Questions On Latin VS. Eastern: and On Othodox Church and Breakaways

[TrentCath]

We know that this can take place only on the basis of the love of Churches which feel increasingly called to manifest the one Church of Christ, born from one Baptism and from one Eucharist, and which want to be sisters. As I had occasion to say: “the Church of Christ is one. If divisions exist, that is one thing; they must be overcome, but the Church is one, the Church of Christ between East and West can only be one, one and united.”

—Blessed Pope John Paul II, Orientale Lumen

Pope Bendict XVI when he was Cardinal Ratzinger and as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document (Declaracion Dominus Iesus) on this issue in which he states ’
**In recent years, the attention of this Congregation has been directed to problems arising from the use of the phrase «sister Churches,» an expression which appears in important documents of the Magisterium, but which has also been employed in other writings, and in the discussions connected with the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. It is an expression that has become part of the common vocabulary to indicate the objective bond between the Church of Rome and Orthodox Churches.

Unfortunately, in certain publications and in the writings of some theologians involved in ecumenical dialogue, it has recently become common to use this expression to indicate the Catholic Church on the one hand and the Orthodox Church on the other, leading people to think that in fact the one Church of Christ does not exist, but may be re-established through the reconciliation of the two sister Churches. In addition, the same expression has been applied improperly by some to the relationship between the Catholic Church on the one hand, and the Anglican Communion and non-catholic ecclesial communities on the other. In this sense, a «theology of sister Churches» or an «ecclesiology of sister Churches» is spoken of, characterized by ambiguity and discontinuity with respect to the correct original meaning of the expression as found in the documents of the Magisterium.

… The indications contained in this Note are, therefore, to be held as authoritative and binding, although the Note will not be published in official form in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, given its limited purpose of specifying the correct theological terminology on this subject.**’

Later on the note says '.**…It must always be clear, when the expression sister Churches is used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches.[8]

1. One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the sister of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches.

Consequently, one should avoid, as a source of misunderstanding and theological confusion, the use of formulations such as «our two Churches,» which, if applied to the Catholic Church and the totality of Orthodox Churches (or a single Orthodox Church), imply a plurality not merely on the level of particular Churches, but also on the level of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Creed, whose real existence is thus obscured.** ’

Particular statements made by Pope John Paul II and the Second Vatican Council must therefore be interpreted in light of this clarification and other issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The Document in question can be read here

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Wouldn’t that make them Two, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Churches?

Or do you go for the whole “invisible catholic Church” idea?

The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are hardly “invisible.”

Both Churches are Holy, Catholic (in faith and practice, even though imperfect) and Apostolic.

Although the Orthodox Church (from our Catholic POV) is separated from Rome, it is still the Body of Christ, even though there is a break.

I don’t see the difference in terms of faith between the two and the only difference is really that of authority.

This doesn’t mean that we can attend each other’s Communion or that a real break doesn’t truly exist.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This statement safeguards the efficacy of Baptism, The Catholic Church believes that anyone may in case of necessity baptise and that so long as the proper matter and form are followed and the person baptising has the same intention as that of The Church the baptism is valid. As such all whether Catholic OR not must be in valid Baptism baptised into the Body of Christ. However that is not to say:

1. 
   *]That those so baptised cannot subsequently leave the Body of Christ due to their own views or schism
   *]That they are in ANYWAY Catholic
   *]That they hold The Catholic Faith
   
   It is also crucial to note that the statement above refers to INDIVIDUALS not GROUPS, there is only ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, it is commonly known as The Roman Catholic Church (that is the church loyal to the Pope in Rome), whilst individuals outside its visible boundaries can be baptised into it and saved groups, that is churches by definiton cannot. This is because they are NOT saved by virtue of being part of that church but by the mercy of God and by virture of being part of the ONE true Church of Christ.
   
   The statement I was responding to was the idea that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were Together the true church of Christ, this is false, the true church of Christs IS the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church. Whilst individuals outside may by the mercy of God belong to it and be saved, we cannot say whole groups or churches do because they are saved in spite of belong to these groups or churches **not **because of belonging to them.

1. 
   I did not mean that the two Churches somehow ALREADY formed two “branches” of the Church of Christ implying that there was full unity between them.
   
   There is a real break between them and members of one cannot take Communion in the other (except for certain circumstances).
   
