Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

[sidbrown]

St. Paul elevates brotherhood above slavery elsewhere (Philemon). St. Paul is working with the conditions of his time. He shows the proper relationship that ought to exist between master and slave, but he points to something better. .

And the teaching on artificial birth control? It has developed has it not?
And as far as slavery goes, it was accepted that slaves should be subject to their masters, which is not the teaching today.
So there is development of teaching in the Orthodox Church.
And BTW, I attended DL recently in an Orthodox Church in our area and I did not see more than one or two ladies with their heads covered.

 

[Vico]

No, I do not see things that way. In the first place, it seems to me that once you have admitted, even in a limited situation, the theological principle of development of doctrine, then it seems to me that it is unwarranted to call this principle a bogus concept. Further, as to when and where this theological principle should be applied might very well come under the category of a prudential decision which, being subject to theological opinion and discussion pro or con, would also not be something that I would consider to be bogus. …

This might be helpful. There is a high degree of certainty, but not infallibly so, by the Church, that material revelations ended with Christ and the Apostles. But formal dogmas go through stages of development (condenced from Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma):

1. implicit belief
2. material dogmas made into formal dogmas
3. formulation of concepts
4. explainations, decisions, and condemnations are issued
5. progress in the confession of faith may then occur

"As against Modernism, the Catholic Church stresses that dogma according to its content is of truly Divine origin, that is, it is the expression of an objective truth, and its content is immutable. "

Then he lists six levels of certainty of a dogma, and only the top two, immediately revealed truths and decisions (de fide definita, fides ecclesiastica) are infallably certain.

From my study of this book, there are 250 de fide dogmas.

 

[sidbrown]

From my study of this book, there are 250 de fide dogmas.

Are they listed and available on the net?

 

[Vico]

Are they listed and available on the net?

This is the introduction:
trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm

Here is one simple list that just shows de fide (about 250).
theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

This has all 426 of them:
catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/councils/summary.htm

 

[Ghosty]

It’s important to remember that Ludwig Ott’s work carries absolutely no official weight. It is the private work of a scholar, not a magisterial work in any sense.

Peace and God bless!

 

[sidbrown]

It’s important to remember that Ludwig Ott’s work carries absolutely no official weight. It is the private work of a scholar, not a magisterial work in any sense.

Peace and God bless!

It carries no official weight at all? That is surprising. BTW, do your opinions carry any official wight?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It carries no official weight at all? That is surprising. BTW, do your opinions carry any official wight?

There was no call for this response to a fact.

Ott is a theologian and his book is not a Magisterial work. He may be 100% in his opinion as to what is a de fide and what is not, but they are his opinion unless backed up by Magisterial documentation.

I see two errors just looking at the page that is said to contain only the de fides, the second link.

First error talks about Mary being conceived without the Stain of Original Sin.
Second, and a greater, error is on the Sacrament of Confirmation, it states that the bishop is the only Ordinary Minister, that is only true in the Latin Church, in the Byzantine rite the Priest is the Ordinary Minister of Chrismation (Confirmation).

And that was from a quick scan.

 

[Vico]

There was no call for this response to a fact.

Ott is a theologian and his book is not a Magisterial work. He may be 100% in his opinion as to what is a de fide and what is not, but they are his opinion unless backed up by Magisterial documentation.

I see two errors just looking at the page that is said to contain only the de fides, the second link.

First error talks about Mary being conceived without the Stain of Original Sin.
Second, and a greater, error is on the Sacrament of Confirmation, it states that the bishop is the only Ordinary Minister, that is only true in the Latin Church, in the Byzantine rite the Priest is the Ordinary Minister of Chrismation (Confirmation).

And that was from a quick scan.

Immaculate Conception is dogma declared ex cathedra, so infallable, in 1854 by Pope Pius IX: Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.

The link with the bishop is maintained with the chrism. CCEO was not written yet when Ott wrote.

CCEO Canon 693
Holy myron, which is made from the oil of olives or other plants and from aromatics, is confected only by a bishop, with due regard for particular law which reserves this power to the patriarch.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Immaculate Conception is dogma declared ex cathedra, so infallable, in 1854 by Pope Pius IX: Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.

