OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 26, 2014, 04:38:34 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 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Catholic and Orthodox: Appeal to Teaching Authority  (Read 11033 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #45 on: August 12, 2010, 09:15:01 AM »

As you pointed out to me in the discussion on purgation....these are some pretty modern sources for "ex ecclesia" in Orthodoxy.  And the latter one of the is pretty suspect to me since his major life work was to swipe the spiritual teachings of a Roman.

I'll bet we both could find some ancient ones, many in fact, that are one heck of a lot stricter.

When did Orthodoxy change her doctrine of "ex ecclesia"?


I do not understand what you mean by "ex ecclesia'?

If you desire a much older source for this teaching. there is a reliable 1st century one - the epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans, chaper 2, verses 14-16.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 09:18:44 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,181


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #46 on: August 12, 2010, 09:20:16 AM »

Quote
This triple interaction is something that I very often find lacking in Orthodox texts...not that Orthodoxy ignores Scripture but I don't remember being struck by Orthodox writers who speak of consensus of the fathers and the councils also including Scripture and the relationship of all three together.

Are there documents or texts or authors where I could find not just mention but also explanations and descriptions of that triple interaction?

elijahmaria, the "triple interaction" of which you speak is found most easily, and very profusely, in Orthodox hymnography and iconography. These are the clearest and most accessible sources of the consensus patrum.

It's no cliche to say that if one attends as many Orthodox services (not just the Divine Liturgy, but Vespers, Matins, akathists and supplicatory canons, and sacramental services such as baptism, matrimony, burial, unction, etc) as possible over a year, and keeps his eyes and ears diligently open and receptive, one can learn practically all that is necessary and useful about the faith. Of course, this is only the beginning of a lifelong "education" in the faith for those who continue this diligence. I must also add that there are also countless prayers written by saints and Fathers which are stuffed full of scripture and references from other sources of Holy Tradition.

A question that's often crossed my mind: Does the hymnography of the Roman Catholic church hold the same status in that church?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 09:21:34 AM by LBK » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 12, 2010, 09:24:57 AM »


Father Al Kimel:

From the Catholic perspective, the Orthodox appeal to patristic consensus looks very similar to the Protestant appeal to the plain teaching of Scripture.


Commenting upon the words of St. Paul (2 Thess. 2:14), St. John Chrysostom (hom. iv. in 2 Thess.) says: "It is evident that the Apostles did not communicate all in writing, but much without writing. Both deserve equal faith . . . It is tradition; ask no more."


Here is something simply expressed which I took from a Greek
Orthodox catechism
http://www.goholycross.org/studies/studies_doctrine.html#Dogma

**Please pay particular attention to the LAST  PARAGRAPH.**

-oOo-


Source & Basis of Dogma:

* Revelation- God's self revelation to His Creation

* Holy Tradition- that which is given over within the Church from the time
of Christ's apostles to the present day

* The Bible- the Old Testament & the New Testament

* The Liturgy- the gathering and work of the people

* The Councils- a gathering of bishops who representing the body of the
Church

* The Fathers- saints who were theologians and spiritual teachers who
defended and explained the doctrines of the Christian Faith

* The Saints- those who share the holiness of God

* The Canons- a rule or norm or measure of judging

* Church Art- comprised of the artistic expressions of man and the blessings
and inspirations of God

Formulation:

The Orthodox Church recognizes two distinct sorts of dogmas : those
perpetually preached and believed by the fullness of the Church as included
in various dogmatic and symbolic tests and the writings of the Fathers, and
those proclaimed and ratified by the seven ancient ecumenical councils and
those local councils which were ratified by them.


This is not a negative criticism.  It is an inquiry!!:

The one thing that the Catholic Church does that I appreciate and learn from is that when they do something like the last paragraph here...they include Scripture and the relationship of the Word to the Body...the relationship of Scripture, Councils and the tradition of the fathers.

This triple interaction is something that I very often find lacking in Orthodox texts...not that Orthodoxy ignores Scripture but I don't remember being struck by Orthodox writers who speak of consensus of the fathers and the councils also including Scripture and the relationship of all three together.

Are there documents or texts or authors where I could find not just mention but also explanations and descriptions of that triple interaction?


I do not entirely understand.  The writings of the Church Fathers and the monastic Fathers are saturated with scriptural references.

But if you mean modern writings from the 20th century then I do not know.  The advent of "academic theologians" is something new to the Orthodox world and in general I tend to not be too fussed with "theologians" who are my own age.  laugh The Western trend to flood the universe with theological writings has not been common with the Orthodox Churches  - even Meyendorff and Schmemman seemed to have found their own verbosity a bit of a shock to themselves.  They wrote that they would refrain from so much theologizing and explication because they were trivialising the mystery - rather as Bernard of Clairvaux accused the Schoolmen of "peeling the onion" -so that in the end you are left with nothing in your hand.

But if you want to move back a century to the books of Ignaty Brianchaninov, Theophan the Recluse, etc., their writings are beautifully related to scripture and intertwined with it.

I understand Father.  That's not what I'm asking about.  There's no doubt that there are Catholic and Orthodox writers who, as you say, saturate and ground their own work in Scripture.  There is no dearth of all kinds of beautiful examples of that kind of writing in all of the ages of the Church!

Don't worry.  It's not important.

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2010, 09:30:49 AM »

Mary asked: "Are there documents or texts or authors where I could find not just mention but also explanations and descriptions of that triple interaction?"

I am not aware of any.  It seems an abstruse topic, the type which might suit a Ph.D dissertation by a university graduate, rather than a necessary study for the life of the Church.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #49 on: August 12, 2010, 09:36:31 AM »

Quote
This triple interaction is something that I very often find lacking in Orthodox texts...not that Orthodoxy ignores Scripture but I don't remember being struck by Orthodox writers who speak of consensus of the fathers and the councils also including Scripture and the relationship of all three together.

Are there documents or texts or authors where I could find not just mention but also explanations and descriptions of that triple interaction?

elijahmaria, the "triple interaction" of which you speak is found most easily, and very profusely, in Orthodox hymnography and iconography. These are the clearest and most accessible sources of the consensus patrum.

It's no cliche to say that if one attends as many Orthodox services (not just the Divine Liturgy, but Vespers, Matins, akathists and supplicatory canons, and sacramental services such as baptism, matrimony, burial, unction, etc) as possible over a year, and keeps his eyes and ears diligently open and receptive, one can learn practically all that is necessary and useful about the faith. Of course, this is only the beginning of a lifelong "education" in the faith for those who continue this diligence. I must also add that there are also countless prayers written by saints and Fathers which are stuffed full of scripture and references from other sources of Holy Tradition.

A question that's often crossed my mind: Does the hymnography of the Roman Catholic church hold the same status in that church?

Absolutely!  Liturgy in Orthodoxy is the principle expression of the interaction which takes us directly to worship, which is our primary purpose as Catholics.

I was looking for other kinds of explanatory prose texts....but not so that one could ignore liturgy...and you've given me an idea.  I should look more carefully at Orthodox liturgical theology to see if I can find what I am looking for.  

It is difficult to find this interaction, for the moment, expressed as obviously in liturgy in the Roman rite as it is in the eastern rites...UNLESS you pray the hours as well.   It is still there but without a proper catechesis, it is far more difficult to see now than it has ever been since the 1962 Missal became the exceptional liturgy and not the norm.

That is not the case with eastern Catholic liturgies, but it is the case in the Latin rite and it is part of what is slowly being restored.  The disruption of the committee work in the aftermath of the Second Vatican is going to take much longer to repair that it took to dismantle the liturgy.  Had they kept the small "repetitive" prayers and the chant as the Council envisioned, they would not be in that particular mess today.  Of course many of them don't think it is a mess and they are fighting the restorations tooth and tong!!

Mary
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 12, 2010, 09:40:52 AM »

Mary asked: "Are there documents or texts or authors where I could find not just mention but also explanations and descriptions of that triple interaction?"

I am not aware of any.  It seems an abstruse topic, the type which might suit a Ph.D dissertation by a university graduate, rather than a necessary study for the life of the Church.


Not really, Father.

The Catholic Church has conciliar documents that do what I am thinking of that are quite pastoral and beautiful, spiritually moving.

And some of our most subtle and complex holy men and women, our saints, have taken up those themes over the centuries.

LBK has give me a good idea for looking in Orthodox texts and in exploring the writings of Orthodox holy men and women.  I am sure it will bring out what I am seeking.

Thanks for your efforts.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #51 on: August 12, 2010, 09:42:17 AM »

The Orthodox always look in the past when looking for an answer to whether the question was not been resolved. Making a new answer if there is already the one for the same question is pointless. New answer (under the guidance of Holy Spirit) are worked out only when the problems did not appear in the past.