   That doesn’t mean that Orthodoxy is not the Body of Christ.
   
   Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Pope Bendict XVI when he was Cardinal Ratzinger and as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document (Declaracion Dominus Iesus) on this issue in which he states ’
**In recent years, the attention of this Congregation has been directed to problems arising from the use of the phrase «sister Churches,» an expression which appears in important documents of the Magisterium, but which has also been employed in other writings, and in the discussions connected with the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. It is an expression that has become part of the common vocabulary to indicate the objective bond between the Church of Rome and Orthodox Churches.

Unfortunately, in certain publications and in the writings of some theologians involved in ecumenical dialogue, it has recently become common to use this expression to indicate the Catholic Church on the one hand and the Orthodox Church on the other, leading people to think that in fact the one Church of Christ does not exist, but may be re-established through the reconciliation of the two sister Churches. ** In addition, the same expression has been applied improperly by some to the relationship between the Catholic Church on the one hand, and the Anglican Communion and non-catholic ecclesial communities on the other. In this sense, a «theology of sister Churches» or an «ecclesiology of sister Churches» is spoken of, characterized by ambiguity and discontinuity with respect to the correct original meaning of the expression as found in the documents of the Magisterium.

… The indications contained in this Note are, therefore, to be held as authoritative and binding, although the Note will not be published in official form in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, given its limited purpose of specifying the correct theological terminology on this subject.’

Later on the note says '.…It must always be clear, when the expression sister Churches is used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches.[8]

1. One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the sister of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches.

Consequently, one should avoid, as a source of misunderstanding and theological confusion, the use of formulations such as «our two Churches,» which, if applied to the Catholic Church and the totality of Orthodox Churches (or a single Orthodox Church), imply a plurality not merely on the level of particular Churches, but also on the level of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Creed, whose real existence is thus obscured. ’

Particular statements made by Pope John Paul II and the Second Vatican Council must therefore be interpreted in light of this clarification and other issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The Document in question can be read here

I have never said, nor will say, “our two Churches” as if they were equal (from the Catholic POV) or being Particular Churches of the same Communion which they clearly are not.

Sister Churches they are with the same valid Sacraments, basic Apostolic Faith, Episcopacy/Apostolic Succession etc.

And the anathemas between them that solidified the schism have been lifted.

The Orthodox Church, following Vatican II, is part of the Body of Christ, although, from the Catholic POV, still imperfect.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Just a note: S Louis-Marie de Montfort was a French priest. The name “Marie” is often used that way in French for males.

Yes, and very often people who signed up as members of the Rosary Confraternity, for example, took as a second name a form of “Mary” even though they were males. I joined a similar Confraternity and took as my second name “Maryam.”

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And how may I ask do you reconcile that with church teaching on that matter?

Actually the Church has said on several occassions that those that do not accept the authority of the Pope are not part of the Body of Christ, on occasion, explicitly mentioning ‘The Greeks’. As for Valid sacraments, old catholics have them and no one is going to argue their views are at all compatible with the Catholic faith.

I believe that Vatican II and me are in agreement here, but it would take me a while to write this up, much like what happens when Roman Catholics mention the Filioque and then go on and on to explain why they don’t believe there are two Sources of Origin for the Holy Spirit in the Trinity.

I think that the Church of Rome’s stand on such ecclesial bodies as the Old Catholics (who can believe almost anything) and their “validity” is untenable.

Could you please produce one statement by Rome saying the Orthodox Church is not part of the Body of Christ?

In any century? But this would have to be a direct condemnation/statement. Statements directed at Western ecclesial bodies/Protestants would be correct and I agree with them in advance.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

We know that this can take place only on the basis of the love of Churches which feel increasingly called to manifest the one Church of Christ, born from one Baptism and from one Eucharist, and which want to be sisters. As I had occasion to say: “the Church of Christ is one. If divisions exist, that is one thing; they must be overcome, but the Church is one, the Church of Christ between East and West can only be one, one and united.”

—Blessed Pope John Paul II, Orientale Lumen

There you go quoting TrentCath’s favourite Pope again!

TrentCath:

I respect your well-researched reasoning, otherwise I wouldn’t be provoking you on this thread!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I was refering to the list of churches posted in posted by the user **followingtheway ** in this threadforums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=587893:

This certainly wasn’t St. Louis Marie De Montfort’s position on it, as she portrays our Holy Mother in her book, The Secret of the Rosary, as saying:

“As a reward for this little honor that you paid Me in wearing My Rosary, I have obtained a great grace for you from My Son. Your life will be spared for a few more years. See that you spend these years wisely, and do penance.”

