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

[TrentCath]

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.”

One can seperate onself from the church and therefore from the body of Christ through heresy or schism or apostasy, this much is clear from the constant teaching of the church.

HOWEVER this is also a side issue, the real issue is that whilst individual Orthodox OR protestants OR even by some mystery non-christians can belong to the body of christ, the body corportate i.e their church, sect or religon, does not and cannot be said to aid in their salvation. ‘Error is an obstacle to the Holy Spirit’

 

[Alexander_Roman]

One can seperate onself from the church and therefore from the body of Christ through heresy or schism or apostasy, this much is clear from the constant teaching of the church.

HOWEVER this is also a side issue, the real issue is that whilst individual Orthodox OR protestants OR even by some mystery non-christians can belong to the body of christ, the body corportate i.e their church, sect or religon, does not and cannot be said to aid in their salvation. ‘Error is an obstacle to the Holy Spirit’

Fr. John Hardon SJ once wrote that “it is what is Catholic within them” that can benefit them spiritually.

However, there can be no doubt but that the Orthodox Churches are incorporated into the Body of Christ, if imperfectly.

And perhaps Rome’s historic popes of medieval times could have been a little less bombastic as they equated their super jurisdictional powers and pretensions with the Will of Christ?

Alex

 

[TrentCath]

However, there can be no doubt but that the Orthodox Churches are incorporated into the Body of Christ, if imperfectly.

The proof for this being?

And perhaps Rome’s historic popes of medieval times could have been a little less bombastic as they equated their super jurisdictional powers and pretensions with the Will of Christ?

I don’t think that in context any of their claims were ‘bombastic’ nor do I think they had ‘pretensions’

 

[Vico]

One can seperate onself from the church and therefore from the body of Christ through heresy or schism or apostasy, this much is clear from the constant teaching of the church.

HOWEVER this is also a side issue, the real issue is that whilst individual Orthodox OR protestants OR even by some mystery non-christians can belong to the body of christ, the body corportate i.e their church, sect or religon, does not and cannot be said to aid in their salvation. ‘Error is an obstacle to the Holy Spirit’

Surely, as stated by Pope Paul VI in Unitatis Redintegratio (1964) the separated Churches are aided in their salvation through the separated Churches, because “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation” :
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

…

The daily Christian life of these brethren is nourished by their faith in Christ and strengthened by the grace of Baptism and by hearing the word of God. This shows itself in their private prayer, their meditation on the Bible, in their Christian family life, and in the worship of a community gathered together to praise God. Moreover, their form of worship sometimes displays notable features of the liturgy which they shared with us of old.

1. Cf. CONC. LATERANENSE IV (1215) Constitutio IV: Mansi 22, 990; CONC. LUGDUNENSE II (1274), Professio fidei Michaelis Palaeologi: Mansi 24, 71 E; CONC. FLORENTINUM, Sess. VI (1439), Definitio Laetentur caeli: Mansi 31, 1026 E.
   vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

If one is a Catholic to begin with, and adopts heresy or schism or apostacy, then they have separated due to mortal sin, as explained in the Baltimore Catechism, they are no longer fully incorporated. One can be in objective heresy, or schism, or apostacy, in the state of invincible ignorance, yet not in mortal sin due to it.
58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”,[88] the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized. The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”.[89]

[88] Cf. BONIFACE VIII, Bull “Unam Sanctam”: “Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, diffinimus omnino esse de necessitate salutis”, DS 875; cp. DS 1351; ND 875: “Furthermore we declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff”.

[89] Pius IX, Allocution “Singulari Quadam”, DS 2865i; ND 813.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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.

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.

As I believe you have admitted (re: 1950), the Church is saying different things today in a very irenical spirit. It can and has changed its views about a number of things regarding Orthodoxy.

At no time did I say that the Orthodox Church, from the Catholic POV, is totally incorporated into the Body of Christl But there can be a less than total incorporation, with many elements of sanctity that derive from Apostolic sources and origins.