Can you show where the Declaration by Pope Pius IX actually uses the word stain?

The link with the bishop is maintained with the chrism. CCEO was not written yet when Ott wrote.

CCEO Canon 693
Holy myron, which is made from the oil of olives or other plants and from aromatics, is confected only by a bishop, with due regard for particular law which reserves this power to the patriarch.

From the CCEO

Canon 694
According to the tradition of the Eastern Churches, chrismation with holy myron is administered by a presbyter either in conjunction with baptism or separately.

The ordinary for Confirmation in the Eastern Churches is the priest, the link provided has Ott saying that the only Ordinary Minister for Confirmation is the Bishop. Ott is wrong. A de fide can not change.

 

[Vico]

Can you show where the Declaration by Pope Pius IX actually uses the word stain?

From the CCEO

Canon 694
According to the tradition of the Eastern Churches, chrismation with holy myron is administered by a presbyter either in conjunction with baptism or separately.

The ordinary for Confirmation in the Eastern Churches is the priest, the link provided has Ott saying that the only Ordinary Minister for Confirmation is the Bishop. Ott is wrong. A de fide can not change.

Dogma of Immaculate Conception from Bull Ineffabilis Deus:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

Ott is referring to the actual canon from Trent.

Council of Trent, Session VII, CANON III. — “If any one saith, that the ordinary minister of holy confirmation is not the bishop alone, but any simple priest soever; let him be anathema.”

Council of Florence states that a priest may administer the sacrament of confirmation by chrism consecrated by the bishop under certain circumstances. What came first? Council of Florence 1432, Council of Trent 1545 and then Union of Brest 1595, Ludwig Ott’s book 1952, CCEO 1990. When the CCEO was written, they choose to say presbyter not bishop, but the chrism had to be consecrated by the bishop, just as allowed by Council of Florence.

 

[Ignatius]

Why Catholic? St. Peter has the Keys of The Kingdom of Heaven given him by Jesus Christ.

 

[Ghosty]

It carries no official weight at all? That is surprising. BTW, do your opinions carry any official wight?

My opinions, from a magisterial perspective, carry just as much weight as Ott’s.

Vico: The canon from Trent is disciplinary, not a matter of Faith. If you want to contend that it is a matter of Faith, as Ludwig Ott seems to do, then you must admit that the Catholic Church not only has broken with the Faith, but has never upheld the Faith, since the priest has always been allowed as the minister of Confirmation in the East.

This was true even in Ott’s time, so he shows some unfamiliarity with the Catholic teachings.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Hesychios]

… he shows some unfamiliarity with the Catholic teachings.

Peace and God bless!

I remember reading a critique on Ott which stated the English translation had some problems in comparison to the original.

To know just how accurate he personally was, it seems one would need to study his original text in German.

 

[Ghosty]

I remember reading a critique on Ott which stated the English translation had some problems in comparison to the original.

To know just how accurate he personally was, it seems one would need to study his original text in German.

You may very well be right. That being said, this particular passage doesn’t seem like it would be a problem for translation, given that he’s simply citing Trent. The problem is that he’s citing it and saying it’s a “de fide” teaching, which it obviously isn’t.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

My opinions, from a magisterial perspective, carry just as much weight as Ott’s.

Vico: The canon from Trent is disciplinary, not a matter of Faith. If you want to contend that it is a matter of Faith, as Ludwig Ott seems to do, then you must admit that the Catholic Church not only has broken with the Faith, but has never upheld the Faith, since the priest has always been allowed as the minister of Confirmation in the East.

This was true even in Ott’s time, so he shows some unfamiliarity with the Catholic teachings.

Peace and God bless!

I’m not contending anything about faith. Also I am aware that there are many translation errors in the Ott book, plus there is no Ludwig Ott commentary posted here, from the book, only the summary line. I cannot see how you can draw any conclusion about what Ott knew or did not know without more information. We know what the canons today look like, east and west. Confirmation or chrismation is an interesting subject.

