Saint Rasputin - no such chance

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Myhrr:

I was answering your question here:

[snipped]## TY - my blunder ##

Unam Sanctam is the infallible reasoning of faith and morals as held by the RCPC.

1. The definitions are infallible - not the reasoning.
2. There is some question whether the Bull contains a definition
3. What, if anything, is being defined: the necessity of the Church for salvation - or, that mode of communion in the Church which takes the form of communion with the Pope ?

These questions may seem devious - they arise because no ecclesiastical act, not even definitions, happens in a vacuum. So the permanent and binding element in a dogma, needs to be distinguished from the form it comes in. This is because the Church does not float serenely above history and culture, but is manifested within it, “in the world - but not of it.”

So in some sense, the Church is necessary for salvation - a huge subject. ##

None if this makes a dogma out of a former practice of the Church.​

Where has it been stated so specifically, unequivocally and with the full authority of infallible teaching?

Orthodox are named in that.

I understand that and empathise with the problems you have here, however, I’m actually focusing on doctrines which the RCPC has held for many centuries and understood by those like Stepinac in the last century to be current, he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong because he was obedient to these doctrines. This is a problem specific to the RCPC and these doctrines are still in force, nothings changed. The emphasis now is to ignore them, but if circumstances were different, perhaps in a century or two, the RCPC could quite legitimately act according to them. This is the very real problem with them, since they haven’t been superceded by anything said with any degree of authority.

The subject of coercion in religion is too big for one post - it would needs many threads. All one can say here is that we RCs have no guarantees for the future good behaviour of those who teach and govern in the CC either. Our bishops and teachers have to trust us - we have to trust them. And sometimes, trust is betrayed. This is terrible, but not new - look at the Passion. We are no better. So we are all guilty together - but all shown mercy together too. And if God bears with us, we must bear with one another too. He did not spare His own Son the pain of betrayal - why should we be spared it ? ​

There is plenty wrong with the CC - but one thing is utterly right: God’s Love for her. This does not mean the sins of Catholics don’t matter - it does mean they cannot be greater than God’s Mercy. Which is why the CC does not give up her mission. In fairness, it should - but God is gracious, not fair. That is why we are not given “what we truly deserve”. ##

I hope I’ve explained my concerns here adequately, the past sins are but an example, the effects from the cause of specific RCPC doctrines. In the Love of Christ formally and infallibly reject them.

Understood. What you ask, laity cannot do: we do not teach or govern in the Church. What one can do, whether peasant or Patriarch, is reject in oneself the sort of attitude that helps to make for evil… [continue…]​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continue…]

---

Which needs doing daily. So the problem is with individual Christians - not with bishops or Popes alone.

ISTM that no doctrine is safe from being abused. This is because RCs are sinners - not because we are RCs. If the Church were arranged differently, Christians would sin in a different way.

One can do only suggest a look at Dignitatis Humanae - especially section 11 - & the Catechism of the Catholic Church: sections 160; 1738; and 2104-9 in particular.

“But neither is infallible”, one might say; “not like some RC pronouncements.” Maybe not - but they are still binding in conscience. Infallibility is merely the highest degree of doctrinal certainty - and many truths are certain, without being defined as dogmas. No definition is needed, for a moral duty to bind in conscience; the Decalogue is not formally defined, but we are utterly forbidden to commit murder nonetheless. The problems come in specifying what that means in practice - is the execution of heretics murder, or, a death-sentence such as a Christian may execute ? So:

1. Moral obligation is not always tied to dogmatic certitude
2. That does not affect our obligation to love.
3. Murder is always sinful, but not always easy to define.
4. The subject of religious coercion is too big for one post or thread - it requires an extended answer, or none. FWIW, I’m not assuming that all accusations against the CC are justified. Even if they are, they are not able to exceed the Mercy of God. Nobody’s could - so how can a Church’s ?
5. There is no reason for us to fear such coercion - if fear were to stop Churches living in charity, it would be a temptation, not an act of prudence. See below. ##

What guarantee can you give me that future generations won’t suffer from these doctrines brought into action again?