The RCC on the other hand doesn't bother to check whether the Church has opinion on anything (or they chack and say the opinion is wrong) and when the question appears (no matter how many time did it appear before) it creates a new answer best suitable (according to them) to the present situation.
LOL. The problem is that the RCC create problems where they do not exist, and then invents ingenious solutions to them, the IC being a chief, but not sole, example. Their forensic approach to the Faith causes a lot of this.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #52 on: August 12, 2010, 09:50:08 AM »

Mary asked: "Are there documents or texts or authors where I could find not just mention but also explanations and descriptions of that triple interaction?"

I am not aware of any.  It seems an abstruse topic, the type which might suit a Ph.D dissertation by a university graduate, rather than a necessary study for the life of the Church.


Not really, Father.

The Catholic Church has conciliar documents that do what I am thinking of that are quite pastoral and beautiful, spiritually moving.
.

Sorry, I did not understand you as asking for examples of works which evidence an interaction of these three elements.  You asked for writings which provide "explanations and descriptions of that triple interaction."

Are there in fact conciliar documents which provide "explanations and descriptions of that triple interaction"?  If there are do you know their names and I can look for them on vatican.va.

Thanks.

PS:  You have not explained what you mean by "ex ecclesia"
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 09:54:10 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #53 on: August 12, 2010, 09:53:28 AM »

Mary asked: "Are there documents or texts or authors where I could find not just mention but also explanations and descriptions of that triple interaction?"

I am not aware of any.  It seems an abstruse topic, the type which might suit a Ph.D dissertation by a university graduate, rather than a necessary study for the life of the Church.


Not really, Father.

The Catholic Church has conciliar documents that do what I am thinking of that are quite pastoral and beautiful, spiritually moving.
.

Sorry, I did not understand you as asking for examples of works which evidence an interaction of these three elements.  You asked for writings which provide "explanations and descriptions of that triple interaction."

Are there in fact conciliar documents which provide "explanations and descriptions of that triple interaction"?  If there are do you know their names and I can look for them on vatican.va.

Thanks.

That's ok, Father.  Thanks very much for all your help.  I have what I need and its really not important and frankly I am weary of playing Twister with you for the time being.  I don't have the time actually.

LBK set me off on the right track.

So maybe later.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #54 on: August 12, 2010, 09:53:45 AM »

The Orthodox Church does not have the Roman Catholic concept of the development of doctrine.
So Nicaea wasn't a development? You believe that the understanding of the Trinity was as developed before Nicaea as it was after? If so, what was the purpose of Nicaea in the first place? I'm really having a difficult time understanding what the Orthodox think the purpose of an Ecumenical Council is if our understanding of teachings doesn't develop over time. After all, even the earliest Ecumenical Council took place around 300 years after Christ. Isn't that pretty late in the game for any teachings to be pronounced if you believe everything was taught once and for all by Christ and the Apostles?
Still haven't read the post?
I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.
If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.
Didn't read my post above, did you?

Now I look like my baby picture, despite I'm taller, weight more, right now have a 5 o'clock (actually more) shadow. That's development.

I also have a cross tattoo on my wrist which you will search in vain for on my baby pictures.  You call that developement but its not quite that: no matter how old I got, that tattoo wasn't going to appear until I had them apply it with the needle.

My best friend has four kidnies, from two kidney transplants. Not quite development there either.  He looks like his baby picture, though, too.

I have my doubts about those who have a "sex change," that they resemble their baby picture in specific ways, but I concede that their faces are probably the same.  You would have to get plastic surgery to change that, like Michael Jackosn.

I remember when he married Miss Presley, someone said they would believe it when she had a baby that looked like he used to look. Not like this:


But that's the problem: ya'll at the Vatican can't make a distinction between growing and radical plastic surgery, because it's all change=development.  So you appropriate it as a license to attribute the most outlandish things to the "deposit of Faith."

I'm going to repost something long (yeah, I know, suprise) but may not have the time to comment more.  I originally argued this against Sola Scriptura for the only source of the Faith.  I'll adapt it to the OP.

An example of what happens when Sola Scriptura runs against Apostolic Tradition:
Joshua Joshua 22:10 And when they came to the region about the Jordan, that lies in the land of Canaan, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar of great size. 11 And the people of Israel heard say, "Behold, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh have built an altar at the frontier of the land of Canaan, in the region about the Jordan, on the side that belongs to the people of Israel." 12 And when the people of Israel heard of it, the whole assembly of the people of Israel gathered at Shiloh, to make war against them. 13 Then the people of Israel sent to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh, in the land of Gilead, Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest, 14 and with him ten chiefs, one from each of the tribal families of Israel, every one of them the head of a family among the clans of Israel. 15 And they came to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manas'seh, in the land of Gilead, and they said to them, 16 "Thus says the whole congregation of the LORD, 'What is this treachery which you have committed against the God of Israel in turning away this day from following the LORD, by building yourselves an altar this day in rebellion against the LORD? 17 Have we not had enough of the sin at Pe'or from which even yet we have not cleansed ourselves, and for which there came a plague upon the congregation of the LORD, 18 that you must turn away this day from following the LORD? And if you rebel against the LORD today he will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel tomorrow. 19 But now, if your land is unclean, pass over into the LORD's land where the LORD's tabernacle stands, and take for yourselves a possession among us; only do not rebel against the LORD, or make us as rebels by building yourselves an altar other than the altar of the LORD our God. 20 Did not Achan the son of Zerah break faith in the matter of the devoted things, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel? And he did not perish alone for his iniquity.'"

21 Then the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manas'seh said in answer to the heads of the families of Israel, 22 "The Mighty One, God, the LORD! The Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows; and let Israel itself know! If it was in rebellion or in breach of faith toward the LORD, spare us not today 23 for building an altar to turn away from following the LORD; or if we did so to offer burnt offerings or cereal offerings or peace offerings on it, may the LORD himself take vengeance. 24 Nay, but we did it from fear that in time to come your children might say to our children, 'What have you to do with the LORD, the God of Israel ? 25 For the LORD has made the Jordan a boundary between us and you, you Reubenites and Gadites; you have no portion in the LORD.' So your children might make our children cease to worship the LORD. 26 Therefore we said, 'Let us now build an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice, 27 but to be a witness between us and you, and between the generations after us, that we do perform the service of the LORD in his presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and peace offerings; lest your children say to our children in time to come, "You have no portion in the LORD."' 28 And we thought, If this should be said to us or to our descendants in time to come, we should say, 'Behold the copy of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifice, but to be a witness between us and you.' 29 Far be it from us that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn away this day from following the LORD by building an altar for burnt offering, cereal offering, or sacrifice, other than the altar of the LORD our God that stands before his tabernacle!"

30 When Phin'ehas the priest and the chiefs of the congregation, the heads of the families of Israel who were with him, heard the words that the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manas'sites spoke, it pleased them well. 31 And Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest said to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manas'sites, "Today we know that the LORD is in the midst of us, because you have not committed this treachery against the LORD; now you have saved the people of Israel from the hand of the LORD." 32 Then Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest, and the chiefs, returned from the Reubenites and the Gadites in the land of Gilead to the land of Canaan, to the people of Israel, and brought back word to them. 33 And the report pleased the people of Israel; and the people of Israel blessed God and spoke no more of making war against them, to destroy the land where the Reubenites and the Gadites were settled. 34 The Reubenites and the Gadites called the altar Witness; "For," said they, "it is a witness between us that the LORD is God."

Now, note the following:

The Sola Scriptura folks were quite correct: the Law given to Moses had restricted sacrifices to one altar before the one Tabernacle. Btw, the tribes living on the East of the Jordan was a deviation from what God had commanded, revealed in His Word, and to which the Prophet Moses objected (Numbers 32, especially verses 6-15). Sort of like the innovation of the monarchy (I Kingdoms/Samuel 8, esp. verses 6-7), but we go a Messiah out of that (I Chronicles 17). Yet it is those who add Tradition to the mix who save Israel that day, as the chiefs of the Assembly/Congregation (we would say "Church") of Israel admit.

However, the Sola Scriptura first accuse the Eastern tribes of rebelling against God's Word, setting something that they see in addition to, and hence in opposition to (in their mind) in order to supplant God's Word, and replacing the Word of God with the traditions of men. And their solution? Just stick to the text and cross over to us.

The Eastern tribes had the foresight to see that, people being people, and sin being sin, that the Books of Moses were not going to suffice to stop Israel from sin. Those on the West Bank would focus on the literal promises to Abraham (which said nothing of the East Bank) and would interpret it in a manner which suited their sense of sensibilities: the Promised Land should fit our idea of the Land of Canaan (sort of like the idea of eating Body and Blood). Acting on this, they would exclude the Easterners, leading them to sin.

So the solution? Set up an interpretation of the letter of the law that preserved an indisputable indication of its spirit. And this they did.

A Melkite priest gave the best one word definition of Chrsitianity: witness.

Now, the problem most Protestants have with Tradition is the idea that the Church which set it up has tried to suppliment, and hence oppose, in order to supplant, Scripture.

