OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 29, 2014, 02:38:39 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: First among equals  (Read 7667 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« on: December 02, 2003, 01:42:10 PM »

I'm overextending myself by trying to sum up the EOx position on this, but here's trying...

The EOx Church teaches that the Holy Father is the successor of Peter, and therefore has a primacy of honor. Please correct any of this if I don't get it right!

EOxy also teaches that outside the EOx Church, sacraments don't mean anything, or they are not grace-filled, or is it an open question?

My question is, how can the Holy Father have a primacy of honor, if he is not in fact a primate? How can the Holy Father be first among equals if the Roman Church is schismatic, heretical, and lacking in grace?
Logged
Karamazov
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2003, 01:56:16 PM »

I'm overextending myself by trying to sum up the EOx position on this, but here's trying...

The EOx Church teaches that the Holy Father is the successor of Peter, and therefore has a primacy of honor. Please correct any of this if I don't get it right!

EOxy also teaches that outside the EOx Church, sacraments don't mean anything, or they are not grace-filled, or is it an open question?

My question is, how can the Holy Father have a primacy of honor, if he is not in fact a primate? How can the Holy Father be first among equals if the Roman Church is schismatic, heretical, and lacking in grace?

Good questions!

Comment 1:  To which "Holy Father" do you refer?  I assume you mean the Pope of Rome.  I also like to qualify myself when speaking of THAT Pope, because he does not exclusively hold the title of "Pope."

Comment 2:  The Pope of Rome held a primacy of honour when the western church was still "orthodox."  Presently, in the Eastern Orthodox world, primacy of honour is held by the Ecumenical Patriarch (Patriarch of Constantinople).

Hope this answers your question. Smiley
Logged
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2003, 01:57:14 PM »

I think of it in terms of the church prior to 1054.  At that time, the Church was unified and the pope was considered to be in such a position.  EOx would reinstate such a title if union were restored.

At this point in time, there is a schism, and as the head of a schismatic church it would be irregular to call the current pope as such.  But the current Ecumenical Patriarch has done and said things to surprise the Orthodox Churches and may have called the current pope as "first among equals." Even if this were the case, the actions and words of the Patriarch of Constantinolple are not the final authority.  That authority rests with the Scriptures, the Ecumenical Councils, the canons of the church, and a synod of bishops.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2003, 02:28:34 PM »

Thanks,

This answers my question.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2003, 07:48:09 PM »



Quote
EOxy also teaches that outside the EOx Church, sacraments don't mean anything, or they are not grace-filled, or is it an open question?

I have only heard this from ROAC priests. To my limited knowledge the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox sacraments as valid. If the EOC did believe that all sacraments outside of the EOC are null and mean nothing then, like the ROAC, Orthodox priests would baptize converts to the Orthodox faith. However this does not happen. Roman Catholics who enter the EOC need only be chrismated and of course go to confession. Maybe I am misreading your post but I am so sick of ROAC's NO GRACE OUTSIDE OF ORTHODOXY, that I am quite frustrated with the whole issue.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2003, 07:55:34 PM »

I hope so, if not then all the EO priests I have met with have been wrong in saying the RCC sacraments are valid and that I only need to be recieved into the Church by chrismation.

I'm just fed up with this ROAC invention that NO grace exsists outside of Orthodoxy! Oy!
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2003, 08:28:58 PM »

BEN: quite right.  Orthodoxy does not hold a monopoly on grace - MY church does Grin
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2003, 11:04:24 PM »

Ben,

I have only a few minutes to make this reply, so I will have to be brief (or very quick!) Smiley

Quote
I have only heard this from ROAC priests. To my limited knowledge the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox sacraments as valid. If the EOC did believe that all sacraments outside of the EOC are null and mean nothing then, like the ROAC, Orthodox priests would baptize converts to the Orthodox faith. However this does not happen. Roman Catholics who enter the EOC need only be chrismated and of course go to confession. Maybe I am misreading your post but I am so sick of ROAC's NO GRACE OUTSIDE OF ORTHODOXY, that I am quite frustrated with the whole issue.

What you are refering to (receiving converts from heterhedox groups without performing water Baptism) is known as "sacramental economy."

What this means, is that because the form of the sacrament was present when the person was "baptized" in their former religion, it does not absolutely have to be repeated - the Church (if She really feels this is a worthy thing to do) can receive such persons by other means (typically, renunication of error/confession, Chrismation, Holy Communion).

Unfortunately this legit practice (more common in Russian tradition; the Greeks have gone back and forth with this, historically - in the ancient west it was all but the absolute norm) is sorely misunderstood in our times.  That you've been given the impression (by someone, obviously) that it is tantamount to a recognition of heterodox sacraments, is unfortunate, and most assuredly, incorrect.

For example, though someone with the proper form of baptism can be received via "economy", he could just as rightly (depending on pastoral considerations) be put through the full Christian initiation and be Baptized in water.  However, materially, what is going on in either case is the same - what was lifeless (case of heterodox convert being received by economy: themselves and their former "baptism"... in the case of a heterodox convert or pagan being received by "exactitude": themselves) is being given life, what was unregenerate is being reborn.  Only the Spouse of Christ, His Very Body, the Church, can give this.  "You cannot have God for a Father, if you do not have the Church for a Mother" St.Cyprian taught - and this is because the Church alone can birth you, just as a mother does, into the life of grace.

It is precisely because sacramental economy is misunderstood in our age, that many Orthodox (not simply the "ROAC" people you have an axe to grind with, for whatever reason) bodies now only receive converts via "exactitude."  This is not simply the so called "schismatic" groups people in this forum generally like to use for a pi+¦ata (ROAC, Greek Old Calendarists, etc.); the ROCOR (which due to it's change in ecclessiology and firmness on certain subjects, is now considered "on the level" by practically everyone here...it wasn't always this way, even in recent memory), the Jerusalem Patriarchate, and in general, the monasteries on Mt.Athos will not practice this type of "economy" of the same reasons.

Though this is only a few of the many references that could be supplied on this subject, here are a few...

Canon XLVI. - We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?

