Universal Jursidiction

[Fevronia]

Well yes, but to deny it! The fact is that a great doctor denies what is now a dogma to be held de fide. If only an Infallible Pontiff had got round to defining it in the first 1850 years of Christianity…

Well this is exactly why I said we need to understand how authority works (with my Orthodox friend I was discussing with before).

The teaching authority of the Church can define anything and we have to accept it as long as it does not contradict its own official teachings. The lateness of quickness is relative. 1850 years might seem long but if humanity survives 100K years, no so much. The Immaculate Conception was not defined for or against by the Church. So there was nothing impeding its definition/settlement of the issue 1850 years later.

The Doctor of the Church does not mean every piece of writing is infallible. So that is not an issue. What it does mean is that nothing said in the writings contradict the Church teaching at the time. So the person was completely faithful to the Church.

 

[LionHeart777]

Well yes, but to deny it! The fact is that a great doctor denies what is now a dogma to be held de fide. If only an Infallible Pontiff had got round to defining it in the first 1850 years of Christianity…

St. Justin Martyr, a very holy and pious Saint, had problems with his Theology too. As we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“It is, of course, to Christian revelation that Justin owes his concept of the distinct personality of the Word, His Divinity and Incarnation; but philosophic speculation is responsible for his unfortunate concepts of the temporal and voluntary generation of the Word, and for the subordinationism of Justin’s theology.”

Source: Lebreton, Jules. “St. Justin Martyr.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 20 Sept. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm.

But these Theological issues were hammered out later, and so St. Justin was faithful to the Catholic Church. Do St. Justin’s mistakes somehow falsify what was later defined? Of course not!

 

[JRKH]

Well - this thread certainly seems to have gotten well off of the “universal jurisdiction” topic…

Now it appears to be a discussion of Luther’s jurisdiction…

Peace
James

 

[KathleenGee]

Grace works through nature.

The head theologian who should have debated with Luther refused to even speak to him. There were miscommunications between Leo and Luther…and I have heard two sources now say, going back to the Great Schism with the Orthodox…considering forged documents going back here so many posts to debate with Caravadosi that…there was miscommunications as well between the Latin Church and Orthodox Churches. I heard from two sources that is the lower ranks that are perpetuating the Schism to this day.

Luther was ahead of his time proposing some aspects of Vatican II in regards to more active lay participation and better homilies, clericalism was the source of corruption in the Church, and St. Hildegard of Bingen, in the 1200’s was complaining to the local bishop and clerics about turning aspects of spiritual life as something more akin to commerce.

So if there was forgery and miscommunications in both areas of the Church, it shows today how much we have to straighten out to find common ground in the Truth of Christ to reunite. All sides must be humble.

And the papacy was defined further to be what it was because of the subsequent splintering of Christianity.

The Word of God is not meant for personal interpretation, because the spirit of men’s way of looking at things takes over from the Holy Spirit, and the flesh of man only leads to division and fragmentation, and this is not the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

For the Word of God to have life, we must adhere to the Oral Tradition given us by Christ through the Apostles. You read something, you get your own take. But if you bring it to a teacher who truly knows, you find out you are not quite correct in getting the accurate picture of something. Facing someone, being held accountable and challenged…that is what it is like for theologians sharing their reflections in obedience to the Church. Text is so vulnerable to divisive interpretations that do not give us life but separation form each other.

Having one person represent the common faith and communion of the Church helps alleviate partisanship…Christ prayed constantly that we would be one.

 

[Peter_J]

That is your hypothesis. I don’t think we can be so sure.

Maybe not sure, but pretty sure: Aquinas was very ultra-montane (and, I believe, increased the estrangement of East and West, but that’s another can of worms) so it’s highly like that he would have taken Pope Pius IX’s decree as a statement by the Church.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11219086:

Some members of the Catholic Answers Forums have requested a response as they believe your comments might be an oblique reference to one’s specific method of posting?