We do not believe in, say, the Real Presense because St. Ignatius of Antioch, whom the Aposles ordained themselves as successor of St. Peter in the place where the disciples were first called Christians, writes in c. 105:
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from the prayer, because they will not confess that the Eucharist is the self same flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

we believe in the Real Presence because He said, "This is My Body," "This is My Blood." Rising, He appeared and was known to the Apostles in the breakding of the bread that first Pascha (Luke 24:13-36 NOT btw, in His opening of the scriptures, though that did make their heart burn). Those who continued steadfast in the Apostles' doctrines communed in the breaking of bread in the prayers of the DL every Sunday from the Resurrection until June 7, 2009 (Acts 2:42, 20:7), which we received, delievered to us by the Apostles from the Lord (I Cor. 11:23. btw. when these words were written, the Church had been gathering on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7) for over two decades).

Now, the Aposles weren't doing this because of the verses quoted. Rather the verses were written to record what the Apostles did, what they were doing, believing, teaching, whether by word or letter (I Thess. 2:15) so those who followed could stand fast and hold these traditions, and withdraw (I Thes. 3:6) from those who refused to walk according to the traditions which they delievered and which we received.

St. Ignatius stood fast and held that tradition, and did not neglect that gift that was given him by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, guarding what was committed to him. (I Tim. 4:14, 6:20) St. Ignatius set in order bishops in every city as the Aposltes commanded, to hold fast the faithful word as it had been taught, by word or letter, to both exhort and convict by sound doctrine those of a different opinion (heresia) who contradicted, and refused to walk according to that tradition. (cf. Titus 1:5-9). As the letters show, strong in the grace of Christ Jesus, he was committing these traditions he heard by word from the Apostles to the Faithful to teach others. (2 Tim. 2:1-2), that the Catholic Church continue in breaking the bread, the communion of the self same Body of Christ (I Cor. 10:16).

We do not believe in the Real Presence because St. Ignatius says so: he received the same Faith we received, and he stands as a Witness that God has erected between the Apostles and us, as a sign post as to whether we walk according to the Tradition of the Apostles or not. "Lo! I am with you always (Greek: "all the days") even unto the end of the age." Those were His parting words. And so He has: rather than standing gazing, the Church has raised up witnessses to that same Faith, who stand as witnesses between us and the Apostles. We have not abandoned the Bible for the Fathers (and Mothers!). Rather surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we are able to point to the Witness, like the Eastern Tribes to the altar on the Jordan, to show that we are right in our interpretation of Scripture, including the Words of Institution (themselves written in the Gospels to reflect Church practice). Every generation, we can document, from the Apostles to this day, those who, if they lived in our day, would come to OUR Church and commune with us (of course, closed communion is part of that Apostolic Tradition). Their Faith is our Faith, and that is the value of their words, not that they replace the Bible. Rather they preserve the full import of the Bible.

Tradition is giving our ancestors, our Fathers, the ones who passed down the Faith and copied and preserved the Bible, a vote.

Catechesis means "echo," and Christ's Word has roared throughout the generations through Apostolic Tradition.

As our priest says, if you come up with an interpretation of Scripture that no one else has, be cautious and ask yourself if you are wrong. If it contradicts what has gone before, YOU ARE DEFINITELY WRONG.

How to interpret Acts 8:31? The believers of sola scriptura cannot tell us. They have no one to guide them.
Title of the thread confused the Consensus Patrum as a Source of Faith: the Consensus does not provide the Source of Faith, it reflects it.

There is only one soure of the Faith, Christ.  How that one source is transmitted, and how its transmition is verified, is what is at issue.

The Faith is transitted in the Holy Mysteries: as the Fathers say, Christ has passed into the Holy Mysteries, the signs of Christ's life within His Body, the Church.  When the Church acts as the Body of Christ, as a Body, in unity with her Head, then she speaks infallibly.  That is why the assent of the Faithful is needed, for instance, for the Ecumenicity of a Council.

There is, for no instance, no objective criteria on which to base the canon of the Bible.  Authorship by an Apostle does not determine the canon of the NT: St. Luke, strictly speaking, is not an Apostle-he does not include himself in the company of eyewitness and ministers of the Word from the beginning (Luke 1:2, cf. Acts 1:21-2). Yet there is no question of it being in the Orthodox canon.  St. Clement's first epistle (I'll leave aside the question of the second) which was reckoned as Scripture: after Clement received his doctrine directly from the Apostles, and not as an eyewitness of Christ, the same way  St. Luke received his doctrine.  Clement's epistles are approved by the Apostolic Canons (85), but yet St. Luke is canonized and St. Clement is not.  If an archaeologist dug up St. Paul's missing Epistles or when they dug up the Gospels that record Acts 20:35, or the Jesus seminar could prove that St. Thomas wrote the Gospel named after him, none were or would be accepted into the canon.  The Church has spoken.  Many Fathers and Churches deemed Reveltion spurious, but the Church accepted it into the canon, and even if textual criticism would able to prove that St. John did not write it, it would remain in the canon as the Church has received it as an expression of her Faith in the return of her Bridegroom.

And that is why the Bible is canonized: it is not that the Church collected documents that the Apostles wrote.  Rather, they looked at what the Faithful had produced in the bosom of the Church, recognized herself in it, and adopted it as her self revelation.  Sort of like when parents see themselves in their children, and leave them as their legacy.  The Bible is not like the America Constitution, which brought a new government into order which is derived from that constition: it is like the Canadian Constitution, which merely codifies the system of government in place.  When St. Paul refers to Christ's life, he is not teaching history. He is appealing to an audience who already knows His life. Case in point: St. Paul's account of the Mystical Supper predates all the Gospels' accounts of it.  But he is not telling the Corinthians nothing that they do not already know (I Corin. 11:23)  In fact the ongoing Great Canon of the DL helped shape the Gospels' account.

That is why Sola Scriptura doesn't work: it is like owning the manuel, but not owning the car.

St. Theophan deals with the issue of why we say prayers written by the saints.  It is not because they are a replacement for Scripture nor for our own words.  But as we do not know how to pray as we ought, we look to those who did.  The saints we know (because they have been glorified, and their words consecrated by the usage of the Church) had reached the stage where the Holy Spirit spoke within them at prayer.  In that state, they composed in human language their thoughts in that state.  Using these words as guideposts, we are trying to follow them into the state where the Holy Spirit gives utterance to our prayers.  As the lesson of the Samaritan woman shows: the Samaritans came because of what she told them, but they reached a point at which they believed from knowing Him for themselves (John 4:43).

So too the Liturgy: the Church gathered as the Body of Christ so that He made be in their midst have put that experience into words.  The Church as a whole has adopted the Liturgy as the public expression of that experience, hence the appeal of liturgical texts for dogma: lex credendi, lex orandi.  But in that order: we do not believe that Christ is in the Eucharist because the DL says so, rather because we believe so, and experience Him in the Eucharist, that the DL so says.

So too the Dogmatic Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils.  The Faith cannot be added too.  No development of doctrine, if it was not in the Apostles' preaching it cannot be in the Dogma of the Church.  When heresy infected the Body of Christ, the Body of Christ, as a Body, mustered its antibodies, the Fathers and developed an immunity, the Dogmatic Definitions, to the heresy.  They did not add to the Faith: as the body already has the antibody proteins but only puts them to work to form a defense against the foreign pathogen, so too the Fathers only erect from pre-existing materials a boundary marker which the Orthodox may not move.  The Fathers confessed the same Faith, but in different words to ensure it remained the same Faith.  The expression of Faith changes only so that the Faith can remain the same, something litrugists should keep in mind.

The iconography writes an icon only when he follows the canon the Church has laid down for the visual expression of her Faith. Otherwise he is a forger and a counterfeiter (like our deluded friend Lentz).  The icon is the expression of the Church, not personal agendas, and just like a counterfeiter tries to make his money look real but it has no value, so too the icongrapher who oversteps the Church's bounds.  That is why we appeal to the icons when we are asked about what we believe, because they are backed by the full Faith and Credit of the Church.

No Church Father is infallible: only Christ is infallible, and the Church's infallibility flows from her being His Body.  But that flows only when she acts as a Body, like in Ecumenical Council.  Any individual member cannot act infallibility, so why the claim of the alleged "visible head" to speak infallibly cannot be accepted.  So too, no one should expect every word of an individual Father to be infallible.  It is only in as much as they reflect the common Faith, between us and them and lived in the Church now, that they constitute the Consensus Patrum.  What they served, as I pointed out in my OP, as a witness between us and heretics, so when they claim that the Real Presence is an innovation, that we point to St. Ignatius etc.: they witenss to the Faith as we witness to the Faith.

Which is the point of my OP to the OP: merely extended Sola Scriptura to included Ecumenical Councils and certain Fathers misses the point.  These are not the source of Faith: they are witnesses, like the altar on the Jordan, to make sure we have kept the Faith.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #55 on: August 12, 2010, 09:56:51 AM »

Mary asked: "Are there documents or texts or authors where I could find not just mention but also explanations and descriptions of that triple interaction?"

