C
ciero
Guest
Questioning my own motives is now attacking you? Go figure!
Questions On Latin VS. Eastern: and On Othodox Church and Breakaways
- Status
T
TrentCath
Guest
So why wouldnt you want to be in communion with those that think like me mmm?Questioning my own motives is now attacking you? Go figure!
C
ciero
Guest
What makes you think it’s all about you? As far as I see it…your attitude is only part of the problem.
T
TrentCath
Guest
I’m not going to get into it, I can see it will be a total waste of my time.
C
ciero
Guest
Your attitude says it all.
T
TrentCath
Guest
Right I guess you’re going to claim thats not a personal attack either? If you have a problem with the Church Teaching then debate that, please stop wasting my time with childish ad hominem attacks.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
It would seem that in re the Orthodox Churches, their relationship to the Catholic Church, and their place in the Body of Christ, the teachings coming from Rome are ambiguous at best and (at least on the surface) contradictory at worst. Is it at all possible that these teachings coming from Rome are not dogmatic, but are an ongoing speculation on a (mostly political) situation (East-West schism) that has existed at least since the 13th Century? I presume that since Rome’s teachings on this issue are so ambiguous and, dare I say, contradictory, then there must be a healthy amount of “wiggle room” permitted on the part of the religious assent. Rome’s current teaching on the Orthodox, as expressed in the documents of VII (particularly the document on Ecumenism) and the CCC are that the Orthodox Churches are fully Church and that they possess the full means of salvation, but that sadly they are not in a perfect state of communion with us, nor we with them. This is a true scandal in the history of the Church, a blockade in the preaching of the Gospel, and a stumbling block to the evangelization of non-Christians. The lack of charity that often exists between Catholics and Orthodox (or need I point out that which sometimes exists between Latins and the Eastern Catholic brethren) ought to anger us greatly.
Ultimately we need to realize that our Faith is not about assenting to dogmas (although dogma is one aspect of our Faith). Ultimately our Faith is a relationship with a God Who has revealed Himself to us! He hasn’t just revealed stuff about Himself; He has revealed Himself. This is a great mystery to which awe-filled silence, self-emptying love, and eternal gratitude are the only appropriate responses. Until all of us learn this (East and West) reunion will not occur because we are all so caught up in defending our own man-made methods of speculation on the divine mystery. Those methods are all fine and good, but they do not constitute our Faith. Again, our faith is not a syllogism, a logical conclusion. Our Faith, while being logical, defies logic because our Faith is in a Person, not a syllogism. Try logically answering how God can be three in one, or how the utterly Transcendent can become incarnate among us. If you can, then you haven’t sufficiently contemplated the Mystery, but have erected an idol.
Ok, I’m off the high-horse now. Sorry abou that.
Oh, and this post wasn’t directed at anyone in particular. 
Ultimately we need to realize that our Faith is not about assenting to dogmas (although dogma is one aspect of our Faith). Ultimately our Faith is a relationship with a God Who has revealed Himself to us! He hasn’t just revealed stuff about Himself; He has revealed Himself. This is a great mystery to which awe-filled silence, self-emptying love, and eternal gratitude are the only appropriate responses. Until all of us learn this (East and West) reunion will not occur because we are all so caught up in defending our own man-made methods of speculation on the divine mystery. Those methods are all fine and good, but they do not constitute our Faith. Again, our faith is not a syllogism, a logical conclusion. Our Faith, while being logical, defies logic because our Faith is in a Person, not a syllogism. Try logically answering how God can be three in one, or how the utterly Transcendent can become incarnate among us. If you can, then you haven’t sufficiently contemplated the Mystery, but have erected an idol.
Ok, I’m off the high-horse now. Sorry abou that.
Oh, and this post wasn’t directed at anyone in particular.
T
TrentCath
Guest
I believe the Church through the congregation for the doctrine of the faith has made the matter rather clearer and when one encounters ambigous and unambigous teachings one does not simply decided that one can believe whatever one wants because there is no teaching on the matter one follow the unambigous teaching.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Appearantly they haven’t made the teaching clear enough, otherwise I don’t think this thread would’ve lasted as long as it has.
Out of curiosity, what CDF report are you referring to? And how does this report from one Roman Congregation jive with the documents of another Roman Congregation in charge of ecumenical relations? Finally, does a Roman Congregation hold more authority than the Patriarchs and their Synods of the particular Eastern Churches?
