Our Other Lung?

[hlgomez]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher
*Zeo-

Thank you. I missed the key part about the Orthodox being our other lung only before the schism. Now they are our other lung but they aren’t breathing, so to speak, right?*

Exactly. When the Holy Father writes that the Church must breathe with both lungs, the clear implication is that She is not breathing with full lung capacity right now. Rather, a sizable chunk of the eastern “lung” is collapsed. It is in in a sort of intermediate state right now, like a partially severed finger - it can be fully restored to complete connection (and live) or it can be cleanly cut off (and die).

Rather than contradicting the infallible dogmas defined in Unam Sanctam, the Pope’s analogy confirms them. Those parts of the body which are not connected to the head (i.e. Christ and His vicar) cannot function on their own and will surely die. We can live without that diseased chunk of lung (albeit not nearly as well), but they cannot live without the rest of the body at all. That is precisely why we should be working to resolve the schism and why the Eastern Orthodox (and, indeed, all heretics and schismatics) need to return to the unity of the Catholic Church.

Both of you have excellent points! :tiphat:

Pio

 

[Funky_Cedars]

Tim Hayes:

…then we catholics are at a big disadvantage, becasue technically speaking we have a lot more “regulations” that we must follow to achieve salvation…

rather, we are great advantage because we are more fully aware of how completely Daddy wants us to let Him love us. ‘if you love Me you will keep my commands…if you keep my commands you are my friends’. J told us to be perfect, holy mother church details the path to perfection. its all just a bunch of love, dude.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Funky Cedars, you are missing the point.

Is the God fearing Protestant who is validly baptised saved or not, that is the question, Protestants have way less "hard"rules and regulations to follow than us. EG. basically all protestants contracept, and it is taught that contraception is not sinful, we as catholics are taugth that it is sinful, and many a catholic does practice contraception.

Now the point is, - Is it easier to achieve salvation for the protestant who contracepts becasue supposedly they have not been educated properly, than for the cahtolic who has been told that contraception is wrong yet still practices it.

Before you answer, There is no doubt that contracepting is a hell of a lot easier to do than NFP etc. .

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Tim Hayes:

Funky Cedars, you are missing the point.

Is the God fearing Protestant who is validly baptised saved or not, that is the question, Protestants have way less "hard"rules and regulations to follow than us. EG. basically all protestants contracept, and it is taught that contraception is not sinful, we as catholics are taugth that it is sinful, and many a catholic does practice contraception.

Now the point is, - Is it easier to achieve salvation for the protestant who contracepts becasue supposedly they have not been educated properly, than for the cahtolic who has been told that contraception is wrong yet still practices it.

Before you answer, There is no doubt that contracepting is a hell of a lot easier to do than NFP etc. .

I am very skeptical of the view being advanced by Funky Cedars et simili, but this is not much of a refutation of their claim. After all, Our Lord said that more will be demanded of those blessed with a better education/upbringing. This is hardly a strange claim (or if it is, you should blame Christ, not Funky Cedars, for it).

 

[Funky_Cedars]

Tim Hayes:

Funky Cedars, you are missing the point…

GrzeszDeL:

I am very skeptical of the view being advanced by Funky Cedars…

i don’t think i’m missing your point at all, i’m disagreeing with it.
if y’all feel like Daddy puts you at a disadvantage cuz you’re catholic, i feel for ya. to believe in a god who would do that to you just because you’re doing what he’s asked of you, must be a real bummer.
the fact that Daddy is going expect perfection of me and merely a nice effort on the part of someone who isn’t catholic, hardly puts me at a disadvantage. i get baptism, confirmation, reconcilliation, eucharist and extreme unction, amongst other things…and i’m the one who is at a disadvantage?!?!?!?! i really don’t think so. Daddy sent His only begotten Son, why? so that He could put us at a disavantage? no, because He so loved us, that He would do everything possible to bring us to everlasting life. we may make demands of those we love, but we don’t intentionally take away their advantages.
being catholic is the greatest, truest advantage i could possibly ever have in this life.
thanks for listening, love and peace, terry

 

[ZoeTheodora]

rfk:

So that is the major difference I see between the two cases. In the case of the Catholic who leaves the Church, it is often due to their free choice to fall into unrepented sin, leading to loss of faith. There is a valid distinction between one who has never been given the gift of faith versus the one who chooses to reject it.

Er…I thought I was saying the same thing…?

I think we actually agree re this.

