R
Reactionary
Guest
DustinsDad,
Very true.
Very true.
- Status
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Nice try, but that’s not what he said. He didn’t say that the maximum demand is for the East “to be forced to confirm all episcopal appointment with the Pope and submit to the oversight of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches”, like the Uniate Church. What he said is that the maximum demand is that the East recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the full scope of the infallible definition of Vatican I, and submit to in in practice like the Uniates Church.
Cardinal Ratzinger: “On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 [Vatican I] and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches…”
Your twist is what you would have liked for him to say, but it is not what he said. I also would have liked for him to say what you said, but unfortunately he didn’t. Again, he said that the maximum demand is for the East to accept the primacy as defined by Vatican I “and in so doing” submit to it, in practice, as did the Uniate Church. Submitting to what Vatican I defined “in practice” is what he is talking about. Vatican I did not define that Rome must “confirm all episcopal appointment with the Pope and submit to the oversight of the Congregation”.
You are correct, and I will respond to it in a minute,. but first I want to point one thing out. Notice that you said councils merely “formulate dogma”. Remember what Crdinal Ratzinger said was all that Rome would require of the East for union? He said this:
Cardinal Ratzinger: “Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. [p. 199]
The dogma of Papal Infallibility had not been forumlated in the first millennium. It was not yet a defined - forumlated - dogma. He said they would only be required to submit to what was both formulated and lived back then, which does not include what was formulated in 1870.
Now, back to your post. You correctly said that councils do not make up truth. They merely formulate it through a dogmatic definition. As said it would be heresy to believe that a council adds to the faith. As you said, “Councils merely formulate dogma and condemn error they never ADD anything to the Faith”
I think we should consider the above quote from Cardinal Ratzinger with the backdrop of the Balamand Agreement, that John Paul II signed. The Balamand Agreement is so bad that I really don’t know what parts to quote. It claims that the schismatics heretics known at the Orthodox church are part of the one Church of God, and rejects the idea of them “converting” and returning to Rome. This is considered the unforgivable sin of “Uniatistm”. It rejects this because, as it says, they are splitting from their “mother Church” meaning the heretical and schismatic church of the east. Again, this document is so bad that I really don’t know what parts to quote.
I’ll guess I’ll start at the beginning, highlight a few point, and stop when it claims that an infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith was merely a “development” that came about as an attempt to justify an error… and error that the Balamand Agreement is attempting to correct.
Before we get started, let’s read what is stated in a joint communiquée, signed by John Paul II the great and the schismatic and heretical Patriarch Bartholomuew, on June 29, 1995: “The Joint Commission [which met at Balamand] was able to proclaim that our Churches are recognized mutually as Sister Churches, responsible together for the preservation of the One Church of God.”
That’s an interesting statement since heretics are not part of the One Church of God. Both heresy and schism are sins that cut a person off from the Church.
Pope Pius XII: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy” (Mystici Corporis Christi).
Now to the document:
continue…
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
continuation…
The Belamand Agreement
The Belamand Agreement
We’ll stop here for a minute. Notice that this document presents the the Eastern churches that came back to Rome as a negative. It refers to this as a “source or conflict and suffering for both the Orthodox and Catholics".
Actually, unity was achieved. It was achieved by those who renounced their errors and return to the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
continuation
R
Reactionary
Guest
Pax,
Firstly I would just like to apologies to you for the last paragraph of my last statement. I have a serious problem with sedevecantists (which I see you are not really) so sometimes get carried away.
I am afraid so say that we are just going to have to agree to disagree on what Ratzinger meant by saying that "the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 [Vatican I] and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches…”.
I would agree that the underlined portions are the vital ones in this discussiong. I strongly believe that this is the crux of Ratzinger’s statment. He says “in practice” not “in theory”. If he meant what you think he said (that is accepting the doctrine) he sould surely have said “in theory”. The word practice confirms that he is merely refering to the manner in with the Popes suprieme authority is excercised. Thus by “in practice” Ratzinger does actually mean “confirm all episcopal appointment with the Pope and submit to the oversight of the Congregation”. In eirther case one could read it eirther way and I think that one should assume that the Holy Ghost would not have alowed someone who so redily sliped into error become Pope, ie the orthodox reading should be accepted.
