L
LightBound
Guest
Please cite your source or post a link from the Vatican site on this. Thank you.
- Status
L
LightBound
Guest
bump
P
proudlycatholic
Guest
The orthodox church, from a historical point of view, did have the right given by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. They felt into heressy and were excomunicated… but the line of bishops in that church comes from bishops who at some point did have that right or privilege you speak of… so, following that line of thought, the Roman church does have jurisdiction over them (after all, Jesus gave peter the keys of heaven and earth… and that includes the orthodox and any other heretics with sacraments “connecting” them to the body of Christ, the Church).The pope, bishop and religious superior can suspend any priest who is ordained by a Catholic bishop, even if the priest leaves the Church and becomes an atheist. The suspension applies to the privilege, not to the status of the person in relation to the Church. It is the Church who grants the privilege to celebrate the sacraments, not ordination. Therefore, it is the Church who can take that privilege away.
The Church cannot take away the ontological mark, because that comes from the Holy Spirit. The Church is the means through which the Spirit operates.
Since the Church does not ordain Orthodox clergy, she has no authority over the privilege. She never granted it in the first place. It was granted by another valid and apostolic Church. Only that Church can suspend the privilege.
Celebrating the sacrament without the privilege is illegal or illicit. Receiving it from someone who does not have the right to celebrate it is also illegal, if one is doing it with disregard for the authority of the Church on the matter.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
L
LightBound
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
Oops! Help me out.
That’s not the way that ecclesiology works. Every bishop is attached to his patriarch. Laws are only applicable to those under the patriarch who gives the law.
For example, our code of canon law does not apply to Eastern Catholics. It’s only for Roman Catholics. Eastern Catholics have their own code of law and their own theology. They remain in full communion with the Bishop of Rome and fully Catholic, but not bound by our laws, nor are we bound by their laws. There are overlaps.
The Bishop of Rome is our patriarch. The Eastern Churches have their own leadership and government. This is the same with the Orthodox. Patriarchs have the right to make law, to grant faculties and to restrict faculties. Unless the patriarch is in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the pope has no authority over him. For this reason each of the books of canon law have as the first canon. “These laws apply to [insert church].”
Our popes themselves acknowledge that they have no jurisdiction over the Orthodox. Today, more than ever, is this true. There is no longer an anathema against them, nor are they excommunicated. In return, they lifted the anathemas against the Roman Catholics and the excommunications.
This was by mutual agreement under the papacy of Paul VI. The Catholic Church teaches Catholics that that Orthodox are in schism, but are not shismatic or heretics. They have communion in sacris. The Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches have jointly admitted that the Great Schism was a failure of both sides, not just the East.
As part of the steps toward reconciliation, each side has agreed to let the other govern itself and has admitted that it does NOT have jurisdiction over the other.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
P
proudlycatholic
Guest
How can someone who denies that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son”, and only accepts that it proceeds “from the Father” (the Filioque. just to cite an example) be not a heretic? That is denying catolic dogma.Oops! Help me out.
This was by mutual agreement under the papacy of Paul VI. The Catholic Church teaches Catholics that that Orthodox are in schism, but are not shismatic or heretics. They have communion in sacris.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
And lets not get into Papal Infability and the Orthodox… or even purgatory.
J
JReducation
Guest
To be a heretic, one must be a Catholic. Today’s Orthodox Christians were never Catholic.
As far as the Filioque, some of the Eastern Catholic Churches also have a problem with the wording. The Holy See will often leave that line out when reciting the creed at an Eastern Divine Liturgy.
Papal infallibility was not defined until Vatican I. This does not apply to the Orthodox. Purgatory is not universally explained the same way. The Eastern Catholics explain it differently from the Latin Catholics. There is a common belief that there is a state between earth and heaven. Pope Benedict spoke about this not so long ago. He used the Eastern language instead of the traditional Latin language. He referred to purgatory as a state rather than a place. This made it a lot easier for Eastern Catholics to digest. It’s the language that they use. The language of the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics is very similar on this matter. The difference is that in Catholicism purgatory is a doctrine, but not in Orthodoxy. However, they do believe that there is a transitional state between this life and eternal life.
Back to your original question. The term “heretic” is a canonical term. It is found only in Canon Law for the Latin Church. It only applies to Latin Catholics who embrace error.
I’m not even sure what they call it in the Eastern Catholic Code of Canon Law.
But the principle is the same. The law only applies to those for whom the law was written. Neither Latin Canon Law or Eastern Canon Law was written for non Catholics or with non-Catholics in mind. The Church has never tried to govern outside of her boundaries.