Canon XLVII. - Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize again one who has rightly received baptism, or who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the ungodly, be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not making a distinction between the true priests and the false.
(Apostolic Canons)

But what a thing it is, to assert and contend that they who are not born in the Church can be the sons of God! For the blessed apostle sets forth and proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies and the new man is born, saying, 'He saved us by the washing of regeneration.' But if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in baptism, how can heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, generate sons to God by Christ?"  (St Cyprian of Carthage (200 AD), "The Epistles of Cyprian," Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, pg. 388)

The ancients, viz. Cyprian and Fermilian, put these, and the Encratites, and Hydroparastatae, and Apotactites, under the same condemnation; because they have no longer the communication of the Holy Ghost, who have broken the succession. They who first made the departure had the spiritual gift; but by being schismatics, they became laymen; and therefore they ordered those that were baptized by them, and came over to the Church, to be purged by the true baptism, as those that are baptized by laymen. (from the First Canon of St.Basil)

It is generally noticed that the earlier practice, was to always baptize those coming over from heresy - generally Chrismation was only reserved for those who had at one time been Orthodox, apostacized, and then returned to the Church (yes, unlike the Roman Catholics, Orthodox believe that Chrismation/Confirmation can/must sometimes be "repeated") - this then, is exactitude.  The other, more lenient practice (and only admitted towards certain types of heretics) is just that - economy, a leniency against the rule, admitted for some perceived benefit on the part of the pastors of soul.  It's legit of itself, but as I've said previously (in our day) often misunderstood (or worse yet, outright misrepresented by "Orthodox" ecumenists.)

Seraphim
Logged

Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2003, 11:20:22 PM »

Jesus Christ commanded his Apostles to baptize in the name of the blessed trinity. And I do not see why if this is done why one must be baptized a second time upon entering Orthodoxy. I asked Bishop Gregory this at Dormition Skete and his answer was simply that baptism outside of Orthodoxy is just a bath, there is no grace. This is not only contrary to the teaching of the Orthodox Church but also contrary to history. Do you dare say all of those converts to Orthodoxy from Catholicism or Protestantism and who were only chrismated weren't really Orthodox?! And unworthingly took part in the sacred mysteries!? This I can not believe. I can not believe this radical version of Orthodoxy that teaches God's grace does not exsist outside of Orthodoxy, therfore anything and everything outside of Orthodoxy is null and void of the power of God. This is the teaching of ROAC, and a teaching that is not held by the Orthodox Church and the majority of Church fathers.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2003, 11:21:01 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2003, 11:23:50 PM »

Wow if all converts to Orthodoxy must be baptized then all my local Orthodox priests are all really clueless!
« Last Edit: December 02, 2003, 11:25:50 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2003, 05:29:17 AM »

We know that the sacraments in the Orthodox church have grace. Outside the church? let's just say we can't put limits on what God can and can't do.

Other than that, Seraphim Reeves is quite correct in what he posted. When we say the sacraments of other churches are valid, we are only talking about the form of the sacrament. If we believed that heteradox sacraments were filled with grace then there would be no need for chrismation would there.

Some are received by chrismation (which fills the empty heteradox sacrament with grace) and some are received by baptism. It is the perogative of the bishop to decide which form is to be used.

John.
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2003, 11:05:50 AM »

I'm wondering how aware you guys are of how much you sound like the RCC in this.  The same RCC that said: There is no salvation without submission to the pope.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2003, 11:12:04 AM »

Quote
I'm wondering how aware you guys are of how much you sound like the RCC in this.  The same RCC that said: There is no salvation without submission to the pope.

This is kind of putting it crudely.
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2003, 11:20:45 AM »

caffeinator: I just don't get the whole notion of:  your sacraments are only valid if you are in submission to this or that earthly authority.  It's all to Monarchial.  The only King I have is Jesus Smiley
« Last Edit: December 03, 2003, 11:21:18 AM by Br. Max, OFC » Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2003, 11:35:13 AM »

Not only is it crudely put, it's erroneous.
Logged
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2003, 11:45:56 AM »

Ben,

I thought you were the "Ben" I was thinking of ("VeryConfusedBen"), but wasn't sure.  It appears that you are. Smiley

Quote
Jesus Christ commanded his Apostles to baptize in the name of the blessed trinity. And I do not see why if this is done why one must be baptized a second time upon entering Orthodoxy.

Yes, that is what He instructed - and of itself (without consideration of the interior, and what is ultimatly the important part of Baptism) is the "exterior part" or "rite" of Orthodox Baptism.

The reason why this was repeated almost universally in early times (and at varying times in the Church's history) is because of the truth I underlined with just a few canonical/patristic considerations; because those who are aliens to the Church (and not members of Christ) cannot give, what they do not have (they cannot integrate someone into Christ's Body, when they themselves are not members of Him.)

Either way, whether the rite of water Baptism is "repeated" or not, is materially non-sequitor in one sense - since receiving converts by economy (say, by profession and Chrismation) has the same effect as receiving one with the "full rite" - they are receiving the "re-birth from above".  No one is "born again" at the hands of heretical ministers.

Quote
I asked Bishop Gregory this at Dormition Skete and his answer was simply that baptism outside of Orthodoxy is just a bath, there is no grace. This is not only contrary to the teaching of the Orthodox Church but also contrary to history.

I will simply assume you're speaking from ignorance/misunderstanding, since this is absolutely false.  What "history" are you basing your opinion here on?

Interestingly enough, even the Latins for many centuries after the schism, had what was almost the same understanding of this issue as the Orthodox do.  The only thing that differed, is that the scholastics had firmly devloped the concept of the "sacramental character".  For example in the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas would say that schismatic Masses were "valid" as would be their other sacraments (as long as form, matter, and intent were satisified), but that they were of no profit to the schimatics trying to avail themselves of them - thus, there was no grace infused/communicated by them to heretics.

Thus, the only thing which differentiates the genuine Orthodox view on this subject from the old medieval RC one, is that the Orthodox do not have this same idea of "sacramental character", which to an extent I do not even think makes sense (if the sacramental rite  cannot give remission of sins when utilized by those separated from the Church, why would it even leave a "mark" when so utilized?).

Quote
Do you dare say all of those converts to Orthodoxy from Catholicism or Protestantism and who were only chrismated weren't really Orthodox?!

I'm thinking I either wasn't making myself clear, or you're not reading what I'm writing.

I've explicitly said that reception of converts by economy is most certainly possible - it's what you're being told by some unhappy souls about the presence of grace in heterodox mysteries (and the bad conclusions that are being drawn from the practice of economic reception of converts) that I'm challenging.

Quote
And unworthingly took part in the sacred mysteries!? This I can not believe.

And I'm not asking you.  The problem here is not what I'm supposedly asking you to believe, but your seeming unwillingness to make a clean break with heterodoxy, and embrace Orthodox Christianity as it is.

Quote
I can not believe this radical version of Orthodoxy that teaches God's grace does not exsist outside of Orthodoxy, therfore anything and everything outside of Orthodoxy is null and void of the power of God. This is the teaching of ROAC, and a teaching that is not held by the Orthodox Church and the majority of Church fathers.

Forgive me if I doubt that you've read many of the Fathers on this subject.  If I'm mistaken, then please provide me the witness to their acceptance of the presence of genuine Holy Mysteries outside of the Church of Christ...since I am painfully unaware of such a witness, but only that witness which is vehemently opposed to such an idea.

As an aside, I'm think you may be misunderstanding what is meant by "graceless" here.