As regards the Balamand Agreement one should remember three things. Firstly that Rome has never declared the East to be heretical, secondly that their is some doubt as to whether they are in full schism and thirdly that most would agree that the Orthodox faithful are victims of circumstances and are thus not necessarily damned. On a side not I would, however, agree that Catholics who become ‘Orthodox’ are. I was, in fact, banned from a Uniate forum recently for holding this view. Eastern Catholics have some seriously modernist stuff to say!
Now since Rome has never declared it a heresy the Easterners are clearly not formal heretics, though individuals among them might be.
Regarding whether they are in full schism, one must examine history. The ‘schism’ started when the Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated along with some of his bishops. Many would argue this does not constitute schism with the whole Greek church. Why? Because The eastern hierarchy was still treated (and always has been treated as) the canonical hierarchy of those areas. For example, Pius IX invited all of them to V1 (though, of course, they refused to go).
Regarding the damnation of the individual ‘Orthodox’ it should be remembered that the SSPXers are not considered fully outside the Church despite the fact that they receive sacraments and obey the orders of schismatic bishops. Now one could argue their case either way but Rome has decided that that is so. Thus I see little reason in not applying the same logic to the Easterners.
Firstly I would just like to apologies to you for the last paragraph of my last statement. I have a serious problem with sedevecantists (which I see you are not really) so sometimes get carried away.
I am afraid so say that we are just going to have to agree to disagree on what Ratzinger meant by saying that "the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 [Vatican I] and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches…”.
I would agree that the underlined portions are the vital ones in this discussiong. I strongly believe that this is the crux of Ratzinger’s statment. He says “in practice” not “in theory”. If he meant what you think he said (that is accepting the doctrine) he sould surely have said “in theory”. The word practice confirms that he is merely refering to the manner in with the Popes suprieme authority is excercised. Thus by “in practice” Ratzinger does actually mean “confirm all episcopal appointment with the Pope and submit to the oversight of the Congregation”. In eirther case one could read it eirther way and I think that one should assume that the Holy Ghost would not have alowed someone who so redily sliped into error become Pope, ie the orthodox reading should be accepted.
As regards the Balamand Agreement one should remember three things. Firstly that Rome has never declared the East to be heretical, secondly that their is some doubt as to whether they are in full schism and thirdly that most would agree that the Orthodox faithful are victims of circumstances and are thus not necessarily damned. On a side not I would, however, agree that Catholics who become ‘Orthodox’ are. I was, in fact, banned from a Uniate forum recently for holding this view. Eastern Catholics have some seriously modernist stuff to say!
Now since Rome has never declared it a heresy the Easterners are clearly not formal heretics, though individuals among them might be.
Regarding whether they are in full schism, one must examine history. The ‘schism’ started when the Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated along with some of his bishops. Many would argue this does not constitute schism with the whole Greek church. Why? Because The eastern hierarchy was still treated (and always has been treated as) the canonical hierarchy of those areas. For example, Pius IX invited all of them to V1 (though, of course, they refused to go).
Regarding the damnation of the individual ‘Orthodox’ it should be remembered that the SSPXers are not considered fully outside the Church despite the fact that they receive sacraments and obey the orders of schismatic bishops. Now one could argue their case either way but Rome has decided that that is so. Thus I see little reason in not applying the same logic to the Easterners.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Reactionary,
I just wanted to let you know that I’ll respond to your post as soon as I get some free time.
I just wanted to let you know that I’ll respond to your post as soon as I get some free time.
I
I_Believe
Guest
I’m bumping this thread because I feel it is a very informative look at Moderism.
Perhaps if all catholics would learn what the terms, Modernism, Rationalism, and Revolutionary Change really mean, and realize Popes have been fighting these ideas for centuries, perhaps they can understand what all the fuss is about.
Perhaps if all catholics would learn what the terms, Modernism, Rationalism, and Revolutionary Change really mean, and realize Popes have been fighting these ideas for centuries, perhaps they can understand what all the fuss is about.
M
manualman
Guest
I’m surprised such blatant attempts at subversion are permitted on the CAF forums, even this one.
The OP clearly impugns the orthodoxy of both the person and the teachings of the legitimate successor of Peter, Benedict XVI (not to mention JPII). Worse he does so with sloppy supporting documentation. He rightly condemns the idea that religious impulse and ideas ORIGINATE in the human soul and that since the human soul is the origin, religious truth can and should change based on large changes in cultural values and society.