This was the issue between the Apostles and the Roman Empire. The Apostles did not want to govern the Romans or the Roman religions. They wanted freedom to preach the Gospel. But nowhere in the early history of the Church do we find any attempt on the part of the Church to dictate to non-Christians. All of the Pauline and Catholic epistles, as well as the epistles of the Church Fathers are directed toward Christians, not non-Christians. Every council in Church history speaks only to Catholics, not non-Catholics. It condemns Catholic heretics as formal heretics. The Church does not condemn material heretics, because material heretics have not chosen heresy. They don’t even believe that they are in error. Most of the time, they don’t understand what we’re talking about and attack us as a result of their belief that we’re talking heresy, nor because they deliberately choose error.
Heresy is not as black and white as people on these boards want to make it. The Church has spoken about this over and over again. The most resent statement was by Pope Benedict XVI when he visited Luther’s home in Germany. He said that today’s Protestantism is no longer a rebellion, but it’s a faith tradition that is very complex and cannot be easily dismissed and dismantled by Catholics. We have to try to understand it, if we’re going to work toward Christian unity. They’re going to have to try to understand us as well. The secret is not in throwing out words and insults: heretic, schismatic, apostate, and other terms. The secret is understanding what these terms mean and when does the Church want us to use them. If we read Canon Law, we find that they are only used to speak about Latin Catholics.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
C
choliks
Guest
By this assertion you are also calling the Eastern Catholic Churches (who don’t include the filioque in their creeds) in communion with the Bishop of Rome as heretics, which is (1) improper because they are not governed by the Canon Laws of the Latin Church, and (2) their stance on the filioque is legitimate and free of error even according to the Holy Father and the Church.
P
proudlycatholic
Guest
The problem is not including it or not in the creed, its believing it or not. Latin rite Greeks do not say it in the creed and yet believe it, because its catholic dogma.
C
choliks
Guest
Latin rite Greeks? Do you mean Greeks who belong to the Latin rite or do you mean one of the sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches? If it’s the latter, I believe their spirituality and theology is essentially identical to their counterpart Eastern Orthodox Churches. So is your assertion still true?
And I think, simplistically, the issue with the Filioque is more of language than dogma.
P
proudlycatholic
Guest
Remember that regarding dogma there is only one truth. Truth does not change from one church to another. There is one truth and many wrong 'beliefs who claim to be the truth.
The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father And the Son and that is a universal truth… whether some believe its not it does not matter. It is, and that is what matters. Why? Because Christ’s only true church teaches it that way, with infability.
The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father And the Son and that is a universal truth… whether some believe its not it does not matter. It is, and that is what matters. Why? Because Christ’s only true church teaches it that way, with infability.
P
proudlycatholic
Guest
I mean Greeks who belong to the Latin rite. When the creed is said by them in Greek, they do not mention the filioque, not because they do not believe it, but rather because of a linguistic impossibility.
C
choliks
Guest
Like I said, it’s more of a language issue, though greater than what you mentioned.
J
JReducation
Guest
Let’s slow down here. There are three Christian Churches in Greece. There is the Roman Catholic Church also known as the Latin Catholic Church; the Greek Catholic Church, which is sui iuris but in full communion with the Bishop of Rome; and the Greek Orthodox Church.
The Greek Orthodox and the Greek Catholics do not use the filioque, because they find the wording of the processions problematic. The Latin Church is perfectly fine with the fact that some of the Eastern Catholic Churches do not want to use the filioque and is fine with the fact that they find the language problematic or to put it their way, theologically imprecise. This not a real problem, because the truth is that all theological language that describes the nature of God is going to be imprecise. Man does not have the necessary language tools to describe the nature of God.
What happens is that when the Divine Liturgy is celebrated in some of the other Catholic Churches, some will include the filioque and others will not. When they teach theology in their seminaries, some will teach the filioque and others will not. They are not obliged to teach it. The actual dogma is not the wording, but the processions that explain the nature of the Trinity. The issue was and is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son or from the Father and the Son. The one truth that everyone agrees with is that there is a procession, which is essential to the Trinity. The rest is still being hammered out by theologians. It will be hammered out for centuries, because the Trinity, as St. Augustine reminds us, is the unknowable mystery.
Greek Catholics are not Latin Catholics, but they are fully Catholic. Their theology is different on certain points, especially on Mary, the processions within the Trinity, the role of Peter, prayer, sacraments, ecclesiology, and mystical theology. The differences are allowed, because none of them contradict revealed truth.
This is something that St Bonaventure first put out there in his work on theology of history. Centuries later, Bl. John Henry Newman would pick up on this theme again. Then Joseph Ratzinger did so again when he wrote his doctoral dissertation. Throughout the history of the Church, we have seen the development of doctrine. Doctrine only develops when there is disagreement. In the end, one can have two different positions on one subject and both can be equally true.