I mean… If it’s not meant to be worn as a necklace… Then why does it look like a necklace? -_- I’ve seen Nunns wear them around their necks on EWTN (Monks as well, I believe.) Besides, I don’t really feel comfortable having it on my wrist or belt. I’m afraid I’ll either lose it or it’ll break.

I had my Rosary blessed by my priest so it serves as a holy reminder of the life of Christ through the eyes of St. Mary and Joseph. I’m not buying another one just to get a cord Rosary. I already asked my priest to pray that **this is the last one I have to buy. ** We both had faith in that, and I suprisingly haven’t lost or broken it yet.

So uh… What happened at the Great Schism?
I’ve heard of it but never understood what it was about.

Anyways, thank you both for your insightful posts contributing to this thread!! :tiphat:

God Bless…

Well, this is how I’ve been taught by RC priests and nuns. If one can wear it as a necklace, then go for it! (Yes, there are orders who do wear it this way, including the White Fathers of Africa).

St Louis de Montfort (one of my most favourite saints) wore his large 15 decade rosary on his belt. Dominicans USED to wear their cord rosaries wrapped on their left wrist (exactly like Orthodox bishops, priests and monastics with laity still do today).

I suppose one on pilgrimage could wear the rosary around one’s neck - but I would consult with the Dominicans or another Order where devotion to the Rosary is popular. I don’t know.

The Schism between East and West is usually taken to mean the mutual excommunication of Cardinal Humbertus and Patriarch Michael of Constantinople in 1054. In fact, this was a personal excommunication and no one then thought it mean the Churches were in schism from one another. It was only by 1204 with the Sack of Constantinople by western “crusaders” (really: “blasphemous Sword-bearers”) that the schism solidified and became outwardly “final.”

Alex

 

[TrentCath]

I did not mean that the two Churches somehow ALREADY formed two “branches” of the Church of Christ implying that there was full unity between them.

There is a real break between them and members of one cannot take Communion in the other (except for certain circumstances).

That doesn’t mean that Orthodoxy is not the Body of Christ.

Alex

Put simply the Catholic Church IS the body of Christ, this is the consistent teaching of the church throughout the ages and is actually De Fide having been explicitly expounded by Popes such as Pope Boniface VIII, the Council of Florence and The Council of Trent. By definition then the Orthodox Church cannot be the body of Christ as only the Catholic Church is, clearly Christ cannot have two bodies. Individual Orthodox can be part of the Body of Christ but in spite of NOT because of their being Orthodox.

 

[TrentCath]

I have never said, nor will say, “our two Churches” as if they were equal (from the Catholic POV) or being Particular Churches of the same Communion which they clearly are not.

Sister Churches they are with the same valid Sacraments, basic Apostolic Faith, Episcopacy/Apostolic Succession etc.

And the anathemas between them that solidified the schism have been lifted.

The Orthodox Church, following Vatican II, is part of the Body of Christ, although, from the Catholic POV, still imperfect.

Alex

Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of The Congregation For The Doctrine of The Faith goes one step further than you are willing to however, let us examine what it is he says '**10. In fact, in the proper sense, sister Churches are exclusively particular Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the Patriarchates or Metropolitan provinces) among themselves.[7] It must always be clear, when the expression sister Churches is used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches.[8]

1. One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the sister of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches.

Consequently, one should avoid, as a source of misunderstanding and theological confusion, the use of formulations such as «our two Churches,» which, if applied to the Catholic Church and the totality of Orthodox Churches (or a single Orthodox Church), imply a plurality not merely on the level of particular Churches, but also on the level of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Creed, whose real existence is thus obscured.** ’

First, he states that the term ‘sister churches’ is to refer to the Church of Rome and Particular churches such as for example the Russian Orthodox Church or the Romanian Orthodox Church NOT the Catholic Church and the orthodox church as a whole.

Second, he states that the term ‘sister churches’ must always be understood in the context that The Catholic Church (by which he means The Church of Rome), is the mother of ALL particular churches

Third he rejects the idea that there are two churches, and re-emphasises the fact that the term ‘sister churches’ must only be used to refer to relations between the Church in Rome and ALL particular churches. He states that there is only one body of christ and that this body of christ IS the Catholic Church.