Strictly speaking, all things (and not simply souls, as the Latin concept of grace has come to understand things - sanctifying grace being a created relationship between God and the soul, a static state, which really only pertains to salvation as the Latins have come to understand it) are the object of God's grace.  The word "grace"  found in the original Greek of the New Testament (charis) refers to "that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness, charm, loveliness: grace of speech" and "good will, loving-kindness, favour".  Thus, in the broadest sense, this is extended to all creation (and by default, all mankind.)  By His grace, God sustains the universe, and each creature in it - by His grace, He shows kindness to His creatures, and to His rational sheep, offers help to come towards Him in so far as they are open to co-operating.

However, there is also a "grace" which excells beyond these things, and this is what we mean in this discussion - this is the grace which could be said to work "interiorly" rather than "exteriorly" - the difference between the man who is being led towards water, as opposed to the one who has a spring of such waters eminating from within.  The difference between being a servant and creature, and a temple/dwelling place for God, a son of God, who is being assimilated to the glory of his Father, assimilated to the "likeness" of God (as opposed to the "image of God" which all men have, due to their being created as rational souls.)

This re-creation/re-birth, theosis (aka. "divinization"), is only possible in the Church of Christ, for She is His Body.

Christ is the Sacrament of God to the world for it's salvation - the Church is also this same Sacrament, for She is His Body.  Hence, we can say the Church is God's Sacrament/Mystery of salvation.  All other diverse/particular "sacraments" (which are often numbered chiefly as seven, though strictly speaking there are actually far more than "seven" sacraments in the Church) are but parts/facets of this single Holy Mystery...they are the particular acts of the Saviour, re-creating mankind.

Thus, while some (or even many) of the God-given dogmas of the Church can be mirrored elsewhere (even in pagan religions, either because of the primitive religion of mankind's earliest ancestors surviving in a corrupted form in these paths), and even the outward forms and customs of the Church can be mirrored elsewhere, the content cannot be - for if it were, then we wouldn't really be talking about "another church" would we, but once again, the Church of Christ.  This is the "oness" of the Church - and why She is in truth, indivisable (for ultimatly Her truths and mysteries, are but a participation in the the single Truth, the single Mystery, which is Christ.)

It is this grace, the communication of the Holy Spirit, which exists solely in the Church - and this is why those who will be saved, are drawn to Her.

Seraphim
Logged

Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2003, 11:54:02 AM »

Not only is it crudely put, it's erroneous.

what did I say in error?
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2003, 11:59:35 AM »

John,

Quote
We know that the sacraments in the Orthodox church have grace. Outside the church? let's just say we can't put limits on what God can and can't do.

I'm willing to conceed there is a sense in which this is agreeable (for God certainly can do as He pleases), I think the statement you offer here (particularly in our current climate, as over run as it is by abjecting heretical ecclessiologies) is more misleading than valuable.  I say this for the following reasons...

- we are told quite explicitly there is "no salvation outside of the Church", both by the Holy Fathers and in the Scriptures.

- the Canons of the Church which do touch on this topic, and the Fathers who discuss it, are quite unambiguous in saying that heresies/schisms are not part of the Church, and do not have the "communication of the Holy Spirit" as St.Basil puts it.

- then we have the practice of the Church in varying times and places, which undoubtedly allows/requires the reception of heterodox converts, even those who have the proper "form" of baptism/chrismation, to be received into the Church by Baptism/Chrismation (what is perjoritively called "re-baptism", which I know you understand is not the correct way of speaking of it.)

My point?  This is our operative knowledge.  This is what God has revealed, and this is what the conscience of the Church has always had to contend with.  As such, while I will whole-heartedly agree that God can do "what He likes, when He likes", it is extremely presumptuous to say "these non-Orthodox have grace", and in fact entirely appropriate to regard them as not having such, and receiving them as such (since this is what underlies both the Church's rationale for "economic" and "exact" receptions of converts from heterodoxy.)  This is our "operative knowledge"; so how dare we beat around the bush about it, or entertain vain speculations which serve no good end whatsoever?

If anything, such waffling only does two things - it goes beyond what has been given to any man to know, and it most certainly does feed an entirely false view of all that exists outside of the Church (ex. "branch theory ecclessiology.")

This heresy (ecumenism) has done tremendous harm - not only to what could at one time have been called the "traditionally Orthodox peoples", but also to those who either as nations or individuals are aliens to the Church.  According to the Fathers, we are not even to call a heretic "brother" - for, they are not, at least not in the sense that those within the Church are brethren.

In short...why presume?  Particularly when the letter and spirit of what has been made manifest to the Church, is so incredibly contrary to such idle speculation?

Seraphim
Logged

The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2003, 12:15:45 PM »

Quote
what did I say in error?

Catholicism does not teach that a sacraments validity is contingent upon submission to the Pope. The RCC recognizes almost all protestant baptisms, marriages, and all EOx sacraments as well.
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2003, 12:29:28 PM »

I said of rome:
Quote
The same RCC that said: There is no salvation without submission to the pope.
only after you said this was crudely put did I expound by saying
Quote
I just don't get the whole notion of:  your sacraments are only valid if you are in submission to this or that earthly authority.  It's all to Monarchial.

Now, do you deny that Rome teaches that when a bishop breaks communion with Rome that bishop no longer has the ability to function as a bishop?  This would make any consecrations he makes in holy orders invalid and thus the Eucharist for said persons also invalid.  Rome also teaches that schism is a heresy and heretics cannot impart valid sacraments.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2003, 12:44:18 PM »

Quote
The same RCC that said: There is no salvation without submission to the pope.  
 
only after you said this was crudely put did I expound by saying


Okay, the Traditional Catholic teaching is "Outside the Church, there is no salvation." IINM, it counts the baptized as "inside the Church," and that includes protestant and Orthodox Baptisms.

It does not teach that Christians acting in good conscience without formal union with Rome, are doomed.

Quote
Now, do you deny that Rome teaches that when a bishop breaks communion with Rome that bishop no longer has the ability to function as a bishop?  This would make any consecrations he makes in holy orders invalid and thus the Eucharist for said persons also invalid.  Rome also teaches that schism is a heresy and heretics cannot impart valid sacraments.  


As to the bit above, it is not always so, although (admittedly) I do not understand. Nevertheless, the Schism between east and west appears to be an exception to your thesis, because Rome undoubtedly acknowledges EOx sacraments. I think your thesis applies more to vagante bishops, or rogue bishops.

Quote
Rome also teaches that schism is a heresy and heretics cannot impart valid sacraments.


IIRC, Rome teaches that schism and heresy are two entirely different things, and Rome DOES NOT teach that a heretic cannot impart valid sacraments.