The assumption that we make is that truth cannot have opposing statements. This is false. There can certainly be opposing definitions of the same truth. The truth remains the truth. The definitions can be juxtaposed and yet both be right as long as they are not denying the truth, but simply trying to explain it. It’s a case of two explanations for the same thing. Is it partly cloudy or partly sunny?
History has born this out. The best example is the theology of grace. The Dominicans hold one definition of grace. The Jesuits hold a completely different definition of grace. For a very long time they bickered over it until the pope threatened to excommunicate any Jesuit or Dominican who called the other side a heretic. So, they decided to ask the pope which definition of grace was accurate. The pope’s answer was very practical.
Neither definition denied the existence of grace. Therefore, neither was contrary to the truth. As to which better described grace, he was not going to say, because the Dominicans and the Jesuits were very powerful religious orders and both were very necessary to the Church. He was not about to set off a conflict that would affect the whole Church. He was trying too put out a fire, not add fuel to it. To this day, we have no answer from the papacy on that question.
We have lived with two working definitions of one truth. While truth does not contradict truth. It is not always easy to find the perfect wording to explain truth. Hence there will be differences that people find problematic.
J
JReducation
Guest
This takes us back to the 23 Catholic Churches. They are different in rites, history and theology. They are all equally Catholic. They are not all Roman or Latin. Only one is Latin, which is the largest of the 23. But all are governed by the Bishop of Rome and successor of Peter. He governs them according to their traditions, laws and uses their theological language when speaking to them. We Roman Catholics have no right to be condescending toward them, if they disagree with us. Nor do we have the right to tell them that they are wrong and we are right. Only the Magisterium can do that. We have to accept whatever the Magisterium accepts.
Obviously, obviously the 23 Churches have more in common than different. But we accept these differences as part of Christian tradition. Throughout the 2,000 year history of the Church, there have always been differences and some remained to this day.
Prior to the Internet, most Catholics around the globe did not know that there were other Catholics out there whose theology was different. In fact, most Roman Catholics did not know any theology outside of Aquinas.
The Internet upset our peaceful apple cart. Suddenly, we find out that only a part of the Church knows Aquinas. He is not required study for the entire Catholic Church, but only for certain sector of the Latin Church. Augustinians and Franciscans study Augustine and Bonaventure and make references to Aquinas. Everyone else studies Aquinas and makes references to Augustine and Bonaventure. The Eastern Catholics don’t study any of them. They know a little bit of their work, but most their study comes from the Eastern Fathers.
We can thank the Internet for shattering our tranquil little world where we believed that all Catholics were the same and all Catholics knew the same things and expressed truth in the same way and agreed on every detail. Now we know that this is not the case and yet, despite the fact that there are 23 Churches that make up the one Catholic Church and despite the fact that they disagree on certain points, the greatest truth is that we are still here and united. This alone should shut all of us up and make us kneel in awe of the power of love. It is only love that keeps us alive. Were we to depend on our human understanding of truth, we would have eaten each other alive a long time ago. But as St. John told his disciples on his deathbed, “Remain in His love.” As long as all of us do this, we can disagree, restate things over and over again, and add whatever words we think will help explain it better. Just “remain in His love” as you go about your discernment of truth.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Obviously, obviously the 23 Churches have more in common than different. But we accept these differences as part of Christian tradition. Throughout the 2,000 year history of the Church, there have always been differences and some remained to this day.
Prior to the Internet, most Catholics around the globe did not know that there were other Catholics out there whose theology was different. In fact, most Roman Catholics did not know any theology outside of Aquinas.
The Internet upset our peaceful apple cart. Suddenly, we find out that only a part of the Church knows Aquinas. He is not required study for the entire Catholic Church, but only for certain sector of the Latin Church. Augustinians and Franciscans study Augustine and Bonaventure and make references to Aquinas. Everyone else studies Aquinas and makes references to Augustine and Bonaventure. The Eastern Catholics don’t study any of them. They know a little bit of their work, but most their study comes from the Eastern Fathers.
We can thank the Internet for shattering our tranquil little world where we believed that all Catholics were the same and all Catholics knew the same things and expressed truth in the same way and agreed on every detail. Now we know that this is not the case and yet, despite the fact that there are 23 Churches that make up the one Catholic Church and despite the fact that they disagree on certain points, the greatest truth is that we are still here and united. This alone should shut all of us up and make us kneel in awe of the power of love. It is only love that keeps us alive. Were we to depend on our human understanding of truth, we would have eaten each other alive a long time ago. But as St. John told his disciples on his deathbed, “Remain in His love.” As long as all of us do this, we can disagree, restate things over and over again, and add whatever words we think will help explain it better. Just “remain in His love” as you go about your discernment of truth.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I just have a disagreement with the statement I bolded above good Brother. While the theology/philosophy and practices of each of the 23 traditions can be different, the doctrine and dogma cannot be different from the Roman Catholic Church.This takes us back to the 23 Catholic Churches. They are different in rites, history and theology. They are all equally Catholic. They are not all Roman or Latin. Only one is Latin, which is the largest of the 23. But all are governed by the Bishop of Rome and successor of Peter. He governs them according to their traditions, laws and uses their theological language when speaking to them. We Roman Catholics have no right to be condescending toward them, if they disagree with us. Nor do we have the right to tell them that they are wrong and we are right. Only the Magisterium can do that. We have to accept whatever the Magisterium accepts.