I am not aware of any.  It seems an abstruse topic, the type which might suit a Ph.D dissertation by a university graduate, rather than a necessary study for the life of the Church.


Not really, Father.

The Catholic Church has conciliar documents that do what I am thinking of that are quite pastoral and beautiful, spiritually moving.
.

Sorry, I did not understand you as asking for examples of works which evidence an interaction of these three elements.  You asked for writings which provide "explanations and descriptions of that triple interaction."

Are there in fact conciliar documents which provide "explanations and descriptions of that triple interaction"?  If there are do you know their names and I can look for them on vatican.va.

Thanks.

That's ok, Father.  Thanks very much for all your help.  I have what I need and its really not important and frankly I am weary of playing Twister with you for the time being.  I don't have the time actually.

LBK set me off on the right track.

So maybe later.

M.

It would surely not take 1 minute to name the conciliar documents to which you refer.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #56 on: August 12, 2010, 10:09:30 AM »

As you pointed out to me in the discussion on purgation....these are some pretty modern sources for "ex ecclesia" in Orthodoxy.  And the latter one of the is pretty suspect to me since his major life work was to swipe the spiritual teachings of a Roman.

I'll bet we both could find some ancient ones, many in fact, that are one heck of a lot stricter.

When did Orthodoxy change her doctrine of "ex ecclesia"?


I have cudgelled my brains but do not understand the question.  I do not know what the Orthodox "doctrine of "ex ecclesia'" is, let alone when we changed it.

Please say more.

Or maybe somebody else knows what doctrine Mary has in mind and can explain it?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #57 on: August 12, 2010, 11:26:26 AM »

As you pointed out to me in the discussion on purgation....these are some pretty modern sources for "ex ecclesia" in Orthodoxy.  And the latter one of the is pretty suspect to me since his major life work was to swipe the spiritual teachings of a Roman.

I'll bet we both could find some ancient ones, many in fact, that are one heck of a lot stricter.

When did Orthodoxy change her doctrine of "ex ecclesia"?


I have cudgelled my brains but do not understand the question.  I do not know what the Orthodox "doctrine of "ex ecclesia'" is, let alone when we changed it.

Please say more.

Or maybe somebody else knows what doctrine Mary has in mind and can explain it?

Father, I found this article:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=5115

Quote
4. Ecclesial communion is at the same time both invisible and visible. As an invisible reality, it is the communion of each human being with the Father through Christ in the Holy Spirit, and with the others who are fellow sharers in the divine nature,12 in the passion of Christ,"13 in the same faith,"14 in the same spirit."15  In the Church on earth, there is an intimate relationship between this invisible communion and the visible communion in the teaching of the apostles, in the sacraments and in the hierarchical order. By means of these divine gifts, which are very visible realities, Christ carries out in different ways in history his prophetic, priestly and kingly functions for the salvation of mankind.16 This link between the invisible and visible elements of ecclesial communion constitutes the Church as the sacrament of salvation. From this sacramentality it follows that the Church is not a reality closed in on herself. Rather, she is permanently open to missionary and ecumenical endeavor, for she is sent to the world to announce and witness, to make present and spread the mystery of communion which is essential to her, and to gather together all people and all things into Christ17 so as to be for all an "inseparable sacrament of unity."18

//

9. In order to grasp the true meaning of the analogical application of the term communion  to the particular Churches taken as a whole, one must bear in mind above all that the particular Churches, insofar as they are "part of the one Church of Christ,"38 have a special relationship of "mutual interiority"39  with the whole, that is, with the universal Church, because in every particular Church "the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active."40 For this reason, "the universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches or as a federation of particular Churches."41 It is not the result of the communion of the Churches, but in its essential mystery it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular Church. Indeed, according to the Fathers, ontologically, the Church-mystery, the Church that is one and unique, precedes creation,42  and gives birth to the particular Churches as her daughters. She expresses herself in them; she is the mother and not the offspring of the particular Churches. Furthermore, the Church is manifested, temporally, on the day of Pentecost in the community of the one hundred and twenty gathered around Mary and the twelve apostles, the representatives of the one unique Church and the founders-to-be of the local Churches, who have a mission directed to the world. From the first the Church speaks all languages.43  From the Church, which in its origins and its first manifestation is universal, have arisen the different local Churches, as particular expressions of the one unique Church of Jesus Christ. Arising within and out of the universal Church, they have their ecclesiality in her and from her. Hence the formula of the Second Vatican Council: "The Church in and formed out of the Churches (Ecclesia in et ex Ecclesiis),44 is inseparable from this other formula, the Churches in and formed out of the Church (Ecclesiae in et ex Ecclesia)."45  Clearly the relationship between the universal Church and the particular Churches is a mystery and cannot be compared to that which exists between the whole and the parts in a purely human group or society.

10. Every member of the faithful, through faith and Baptism, is inserted into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. He does not belong to the universal Church in a mediate way, through belonging to a particular Church, but in an immediate way, even though entry into and life within the universal Church are necessarily brought about in a particular Church. From the point of view of the Church understood as communion, the universal communion of the faithful and the communion of the Churches are not consequences of one another but constitute the same reality seen from different viewpoints. Moreover, one's belonging to a particular Church never conflicts with the reality that in the Church no one is a stranger:46 Each member of the faithful, especially in the celebration of the Eucharist, is in his Church, in the Church of Christ, regardless of whether or not he belongs, according to canon law, to the diocese, parish or other particular community where the celebration takes place. In this sense, without impinging on the necessary regulations regarding juridical dependence,47 whoever belongs to one particular Church belongs to all the Churches, since belonging to the communion, like belonging to the Church, is never simply particular, but by its very nature is always universal.48
...

A bit lengthy, however, I tried to grab what I thought to be pertinent. I did provide the link, if you desire to read the whole thing. It's not very long.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #58 on: August 12, 2010, 11:29:27 AM »

[
Does Orthodoxy teach that none are saved outside the Orthodox Church?


... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."


N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever
."


This is essentially saying the same thing that Vatican II proclaimed in terms of the salvation of those outside the physical, canonical boundaries of the Church. So why is it so scandalous when the Roman Catholic Church proclaims that it is possible for salvation without being a literal member of the Church but it is okay when the Orthodox say it?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #59 on: August 12, 2010, 11:33:16 AM »

As you pointed out to me in the discussion on purgation....these are some pretty modern sources for "ex ecclesia" in Orthodoxy.  And the latter one of the is pretty suspect to me since his major life work was to swipe the spiritual teachings of a Roman.

I'll bet we both could find some ancient ones, many in fact, that are one heck of a lot stricter.

When did Orthodoxy change her doctrine of "ex ecclesia"?


I have cudgelled my brains but do not understand the question.  I do not know what the Orthodox "doctrine of "ex ecclesia'" is, let alone when we changed it.

Please say more.

Or maybe somebody else knows what doctrine Mary has in mind and can explain it?

 laugh  No mystery.  Just a short cut.  An abbreviation.  Etc.
Logged

Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,268



« Reply #60 on: August 12, 2010, 12:25:26 PM »

[
Does Orthodoxy teach that none are saved outside the Orthodox Church?


... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."


N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever
."


This is essentially saying the same thing that Vatican II proclaimed in terms of the salvation of those outside the physical, canonical boundaries of the Church. So why is it so scandalous when the Roman Catholic Church proclaims that it is possible for salvation without being a literal member of the Church but it is okay when the Orthodox say it?

I won't speak for Fr. Ambrose, but the problem I see with it is that it is a very stark contrast to Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam. The problem that I and some other Orthodox have with this is the about face in doctrine that the Church of Rome has made. In the mid 1500's Luther and his doctrines were anathematized. Is that still the case? Would the modern RCC go back and "de-anathematize" certain heretics and heresiarchs such as Arius and Pope Honorius saying that they really are a part of the church but are 'separated brethren?'

It makes me very uncomfortable to see Rome's problem with being able to stick to its guns. Its sort of like a girl that won't date a guy who is indecisive and can't commit to anything. When will this flip-flopping of doctrine cease in modern Roman Catholicism? Please understand that I don't say this with any malice or derision intended at all.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #61 on: August 12, 2010, 12:32:10 PM »

[
Does Orthodoxy teach that none are saved outside the Orthodox Church?


... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."


N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever
."


This is essentially saying the same thing that Vatican II proclaimed in terms of the salvation of those outside the physical, canonical boundaries of the Church. So why is it so scandalous when the Roman Catholic Church proclaims that it is possible for salvation without being a literal member of the Church but it is okay when the Orthodox say it?

I won't speak for Fr. Ambrose, but the problem I see with it is that it is a very stark contrast to Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam. The problem that I and some other Orthodox have with this is the about face in doctrine that the Church of Rome has made. In the mid 1500's Luther and his doctrines were anathematized. Is that still the case? Would the modern RCC go back and "de-anathematize" certain heretics and heresiarchs such as Arius and Pope Honorius saying that they really are a part of the church but are 'separated brethren?'