I highly recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for further confirmation of Catholic doctrine.
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2003, 01:01:44 PM »

Caffeinator: Under the doctrine of infallibility, any statement issued by the pope concerning the faith is infallible.  Boniface VIII is the bull Unam Sanctam clearly states that there is no salvation without submission to papal authority.  Vatican II is not an infallible statement according to the doctrine of infallibility, but unam Sanctam is.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2003, 01:02:13 PM by Br. Max, OFC » Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2003, 02:04:09 PM »

I haven't read that document, but I'm guessing it's addressed to Catholics.

Would you care to post a link to that document, and provide citations, and paragraph numbers?
Logged
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2003, 02:30:40 PM »

http://www.shrine.com/Unam.htm

I found the offending paragraph at the above link. It was the last sentence. Exegesis forthcoming...
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,398


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2003, 05:47:46 PM »

Now, do you deny that Rome teaches that when a bishop breaks communion with Rome that bishop no longer has the ability to function as a bishop?  This would make any consecrations he makes in holy orders invalid and thus the Eucharist for said persons also invalid.  Rome also teaches that schism is a heresy and heretics cannot impart valid sacraments.

As far as sacraments go, Rome probably would say that, if apostolic succession as it understands it was carefully preserved, then the sacraments are valid.  Would a bishop be able to function as a bishop?  Sacramentally, yes, probably.  Administratively?  Probably not.  

Under the doctrine of infallibility, any statement issued by the pope concerning the faith is infallible.  Boniface VIII is the bull Unam Sanctam clearly states that there is no salvation without submission to papal authority.  Vatican II is not an infallible statement according to the doctrine of infallibility, but unam Sanctam is.

Well, Vatican II, being an ecumenical council to the RC's, would have the same amount of infallibility as Unam Sanctam, since it is an ecumenical council called and approved by the Pope.  In fact, there are RC's who would argue Unam Sanctam was not infallible, whereas Vatican II, being an ecumenical council, is.  I don't know if I know enough to accept or reject such a proposal, but I do know that the RC's regard proper ecumenical councils as infallible.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #25 on: December 03, 2003, 06:38:08 PM »

Vatican II is infallible insofar as it deals with the doctrine of the Church. Much of it deals with praxis.

Exegesis still forthcoming, Br. Max. In the meanwhile, I highly recommend reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Respectfully, you seem to have some strange ideas about Latin Christianity.
Logged
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2003, 06:47:23 PM »

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum4&recnu=8&number=375275
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2003, 07:11:52 PM »

I'm biting my lip very hard, but I'm in deep deep doo doo regarding the Bishop of Rome, guess I need to watch my mail box for the excommunication papers.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2003, 07:50:25 PM »

Why would you be excommunicated? (I think if you were conducting abortions, you wouldn't be posting on this board.)
Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2003, 04:32:09 AM »

John,

Quote
We know that the sacraments in the Orthodox church have grace. Outside the church? let's just say we can't put limits on what God can and can't do.

I'm willing to conceed there is a sense in which this is agreeable (for God certainly can do as He pleases), I think the statement you offer here (particularly in our current climate, as over run as it is by abjecting heretical ecclessiologies) is more misleading than valuable.

Seraphim,
duly noted and appreciated. However I think I did somewhat qualify my statement with the following:
Quote
If we believed that heteradox sacraments were filled with grace then there would be no need for chrismation would there.

I haven't the discernment to determine a loving way of calling people graceless schismatics. I'd rather leave that to those who God has blessed with wisdom and discernment.

God bless,
John.
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2003, 10:15:12 AM »

The Caffeinator: I'm only going on what the RCC teaches - The pope is infallible when speaking in His official capacity on issues of faith and morals.  Unam Sanctam is a papal BULL.  Bulls are OFFICIAL papal letters.  When something is promulgated in a Bull it is a matter of infallibility.  Unam Sanctam states clearly: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.  (Emphasis added.)

Once something is infallibly stated - that’s it.  No questions, no debate.  If Rome is now teaching otherwise, either the current teaching is in error, or the doctrine of infallibility is in error.  You choose Smiley              

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2003, 10:46:41 AM »

John,

Quote
I haven't the discernment to determine a loving way of calling people graceless schismatics. I'd rather leave that to those who God has blessed with wisdom and discernment.

You make a very good point here.  I don't think there is any nice way of "saying" this, as it is not a pleasant thing (though true.)

Really, going around saying "you are graceless" is not what should be at the top of anyone's priority list.  Unfortunately, it becomes necessary to speak about this unpleasant topic, precisely because some people make it such - by teaching heretical ideas about the Church's constitution/nature, they make it necessary to demonstrate why their ecumenistic ecclessiology is false.  It's too serious a topic to be met with silence, as it ultimatly gives an (at best) ambiguous witness to the necessity of Christ, and more particularly, His Church, which is His very Body.

Oh, how it would be better to speak of the good things that only the Church can offer mankind - but when people rear their heads and attack Orthodox ecclessiology, and malign those who stick with this pure confession, an answer must be offered to their challenge.  Not only for their own benefit, but also for that of confused/innocent ears who may over hear their mis-sayings, and perhaps be left confounding heterodoxy with the revelation of God.

Seraphim
Logged

Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2003, 12:06:55 PM »

The Caffeinator: I'm only going on what the RCC teaches - The pope is infallible when speaking in His official capacity on issues of faith and morals.  Unam Sanctam is a papal BULL.  Bulls are OFFICIAL papal letters.  When something is promulgated in a Bull it is a matter of infallibility.  Unam Sanctam states clearly: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.  (Emphasis added.)

Once something is infallibly stated - that’s it.  No questions, no debate.  If Rome is now teaching otherwise, either the current teaching is in error, or the doctrine of infallibility is in error.  You choose Smiley              


But what does this actually mean? Who was it directed to and for what reason?
Could it not be understood in the same way the statement that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation? Also isn't it the prerogative of the Roman Catholic Church which produced the document to interpret it and to decide if it is considered and excathedra document? Who should interpret Orthodox Church documents? Orthodox or non-Orthodox? What if non-Orthodox interpret an Orthodox document differently than the one who produced it?
In my opinion it is the Roman Church which gets to decide which Papal bulls, if any, are excathedra or not and what the proper interpretation is, not non-Roman Catholics.
Peace,
Polycarp
« Last Edit: December 04, 2003, 12:10:21 PM by Saint Polycarp » Logged

Peace
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2003, 12:09:43 PM »

Quote
Once something is infallibly stated - that’s it.  No questions, no debate.  If Rome is now teaching otherwise, either the current teaching is in error, or the doctrine of infallibility is in error.  You choose    
 

I don't believe it is a matter of choice. Read the links I posted. Smiley        
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2003, 12:33:04 PM »


But what does this actually mean? Who was it directed to and for what reason?