 

[TrentCath]

I think that the Church of Rome’s stand on such ecclesial bodies as the Old Catholics (who can believe almost anything) and their “validity” is untenable.

Far from being untenable, The Catholic Church’s point of view in this matter is inherent in its doctrines and understanding of the nature of the Sacraments as expounded by St Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent. All that is required for a valid sacrament is the correct matter, form and intention, so long as this is present the sacrament is efficacious and as regards Holy Orders apostolic succession continues (providing of course there is an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession).

Could you please produce one statement by Rome saying the Orthodox Church is not part of the Body of Christ.
In any century?

There are several but I will post the most explicit here.

First Pope Boniface VIII’s Papal Bull Unam Sanctum ‘We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. 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…’

The Council of Florence states ‘It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church’ Now the Council was without a doubt referring to the Orthodox Church when it says ‘schismatics’ and besides no one denies that they WERE in schism, so the words would still apply.

Pope Pius IX in his encyclical Mortalium Animos says ‘11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”?[25] 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. 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’

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical ‘Christi Nomen’ says ‘Our first duty is to spread the name and reign of Christ more widely every day, and to call back the mutinous and the wandering to the bosom of the Church; this has occupied Our concern for a long time…To ensure that the Eastern Christians who have seceded will return to the one true Church, it is necessary to provide them with an abundance of holy ministers who, endowed with doctrine and piety, may persuade the others to accept the desired unity.’

Pope Benedict XV in his encyclical ‘Spiritus Paraclitus’ says 'The voice of Jerome summons those Christian nations which have unhappily fallen away from Mother Church to turn once more to her in whom lies all hope of eternal salvation. Would, too, that the Eastern Churches, so long in opposition to the See of Peter, would listen to Jerome’s voice. When he lived in the East and sat at the feet of Gregory and Didymus, he said only what the Christians of the East thought in his time when he declared that “If anyone is outside the Ark of Noe he will perish in the over-whelming flood.”[133] … May Jerome, who so loved God’s Church and so strenuously defended it against its enemies, win for us the removal of every element of discord, in accordance with Christ’s prayer, so that there may be "one fold and one shepherd." ’

 

[TrentCath]

There you go quoting TrentCath’s favourite Pope again!

TrentCath:

I respect your well-researched reasoning, otherwise I wouldn’t be provoking you on this thread!

Alex

Ha, well I can’t begrudge you the fact you’ve mentioned Pope St Pius X a few times

 

[Alexander_Roman]

OK, now come on - I only asked for ONE!

So, given the very irenical tone of Vatican II and subsequent statements, do you feel that there is a “disconnect” between the attitude of Rome towards Orthodoxy today and that of yesteryear?

If Rome accepts the previous statements, as you’ve listed them here, as “still binding” on it (and I don’t know if it does), then why, may I ask, does Rome bother with what, say, the Russian Orthodox have to say about the activity of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Ukraine?

And, this time, sir, I’m not going to let you get away with your usual, “I don’t get involved with politics!” So, take a break, have a beer or whatever you like, think about it, and get back to me when you can.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Ha, well I can’t begrudge you the fact you’ve mentioned Pope St Pius X a few times

Pope St Pius X was a very holy man who worked to help the poor (he was also interested in possibly canonizing Savonarola . …).

He was a boxer in his youth and as a parish priest, he heard someone curse boldly immediately following Sunday Mass - and his reaction was to punch him out, which he did and knocked the fellow out with one well-placed blow.

The “Devil’s Advocate” offered this incident as a way to block that Holy Father’s canonization - but to no avail! St Nicholas punched Arius out and sometimes the fist can make more of an impression than words!

St Pius X was also a great defender of the Particular Rights of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Ukrainian Catholic Church especially.

A great friend of our Ven. metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky, he supported him and gave him faculties to oversee the entire Russian empire of the day (i.e. for converts).

It was this Pope, I believe, who approved a number of Russian Orthodox Saints for veneration by the newly-formed Russian Catholic Church.

Alex

 

[Julia_Mae]

Heaven only has one door. It does not say “Latin Rite Catholics Only.”

 

[TrentCath]

Heaven only has one door. It does not say “Latin Rite Catholics Only.”