I’m was perhaps being too coy. From what I’ve seen, you’ve driven several Orthodox posters away in short order - a rather curious turn of events as I’ve never known Orthodox to be especially squeamish.

I appreciate their perspective, so this troubles me.

I assume you didn’t intend this outcome, my post had the intention of offering up a reasonable explanation of why your posts seem to have driven them away.

Seems a fair assessment of this tragically unanticipated outcome, especially when a witness for the Christian faith ought to be aware of 1 Peter 3:15?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11219166:

As a segue for the sake of public transparency, any posters are free to present where the sincere intentions, religious faith, or individual persons of Cavaradossi and Misplaced_Book were specifically impugned [by one’s posts]? Seems instead their responses may possibly indicate an apparent inability and/or unwillingness to consistently adhere to the rational parameters of thorough inquiry and rigorous cross-examination for their claims? And sadly without mistakenly personalizing this impartial process of critical reasoning as an unfounded ad hominem

attack?
Ok, I’ll give you one thing you could do to make yourself sound less aggressive when you’re debating/discussing online. Stop writing whole posts in the form of endless rhetorical questions. You’re not Socrates, and it can seem as if you’re unwilling to answer the questions of others except by re-taking control of the conversation and asking your own.

I enjoy reading your posts and find what you have to say interesting, but you unintentionally come across as rude and hostile.

Well Novocastrian, is it prudently reasonable to superficially accept the underlying religious premises and presuppositions for practitioners of any religious denomination? Thus, employing critical reasoning [within the context of rational analysis] provides the suitable forum to impartially determine the accuracy and/or validity of prospective claims. When one may not possess comprehensive first-hand experience and/or knowledge of another’s particular belief system, reflectively asking (rather than instinctively asserting) would seem the appropriate method and just response for those – such as myself – knowingly aware of their ignorance on a specific topic? :sad_yes:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not many, I suspect.

Jon

Then when does the Protest end?

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is the same Aquinas who would now be anathematized for explicitly denying what is now the Roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Wrong.

As a faithful son of the Church, Aquinas would have accepted the dogmatic definition with humility.

If more people behaved in like manner, we would not see large bodies of Christians remaining separated from the Church in open defiance of it.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Well - this thread certainly seems to have gotten well off of the “universal jurisdiction” topic…

Now it appears to be a discussion of Luther’s jurisdiction…

Peace
James

Indeed. I stepped away for a bit and it has definitely mutated.

I would like to offer an apology to Sanctus. While I did find your previous tone off putting, I could have engaged you further and perhaps worked out the issue. I ask your forgiveness.

Randy, I see you changed your previous signature speaking of charity to one that offers a backhand to the face to those who may have honest disagreements.

“If more people behaved in like manner, we would not see large bodies of Christians remaining separated from the Church in open defiance of it.”

Indeed. If Old Rome had kept faith with its brother Bishops, and had not decided that it was Master of the Church rather than an arbiter, the honorable chair of the Catholic Church. I am sorry that wasn’t good enough for them, and Schism resulted. That isn’t your fault, or mine.

In regards to Lutheranism, we don’t have a dog in that fight. The Lutherans tried to engage us and perhaps come into Communion, but we had to gently tell them that while we appreciated their letters, it wouldn’t work out.

To us, Protestantism is the flip side of Roman Catholicism…it is one coin…heads-The Pope…tails-Martin Luther. The Russian Orthodox writer Alexei Khomiakov wrote that the Pope was the first Protestant and the Father of German Rationalism.

 

[JRKH]

…

To us, Protestantism is the flip side of Roman Catholicism…it is one coin…heads-The Pope…tails-Martin Luther. The Russian Orthodox writer Alexei Khomiakov wrote that the Pope was the first Protestant and the Father of German Rationalism.