In my opinion it is the Roman Church which gets to decide which Papal bulls, if any, are excathedra or not and what the proper interpretation is, not non-Roman Catholics.
Peace,
Polycarp



Until Vatican II it was interpreted to mean just what it says - there is no salvation without submission to the Pope - the popes of the ages believe and taught exactly that and the Sede's still preach this message.

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino).

POPE ST. PIUS V (1566 - 1572 AD)
1. "He who reigns on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and on earth, has entrusted His Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one person on earth alone, namely, to Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to Peter's successor, the Roman Pontiff, to be governed by him with the fullness of power."

POPE GREGORY XVI (1831 - 1846 AD)
"Preach the true Catholic faith; he who does not keep it whole and without error will undoubtedly be lost....Encourage union with the Catholic Church, for he who is separated from her will not have life."

POPE PIUS IX (1846 - 1878 AD)
"The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman: unique, the Chair founded on Peter...Outside her fold is to be found neither the true faith nor eternal salvation, for it is impossible to have God for a Father if one has not the Church for a Mother."

POPE LEO XIII (1878 - 1903 AD)
"All who wish to reach salvation outside the Church are mistaken as to the way and are engaged in a futile effort....Christianity is, in fact, incarnate in the Catholic Church; it is identified with that perfect and spiritual society which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and has for its visible head the Roman Pontiff.... By God's commandment, salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church."

Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2003, 12:54:37 PM »

Quote
But what does this actually mean? Who was it directed to and for what reason?
Could it not be understood in the same way the statement that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation? Also isn't it the prerogative of the Roman Catholic Church which produced the document to interpret it and to decide if it is considered and excathedra document? Who should interpret Orthodox Church documents? Orthodox or non-Orthodox? What if non-Orthodox interpret an Orthodox document differently than the one who produced it?
In my opinion it is the Roman Church which gets to decide which Papal bulls, if any, are excathedra or not and what the proper interpretation is, not non-Roman Catholics.
Peace,
Polycarp

Hey Polycarp,

If you read the rest of the document, you'll see it deals with temporal power vs. spiritual power in medieval Europe. Read the links I posted Polycarp. They explain the RCC POV. Smiley
Logged
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2003, 01:26:22 PM »

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/coverstory.html
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2003, 01:52:34 PM »

I posted this on another thread. It might be helpful in understanding the RC view of exactly who is in the Catholic Church. It's from the CCC.

838    " The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

The italics are in the original.


« Last Edit: December 04, 2003, 01:53:32 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2003, 02:10:09 PM »

Linus: what is the date of the canon? I'll bet it does not date prior to vatican II.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2003, 02:35:49 PM »

Even if we choose to discount Unam Sanctam as addressing ONLY Roman Catholics . .  . what about Eugene and  the bull Cantate Domino which is twice as forceful as Uman Sanctam!
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2003, 03:43:47 PM »

The RCC doesn't teach that protestants or EOx are "heretics and schismatics." Luther yes. Lutherans, no.

Moreover, while the need to remain united to the visible body of Christ is very real, and binding on the consciences of Catholics, nowhere did these Popes say that said unity must itself be visible.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2003, 03:51:11 PM by The Caffeinator » Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2003, 06:51:31 PM »

The RCC doesn't teach that protestants or EOx are "heretics and schismatics." Luther yes. Lutherans, no.

Moreover, while the need to remain united to the visible body of Christ is very real, and binding on the consciences of Catholics, nowhere did these Popes say that said unity must itself be visible.

That's my understanding Caff. Which is why I said that the community which produces a document is the one which gets to interpret it and explain it. Not those who are in opposition to that community. Would we allow the Russians to interpret the Constitution of the United States for us? Papal bulls etc. are Roman Catholic documents, we get to interpret them not those who choose to remain seperated from us.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2003, 08:27:25 PM »

Polycarp: I posted RC explinations - not my own.  I know what Rome teaches now in light of Vatican II.  But what is taught now is NOT what was taught prior to Vatican II.  Do you deny this?
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,398


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2003, 09:48:01 PM »

Moreover, while the need to remain united to the visible body of Christ is very real, and binding on the consciences of Catholics, nowhere did these Popes say that said unity must itself be visible.

But what does this mean?  Is this some "invisible Church" idea?  Or do you mean the teaching that all who are saved are saved through the Church, whether they know it or not?
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,398


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2003, 09:48:37 PM »

But what is taught now is NOT what was taught prior to Vatican II.  

That is certainly the conclusion my limited reading on the subject leads me to.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2003, 10:18:23 PM »

Mor: it's also the reason that there exists such a strong "traditionalist" movement in the RCC.

PERSONALLY, I agree with most of the teachings of Vatican II - but, V2 was a chage of direction from earlier teaching.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2003, 10:38:56 PM »

Quote
Or do you mean the teaching that all who are saved are saved through the Church, whether they know it or not?

Yes, this is what I meant.

The teaching of the Church has never changed. It has only grown. Christianity is a revealed religion. You are dealing with a doctrine that for the time period given, wasn't defined dogmatically in any intricate fashion.

Thus it has grown.
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2003, 12:44:16 AM »

Polycarp: I posted RC explinations - not my own.  I know what Rome teaches now in light of Vatican II.  But what is taught now is NOT what was taught prior to Vatican II.  Do you deny this?  
I don't know I didn't see Catholic explainations of what u posted.
Peace Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2003, 09:24:37 AM »

Linus: what is the date of the canon? I'll bet it does not date prior to vatican II.

Sorry I did not answer your post sooner, Br. Max.

The quote I supplied is from the 1994 English edition of The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2003, 09:25:19 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 05, 2003, 11:20:11 AM »

Here are my two cents on the new vs. old (relatively speaking...we're only talking about the last 50 some odd years, less even) views of the RCC regarding non-Catholics.

(I will apologize right now for the length of this post - I know it's quite long, but I'm trying to regurgitate my entire understanding of this issue)

For many centuries (certainly since the rise of scholasticism in the west), the RCC understood sacramental validity as involving three things;

- valid form
- valid matter
- valid intent

Thus, for a "valid baptism" you needed water, the proper three-fold pouring (or immersion), and the intention to truly baptize the person in question (or at the very least, as it came to be formulated, "to do what the Church does when she baptizes").

Given this, many RC guides that I've read (some of them definatly pre-Vatican II) go so far as to say that even a non-baptized person, in the case of an emergency, could baptize someone.  Example: a new born infant is in danger of dying, the Jewish doctor could be told how Roman Catholics baptize, and baptize the child, so long as those "three standards" were met.  Further, generally the same idea was applied to non-RC bodies (since most confessional Protestants, and the Orthodox, were understood by the RCC to use the proper method of baptizing.)

The wrinkle in this though, was the issue of "intent."  This is why, prior to Vatican II, it was still common for many converts to Catholicism from non-RC groups to be at least "conditionally baptized" upon their conversion (and also subject to making a confession, in which "conditional absolution" was offered, prior to the conditional baptism.)  The practice of "conditional baptism" has no parallel that I am aware of in Orthodoxy, but rather is an outgrowth of RC sacramental theology.