I don’t think Christians are given guarantees, of anything. So what one doesn’t have, one can’t give.​

We Romans have our infirmities - you Orthodox Christians will have yours. Different ones, no doubt, but infirmities all the same. So, the question you ask of us, we could ask of you And because we are infirm, we need to pray for good things for each other. Then we will be loving one another in reality, and not in word alone. Besides - if God’s Love for us is unconditional; how can ours be conditional ?

Because we are imperfect, we are capable of harming one another - even when we mean well. Those who persecuted St. John of the Cross thought he was a danger to the Church: yet he has since been recognised as one of her foremost teachers. St. Alphonsus Liguori was persecuted; so were others. Both were RC Saints, persecuted by RCs who desired the health of the Church.

So Orthodox Christians will always be vulnerable to being hurt by Romans. And so will we Romans by you Orthodox. So we have no reason to complain of each other, still less to accuse (!) each other. Our Lord was betrayed by one disciple, denied three times by another, deserted by almost all. Yet “He loved them to the end” - He did not cease to love them, even though they failed in love for Him. If His love was so faithful, despite what would happen to Him, we are not likely to get any easier ride than He did.

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

##** [end of post to Myhrr]**

As for the less creditable reasons for our harming each other: all anyone can do is hope in God’s mercy. But no guarantees are possible. ISTM that we are given the present moment in which to love, not the future or the past; so we can love God and neighbour in the present moment. We cannot rule the future, still less the attitudes or actions of generations yet unborn - how can we, if we don’t know how long that future will be ? What Christians are commanded to do, is to love another as Christ has loved us: it is Our Lord’s command. And that we can do, in Christ, whatever happens. ##

 

[Myhrr]

Gottle of Geer:

1. The definitions are infallible - not the reasoning.
2. There is some question whether the Bull contains a definition
3. What, if anything, is being defined: the necessity of the Church for salvation - or, that mode of communion in the Church which takes the form of communion with the Pope ?

These questions may seem devious - they arise because no ecclesiastical act, not even definitions, happens in a vacuum. So the permanent and binding element in a dogma, needs to be distinguished from the form it comes in. This is because the Church does not float serenely above history and culture, but is manifested within it, “in the world - but not of it.”

So in some sense, the Church is necessary for salvation - a huge subject. ##

Unam Sanctam contains statements of faith and morals and the conclusion is based on those definitive statements. And this is what’s so annoying, that no one in the RCPC is willing to take actual responsibility for it, to put it on the table, but we all know it’s infallible, irreformable dogma and in all the talks of unity this is what the RCPC can’t give up, it will cease to exist as it is if it does. What the Orthodox say is that these aren’t part of the Church, what if they’re right?

Understood. What you ask, laity cannot do: we do not teach or govern in the Church. What one can​

do, whether peasant or Patriarch, is reject in oneself the sort of attitude that helps to make for evil… Which needs doing daily. So the problem is with individual Christians - not with bishops or Popes alone.

Is it my imagination or have you changed somewhat in the last year or so? I’ve been noticing a very strong spirituaity in a new kind of laid back way from you… it’s very impressive, but, as aware as it makes me of my own shortcomings I’m still going to be thinking in terms of what can be done to change the Churches, it’s the doctrines that I argue about. I suppose what’s annoying me here is that in the last hundred years the Orthodox ecclesiology has been undermined by RCPC influence, perhaps your Church thinks the EP’s neo-papism will win out or even confuse so much that Orthodox doctrines will be lost to general view, but whatever victories that brings in terms of unity will be false. Even if that’s how you accept your Church to be I don’t see any reason why we should believe it or change ours to accommodate it by giving your doctrines credibility.

ISTM that no doctrine is safe from being abused. This is because RCs are sinners - not because we are RCs. If the Church were arranged differently, Christians would sin in a different way.

Well, there’s some truth in that, but it’s detrimental to all efforts when belief systems are geared to create problems, which is how I’d see it.

conintued/

 

[Myhrr]

continud to** Gottle of Geer**

One can do only suggest a look at Dignitatis Humanae

• especially section 11 - & the Catechism of the Catholic Church: sections 160; 1738; and 2104-9 in particular.