It makes me very uncomfortable to see Rome's problem with being able to stick to its guns. Its sort of like a girl that won't date a guy who is indecisive and can't commit to anything. When will this flip-flopping of doctrine cease in modern Roman Catholicism? Please understand that I don't say this with any malice or derision intended at all.

In Christ,
Andrew

I think... lol

I see it as a separation of politics from faith. The church proclaims that within itself is the fullness of Christ's teaching and understanding. All those outside of it are apart from it. However, we are not to presume that God will turn his back on a man for which church he belongs, IF he still lives according to God's intention.

My understanding is that most Orthodox hold a similar view.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #62 on: August 12, 2010, 12:53:13 PM »

This is not entirely correct. The Catholic Church has never changed doctrine outright, it can't, know does it believe it can.

Really?

Quote from: Council of Florence
It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

source


I think that it is taught now that a Jew can be saved even if he does not convert to Catholicism.
Not only the Jew, but also the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Hindu -- indeed, all humankind.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #63 on: August 12, 2010, 01:10:49 PM »

I've been thinking about something that I think is pertinent to this thread and would like to hear your opinions on it.

Orthodox folk say that the faith has not been added to nor subtracted from since it was once and for all handed down to the Church from the time of the Apostles.  Catholics seem to be a little bit looser with this with their ideas of the development of doctrine.  The Orthodox approach makes more sense to me and is more appealing.

One thing that has given me much to chew on and has been brought up in this thread though is the fact that the definitions of the Holy Councils were, in some sense, "added" to the faith.  I understand completely that they were really just defining what the Church already believed in a more precise and unambiguous manner, but in a sense that too seems to be an addition.  I'm having trouble expressing it and maybe I'm not quite clear in my own thinking but it seems that "three hypostases in one ousia" was not part of the faith prior to Nicea I- at least not in those words.  And even now I would imagine there are good Orthodox Christians who are not really familiar with the terms "hypostasis" and "ousia".  So my question is, is the terminology of three hypostases in one ousia really binding?  

I know that the Trinity is a dogma of the Faith and I see that in the writings of the Fathers, the Scriptures and the life of the early Church, but what about the specific Trinitarian formulation "three hypostases in one ousia"?  I see that IF we're going to express the Trinity that this is the formula that has been handed down to us.  

I don't really know if what I'm trying to say is getting across but I'll just leave it at that.  I'm just trying to figure out how we can say that nothing was added to the Faith even though clearly certain formulations were added even if what those formulations are pointing at was always there...  Maybe that's the best way to put it.  Are the formulations which are like signposts towards the mystery as much a part of the Faith as the mystery itself?  

At the risk of being misunderstood I'll leave it at that. Perhaps someone can comment and then I can clarify myself further.  

Thanks! Grin
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 01:12:05 PM by GregoryLA » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #64 on: August 12, 2010, 01:19:42 PM »

I've been thinking about something that I think is pertinent to this thread and would like to hear your opinions on it.

Orthodox folk say that the faith has not been added to nor subtracted from since it was once and for all handed down to the Church from the time of the Apostles.  Catholics seem to be a little bit looser with this with their ideas of the development of doctrine.  The Orthodox approach makes more sense to me and is more appealing.

One thing that has given me much to chew on and has been brought up in this thread though is the fact that the definitions of the Holy Councils were, in some sense, "added" to the faith.  I understand completely that they were really just defining what the Church already believed in a more precise and unambiguous manner, but in a sense that too seems to be an addition.  I'm having trouble expressing it and maybe I'm not quite clear in my own thinking but it seems that "three hypostases in one ousia" was not part of the faith prior to Nicea I- at least not in those words.  And even now I would imagine there are good Orthodox Christians who are not really familiar with the terms "hypostasis" and "ousia".  So my question is, is the terminology of three hypostases in one ousia really binding?  

I know that the Trinity is a dogma of the Faith and I see that in the writings of the Fathers, the Scriptures and the life of the early Church, but what about the specific Trinitarian formulation "three hypostases in one ousia"?  I see that IF we're going to express the Trinity that this is the formula that has been handed down to us.  

I don't really know if what I'm trying to say is getting across but I'll just leave it at that.  I'm just trying to figure out how we can say that nothing was added to the Faith even though clearly certain formulations were added even if what those formulations are pointing at was always there...  Maybe that's the best way to put it.  Are the formulations which are like signposts towards the mystery as much a part of the Faith as the mystery itself?  

At the risk of being misunderstood I'll leave it at that. Perhaps someone can comment and then I can clarify myself further.  

Thanks! Grin

I would not say that the Catholic Church is "looser"...I would say that the Catholic Church is less inclined to try to hide the fact that there is such a thing as legitimate development of doctrine.

What you are running into are the very cases in Orthodoxy where the words don't match the realities.

...but if you insist on saying the Catholics are "loose" and you prefer the "tighter" Orthodox...well hey!!  laugh  who am I to say 'no'...

M.

Logged

GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #65 on: August 12, 2010, 01:25:26 PM »

I've been thinking about something that I think is pertinent to this thread and would like to hear your opinions on it.

Orthodox folk say that the faith has not been added to nor subtracted from since it was once and for all handed down to the Church from the time of the Apostles.  Catholics seem to be a little bit looser with this with their ideas of the development of doctrine.  The Orthodox approach makes more sense to me and is more appealing.

One thing that has given me much to chew on and has been brought up in this thread though is the fact that the definitions of the Holy Councils were, in some sense, "added" to the faith.  I understand completely that they were really just defining what the Church already believed in a more precise and unambiguous manner, but in a sense that too seems to be an addition.  I'm having trouble expressing it and maybe I'm not quite clear in my own thinking but it seems that "three hypostases in one ousia" was not part of the faith prior to Nicea I- at least not in those words.  And even now I would imagine there are good Orthodox Christians who are not really familiar with the terms "hypostasis" and "ousia".  So my question is, is the terminology of three hypostases in one ousia really binding?  

I know that the Trinity is a dogma of the Faith and I see that in the writings of the Fathers, the Scriptures and the life of the early Church, but what about the specific Trinitarian formulation "three hypostases in one ousia"?  I see that IF we're going to express the Trinity that this is the formula that has been handed down to us.  

I don't really know if what I'm trying to say is getting across but I'll just leave it at that.  I'm just trying to figure out how we can say that nothing was added to the Faith even though clearly certain formulations were added even if what those formulations are pointing at was always there...  Maybe that's the best way to put it.  Are the formulations which are like signposts towards the mystery as much a part of the Faith as the mystery itself?  

At the risk of being misunderstood I'll leave it at that. Perhaps someone can comment and then I can clarify myself further.  

Thanks! Grin

I would not say that the Catholic Church is "looser"...I would say that the Catholic Church is less inclined to try to hide the fact that there is such a thing as legitimate development of doctrine.

What you are running into are the very cases in Orthodoxy where the words don't match the realities.

...but if you insist on saying the Catholics are "loose" and you prefer the "tighter" Orthodox...well hey!!  laugh  who am I to say 'no'...

M.



Oh, I didn't mean to be insulting!  Hopefully that's not the way you took it.  What you just said was exactly what I was trying to say essentlially.
Logged
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 501


Transfiguration


« Reply #66 on: August 12, 2010, 02:00:15 PM »

I have cudgelled my brains but do not understand the question.  I do not know what the Orthodox "doctrine of "ex ecclesia'" is, let alone when we changed it.

Please say more.

Or maybe somebody else knows what doctrine Mary has in mind and can explain it?

Given the context, I would say she is referring to "extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #67 on: August 12, 2010, 02:00:29 PM »

I've been thinking about something that I think is pertinent to this thread and would like to hear your opinions on it.

Orthodox folk say that the faith has not been added to nor subtracted from since it was once and for all handed down to the Church from the time of the Apostles.  Catholics seem to be a little bit looser with this with their ideas of the development of doctrine.  The Orthodox approach makes more sense to me and is more appealing.

One thing that has given me much to chew on and has been brought up in this thread though is the fact that the definitions of the Holy Councils were, in some sense, "added" to the faith.  I understand completely that they were really just defining what the Church already believed in a more precise and unambiguous manner, but in a sense that too seems to be an addition.  I'm having trouble expressing it and maybe I'm not quite clear in my own thinking but it seems that "three hypostases in one ousia" was not part of the faith prior to Nicea I- at least not in those words.  And even now I would imagine there are good Orthodox Christians who are not really familiar with the terms "hypostasis" and "ousia".  So my question is, is the terminology of three hypostases in one ousia really binding?  

I know that the Trinity is a dogma of the Faith and I see that in the writings of the Fathers, the Scriptures and the life of the early Church, but what about the specific Trinitarian formulation "three hypostases in one ousia"?  I see that IF we're going to express the Trinity that this is the formula that has been handed down to us.  

I don't really know if what I'm trying to say is getting across but I'll just leave it at that.  I'm just trying to figure out how we can say that nothing was added to the Faith even though clearly certain formulations were added even if what those formulations are pointing at was always there...  Maybe that's the best way to put it.  Are the formulations which are like signposts towards the mystery as much a part of the Faith as the mystery itself?  