M
MrPip
Guest
Well put, sir!!It would seem that in re the Orthodox Churches, their relationship to the Catholic Church, and their place in the Body of Christ, the teachings coming from Rome are ambiguous at best and (at least on the surface) contradictory at worst. Is it at all possible that these teachings coming from Rome are not dogmatic, but are an ongoing speculation on a (mostly political) situation (East-West schism) that has existed at least since the 13th Century? I presume that since Rome’s teachings on this issue are so ambiguous and, dare I say, contradictory, then there must be a healthy amount of “wiggle room” permitted on the part of the religious assent. Rome’s current teaching on the Orthodox, as expressed in the documents of VII (particularly the document on Ecumenism) and the CCC are that the Orthodox Churches are fully Church and that they possess the full means of salvation, but that sadly they are not in a perfect state of communion with us, nor we with them. This is a true scandal in the history of the Church, a blockade in the preaching of the Gospel, and a stumbling block to the evangelization of non-Christians. The lack of charity that often exists between Catholics and Orthodox (or need I point out that which sometimes exists between Latins and the Eastern Catholic brethren) ought to anger us greatly.
Ultimately we need to realize that our Faith is not about assenting to dogmas (although dogma is one aspect of our Faith). Ultimately our Faith is a relationship with a God Who has revealed Himself to us! He hasn’t just revealed stuff about Himself; He has revealed Himself. This is a great mystery to which awe-filled silence, self-emptying love, and eternal gratitude are the only appropriate responses. Until all of us learn this (East and West) reunion will not occur because we are all so caught up in defending our own man-made methods of speculation on the divine mystery. Those methods are all fine and good, but they do not constitute our Faith. Again, our faith is not a syllogism, a logical conclusion. Our Faith, while being logical, defies logic because our Faith is in a Person, not a syllogism. Try logically answering how God can be three in one, or how the utterly Transcendent can become incarnate among us. If you can, then you haven’t sufficiently contemplated the Mystery, but have erected an idol.
Ok, I’m off the high-horse now. Sorry abou that.
May I quote this, or parts of it, elsewhere?
In Christ,
Jeff
T
TrentCath
Guest
The one I referred to earlier 'Theological note on the expression ‘sister churches’ '.Appearantly they haven’t made the teaching clear enough, otherwise I don’t think this thread would’ve lasted as long as it has.
Out of curiosity, what CDF report are you referring to? And how does this report from one Roman Congregation jive with the documents of another Roman Congregation in charge of ecumenical relations? Finally, does a Roman Congregation hold more authority than the Patriarchs and their Synods of the particular Eastern Churches?
Yes, sadly i think there is some ambiguity, still if people are going to examine this issue at all they should examine all of the churches teachings on the subject not just ambigous statements in the last 50 years or so.
As for Roman Congregations having less or more authority than patriarchs and the synods of the particular churches, Roman Congregations are endowed with the authority to act on behalf of the pope and exercise his authority in the matters which pertain to them. It should also be noted that their jurisdiction generally extends to the whole church not just ‘particular churches’. However I believe that some congregations do not exercise authority over certain particular churches, as regards the CDF it does exercise authority over the whole church and ABOVE all bishops and patriarchs, it answers solely to the Pope and its declarations are in general binding on all christians East and West.
I realise that some Eastern Catholics may not be happy with that but I am afraid that that is the law of the church.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Well, I pray you are right about those congregations then!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.
I would only say that God alone knows who can or cannot be saved. St Augustine once said, “There are those in the Church who appear to be outside it; And those outside it who appear to be in it.”
Alex
T
TrentCath
Guest
It is not I who say this it is The Church, so you dont have to pray about meWell, I pray you are right about those congregations then!
I would only say that God alone knows who can or cannot be saved. St Augustine once said, “There are those in the Church who appear to be outside it; And those outside it who appear to be in it.”
Alex
And while that may be true, The Church has repeatedly made declarations on who is and isn’t within The Church.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Happily, the Church has refrained from making declarations on who is and who isn’t in heavenIt is not I who say this it is The Church, so you dont have to pray about me
And while that may be true, The Church has repeatedly made declarations on who is and isn’t within The Church.
.I think the Master Beadsman, Phillip Rolfes, Esq. has made some good points (have you tried one of his rosaries - simply fabulous, I have one of his works beside me right now as I write this and I don’t leave home without it).
What is not ambiguous is that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the faith. What is ambiguous is the extent to which the Orthodox Church is either a) totally Graceless (but then how can its Sacraments be valid?) or b) imperfectly part of the Church.
To what extent are the quotes you gave above “infallible” statements of the Church? As for development of doctrine, that is an important process. And, if you don’t mind me saying so, we (you and I, that is) cannot take the train called the Catholic Church and get off at one of our preferred stations, be that station the Council of Trent or Vatican II. We need to take in all the stations and see what does the Church teach today.
I, for one, don’t believe that the irenical spirit of the Church today is at odds with the teaching of the Church of 2,000 years.
I do believe that what this or that pope said in the past may not be an infallible teaching, and, at best, as the Master Beadsman has said, may be an ongoing development in the Church’s thinking.
And I don’t believe that the Church is ever ossified and that it speaks with clarity, as it is called to so do by Christ Himself, about the Gospel and the Catholic faith to each and every generation.