So put in basic terms, there were common doubts that non-Catholics could (or at the very least, commonly did) form the proper "intent" when otherwise using valid forms of baptism.  The idea behind a "conditonal" baptism, was to enter a clause into the baptismal formula, where the priest would basically be saying "If (such and such) is not in fact baptized, I baptize him in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost."  The same went for the "conditional absolution" offered to adult converts in such cases (thus, if they were "really baptized", then the absolution was real; if they were not, it was not.)

What fundamentally changed at Vatican II, was the official removal of such doubts in the case of most non-RC bodies, at least where the "proper form" was being used (though this doesn't apply to all groups; for example, as far as I know the Mormons use the proper form, but the RCC doesn't recognize their baptisms.)  I'm not sure what logically justified this more optimistic appraisal of the "intentions" of non-RC groups, but this is what occured.

It's been my experience, that generally groups like the SSPX or other Papally estranged Latin "traditionalists", do not share this new optimism - thus, I know they conditionally baptize most converts from Protestantism (I do not think they would in the case of someone coming from an Orthodox background, but I do not know this from repute or first hand knowledge), and in many cases, I know it is becoming common that they will even conditionally baptize people coming from the Novus Ordo (for a long time the SSPX was already conditionally confirming such people, due to Archbishop Lefebvre's criticisms of the major changes made to the RC rite of confirmation) - I suppose this reflects their (the Latin traditionalists) understanding that the "RC mainstream" is moving further, and further away from what they believe to be "Catholic truth", and becoming all but declared aliens to the Roman Catholic Church.

What also changed dramatically with Vatican II (and perhaps this is more important) was the appraisal of the "worth" of such "valid baptisms".  For you see, there were quite a few schoolmen (above all, Thomas Aquinas) who believed that while it was possible for those separated from the RCC to have "valid sacraments" (even valid priesthood and rites which could only be performed by such valid priests), that such "valid sacraments" were in fact of no benefit to those not in communion with Rome.  This is the distinction (which definately does exist, at least in old RC theology) between the "character" of the sacrament (which exists, so believe the RC's, in the cases of baptism, confirmation, and holy orders), and the grace thereof, or the operative validity of the sacrament, and it's ability to confer grace.

In short, Thomas Aquinas (and many others) would say that while schismatics could confect a "valid eucharist" (Christ would become really present, and the oblation would be made), this would not communicate "sanctifying grace" to those outside of the Church.  If anything, they were in possession of "stolen goods" and were committing sacrelige.

This distinction (validity vs. benefitting from them) for all purposes dissolves in the documents of Vatican II; no doubts are expressed regarding the remission of sins for non-RC's who are baptized as adults (or that children growing up in such groups will somehow "fall out of grace" after reaching the age of reason).   No doubts are expressed either about the ability of these people to benefit from their materially "schismatic" rites.

What is even more interesting, is the unquestioned acceptance by the RCC of those sacraments (among non Roman Catholics) which Roman Catholic teaching unambigiously states require "juristiction" to be "confected validly" - these would be "holy matrimony" and "confession."

RC ecclessiology holds that the Pope of Rome, holds in his hands, all juristiction over the entire cosmos, ecclessiastically speaking.  Bishops in communion (subordinate) to him, receive their juristiction explicitly/implicitly from him, over their narrowly defined diocese.  In turn, they can give of this juristiction, to the clergy under their care.

This "juristiction" is what gives RC clerics (in their view) the "right" to rule and govern the members of the church (that are within their province.)

According to RC teaching, the sacraments of matrimony and confession, to be valid, require this "juristiction" on the part of the priest celebrating them.  Without this, though they may have everything else (valid priesthood, valid intent, valid ritual, etc.), no "sacramental marriage" comes into existance, nor does any absolution occur in the case of confession.  While other sacraments require "juristiction" to be celebrated licitly (lawfully), they do not need this to be celebrated "validly."

Well, this begs an important question - how can the RCC now not only recognize the marriages and confessions (in the case of the Orthodox, Copts, Old Catholics, etc.), but even allow under some rather broadly stated circumstances, their own faithful to participate in them (I know the 1983 code of canon law, allows this in the case of confession)?

I would think, from an RC view, the implicit answer is that the Pope is basically "granting juristiction" (in his eyes) to all of these groups to do these things.  I know in the past, this type of juristiction was narrowly granted in emergency cases (for example, even a defrocked Latin priest, or Orthodox Priest, could, from the RC view, hear the confession of a dying Catholic.)  But this sweeping allowance either amounts to a new, general "granting of authority" by the Popes, or some sort of dissolving of Papal claims.  I'm inclined that if push came to shove, it's the former and not the latter, as Rome has definatly not done or said anything to give up this. Smiley  Rather, this is an example of Rome's offers to "practice the Papacy in a different, more liberal way" (to accomodate other groups they hope to bring into union with them); not really renegging on anything, but simply (within their own dogmatic confines) trying to be as accomodating as possible.

Of course, that last paragraph is just my conclusion - I don't think Rome itself has officially "connected the dots" on this one.

This non-questioning, sweeping approval of the sacraments of most groups (in so far as they practice them), of course has a logical consequence which the RCC was also keen to promote in the Vatican II documents - that these non-Catholic groups (or in the case of the Protesants, the individuals) were in a real way, already "part of the Church" by virtue of their baptism, "mere Christianity" style profession of faith, and in the case of some groups (like the Orthodox or Copts) preservation of the "aposotlic succession" as Rome understands such things.

Thus, as far as the modern Vatican is concerned, we're all "one church" already - the question then is one solely of charity and administrative unity, not a real matter of being "outside" of what the Latins believe to be "the Church."

It would seem, if forums like this are any indicator, that an increasing number of people from Orthodox backgrounds are thinking the same way.

This is a very interesting subject, since I think many "obedient Catholics" (basically conservative folks, but who are not involved with "dissident" groups like the SSPX) are not really up to speed on what the documents of Vatican II, or the current Papacy, really thinks on this matter.  You can particularly see this in the popular "Catholic apologetists" (who will remain nameless...I think most of you are quite familiar with the key players anyway), some more so than others - they seem to be living in something of a quasi "pre-Vatican II"/"Radio Replies" era time warp.

Case in point: I know from my own past experiences, that many of these "apologists" are quite annoyed with (putting it mildly) groups like the SSPX, and will often point out precisely why the confessions and marriages celebrated by their clergy are in fact "invalid."  Yet it is quite obvious that Rome doesn't think this way - for even though the SSPX is not on the "ecumenical index" (which identifies the type of groups the Vatican II documents are refering to as being in "imperfect communion with the Holy See"),  I do know that when the Campos group (in Brazil - the Priestly Fraternity of St.John Vianney...basically a local Brazillian equivelent to the SSPX, whose founder was in fact in cahoots with Marcel Lefebvre) was recently received back into the RC fold, there was no question of the "validity" of the marriages of people who had been a part of this group prior to it's re-union with Rome (no one was "re-married" as it were.)