ZT, another revert

 

[Intrigued_Latin]

**“Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the TWO LUNGS of Christianity-- and to breathe with but one lung is to live an impaired life”… ( **Pope John Paul II)

 

[StMarina303ad]

Can someone please explain to me how this teaching did not change?

–

Boniface VIII’s Papal Bull ‘Unam Sanctam’

November 18, 1302

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles (Sgs 6:8) proclaims: “One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her”, and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor 11:3). In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5). There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John “there is one sheepfold and one shepherd”.

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

–

The Greeks (Eastern Orthodox) are now called our “Other Lung” by the Pope and are not condemned for not being subject to the Pope.

How is this not a complete reversal?

Do we teach that they are our “Other Lung” if and only if they don’t know any better, ie, invincible ignorance? If so, how can our “Other Lung” only be our lung if they mistakingly think they are our “Other Lung”?

You see this type of thing is why I have a problem with believing in Papal Infallibility. This is clearly an issue of Faith addressed by a Pope from the “Chair of Peter” aka the Roman Church Peter founded (not to confuse with the other Chair of Peter aka the Antiochian Church Peter also founded) in which one Pope said one thing and another Pope said something completely different. Which one should be believe?

Roman Catholics have tried to explain these types of discrepencies away by saying that because Papal Infallibility was not yet defined prior to the 1800’s, no Pope prior to the 1800’s taught anything Infallibly.

Sorry, but Christ gave us the Church entire in the beginning so either the person of the Pope is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals or the person of the Pope is not infallible.

When looking at this and other issues of Faith, such as the Creed and the Filioque Clause, in which Popes have authoritatively taught opposing things on these issues of Faith, so I can not believe that the Pope of Rome is Infallible now or in the past.

 

[VARC]

Can someone please explain to me how this teaching did not change?

–

Boniface VIII’s Papal Bull ‘Unam Sanctam’

November 18, 1302

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles (Sgs 6:8) proclaims: “One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her”, and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor 11:3). In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5). There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John “there is one sheepfold and one shepherd”.

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

–

The Greeks (Eastern Orthodox) are now called our “Other Lung” by the Pope and are not condemned for not being subject to the Pope.

How is this not a complete reversal?

Do we teach that they are our “Other Lung” if and only if they don’t know any better, ie, invincible ignorance? If so, how can our “Other Lung” only be our lung if they mistakingly think they are our “Other Lung”?

I think you know the answer. It is a complete reversal and anyone who says it is not is not being objective. I am glad the current popes have changed course and hope they continue to make changes for the sake of christian unity.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You see this type of thing is why I have a problem with believing in Papal Infallibility.

I don’t blame you PI is an error, which ought to be junked. Rpme will probably qualify it into non-existence. Anyway…​

This is clearly an issue of Faith addressed by a Pope from the “Chair of Peter” aka the Roman Church Peter founded (not to confuse with the other Chair of Peter aka the Antiochian Church Peter also founded) in which one Pope said one thing and another Pope said something completely different. Which one should be believe?

Too right - there was none of this in Satis Cognitum (1896), which is far more authoritative, because it is the Pope teaching by means of an Encyclical.​

Roman Catholics have tried to explain these types of discrepencies away by saying that because Papal Infallibility was not yet defined prior to the 1800’s, no Pope prior to the 1800’s taught anything Infallibly.

Please say that’s a joke - for that is hardly better than denying PI altogether. It salvages the Church since 1870 at the price of ditching the the Church before 1870; if PI is true, it has to apply to every man who has ever been been in the A[postolic Succession as bishop of Rome. If Pius IX & his successor are able to be infallible, so must Peter & his, down to Pius IX. They don’t all have to have exercised it, but it has to have been available to them all. Otherwise, Pastor Aeternus is so much waste paper.​

Sorry, but Christ gave us the Church entire in the beginning so either the person of the Pope is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals or the person of the Pope is not infallible.

The first of those choices is Catholic dogma. ​

But the dogma is not true even so.

When looking at this and other issues of Faith, such as the Creed and the Filioque Clause, in which Popes have authoritatively taught opposing things on these issues of Faith, so I can not believe that the Pope of Rome is Infallible now or in the past.

The content of the Filioque is true - whether or not it is completely the same in content as some formulae, is another matter. Negatively, we can’t deny Spiration from the Word of the Spirit; but in no way is the Word a second “Principle” with the Father. The only Principle in the Blessed Trinity is the Father.​

As for teaching opposing things - why should seeming contradictions not be complementary truths ? At least in some contexts ? And as for Unam Sanctam, it is not even certain that it is to be thought infallible. There is room for debate as to the letter’s status, and has been for some time.