There is both the element of consistent sameness and renewed perspectives in the Church’s teaching in every generation, including some tension between the two.
I do indeed believe that the Orthodox Church is indeed part of the Body of Christ today, that it produces many fruits of holiness to the glory of God through Christ by the Holy Spirit, and that it is probably the most conservative and solid witness to Christian morality in the world today.
Alex
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I know. I was just trying to make the point that this issue/argument isn’t very important in the grand scheme of things. The enmity it generates is a lot more significant.
Carry on, if you must.
V
Vico
Guest
Yes, I understand you are referring to “full incorporation”. The Baltimore Catechism No. 3, item 156 Why is the Catholic Church one?:
The Catholic Church is one because all its members, according to the will of Christ, profess the same faith, have the same sacrifice and sacraments, and are united under one and the same visible head, the Pope.
Even so this affirmation exists that the baptized are still in communion with the Catholic Church, even when imperfect, from *1964, *Unitatis_Redintegratio:
For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion.
From Baltimore Catechism No. 1:
**169A. What conditions are necessary in order that a person be a member of the Mystical Body in the full sense? **
In order that a person be a member of the Mystical Body in the full sense, it is necessary that he be baptized, that he profess the Catholic faith, and that he neither separate himself from the Mystical Body nor be excluded by lawful authority.
*And if he refuses to hear them, appeal to the Church, but if he refuses to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. (Matthew 18:17) *
**169B. How does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body? **
A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by open and deliberate heresy, apostasy or schism.
T
TrentCath
Guest
Sorry to be pedantic but thats not entirely true, as regards Saints they are those who The Church knows are definitely in heaven. The Church has therefore made declarations on who is in heaven, what it cannot do however is declare who is NOT in heaven. It can however and has, declared on the likelihood or not of someone being in hell.Happily, the Church has refrained from making declarations on who is and who isn’t in heaven
The Church has consistently taught that NO church is part of the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church IS the body of christ, therefore one either is or isnt a member. There may of course be those outside its visible boundaries who can be saved by invincible ignorance and/or through baptism of blood or desire.
As regards the quotes, the encyclicals are ‘De Sententia Communis’, they show what the Church has believed throughout the ages but the reference to the Council of Florence is De Fide, that is ‘Of Faith’ and therefore Infallible. The theological note is the interpretation of The Holy See on the matter and therefore binding on all the faithful.
It is De Fide that there is ONE body of Christ and that this body is The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which is commonly referred to as ‘The Roman Catholic Church’. Therefore no other ‘Church’ may be part of The Body of Christ.
I will make the point however that Catholics owe obedience to far more than just the ‘Infallible’ teachings of the church as if nothing else mattered. They owe obedience to everything the Pope says on matters of faith, morals and the discipline and government of the Church. This obedience means that they must accept his judgement on matters and his beliefs as the correct ones. One must of course add the Caveat that one is not bound to follow the popes beliefs or obey them insofar as they contradict divine revelation or Divine Law, however that would be self-evident and blatant so if it is not then one must obey.
The idea of ‘Development of Doctrine’ as regards this subject is somewhat of a red herring, Doctrine may develop but development is not contradiction. To give an example saying that The Virgin Mary is free from the stain and effects of original sin is a development of doctrine, to state that there are ‘good and holy things in other religions’ is a contradiction.
Lastly one must refer to the entire genuine tradition of the church when expounding or defending a point of view which is why I referred to two different types of source and that range in date from the middle ages to the early 20th century.
And I cannot with all due respect see how you can formulate that view having read the Church Fathers or any of the Magisterial documents of the last 1950 years concerning the matter.
As I said before the entire issue of ‘Infallible teachings’ is a red herring, Catholic’s owe obedience to all a Pope officially says in matters of faith, morals and the discipline and government of The Church with the Caveat I added earlier.
That may well be your view but it is not the view of the church and never has been.
T
TrentCath
Guest
Thank you for that clarification.
I do not deny that the baptised are ‘in communion’ with the church or as the Church has traditionally said ‘part of it’, that is very different from saying that the body corporate or a group of people are. As I have said before those outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church are saved despite of their belonging to such a body not because of it.
I am also making the point that those so baptised can seperate themselves from the church of christ through heresy or schism, this is the teaching of the church from the time of the Apostles up until the present day.
V
Vico
Guest
True, in the language the Catholic Church uses, one validly baptised is separated from full incorporation in the Mystical Body, but not entirely from incorporation in the Mystical Body. This is because everyone saved is a member of the Church, even those in invincible ignorance. It is sin by which we are no longer saved, deadly sin.
John 1 5:16-17:
“If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.”
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Be my guest… Only offer a few prayers for me while you do so.Well put, sir!!
May I quote this, or parts of it, elsewhere?
In Christ,
Jeff
- Status