Indeed nor did I anyway intend to say it did

 

[TrentCath]

OK, now come on - I only asked for ONE!

So, given the very irenical tone of Vatican II and subsequent statements, do you feel that there is a “disconnect” between the attitude of Rome towards Orthodoxy today and that of yesteryear?

If Rome accepts the previous statements, as you’ve listed them here, as “still binding” on it (and I don’t know if it does), then why, may I ask, does Rome bother with what, say, the Russian Orthodox have to say about the activity of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Ukraine?

And, this time, sir, I’m not going to let you get away with your usual, “I don’t get involved with politics!” So, take a break, have a beer or whatever you like, think about it, and get back to me when you can.

Alex

Sorry I tend to rely on a variety of sources, then just one

I’m not sure I would say theres a ‘disconnect’ what I would say is that there is a disturbing lack of clarity, I cannot look into the minds of Pope Paul VI or Pope John Paul II and see what they believed when they carred out their ecumenical activities with the Orthodox. What I can do however is look at the Sententia Communis (Literally common sense but meaning the common belief of the church throughout the ages) explicitly teaches that the Orthodox Church is not part of the Catholic Church nor does it form part of the body of Christ, the Church De Fide Divina implies the same. The Church also De Fide Divina teaches that the Catholic Church IS the one body of christ and that whilst individuals outside its visible boundaries can be saved those definitively outside it cannot be saved.

I do not know if Rome does or doesn’t accept those statements as Binding on it but I suspect from documents such as the clarification note on the use of the term ‘sister churches’ it does, however it doesn’t both me too much whether it does or not as the teaching of the church on the subject is self-evident. One must also be aware that oftentimes the different congregations in Rome can say completely different things and clearly not all of them can be right, so Rome’s comments regarding the Russian Orthodox Church must be taken in the light of this fact. Namely that not everything that comes out of Rome can be assumed to come from the Pope or have his approval.

 

[TrentCath]

Pope St Pius X was a very holy man who worked to help the poor (he was also interested in possibly canonizing Savonarola . …).

He was a boxer in his youth and as a parish priest, he heard someone curse boldly immediately following Sunday Mass - and his reaction was to punch him out, which he did and knocked the fellow out with one well-placed blow.

The “Devil’s Advocate” offered this incident as a way to block that Holy Father’s canonization - but to no avail! St Nicholas punched Arius out and sometimes the fist can make more of an impression than words!

St Pius X was also a great defender of the Particular Rights of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Ukrainian Catholic Church especially.

A great friend of our Ven. metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky, he supported him and gave him faculties to oversee the entire Russian empire of the day (i.e. for converts).

It was this Pope, I believe, who approved a number of Russian Orthodox Saints for veneration by the newly-formed Russian Catholic Church.

Alex

Interesting, can’t believe he punched someone Not bad just interesting

 

[ciero]

Sorry I tend to rely on a variety of sources, then just one

I’m not sure I would say theres a ‘disconnect’ what I would say is that there is a disturbing lack of clarity, I cannot look into the minds of Pope Paul VI or Pope John Paul II and see what they believed when they carred out their ecumenical activities with the Orthodox. What I can do however is look at the Sententia Communis (Literally common sense but meaning the common belief of the church throughout the ages) explicitly teaches that the Orthodox Church is not part of the Catholic Church nor does it form part of the body of Christ, the Church De Fide Divina implies the same. The Church also De Fide Divina teaches that the Catholic Church IS the one body of christ and that whilst individuals outside its visible boundaries can be saved those definitively outside it cannot be saved.

I do not know if Rome does or doesn’t accept those statements as Binding on it but I suspect from documents such as the clarification note on the use of the term ‘sister churches’ it does, however it doesn’t both me too much whether it does or not as the teaching of the church on the subject is self-evident. One must also be aware that oftentimes the different congregations in Rome can say completely different things and clearly not all of them can be right, so Rome’s comments regarding the Russian Orthodox Church must be taken in the light of this fact. Namely that not everything that comes out of Rome can be assumed to come from the Pope or have his approval.

It’s attitudes like this that make me question…why the hell am I in communion with people like this?

 

[TrentCath]

It’s attitudes like this that make me question…why the hell am I in communion with people like this?

So rather than deal with the logic or the sources cited you go around attacking people, not the best response I’ve seen.