R.C ecclesiology and soterology contradict

[East_Anglican]

To sort out the theological differances a council has to be called. The problem with this is everyone must first acknowledge that they could be wrong.

 

[sandusky]

East Anglican:

So let me get this. The R.C church is not the one true church but The True Church in its fullness while others have aspects of the true church?

The present Pope has stated Orthodox churches are defective, and that other denominations are not true churches.MSNBC News Services
updated 6:52 a.m. PT, Tues., July. 10, 2007

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.Contradictory?

 

[Contarini]

The present Pope has stated Orthodox churches are defective, and that other denominations are not true churches.MSNBC News Services
updated 6:52 a.m. PT, Tues., July. 10, 2007

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.Contradictory?

Not at all. Perhaps you could explain how you think these things are contradictory.

And of course it always helps to read the actual documents instead of summaries in the media!

Edwin

 

[sandusky]

Not at all. Perhaps you could explain how you think these things are contradictory.

And of course it always helps to read the actual documents instead of summaries in the media!

Edwin

ISTM that a “not true church” does not “have truth.”

So then, to say, OTOH, that the RCC is the “one true Church,” the “Universal Sacrament of Salvation,” and then to say, OTOH, that those in the “do not have the truth denominations, or, the “do not have the truth faith communities” can be saved, is, at the very least, contradictory.

Perhaps you can explain how those in a “do not have the truth church” can be saved, sans the truth, and, therefore, sans the ability to worship God in Spirit and in truth?

 

[Contarini]

ISTM that a “not true church” does not “have truth.”

Is this based on the Vatican document, or on the newspaper article?

I’m being snarky about this, because hasty opinions based on newspaper articles really get in the way of serious discussion.

If you are basing your opinion on the newspaper article, then you should be ashamed of yourself. Period. You have been involved in these discussions long enough that you ought to know better.

Now to the point: what the document says (like Dominus Iesus, like Vatican II) is that Protestant churches are “ecclesial communities.” That is to say, they do not have all the characteristics of the Church as Catholics define it. Chiefly, they do not have apostolic succession and hence do not have the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The document does not say that such churches do not have the truth. You had absolutely no reason to conclude that it did. Unless, again, you were so silly as to think that a newspaper report about a theological document was likely to be accurate.

Edwin

 

[East_Anglican]

Now to the point: what the document says (like Dominus Iesus, like Vatican II) is that Protestant churches are “ecclesial communities.” That is to say, they do not have all the characteristics of the Church as Catholics define it. Chiefly, they do not have apostolic succession and hence do not have the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

As RC’s also believe you must eat his flesh and drink his blood, if the real precence isn’t there, how can they be saved?

It is contradictory. As I said in the OP, you can’t have the bridegroom without the bride.

Are these “ecclesial communities.” part of the bride or not?

If not, they have not got the bridegroom. If they have then they must have all the characteristics of the Church.

 

[Contarini]

As RC’s also believe you must eat his flesh and drink his blood, if the real precence isn’t there, how can they be saved?

Catholics also believe with Augustine that if you believe, you have eaten. This is not something that apologists on this board stress–but spiritual communion is a Catholic teaching. It is of course not a substitute for full sacramental communion.

It is contradictory. As I said in the OP, you can’t have the bridegroom without the bride.

Are these “ecclesial communities.” part of the bride or not?

If not, they have not got the bridegroom. If they have then they must have all the characteristics of the Church.

That is not how Catholics see it. They believe that our “ecclesial communities” are imperfectly part of the bride. This may not make sense in terms of your ecclesiology, but it’s not self-contradictory. (It may contradict what *you *think the metaphor of the “bride” involves, but that’s different.)

Edwin

 

[East_Anglican]

Catholics also believe with Augustine that if you believe, you have eaten. This is not something that apologists on this board stress–but spiritual communion is a Catholic teaching. It is of course not a substitute for full sacramental communion.

OK

If it is a substitute then it is invalid. If RC’s believe that us Anglicans have a mere benidiction and do not partake of Christs flesh and blood (Some here certainly do) then they beleive that what we believe is irrelevant.

That is not how Catholics see it. They believe that our “ecclesial communities” are imperfectly part of the bride. This may not make sense in terms of your ecclesiology, but it’s not self-contradictory. (It may contradict what *you *think the metaphor of the “bride” involves, but that’s different.)

I believe The Bride is in union with The Husband (Christ) If we are not in union with Christ we can not be part of the bride.

Ephesians 5:31-32
31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.

This verse declares that Christ and his church are one.

The first Adam had his side opend to get a bride (Eve) The second Adam had his side opened to get a bride (The Church)

The first Adams bride partook of his flesh through the act of sex. The second Adams bride partakes of his flesh through the eucharist.

If RC’s believe that us Anglicans have a mere benidiction and do not partake of Christs flesh and blood (Some here certainly do) then they beleive that what we believe is irrelevant.

It seems to me that here RC theology becomes very pragmatic at the least.

 

[Contarini]

OK

If it is a substitute then it is invalid.

You mistake. What I meant by a “substitute” was “having the same value.” Obviously they don’t think that spiritual communion is equal to sacramental communion

If RC’s believe that us Anglicans have a mere benidiction and do not partake of Christs flesh and blood (Some here certainly do) then they beleive that what we believe is irrelevant.

I don’t really follow you here.

The point is that they think there are degrees of union, degrees of participation. You may disagree with this. But it’s what they believe. You do not have the right to attribute some other belief to them because that other belief seems more logical to you.

Edwin

 

[East_Anglican]

The problem I have is that to me soterology, ecclesialogy and christology are all linked. The RC’s seem to seperate them here, but I don’t think they do as a rule.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree with this to some extent. However the Orthodox church has not put up any obstacles to unity with the Papacy, it has not introduced a single theological or ecclesiological thing to warrant our mutual separation. The changes have all come from the western church, and that is where the solution to this problem lies.

I don’t believe it’s quite that simple. In many cases, the Catholic Church has dogmatically defined X or Y, and the Orthodox Church has condemned X or Y as heresy. So it would be more fair to say that both sides have put up “obstacles to unity”.