“But neither is infallible”, one might say; “not like some RC pronouncements.” Maybe not - but they are still binding in conscience. Infallibility is merely the highest degree of doctrinal certainty - and many truths are certain, without being defined as dogmas. No definition is needed, for a moral duty to bind in conscience; the Decalogue is not formally defined, but we are utterly forbidden to commit murder nonetheless. The problems come in specifying what that means in practice - is the execution of heretics murder, or, a death-sentence such as a Christian may execute ? So:

1. Moral obligation is not always tied to dogmatic certitude
2. That does not affect our obligation to love.
3. Murder is always sinful, but not always easy to define.
4. The subject of religious coercion is too big for one post or thread - it requires an extended answer, or none. FWIW, I’m not assuming that all accusations against the CC are justified. Even if they are, they are not able to exceed the Mercy of God. Nobody’s could - so how can a Church’s ?
5. There is no reason for us to fear such coercion - if fear were to stop Churches living in charity, it would be a temptation, not an act of prudence. See below. ##

But RC infallibility isn’t the highest degree of our doctrinal certainty… quite the opposite in a way as it immediately makes anything said with such certainty highly suspect…

That’s the coercion which is our main objection, all the other doctrinal certainties follow from this and in themselves can be ignored, but when there’s a demand to believe attached to them by calling them infallible…

As for the less creditable reasons for our harming each other: all anyone can do is hope in God’s mercy. But no guarantees are possible. ISTM that we are given the present moment in which to love, not the future or the past; so we can love God and neighbour in the present moment. We cannot rule the future, still less the attitudes or actions of generations yet unborn - how can we, if we don’t know how long that future will be ? What Christians are commanded to do, is to love another as Christ has loved us: it is Our Lord’s command. And that we can

do, in Christ, whatever happens. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Myhrr:

continud to** Gottle of Geer**

But RC infallibility isn’t the highest degree of our doctrinal certainty… quite the opposite in a way as it immediately makes anything said with such certainty highly suspect…

That’s the coercion which is our main objection, all the other doctrinal certainties follow from this and in themselves can be ignored, but when there’s a demand to believe attached to them by calling them infallible…

If one can take a look at this first - before US And All That.​

My knowledge of Orthodox theological method is fairly tiny - so I was wondering whether there was a disconnection between how RCs and Orthodox see the same things that both acknowledge as true: and how, if there is this disconnection, we see the things that we either:

1. Don’t altogether agree on
2. Don’t agree on at all.

IOW, ISTM that theological idiom and emphasis and tone get in the way a lot. Because how something is said, can affect how it is received.

For example:

1. Is the necessity of the Church for salvation an assertion of Roman dogmatic imperialism - a sort of half-hidden paganism of heart, which exalts the Church instead of the Church’s Spouse ?

It might be - it has certainly been seen as this. The Church is “always doing penance” - which would not be needed, if she believed her holiness, as well as being indefectible (it is, because she has no Holiness of her own but only Christ’s) were also perfect (which it is not, on earth, because she is a Church of sinners in training to be Saints).

1. Or is it a loving acknowledgement of the boundless Kingship of Christ, but expressed in a clumsy way ?

AFAIK, there is nothing to stop the Church rephrasing her faith - so long as the content does not evaporate. That is one reason a theological Church has to be a meditative Church, and so, a learning Church: like Mary, really.

ISTM that the Church has always to be a learning Church; then she can be a teaching Church. And sometimes - because she is made up of very imperfect people, of us, we get the message itself, but not the right tone; the tone that ought to clothe it. IOW - “we are earthen vessels…”.

The more fully we can explore and understand what comes between us, the more we should understand one another.

ISTM that understanding how the Churches express the faith they hold, and why they do, and in what ways, comes before thinking about specific doctrines. ##

 

[Volodymyr]

## If one can take a look at this first - before US And All That.

1. Is the necessity of the Church for salvation an assertion of Roman dogmatic imperialism - a sort of half-hidden paganism of heart, which exalts the Church instead of the Church’s Spouse ?