It's safe to say, that much has changed in the RCC in the last fourty years in ecclessiological matters; certainly a lot has changed since the days of Pope Boniface VIII's Unum Sanctum (which basically consigned every person, dog, rock, tree, and insect not under Rome's authority to hell), and the "dogmas" of the Council of Florence, to be sure.  Of course, Rome is always careful to offer some (typically strained) means to reconcile all of these things...but I think it's quite apparent to most sane people, that at the very least the "spirit" of those past teachings is being undermined (despite the pharisaical reconciliation of all of it.)

Seraphim
Logged

Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #50 on: December 05, 2003, 11:22:17 AM »

Linus: I'm wondering what the 1894 edition says - or better still, the 1594 edition.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #51 on: December 05, 2003, 11:30:21 AM »

Polycarp: I posted RC explinations - not my own.  I know what Rome teaches now in light of Vatican II.  But what is taught now is NOT what was taught prior to Vatican II.  Do you deny this?  
I don't know I didn't see Catholic explainations of what u posted.
Peace Polycarp


Polycarp: statements of the popes on what the RCC is and who is saved does not count as catholic explinations?  Interesting.  I'll have to remember that one.

I see that you are still dodging the statement of Eugene and the bull Cantate Domino . Smiley
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #52 on: December 05, 2003, 11:52:52 AM »

Linus: I'm wondering what the 1894 edition says - or better still, the 1594 edition.  

That would be interesting to know.

Nevertheless, I think one thing that is readily apparent from the discussions on this and other web sites and from the various opinions of various theologians of all stripes is that ecclesiology is not a simple matter of black-and-white.

We have splinter groups claiming to be Orthodox that are as strident in condemning the rest of the Orthodox communion as they are in anathematizing the Pope.

Which one of them is "the Church" ?
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #53 on: December 05, 2003, 12:08:12 PM »

Quote
Yes, this is what I meant.

The teaching of the Church has never changed. It has only grown. Christianity is a revealed religion. You are dealing with a doctrine that for the time period given, wasn't defined dogmatically in any intricate fashion.

Thus it has grown.

This is precisely the problem which Orthodoxy has with Roman Catholicism - what you're calling "development" is really a profound "evolution" of doctrine.  While it's true the RCC's apologists and theologians can offer a logical trail linking this "development" (though I must say it often sounds extremely strained), this doesn't change that what we're seeing is a basic, conceptual transformation over time.

For example, I think Pope Boniface VIII knew precisely what he meant when he issued the following Papal Bull many centuries ago...

Quote
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles proclaims: "One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her," and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God . In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism . There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: "Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog." He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot . Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: "Feed my sheep" [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him . Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John "there is one sheepfold and one shepherd." We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: "Behold, here are two swords" that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: "Put up thy sword into thy scabbard". Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: "There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God", but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: "Behold today I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms" and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: "The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man". This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven" etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God, unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth . Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Papal Bull, Unum Sanctum, Pope Boniface VIII, 1302 A.D.)

(of course, the emphasis is mine)

The same goes for the document Cantate Domino, issued at the Council of Florence (which last I checked, is still numbered as an "Ecumenical Council" by the RCC).  Aside from enshrining filioquism even further in the RC confession, it contains the following at it's conclusion (which once again, I think is pretty easy to understand)...

Quote
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

I'll say it again - it is very, very plane that something has fundamentally changed since the above documents were issued.  From an Orthodox p.o.v., either the above, or what the RC now teaches on these matters, or neither, could in any sense be put forward as "the truth" - but certainly not all at the same time.  At best, this is legal positivism, the idea that each day has it's "own truth", a truth manufactured solely by the "authorized authorities" and particular to it's own particular social context.  But this is not what you or Roman Catholics want to call it - supposedly this is an "unfolding" of the "once revealed truth"...but such distinctions on the part of "you guys" is really a doctrinaire/irrelevent one.  This is "evolution of truth", which to my thinking, involves two words which can have no commonality ("truth" somehow "evolving"; irreconcilable.)

What certainly can grow, are human articulations of truth, to meet the challenges of new types of heresy, new attacks on that truth.  But that is not what we are seeing here - this is a conceptual shift, occuring through time, dictated by changing social climates and fads in creaturely philosophical curiosity/speculation.  That may be tolerable for pagan Athens, but not Spiritual Jerusalem.

Seraphim
Logged

The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #54 on: December 05, 2003, 02:44:26 PM »

Re: Max and Eugene:

The RCC doesn't teach that protestants or EOx are "heretics and schismatics." Luther yes. Lutherans, no.

Moreover, while the need to remain united to the visible body of Christ is very real, and binding on the consciences of Catholics, nowhere did these Popes say that said unity must itself be visible.

Re: The Pope and what he meant:

IIRC correctly, it is the office, and not the person of the Pope that is infallible.
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #55 on: December 05, 2003, 02:47:33 PM »

WHY IS IT, that I cannot find a full text version of Cantate Domino on the net?  Does anyone know where there is a full text version on the net?
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #56 on: December 05, 2003, 03:49:50 PM »

I'm guessing it was made up by people who have an agenda against the Catholic Church. Wink

Really...Pope Eugene? Grin

How about Pope Bruce, or Pope Lance? Cheesy

Or maybe they want you to buy the book.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2003, 03:55:57 PM by The Caffeinator » Logged
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #57 on: December 05, 2003, 04:00:47 PM »

Dear Br. Max:

You mean you quoted a portion of "Cantate Domino" without checking that Papal Bull's entirety?

It's very unbecoming of you! Grin

BTW, I think "CD" was in regard to sacred liturgical music and this is the first time I hear that it was a "Papal Bull" like "Unam Sanctam."

Or, this Papal Bull is hidden somewhere in the Vatican Archives! Tongue

AmdG



Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #58 on: December 05, 2003, 07:37:21 PM »

Pope Eugene http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05601a.htm


No I heve never read the full text and would like to.  I know that the document is not ficticious it is refered to by too many and various peoples - Orthodox, protestant, catholic, sede . . . .

The sede's REALLY like it.  Smiley But for some reason its not published anywhere on the net  that I can find.  MAYBE its one the RCC would like the world to forget about?? Grin


Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #59 on: December 05, 2003, 07:39:27 PM »

Dear Br. Max:

You mean you quoted a portion of "Cantate Domino" without checking that Papal Bull's entirety?

It's very unbecoming of you! Grin

BTW, I think "CD" was in regard to sacred liturgical music and this is the first time I hear that it was a "Papal Bull" like "Unam Sanctam."