Interesting…

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

JRKH;11222570:

Well - this thread certainly seems to have gotten well off of the “universal jurisdiction” topic…

Now it appears to be a discussion of Luther’s jurisdiction…

Peace
James

Indeed. I stepped away for a bit and it has definitely mutated.

Yes, indeed indeed. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s also a discussion of “Infallibility of Martin Luther” somewhere in this thread – not that Lutherans actually teach such a thing of course, but non-Lutherans often speak as if Lutherans teach such a thing. (Which is interesting from a Catholic pov, since non-Catholics often think/assume that our teaching on Papal Infallibility is that anything the Pope says about faith and morals is infallible, when in fact infallible statements are extremely rare.)

In regards to Lutheranism, we don’t have a dog in that fight.

Not to be argumentative, but I would say that Orthodoxy is your “dog in the fight”.

 

[JonNC]

Then when does the Protest end?

As you would suspect, Randy, I wouldn’t phrase it as a protest, but would consider it another misconception of the term.
That said, it may turn out to be different things for different people. Luther said that Justification is the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls, and it really was the foundational issue of the Lutheran Reformation, the 95 Theses notwithstanding.

The last 60 years has seen significant movement in mutual understanding on Justification, even for LCMS Lutherans who have yet to sign on to the JDDJ. I would still contend that the singular issue will eventually revolve around the primacy of the pope, and what that really means for the universal Church Militant.

Jon

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Yes, indeed indeed. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s also a discussion of “Infallibility of Martin Luther” somewhere in this thread – not that Lutherans actually teach such a thing of course, but non-Lutherans often speak as if Lutherans teach such a thing. (Which is interesting from a Catholic pov, since non-Catholics often think/assume that our teaching on Papal Infallibility is that anything the Pope says about faith and morals is infallible, when in fact infallible statements are extremely rare.)

Not to be argumentative, but I would say that Orthodoxy is your “dog in the fight”.

I don’t take that as a hostile post at all. I should have been specific that the original conflict between Martin Luther and Old Rome did not concern us. Obviously now we are very much interested in all the various Christian dialogues going on out there.

 

[Peter_J]

As you would suspect, Randy, I wouldn’t phrase it as a protest, but would consider it another misconception of the term.

Here, too, Fr. Hart would disagree with you, FWIW.
“Pro and Con testantism”
(I say “FWIW” b/c I sometimes feels like his view are too far off the beaten-path to make much of a difference. )

Edit: Well, in a way he would agree with you. Y’know what I mean.

 

[JonNC]

Here, too, Fr. Hart would disagree with you, FWIW.
“Pro and Con testantism”
(I say “FWIW” b/c I sometimes feels like his view are too far off the beaten-path to make much of a difference. )

Edit: Well, in a way he would agree with you. Y’know what I mean.

I do know what you mean. Very interesting read.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

Here, too, Fr. Hart would disagree with you, FWIW.
“Pro and Con testantism”
(I say “FWIW” b/c I sometimes feels like his view are too far off the beaten-path to make much of a difference. )

Edit: Well, in a way he would agree with you. Y’know what I mean.

I do know what you mean. Very interesting read.

Jon

I agree that was an interesting read.

Of course when he was describing how “pro” means for something and “con” means against something I couldn’t help but think of the old joke…
If “Progress” means moving forward, what does “Congress” mean? :shrug:

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

If “Progress” means moving forward, what does “Congress” mean? :shrug:

I think I’ve heard that one too.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, I see you changed your previous signature speaking of charity to one that offers a backhand to the face to those who may have honest disagreements.

You’re new here.

Stick around and you’ll see that I change my signature often based on thoughts I have and things I read.

I keep about two dozen or so signatures on file and add to them frequently rotating to match my mood and the audience.

 

[Peter_J]

You’re new here.

Stick around and you’ll see that I change my signature often based on thoughts I have and things I read.

I keep about two dozen or so signatures on file and add to them frequently rotating to match my mood and the audience.

I also try to encourage people to read my signature … experience indicates that such efforts are moderately successful.