 

[Alethiaphile]

That is precisely why we should be working to resolve the schism and why the Eastern Orthodox (and, indeed, all heretics and schismatics) need to return to the unity of the Catholic Church.

Which is it, do “we” (I assume you mean Catholics loyal to Rome) need to “resolve the schism”, or do the EOs just need to return to Rome? If Rome is breathing, and the EOs are not, then clearly there is nothing to “resolve” outside of them returning to Rome, right?
As tro the EOs not even “breathing” right now, that conflicts pretty sharply with Rome’s acknowledgement that Orthodoxy has valid Orders and valid sacraments. If the Orthodox are receiving true sacraments, but are spiritually dead, then that rather impugns the efficacy of Christ’s body and blood, deosn’t it?

 

[Alethiaphile]

Christopher: You have asked a very tough question. I’ve been around this block many times. If you research further, these are the arguments you will run into (some you have already).

1. The last sentence of Unbam Sanctam (US) is not an infallible teaching.
   Response: The use by Pope Boniface of the papal “we”, the language “solemnly declare, define and pronounce”, and that it is on a matter of faith and morals clearly brings it within Vatican I’s criterion for infallibility.
2. It’s only addressed to Catholics.
   Phil Poravznik (sp?) and Dave Armstrong argue this. You’ve already run into this argument here. “Every human creature” renders this argument false on its face.
3. All it really does is reiterate “Outside the Church no salvation”,
   (“Extra Ecclesium Nulla Solus” or EENS). Fr. William Most argues this. This can be disposed of by looking at the rest of US. As Fr. Most acknowledges, it’s a reiteration of the argument by St. Thomas Aquinas in Contra Errores Graecorum (“Against the Errors of the Greeks”). The argument is a syllogism, which does use EENS as a premise, but goes beyond it. It uses the premises: 1. EENS 2. The Pope is the only shepherd of the One Church, and reaches the conclusion: obedience to the Pope is necessary to salvation. That goes beyond EENS.
4. US is infallible and goes beyond EENS, but the St. Thomas’ idea of “invincible ignorance” must be “read into” it as an exception. This, I think, is Mark Shea’s argument. The problem with this is that St. Thomas did not have an “invincible ignorance” exception to matters of faith. That wasn’t developed until Pius IX in the 19th century. St. Thomas taught that anyone who sincerely sought the truth would be brought to explicit faith in the Catholic Church.
5. The infallible teaching of US only has to do with issues of obedience in political matters by Catholics.
   First of all, this is falsifiable by looking a the rest of US; clealry it is concerned with the denial of papal authority by the “Greeks”, i.e. Orthodox. Further, even if true, very few today would maintain that political submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation, so that interpretation hardly solves the problem.
6. Fr. Peter Stravinskas in his No Salvation Outside the Church?, has, IMO, the most honest treatment of US: it requires explicit submission/obedience to the Pope for salvation with no exceptions, but, he takes a subjective approach and invalidates it or renders it non-infallible because, according to him, it is based on the faulty factual premise there were no “heathens” who hadn’t heard the gospel and therefore were ignorant in good faith of the Catholic Church. 1. I find it very questionable that learned Catholics in 1302 were not aware of at least the possibility of ignorant heathens, and 2. I have trouble with a notion of infallibility that invalidates an utterance if it isn’t accompanied by perfect factual knowledge. I don’t see that in Vatican I’s requirements.

That the strict interpretation of US was indeed the attitude of the western Church at the time can be seen by the language in the Council of Florence (1453) that stated that “heretics”, “schismatics”, etc. would go to hell unless they were joined “before the hour of death” to the Catholic Church. Whether this proclamation is itself infallible or not, it certainly corroborates the strict interpretation.

As an honest Catholic priest told me, the truth is that both the western Catholics and the Orthodox believed at that time that the other side was going to hell. Unfortunately, on the Catholic side that belief was seemingly enshrined in an “infallible” teaching.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Christopher: You have asked a very tough question. I’ve been around this block many times. If you research further, these are the arguments you will run into (some you have already).

1. The last sentence of Unbam Sanctam (US) is not an infallible teaching.
   Response: The use by Pope Boniface of the papal “we”, the language “solemnly declare, define and pronounce”, and that it is on a matter of faith and morals clearly brings it within Vatican I’s criterion for infallibility.