Oh it was a bull and it covered apparently a variety of topics.  It is referred to on www.newadvent.org in the catholic encyclopedia, but while I can read full text versions of lots of other bulls and encyclicals I can't seem to find this one anywhere.

so far the most I have been able to find is: http://www.catholicism.org/pages/florence.htm but the page states it to be an excerpt.  I'd like to read the full text.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2003, 07:42:35 PM by Br. Max, OFC » Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #60 on: December 06, 2003, 11:31:34 AM »

Quote
MAYBE its one the RCC would like the world to forget about??

I don't think the Roman Catholic Church has the power to magically censor information, especially from something that old.

A more reasonable explanation would be that it is simply not extant, that the Roman Catholics of days of yore found it much less interesting than you seem to, and thus it fell out of history.

But MAYBE I'm just one of THEM  Roll Eyes
Logged
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #61 on: December 06, 2003, 02:40:21 PM »

Honestly, if the extant passage found on the 'net is itself genuine, the "rest of it" is quite unnecessary, at least for our purposes.  To say what is present online is incomprehensible without reading the rest, to my mind, is facetious and an attempt to be intentionally obscurant, so as to ignore it's obvious import.

Seraphim
Logged

Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #62 on: December 06, 2003, 05:57:16 PM »

seraphim: Oh I am quite sure that there is nothing in the whole text that can explain away or negate the fact that it states rather plainly that only Roman Catholics go to heaven.  


How about it Caff . . . ?  

I do wish I was still in contact with a Jesuit I used to convese with.  I'd love to hear him explain this one away.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #63 on: December 06, 2003, 08:22:39 PM »

The Church has NEVER taught that only Roman Catholics go to heaven. EOxy makes some of the same claims for its own Church, but I'm pretty sure they don't teach that only EOx go to heaven, either.

Max, take your reading glasses off, you're starting to see things. Smiley
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #64 on: December 06, 2003, 08:35:27 PM »

[The Roman Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the [Roman] Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

That pretty much says only Roman Catholics go to heaven. Smiley
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #65 on: December 06, 2003, 09:35:19 PM »

No, it says Jews, heretics, schismatics, and pagans do not go to Heaven. Do you believe heretics, schismatics and pagans go to Heaven? Does anybody here believe that?

BUT THE CHURCH DOESN'T TEACH THAT BORN PROTESTANTS AND ORTHODOX ARE HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS!

Even then, it wasn't meant as a blanket statement, because I assure you, the Church taught that God has the power to save anybody.

Catholicism isn't as simple as you suggest. Smiley
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #66 on: December 06, 2003, 11:00:05 PM »

Caff: oh I would never suggest that the RCC is simple! It is very and often  - unnecessarily -  complex.  Take the curia for example . . . Smiley

QUESTION - how do you define heretic?
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #67 on: December 07, 2003, 11:25:39 AM »

Caffeinator,

Quote
BUT THE CHURCH DOESN'T TEACH THAT BORN PROTESTANTS AND ORTHODOX ARE HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS!

This is revisionistic, and simply not dealing squarely with the English language.  You're confusing "heresiarch" (someone who starts a heresy), and "heretic" (someone who subscribes to heresy.)

Seraphim
Logged

The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #68 on: December 07, 2003, 02:53:54 PM »

I agree with Seraphim's definition of heresiarch and heretic.

But neither definition deals with someone who was RAISED in heresy. Someone who has seen the Truth and has perverted it is a heresiarch. Someone who has seen the Truth and has left it to follow a heresiarch is a heretic. Someone who was raised in heresy and has not seen the undiluted Truth, is a separated Christian.
Logged
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #69 on: December 07, 2003, 03:23:46 PM »

Caffeinator,

Quote
I agree with Seraphim's definition of heresiarch and heretic.

But neither definition deals with someone who was RAISED in heresy. Someone who has seen the Truth and has perverted it is a heresiarch. Someone who has seen the Truth and has left it to follow a heresiarch is a heretic. Someone who was raised in heresy and has not seen the undiluted Truth, is a separated Christian.

(sigh)  This is simply more ecumenist "new-speak".  Last I checked, a heretic was someone who subscribed to heresy.

Seraphim
Logged

The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #70 on: December 07, 2003, 05:33:13 PM »

To be a heretic, you must have known the truth, and rejected it for something else. To subscribe to heresy, you must have first subscribed to the Truth.

In Orthodoxy, is mortal sin defined the same way? Because in Catholicism, for a sin to be mortal, one must be fully aware of the sinful nature of the act. By the same logic, how can someone be a heretic if they aren't fully aware of the Truth? Is your God so cruel?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2003, 05:38:17 PM by The Caffeinator » Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #71 on: December 11, 2003, 10:20:10 AM »

Heretic: One who, having been baptized and professing Christianity, pertinaciously rejects or doubts an article of faith determined by the authority of the Catholic Church.  An unbaptized person or one who repudiates Christianity is therefore not a heretic, nor is this STRICT sense are MOST Protestants and other non-Catholics Christians, for, never having professed certain truths of the Faith, they cannot reject or doubt them.  In so far as the maintain MATERIAL HERESY they are material heretics but incur no guilt thereby. . . .

From 1958 catholic dictionary.

(empesis mine)
« Last Edit: December 11, 2003, 10:21:21 AM by Br. Max, OFC » Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #72 on: December 11, 2003, 10:32:22 AM »

homas Aquinus - Suma Theologica

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): "By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth," because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church.

Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed either in matters the holding of which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic.

This authority resides chiefly in the Sovereign Pontiff. For we read [*Decret. xxiv, qu. 1, can. Quoties]: "Whenever a question of faith is in dispute, I think, that all our brethren and fellow bishops ought to refer the matter to none other than Peter, as being the source of their name and honor, against whose authority neither Jerome nor Augustine nor any of the holy doctors defended their opinion."

Hence Jerome says (Exposit. Symbol [*Among the supposititious works of St. Jerome]): "This, most blessed Pope, is the faith that we have been taught in the Catholic Church. If anything therein has been incorrectly or carelessly expressed, we beg that it may be set aright by you who hold the faith and see of Peter. If however this, our profession, be approved by the judgment of your apostleship, whoever may blame me, will prove that he himself is ignorant, or malicious, or even not a catholic but a heretic."

« Last Edit: December 11, 2003, 10:33:23 AM by Br. Max, OFC » Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #73 on: December 12, 2003, 04:29:04 PM »

I stand corrected! (But not by you, Br. Max Tongue)

The Catholic Church DOES and ALWAYS has taught that outside the Church, no one is saved, but not the fundie interpretation Br. Max gives it. It was never infallibly defined so. Just look at your own definition of heretic, Br. Max, in which material heresy INCURS NO GUILT!
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.192 seconds with 101 queries.