At the risk of being misunderstood I'll leave it at that. Perhaps someone can comment and then I can clarify myself further.  

Thanks! Grin

I would not say that the Catholic Church is "looser"...I would say that the Catholic Church is less inclined to try to hide the fact that there is such a thing as legitimate development of doctrine.

What you are running into are the very cases in Orthodoxy where the words don't match the realities.

...but if you insist on saying the Catholics are "loose" and you prefer the "tighter" Orthodox...well hey!!  laugh  who am I to say 'no'...

M.



Oh, I didn't mean to be insulting!  Hopefully that's not the way you took it.  What you just said was exactly what I was trying to say essentlially.

Good Lord, no!!...really.  

But there's no NEW doctrine in the Catholic Church.  There is legitimate development of doctrine in the Catholic Church.

There is legitimate development of doctrine with Orthodoxy.

How that works is what this thread was supposed to be about in some measure.

M.

Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #68 on: August 12, 2010, 02:31:50 PM »

I won't speak for Fr. Ambrose, but the problem I see with it is that it is a very stark contrast to Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam. The problem that I and some other Orthodox have with this is the about face in doctrine that the Church of Rome has made. In the mid 1500's Luther and his doctrines were anathematized. Is that still the case? Would the modern RCC go back and "de-anathematize" certain heretics and heresiarchs such as Arius and Pope Honorius saying that they really are a part of the church but are 'separated brethren?'

It makes me very uncomfortable to see Rome's problem with being able to stick to its guns. Its sort of like a girl that won't date a guy who is indecisive and can't commit to anything. When will this flip-flopping of doctrine cease in modern Roman Catholicism? Please understand that I don't say this with any malice or derision intended at all.

In Christ,
Andrew
The [Roman] Catholic Church makes a distinction between people like Luther and Arius and modern day Protestants. The difference is both Luther and Arius are guilty of the sin of heresy. They were the ones who actually broke away form Christian orthodoxy. Even though people who belong to Protestant denominations today are indeed embracing heterodox teachings, they cannot be held accountable the way Arius or Luther can since they were raised in those religions. So they profess heresy through no fault of their own since it is all they've ever known. This is why we consider them "separated brethren" rather than heretics. Luther and Arius were exposed to the full truth, but denied it. Modern day Protestants never had it. That is the difference.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #69 on: August 12, 2010, 02:47:39 PM »

I won't speak for Fr. Ambrose, but the problem I see with it is that it is a very stark contrast to Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam. The problem that I and some other Orthodox have with this is the about face in doctrine that the Church of Rome has made. In the mid 1500's Luther and his doctrines were anathematized. Is that still the case? Would the modern RCC go back and "de-anathematize" certain heretics and heresiarchs such as Arius and Pope Honorius saying that they really are a part of the church but are 'separated brethren?'

It makes me very uncomfortable to see Rome's problem with being able to stick to its guns. Its sort of like a girl that won't date a guy who is indecisive and can't commit to anything. When will this flip-flopping of doctrine cease in modern Roman Catholicism? Please understand that I don't say this with any malice or derision intended at all.

In Christ,
Andrew
The [Roman] Catholic Church makes a distinction between people like Luther and Arius and modern day Protestants. The difference is both Luther and Arius are guilty of the sin of heresy. They were the ones who actually broke away form Christian orthodoxy. Even though people who belong to Protestant denominations today are indeed embracing heterodox teachings, they cannot be held accountable the way Arius or Luther can since they were raised in those religions. So they profess heresy through no fault of their own since it is all they've ever known. This is why we consider them "separated brethren" rather than heretics. Luther and Arius were exposed to the full truth, but denied it. Modern day Protestants never had it. That is the difference.
What if someone grew up Methodist, believing in the Trinity, but later become a member of the Mormon church, which doesn't believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. Would that person be a heretic, even from the Catholic perspective, since he or she clearly broke away from Christian orthodoxy?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 02:48:25 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #70 on: August 12, 2010, 03:06:21 PM »

What if someone grew up Methodist, believing in the Trinity, but later become a member of the Mormon church, which doesn't believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. Would that person be a heretic, even from the Catholic perspective, since he or she clearly broke away from Christian orthodoxy?
I'm not sure if the Catholic Church addresses such a situation specifically, though in my personal opinion that has the potential of being a grave situation for the person's soul since they would be breaking away from a Christian sect in favor of a non-Christian one.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 03:06:42 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #71 on: August 12, 2010, 03:25:01 PM »

I've been thinking about something that I think is pertinent to this thread and would like to hear your opinions on it.

Orthodox folk say that the faith has not been added to nor subtracted from since it was once and for all handed down to the Church from the time of the Apostles.  Catholics seem to be a little bit looser with this with their ideas of the development of doctrine.  The Orthodox approach makes more sense to me and is more appealing.

One thing that has given me much to chew on and has been brought up in this thread though is the fact that the definitions of the Holy Councils were, in some sense, "added" to the faith.  I understand completely that they were really just defining what the Church already believed in a more precise and unambiguous manner, but in a sense that too seems to be an addition.  I'm having trouble expressing it and maybe I'm not quite clear in my own thinking but it seems that "three hypostases in one ousia" was not part of the faith prior to Nicea I- at least not in those words.  And even now I would imagine there are good Orthodox Christians who are not really familiar with the terms "hypostasis" and "ousia".  So my question is, is the terminology of three hypostases in one ousia really binding?  

I know that the Trinity is a dogma of the Faith and I see that in the writings of the Fathers, the Scriptures and the life of the early Church, but what about the specific Trinitarian formulation "three hypostases in one ousia"?  I see that IF we're going to express the Trinity that this is the formula that has been handed down to us.  

I don't really know if what I'm trying to say is getting across but I'll just leave it at that.  I'm just trying to figure out how we can say that nothing was added to the Faith even though clearly certain formulations were added even if what those formulations are pointing at was always there...  Maybe that's the best way to put it.  Are the formulations which are like signposts towards the mystery as much a part of the Faith as the mystery itself?  

At the risk of being misunderstood I'll leave it at that. Perhaps someone can comment and then I can clarify myself further.  

Thanks! Grin

It is like the antibody and antigen analogy I made above.

It'sl like driving: you adjust to road conditions, but you do not change your course.

The Councils do not map out your route, nor paint dahes down the middle of the road. Rather, they draw lines on the sides of the road, so you are warned not to get off of it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #72 on: August 12, 2010, 04:05:50 PM »

As you pointed out to me in the discussion on purgation....these are some pretty modern sources for "ex ecclesia" in Orthodoxy.  And the latter one of the is pretty suspect to me since his major life work was to swipe the spiritual teachings of a Roman.

I'll bet we both could find some ancient ones, many in fact, that are one heck of a lot stricter.

When did Orthodoxy change her doctrine of "ex ecclesia"?


I have cudgelled my brains but do not understand the question.  I do not know what the Orthodox "doctrine of "ex ecclesia'" is, let alone when we changed it.

Please say more.

Or maybe somebody else knows what doctrine Mary has in mind and can explain it?

 laugh  No mystery.  Just a short cut.  An abbreviation.  Etc.

You cannot explain what you mean. I suspected that. laugh  Do you know much Latin?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #73 on: August 12, 2010, 04:15:58 PM »


I would not say that the Catholic Church is "looser"...I would say that the Catholic Church is less inclined to try to hide the fact that there is such a thing as legitimate development of doctrine.

What you are running into are the very cases in Orthodoxy where the words don't match the realities.


In the last few days Fr Kimel has sent me some harsh messages about how unsuitable it is and how incompetent I am to speak for Roman Catholicism but you do the reverse all the time and always only to denigrate the Orthodox.  What is your agenda?  Do you write here to sow doubts among the Orthodox?  Some sort of covert proselytizing maybe?  Naughty Mary!  laugh
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 04:18:02 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #74 on: August 12, 2010, 04:21:52 PM »

I've been thinking about something that I think is pertinent to this thread and would like to hear your opinions on it.

Orthodox folk say that the faith has not been added to nor subtracted from since it was once and for all handed down to the Church from the time of the Apostles.  Catholics seem to be a little bit looser with this with their ideas of the development of doctrine.  The Orthodox approach makes more sense to me and is more appealing.

One thing that has given me much to chew on and has been brought up in this thread though is the fact that the definitions of the Holy Councils were, in some sense, "added" to the faith.  I understand completely that they were really just defining what the Church already believed in a more precise and unambiguous manner, but in a sense that too seems to be an addition.  I'm having trouble expressing it and maybe I'm not quite clear in my own thinking but it seems that "three hypostases in one ousia" was not part of the faith prior to Nicea I- at least not in those words.  And even now I would imagine there are good Orthodox Christians who are not really familiar with the terms "hypostasis" and "ousia".  So my question is, is the terminology of three hypostases in one ousia really binding?  

