When did I ever say that?
Understood - the context of your earlier post strongly suggested that it is only the Catholic Church that represents the true Church of Christ. If I misread, I also apologize.
This is better known as doctrine of demons.
Southern California…
You are correct, and I never stated otherwise. I never intentionally misrepresent the teaching of any of the Churches.
Fear not, for you do not need to be persuaded by this.
Pope Benedict XVI himself stated, I believe in 2007, that the Orthodox suffer a defect by virtue of not being communion with Rome.You are correct about the Church’s teaching up to this part:
Fear not, for you do not need to be persuaded by this.
The Church does not teach that the fullness of the Church does not reside in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian Churches. We simply do not know, and we do not pass judgement upon it. Simply put: We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not.
What we believe is that we have an imperfect communion between the Churches. If I may say so myself, I am in hearty agreement that our universal church suffers a defect because despite our shared patrimony, tradition and teachings, we are not in communion.
It’s probably best to continue this conversation at another time. I thank you for the wonderful discussion and all the other posters I responded to.
I believe you are referring to this? It was issued by Cardinal Levada, not the Pope, but that’s besides the point.
It does not claim that the Orthodox Chuches are themselves defective, let alone because they are not in communion with Rome. Rather, it admits that there may be groups that may be true to the faith in Christ, even though some of them may not possess all of His gifts. This may not be referring to the Orthodox Church at all. In fact, I believe he is referring to some Protestant groups who suffer from a lack of sacraments and theological insufficiency despite their fervour for holiness.
I believe you are referring to this? It was issued by Cardinal Levada, not the Pope, but that’s besides the point.
It does not claim that the Orthodox Chuches are themselves defective, let alone because they are not in communion with Rome. Rather, it admits that there may be groups that may be true to the faith in Christ, even though some of them may not possess all of His gifts. This may not be referring to the Orthodox Church at all. In fact, I believe he is referring to some Protestant groups who suffer from a lack of sacraments and theological insufficiency despite their fervour for holiness.
So when the Latin and Orthodox reunit, which is happening, it will be the oldest, we can only trust in the Holy Spirit that the others whill also be lead back.Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the oldest, since both were part of the original One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church which Christ founded, and both continue to nurture the traditions that were given to them by the Apostolic Fathers.
Of course, this presumes that both are the Church of Christ, and I’m sure some people in both camps might disagree with that, but that argument is for another day, another thread.
Protestantism, however, began only five hundred years ago. As much as they may claim to be the true Christian Church, they are a relatively new movement.
In stating, “It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation," it certainly does refer to the Orthodox as suffering defects. The “separated churches” refer to those actual churches (like the Orthodox) that are not in communion with Rome, and the “Communities” is a reference to Protestants. The same document also states, "It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." So, not only does this document, approved by Pope Benedict, assert that the Orthodox are defective, it does so exactly on the basis that they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.I believe you are referring to this? It was issued by Cardinal Levada, not the Pope, but that’s besides the point.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
It does not claim that the Orthodox Chuches are themselves defective, let alone because they are not in communion with Rome. Rather, it admits that there may be groups that may be true to the faith in Christ, even though some of them may not possess all of His gifts. This may not be referring to the Orthodox Church at all. In fact, I believe he is referring to some Protestant groups who suffer from a lack of sacraments and theological insufficiency despite their fervour for holiness.
In any case, his answer is about affirming the fullness of faith that the Catholic Church holds, rather than saying that all other groups do not. Let us not fret about attributing defects. We all have our faults to bear, and a responsibility to realise a future reunion.
Maybe it’s just how I interprete it, but I don’t see a blanket statement that says that all ‘separated churches and communities’ necessarily suffer from defects. He writes “though we believe they suffer from defects”, rather than “though we believe they all suffer from defects”. In any case, I agree with you. If there is a defect in the lack of communion, it is equally apportioned to Catholics, Orthodox and Assyrians alike.
Fair enough. I have been proven wrong, and I concede. My apologies.
No need to apologize. I’m certainly not always right (as much as I would like to think otherwise).Fair enough. I have been proven wrong, and I concede. My apologies.
You present the impression that a certain Pope who was a man of Germanic origin woke up one day and inserted something he, the night before, invented into the Nicene Creed and then commanded all to say it. Later, you make this claim appear even more absurd by insisting that the Popes were little less than mere vassals appointed by either the Gothic or Frankish kings who rose to predominance in the West after the sack of Rome, but nonetheless we are to believe that, in spite of all the different kingdoms and ethnic groups that existed in the West, someone perceieved to be a mere vassal of but one of all those kings, yet had the power to command them all and their diverse subjects without difficulty.
The contradiction contained in this statement is overwhelming.
I remember what he is talking about. It was one of the first things Benedict XVI released as pope.I believe you are referring to this? It was issued by Cardinal Levada, not the Pope, but that’s besides the point.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
It does not claim that the Orthodox Chuches are themselves defective, let alone because they are not in communion with Rome. Rather, it admits that there may be groups that may be true to the faith in Christ, even though some of them may not possess all of His gifts. This may not be referring to the Orthodox Church at all. In fact, I believe he is referring to some Protestant groups who suffer from a lack of sacraments and theological insufficiency despite their fervour for holiness.
In any case, his answer is about affirming the fullness of faith that the Catholic Church holds, rather than saying that all other groups do not. Let us not fret about attributing defects. We all have our faults to bear, and a responsibility to realise a future reunion.
I would be more cautious in your phraseology, as it gives the impression that you imagine that the Church can possess a defect.In any case, his answer is about affirming the fullness of faith that the Catholic Church holds, rather than saying that all other groups do not. Let us not fret about attributing defects. We all have our faults to bear, and a responsibility to realise a future reunion.
I find this statement to be very problematic. The approbation of the Pope of a creed affirms its truth, it does not make it true. If the Nicene Creed is true, it was true prior to its approbation by the Pope. The Pope defines truth, but does not stand above it.
The European royalty had tremendous influence over the popes.
If Rome had denied the Nicene Creed, then Rome would have been anathematized as heretical.
They were Germanic Popes, as they were ethnically German, not Latin or Greek. The Eastern Roman Empire had a continuity of history with the Roman Empire. One can’t single out a single point in time when they stopped identifying themselves as Roman. The Latin West’s insistence on calling them Greek, because their new Frankish Emperors needed to be legitimized, caused incredible amounts of diplomatic strain.
The problem is that you associate Roman with Latin. The Latins and Greeks were linguistic groups, but Rome was an Empire. Even to this day the so-called “Greeks” are known in the Middle East by the Arabs and Turks as “Rum,” because they always self-identified as Romans, not as Greeks. For example, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople is known as the Roman Patriarchate of Constantinople to the Turks.
The popes of the past were quite happy to be submissive to the Eastern Emperors. Take Leo, for example, who assented to Emperor Marcian’s decision to call the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, despite Pope Leo’s objections. Similarly, the election of popes was often influenced by the Exarch of Ravenna during the two-hundred year existence of the Exarchate. This does indeed reflect a change in how the Latins ran their church. Never before the Gregorian Reforms did the West know such a powerful papacy. It is funny to me, by the way, to see how some are so willing to decry “Caesaro-Papism,” when the Latin Church was happy to attempt to exploit it twice to force a union through the power of the Eastern Emperors.