However, the OP FAILS to differentiate between the modernist, who sees man as the origin of such religious ideas and the catholic who knows from revelation that ALL men are created by God GOOD, though fallen. It is a VERY different thing to acknowledge that non-catholic religions posses SOME truth and value because they arise from human contemplation of nature and human society. Since we are not (as some protestants have theorized) totally depraved, we all retain some innate knowledge of the character and person of God within us by virtue of having been made in His image and likeness. That vestigial knowledge of God is the source of what is good and true in other religions. It does not ORIGINATE in man, it still originates in our Creator.
THIS is what JPII and BXVI see as building blocks to use to reach out to those in other faiths. I defy the OP to provide ANY evidence that either man believes that other religions are “good enough” in and of themselves. What they HAVE recognized is that we have moved beyond the era in which the majority of people on earth belong to utterly pagan religions. What is left is largely the irreligious and those who place their belief in religions that DO have substantial values in common with catholicism. In eras past we could get away with an approach that reduced to “HaHa, your religion sucks and ours is clearly true while yours is clearly nonsense.” People were offended, but coldn’t help but see that it was TRUE! Today, that isn’t happening so much anymore. Protestants and muslims (except in isolated cases) do not respond to that message. Their beliefs are so close to true, that what lacks in their faith is obscured to them by the poor charity displayed by the Feenyite catholic. In short, they don’t see Christ in us when we behave badly.
It is our job to change that. It is still and will always be true that Christ came, redeemed us and established the Catholic Church to instruct the faithful and safeguard his gospel. Now we need to behave in a manner that allows people to see that instead of just our onw pride, hubris and sinfulness. This requires periodic changes in approach and method, not substance.
Actually, that rises quite an ironic point! How odd that Traditionalists, who so rightly cherish the Eucharist as the sacred center of our worship so fully fail to distinguish between substance and accidents in the presentation and explanation of the catholic faith to the world.
The OP clearly impugns the orthodoxy of both the person and the teachings of the legitimate successor of Peter, Benedict XVI (not to mention JPII). Worse he does so with sloppy supporting documentation. He rightly condemns the idea that religious impulse and ideas ORIGINATE in the human soul and that since the human soul is the origin, religious truth can and should change based on large changes in cultural values and society.
However, the OP FAILS to differentiate between the modernist, who sees man as the origin of such religious ideas and the catholic who knows from revelation that ALL men are created by God GOOD, though fallen. It is a VERY different thing to acknowledge that non-catholic religions posses SOME truth and value because they arise from human contemplation of nature and human society. Since we are not (as some protestants have theorized) totally depraved, we all retain some innate knowledge of the character and person of God within us by virtue of having been made in His image and likeness. That vestigial knowledge of God is the source of what is good and true in other religions. It does not ORIGINATE in man, it still originates in our Creator.
THIS is what JPII and BXVI see as building blocks to use to reach out to those in other faiths. I defy the OP to provide ANY evidence that either man believes that other religions are “good enough” in and of themselves. What they HAVE recognized is that we have moved beyond the era in which the majority of people on earth belong to utterly pagan religions. What is left is largely the irreligious and those who place their belief in religions that DO have substantial values in common with catholicism. In eras past we could get away with an approach that reduced to “HaHa, your religion sucks and ours is clearly true while yours is clearly nonsense.” People were offended, but coldn’t help but see that it was TRUE! Today, that isn’t happening so much anymore. Protestants and muslims (except in isolated cases) do not respond to that message. Their beliefs are so close to true, that what lacks in their faith is obscured to them by the poor charity displayed by the Feenyite catholic. In short, they don’t see Christ in us when we behave badly.
It is our job to change that. It is still and will always be true that Christ came, redeemed us and established the Catholic Church to instruct the faithful and safeguard his gospel. Now we need to behave in a manner that allows people to see that instead of just our onw pride, hubris and sinfulness. This requires periodic changes in approach and method, not substance.
