E.O. Churches are part of the Church of Christ.

And, since the Church of Christ is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church, therefore the Church of Christ “subsists in” but not IS the Catholic Church. This is a direct contradiction of pre-Vatican 2 magisterial teaching which taught that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic church.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
 
Jaypeeto,
ask the poster named Fr. Ambrose about it, he is an Orthodox priest. He’ll confirm what I said.
Click to expand...
.

I have been spending quite a bit of time over there, and was talking to Fr. Ambrose about original sin just a few weeks ago. The Orthodox do believe in Original sin. They reject the notion that each person is personally guilty of the sin of Adam. As such, you cannot say something is a heresy of your own discernment. Unless the Catholic Church has specifically anathamtized the Orthodox for their belief on original sin (which they have not), it is gross mischaracterization to say they are heretics. Please take the time to read this article to see exactly what Orthodox believe about Original sin. Their beliefs are not heretical. They simply see the other side of the same coin.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/christcross.aspx

Here is what DI says, starting in paragraph 16

Dominus Iesus
With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 **that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.**56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

What it says here is that those salvific elements are present in those Churches, and as such the Catholic Church is imperfectly present in them.

This means that:

They are not in the Church of Christ. The Church of Christ is in them.

That is what Ratzinger and Vatican II are saying, and that is the fundamental difference you are missing here.
 
BY the way,

Is there a difference between Jaypeeto3 and Jaypeeto4?
Are these 2 different users or the same person, with 2 different usernames?

oh, nevermind, i see they are the same.
 
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

On this link, go down to #8 The Nature of Man.

What is described there is not the defined Catholic dogma.
As such, it is ipso facto heretical. For in Adam all have sinned is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and Scripture itself. The Eastern teaching is that In Adam All Die. Now that is partly true, but not wholly true. The Catholic doctrine is wholly true.
We don’t have to go line by line through Church canons to look for specific anathemas against specific teachings. The Church’s rule of thumb is that whatever doctrine is at variance with Her doctrine is by that very fact heretical.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
 
jay,

It is not for us to discern what is ipso facto heresy. That discernment is for the Church. This is plain subjectivism.

As the Eastern Catholics believe the same as the Orthodox on Original sin, they are not heretics, so neither are the Orthodox in this regard.
However, perhaps you could start a thread over on the Eastern Christianity board, and we can continue it there with the Orthodox themselves who are eminently qualified to elucidate their own beliefs.

It is getting frustrating, though, to continue this discussion as I had asked you to post specific quotes from the documents themselves, and all i have received is your own wording of the documents, which are not correct interpretations of what the texts are actually saying.

I think that this a case of eisegesis, not exegesis.
 
**17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63 **

Dan, just above is the problematic section (#17) from Dominus Iesus, copied directly from the document at the Vatican website.
This, connected with the statement made by Cardinal Ratzinger in the link at the top of the thread to the ZENIT story that The Church of Christ is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church, is what I say does not jibe with the pre-Vatican II magisterium. Pope Pius XII, echoing the entire Catholic tradition, taught that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church.
If the Church of Christ is, instead, The Catholic Church PLUS the “true particular churches” of the schismatic East, then we don’t have “One” Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

Dan, who are you to say that I am not understanding Cardinal Ratzinger (and John Paul II) correctly on this issue? Speaking to the schismatic head of the Armenian church, John Paul referred to that Church as “the Bride of Christ in Armenia.” They are clearly saying that the Church of Christ is bigger than the Roman Catholic Church. Ratzinger even says in the link to the ZENIT story that THAT is why they use the words “subsists in” the Catholic Church instead of “is” the Catholic Church.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4(aka Jaypeeto3)
 
Jaypeeto4:
It says that the Church of Christ is “present” in these Churches. It does not, however, say that these churches are part of the Church of Christ. We know that salvation is mediated through Christ’s Church. No one can be saved except through Christ’s Church. We know, as Catholics, that Christ’s Church is the Holy Catholic Church in union with the Bishop of Rome. We also know that the Orthodox Churches have been endowed with grace. If this were not the case, they could not experience the miracle of the Real Presence. So…
  1. Grace must come to man through the Church of Christ.
  2. The Orthodox Churches clearly have some sort of grace (the Eucharist)
  3. Therefore, the Church of Christ must be present in the Orthodox Churches.
Do you see the distinction? Objectively speaking their priests have received their holy orders from the Catholic Church. 1000 years a go, when we were still in full communion with each other, their bishops were true Catholic bishops. The schismatic successors of these bishops are thus valid bishops. So indirectly, from a Catholic perspective, all Orthodox bishops and priests have received their holy orders from the Catholic Church. So in this sense, the Church of Christ is present among the Orthodox as well. The same is true of a heretical priest within the ranks of the Catholic Church. There are many heretics, who, objectively speaking, have cut themselves off from the Church. But as they have received holy orders from the Church, the Church of Christ continues to be present in their parishes.

If anyone finds any errors in my theology, please correct me immediately. I’m a 19 year-old convert…not a priest or theologian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top