Otherwise, why has the Catholic Church consistently taught that Orthodoxy has valid sacraments etc.? To have valid sacraments means that Christ is present in them when they are celebrated and received. It is Christ then, who enacts the sanctification and salvation.

Also, I’m curious why you limit the Church’s history to 1950. What is wrong with the Church since 1950? Is the Catholic Church a continuing entity or is it not? Are we not called upon to accept the totality of the Church’s teaching, right up until today and in future?

Finally, if the Orthodox Church bears no fruits of holiness then why has Rome approved for EC and even its own veneration Orthodox Saints who were not in union with Rome - such as St Gregory Palamas (approved in 1973), and a host of Russian Saints who lived after the Great Schism? Is this or is this not an approval of Orthodox holiness?

Also, why do RC representatives attend Orthodox canonizations of saints, venerate their relics, kiss their icons and take icons home with them? One recent example is the attendance of the former Archbishop of Paris at the canonization of St Maria Skobtsova, killed by the Nazis. After the canonization, he told the press that St Maria should honoured by all Catholics as well.

I too have many Catholic witnesses attesting to the correctness of my POV, sir.

Alex

 

[Aramis]

So why wouldnt you want to be in communion with those that think like me mmm?

Since you asked…

Because you cosnistently express heterodoxis and heteropraxis, and imply strongly that everyone else but you is in error, misinterpret the church’s rules, dismiss everything put forward as evidence, and generally seem to come to the EC section of the boards solely to annoy us.

 

[Attende_Domine]

Since you asked…

Because you cosnistently express heterodoxis and heteropraxis, and imply strongly that everyone else but you is in error, misinterpret the church’s rules, dismiss everything put forward as evidence, and generally seem to come to the EC section of the boards solely to annoy us.

You know I’ve been looking over this thread and a few others in the Eastern Catholicism and to be honest it seems that whenever a Western Catholic decides to venture an opinion that is remotely traditional, he is rounded upon, insulted and whatever he says taken as a personal insult to Eastern Catholicism.

 

[mardukm]

You know I’ve been looking over this thread and a few others in the Eastern Catholicism and to be honest it seems that whenever a Western Catholic decides to venture an opinion that is remotely traditional, he is rounded upon, insulted and whatever he says taken as a personal insult to Eastern Catholicism.

Actually, most Latin Catholics I’ve met (and this is only my own personal experience in real life) adhere to the V2 teaching on the collegial nature of the Church. The ones you claim are “traditional” (from what I’ve seen) are more often than not members or adherents of the SSPX, who are not formal members of the Catholic Church. These latter are the ones who express little or no appreciation for the Eastern and Oriental Traditions, branding us as somehow less Catholic.

But you will find many posts from Latins here in the ECF who have a genuine interest in, appreciation of and concern for the non-Latin Churches of the Catholic communion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Attende_Domine]

Actually, most Latin Catholics I’ve met (and this is only my own personal experience in real life) adhere to the V2 teaching on the collegial nature of the Church. The ones you claim are “traditional” (from what I’ve seen) are more often than not members or adherents of the SSPX, who are not formal members of the Catholic Church. These latter are the ones who express little or no appreciation for the Eastern and Oriental Traditions, branding us as somehow less Catholic.

But you will find many posts from Latins here in the ECF who have a genuine interest in, appreciation of and concern for the non-Latin Churches of the Catholic communion.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks you just proved my point

 

[mardukm]

Thanks you just proved my point

 

[MrPip]

Yeah, that went over my head, too, I’m afraid.

As one who has been in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, my experience has been that Eastern Catholics are treated by “western” Catholics with a mixture of curiosity, interest, and respect–if they ever even encounter them. This may not have been the case historically in a number of instances, but this is now 2011, not 1595. I’ve actually experienced greater animosity from Orthodox towards Catholics, both personally and in my readings and especially in my adventures on the internet, than of Catholics towards Orthodox. But…that’s just my experience.

I would add, though, that on a day to day basis most Eastern Catholics and most “western” Catholics and most Orthodox, at least in the U.S., probably don’t give each other much thought at all and just get on with their lives.

Just my penny’s-worth.

Jeff