Luther allowed confirming by priest, with oil not blessed by a bishop. The priest has been allowed as the minister of Confirmation in the west as well, as indicated at Florence, which I noted.

And there were disputes over letting the priest confirm, in the western Church. In the third to sixth century confirmation was not standardized, and I believe it was discontinued in the west, from the sixth to thirteenth centuries.

So you know that in the west confirmation was given immediately after baptism, by the bishop unless dispensed, only then by a priest and with bishop consecrated oil. But in the east, the priest baptised and chrismated, with the holy oil consecrated by the bishop. In both, the authority is of the bishop through consecration of the oil.

 

[Ghosty]

So you know that in the west confirmation was given immediately after baptism, by the bishop unless dispensed, only then by a priest and with bishop consecrated oil. But in the east, the priest baptised and chrismated, with the holy oil consecrated by the bishop. In both, the authority is of the bishop through consecration of the oil.

This I agree with, and it’s an important counter to a strict reading of Ott. At any rate, we as Catholics can’t in any way say that the priest is not an Ordinary minister of Confirmation; the link to the Bishop is of course true in both East and West, whether through the sanctification of the Holy Chrism or by the priest acting under the authority of the Bishop (which is true for all Sacraments, really).

I still contend that even this link can’t be considered a “de fide” doctrine, and certainly the strict understanding of Trent/Ott that the priest is not an ordinary minister of Confirmation is inappropriate and ahistorical.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Madaglan]

And the teaching on artificial birth control? It has developed has it not?
And as far as slavery goes, it was accepted that slaves should be subject to their masters, which is not the teaching today.
So there is development of teaching in the Orthodox Church.
And BTW, I attended DL recently in an Orthodox Church in our area and I did not see more than one or two ladies with their heads covered.

Artificial birth control itself is a relatively new development.

The teaching against abortion and methods that induce abortion is the same.

Neither the Catholic nor Orthodox Church has retracted St. Paul’s words that slaves should be subject to their masters. Neither has said that slaves should not be subject to their masters. (Christianity is not about fomenting revolution.) The New Testament itself describes us as spiritual slaves of Christ, and that holds true today. .

 

[Vico]

This I agree with, and it’s an important counter to a strict reading of Ott. At any rate, we as Catholics can’t in any way say that the priest is not an Ordinary minister of Confirmation; the link to the Bishop is of course true in both East and West, whether through the sanctification of the Holy Chrism or by the priest acting under the authority of the Bishop (which is true for all Sacraments, really).

I still contend that even this link can’t be considered a “de fide” doctrine, and certainly the strict understanding of Trent/Ott that the priest is not an ordinary minister of Confirmation is inappropriate and ahistorical.

Peace and God bless!

Ludwig Ott wrote prior to Vatican II and did accurately convey what was issued at Trent. However, at Vatican II (1964) which summarized the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church in Lumen Gentium, the dogma it is worded differently to cover the Eastern Churches. Lumen Gentium, referring to the Bishops, states the dogma as:
“They are the original ministers of confirmation …”
According to “New commentary on the Code of Canon Law” By John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, p. 1087, on Canon 882 (Latin Code 1983):
Vatican II’s reference to the bishop as the “primary” or “original” minister of the sacrament was a more historically acurate term than “ordinary minister.” “Original minister” respected the tradition of the Eastern churches where the bishop could hardly be called the “ordinary” minister, since presbyters were and are the ordinary ministers of confirmation.

 

[sidbrown]

Neither the Catholic nor Orthodox Church has retracted St. Paul’s words that slaves should be subject to their masters. Neither has said that slaves should not be subject to their masters. (Christianity is not about fomenting revolution.) .

I don’t agree. We read today about young women from Africa and elsewhere being taken into slavery today. I don;t think that it is wrong for these women to refuse to submit to their slavemasters.

 

[Madaglan]

I don’t agree. We read today about young women from Africa and elsewhere being taken into slavery today. I don;t think that it is wrong for these women to refuse to submit to their slavemasters.

You mean sex slavery?