Actually, that rises quite an ironic point! How odd that Traditionalists, who so rightly cherish the Eucharist as the sacred center of our worship so fully fail to distinguish between substance and accidents in the presentation and explanation of the catholic faith to the world.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Sure stick your head in the sand…
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
That’s odd, because Orthodoxy dislikes the scholastic method, and it is hardly “Modernist”. Joe
D
DustinsDad
Guest
The Church did not just condemn “utterly pagan religions” for almost 2000 years prior to Vatican II, they condemned the same religions that are now praised for those remnants of the truth not yet totally rejected. But the truth of the matter is that if one culpably rejects one tenant of Divinely Revealed Truth, one rejects it all.
And if you reduce the unabashed and clear teaching of the One True Church for almost 2000 years to “HaHa, your religion sucks and ours is clearly true while yours is clearly nonsense” - you’ve been infected with modernism and ecumania far more than you know. Think about it.
What is different about protestantism (or Islam for that matter) now as opposed to the time of Trent, Vatican I, and during all the years and decades in between, during which so many clear and unambiguous encycilicals were penned by the Vicars of Christ on earth - calling these souls to the unity of the One True Church?
…Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”
Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,” not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, “Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church!
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, cf 11-12
Is the call to return being vocalized anymore? Is the call to convert to the One Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, being issued any more?
Recently it was reported that a large number of Anglicans were wanting to enter the One Holy Catholic Church - and yet a certain Cardinal “stood in the way” of their return. And we are not in a crisis?
Well, since their beliefs haven’t changed during the passage of time, then are you suggesting that the Catholic Church “behaved badly” at Florence, Trent, Vatican I, and for the entirety of Christianity pre-Vatican II?
Is daring to audibly utter infallible truths revealed by Christ through His Church now “behaving badly?”
Is Truth is now a bad thing? Truth is now uncharitable?
Please explain,
DustinsDad
H
Hesychios
Guest
Commenting on the first article only, I thought perhaps I was going to be treated with a scholarly tome on the subject, which can indeed be confusing.
However, after reading it I think it’s just polemic masquerading as scholarship. I wouldn’t place to much trust in it.
I have not had time to read much else posted here.
Michael
However, after reading it I think it’s just polemic masquerading as scholarship. I wouldn’t place to much trust in it.
I have not had time to read much else posted here.
Michael
E
East_and_West
Guest
The modern Eastern Orthodox dislike for reason is actually a modern movement that finds its roots in modern anti-latinism.
H
Hesychios
Guest
You equate “reason” with the “scholastic method”. They overlap but are not synonymous.
We all use reason, Scholasticism has no monopoly on it.
This is nothing but slander and has no place here in this thread.
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
First, it is not a “dislike for reason”; it is a reaction to the abuse of reason that took place in the west in the middle ages.
Second, are you seriously suggesting that Eastern “anti-latinism” is modern in origin? How do you account for the anti-latinism of, say, St. Photius or St. Mark of Ephesus?
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
That is untrue. Rome certainly “understood” that, and you can find isolated statements by Eastern fathers that are amenable to that, but there was clearly no consensus in the first millenium Church to that effect. Even many RC scholars admit that; see, for example, Congar After Nine Hundred Years and Schatz Papal Primacy. Joe
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
I would account for it by saying that it is something contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Faith…But that’s for another thread, so please, all you Eastern Orthodox folks, quit taking the thread off-topic. Thanks.
M
manualman
Guest
Sticking one’s head in the sand might be more properly described as making a judgement based on shallow and out of context interpretations of particular documents, refusing to hear or consider the interpretations of multiple Holy Fathers on the matter, and casting aspersions on those who do.
Why not simply point out where my reasoning is wrong?
M
manualman
Guest
Sticking one’s head in the sand might be more properly described as making a judgement based on shallow and out of context interpretations of particular documents, refusing to hear or consider the interpretations of multiple Holy Fathers on the matter, and casting aspersions on those who do.
Why not simply point out where my reasoning is wrong?
D
DustinsDad
Guest
It has been pointed out to you using Holy Fathers on the matter. But I didn’t see anything from any Holy Father in your response, which was only you stating what “think” Pope Benedict and JPII “think.” You failed to actaully cite or reference anything in particular other than your rejection of the OP.
You aren’t giving any reasons for your thoughts or your positions…that’s a pretty good description of “putting one’s head in the sand.”
Visually presented as such:
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/11/26/23372611.jpg
DD
- Status