OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 02:17:36 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: First among equals  (Read 7273 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 0.101 seconds with 56 queries.