Famous Russian theologian and martyr (died in 1928 in Soviet concentratin camp) Bishop Ilarion Troitsky wrote long article on christianity without Church. Quote from this article:

Outside the Church and without the Church Christian life is impossible. Only in the church can man live, develop and save himself… Without the Church there is no Christianity…

The one who leaves the Church is no longer a Christian and is deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit for which reason he is deprived of the hope of Salvation. This idea was clearly expressed by St. Basil in his letter to Bishop Amfilokhii. …The letter of St. Basil to Amfilokhii is recognized as canonical and for that reason is until now included in the “book of rules.”

 

[Myhrr]

## If one can take a look at this first - before US And All That.

My knowledge of Orthodox theological method is fairly tiny - so I was wondering whether there was a disconnection between how RCs and Orthodox see the same things that both acknowledge as true: and how, if there is this disconnection, we see the things that we either:

1. Don’t altogether agree on
2. Don’t agree on at all.

IOW, ISTM that theological idiom and emphasis and tone get in the way a lot. Because how something is said, can affect how it is received.

…]

ISTM that the Church has always to be a learning Church; then she can be a teaching Church. And sometimes - because she is made up of very imperfect people, of us, we get the message itself, but not the right tone; the tone that ought to clothe it. IOW - “we are earthen vessels…”.

The more fully we can explore and understand what comes between us, the more we should understand one another.

ISTM that understanding how the Churches express the faith they hold, and why they do, and in what ways, comes before thinking about specific doctrines. ##

It’s the doctrines of faith we’re disputing here… The Church is one whole and undivided, so we say, yet look at all these attempts ‘to unite’ Christians… that’s a core doctrine of faith for us, how can we mend something that hasn’t been broken? The ‘ecumenical’ attempts at reunification during the last century are collapsing and if we ask ourselves why it’ll come down to this, that the Orthodox understanding of what the Church is will be compromised by any attempts to make anything other than faith a basis for unity. Doctrines are an expression of a church’s faith.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve been exploring the differences for the last four years and in that time I’ve gone from thinking that there wasn’t all that much that separated us to seeing how vastly different we are from each other and lastly to the conclusion that we’re actually two utterly separate churches because some of these differences brook no compromise.

That’s were I am on this at the moment and if it wasn’t for the interference from certain doctrines of the RCPC I’d say the best way for us to exist in peace together would be to agree to disagree, but the doctrine of infallibility makes this impossible. My arguments against this interference are from two approaches, the one an attempt to show how our Christology is different which explains our aborrence for uniting with your doctrines and the other an attempt to destroy this infallible certainty of the RCPC which carries your doctrines of faith uncompromisingly into our space.

So, I don’t think there is a before Us and All That that can be looked at without examining the doctrinal differences, as an example the “theological idiom” is a case in point, perhaps we can explore our differences from here. We receive your doctrines through the prism of our theological doctrines and our theology is personal experience of God, it’s in that the members know the Church is one and undivided. What’s your theological idiom?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Volodymyr:

## If one can take a look at this first - before US And All That.

1. Is the necessity of the Church for salvation an assertion of Roman dogmatic imperialism - a sort of half-hidden paganism of heart, which exalts the Church instead of the Church’s Spouse ?

Famous Russian theologian and martyr (died in 1928 in Soviet concentratin camp) Bishop Ilarion Troitsky wrote long article on christianity without Church. Quote from this article:

Outside the Church and without the Church Christian life is impossible. Only in the church can man live, develop and save himself… Without the Church there is no Christianity…

The one who leaves the Church is no longer a Christian and is deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit for which reason he is deprived of the hope of Salvation. This idea was clearly expressed by St. Basil in his letter to Bishop Amfilokhii. …The letter of St. Basil to Amfilokhii is recognized as canonical and for that reason is until now included in the “book of rules.”