Obviously, obviously the 23 Churches have more in common than different. But we accept these differences as part of Christian tradition. Throughout the 2,000 year history of the Church, there have always been differences and some remained to this day.
Prior to the Internet, most Catholics around the globe did not know that there were other Catholics out there whose theology was different. In fact, most Roman Catholics did not know any theology outside of Aquinas.
The Internet upset our peaceful apple cart. Suddenly, we find out that only a part of the Church knows Aquinas. He is not required study for the entire Catholic Church, but only for certain sector of the Latin Church. Augustinians and Franciscans study Augustine and Bonaventure and make references to Aquinas. Everyone else studies Aquinas and makes references to Augustine and Bonaventure. The Eastern Catholics don’t study any of them. They know a little bit of their work, but most their study comes from the Eastern Fathers.
We can thank the Internet for shattering our tranquil little world where we believed that all Catholics were the same and all Catholics knew the same things and expressed truth in the same way and agreed on every detail. Now we know that this is not the case and yet, despite the fact that there are 23 Churches that make up the one Catholic Church and despite the fact that they disagree on certain points, the greatest truth is that we are still here and united. This alone should shut all of us up and make us kneel in awe of the power of love. It is only love that keeps us alive. Were we to depend on our human understanding of truth, we would have eaten each other alive a long time ago. But as St. John told his disciples on his deathbed, “Remain in His love.” As long as all of us do this, we can disagree, restate things over and over again, and add whatever words we think will help explain it better. Just “remain in His love” as you go about your discernment of truth.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Since doctrine and dogma by definition have been taught through the Magesterium, any faithful Catholic or non-Catholic can point out to a person in a different tradition if they are incorrect regarding any of them (and they probably have a duty to do so).
I also wanted to add a bit about the ending of your post above on LOVE. Love, by definition, is to will the good of another. What is “Good” while intuitive to some extent, is doctrinally and dogmatically defined. If one contains errors in ones faith, then that person cannot LOVE properly.
I think this point is extremely important since this is why all the Apostles, especially the likes of St. Paul, did so much work to correct erring Christians. This is also why we must actively correct any Christian or non-Christian.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
But it is worth noting here that the Church did not have a position on Grace with respect to the question asked by Thomists and Dominicans. But if the Church did have a position, then one could and should evaluate the two positions to see if any of them contain errors.
If any of them did contain errors, regardless of the political or power landscape of the church, one has to condemn the error.
So while I fully understand and also partly agree with what you are trying to say here, I think you are perhaps giving a broader level of uncertainty and leeway than that which actually exists in these matters.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Can you clarify this Br. JR? Because I’ve known quite a few councils over time that does teach error and was rejected. But it still was a council.
J
JReducation
Guest
There is nothing to clarify. This was Pope Benedict’s message to the SSPX and he said that it is not up for clarification or discussion. “A council cannot teach error; therefore, there is no error in the Council’s documents.”
I doubt very much that this high-handed statement is only for the SSPX. Everyone else can believe that a council can teach error.
If the pope says that a council cannot teach error, even if he says it in a message to the SSPX, it’s a statement that applies to anyone, who like the SSPX doubts this.
In other words, this discussion is closed.
I really can’t clarify that which I’m not even allowed to discuss with you. Obedience says that if the pope says that a council cannot teach error, he’s speaking on a matter of faith and tradition. He is superior to me in dignity and authority. He is Vicar of Christ. And he is the last word on law. If he says that this will never be discussed, that’s a law.
The only clergy and religious whom you’ll hear trying to dance around this one are dissenters. We’ve already dismissed three and suspended two who disagreed with this. No religious or clergyman can disagree with the pope when he speaks on matters of faith, morals, or Church law.
It is our duty to set the example for the laity. In other words, we don’t obey and you guys get a pass. That’s not how religious life works in the Church. Religious life is the school of perfection to which all Catholics should be able to look at to see what is the right and wrong thing to do. One can even learn from dissenter. Hopefully, one will learn not to follow their lead.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Which councils were rejected later due to errors?
- Status