If it did, there would be no problem about its status in the first place. And you’re assuming Boniface VIII believe himself to be infallible. There is no reason to suppose he had any such idea. It is at least as likely that he was speaking authoritatively, but not infallibly. To speak definitively w/out being infallible is not impossible: JP2 did.​

As for the “we”, this is proof of nothing, for that is how sovereign rulers speak - the Queen does so, because she is “Our Most Gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth”. As sovereign - or would-be sovereign - in the Church, that Pope wrote in that way to that King, with whom he was engaging in a war of words: for both insisted on their sovereignty over their subjects (which is why that king, Philip IV of France, had in 1296 thrown an archbishop into prison). The row between King & Pope was over who was to be sovereign over the French Church; sovereignty is indivisible - there can’t be two sovereigns over the same people. The whole thing was a rehearsal for the future, though this could not have been seen in 1302.

The Pope’s position was not secure, even at Rome; to make matters far worse, he was suspected of having engineered the resignation of his immediate predecessor, Celestine V, in 1294. He had many enemies, and his own character had not helped. He was an expert canonist - he had been one for 40 years - & very masterful; just the sort of Pope to make strong claims for his See. His letter has to be seen in its political & historical context. He was saying nothing new, but he was writing at a time when the first work devoted to ecclesiology had only just been written, in 1300, by James of Viterbo.

As for

Alethiaphile:

The use by Pope Boniface of the papal “we”, the language "solemnly declare, define and pronounce

suggests infallibility to us, only because we are used to seeing it in definitions of dogma. It can perfectly well be used for any legal or other weighty document. The language itself implies nothing about infallibility - it can perfectly well be read as introducing any binding decision; & not necessarily one in faith & morals. And that sort of linguistic redundancy, when something that need be said only once is underlined twice more, is not confined to Popes.​

…
5. The infallible teaching of US only has to do with issues of obedience in political matters by Catholics.
First of all, this is falsifiable by looking a the rest of US; clealry it is concerned with the denial of papal authority by the “Greeks”, i.e. Orthodox. Further, even if true, very few today would maintain that political submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation, so that interpretation hardly solves the problem.

Why would the Pope write to a French King about Greek schismatics ? The only connection I can see is that some of the King’s relatives had been on Crusade.​

1. Fr. Peter Stravinskas in his No Salvation Outside the Church?, has, IMO, the most honest treatment of US: it requires explicit submission/obedience to the Pope for salvation with no exceptions, but, he takes a subjective approach and invalidates it or renders it non-infallible because, according to him, it is based on the faulty factual premise there were no “heathens” who hadn’t heard the gospel and therefore were ignorant in good faith of the Catholic Church. 1. I find it very questionable that learned Catholics in 1302 were not aware of at least the possibility of ignorant heathens, and 2. I have trouble with a notion of infallibility that invalidates an utterance if it isn’t accompanied by perfect factual knowledge. I don’t see that in Vatican I’s requirements.

It’s not reassuring to hear that some Catholics imagine Australia had been evangelised by 1302. I think you are far too kind to Stravinskas’s interpretation. I find it very hard to believe he could have said that.

That the strict interpretation of US was indeed the attitude of the western Church at the time can be seen by the language in the Council of Florence (1453) that stated that “heretics”, “schismatics”, etc. would go to hell unless they were joined “before the hour of death” to the Catholic Church. Whether this proclamation is itself infallible or not, it certainly corroborates the strict interpretation.

Not 1453.​

As an honest Catholic priest told me, the truth is that both the western Catholics and the Orthodox believed at that time that the other side was going to hell. Unfortunately, on the Catholic side that belief was seemingly enshrined in an “infallible” teaching.

 

[Alethiaphile]

If it did, there would be no problem about its status in the first place.​

Well, with due respect, I think there’s a motivation to relegate it to the “dustbin” for the exact reasons being discussed here.

And you’re assuming Boniface VIII believe himself to be infallible. There is no reason to suppose he had any such idea. It is at least as likely that he was speaking authoritatively, but not infallibly. To speak definitively w/out being infallible is not impossible: JP2 did.

What is the point of the “solemny define” language if he didn’t mean to authoritatively define something. And whether he had the exact idea of “infallibility” in his head when he issued US doesn’t seem to me to be determinative. did Pope Leo the Great have “infallibility” in his head when he issued “the Tome of Leo” to Chalcedon? Probably not, yet that is certainly an infallible statement.

Why would the Pope write to a French King about Greek schismatics ?​

It was a “Bull”, ostensibly addressed to the Church at large, not just to Phillip the Fair. The dispute with Phillip was the immediate occasion for the ruling, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have another purpose as well. “Two birds with one stone.”