1. Agreed, that the Church is necessary for salvation in some sense at least. IOW - yes, the Ch. is needed for that.

However, good things can be apprehended as evils. That is what I was driving at . The reason being, that many Christians find the “Roman claims” to be “a sort of half-hidden paganism of heart, which exalts the Church instead of the Church’s Spouse.”

Newman did, in his “Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church”, in 1838: more exactly, he suggested that the RCC was but another form of the Roman Empire - to the loss of her Christian life and character.

ISTM that a Catholic has to try to see the CC as other Christians do: not because that Catholic agrees with non-Catholic estimates of the Church, but, in order to understand why people don’t see things as Catholics do.

And ISTM that the same applies to Orthodox Christians - those of us who are Catholics need to have a sympathetic understanding of why what we believe, and don’t find offensive, is offensive to you. And the reasons for doctrinal disagreement, may not always take a doctrinal form. Many of the objections Protestants make to Catholic things, are cultural, at least in part; not doctrinal, even though they are expressed as doctrinal objections.

1. Whether the Church is so necessary for salvation that to leave her is to be wholly deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit - one post cannot possibly deal with this, because any affirmation either way would leave out far too much. I’m not well up on Orthodox ecclesiology, but I do know that the Catholic doctrine is very rich and impossible to summarise briefly. Because the Church is primarily a mystery - not primarily a human society. Sorry to disappoint. ##

 

[chrisb]

Myhrr:

It’s the doctrines of faith we’re disputing here…

Peace be with you Sister Myhrr,

If you would be so kind as to let me say it is our individual understandings of these “doctrines of faith” that we are all disputing here and many of us are not at all educated enough to truly plumb the depths of these Doctrines to reach a point where semantic and didactic posturing won’t get in the way of our coming together in recognition of a common faith and salvation in the Grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Doctrines are an expression of a church’s faith.

I once heard a criticism concerning the Christian Faith which I wish to share here for reflection.

The Christian Church uses Doctrine and Dogma like a drunk uses lamp posts, as a means to prop themselves up instead of using them for illumination.

I have always reflected on this with great depth as I continue to witness my brothers and sisters grapple over Truth like kids grasping at so many marbles on the playground. Truth comes to use from so many manifestations and hidden in so many common sayings that it is folly to lay claim to it wholly. It has not been my understanding that the Church has ever attempted to reject what is Truth without or within for God’s Wisdom comes to those who seek her and she is not biased nor does she require profession or act except for humility and an open heart. Clearly we are each more conformable with our own methods and constructs but we most never close our eyes or our hearts to deeper understanding of the revelation in which we have been blessed.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve been exploring the differences for the last four years and in that time I’ve gone from thinking that there wasn’t all that much that separated us to seeing how vastly different we are from each other and lastly to the conclusion that we’re actually two utterly separate churches because some of these differences brook no compromise.

So, I don’t think there is a before Us and All That that can be looked at without examining the doctrinal differences, as an example the “theological idiom” is a case in point, perhaps we can explore our differences from here. We receive your doctrines through the prism of our theological doctrines and our theology is personal experience of God, it’s in that the members know the Church is one and undivided.

This I sincerely think is regrettable and perhaps a sign that you are using the wrong method to come to common understanding. As long as one clings to the limits of there own definitions of reality foreign descriptions continue to fail to make sense and one continues to impose ones definitions on the other. We find ourselves in conflict. neither willing to understand the vocabulary of the other in order to reach an understanding of a common framework which is used for translation. It is only at this point will both parties realize that neither definition “was” reality and thus neither possessed “reality” and thus both could finality realize that reality is not contained within their definitions but merely referenced by them. Once this is understood, both could understand their fellowship in reverence of that same “reality” referenced differently and thus brotherhood and individuality exists together without conflict.

We must at some point sacrifice the idolatry of our ideas and the election of ourselves before brotherhood and individuality can exist together without the expense of the other as humble Children of God. Without this “death of the self” I ponder wither we are all truly part of that Body of Christ which is truly in unity undivided.

May our Lord continue to count us each as part of His Kingdom. Amen.

Peace, Love and Blessings,