I know that the Trinity is a dogma of the Faith and I see that in the writings of the Fathers, the Scriptures and the life of the early Church, but what about the specific Trinitarian formulation "three hypostases in one ousia"?  I see that IF we're going to express the Trinity that this is the formula that has been handed down to us.  

I don't really know if what I'm trying to say is getting across but I'll just leave it at that.  I'm just trying to figure out how we can say that nothing was added to the Faith even though clearly certain formulations were added even if what those formulations are pointing at was always there...  Maybe that's the best way to put it.  Are the formulations which are like signposts towards the mystery as much a part of the Faith as the mystery itself?  

These are very good questions!  In what sense do dogmatic definitions belong to the apostolic deposit of the faith?  Clearly the Apostles did not have an explicit understanding of three hypostases and one ousia, at least not in the sense as held by, say, Gregory of Nyssa or Athanasius the Great.  And yet on the other hand we want to insist that the later doctrinal formulations do not add to the deposit of faith but rather clarify it.  Or as John Henry Newman put it, "The Church does not know more than the Apostles knew." 

Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine is essential reading at this point.  That doctrine "develops" seems too obvious to argue.  All one needs to do is read Jaroslav Pelikan's multi-volume The Christian Tradition.  The question is not whether doctrine develops.  The question is whether specific developments remain faithful to, and essentially one with, the faith once given to the saints.  And here, of course, is where the Churches divide.

Mike is wrong when he writes:  "The RCC on the other hand doesn't bother to check whether the Church has opinion on anything (or they chack and say the opinion is wrong) and when the question appears (no matter how many time did it appear before) it creates a new answer best suitable (according to them) to the present situation."  The Catholic Church is not now and never has been so relativistic.  Fidelity to the apostolic revelation is decisive for all doctrinal reflection, as well evidenced by Vatican II's document Dei verbum.   The Church does not sit in judgment upon the revelation given in Christ nor does it receive new revelation.  The Church, rather, exposits the revelation that was delivered to the Apostles.  At least that is the theory.   

But the Catholic and Orthodox approach to doctrinal development is different, though perhaps not so easy to specify as some believe.  As I mentioned in my comment that was quoted to inaugurate this thread, Catholics tend to look to the teaching office of the Church, whereas Orthodox tend to look to the consensual teachings of the Church Fathers and the proclaimed dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils.  But this formulation is too simplistic.  For the Catholic, the teaching office of the Church is totally dependent upon the Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils.  The Church does not make up doctrine as it goes along.  The Church articulates doctrine in fidelity to the Tradition.  For the Orthodox, the appeal to Holy Tradition is so much more than looking backwards to the Church Fathers.  The age of the Fathers did not end in the 8th century.  Tradition is a living reality, embodied in the fullness of the Church. 

So precisely where is the difference to be located?  I suppose it comes back to the Pope. 

 
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #75 on: August 12, 2010, 05:04:37 PM »

These are very good questions!  In what sense do dogmatic definitions belong to the apostolic deposit of the faith? 

......But the Catholic and Orthodox approach to doctrinal development is different, though perhaps not so easy to specify as some believe. 

......So precisely where is the difference to be located?  I suppose it comes back to the Pope. 
 

The words of our holy father Saint Vincent of Lerins are the perfect expression of the Orthodox approach to doctrine, its clarification, ecumenical councils....

But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,--if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it.

Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,--this, and nothing else,--she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.

Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #76 on: August 12, 2010, 05:26:26 PM »

These are very good questions!  In what sense do dogmatic definitions belong to the apostolic deposit of the faith? 

......But the Catholic and Orthodox approach to doctrinal development is different, though perhaps not so easy to specify as some believe. 

......So precisely where is the difference to be located?  I suppose it comes back to the Pope. 
 

The words of our holy father Saint Vincent of Lerins are the perfect expression of the Orthodox approach to doctrine, its clarification, ecumenical councils....

But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,--if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it.

Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,--this, and nothing else,--she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.



So if it is not in one of the ecumenical councils then it is not binding on universal Orthodoxy?

Are there any important discrepancies between local synods?

Mary
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #77 on: August 12, 2010, 05:36:26 PM »

These are very good questions!  In what sense do dogmatic definitions belong to the apostolic deposit of the faith? 

......But the Catholic and Orthodox approach to doctrinal development is different, though perhaps not so easy to specify as some believe. 

......So precisely where is the difference to be located?  I suppose it comes back to the Pope. 
 

The words of our holy father Saint Vincent of Lerins are the perfect expression of the Orthodox approach to doctrine, its clarification, ecumenical councils....

But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,--if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it.

Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,--this, and nothing else,--she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.



So if it is not in one of the ecumenical councils then it is not binding on universal Orthodoxy?


Now where on earth do you get that impression?   Bang goes the Real Presence and the Assumption, for starters!     I am sure there have been discussions here previously on Orthodox Tradition and its various sources - Scripture, Fathers, Councils, Liturgy, Iconography.

Your confusion may stem from the intense Roman Catholic culture of "authority" which desires to be able to point to specific authority and magisterial teaching. You won't encounter this driving need in Orthodoxy.  We live by the Tradition we have received, from many sources.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #78 on: August 12, 2010, 05:39:53 PM »

These are very good questions!  In what sense do dogmatic definitions belong to the apostolic deposit of the faith? 

......But the Catholic and Orthodox approach to doctrinal development is different, though perhaps not so easy to specify as some believe. 

......So precisely where is the difference to be located?  I suppose it comes back to the Pope. 
 

The words of our holy father Saint Vincent of Lerins are the perfect expression of the Orthodox approach to doctrine, its clarification, ecumenical councils....

But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,--if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it.

Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,--this, and nothing else,--she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.



So if it is not in one of the ecumenical councils then it is not binding on universal Orthodoxy?


Now where on earth do you get that impression?   Bang goes the Real Presence and the Assumption, for starters!     I am sure there have been discussions here previously on Orthodox Tradition and its various sources - Scripture, Fathers, Councils, Liturgy, Iconography.

Your confusion may stem from the intense Roman Catholic culture of "authority" which desires to be able to point to specific authority and magisterial teaching. You won't encounter this driving need in Orthodoxy.  We live by the Tradition we have received, from many sources.

Your answer to Father Al is what confused me...thanks.

M.
Logged

stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #79 on: August 12, 2010, 07:55:30 PM »


I would not say that the Catholic Church is "looser"...I would say that the Catholic Church is less inclined to try to hide the fact that there is such a thing as legitimate development of doctrine.

What you are running into are the very cases in Orthodoxy where the words don't match the realities.


In the last few days Fr Kimel has sent me some harsh messages about how unsuitable it is and how incompetent I am to speak for Roman Catholicism but you do the reverse all the time and always only to denigrate the Orthodox.  What is your agenda?  Do you write here to sow doubts among the Orthodox?  Some sort of covert proselytizing maybe?  Naughty Mary!  laugh

Father!
That's Actually what crossed my mind a few times and more,is she here to scatter the Orthodox Fold, By Sowing Confusion, She Claims she's Eastern Catholic But defends and preaches Roman Catholic Heresies.....Plus she doesn't show you respect,she gets down right rude with you...


In the Other thread She took it upon her self to interpet a post  Fr. Kimel addressed to you ...Her Interpretation was that he didn't give a rats rump what you thought about what catholics believe...She's disrespectful ... Angry


Mary and Fr. Kimel why are you here, if you don't care what Holy Orthodoxy Thinks....
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 08:07:43 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #80 on: August 12, 2010, 08:06:16 PM »

This is not entirely correct. The Catholic Church has never changed doctrine outright, it can't, know does it believe it can.

Really?

Quote from: Council of Florence
It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

source


I think that it is taught now that a Jew can be saved even if he does not convert to Catholicism.

What is their means of salvation?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #81 on: August 12, 2010, 08:06:17 PM »

but it seems that "three hypostases in one ousia" was not part of the faith prior to Nicea I- at least not in those words.

You've got your councils mixed up. At Nicaea I, hypostasis and ousia were synonymous, and thus any confession of ousia or hypostasis being anything other than one was anathematized (you can see it right in the 325 creed). At the 362 council of Alexandria, the Old Nicene party engaged with the Neo-Nicene party on their use of three hypostases and learned that they were not using hypostasis synonymously with ousia but rather were uses it to indicate subsistence (individuations of a substance); on this basis they permitted the use of the formula "three hypostases of one ousia". It was at Constantinople I in 381 when the formula was finally made official.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #82 on: August 12, 2010, 09:55:42 PM »


I think that it is taught now that a Jew can be saved even if he does not convert to Catholicism.

What is their means of salvation?

Their means of salvation is the compassionate judgement of Christ when all men must be judged by Him at the time of the General Resurrection.  Will He say to the Jew - stand on my left with the goats and you are judged for hell fire, or will He say -stand on my right with the sheep and come into the Kingdom of my Father.  Saint Paul speaks in Romans (2:14-16) of the manner by which the Saviour will judge non-Christians.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #83 on: August 12, 2010, 09:59:34 PM »

A question that's often crossed my mind: Does the hymnography of the Roman Catholic church hold the same status in that church?
That is a good question. I thought that the Gregorian chant did, but with the more modern post Vatican II rock and folk type guitar music, I am not so sure about that.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #84 on: August 12, 2010, 10:04:25 PM »

But there's no NEW doctrine in the Catholic Church.  There is legitimate development of doctrine in the Catholic Church.
I think that the Latin Mass SSPX group is contesting that in their discussions for reconciliation. The latest report I have seen from an SSPX bishop  is that these discussions are going nowhere.
Logged
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,181


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #85 on: August 12, 2010, 10:25:44 PM »

A question that's often crossed my mind: Does the hymnography of the Roman Catholic church hold the same status in that church?
That is a good question. I thought that the Gregorian chant did, but with the more modern post Vatican II rock and folk type guitar music, I am not so sure about that.

Stanley, I think you've misunderstood my question: by hymnography, I am not referring to the musical style, but to what is read, chanted and sung in church, over the entire and various liturgical cycles, as well as akathists and other prayers which are frequently used in private devotions. In other words, the liturgical deposit.
Logged
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #86 on: August 12, 2010, 11:12:52 PM »


I won't speak for Fr. Ambrose, but the problem I see with it is that it is a very stark contrast to Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam. The problem that I and some other Orthodox have with this is the about face in doctrine that the Church of Rome has made. In the mid 1500's Luther and his doctrines were anathematized. Is that still the case? Would the modern RCC go back and "de-anathematize" certain heretics and heresiarchs such as Arius and Pope Honorius saying that they really are a part of the church but are 'separated brethren?'

It makes me very uncomfortable to see Rome's problem with being able to stick to its guns. Its sort of like a girl that won't date a guy who is indecisive and can't commit to anything. When will this flip-flopping of doctrine cease in modern Roman Catholicism? Please understand that I don't say this with any malice or derision intended at all.

Andrew, what modern doctrinal flip-floppings do you have in mind?  Are you objecting to all restatements of doctrine?  Are you objecting to all clarifications, refinements, and corrections of theological teaching?  Are there specific doctrines that you have in mind? 

You cite Pope Boniface's bull Unam Sanctam, but this is not a helpful example, since the teaching of this papal bull was never fully received into the teaching of the Catholic Church.  As you know, the Catholic Church does not teach that the Bishop of Rome is infallible in all of his utterances.  Not only is Unam Sanctam not recognized by most Catholic theologians as containing a binding dogmatic definition, but it is studied precisely as an example of a papal encyclical that does not fulfill the conditions of infallibility.

You also cite the 16th century condemnation of Luther.  I presume that you believe that you object to the doctrinal convergences between Lutheranism and Catholicism, as represented by the Joint Declaration on Justification.  Is your concern that the Joint Declaration represents an embrace of heresy?  Or is it that you object to the present ecumenical stance of the Catholic Church and would prefer the Catholic Church to have maintained a more hostile attitude to non-Catholic Churches? 
   
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #87 on: August 12, 2010, 11:25:09 PM »


You cite Pope Boniface's bull Unam Sanctam, but this is not a helpful example, since the teaching of this papal bull was never fully received into the teaching of the Catholic Church.  As you know, the Catholic Church does not teach that the Bishop of Rome is infallible in all of his utterances.  Not only is Unam Sanctam not recognized by most Catholic theologians as containing a binding dogmatic definition, but it is studied precisely as an example of a papal encyclical that does not fulfill the conditions of infallibility.
I  think that Papal Encyclicals are authoritative and part of the ordinary magisterium of the RCC.
For example, Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis said that Papal Encyclicals are sufficiently authoritative to end theological debate on a particular question:"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians."
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #88 on: August 13, 2010, 12:34:07 AM »

As we both know it is a stock in trade of online Catholic apologists to appeal to de fide statements when they find themselves having to justify a change in Catholic teachings.  It means that the great majority of the Catholic faith is in a very unstable condition and only de fide (infallible) statements have any certainty.   What has not been defined as de fide may be discarded tomorrow as erroneous, never mind that it has been taught for centuries past.  But wait a moment - is that true?   Are only a handful of de fide statements the truth of the Catholic faith?

Let's look at what is taught by Vatican II and the Pope in Lumen Gentium....

Whether they qualify as technically de fide or not by reason of the "we believe, state, proclaim and define... to the whole Church", papal statements still cannot be denied by Catholics.

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.  I find that quite interesting. 
 
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5. 

Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.  In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to all papal teachings.
 
 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #89 on: August 13, 2010, 01:33:19 AM »



You cite Pope Boniface's bull Unam Sanctam, but this is not a helpful example, since the teaching of this papal bull was never fully received into the teaching of the Catholic Church.  As you know, the Catholic Church does not teach that the Bishop of Rome is infallible in all of his utterances.  Not only is Unam Sanctam not recognized by most Catholic theologians as containing a binding dogmatic definition, but it is studied precisely as an example of a papal encyclical that does not fulfill the conditions of infallibility.


OK, it is easy for Catholic apologists to poke fun at UNAM  SANCTAM and CANTATE DOMINO and say their teaching is irregular and that Peter had a momentary lapse of sanity.

But - wait for it!  laugh - here is the Quote Mine of papal teachings through the centuries which shows that UNAM SANCTAM and CANTATE DOMINO are in fact the rock solid teaching of the Vicar of Christ



Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull "Unam sanctam" (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:Cool; which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Eugene IV, "Cantate Domino" (1441): "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" (Matthew 25:41), 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 almsgivings, 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 Sylvester II, Profession of Faith, June AD 991: "I believe that in Baptism all sins are forgiven, that one which was committed originally as much as those which are voluntarily committed, and I profess that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved."

Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians: "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved" (Denzinger 792).

Pope Clement VI, Letter "Super Quibusdam" (to Consolator the Catholicos of Armenia), September 20, 1351: "In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside of the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved… In the ninth place, if you have believed and do believe that all who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence have been damned and have descended to the eternal punishments of hell."

Pope Leo XII (1823–1829), Encyclical "Ubi Primum": "It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church… For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: 'If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'"

Pope Gregory XVI (1831–1846), Encyclical "Summo Jugiter Studio" (on Mixed marriages), 5-6, May 27, 1832: "You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation. The words of that celebrated disciple of the Apostles, martyred Saint Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians are relevant to this matter: 'Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God.' Moreover, Saint Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: 'Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ' (Epsitle 141). Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise Saint Gregory the Great, who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: 'The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved' (Moral. in Job, 16.5). Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of the Lateran IV, these things are written: 'There is one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved.' Finally, the same dogma is expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use (Creed of the Council of Trent), but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses (cf. Gregory XIII, Profession 'Sanctissimus') and that which other Eastern Catholics use (cf. Benedict XIV, Profession 'Nuper ad Nos')… We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies."

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Allocution "Singulari Quadem", December 9, 1854: "Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and "judgements of God" which are "a great abyss" (Ps. 35.7) and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic Duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive form the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.

"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains 'we shall see God as He is' (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.


"But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, 'for the hand of the Lord is not shortened' (Isa. 9.1) and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting to those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light."[4]

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical "Singulari Quidem" March 17, 1856): "Teach that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and come to the community of His children (Romans 1; Hebrews 11; Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter Cool. There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord (St. Cyprian, Epistle 43), outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church (ibid, On the Unity of the Catholic Church). ... Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."[5]

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur moerore", August 10, 1863: "And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom 'the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,' (Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo I) cannot obtain eternal salvation. The words of Christ are clear enough: 'And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican' (Matthew 18:17); 'He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that dispeth you, despiseth Me; and he that dispiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me' (Luke 10:16); 'He that believeth not shall be condemned' (Mark 16:16); 'He that doth not believe, is already judged" (John 3:18); 'He that is not with Me, is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth' (Luke 11:23). The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned' (Titus 3:11); the Prince of the Apostles calls the 'false prophets… who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction' (2 Peter 2:1)."[6]

Pope Pius IX The "Syllabus of Errors", attached to Encyclical Quanta Cura, 1864: [The following are prescribed errors:] "16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. - Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.
"17. One ought to at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the true Church of Christ. - Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863, etc."

Pope Leo XIII (1878–1903), Encyclical Annum Ingressi Sumus: "This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church."

idem, Encyclical "Sapientiae Christianae": "He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God."

Pope St. Pius X (1903–1914), Encyclical "Jucunda Sane":  "It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation."

Pope Benedict XV (1914–1922), Encyclical "Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum": "Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

Pope Pius XI (1922–1939), Encyclical "Mortalium Animos": "The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation… Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors."

Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Encyclical "Humani Generis", August 12, 1950: "Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation."

Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Allocution to the Gregorian University (17 October 1953): "By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth."
Logged
Tags: doctrine teaching authority Tradition Scripture 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  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 0.247 seconds with 72 queries.